Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 Planning Board Minutes Apr-Jun FINAL Approved as written 7-5-05 Draft to Clerk June 21,2005 Approved July 5,2005 To Clerk July 7,2005 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD r 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. ~ A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: Keene, Ruge, McConnell, Hollister. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-3-2005, Lot 25, 800 Block, North side of Hickory Street, from "C" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by G.T.O. of Michigan, L.L.C. to rezone Lot 25, located on the north side of the road in the 800 block of Hickory Street, more specifically described as: Lot 25, Block 3, Lansing Improvement Company's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District for the purpose of constructing a new building for an electrical contracting business. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated that she had a concern about the appearance of the building. She stated that the proposed elevation is definitely a warehouse look in the midst of residential neighborhood and that the building needs to have more of a residential appearance. Ms. Bruch stated that the building needs to fit the character of the neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7 2005 Page 2 Ms. Bruch inquired about the lots next door and if they are end houses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Ms. Bruch asked if there was a buffer between the two uses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no buffer. Ms. Bruch asked about other uses that could be at this location. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are quite a number of uses (i.e. light manufacturing, automobile repair, car lot), all of which would be very intense for this neighborhood. Mr. Fred W. Sova Jr., resident of 910 Hickory Street, stated that this is the first that he has ever heard about what kind of a plan is going into this area. He is opposed to the proposal. This is a residential neighborhood and there was once a junk yard at this location approximately 50 years ago. There is also a "For Sale" sign on the three other lots from Vlahakis Realty. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is G.T.O. of Michigan. He asked who they were. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are the applicant. He stated that he has no idea what the building will look like and that this is a residential street. There would be trucks going up and down the street. There are children across the street from the development. He asked if the trucks will travel on Hosmer Street or come down Hickory Street from Pennsylvania Street to access the building. The neighbors have no information on this proposal and he asked if he could obtain a copy of the information. He stated that no one has contacted the neighbors. Mr. Frederick stated that the concern that was addressed is what the building will look like. Under the Board's authority and what it is considering has nothing to do with the plan that has been presented by the applicant. The neighbors should understand that the Board can address the zoning only and that if the property were to be rezoned according to the applicant's request, anything that is allowed in that zoning could go in. There is no commitment by the applicant that the warehouse would be constructed. It could be anything else. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the property were to be rezoned, there can be anything in there: a gas station, used car lot, light manufacturing, light automobile repair, any type of office use or commercial use. She stated that "H" Light Industrial allows a real broad range of uses and that the Board has to look at what would be appropriate for any one of those uses, not just what this applicant is proposing. The property could get rezoned and the applicant could sell the property the following week and then it would be open for anything. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing on Z-3-2005, Lot 25, 800 Block, North side of Hickory Street, from "C" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 15, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7, 2005 Page 3 B. Z-4-2005, 1224 E. Miller Road, "DM-1" Residential District to "G-2" Wholesale District This is a request by Steve Zambrowski on behalf of George Eyde Limited Family Partnership to rezone the property at 1224 E. Miller Road, more specifically described as: COM 182 FT W OF N 114 POST SEC 10, TH W TO CIL PAWL0WSKI CREEK DRAIN, S 11 DEG 34MIN E 336.8 FT TO NE COR BRADFORD-SCOTT PARK SUB, S'LYALONG E LINE SAID SUB TO A PT 49.46 FT S OF MOST NE'LY COR LOT 3, NE'LY 56.06 FT TO A PT 50 FT W OF N & S 114 LINE, N PARL TO 114 LINE 634 FT, W 132 FT, N 330 FT TO BEG; SEC 10 T3N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "DM-1" Residential District to "G-2" Wholesale District for the purpose of constructing a mini-storage facility on the subject property. Mr. Steve Zambrowski, 4250 W. Lansing Road, Perry, asked if the property directly to the east is zoned "G-2" Wholesale District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property to the west is zoned "G-2"Wholesale District. Mr. Zambrowski stated that to the east there is a storage facility and asked if it was also zoned "G-2" Wholesale District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the mini storage is actually located on the southwest side of the site. Mr. Zambrowski stated that he just has a basic sketch of what would be constructed, if the Board would like to review it. Ms. Foster asked for the sketch to be brought forward. She stated that this is a very dense development and asked about the number of storage units that would be built. Mr. Zambrowski stated there would be approximately 400 units which would include outdoor RV parking. He stated that there are two needs: large RV parking and business climate controlled storage. The large RV parking is very limited in the Lansing area. The unit mix box for the climate controlled storage has a "CLIM" control for climate control. He stated that there would be basically 12,375 square feet of climate controlled storage space. Ms. Bruch inquired about the property to the east (Lot 205) and if it was apartments. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this area is residential. Ms. Bruch stated that the RV parking would be abutting the residential area. Mr. Zambrowski stated that the back portion of the property abuts the other storage unit facility. He stated that the height of these buildings would not exceed 8 feet 4 inches. Ms. Bernadette Friedrich, resident of 6144 Beechfield Drive, stated that she is here representing some of the individuals from the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7 2005 Page 4 neighborhood as well as some of the businesses. There is currently a petition in opposition of the proposal and she can provide a copy of it to the Board. She asked that the Board deny the rezoning. This is a multi family zoning district and the request is for warehouse status. This is a significant change in zoning. There are two existing storage facilities within a mile and a half of the proposed site. She stated that neither of the storage units is at full capacity at this point and that she checked with both facilities today. Within a half mile of the proposed property there are several lots for sale on the north side of East Miller which are already zoned commercial or light industry. If the location is that significant, there are areas just across the street that are already zoned appropriately. In the past 8 years, the adjacent properties specifically the Fairfield Condominiums, have changed from a tenant/transient tenant neighborhood to home owners. This has significantly decreased the police requirement for the neighborhood. When she spoke with the Police Public Relations Officer, he stated that he knew the area well and that it was certainly a drug haven. The area has improved significantly in the past 5 to 10 years. She stated that there has been a lot of time invested in enhancing the neighborhood and a lot of money spent to improve the properties. She stated that the property taxes have increased as the neighborhood was improved and she believes that this is a benefit to the City. She is not sure if this development would enhance the neighborhood. The property taxes would decrease and she does not think that the City would want that to happen. She stated that this is a very pleasant and growing community. Another townhouse condominium unit, which was also apartment rentals, have been purchased just down the street and are also being changed to home ownership. This really has helped the community. The petition has 70 signatures of people in the community who are opposed to the proposal. Ms. Sharon Byers, Secretary of the Board of Directors of Fairfield Condominium Association and resident of 6240 Beechfield Drive, stated that part of the materials given to the Board is a memorandum signed by all five Board members in opposition to this rezoning. The association has worked really hard over the past few years and has made substantial improvements. This past winter, the entire project was re- roofed at costs of over$375,000.00. There is a significant financial investment in the property and there is also an emotional investment. The association can see other uses to the proposed area that would be much more in keeping with the neighborhood. At the junction of the condominium property and Miller Road, there are a couple of apartment PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7, 2005 Page 5 houses. Her understanding is that an apartment house would be appropriate for the current zoning of the property. The long narrow piece of property that extends south from Miller Road is in the area that is in the view of all the properties along that side of the street. She thanked the Board for its consideration. Ms. Lucy Holtzhouse, resident of 6140 Beechfield Drive, stated she is greatly concerned about the proposed property being used for large RV storage. Her mother stored her RV in a large RV/storage unit park in an industrial area where it was not of concern to any one. But when someone is pulling the large vehicles (37 foot motor homes) in and out of an area, this is a concern. When looking at the area right now, it is a really beautiful area, all grassy and green. She thinks that this would be a great detriment to the neighborhood if the rezoning is allowed for light industrial. This would disrupt the scenic view and the neighborhood. There are children in the area and this would not encourage residents to keep their property levels up if the request is approved. If she were to sell her unit right now, someone could go out on the back deck and say that the scenery is gorgeous with trees and green space. If there is an RV storage lot there, this would decrease the value of her home. This is a concern to her and her neighbors. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to explain what other types of commercial uses could go in to a "G-2" Wholesale District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the major thing that separates the "G-2" District from the "F" Commercial District is that it would allow the mini storage. Other than this, even under the "G-2" District, there could potentially be any type of commercial use on this property (i.e. used car lot, light automobile repair, gas stations, restaurants, retail, office) if it were to be rezoned to the "G-2" District. She stated that it is currently medium density residential. Mr. Frederick stated that there is an active drain directly to the west edge of the proposed property and that it drains through Potter Park or near the river. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure because it is a County drain. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing on Z-4-2005, 1224 E. Miller Road, "DM-1" Residential District to "G-2" Wholesale District to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 15, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-4-2005, 3000 W. Miller Road, Special Land Use, Additional Parking for an Existing Church This is a request by Life Changes Christian Center for a Special Land Use permit to construct additional parking (78 parking spaces) for the church at PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7, 2005 Page 6 3000 W. Miller Road. The property that is proposed to be used for parking is located on the east side of Wise Road and begins 49.5 feet north of Miller Road. The property is 150 feet wide by 247.5 feet deep and is zoned "A"and "C" Residential Districts. Ms. Stachowiak stated that some of the members who have been on the Board for a little while may recognize this request because this exact request came before the Board in 2001 and was withdrawn. Mr. Czekai asked why the request was withdrawn back in 2001. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure, and that the applicant is present this evening and may wish to comment on it. Ms. Betsy McGuire, Swanson Design Studios Architects representing Life Changes Christian Center, stated that she does not have the answer for the withdrawal and that maybe one of the members of the church could explain. Mr. Carl Davis, Finance Director of Life Changes Christian Center, stated that the church chose to withdraw the request until a later date. Ms. Cordill stated that when looking at a site plan (Cl), "allowable number of seats per worship." She asked if the seating capacity of the church was 861. Ms. McGuire stated that the site plan shows 837 people and that the church has provided 279 parking spaces. Ms. Cordill asked if the church was deficient on parking. Ms. McGuire stated that the church is not deficient on parking but it will be with the proposed addition. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the parking requirement is based on the seating in the sanctuary only. From a practical stand point, the church made need more parking with the addition but to fulfill the City's requirement, it is one space for each three seats in the main unit of worship. She stated that if there are 861 seats, it would 1/3 of it that the City would require. Ms. Bruch asked if this would mean that the church would now have too much parking for the number of people worshiping. Ms. Stachowiak stated that whatever the seating requirement is one third of it is what the City would require for parking. This is currently being met. Ms. McGuire stated that what the plan shows is 279 parking spaces which is probably what is adequate for the 837 people, including the proposed parking lot. Mr. Frederick stated that as he understands it, they are increasing the size of the church and that is why they need the parking to meet the requirements for the increased size. Ms. McGuire stated that it is not a sanctuary increase and that it is a Youth Center type of addition. Ms. Bruch stated that the church does not require additional parking spaces because it is currently meeting the requirement. She asked if the church just wants to add parking. Mr. Davis stated that the church does want to add additional parking spaces and that currently the members fill the parking lot and shuttle by van to another area. Based on statistics and the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 7, 2005 Page 7 City's numbers, it appears that the church may not need it. He stated that the church needs the parking now. Ms. Bruch asked with the shuttling back and forth, if the lot was close by and will it completely fill the needs of the church. Mr. Davis stated that this will fill the church's need for the time being. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing on SLU-4-2005, 3000 W. Miller Road, Special Land Use, Additional Parking for an Existing Church to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 15, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION — None. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. 12. The meeting convened at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board P B Minutes.060705.d oc Approved as written 7-5-05 Draft to Clerk June 30,2005 Approved July 5,2005 To Clerk July 7,2005 Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING LANSING PLANNING BOARD 5:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Thursday, June 16, 2005 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Wynant. C. Excused absences: Cordill. D. Absent: McConnell. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Cordill for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Zoning and ordinance committee Mr. Ruge Chair 1. NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by West Lansing Church of God, 817 West Street, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The church is nonconforming as it is located on a site that is less than two (2) acres in size, does not have frontage on a major or minor arterial and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a 952 square foot meeting hall behind the existing church building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to permit an expansion of a nonconformity at 817 West Street. Staff recommended approval of NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1. The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building; 2. The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet. (per the June 15, 2004 minutes). In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16 2005 Page 2 1. The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building; 2. The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet; and 3. A buffer strip, with trees, be installed along the south side of the parking lot and along West Street in front of the parking lot; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch asked if this was an empty lot or a residential lot on the west side. She thought the space had a couple of big trees. When the Board first approved a smaller building, the church was going to work around a couple of the trees. Mr. Ruge stated that she may be thinking of a different church and that this one is just off of 1-496. The property she is referring to is further north by MLK Jr. Blvd. Ms. Bruch asked if the east side of the property should be screened and stated that this is now a larger structure only 7 feet from the property line. Mr. Ruge stated that this side is pretty well screened with wild vegetation that is growing up along the fence row. Ms. Bruch stated that the impact is a larger structure in the neighborhood. She stated that the other neighbors have 17 feet of distance and on the east side there is only 7 feet. Mr. Ruge agreed to add that a buffer strip be maintained. He stated that there is one there and if someone cut it down then something else would have to be planted there. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1) The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building; 2) The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet; 3) A buffer strip, with trees, be installed along the south side of the parking lot and along West Street in front of the parking lot; and 4) The natural vegetation along the east property line be maintained or replaced. Frederick . Ave Bruch . Ave Ruge. . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 3 2. SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by the Red Cedar Friends Meeting (Quakers), for a Special Land Use permit to construct a worship building (church) on the vacant property located directly north of 1310 Turner Street. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District with the following conditions: 1. Additional landscaping be installed to screen the parking area from surrounding residential areas; 2. Any dumpsters on the site be screened per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The seating capacity of the building be limited to the amount of parking available to the church; 4. An agreement of non-opposition to the issuance of a liquor license be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Additional landscaping be installed to screen the parking area from surrounding residential areas; 2. Any dumpsters on the site be screened per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The seating capacity of the building be limited to the amount of parking available to the church; 4. An agreement of non-opposition to the issuance of a liquor license be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds; 5. The architecture of the building be consistent with the style and character of Old Town; 6. The applicant obtain a parking agreement from the property owner to the south; and 7. The parking lots be connected via a driveway; and the motion carried (3-1). Mr. Hollister asked if the Board would like to discuss the legal opinion. Ms. Stachowiak stated that each member should have a copy of the legal opinion. It was her interpretation that Margo Vroman was basically saying that the Board can place all of the conditions that were discussed on the approval. However, the conditions may not hold up in court. She stated that the conditions PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 4 would not hold up in court and that they will not be legally binding. There is basically nothing that the Board can put on the property to prevent the applicant or any future owner from objecting to a liquor license. The applicant has the right to do it under the law. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Vroman did think that the Board could use the liquor license issue as a reason to deny the permit and that it was a compelling governmental interest because it could impact the entertainment district. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to know which part Ms. Vroman was referring to where the Board could deny the church for that reason. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Vroman had said it in a round about way but her interpretation of it was that the Board could use that as a legitimate reason to deny the request. Mr. Hollister stated he thought of discrimination against a church and if this request were a school, this would not be an appropriate location because this is the other use that could object to a liquor license. He stated that the Board would not want a school at this location for the same reason. Based on this information, if it is not appropriate for a school to be at this location for these reasons, then the Board can use the same justification. This would be the same principle at stake here. The church is not being treated differently than anybody else who would fall under the same criteria. Mr. Frederick stated that he is having difficulty with the City Ordinance that should have been changed but hasn't and that it would automatically prevent liquor licenses. This can be remedied easily enough to match the State standard and probably if somebody really wanted to argue the case, the City Ordinance is more strict than the State standard. It would be difficult to enforce it under any circumstances. As he understands, the concept of property owners being able to enjoy the use of their property, even if a school moved in and objected to a liquor license, the property owners still would be able to use the property for entertainment purposes. They just would not be able to entertain people with liquor. He is still not convinced that the Board really should deny this church the right to locate where necessary just because some businesses will not be able to, perhaps in the future, obtain a liquor license. This is not a done deal. If it was going to result in an automatic denial of liquor licenses within 500 feet, this might change his mind. He does not think the ability to sell liquor is something that is absolutely necessary to maintain a business that entertains people in Old Town. It can still meet the Master Plan and all the plans that the Board wants to see done in Old Town. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16 2005 Page 5 This church is not going to object because they have stated it publicly and he is taking them at their word. Mr. Hollister asked about the most appropriate long term land use for this site in Old Town and is this what the Board wants to see. He would love to see the Quakers down in Old Town but not at this location. If the Jazz Festival does not have its liquor license by Saturday, then they can't because of the City Ordinance. If the Board approves this proposal, then it cuts those out right now and this is part of what he had a hard time with. Mr. Ruge asked if City Council was aware of this problem and if there has been any indication or desire to remedy the problem. Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council would change it. One of the Council committees was the one who initiated the change in the first place because of the situation in Old Town with the Temple Club. This is the first time in two years that this has become an issue again. Mr. Ruge stated that he really thinks that the Board should put a little fire under the burner. There are two churches who would like to move in to Old Town and both do not want to interfere with the people and entertainment. The festivals in Old Town are really important. He stated that perhaps the Board should table the special land uses and send a letter to City Council saying the Board is waiting for them to make a decision so that the Board can deal with these cases in an appropriate manner. Mr. Frederick stated that lighting a fire under them by approving this and sending it up to them and placing it in their laps may be the fire. He is not concerned with the festivals because all that has to be done is locate the beer tent 500 feet away and then it would be okay. Mr. Hollister stated that the whole festival is spread out and fenced off, and goes all the way up to the Old Town office. Mr. Frederick stated that at the last Jazz Festival he attended, the place to consume beer was more than 500 feet away. This would be the equivalent of having a bar on the premises. The whole festival does not encompass the premises when there is an area clearly designated for alcohol. People are not allowed to consume alcohol anywhere else but inside those specific areas. He does not believe in any way that the Board approving this request would prevent any of the festivals from having a liquor license. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board does want this to be a restaurant/entertainment area but many other businesses have the right to move into this area and establish a business. It may not be a business that the Board would like to see but they still have the right to do it. He cannot see preventing a church and at the same PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16 2005 Page 6 time the Board cannot put any restrictions on other businesses that do not have anything to do with entertainment. Mr. George Brookover stated that he would like to interject and asked if there would be an opportunity for the public to provide input at this meeting. Ms. Bruch stated that there would not be an opportunity for the public to give input because there was already a public hearing for this case earlier. At the public hearing there was an opportunity for the public to give comments for this case. This discussion continued. Ms. Bruch explained the process. She stated that at this meeting this is the time when the Committee reports to the Board and the Board has an opportunity to discuss the request. Everyone can hear the discussion but the opportunity for the public to give comments happened during the public hearing portion at a previous meeting. Mr. Brookover stated that with all due respect he does understand what Ms. Bruch was saying. He stated that for the record, he is here to speak about the case on behalf of the applicant. He stated that there is some confusion about what could or could not be done. He stated that he understands the ruling and he cannot do anything more about it. Ms. Bruch stated that this request will go before City Council and that there will be a public hearing again on this case. Mr. Brookover stated that he understood it but he also understands that the Board will take a vote of the Planning Commission tonight. Ms. Bruch stated that it would be a vote of the Planning Board and then it will go before City Council. Mr. Brookover stated that he understood it and that he understands that this is a public meeting. Ms. Bruch stated that is correct. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Brookover might have something that may be of interest since he is an attorney and that the Board could, if agreed upon by vote, give him 3 or 5 minutes to explain to the Board what he thinks is so important. The Board obviously has questions and maybe Mr. Brookover has some suggestions or answers. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to allow Mr. Brookover five minutes to address the Board regarding this request. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-2). Mr. Brookover stated that maybe he does not understand the process and apologized for getting ahead of himself. He does have a copy of the legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office. He just wanted to indicate to the Board and reaffirm that his client is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 7 very willing to accept the conditions that have been suggested and accept the restrictions on the church's ability to object to the liquor license. With regard to the legal opinion received from Ms. Vroman, he wanted to point out three things that he interprets a little different than what he heard in the discussion: ➢ Require a church to agree that it will not contest or oppose the future issuance of liquor licenses within 500 feet of its location. Mr. Brookover believes that the answer would be yes and that it can be made as a condition, and that it may or may not be enforceable. The church will agree to such a condition and have made this clear previously. ➢ Some of the discussion is about the City Ordinance. He stated that frankly he thinks that the City Ordinance is not even in affect here because he thinks that the State law preempts the City Ordinance whether the City changes it or not. The liquor control people have the ability to grant or not grant these licenses. The State statutes have changed and Ms. Vroman goes through that. It is not a mandatory rejection, and even if a church was to challenge it, the State liquor control could still make a variation on that challenge. It has changed and it not what it used to be 10 years ago. ➢ Page 2, 2"d paragraph, item number 4: Can an SLU be granted to a religious organization in such a way that the SLU is revocable? Ms. Vroman stated no, but it can be made a condition of the SLU which could theoretically result in a revocation of the SLU. He stated that the church is more than willing to make this a condition. The church does not want to restrict liquor license or street festivals. The church wants to be a contributor to the rebirth of the Old Town area and be a partner with the businesses in terms of generating this kind of commercial development. He stated that the church is more than willing to work with the City's legal opinion and in addition, Ms. Vroman suggested at a later point in time that there could be a separate condition. At the bottom of page 1, Ms. Vroman suggested that it is advisable to have a church agree to waive its right to contest future liquor licenses in a separate written agreement. He stated that it would be apart from the special land use permit conditions and that the church is more than willing to do this. He is prepared on behalf of his client to put that separate written agreement in a letter in conjunction with the City Attorney's legal opinion. Mr. Brookover stated that he appreciates the opportunity to speak and apologized for injecting. He has a different interpretation of what the City Attorney has written. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 8 Ms. Bruch inquired about the City Ordinance and asked with the way that it is written does the State overpower the City's Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated no it does not. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board is stuck with the City's Ordinance regardless. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be very easy to get it changed and that it could be done before this SLU was approved. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board could recommend approval only if City Council would change the ordinance, either simultaneously or before it approves this request so that it would give the City the same flexibility as the State gives where liquor licenses are concerned. Ms. Bruch stated that it is the idea that the State can control the liquor licenses. Ms. Bruch inquired about revocation of the SLU. Ms. Stachowiak stated that an SLU can be revoked if the conditions are not met. Ms. Bruch asked if this could be added as a condition to say that should this property be sold the SLU will be revoked. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could not because all zoning in the City never runs with the owner. It always runs with the land. Ms. Stachowiak stated that an SLU can only be revoked for a violation of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Bruch stated that if this church decided to sell the property to another church and that church objects to the liquor license, then the City would be in no position to enforce that condition. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Czekai stated that regardless of what the City Ordinance says, the State law still is out there. If a church or school is in a location and a liquor license is requested within a 500 foot radius, anyone could object to it. If a school or church objects to it, it puts it in a very special process and has to go in front of an appeal. Mr. Czekai stated that regardless of whether the ordinance is there or not, the State law is still in affect and that this still presents the concern, in his opinion, which violates item number 3 of the SLU. He does not believe that condition number 3 has been met and he feels obligated to oppose this request. Mr. Frederick stated that he disagrees because he feels that condition number 3 addresses the ability of the property owners to get economic gain from their property, not enjoy it in the sense of having a good time. This has always been his understanding from what he has read and what he has learned in his years of experience from being on the Board. He stated that respectfully, he disagrees with Mr. Czekai because he believes that the property owners could continue to enjoy the use of their property regardless of whether or not they might be able to sell liquor. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Hollister stated that the other thing he sees that it fails in is condition number 2. If the Board approves this SLU, it does change the essential character of the area. He is not referring to the architectural character which is what seems to be addressed in the staff report. He is referring to the character in essence of what the City is trying to do with this area. If a church is allowed, it changes the character of the area. The essence of what the City is trying to do in the Old Town area with developing a new entertainment district, there would be a potential barrier to that development. He stated that it changes the essential character. The architecture could match but this is not what it is talking about. The essential character of the area will be changed and he believes that it fails with condition number 2 as well as condition number 3. Mr. Ruge stated that he really likes the idea of sending this request to City Council with a condition that the ordinance be changed. Mr. Ruge stated that he does not think a church in the Old Town area really would detract from the essential character of the area. Urban spaces are supposed to be diverse spaces. The City would not want a place where there are three City blocks that have bar after bar. The City would want to have a variety of businesses. He believes that it would be great if during these festivals, the Red Cedar Friends group would be out there with a table and some hand outs inviting people to their church. He stated that this would add to the diversity of the area and he does not see this as a problem. Mr. Czekai called a Point of Order and asked if Mr. Ruge was amending his motion. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to add this as another condition. Mr. Frederick accepted it. Ms. Bruch stated that she agrees with Mr. Ruge and that she does not mind having a church at this location. She has a concern that the liquor license issue does restrict the freedom of what could happen and the potential in the future. She likes the diversity and that it is needed in this area. She stated that she cannot support something like this because of the restriction to this area that is just developing. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16 2005 Page 10 Frederick . Ave Bruch . Nav Ruge. . Ave Czekai. . Nav Hollister . Nav On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 3. The motion failed. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend denial of SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . Nav Bruch . Ave Ruge. . Nav Czekai. . Ave Hollister . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Nays: 2. The motion carried. DENIED. Mr. Rieske asked if the Board wanted to address the ordinance issue and recommend action on this particular ordinance. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend changing the City ordinance. Mr. Czekai stated that the language should be included that this was a contributing factor for some of the Board members who voted to deny the SLU, and that it was not necessarily the only factor. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. SLU-2-2005, 719 E. Grand River Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by the Christian Family Fellowship Church for a Special Land Use permit to establish a church at 719 E. Grand River Avenue. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of SLU-2-05 based upon its consistency with the nine criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance for evaluating special land use permits, with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping be installed at the entrance into the parking lot; 2. Any dumpsters on the site be screened per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The seating capacity of the building be limited to the amount of parking available to the church; and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 11 4. If possible, an agreement of non-opposition to the issuance of a liquor license be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping, in accordance with current Zoning Ordinance requirements, be installed; 2. Any dumpsters on the site be screened per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The seating capacity of the building be limited to the amount of parking available to the church; and 4. If possible, an agreement of non-opposition to the issuance of a liquor license be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds; and the motion carried (2-1), with Mr. Hollister casting the descending vote. Mr. Czekai stated that Mr. Lenoir indicated that the church is not interested in opposing any liquor licenses and that the church is able to coexist with liquor license establishments. Mr. Czekai stated that it was his understanding that a couple of years ago, Mr. Lenoir led the charge for opposing The Temple Club and the liquor license there. He asked what the change in philosophy was and if it was discussed. Mr. Ruge stated he believes that the people thought it was the church's intent at that time. He thinks that the problem was the same thing as the Friends church. The church was coming in and the Temple Club was just about to open and that there could be a conflict there because the church could object to the liquor license. He does not know if the church ever did object to the liquor license. Mr. Frederick stated that he recalled Mr. Lenoir saying this too and also that a lot of things were said and printed that were attributed to the church but the church had never said those things. Mr. Lenoir had specifically stated that this was not the case and that the church did not oppose the liquor license at that time. This was not the church's intent. Mr. Frederick stated that from what he read, it did look like the church was opposing the liquor license and from Mr. Lenoir's statements, this was not true. Ms. Bruch stated that she walked the site to figure out the 500 feet and that this one has a completely different feel than the other church. It is not directly in the heart of Old Town. The properties surrounding the proposed site have a completely different feel than the request for the Quaker group. She stated that when it comes to limiting some of this, she does not have a problem with it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 12 because of the surrounding area. She looked at what was surrounding the site, what was available and what is impacting the request. From this stand point, this is a completely different case. The church did discuss purchasing the property next door. The whole property is one big sea of asphalt and she would like to completely change the character of it. She asked if the parking landscape requirements could be enforced. Ms. Stachowiak stated the requirements would not be enforced because it is zoned industrial and it is completely surrounded by industrial uses. Currently there are no landscape requirements for that site. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board could add this as a recommendation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be added. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like the church to meet the landscape requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Frederick stated that with condition 1, if the Board specified which ordinance it was referring to, the Board could specify the landscaping requirements of the ordinances that do require more landscaping and buffering. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Chapter 1290.08 of the Zoning Ordinance has the entire landscape section and would require 8 foot buffers around the site. Ms. Bruch stated that this area needs to be renovated. Ms. Bruch inquired about parking. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the church has enough parking on the site to accommodate the current amount of members. If the church adds landscaping, it could eliminate some of the parking spaces. Condition number 3 is the same condition that the Board has placed on every church that has been approved in the last few years. Ms. Bruch stated that this is a huge building and is in area that is trying to be more walkable. If the City is trying to get things back to a pedestrian scale, she would not mind if there were more people than parking spaces. She would consider taking up this requirement. Mr. Frederick stated that he is not uncomfortable in this circumstance because of the nature of the area. In much more intense residential neighborhoods this could lead to problems where the church could overfill and cause a real disturbance in the neighborhood. He would accept this condition for this particular site only. Mr. Ruge stated that he is concerned with the interpretation of the area. He agrees that this area is not as aesthetically pleasing as the heart of Old Town. Across the street is the old Ramon's which used to be a bar and restaurant. A few doors down across the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 13 street used to be a Mexican restaurant and on the same side of the street there were a few more restaurants/bars. They are now vacant and none of them look pleasing. He is not opposing the request. He is just pointing out that there are four more buildings that used to be restaurants within the 500 feet. Ms. Bruch stated that her reasoning there is that maybe they did not succeed partly because of the location. Mr. Ruge stated that he thinks it was because the factory right across the street had closed. Mr. Czekai stated that for the same reasons in the previous conversation on the previous motion, he feels obligated to oppose the approval of this SLU for the same reasons in conditions 2 and 3. There is an existing bar located in this area. He knows what was printed in the media and what he saw also. There was a lot of objection placed on the activities in Old Town by many members of the church and this concerns him. Ms. Bruch asked when Old Town has its festivals, does the area extend this far. Mr. Czekai stated yes. Ms. Bruch stated that if the City does want to bring a church to the Old Town area, this is a fairly decent location in the sense that it brings diversity. Yet, it is far enough away from the heart of town not to affect the center and the heart that the Board wants to support. For her, this is a different case because of the place and the surrounding area. This may be one of the first things that helps revitalize this area. Mr. Frederick stated that based on the conversation, he would like to make clear what his position is on this request, especially with sections 2 and 3. He believes that exercising religion is protected by the constitution and that it was also one of the reasons why the United States became the United States because there were so many restrictions on religion. He is a firm believer in the constitution and that is why he so vociferously argues in favor of any of the churches going in anywhere they belong or want to as long as the issue of public safety is addressed by both the neighbors and the church parishioners. He does not necessarily care nor support any particular religion but he does firmly believe that it should be allowed within the tenants of their beliefs of the founding fathers of this country. He cannot see restricting it for any of the reasons that he has heard this evening. Mr. Ruge stated that he thinks this church just like the Friends group could add a certain amount of flavor to the area. What the church would like to do is reach out to the youth in this area and the church could say and do things that would add to this area. He is in favor of this request and is concerned about the liquor license issue. He hopes that City Council will address it. The church has said that it is not opposed to liquor licenses and he would think that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 14 if the church would then turn around and object to the State, it could be easily pointed out. He believes in Mr. Lenoir's integrity. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to allow Pastor Lenoir five minutes to address the Board regarding this request. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-2). Pastor Lenoir, Christian Family Fellowship Church, stated the church is willing to sign an agreement for the City so that there will not be any objections. The church is just trying to help the community and work with the City. His word is his bond. With what happened before, the newspaper said that the church objected but the church never made a comment to the newspapers. He stated that the church moved and if the church moved, how could it object to anything. He stated that the church is not here to object to anything. The church is just here to try to work with the people and reach out to the community to say it is here and it wants to help. The church wants to do whatever it can to help the community. This is what the church's coexistence is all about. If there is a big issue as to the church objecting to anything, he stated that the City would not have to worry about it. The church just wants to work in the City. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board would like to change recommendation number 3. The Board would need a friendly amendment to delete it and modify condition number 1. Mr. Hollister asked about the restaurant that was interested in this site. Ms. Bruch stated that the restaurant decided not to locate here. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the restaurant could not get a liquor license. Mr. Hollister stated that is was up in the air a few months ago when the Board discussed it. Ms. Bruch asked about the liquor licenses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a business would have to purchase a liquor license from someone else. There are no liquor licenses available in the City from the Liquor Control Commission. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board has any say in the matter or can make recommendations as to how is it determined. Ms. Stachowiak stated that every community is allotted a certain amount of liquor licenses and some people will buy them up and hold them in escrow so that they can charge other people money for them. It probably is not that difficult to obtain one. Mr. Czekai stated that there are different types of liquor licenses also and that there are liquor licenses available in the City. It is just that specific types of liquor license were already used up. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Hollister asked if there was still potential for a restaurant to move into the neighborhood and has the status changed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner of this property has a purchase agreement with Pastor Lenoir and that there was a purchase agreement when the church applied for the SLU. No restaurants, since Pastor Lenoir applied, have made any purchase offers on the property and the realtor is agreeing with her. Mr. Ruge stated that the property has been vacant for several years and that it was probably "For Sale" during that time. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to this request with one of the conditions being that City Council would change the ordinance concerning liquor licenses and churches. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Ruge if he would accept a friendly amendment to remove item number 3 and that Chapter 1290.08 be added to condition number 1. Mr. Rieske stated that there was a Staff Beautification Committee to try and look at what the City can do with scarce dollars to do some beautification. The Committee looked at four target areas and this area as one of them. It was recommended not only the buffering which the Board is recommending, but also that street trees be planted in the immediate area. This might be an additional recommendation or further recommended condition per the Administration's Beautification Committee recommendations. He stated that the City can address the language if the Board addresses the topics. Ms. Bruch asked if Mr. Ruge would accept a modification to condition number 1 to follow the parking lot ordinance requirements and to meet the Staff Beautification Committee requirements. Mr. Ruge accepted it and Mr. Frederick accepted both friendly amendments. Ms. Bruch asked if Mr. Ruge would accept deleting condition number 3. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board has added this for a long time as part of doing business. He stated that in this area it does not matter that much and that if it were a residential area, he would be more concerned. He accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-2-2005, 719 E. Grand River Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District with the following conditions: 1) Landscaping, in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16 2005 Page 16 accordance with current Zoning Ordinance requirements, Section 1290.08, be installed and that the applicant comply with the Staff Beautification Committee recommendations; 2) Any dumpsters on the site be screened per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3) If possible, an agreement of non- opposition to the issuance of a liquor license be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds. Frederick . Ave Bruch . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nav Hollister . Nav On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Nays: 2; carried. APPROVED. Mr. Frederick called a Point of Order and asked when the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would next meet. Mr. Ruge stated that the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee would be Wednesday, July 13, 2005, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. Mr. Hollister asked to be recused from the Urban Development Committee because his work is a direct affiliation with Habitat for Humanity. B. Urban Development Committee Mr. Czekai Chair 1. ACT-13-2003, Conveyance of Turner St. Property, Vacant land between 1413 & 1421 Turner St. The City requests that the vacant land be conveyed to Habitat for Humanity. The subject property was acquired for back taxes in 1993 from the Department of Natural Resources for `the purpose of developing new housing in North Lansing."(Act-1 1-93). The property consisted of two tax parcels, but has since been combined into one tax parcel. The proposal was to maintain the property in public ownership until housing development could be facilitated. This was deemed appropriate since it served `to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood from the development of inconsistent uses." The site is located north of the North Lansing commercial district along Turner Street and north of the "On the Grand" condominium development south of Dodge River Drive. The Turner Dodge Mansion is further to the west. Properties along the west side of Turner Street were originally developed with housing on industrially zoned land. Consequently, several properties have been converted PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 17 to businesses over the years. These include a contractor's yard (1421-1429) and a small engine repair shop (1509). (See attached photographs.) A couple of properties have commercial block structures that extend to the front property line. Those properties that have continued on as residential properties are nonconforming according to the Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently vacant, zoned "H" Light Industrial, and measures 101.64 feet along Turner St. and is 165 feet deep (16,770.6 sq. ft.). A water main runs from the water well site on 1410 Dodge River Drive, east to Turner Street. Any rights to the water main will need to be released, according to the Board of Water & Light, prior to any construction on site. Given the mixed nature of the zoning and land use of the area, the disposition of the site should take several factors into consideration. These include: the past history (i.e. why did the City acquire the property); current zoning and land use; future land use designation (as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan); and the appropriateness of various uses (i.e. residential vs. commercial/industrial land use). The request from the City's Development Office is to dispose of the subject vacant property to Habitat for Humanity for the development of up to two houses. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial, but is designated for residential development according to the Comprehensive Plan. It was acquired by the City in 1993 to maintain the property in public ownership until housing development could be facilitated. This was deemed appropriate since it served to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood from the development of inconsistent uses. Given the surrounding development, and the potential for assemblage with other properties for future redevelopment, it may be in the City's interest to advance the area for residential development by initiating a rezoning of the parcel, which would bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The City could also continue to retain the property for future redevelopment. Another option would be to encourage residential infill, compatible with the other structures. Possible incentives could include establishing a Neighborhood Enterprise Zone or facilitating historic preservation tax credits. Staff initially recommended that the City rezone the property to allow residential development, then market it for sale, giving Habitat for Humanity the right of first refusal. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 18 The Committee tabled this matter at the May 3, meeting, pending further information on the transaction and the rezoning options. With revisions to the staff recommendation, staff recommended approval, with modifications to ACT-13-2003, specifically that the City, as the property owner, (1) Rezone the property to allow residential development (e.g. "D-2" Office/Residential District), then market it for sale for fair market value; (2) Require site plans prior to accepting any purchase offers; (3) Consider holding on to the property until receiving an offer which is compatible with the zoning and master plan. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval, with modifications to ACT-13-2003, specifically that the City, as the property owner, rezone the property to allow residential development (e.g. "D-2" Office/Residential District), then market it for sale for fair market value. Require site plans prior to accepting any purchase offers. Consider holding on to the property until receiving an offer which is compatible with the zoning and master plan. Mr. Ruge stated it appears that the City encouraged Mr. Buono to purchase the Dunlap property as part of an agreement that would be worked out with Habitat for Humanity. He asked if Mr. Buono did purchase the Dunlap property. Mr. Czekai stated that there was a discussion regarding this but nothing was ever formally agreed upon with Habitat for Humanity by the City. This was one of several options given. Mr. Rieske stated that there was nothing finalized saying that there was any agreement with Habitat for Humanity and the City. The Development Office had raised the possibility that an exchange could occur. This was raised with Habitat for Humanity and apparently Habitat for Humanity spoke with Mr. Buono. Mr. Buono acquired some property on Dunlap in order to have Habitat for Humanity acquire this property and exchange it with Mr. Buono's Dunlap property. Mr. Buono was not a party to any agreement with both Habit for Humanity and the City. Mr. Buono was dealing with Habitat for Humanity and the City was dealing with Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Buono's acquisition of the Dunlap property was a speculation in order to prepare for this to happen. It was never an agreement. It was something that was discussed as a possibility. Mr. Czekai stated that whether or not Habitat for Humanity ever was interested officially is basically irrelevant because now Habitat for Humanity is not interested in either property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 19 Mr. Ruge asked if the proposed zoning, "D-2" Residential/Office District, was compatible with Mr. Buono's needs for his business. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the "D-2" Residential/Office District requires the applicant to have a 50 percent residential and 50 percent office use in the same building. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Buono's business seems to be more light industrial or commercial. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a lot of outdoor storage, none of which would be allowed in the "D-2" Residential/Office District. Mr. Rieske stated that should the property be part of the water feature, which has been started, there would be the possibility of using that property for landscaping type purposes. It would take some creative site planning. Any structure that was put on it would have to be one that would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Bruch stated that currently Mr. Buono has a few red tagged buildings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a lot of outdoor storage of different materials and two red tagged residential units that are combustion hazards. Mr. Czekai stated that there are a lot of Code violations. Ms. Bruch asked if these violations have been reported. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they have been reported. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Buono was working on these violations with the City. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure and that the Code Compliance Officer for this area is very much on top of things. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-13-2003, Conveyance of Turner St. Property, Vacant land between 1413 & 1421 Turner Street with the following conditions: 1) The City, as the property owner, rezone the property to allow residential development (e.g. "D-2" Office/Residential District), then market it for sale for fair market value; 2) Require site plans prior to accepting any purchase offers; and 3) Consider holding on to the property until receiving an offer which is compatible with the zoning and Master Plan. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Abstained On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; Abstentions: 1; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 16, 2005 Page 20 3. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.061605.Special Mtg.doc Approved as written 7-5-05 Draft to Clerk June 6,2005 Approved July 5,2005 To Clerk July 7,2005 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 3, 2005 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Keene, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Wynant. C. Excused absences: McConnell. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request from Mr. McConnell for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Bruch stated that since staff has not received information from the City Attorney's Office, SLU-1-2005 has been postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Mr. Terry Grant regarding SLU-1-2005 B. Letter of concern from Mr. James Tolas regarding SLU-2-2005 4. HEARINGS A. Z-2-2005, 5700 Block, S. ML King Blvd., "D-1" Professional Office District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Paul Hemmer Construction Company to rezone the northwest section of the property located in the 5700 Block of S. ML King Blvd, on the northwest side of the road, more specifically described as: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 2 Lot 1 Except the Northwesterly 250 Feet thereof, also South 1 acres of Lot 2, Except the Northwesterly 250 Feet of Creyts Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office District to T" Commercial District for the purpose of utilizing a portion of the property for retail sales. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Master Plan designation and why the zoning is different. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan designates the frontage along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. for commercial and the back portion for office use. Ms. Bruch stated that the design shows parking in the front and a building in the back, and that the City does not want this anymore. She asked what could be done to prevent it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the design meets the zoning requirements. Ms. Bruch asked what ordinances would the City need to change so that this does not happen anymore. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City would need to literally change the commercial districts to require parking to be located behind the building. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to take this up at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Frederick asked if a different site plan would work. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant could always scale down the size of the building but the applicant does not feel, from a business stand point, that they can do this. She stated that if the Board denies the request and the applicant still wants to build, this is what they will have to do. Mr. Frederick stated that he was looking at parking being situated differently so that the whole development would be reworked to fit under the T" Commercial. What he sees is a small portion of the building and an area that looks like a place for trucks to make deliveries in the T-1" area of the site. If the site plan was reworked, he asked if the City could get to what it wants and still fit everything on the area that is zoned T" Commercial. Ms. Stachowiak stated that maybe the applicant's engineer could redesign the development. She stated that it would be difficult to fit this size of a store with the required parking and setbacks in this parcel. If she was to sit down and scale it out and work with the designer, it may potentially work but she was not sure. Ms. Bruch inquired about side yard limitations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has no side yard setback requirements. Ms. Bruch stated that the building could abut the surrounding property and that the whole area is commercial. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant could go right to the property line as long as the building code would allow for the construction style that the applicant is proposing. When the building is right at the lot line or within a few feet, the applicant has to have a fire separation wall, no windows or PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 3 doorways, etc. She stated that it would come down to redesigning the building. Mr. Ruge stated that it appears the applicant is not purchasing the entire parcel but only a portion of the parcel. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is purchasing the entire property and then selling everything but the portion the applicant intends to use. Ms. Stacey Snively, Representative of the Baltimore Company, stated that she works with Dollars and Auger, a national tenant and that she works with a prototype design of a building. There are two standard type buildings: 9,000 square feet and 8,000 square feet. The reason for having a building 70 feet length wise by 130 feet in depth and generally parking in the front is because it is best for customers. Ms. Bruch stated that this is one of the things that the City is trying to change because it leads to extra sprawl and is not very pedestrian friendly. Mr. Frederick asked if the Dollar General corporation would be amenable to a slightly different layout if there could be the same square footage for the stores. Ms. Snively stated that she is working with two different dynamics: 1) working within the proto type design building (70 feet by 130 feet, 9,000 square feet) and 2) budget constraints and negotiations with the land owners for purchasing a certain portion of land for a budgeted amount. Even though the company is a national tenant, she is still working with a very limited budget as far as what will be paid in rent. If the design is changing and taking up more land, obviously the costs will go up. This is the reason why the building and parking are laid out the way it is shown on the site plan. Mr. Frederick stated that perhaps she could contact the company and see what the thoughts are on the matter. Ms. Snively stated that would not be a problem. Mr. Drake Sergis, owner, stated that he has owned the property for approximately 15 years and that he did not have any exact plans its use. He thought it was a good purchase at the time. There does not seem to be much going on in that part of town along south Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. He was very happy when the Paul Hemmer corporation showed some interest. He believes that a Dollar General store would be good for the neighborhood and obviously the company feels the same way or it would not want to come in there. He knows that the request has to go through different steps to get things done. There is nothing happening with the area of the site that is zoned office. It is just sitting there and there is no interest whatsoever. If there is little flexibility with what can be done with it, it is just going to be vacant land for a long time to come. He would appreciate it if the Board could give this request some thought. He is behind it 100 percent not only because he is selling it but because he believes that it is a good idea for the community. It might spark some other companies to have some interest in that area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Keene asked if this Dollar General will be the same store that is located in the Logan Square and if it is going to move to this location or if this will be a different store. Ms. Snively stated that it will be the same Dollar General store and that the store located in the Logan Square will remain there. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Sergis owned the trapezoidal piece of property right behind his property. Mr. Sergis stated that he does own that property. Mr. Ruge asked if he owned the big piece of property that wraps around all the commercial properties. Mr. Sergis stated that he does own that property. Mr. Ruge asked why the properties were broken up this way. Mr. Sergis stated that he has no idea. He introduced Mr. Don Kurtz and stated that Mr. Kurtz does a lot of his paperwork on this proposal. Mr. Kurtz stated that there are a lot of reasons in the past for the property being the way it is. The triangular piece of property is land locked all the way around and there is no way anyone can ever do anything with that piece of property. There is no access to it. On the south side of both the commercial and professional properties, there is a common drain right-of- way that goes right down through there and no one can build over that which just makes is worse. That whole section of property in the back is absolutely useless if zoning changes are not made. The City needs to consider changing the zoning. There is a piece of property sitting there with no access to it whatsoever and it cannot be sold as commercial property because no one can build on it until the zoning is changed. Originally, the property was zoned this way to buffer the area between the residential and commercial districts. The only thing that is behind there right now is the Consumers Power right-of-way. Property owner to the north, stated that he will have been at this residence for 50 years come September, has paid taxes on the land for 50 years, and has never found a use for the property yet. Behind his commercial property is property that is zoned as Professional Office and he cannot imagine any doctor wanting to build an office back in there and have patients come to the office. There has been no use for it for 50 years. There was a time, 4 to 5 years ago he had people agree to assemble the 10 acres back in there. The thoughts were to have an elderly care facility put in there and have the residents be able to walk through the Consumers Power property to a park that is on the other side of the Consumers property. He stated that the property was listed for 6 months or so with a couple of different realtors and never got a bite on it. He was going to get access to the property off of Hughes Road. It would have been possible. He stated that Tony Benevides suggested it and it would have worked very well to have access to it but it did not work. After 50 years he has not found a use for it and maybe these people have found a use for it. He would just assume that the City would rezone his property in the back to Commercial at the same time. He stated that the whole area should be zoned commercial and that it should be considered. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 5 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing and referred Z-2-2005, 5700 Block, S. ML King Blvd., "D-1" Professional Office District to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 11, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-2-2005, 719 E. Grand River Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by the Christian Family Fellowship Church for a Special Land Use permit to establish a church at 719 E. Grand River Avenue. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill asked if the property fell outside of the Old Town commercial area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not have the answer but Ms. Wynant would probably know. Ms. Wynant stated that she was not really sure. Ms. Bruch asked if the back portion was a parking lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has always been paved and that it is one big sea of asphalt. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board would be able to do anything about it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board would be able to do something about it, if the case gets approved. Ms. Cordill inquired about the owner of the parking to the south. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure and that she can find out through the City Assessor's Office. Mr. Frederick stated that if you look back through the records there has been some action by the Board of Zoning Appeals on that particular piece of property. He thinks that it may belong to the business that is at this site and that it is being used strictly for employee parking. He stated that it would be good to be refreshed on the whole thing. Ms. Bruch stated that it would also be good if a conversation could happen between the church and parking lot owner regarding overflow or possible use on Sundays. This lot is not being used and it would help with the reduction of parking. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant did mention to her on the phone that he was pursuing it. Pastor Tony Lenoir, resident of 317 Honeysuckle Lane, stated that he has looked at the lot east of the building and found out that Ramon's had an agreement with the owner of that lot. The owner has since passed away. He is trying to find out who owns the property because he is interested in purchasing that piece of property as well. It would add on to the parking situation. With the current lot, there is ample parking for his PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 6 congregation but they would like to have additional property as well. He believes that having a church in this area would greatly enhance the community, build up the community and add some life to this area. Mr. Will Rogers, resident of 3519 Christine Drive, stated that he supports the proposal. The City has many programs aimed at educating and equipping the residents of the City to deal with the issues of life and help aid them during trying times. The Government as a whole has come together concerning many of the issues that we face today as a nation and it has become apparent that we as a nation can use all the help that we can get as we look at the issues that are arising in our communities. Our prisons are overflowing, crime amongst girls is increasing, and there is no room in the juvenile facilities. Sex, violence and drugs have become the norm in a nation where many receive their instructions for life from videos, music, TV, internet and a number of other media sources and governmental organizations or institutions. As we find ourselves growing and/or developing based on the information we received from the different avenues within our society, he can see no wrong in allowing room for a church founded on biblical principals. In this City, we have seen the increased in gang related activities, struggling parents, drug houses and the like. There is a need for life transforming information to be administered to a great number of people within this city and for instructions that will strengthen and restore broken homes, provide hope for those who are homeless, lonely, unemployed, and distressed by the trials and tribulations of life. There is a need for instructions aimed at developing families, individuals, and society as a whole whereby we again can stand up and be proud to say that we are again one nation under God. In closing, he poses one question: Why not a church? When we take a look at all the other sources of instruction for our future leaders and our community as a whole, it is clear that the people are in need of basic instructions before leaving this earth. For when all is said and done, the American dream is for life happily ever after and for joy that surpasses all understanding. Why not a church? He works in a position where he works with many of the families in this community. He works for the Lansing School District and he is responsible for Eastern High School, Otto Middle School, Pattengill Middle School, and eleven north end elementary schools. He is aware of the issues that are going on in the community and he has worked hand in hand with the Lansing Police Department and other City officials. He can tell the Board about that community and what is going on in that neighborhood. He stated that many of the Board members may be aware of some of things that are going on in that community and may recognize that there are some crack houses in that area. The Grand River School has had many problems in relation to the sort of things that are going on in that community. As he looks at the children that he deals with on a daily basis and the parents that he speaks with, he has come to recognize that there is a need for another voice that is concerned about morality, and can PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 7 provide information to enable them to pull themselves up and to better their lives. The Word of God is indeed a power that is needed within that community. He does not stand here today just as someone that could bring a speech but as someone who knows that community and recognizes some of the struggles in that neighborhood. He knows that there are some things that need to be done there. He supports the proposal and the City. He has been a long time resident of Lansing for 44 years and stated that it would be in the City's best interest to allow a church to come in. Ms. Patricia Thomas, resident of 549 E. Edgewood, stated that it would be key to allow the church an opportunity to come and render services to the community. It would give a lot of the parents the ability to have a safe place for their children to actively participate. The church plans on doing a before and after school program that would allow children a safe place to go and have some activities. It would keep the teenagers off the streets and keep the younger kids from being latchkey children. It would give a lot of the parents an opportunity to have their children somewhere where they know that the kids will be safe. It would also add value to the community and raise the property values. It would also be a benefit in that it would give the parents an opportunity to be active in areas which they may need. If the parents do not work, it would give them an opportunity to volunteer at the child care center. There are a lot of opportunities that will be given to the residents in this area. It would add more traffic to the Old Town area. On Sundays, it would allow the church to attract more people. The church was also planning on having a tutoring program. In that program it would give the community the ability to allow their children to visit and gain knowledge. A lot of times the parents in this area have to transport their children. This would be an area where the children could walk or be bussed. The parents would not have to be focused on transportation because some parents in this area do not have vehicles. It would be an added benefit for those parents. Transportation and snacks will be provided and all different types of field trips. This would be a plus to allow this church in this neighborhood so that the parents can have a safe place to go and it will add value to entire community. Mr. Keith Barber, Remax Real Estate located at 6607 W. St. Joseph, stated that from a business perspective he has been representing the applicant. They have looked at a number of different facilities and this looks like a great opportunity for them as well as the City. He has looked at the church's business plan and it is a sound plan. The church is not just coming in out of the blue to do this. The church has some real ideas on what it would like to do. The church is very solid and has some great child care and child educational programs. From what he has seen in that area as a realtor, this would enhance the property values. It would provide a service for the individuals that he sees in that part of the community and it also has the ability to bring in a lot more traffic to the businesses that are in that area as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 8 Ms. Cordill inquired about how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Barber stated that it has been on the market for 6 to 8 months and leased for quite some time. Ms. Cordill stated that it may have been leased for up to 2 years. Mr. Barber stated that it may have been that long. He was there when it was a restaurant. Citizens Bank overspent itself when Ramon's was there and Citizens Bank started asking quite a bit more and had no takers. He had a few offers that fell through. He stated that this is a good solid offer and the church has good financial backing. Citizens Bank is excited to have this offer. Ms. Charmein Downer, resident of 1826 Victor Ave., stated that she once lived in this area on Grand River and her children attended Grand River Elementary School. She supports the special land use permit for the location at Grand River formerly known as Ramon's. She believes that a church in this neighborhood would be like a flower planted in a desert. Although a desert may look dry and rough, when you see a flower, there may be a sign of life and a glimmer of hope. When she lived on Grand River one of her children was bullied every day in this neighborhood and there was no relief to the torture that she suffered mentally from the helplessness that she felt as a parent. She suffered alongside her child because by the time that she could address the issues, her child had already endured the attacks and assaults. This community needs as many flowers as it can get. There are liquor stores, bars, schools, small shops and corner stores as well as residential homes in this area. There is drug abuse, addictions and prostitution. She saw this every day. She believes that the same law that works for supply and demand in corporate America also applies to the neighborhoods. Whatever is stationed in the neighborhood is what draws the traffic for that particular region. If there are liquor stores, then those who drink liquor will be drawn here because this is where the supply is. If there are bars, then the increase of violence will be prevalent because the supply of liquor which alters the mind and behavior will be available here in this neighborhood. If there are shopping stores, shoppers will be drawn. A church in this area will draw those who are trying to live a positive life because this is where the supply of what they are seeking exists. On the contrary, she stated that some things do not mix (i.e. light and darkness). If darkness is present and light comes where the darkness is, then darkness disburses and light dominates and occupies that territory. She feels that it would be the same if a church is allowed in this vicinity. A church brings a positive attraction to a community as well as its programs that it has to offer to reach that community. She supports anything positive that will enhance this community and neighborhood and she also supports a church in this area. She has lived in Lansing for 10 year and is originally from the Detroit area. She loves Lansing and while all of her peers are trying to move away, she wants to stay. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Betsy Bigsby, Old Town Commercial Association located at 1232 Turner Street, stated that their boundaries do include Pennsylvania and the subject property is included. Ms. Bruch stated that the liquor license issues with the church may be something that becomes an issue. She inquired about what properties surrounding the proposal would be affected. Ms. Bigsby stated that it should not affect current owners and that it would be a future issue. She would have to review it more. Ms. Bruch stated that this has become an issue with other churches' special land uses and that this would be important to know. Ms. Cheryl Lenoir, resident of 317 Honeysuckle Lane, stated that she was the church from the former incident and in that incident she believes that it was more media driven than people driven. This is the unfortunate thing. She loves Lansing, lives in Lansing and hopes to plant a positive influence in Lansing. Unfortunately, she had to sit and suffer the depression of looking at her husband being slandered by editorials, by people who did not even know him, drawing opinions of what the position was as a church, what type of church it was and what type of people the church included. She stated that the residents are taxpayers, citizens of the community and that they are people who love other people and it is never a situation of keeping an individual out to open the door for another. She stated that any glimmer of hope is needed, but people do not know how much of a leap of faith this is for her and her husband to even come again and even try again because the church was split and literally almost destroyed from the last onslaught. She wants everyone to see the human faces that are affected by some of the decisions made. Some of the things that were said in the media were lies and some of the things that were printed in the newspaper are not true. She stated that the God that she serves and hopes the one others know about is one of love. He created everyone and He created all of us to dwell and cohabitate on this earth together. She believes that this is possible. She wanted the Board to be aware that the church was never the beast that it was made out to be and that it is not one now. The church hopes never to be one. Mr. Frederick inquired about the church. Ms. Lenoir stated that at the time the Temple Club was being established, the church was directly across the street. Ms. Cordill asked for clarification on the property north of 1310 Turner Street. Ms. Bruch stated that the reason she mentioned the liquor licenses is because the Board is currently dealing with a special land use permit on Turner Street and because it is very close to the business center where there will be an option for the liquor license or not because of a church. This is something the Board will need to look at with it being 500 feet from the church. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 10 Ms. Lenoir stated that for the record, the church does not have to pick the fight. The fight will come to the church. The next morning the State will be at your door knocking on it and shoving a piece of paper in your hand. Ms. Bruch stated that the church can request that no more liquor licenses be issued in the area and that this is one of the issues that the Board has to review. Pastor Tony Lenoir stated that he is coming now to speak not as the Pastor but as one of the citizens of Lansing. Ms. Bruch stated that everyone has an opportunity to speak once and that he would have an opportunity to speak at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing and referred SLU-2-2005, 719 E. Grand River Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 11, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Pastor Tony Lenoir, resident of 317 Honeysuckle Lane, stated that he comes before the Board from the side as a teacher and that he has been a teacher in the Lansing School District for over 20 years. When he looks at the children in the school district, he sees that the children come from all different sides of the community. One of the reasons why the church would like to be on the north side is because there are a lot of children in that area. He has a great vision where he sees that children need a lot of help in a lot of different areas. His heart really goes out to the children. The church would like to try to educate them, reach out to them and show them love. The church wants to try to help the community in every possible way that it can. He would like to ask that the Board really review the proposal and grant the church the opportunity to be on the north side to help the community and help raise some of the children in that area. He stated that church members go out into the community and talk to the people. The church tries to help people as much as it can. The children are the future and if the church can help them in any way, then it is a positive thing. The church tries to help build the community and the City of Lansing. He asked the Board to take a serious look at the request and grant the special use permit. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a mural inside the building that was there when the building was being rehabilitated. It is probably not conducive to a church. He stated that it would be real nice if photos could be taken of it for posterity. Pastor Lenoir stated that there are plans photos so that everyone can see what it looked like before and after. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Will Rogers, resident of 3519 Christine Drive, stated that he is a Public Safety Officer for the Lansing School District and he is responsible for Eastern High School, Pattengill Middle School, Otto Middle School and eleven elementary schools located in the north end of town. He deals with a number of issues in that community, and has been to a number of neighborhood meetings and PTA meetings at the school. He deals with a number of issues from drugs being sold on school property to directly across the street. Signs had to be posted at the Grand River School which indicates that the school does not want drug dealers on the property after hours. He has dealt with issues concerning individuals who were relieving themselves on the side of the building and getting up underneath the doors and messing up some of the carpets right inside of the door. He is a little bit disturbed when he hears concerns about a liquor license when he recognizes that the ills of society just get overlooked because of the perspective of how much money can be made. He deals with a lot of the kids and families in that area and these families deal with a number of issues. Alcohol is not one of them. To say that a positive can be seen with putting a liquor store in the area, he really cannot say that. He deals with a lot of single parent homes with struggling mothers who need help with their children and they are at wits end as to what they can do. He has worked with the City and has recognized that there are a lot of programs available but for some reason are not working for this particular community. There are many people that are out there who are looking for a glimmer of hope and a ray of sunshine. He grew up in Lansing and has always been a part of a local church. He could always rely and stand on the values that he has obtained in that local church. He can thank God for all the influence of the positive people who were in that church and who helped him become the person he is today. He asked again, Why not a church? The property is large enough for the church to come in and expand the parking lot. He knows enough people in the City, some who work for the City and State and he knows many of the local Pastors as well. He stated that this is a beautiful and great community that has suffered lately with some of the drug use and the things that are going on. He knows about the crack houses in that area. He works hand in hand with the Lansing Police Department. He recognizes some of the issues concerning shutting down the crack houses. It is not always that easy but we do the best that we can. He recommended giving the church an opportunity to work with the City to do the best that can be done as a society to ensure that all the needs that the community has and the City has as well, can be met and will be met. This is not another church that will come in to the area and do its own thing. This is a church that believes in emotional healing and assisting people in every area and walk of their lives. The church believes in working hand in hand with the community and providing services that will educate people and enable them to get back their self esteem, and stand up and be able to walk again. He asked the Board to take a stroll through the area particularly in the evening and one would be able to see some of the things that are going on over there. He stated that there are a few other churches in the area. One church is not enough for this area, and two, three or even four is not too many. He asked the Board to keep in mind that people get their instructions from all the other avenues in the City or in society. The kids are just by products of their environment and a lot of them are in low income homes. MTV and BET are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 12 raising the kids. He sees kids every day fighting over video games and cell phones. He sees the church being a positive thing in that community as it tries to help people to reprioritize their lives and recognize what is most important. What is most important is joy and happiness. A church in a community can provide just that. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval —April 5, 2005 Mr. Hollister moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of April 5, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). The minutes of April 5, 2005 were APPROVED w/corrections. Pg. 2, last para., 2"d line, delete "not". Pg. 9, 1st full para., 3rd line, "infect" s/b "affect". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair Mr. Czekai stated that the Committee met this evening at 6:00 p.m. and had a lengthy discussion on ACT-13-2003. The Committee agreed to table ACT-13-2003 to answer some questions regarding the history of what occurred. The Committee will deal with this case again at its next meeting. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 13 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. SLU-3-2005, 920 Townsend Street — GM Lansing Grand River Body Shop, Construction in the Flood Plain General Motors is requesting approval to permit the construction of a 12,900 square foot, 5-bay addition to the west side of the body shop building at 920 Townsend Street and an 84,674 square foot, 33-bay addition to the south side of the building at this same address. Only the east half the 33-bay addition is located in the 100 year floodplain. The west half is outside of this area and is therefore, not part of this SLU permit request. The proposed 5-bay building is located entirely within the 100 year floodplain of the Grand River. Both of the proposed additions will have finished floor elevations of 843.00, United States Goelogical Survey data, (U.S.G.S.) which is more than 10 feet above the base flood elevation of 832.3, U.S.G.S. data. Both the City and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality require that the first finished floor elevation be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. The proposed building additions will more than comply with this requirement. Section 1288.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Land Use permit for development in the floodplain on a parcel that is one-half acre or greater in size. The subject property is over 134 acres in size. No public hearing is required for a special land use floodplain permit. Staff recommended approval of the Special Land Use permit to construct a 12,900 square foot building addition to the west side of the existing building and an 84,674 square foot addition to the south side of the existing building at 920 Townsend Street, within the 100 year floodplain of the Grand River. Ms. Cordill stated that while one plant is being closed on MLK Jr. Blvd., this area is being expanded. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Ms. Bruch stated that it is obvious everything is out of the flood plain because there is as huge retaining wall and she inquired about the elevated pipe that is right along the fence edge. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure. Ms. Bruch stated that it would be interesting to know if it is still being used because it is an eye sore. She stated that if at PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 14 all possible because this property abuts the River Walk, maybe GM could have a chain link fence. She would like to see this area upgraded to a nice wooden fence to screen the whole property evenly, and maybe add a few benches. Mr. Frederick asked if this could be handled in the site plan review. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could. Mr. Frederick asked if it could be added as a recommendation to the motion. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since it is a special land use, it could be added as a condition. Mr. Ruge inquired about a vinyl fence, masonry or steel. Ms. Bruch stated that wood is a softer surface for pedestrians and is more pedestrian scale. It is a huge expanse of wall. She stated that it would be really cool if there was a wooden fence and have little historical facts about General Motors. There was a discussion regarding the length of the RiverTrail. Ms. Cordill asked about the area that would be screened. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would basically be the entire area that abuts the RiverTrail. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to add to the condition that if there is a huge expanse of fence, General Motors not be required to do it all at once. Ms. Bruch stated that GM could do it within the first year. Mr. Frederick stated it may take a while and that it sounds like it may be quite pricey. He is willing to allow GM some time to complete it. Ms. Stachowiak asked about a time frame (i.e. 6 months, 1 year). Ms. Cordill asked what would be reasonable. Ms. Stachowiak stated to give GM one year to allow them to complete some of the work. Mr. Rieske asked about phasing the work due to the expense or phasing the work due to the practicality of installing everything all at once. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be both. Mr. Rieske stated that if it is expense, the Board would want the time frame to be multi-year, and if it is not, the Board would want it to be multi-month. Ms. Stachowiak recommended the time frame be at least a year. Mr. Frederick accepted it. Mr. Ruge inquired about the benches and if they would be on the General Motors property or on the RiverTrail property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board cannot require GM to put anything on the RiverTrail property. Ms. Bruch stated that it would be great if there was access for the employees. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Ruge stated that the employees have very limited access. Ms. Bruch stated that if possible, provide access to the RiverTrail for the employees, and maybe GM could design something or be artistic with it. It could be a mural of the GM history. There was a discussion about the security aspect of having an entrance to the site from the RiverTrail. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve SLU-3-2005, 920 Townsend Street — GM Lansing Grand River Body Shop, Construction in the Flood Plain with the following conditions: 1) Within one year from the date of approval of this SLU, the existing fence be replaced, or screened from view of the rivertrail with a new fence constructed of wood or an aesthetically equivalent material for the entire length of the rivertrail on the subject property; 2) Barbed wire be prohibited on the fence; 3) Trees be added along the perimeter of the property; (4) The pipe along the retaining wall be removed, if no longer in use; and (5) Benches on the exterior side of the fence be added, if possible due to property restrictions. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). b. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Rieske introduced Ms. Angela Bennett, Budget Manager, Finance Department. Ms. Angela Bennett gave a brief overview regarding the City's budget. Mr. Hollister asked about what part of the CIP is the Board looking at (i.e. all aspects, General fund). Mr. Rieske stated that the Board's primary interest is the General fund and that the focus is on development with an interest in maintenance, more specifically with Public Service, Parks Department and Parking. Mr. Hollister asked what the Board's responsibility is with the CIP. Mr. Rieske stated that if the Board was to make a recommendation on the FY 06 Capital Improvements Budget, the recommendation should be made this evening. By Thursday, City Council will have made decisions about funding infrastructure. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board's interests have been to make sure that maintenance or reconstruction is being done, to make sure that certain projects are getting done and to make sure that certain priorities are being met. There are a few initiatives that the Board should be mindful of and make sure that City Council is aware of: 1) Corridor beautification, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 16 (2) Baker-Donora area, 3) Infrastructure 20 20, 4) Street and sidewalk improvements, and 5) Community character. Mr. Czekai stated that he does not feel comfortable voting in support of the Capital Improvements Program because he does not feel that the Board has had sufficient amount of time to review it thoroughly. Mr. Frederick stated that the points made are worthy of the Board's support. A discussion ensued regarding the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) project. Ms. Bennett stated that a lot of it is dictated by what needs to be done and is tied into the trunk lines. Mr. Frederick stated that perhaps what the Board should do is give support specifically to what Mr. Rieske presented and also request that the Board review some of the items that monies would be spent on. He stated that the Board is not so much concerned about the money being spent as much as the Board is concerned about what is done when spending it. Ms. Cordill stated that there is CSO work being done in her neighborhood and that the frontage road is one lane larger than the highway. With the residents who front the road, there could have been a greater buffer. She stated that this does not make sense. Mr. Ruge stated that the road is over built. Mr. Frederick stated that this is where the Board could give its input. Ms. Bruch inquired about how to encourage the departments to go in a direction where the Board wants them to go. Ms. Bennett stated that there have been discussions regarding how to coordinate communications between the different departments to prioritize things. Ms. Bennett stated that she did pass out the Capital Improvements Project narrative from the Public Service Department. She stated that one of the proposals submitted to City Council was to move some the capital type of items off the Parks Department budget. The projects seen listed under the Parks and Recreation Department could very well change. Mr. Rieske stated that he met with Ms. Bennett within the first week or two after she began working with the City to discuss the Capital Improvements Program. They shared philosophies on how Capital Improvements should be planned and what the program should look like. He stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 17 that the Board heard last year the Budget office's interest in a "systems approach" which the Board shares, but the Board also has an interest in geography and community character. Mr. Frederick asked if this could be included in some way with the Board's recommendation this evening. Mr. Rieske summed up the key points: • Maintenance of community character • Geographical information not just systems • Visible projects • Street trees, possibly as part of corridor beautification • 4 projects Ms. Cordill stated that the Board would like to be more proactive on CIP items. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the Capital Improvements Program. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. SLU-3-2005, 920 Townsend Street— GM Lansing Grand River Body Shop, Construction in the Flood Plain General Motors is requesting approval to permit the construction of a 12,900 square foot, 5-bay addition to the west side of the body shop building at 920 Townsend Street and an 84,674 square foot, 33-bay addition to the south side of the building at this same address. Only the east half the 33-bay addition is located in the 100 year floodplain. The west half is outside of this area and is therefore, not part of this SLU permit request. The proposed 5-bay building is located entirely within the 100 year floodplain of the Grand River. Both of the proposed additions will have finished floor elevations of 843.00, United States Goelogical Survey data, (U.S.G.S.) which is more than 10 feet above the base flood elevation of 832.3, U.S.G.S. data. Both the City and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality require that the first finished floor elevation be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. The proposed building additions will more than comply with this requirement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 18 Section 1288.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Land Use permit for development in the floodplain on a parcel that is one-half acre or greater in size. The subject property is over 134 acres in size. No public hearing is required for a special land use floodplain permit. Staff recommended approval of the Special Land Use permit to construct a 12,900 square foot building addition to the west side of the existing building and an 84,674 square foot addition to the south side of the existing building at 920 Townsend Street, within the 100 year floodplain of the Grand River. In Committee of the Whole, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Within one year from the date of approval of this SLU, the existing fence be replaced, or screened from view of the rivertrail with a new fence constructed of wood or an aesthetically equivalent material for the entire length of the rivertrail on the subject property; 2. Barbed wire be prohibited on the fence; 3. Trees be added along the perimeter of the property; 4. The pipe along the retaining wall be removed, if no longer in use; and 5. Benches on the exterior side of the fence be added, if possible due to property restrictions; and the motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of SLU-3-2005, 920 Townsend Street— GM Lansing Grand River Body Shop, Construction in the Flood Plain. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Czekai asked if the Board's concerns regarding being proactive were included. Ms. Cordill stated that the Board wants to be proactive. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 19 Mr. Czekai abstained from the motion. Mr. Frederick stated that he would have to vote. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Program. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Keene . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Hollister . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 1; the motion carried. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Report from Planning Manager— None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) i. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004) I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16, 2004) M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 20 n. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005) Mr. Frederick stated that under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, item 1 b, the application by the church is now being reviewed as SLU-2-2005 and should be stricken from the pending items. He stated that it may be helpful to have a report from the special land use so that the rest of the Board would better understand what happened with the request. With item 5i, Mr. Frederick stated that weeds have been mowed and that it looks a lot nicer. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to push the issue of red tagged houses and what the Board can do about it. She also would like to get the City entrance zones established so that it can be taken up at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. She inquired about the age of the mural at 719 E. Grand River Avenue, proposed church in the "Alamo" building, and whether there is some historical interest for the City. She asked if would be worthwhile for someone to take a look at it. Mr. Ruge asked if it was new construction. Mr. Frederick stated that when the building was being rehabbed, an old wall was torn down and behind the wall was a Hispanic style mural. The mural features Aztec motif and had some religious icons. The owner was quite surprised because it was a brick wall and it was originally going to be sand blasted. He stated that there may have been a little rehab done to the mural and that it was quite something. Mr. Hollister stated that the mural was beautiful and that it was the mid 70s when it went up. Mr. Rieske stated that the bare minimum technique for preserving historical resources that are destined for demolition is recordation. Ms. Bruch stated that if it is a famous artist, it might be worthwhile for some museum to take it out of there. Mr. Frederick stated that the mural is huge. Mr. Rieske stated that what can be done is take digital photos of it. Ms. Bruch stated that it would be worthwhile to find out the name of the artist and whether it is something of value. Mr. Frederick stated that maybe it could be brought to the attention of the Historic District Committee. Ms. Cordill stated that one route would be the Historic District Commission and she is not sure if the commission has purvue into the interior of a building. She stated that the other route may be the Greater Lansing Historical Society and that they may be able to provide information about the mural. Ms. Bruch stated that may be the MSU Art department. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2005 Page 21 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Hollister stated that at Bad Habits located on the corner of Pleasant Grove and Holmes Road there are cigarette and alcohol signs plastered all over the entire corner. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to see Code Compliance involved. Bad Habits has been brought up numerous times in the past. Mr. Frederick stated this is why the Board asked to have Code Compliance at a meeting because then the Board can discuss red tagging houses and sign enforcement. Ms. Bruch asked to have this scheduled within the next month. Mr. Frederick stated that 704 S. Clemens Street has mini bikes, four boats and one snowmobile which are all for sale and it looks like it has been turned into a flea market. There are "For Sale" signs all over and that his has been going on for several weeks. Ms. Cordill stated that the portable sign at 727 N. Capitol Street has not been listed yet under pending items. Mr. Frederick stated that the sign on the side of the semi trailer is not listed either. Mr. Rieske stated that he will have Ms. Stachowiak look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, dames A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.050305.doc Approved as written 7-5-05 Draft to Clerk May 31,2005 Approved July 5,2005 To Clerk July 7,2005 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 19, 2005 ` 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. t-• A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Keene, Czekai, Hollister, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: None. Ms. Bruch stated that there has been a change to the agenda and that SLU-1-2005 has been postponed because the Planning Office is waiting for decisions from the City's Law Office. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the amended agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Ms. Betsy Bigsby, representative of the Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA) and Main Street Program, located at 1232 Turner Street, stated that the OTCA and the Old Town community have nothing against the Red Cedar Friends moving to and building a meeting house in Old Town. They are welcome in the area. Having a diverse neighborhood is part of Old Town's mission statement and this development would add to this diversity. The OTCA does support the development at a location that is not close to the commercial corridor. The OTCA's concern is about future development. Future business and festivals can be impacted by the Friends development. Future liquor licenses are part of the concern but the Friends development could also affect developer and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 2 business owner interests in the area fearing future road blocks to creating the arts and entertainments district the OTCA has been striving to create. The OTCA, City of Lansing and several other organizations have actively worked to help fund projects and programs in the Old Town area for nearly a decade. This area is currently difficult to develop and the OTCA is concerned with any development that could slow down the momentum that so many organizations and individuals have helped create. She stated that the OTCA would support the Red Cedar Friends development in a different location in Old Town. Ms. Mary Roszel, resident at 1335 Turner Street, stated that she has lived at this residence for three and a half years. She does not believe that it is in the best interest of Old Town Old Lansing to approve this special land use permit. As a home owner in Old Town she would rather see the property developed for other homes or condominiums. A lot of people have believed and invested in Old Town. Although this group says that it will not hinder the development of Old Town, what about five years from now when the current people involved are gone or are no longer active and the new members have forgotten what was promised or have different goals. There was a conflict in the past between the Temple Club and the church that almost prevented a million dollar development. By default, this could prevent further entertainment development (i.e. theater that served alcohol during intermissions). Letting a special land use permit be approved is risky for the growth of Old Town. Also, Lansing needs to increase its tax base and not allow more properties to become tax exempt. There must be other properties in the City that are already tax exempt that this church could development. Mr. Kevin Green, Director of the Lansing Principle Shopping District located at 309 N. Washington Square, stated that the PSD's northern most boundary of the district is the 1310 N. Turner Street property which abuts the property in question here. The PSD Board of Directors supports the OTCA stance on this issue. The PSD does not have a problem with the Friends group locating in Old Town or any where within Lansing. Considerable effort has been put forth by citizens, business owners, property owners and the City of Lansing to really develop Old Town. He stated that Old Town is the artist and cultural jewel and heart of the City and he does not believe that anyone could deny that. The PSD Board of Directors is concerned that a religious organization might, at some point in time, impede future development of the heart of the cultural community, and this is the reason he is here today. He stated that he is not currently a resident of the City but the Quakers have met in the Bailey neighborhood in East Lansing where he has lived for quite some time in two different locations within walking distance of his residence. He stated that they have been incredible neighbors in that respect. At the same time, it is not a commercial district. It is a residential neighborhood. He is here to support the OTCA's stance on this issue on behalf of the PSD Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Bruce Turner, Operations Manager of Romanow Building Services, located at 527 E. Grand River and President of the Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA), stated that OTCA is opposed to the proposed development and that to a certain degree, this represents somewhat of a paradox. The pulse of Old Town has always been an idea that has been based upon diversity and inclusiveness and this is part of the charm of where the OTCA loves to do business, and where Romanow Building Services and most of the folks present either do business or work. As an organization that represents a business, he stated that it would seem logical that businesses would want to stimulate economic growth. He does not see the OTCA's position as diverging from either of those two precepts. The OTCA really welcomes the Red Cedar Friends group to the Old Town neighborhood. The OTCA does understand why this organization would want to be a part of Old Town. The OTCA's position is not that it wants to exclude the Red Cedar Friends group from being a part of the Old Town area but rather welcomes the group. The OTCA understands that the group spent a considerable amount of time searching for this location. It is his position as President of the OTCA that he can offer assistance to the Red Cedar Friends group in finding another suitable location within Old Town that would not directly abut the central business district. He stated that Old Town has become an arts and entertainment district. The OTCA does not in any way question the Red Cedar Friends intention or veracity at this location. He stated that with everyone present and no matter where someone stands on the issue, organizations and positions of people and leadership do change over time. As the OTCA looks ahead to expand as an arts and entertainment district, it sees that the potential exists for this to become a problem in the future. The OTCA is opposed to the proposed development. Ms. Laura Millard, resident of 206 E. Grand River, stated that she is a resident and a volunteer in the Old Town area, and welcomes the Red Cedar Friends' interest in the neighborhood. She would like to urge them to find a location that is not it the heart of the commercial district. She presented a petition that was signed by over 120 residents, property owners, employees and patrons of Old Town, and was gathered over three days. She read the petition aloud. She thanked the Board for considering Old Town's position and recognizing the concerns for the future of Old Town. She stated that Old Town knows that the continued revitalization of the district is important to everyone. She presented copies of the petition to the Board. Mr. Chad Web, resident of 1300 Shiawassee Street and representative of Mr. Tom Donall, stated that it is fantastic that the Red Cedar Friends group is looking at Old Town. It is a wonderful community and neighborhood. He believes that part of the reason why it is a wonderful community is because it has fantastic businesses and an actual thriving night life; something that Lansing desperately needs. He just returned from Chicago and he grew up in Ovid. He stated that Old Town is a place that reminds him of some neighborhoods in Chicago and he stated that it is just really important and that it would be a shame to lose it. He PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 4 has some grave concerns regarding the Friends development being so close to a business and residential neighborhood. Mr. Terry Terry, President of the Old Town Business and Art Development Association (OTBADA) located at 1208 Turner Street, stated that OTBADA introduced the Jazz Fest and Blues Fest, and he also has a business in Old Town and owns other properties as well. The biggest concern the OTBADA has is with the Jazz and Blues Fest. When the OTBADA completes applications for permission to have a liquor license on the street, that one has to be more than 500 feet away from a church to be able to have these events. The OTBADA's concern is that the events would no longer be able to happen and he is not sure how to get around this. The OTBADA would not want to have to go through additional requests for permission every year and every time there is an event. He stated that it is great that the Friends group wants to be in the Old Town area and if there could be some way to have that happen it would be wonderful. Ms. Regina Bell, resident of 1339 Turner Street, stated that one of the things that is critical to her and other residents in the area is economic development, and with the festivals that are currently held in the area, the residents want to be sure that it is a community that is welcoming. She stated that at the same time the issue of having a liquor license within 500 feet has the potential for creating all types of problems in the future. Mr. Terrance O'Connor II, stated that he has seen Old Town go through a lot of changes and that the people have worked hard and spent a lot of hours to get Old Town to where it is currently. The festivals are held in Old Town because there is no where else to put them. The City does not have a water front like Seattle, Washington, which is a problem. The only other thing is the park that holds the auto show every now and then, which really does not work out. No one wants to keep the Friends group from having their church but yet the City cannot keep employees and business owners from doing business especially after the City has spent so many years revitalizing Old Town. He stated that it does not make sense and that a simple solution would be just to amend the law. No more meetings; just go to the State and amend the law. Ms. Valerie Shoppell, resident of 318 W. Grand River, Apt. 34, stated that she works at the Temple Club and she hopes to provide a different perspective. When she started working at the Temple Club two and a half years ago, she had no idea what Old Town was. It was simply a place where she went to work. Through this, it has shown her all the different life styles (i.e. music festivals) that are in Old Town and she decided to become a resident there. Old Town has continued to thrive. She has played in bands that have played in the Blues festival and it has brought her friends and so many people to the area and gave them a chance to see the Old Town that she loves. She described the problems that the Temple Club had in getting its liquor license. Mr. Sam Johnson, resident of 213 W. Kilborn, stated that he is an employee in Old Town at the Temple Club and a founding member of the Old Town Blues PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 5 Band which played in the Old Town Blues Festival. He stated that it would be a shame if any of this is lost. Ms. Rhonda Hodges, resident of 201 E. North Street, stated that she is a volunteer for the Old Town festival and that she opposes the location selected by the Red Cedar Friends group. Part of the reason she moved to Old Town was to make it a destination point. With the help of grants and the efforts of so many people, the goal has been to make Old Town a destination for folks of all different communities to participate in and be a part of. She believes that this is taking a step backwards from that direction. Mr. Michael Ware, resident of 119 E. Grand River, stated that he is one of the six people who purchased the original Estes Furniture building and renovated it to loft style apartments and retail space downstairs. He has been a resident in Old Town since 1997 and he understands first hand how difficult it is to get people into the area. Once they are there, they love it and do not want to leave. The specific location that the Friends have requested is within the 500 foot radius and includes so many properties that have become open and Old Town would like to have the ability to try to get as many different types of businesses in there as possible. The Friends group is welcome to the community but with this specific location, he is afraid that it will impede this area and slow things down. It would be very detrimental to small businesses. The Friends group is welcome to the Old Town area but not at this location. Ms. Joann Newroth, resident of 219 Virginia Street, stated that she is a long time Lansing resident and loves Old Town. She has been an employee in Old Town and is an enthusiastic attendee at the Blues and Jazz Festival and the October Fest events. She is a Quaker and is the Clerk of the Red Cedar Friends Meeting. She has been listening very carefully tonight and would like to say to the folks she hopes to be neighbors with them someday. The Red Cedar Friends Meeting is looking forward to continuing discussions about how they can be in Old Town without impeding, slowing down or stifling the atmosphere. The Red Cedar Friends Meeting would like to help grow this arts and entertainment spirit. Ms. Karen Stefl, business owner of 111 E. Grand River and Representative of the Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA) Board of Directors, stated that some of the things that really stand out to her are the sense of community; a huge sense of being inclusive and open-mindedness that exist in Old Town. From her point of view, there really is room for everyone and that is part of what is really important about community. Everyone works together to find solutions that work for everyone. She stands for making sure that anybody who wants to come into Old Town really understands that the OTCA wants to create a feeling and sense of community where everybody benefits but where there is real workability to make sure that the things that have already happened in Old Town continue to prosper while other businesses find a way to cultivate their businesses as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Matt Fisher, Broker and Owner of Capital City Real Estate and Atlas Home Mortgage located at 302 E. Grand River, stated that when there is a zoning change of any form that would involve real estate and commercial interests, his current clients and his own personal investments, he has a great deal of concern with what the ramifications of a zoning change could be. If it involves a commercial district which may be introducing an element of such close proximity to some current night time/evening entertainment uses, this would pose a great danger to the current owners and people who have invested in these districts when the zoning may be changed, thereby jeopardizing their ability to continue operations. Or, at some point if this law is going to affect the ability of these current liquor license holders to be able to transfer their licenses, the City may be rendering businesses that have a great deal of worth virtually worthless if at some point in the future an entity has the power to veto opposes their liquor license transfer or the continued operations. He recommended that the Board take this into consideration as it deals with a number of entities who have a great deal of monies invested in the City and have made a commitment to be in a district for revitalization. He stated that he moved his business recently from the Okemos area to Old Town specifically so that his company could be a part of the night life, entertainment and festivals. To see these go away, would definitely have the potential to take away something that was a great draw for him as a business owner. Mr. Fred Hammond stated that he is a resident, landlord, property owner, investor and developer in the Old Town area, and has been there for approximately seven years. He has personally invested a few hundred thousand dollars into the area. Speaking from experience, he knows what attracts people to the Old Town area, what works and does not work financially, and what deters people from the Old Town area. When looking at special use permits, he stated that there also needs to be consideration for the best uses of the property. The proposed development is an outstanding idea and it is needed in so many parts of Old Town and in Lansing. He stated that it is not the best use for this particular parcel. He is opposed to the special land use permit because it does not meet the requirement of best use. Old Town needs the church and its development but not on this particular piece of land. He stated that there are better used for this piece of land. He stated that there has been a lot of conversation back and forth about liquor licenses and trying to work it out. As everyone knows, the liquor laws are controlled by the State of Michigan and there is no document, agreement, addendum, or anything that the church, City of Lansing, or the Old Town people can agree to that can supercede State law. As the Board does its due diligence on exploring all the ramifications of this proposal, he asked the Board to go to the State of Michigan to obtain an opinion from them on how to deal with this situation. He does not believe that there is any legal remedy to the problems that have been voiced this evening. Without going to the State of Michigan, we are missing part of our due diligence on this particular matter. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 7 He does not believe that this is the best use for this piece of property. There are so many other places that would welcome this church including in Old Town. Given the current situation, he asked the Board to deny the special permit. Ms. Annette Belanger, resident of 1361 Turner Street and employee at Capital City Real Estate and Atlas Home Mortgage, stated that she starting working in Old Town in June and the reason she was drawn to the area was because of the Blues Festival and the community. In August, she chose to make Old Town her residence. She sees the growth in this area, likes what she sees and does not want it inhibited. Mr. John Kodeski, business owner of Relish, located 208 E. Grand River, stated that he is opposed to the church development and that in the long run it will jeopardize Old Town's revitalization and growth. He and his partner own some buildings in Old Town and he owns the building that houses his business. If he was to move his store to another location, it would then be in the 500 feet proximity area which could jeopardize his business in expanding if he were to have a liquor license in his store. At his current location, he has a pending liquor license to sell wine and beer but this is not within the 500 feet distance. If he was to plan on in the future of expanding his business to a larger location, in the current building or even to another location on Turner Street, it would impede any future growth. His passion in Old Town would be just to keep this type of establishment a further distance so that the core of Old Town could be kept exciting and vibrant. Mr. David Such, business owner in Old Town, stated that he has been in the area since 1999 and has seen the area go from a ghost town up to a vibrant and very vital area for the City of Lansing. He is opposed to the rezoning of the property. Ms. Hazel Hotwagner, business owner of Haze, Inc. located at 1608 Comfort Street, stated that she has lived on the edges of Old Town for 15 years. In the past six years she has seen the area grow and go from a neighborhood that was quite scary to a neighborhood that she is more than happy to bring her children to. She is concerned with her business expanding in the next three years, and is afraid of what this development might do to her ideas of expanding and what it could do to other young entrepreneurs who want to move into the area. This development may prohibit a lot of really good businesses from moving into the area that Old Town could otherwise use. Ms. Aura Ozburn, resident on East Grand River and owner of October Moon located at 1209 Turner Street, stated that she is absolutely opposed to the land use permit and she reinforces the welcome of anyone into Old Town. However, she believes that this piece of land will be ill-used if permission is given. Ms. Megan Andres, realtor with Capital City Real Estate located at 302 E. Grand River, stated that she is opposed to the rezoning of this particular parcel. She has helped many local residents relocate to this area who have moved to Old PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 8 Town specifically because of the thriving night life and what is available to them. She would hate to see Old Town lose that and lose the young population that seems to be moving back to the downtown area. With the Neighborhood Enterprize Zone (NEZ) programs, she believes that it helps this area by offering lower taxes to residents in the neighborhood. She does not believe that this is going to help this specific factor. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — (Minutes will be presented for consideration at a later date) B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District SLU-1-2005 has been tabled because the Planning Office is awaiting decisions from the City's Law Office. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Lot Standards In Committee, Ms. Stachowiak reviewed the agency comments. The Committee decided not to increase the number of parking spaces that could be installed without being interrupted by a landscape island as recommended by Parks and Recreation. The Committee also decided to leave the required landscape island width at 10 feet rather than reducing it to 5 feet as recommended by Transportation. The Committee decided that the ordinance should be changed to allow more time for compliance with the hardsurfacing requirement since the asphalt companies are closed between November 15tn and March 15tn In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the research she did online shows that this is a product and not a brand name. Ms. Foster wondered if that was a possibility. If everyone is calling it grass crete then it is just grass crete as a product. Ms. Cordill inquired about why the Committee stayed with 10 feet for a landscape island as opposed to a narrower island. Ms. Foster stated that 5 feet by 5 feet is too narrow for a tree and that 8 feet is the minimum for an ideal tree. She stated that the Committee preferred to give the island a wider dimension so that the trees would do better. Ms. Cordill inquired about the ordinance on the third page in Sections 1284.23 and asked about defining a landscape island or what comprises a landscape island. She asked if someone could throw grass seed down and call it a landscape island. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the individual would still have to provide the plant materials and that there are a certain amount of plant materials required in the landscape island. The ordinance states that the landscape islands have to be protected by concrete curbs. Mr. Frederick read the ordinance requirements. Ms. Cordill inquired about if the materials had to be defined. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it does not really matter as long as it has the required amount of trees and that it has never come up as an issue. Ms. Bruch stated that if the applicant is meeting the tree requirement then that would be where the tree would go. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff could interpret the ordinance and if someone disagrees, then it can go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to address rocks in the ordinance. Ms. Bruch stated that they can be pretty nice depending on how they are used. Mr. Frederick stated that rocks are extremely difficult to walk on and they always end up being spread all over the place. He stated that a lot of places do not take care of their landscaping and islands and rocks of any size end up being spread around in the parking lot especially if these islands will be used to plow snow on to them in the winter time. The snow plows will push the rocks all over too. He does not have a problem with rock borders but using rocks as the ground cover just does not seem to work very well and is extremely difficult to walk on. One of his reasons for wanting the 10 foot width for the islands to remain is that it would also give pedestrians room to walk through the parking lot. Ms. Bruch asked if it would be better to say that a pedestrian path must be made of suitable PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 10 material. Mr. Frederick stated that would be nice too but he would still like to ban rocks. Ms. Stachowiak stated that mulch would probably be used instead of grass. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like the appropriate pedestrian walk way and that this is a good idea. Ms. Bruch stated that the Frandor area only has just rocks and it is a ridiculous thing to walk through because there is no sidewalk and it is wide enough that a pedestrian path should have been put in there. She stated that landscaped rocks can be very nice, be accented, be something that is actually very beautiful to look at and be functional. Ms. Bruch stated that the pedestrian path is needed and is something to add. Mr. Ruge asked how the pedestrian path would work. Ms. Bruch stated that it depends on the design of the parking lot and which should be a site review thing where if the island is facing the building then there could easily be a sidewalk in the middle with trees on the side. If the island will be in the opposite direction then this would not make sense. There could be places where pedestrians could cross it and there could be small sidewalks across it rather than the length of it. Mr. Frederick stated that he is confident that staff would make the appropriate decision for the type of pedestrian walk way that would be needed. He stated that the walk way would depend on the design of the parking lot and he is not sure if the Board can be technical enough to cover all eventualities in the ordinance. Ms. Bruch stated that the walk way would be where appropriate, a pedestrian path of appropriate materials so that it would have flexibility. Ms. Cordill stated that a good example would be the at the Hannah Community Center where there are some paths and that it is a pretty deep parking lot. There are sidewalks that follow it and there are a few verticals to bring the pedestrians to the building. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Lot Standards. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 11 C. Amendments To The Sign Code In Committee, Ms. Stachowiak reviewed the Law Office comment noting that the amendment will make the sign code consistent with federal constitutional rulings regarding political signs. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Lot Standards. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Ave Keene Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Mr. Hollister called a Point of Order and stated that the Committee report does not convey the difference of opinion that was present during the Committee meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the content of the Committee reports. The overall consensus was to include the spirit of the discussion in the Committee reports. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. a. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Rieske handed out a spread sheet to each Board member regarding the Capital Improvements items for FY 2006. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Rieske introduced Ms. Angela Bennett, Budget Manager, Finance Department. Ms. Angela Bennett gave a brief overview regarding the City's budget. Ms. Bruch asked about receiving updated information before the next Board meeting. Ms. Bennett stated that she may not have the updated information until the first half of next week. She can provide the numbers for sure by the end of the week. Mr. Rieske asked if the information presented tonight is something that should be acted upon tonight. Ms. Bennett stated that since the Board meets every two weeks maybe she can return at that time to discuss it. Ms. Bruch stated that if Ms. Bennett could provide the updated information for the Board to review before its next meeting, hopefully at that time the Board could generate some questions. Ms. Bennett stated that she needs to provide the Board with the six year plan and that at this point the focus has been on the FY 2006 budget. Mr. Hollister asked when the fiscal year starts. Ms. Bennett stated that the fiscal year starts July Vt. Mr. Hollister inquired about what action would be taken on the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board is taking action on the CIP schedule ultimately for a six year period. Initially, the Board can take action on the FY 2006 and deal with the remaining years at a later time. He stated that the Board should be taking action on all six years. Ms. Bruch stated that one of the things she would like to see is the whole budget because it would be good for the Board to decide what are the priorities for the City as well. It would be good to understand some of those priorities and why the City is doing certain things rather than others. Mr. Rieske stated that this is something that the members have tried to review during the Urban Development Committee and have it reflected in the Committee recommendation. Mr. Rieske suggested that the CIP information be segmented, by keeping the other six years in context but perhaps not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 13 actually acting upon them without doing some of the details. Ms. Bruch asked if this would be done by the full Board at the next meeting and not during Committee. Mr. Rieske stated that staff will need to regroup and present its findings to the Board. Mr. McConnell asked if the information would also be presented at the Urban Develoment Committee like it has been done in the past. Mr. Rieske stated staff will need to review the information and find out what can be presented. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to table the Capital Improvements Program. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). Ms. Bruch stated that the Capital Improvements Program will be taken up, if possible, at the next Urban Development Committee. Otherwise, it will go before the next Planning Board meeting. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Report from Planning Manager— None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) h. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 14 i. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16,2004) M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004) n. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Bruch inquired about areas with red tagged homes and what the procedure would be for them. Mr. Rieske stated that the red tagged homes are tagged because they are uninhabitable for some reason. Ms. Bruch asked if the owners are fined because the homes are uninhabitable and what the procedure would be to bring the homes back to healthy properties in a fairly reasonable amount of time. Mr. Frederick stated that it does not ever get done in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. McConnell stated that the homes are red tagged for various reasons (i.e. fire, electrical, no railing going down a steps, rickety steps going up to a home, roof). The Code Compliance Office does fine the owners and tries to do due diligence. There are not enough Code Compliance officers to do the work and do follow ups. They do the best that they can do. He stated that as far as timeliness, there are letters sent giving the owners a time frame. If a house is red tagged, there are so many days until its final, maybe 30 days. He stated that Virg Benero and other legislatures, even the Governor and the Mayor, are trying to pass legislation so that there is a time limit (i.e. 3 months, 6 months). If the improvements have not been completed, the City can take the property. He stated that this legislation has not been passed yet and is currently in the House. Mr. Frederick stated that the due process of a red tagged house being taken from its original red tag to destruction can take as long as 2 to 3 years, and that it is the due process that slows things down. Mr. Rieske suggested having someone from the Code Compliance Office come before the Board to discuss this matter at a later date. He stated that the Code Compliance Office's emphasis is not to demolish these houses but rather bring them back up to code. Mr. Frederick asked if someone from the Code Compliance Office could come before the Board and be prepared to address sign ordinance enforcement as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 15 Mr. McConnell stated that his company and other investors are purchasing every red tagged home possible and remodeling them. There are a lot of realtors and developers who are buying these houses. He and his associates have purchased over 50 red tagged homes in the last year and have remodeled them beautifully. Ms. Bruch stated that if someone from the Code Compliance Office comes before the Board she would like to see what ideas are available for the Board to do something about the getting these homes back up to code and making the due process happen in a more timely manner. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Czekai stated that when he first joined the Board understanding where other members come from was difficult for him. He proposed that within the next month that the Board come together outside of Chambers for some type of retreat, and he would be willing to host it in his office building. He stated that this would be an opportunity to discuss some of these items (i.e. Committee report contents, review logistical aspects, discuss why certain items should be approved or denied), and just have a free flowing conversation. He stated that this would be a good opportunity to discuss any future work plans. There have been struggles in the past and discussions seem to drag on during meetings. Mr. McConnell asked if food and beverages would be provided. Mr. Czekai stated that he would provide the food and beverages. Mr. Hollister recommended that the Board members go to the Lugnuts Stadium. Ms. Keene has a concern with it being an open meeting and the Board was discussing business. She asked if notices would need to be posted so that people are aware of it. Ms. Bruch asked for Mr. Rieske to figure out what the logistics are and make sure that the Board is not violating Board rules. Mr. Frederick stated he hopes everyone appreciates the irony of the well on the Police Department's firing range being contaminated with lead. Mr. McConnell stated that he is on the Race and Diversity Board for the City of Lansing and it is hosting a 2005 Fair Housing and Housing Issues Conference this Saturday, April 23� , from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Lansing Center. The conference is free to the public and there will be free food and beverages and door prizes. The conference will cover the "How To" of purchasing a home and not being discriminated against. Mr. McConnell stated that there is another Board he serves on that is having its celebration on June16, 17, and 18. On June 16, the celebration will be on the front steps of the Capital building. On June 17 and 18, it will be held at St. Joe Park on the west side of Lansing. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2005 Page 16 Ms. Keene stated that she is moving to East Lansing and will no longer be on the Board as of June 30, 2005. Her term also expires in June. Ms. Bruch stated that her class is presenting the Baker-Donora visions for the neighborhood on Thursday, April 28, at the Focus Center at 5:30 p.m. There will be a barbeque and it is open to the public. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Cordill stated that she still questions the sign at 727 N. Capitol and that there is supposed to be a 30-day limit on a portable sign. Mr. Ruge stated that at 400 Allen Street, the owner remodeled the home, took out all the windows and put in small port holes. He does not believe that it meets the egress requirements. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.041905.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk April 26,2005 PG 2,last para.,2"d line,delete"not";PG 9, 15t full para.,3`d line,"infect"s/b"affect" Approved May 3,2005 To Clerk May 6.2005 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD > 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers a Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 5, 2005 ` 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Bruch, Keene. D. Absent: None. Mr. Rieske stated that there are not enough members for a quorum and therefore the Board can only take public comments. A quorum was reached when Mr. McConnell arrived during the Public Hearing section of SLU-1-2005. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Bruch for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Keene for the tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Position statement on "Special Friends" from Red Cedar Friends Meeting B. Letter of opposition from Mr. Ken Schulz, Esquire Bar, regarding SLU-1-2005 C. Letter of concern from Ms. Cynthia M. Dennis regarding SLU-1-2005 D. Letter of opposition from Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA) regarding SLU-1-2005 E. Letter of concern from Mr. Thomas J. Donall regarding SLU-1-2005 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 2 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by the Red Cedar Friends Meeting (Quakers), for a Special Land Use permit to construct a worship building (church) on the vacant property located directly north of 1310 Turner Street. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a difference in the City of Lansing ordinance and the State of Michigan law regarding liquor licenses and one of the items requested by the Board was to have the City Attorney amend the City ordinance to match the State law. He has not heard whether or not this was changed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was her understanding that this has been changed and she will look into the matter to see if it was finalized. Mr. Czekai asked about staff recommendations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that recommendations are not normally given at public hearings. This is usually given at the Committee meetings when staff prepares the full report. Ms. Cordill inquired about how many people will attend worship service. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not know the answer but the applicant is present and may be able to address this. Mr. David Castro, 901 Bessemaur Drive, East Lansing, stated that the attendance capacity ranges from 35 to 50 people, including children. On Sunday, the church meets at 12:30 p.m. He stated that the building that will be constructed will not have any religious ornamentation on it and that this is not part of their religious practice. The intent would be to have the building reflect the style and heritage of Old Town, if they can do it. One of the neighbors who used to occupy the building on the north side, Mr. Robert Morris, used to have heritage green houses. In conversations with him, he has offered to help in the design process so that maybe the building could reflect Old Town style traditions. Mr. Hollister asked if Mr. Castro considered alternative locations. Mr. Castro stated that alternative locations were flet considered and that in the process of focusing in on this particular location, the church has surveyed approximately 75 to 100 different opportunities, both empty lots and existing buildings. The original intent was to occupy an existing building and rehabilitate it. The church looked at several vacant buildings in Old Town but they were not available. At this point, this is where a six PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 3 year process has zeroed in on this particular lot in Old Town. This lot has become available to the church. Mr. Czekai asked why this area and why right in the heart of Old Town where there are so many entertainment venues and festivals going on that, in his opinion, would be very disturbing to the meetings held and the worshiping time. He asked what was the driving force for this area. Mr. Castro stated that the members have been in East Lansing for 40 or more years and one of the concerns they have is being able to be in a community that has a lot of diversity. The members are interested in being in a community where they can have an impact in terms of the kind of social concerns that the members have. They believe that they can add to the community. He stated that the Old Town area is very vibrant and that was part of the deciding factor. He and his wife were recently at the Creole Gallery. Members of their meeting have participated in fund raisers and social events in Old Town, and are very familiar with the area. The members would like to help in the revitalization of this area. Mr. Czekai asked what Mr. Castro meant by social concerns. Mr. Castro stated that part of the traditional Quaker testimonies is in regards to peace. Last year the Quaker meeting was responsible for bringing the exhibit Eyes Wide Open to the Capitol steps. Over 1,000 military boots were on exhibit. This is what they brought to the community. The members also have social concerns (i.e. inequalities, poverties, and needs of the people) that they would like to address. Ms. Cordill stated that for the record Mr. McConnell has arrived and given that there are 5 members, the Board now has a quorum. Mr. Fred Hammond, resident of 111 E. Grand River, Old Town, and representative for the Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA), stated that there are a few issues that he would like to address. He stated that the OTCA opposes this change and that it is very difficult because OTCA tries to welcome people into the community. There are a few problems here and it all centers around the liquor license. He understands that the church has made the offer to not exercise this right but it is the understanding of the OTCA that it is not up to the church to concede this right. This is a provision that the State of Michigan has set up, whether it is State code or State law. In addition, the City of Lansing has a say in the matter. As gracious as the church's offer is, the OTCA does not think that it legally supercedes State regulation on the subject. To truly satisfy the OTCA's requirement, the church not getting in the way of a future liquor license, the OTCA would need permission or authorization from the State of Michigan and the City of Lansing stating that the church or any occupant of this property would not have the authority to intervene in a future liquor license. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Hammond stated that he understands that there is an appeal process. However, it is a very lengthy and expensive legal procedure to go through the appeals process. The OTCA sees this as a potential deterrent for future endeavors (i.e. restaurant, night club) in Old Town that may need a liquor license, including festivals which are an important part of the community. He stated that for the record, the OTCA opposes this request because of the ability for the future occupants of this lot to impose upon liquor licenses and for the current occupant to waive those rights, the OTCA does not believe this is valid. If these concerns could be removed, then the OTCA would certainly welcome the church or any other occupant to the Old Town area. Ms. Cordill gave the scenario of this church being in the area for three years and decided to move on and sell the property. If another congregation was looking at the property and a request for a liquor license had come up and then the property was sold, she asked if the liquor license would be grandfathered in. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Richard Barnes, resident of 1329 Turner Street, stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed site, and that if the church was located another block down, it would be welcomed with open arms to the community. He has the same concerns as Old Town Main Street Association as to how this could impact the festivals and future liquor licenses. He stated that Old Town is a vital and growing area and that it needs evening dining establishments that would require liquor licenses. Mr. Czekai asked if Mr. Barnes was from the Tenant Association. Mr. Barnes stated that he is a member of the Condo Board Association. Ms. Cynthia Dennis, resident of 1345 Turner Street, stated that she arrived late and she was not sure if the Board received her written comments. She just wanted to be sure that her comments went on record. Ms. Cordill stated that the Board did receive her comments and she asked if Ms. Dennis wanted to highlight anything from her comments. Ms. Dennis stated that her comments mirror those that have already been expressed regarding further commercial development in Old Town as well as maintaining festivals that take place on Turner Street. Ms. Susan Waltz, resident of 202 E. Riverside Street, Williamston, stated that she is a member of the Red Cedar Quaker Meeting and that it is their practice to have a monthly meeting for business where everyone assembles to speak about items of business. They have discussed amongst themselves the concern that might arise regarding the use of alcohol even on their property and what it would mean for them to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 5 neighbors in Old Town with the street fairs that many of us love and enjoy. Many of them look forward to the possibility of eating at restaurants after their worship services on Sunday. The meeting has developed a statement that they believe has been forwarded to the Board but their potential neighbors may not have heard. Ms. Waltz stated that their position statement on special rights is this: "We are mindful of the destructive impact that overuse of alcohol can have on people's lives. As with most churches, we seek to assist in healing people and families suffering from alcohol addiction and its affects. However, it is not the testimony or doctrine of the Red Cedar Monthly Meeting to seek prohibition of the lawful use of alcohol. Moreover, we are concerned that well-intentioned laws giving churches the right to block issuance of liquor licenses near their houses of worship may serve as something as an establishment of religion by the government. We disavow this "special right." We are willing to make that disavow legally enforceable so that our business neighbors in Old Town do not need to fear that we will undermine their ability to conduct normal business, including street fairs." She appreciated the opportunity to make this intention clear. Mr. Czekai asked about another scenario where another church at this location would be in strong opposition to any type of liquor licenses, any activities, entertainment, or music that goes on in Old Town and if they would then be able to object to the request. Ms. Stachowiak stated only with regard to new liquor licenses. Mr. Czekai stated that to clarify this, the Quakers are good neighbors and are willing to say that they are not going to do this but if the property is sold, it could be sold to another church that could be objecting to a future liquor license. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that there is no safe guard against that situation. Mr. McConnell stated it would be new liquor licenses and not any existing liquor licenses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct; existing liquor licenses are safe. Mr. Paul Pratt, resident of 416 Everett Drive and member of the Red Cedar Friends Meeting, stated that he is a lawyer and that he is trying to look into ways to make this legally binding. He would like to ask that the Board check with the City Attorney. He would prefer to add this as a condition of the special use permit and that he did not believe that special use permits continue with a new owner. If the property is sold to another church, then that new church would have to get a new special use permit or operate under their conditions. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the special land use permit runs with land and not with the owner and that the conditions transfer to the new owner. Unfortunately, it cannot be made a condition of a special land use permit that the church not object to a liquor license. It cannot be done and she has already looked into the matter. Mr. Pratt stated that he would definitely like to see this and there ought to be a way to do it. He stated that they could also try deed restrictions and that they will try to work out something. He stated that the City should PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 6 want to make happen because this group of people, many of whom are suburbanites, are committed to the health of the central city. This is one of the reasons that they wanted this location and they specifically chose not to be out in a cornfield which is where most of the new churches get built these days. This is not good for the environment. They came before the Board and survived the panic of the fact that there are trace amounts of toxic metals in the soil. They have done a baseline environmental assessment and are comfortable with how they are going to make it work. They are committed to using this land responsibility and not creating sprawl and trips out to the countryside. They look forward to participating in the vibrant lifestyle of Old Town and he believes that it would be a real shame for the City if this request is denied on the theory of it being a threat. They are going to work to make this not a threat. He asked that the Board not rule them out until they have really checked into ways of making this legally binding. Mr. Frederick asked, for the committee meeting and for non-committee members, if the Planning Office could obtain copies of the ACT passed during the Clinton administration regarding establishment or non- interference with religion. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has this information. Mr. Frederick asked that this information be provided to the Board and along with an interpretation from the City Attorney's Office regarding what kind of legal edge this would give the Board in determining if a church can be prohibited in a particular area. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred SLU-1-2005, Vacant Lot north of 1310 Turner Street, Special Land Use Permit - Church in an "H" Light Industrial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on April 13, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Amendments To The Planning and Zoning Code Ms. Cordill stated that Mr. Paul Dykema of the Parks Department is in the audience. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. She stated that because of all the questions, Mr. Jamerson suggested inviting Mr. Dykema to one of the Board meetings and she thought tonight would be the perfect opportunity to address the questions that the board members have had, specifically in regards to commercial street trees. She stated that the Planning Office sent out this ordinance amendment to all the City departments and has received comments. Ms. Cordill asked for clarification on whether or not the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has worked on this case. Ms. Stachowiak stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 7 that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has been working on this ordinance for months and she stated that this case has gone through many changes. It started out as being a two page document and now it has six pages. The Planning staff has added to it substantially. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there has been a concern for a while that in some cases, particularly restaurants more than anything else, the City requires way too much parking. There is all this asphalt out there in the City that simply is not needed. Business owners in most cases do not want to put in the parking but they have to because the zoning code requires it. Then the parking just sits there and it is bad for the environment. This would change the amount of parking required and would substantially reduce the required amount of parking in certain cases where it is proved in the past to be too much. It also puts a cap on how much parking people can install on their lot in addition to the requirement. In some cases (i.e. auto parts store on N. East Street), the owner put in way more parking than the ordinance required and it sits vacant all the time. There is all this asphalt that could otherwise be green space. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this ordinance would also require interior parking lot landscaping. This has been an issue many times at the Planning Board level. Right now there is nothing in the ordinance that requires landscaping interior to the parking lot. She stated that the only thing the City can require is along the right-of-way frontage and along lot lines that are adjacent to residential areas. This would require a ratio of so many trees verses so much square footage of pavement. This would allow some shade into these parking areas, add some green space for drainage and would break up the asphalt. Ms. Stachowiak stated that in the downtown district and all "J" Parking districts, this would require some additional screening of those lots primarily along the street frontage. This would soften the appearance of the area. Ms. Stachowiak stated this ordinance would require a performance guarantee to ensure that both the Zoning Ordinance and Forestry landscaping requirements are completed. Mr. Paul Dykema, City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation Department, stated that the issue of trees in commercial areas, basically is a matter of car speed. The more car speed you have, the higher the slosh goes. The higher the slosh goes, the higher the salt goes. The higher the salt goes, the more damage there is to the very thin bark at the top of the tree. This causes a lot of difficulties. This can be seen on Pennsylvania Avenue where the Parks Department has tried to put some ornamental trees down the center of the road. It looks like a whole bunch of new shoots come out of one spot and it is kind of an odd look for a tree. This is because these are all coming out of the spot where the bark is thick enough finally to resist the salt that was being sprayed up by all the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 8 vehicles driving by. The alternatives are to plant the trees farther away from the road way and reduce the speed which would reduce the salt. Or, plant other species that can resist the salt even better. This is an ongoing project for the department. Some places like Cedar Street and MILK Blvd., are freeways. There is 50 mph traffic on most sections of MILK Blvd. and there is every bit as much salt as there is on 1-496. This is a very difficult place for the department to try and grow trees. There has been some success and the department has learned from it and they will be back to try it again. Hopefully, the department will do better in the future. He would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Dykema to explain to the Board how street trees are determined and how many are required for a particular site. Mr. Dykema stated that the Parks and Recreation Department tries to make sure that trees do not interfere with vision when a driver is pulling out from a parking lot or driveway. They try to set trees back off the driveway quite a good distance in many cases. If there is a narrow parkway, an area between the sidewalk and the curb, and there is no right-of-way between the sidewalk and the curb, and the City does not own anything behind the sidewalk, the Parks and Recreation Department will move the trees even farther out because those trees will be relatively closer to the street. If there is plenty of space between sidewalk and curb, then the department will say they can plant closer to the driveway because the trees can be moved way back and people would pull up past them and be able to see. Mr. Dykema stated that another factor is the overhead utilities. If one takes a look at Cedar Street, there are so many lines that they all cannot be counted and Forestry does not want the trees to interfere with the power lines. He said that the trees will need the extra space to spread out their crowns so that they are not bashing each other once they reach maturity. Mr. Frederick asked about the tree replacement policies for these trees that get bashed by the salt and die or just trees that are in a relatively protected area of the right-of-way that may get blown down by the wind or otherwise damaged by a car hitting them. He asked if the department immediately goes back out and replaces the trees or if it is on an as needed basis. Mr. Dykema stated that the department shows preference toward residential areas or apartment type communities where people are actually living. Up until this year the department has been independent for at least 12 years on the City's tree nurseries which are small but they provide the City with approximately 400 trees a year. The department concentrates this resource to areas where people are actually living. The department does not do very much, if anything at all, along major road ways in commercial districts or industrial districts. Up until this year, with the advent of the Emerald Ash borer on the south end of town and the loss of 12,000 trees from the community, the director gave Forestry some money out of the Park mileage to plant additional trees. This year the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 9 department is actually buying some trees directly from vendors that will be planted at street locations. The department recognizes that it will lose 8% of City street trees and a lot of park trees. There will be a lot of other trees in people's back yards, along river banks, river trails that will die from this particular pest. The department is trying to gear up as much it can to plant as many sites as it can before this happens to the City. Ms. Cordill stated that Ms. Bruch raised a question about the property owners not maintaining the trees. It was not so much the outside influences that may infest affect the trees livability but it was more the property owners. Mr. Dykema stated that this is always a problem and that Lansing generally is blessed with residents who appreciate trees and have enough common sense to know that taking the bark off the trees with lawnmowers, weed whips, dog chains, etc. are bad for the trees. He has been the City Forester in a few communities and the others were much worse. At the same time, the residents view the City government as being the agency that planted the trees and should therefore, should be the ones to care for them. Such easy things such as watering the trees a little bit more during dry spells does not come up to what the department would like to have happen. In commercial areas it is even worse. The people are much more concerned with their indoor business, signs, etc. as opposed to sending somebody out with a water bucket to give a tree a little bit of extra water when it needs it. Ms. Cordill asked if there is a reasonable mechanism where someone could get commercial property owners to take care of those trees a little bit better than what they have. Mr. Dykema stated that if the department went into a major zone (i.e. Cedar, Kalamazoo, Washtenaw, and Allegan Streets) once all of the ash trees are dead, the best results would be to meet with each individual property owner and ask about them, point it out to them and try to remind them of it as the year goes along. If the department is able to do mailings that would encourage people to give their trees some extra tender loving care right now and perhaps get some type of commitment from them before hand. People are busy with making a living and this would not necessarily be foremost in their minds. Ms. Cordill stated that for the record Mr. Ruge has arrived at the meeting. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred the Amendments To The Planning and Zoning Code to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on April 13, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 10 C. Amendments To The Sign Code Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. She stated that the current ordinance does not comply with the laws regulating political signs and the idea is to make the ordinance consistent with federal ruling on political signs. Ms. Cordill asked about an upcoming election and someone having a sign from the last campaign posted. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the individual has the right to do it and that it does not usually happen because the candidates want their signs returned. The candidates usually have their volunteers go around and collect them. She stated that it is kind of unusual to see political signs from previous campaigns posted, although there may be a few out there. She stated that if someone wanted to display a political sign in their yard year round, they have an absolute right to do so. Ms. Cordill stated that she has seen political signs in the rights-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is not legal and that the location is something the City can control. This is still in the ordinance and she stated that the political signs have to be on private property. Ms. Cordill stated that where she lives, people like to put signs along the frontage road because this is by 1-27 where there is more visibility. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the signs are not allowed to be in the right-of-way and the proposed change does not affect this regulation. Mr. Frederick stated that until last week, there was a Kerry/Edwards sign still posted in someone's yard in his neighborhood. The wind finally blew it down. Ms. Cordill stated that at Grand River Avenue near Michigan Avenue, there are large signs. She asked if people could put in signs like that. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City can restrict the size of the sign to 32 square feet. The City put this restriction in so that essentially the size of a piece of plywood, 8 feet by 4 feet would be acceptable. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred the Amendments To The Sign Code to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on April 13, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 11 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — March 15, 2005 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of March 15, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of March 1, 2005 were APPROVED w/corrections. Mr. Hollister asked for a friendly amendment to grant an excused absence for Mr. McConnell from the March 15th meeting. Mr. Czekai asked Mr. Hollister if it would be more appropriate to make a motion to excuse Mr. McConnell's absence rather than amending the minutes to reflect the absence as being excused. Ms. Stachowiak stated that would be the way to handle it. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence for Mr. McConnell from the March 15th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office will automatically amend the minutes to reflect that Mr. McConnell's absence was excused for the March 15th meeting. Pg. 4, 2"d para., 3rd line from bottom, "out-way" s/b "out weigh". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair a. ACT-1-2005, 1115 S. Washington Ave., Sidewalk Seating The applicant is requesting that the City allow an outdoor eating area in the sidewalk within the Washington Avenue right of way (ROW) in front of the Cadillac Club Restaurant at 1115 S. Washington Avenue. The eating area would extend along the entire 130 feet of frontage for the Cadillac Club. It would consist of a row of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 12 ten tables, each of which would be 55 inches in diameter. The sidewalk at this location is 18 feet wide, from the curb to the front of the building. Public parking is permitted along the curb at that location. Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990 depicts the Cadillac Club for 'Commercial' use. The property is located in the ReoTown area, which is undergoing significant revitalization. The proposal has the support of the ReoTown board of directors, as well as the Principal Shopping District and the Economic Development Corporation. The Transportation & Parking Office supports the proposal, provided that adequate room for pedestrian circulation is maintained. The Public Service Department has no objections, provided that the installation is seasonal, removable, and causes no harm to City facilities. Staff recommended approval of ACT-1-2005, to authorize sidewalk seating within the Washington Avenue right-of-way, with conditions. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. An unobstructed pedestrian walkway, a minimum of eight (8) feet in width be maintained; 2. All tables, chairs and accessory items be removed during the off-season and for construction and/or tree maintenance at the subject location; 3. No items be anchored, fixed or used in a manner which damages or alter the sidewalk or any public improvements located in the right-of-way; 4. The area be properly maintained in a clean, safe, and orderly manner at all times; 5. The applicant comply with all applicable noise and parking regulations; 6. The security requirements of the State of Michigan Liquor Control Commission be met; 7. The applicant indemnify and hold the City harmless to for all liability issues, and name the City of Lansing coinsured with respect to the right-of-way area; and 8. The Public Service Department approves granting rights to occupy the ROW on an annual permit; and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Ruge asked if the plan was to have the tables next to the building or next to the curb. Mr. McConnell stated that the tables would be closer to the curb. Mr. Rieske stated that it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 13 was noted that because of obstructions in the sidewalk, tables could be placed in amongst the street lights, trees, etc. This would be easier than having to walk through those obstructions in order to avoid tables closer to the building. Mr. Rieske stated that there is on-street parking in this area which does buffer the users of the tables from the vehicular traffic. Mr. Rieske stated that this is an annual permit situation and if it does not work out, then something could be done. There was discussion about whether or not this should go back to the Board each year. He stated that the Committee discussed just handling it administratively along with the annual permit. Mr. Ruge asked if alcohol would be served. Mr. Rieske stated the restaurant was planning on serving alcohol and that they have contacted the Liquor Control Commission regarding the necessary licenses. The restaurant is awaiting the results. Mr. Ruge stated that with serving alcohol there had to be a defined area with a fence. Mr. McConnell stated that this is one of the things that has to be approved by the Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Czekai and Mr. McConnell both stated that this would fall under item 6 of the Committee conditions. Mr. Ruge asked if this would be along the entire front of the building. Mr. Hollister stated that it would be permitted along the front. Mr. Ruge stated that for people who park their cars, they will have to walk around the fence. Mr. Rieske stated could very well be and that they would have to walk around a snow bank if the snow was cleared anyways. Mr. Ruge stated that it would probably just be a hardship for the customers of the Cadillac Club anyways. Mr. Rieske stated that there are ways of dealing with it, i.e. close to the street but away from the curb enough to give someone a way to open the door and walk around or walk through. Mr. Ruge stated that he was not sure about having people walking in the street that far. He asked if the City should have some kind of space on the curb for people to walk. Mr. McConnell stated that if someone parks, they would be parking right next to the curb and that there would be enough room to open the door to exit the vehicle. He stated that the tables would not abut the curb and that there would be some space there (i.e. 3 feet). Mr. Rieske stated that the intention of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page_14 recommendation was to have the tables closer to the street rather than closer to the building, but not in the street. He stated that there is an 18 foot sidewalk at this location and what was recommended was an 8 foot walkway. Mr. Ruge inquired about a site plan review that would deal with the location of the fence. Mr. Rieske stated that the Transportation Department, the Liquor Control Commission and the Planning staff are fairly comfortable would work with the applicant in this regard. Mr. Ruge offered a friendly amendment that there be room for pedestrians to walk between the curb and any type of barrier, and that a security fence be required and be in compliance with the requirements from the Public Service Department. Mr. McConnell stated that he was not sure of the exact square footage as far as frontage from the building to the street. He asked if this information was available. He was not sure if a stipulation could be done regarding a person having enough room to walk and asked about a handicap person in a wheel chair getting out of a vehicle. If this person has to have 4 feet to exit a vehicle and run their wheel chair along the side the bar. There needs to be so much space on the other side of the right-of-way for pedestrians to walk between the actual business and streetscape. He stated that there would not be enough space to have a right-of-way for pedestrians to walk, wheel chairs and to have the same kind of space between the building and the seating arrangement. He stated that the tables need to be next to the building or closer to the curb. Mr. Rieske stated that in the findings it states that adequate pedestrian circulation could be provided if the eating area were situated closer to the curb as opposed to closer to the building. This is not included in the recommendation. Mr. Rieske stated that a friendly amendment could be done to add that adequate space will need to be provided for people that enter and exit their vehicles parked along the street. Mr. Czekai accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Frederick stated that his recommendation would be to eliminate parking in front of the building. Ms. Cordill stated that she liked having the seating closer to the building and that it would give the view of people eating outdoors. It made it cleaner for people entering and exiting their vehicles. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Czekai stated that one of the main reasons this was done was that there are trees and street lighting that the tables could be built around and this would not be part of the walkway. The applicant would be consolidating the obstructions all in one row. This way it would be a safe, clean walkway between the building and the street. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve ACT-1-2005, 1115 S. Washington Ave., Sidewalk Seating with the following conditions: 1) An unobstructed pedestrian walkway, a minimum of eight (8) feet in width be maintained and that adequate space will need to be provided for people who enter and exit their vehicles parked along the street; 2) All tables, chairs and accessory items be removed during the off-season and for construction and/or tree maintenance at the subject location; 3) No items be anchored, fixed or used in a manner which damages or alter the sidewalk or any public improvements located in the right-of-way; 4) The area be properly maintained in a clean, safe, and orderly manner at all times; 5) The applicant comply with all applicable noise and parking regulations; 6) The security requirements of the State of Michigan Liquor Control Commission be met; 7) The applicant indemnify and hold the City harmless to for all liability issues, and name the City of Lansing coinsured with respect to the right-of-way area; and 8) The Public Service Department approves granting rights to occupy the ROW on an annual permit. Frederick . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Czekai stated that the process has been delayed due to personnel changes in the Budget Office and reduction in State and Federal Government sharing. A list of CIP proposals is not available at this time. Mr. Czekai stated that Committee members unanimously recommended that, in the interest of time, this item be referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration at a later date. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 16 C. Prudden/Motor Wheel Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report Christine Reed, of Hepler Incorporated, spoke on behalf of the proposal. The Prudden Wheel project at 725 E. Saginaw Street was first presented to the Planning Board as a special land use permit request (SLU-2-97). The building is being rehabilitated for residential units as an adaptive reuse, and is now proposed for designation as a single-resource local historic district. This historic district proposal was initiated by the property owners, primarily for the purpose of making federal and state Historic Preservation Tax Credits available for the development. These tax credits cover 25% of the approved rehabilitation expenses, provided that the work is completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The preliminary report was approved for distribution by the Historic District Study Committee, which is required by law to distribute the report to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Board for comments, and to hold a public hearing on the report. This public hearing is scheduled for 5:30 on Monday, May 9, 2005, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room. The comments are then addressed in the final report, which will be submitted to City Council for consideration. Council approval of a local historic district is by adoption of an ordinance. Staff recommended endorsement of the Prudden /Motor Wheel Factory Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report. In Committee, the request was recommended for endorsement and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to endorse the Prudden/Motor Wheel Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 17 Next meeting, Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Report from Planning Manager— None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) h. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) i. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004) I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16, 2004) M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004) n. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs(February 15,2005) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Cordill stated that she is glad that the Board is reviewing texts of information regarding the application of a church in the Old Town Main Street area. She PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 18 believes that churches belong on a main street and that it is part of the cultural fabric. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick stated that the issue is the current restrictive liquor laws. If the law did not exist allowing churches to object, then this would not be an issue at all. The problem is the law; not the fact that the church wants to be at this location. Mr. McConnell stated that it really is not an issue with this church and that they could care less about alcohol. If this church sells the property, a new church could object to new liquor licenses within 500 feet of their site. He said that this church cannot object to existing liquor licenses. Mr. Hollister stated that with festivals, their liquor licenses are reviewed annually and that this could be an issue. Mr. Frederick stated that there is no need to be concerned about the Friends objecting and if they say they will not object, their word is good. The lawyer is a part of the ACLU and the last thing in the world that he will do is invoke some restrictive law to stop alcohol being used. If someone had a substance problem and came to the church for help, the church would be willing with open arms to help, however, hey will not prevent anyone else from doing what is legally acceptable. Mr. Frederick stated that there will still be a problem with other churches no matter what the Board does. If the church would like to move in, they can move in unless the Board can come up with a legitimate reason to deny it. The issue is one of restrictive liquor law not with whether or not a church is appropriate in a commercial area where there might be entertainment. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that on the northeast corner of Harry Hepler's property on Oakland Street, there is a sign as large as a billboard on the side of an old semi trailer. Mr. Frederick stated that at Keeps Party Store the inflatable beer bottle on their roof was removed and the pizza sign on the telephone pole that is in the right-of- way was removed. He asked why the other illegal signs were not taken down and he stated that the place is just plastered with illegal signs. He noticed that party stores in general have been running wild with beer and cigarette signs. He would like to receive an explanation from the Code Compliance Office stating why there is no enforcement of these signs. He stated that this is happening all over the City and that it is an enforcement issue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 5, 2005 Page 19 Ms. Cordill stated that there are still a lot of signs at the Cash Advance place on the corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues. Ms. Cordill stated that the portable sign is back at Oma's Cafe located at 727 N. Capitol. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board P B M i n u tes.040505.d oc