HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 Planning Board Minutes Jul-Sept FINAL Approved as written 11-1-05 Draft to Clerk October 17,2005
Approved November 1,2005
To Clerk November 9,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. - -
A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister. ra
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Frederick.
D. Absent: None.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Ruge added Contract Zoning under New Business.
Ms. Stachowiak added the extension of the approval for PRD-4-2003 under
Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda as
amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS — None.
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
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
dLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 2
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. Z-10-2005, 1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., "CUP"
Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" Residential District
This is a request by Moore Non-Profit Housing to rezone the
property at 1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., more specifically
described as:
LOT 1 EXC COM SE COR THEREOF TH N 78DEG
08MIN 12SCD W 378.86 FT, N 85DEG 21MIN
24SCD E 371.93 FT, S 107.98 FT TO BEG; MOORE
PARK DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
from "CUP" Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" Residential
district, for the purpose of constructing 48 new independent
living apartments for individuals with special needs.
Staff recommended approval Z-10-2005, 1401-1409
Georgetown Blvd., "CUP" Community Unit Plan to "DM-1"
Residential District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Ms. Bruch stated that the Committee did ask if it was
possible to add additional trees around sites since a lot of
large trees will be coming down. Mr. Ruge asked if the
Board wanted to put that request in as part of the
recommendation. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to
put it in as a writing request if it is possible. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that it is possible because what the Board can do is
recommend the approval of the rezoning and that the Board
further recommended that the developer add more shade
trees around the parking areas or throughout the site where
appropriate.
Ms. Cordill asked if most of the parking would be coming
from the employees. Ms. Bruch stated that in Committee,
the developer mentioned that since it is a special use they
were not sure how much parking would be needed. There is
a lot of reserve parking that may not be built unless it is
needed.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 3
Ms. Cordill stated that it is a beautiful site. She asked if the
residents would be driving themselves. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that some of the residents may drive themselves.
There has to be parking for visitors and employees, and they
have an ordinance requirement that has to be fulfilled. The
developer does not want to construct more parking than
needed. Staff told the developer to just pencil it in the center
island to show that they are capable of accommodating the
total amount of parking that is required but they do not have
to construct it unless it is needed.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of
Z-10-2005, 1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., "CUP" Community Unit Plan to "DM-1"
Residential District.
Bruch . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. Ave _Hollister Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. Z-11-2005, North side of Jerome Street, between
Pennsylvania Ave. & Holmes Street, "C" Residential
District to "DM-4" Residential District
This is a request by Neumann, Smith & Associates, on
behalf Sparrow Health System to rezone the property on the
north side of Jerome Street, between Pennsylvania Avenue
and Holmes Street, more specifically described as:
COM SW COR LOT 2 BLOCK C GOWER'S ADD, TH
W 550.34 FT, N 228.54 FT, E 552.81 FT, S 227.77
FT TO BEG; SEC 15 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
from "C" Residential to "DM-4" Residential district, for the
purpose of constructing a utility plant and other uses that
would be accessory to the hospital located immediately
south of the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of Z-11-2005, North side of
Jerome Street, between Pennsylvania Ave. & Holmes Street,
"C" Residential District to "DM-4" Residential District.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 4
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Mr. Ruge stated that on the site plan that was given to the
Committee, there are cooling towers along the eastern edge
on the future parking ramp. These have been moved and
will be right next to the utility plant so that they will be much
farther away from the residences.
Mr. Ruge stated that the Committee spoke to the applicants
about the parking lot that is right along Jerome Street. The
applicant stated that Sparrow needs the whole parking lot
because they will lose a lot of the current parking while
constructing the plant. But once the construction is done,
Sparrow has indicated a willingness to get rid of at least
some of the parking spaces there to provide some buffering.
Perhaps Sparrow will get rid of or cover up the ugly fence.
Ms. Bruch added that there is a metal fence on the property.
The Committee decided that Sparrow would meet with the
neighborhood and find out what the neighborhood would
prefer like a wooden fence or added slats to protect them
from the light. Sparrow would make a decision with the
neighborhood on how to replace that fence or enhance it to
make it a little bit better. She stated that it is ugly and pretty
industrial looking.
Ms. Cordill stated that she was concerned about noise and
the staff report was a little short on talking about sound. Ms.
Bruch stated that she met with Sparrow Representatives
today to hear and walk by the cooling tower that currently
exists by the other parking deck. It is noisy and as you walk
away from it, the noise drops off very quickly. The new
cooling towers will be bigger and the noise is expected to be
greater. Sparrow will have sound continuation which means
the sound should be reduced. Therefore, it will probably be
the same because of greater output. The towers are being
moved closer to the building and the drawing does not show
the 80 feet of the other parking lot. The towers will be
approximately 200 feet away from the existing residences.
There will be enough space so that the sound should not be
much of a factor.
Ms. Cordill asked how tall the towers will be. Ms. Bruch
stated that they will be a little bit taller than the current
towers. Ms. Bruch stated that if Sparrow develops the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 5
parking deck after this, then the cooling towers will be
surrounded.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
Z-11-2005, North side of Jerome Street, between Pennsylvania Ave. & Holmes
Street, "C" Residential District to "DM-4" Residential District.
Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave
Cordill. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
C. PRD-4-2003, Planned Residential Development,
Proposed "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums
This is a request by Markey Associates to extend the
approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.85
acre parcel located on the west side of Wexford Road, 495
feet from W. Jolly Road. The applicant proposes to construct
9 detached single family residential condominium units on
the subject property.
Mr. Ruge stated that this request was approved by the City
Council on September 22, 2003. Mr. Markey is asking for a
two year extension and the Committee did not see any
reason not to give the extension. Mr. Markey stated the
reason for the extension is that the housing market in
Lansing is not very strong so there was not a reason or
maybe there was not financing to build this project but they
would still like to do it once economic conditions change.
In Committee, it was recommended to grant the extension
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Ms. Bruch stated that she was wondering if some of the
trees could be planted now so that they have time to grow.
Mr. Markey stated that the Board placed the condition on this
request that for every tree that is removed Markey
Associates has to plant a new one. Where the road way is
going there are going to be trees removed during the
construction process. Trees have to be removed and
regrading done and it would be very premature to try to put
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 6
trees in now because of the construction process. Anything
that would be put in now will be killed later.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board has the final approval
of this extension and that it will not be going before City
Council.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve a 2-year extension of
PRD-4-2003, Planned Residential Development, "Wexford Woods" Site
Condominiums with the conditions contained in the original approval.
Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, October 12, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
Ms. Bruch asked if there was a date for the meeting. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the minutes from last month indicate that
the Executive Committee will meet at 6:00 p.m. before the next
Board meeting on October 4cn
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak stated that last night City Council approved SLU-4-2005
and Z-5-2005. It is her understanding that SLU-2-2005 was approved but
she does not have confirmation on it. Mr. Czekai stated that it was
approved, (7-1). Ms. Stachowiak asked who voted against it. Mr. Czekai
stated that it was Harold Leeman. Ms. Stachowiak stated that SLU-5-
2005 was also approved by Council.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 7
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City offered early retirement a few months
ago and the Planning Department lost six employees from the four offices.
There were a total of 43 employees who took the early retirement.
Ms. Bruch stated that she is highly concerned and that before 1990, there
were approximately 28 Planning staff and now it is down to 7 staff
members. She asked what could be done. Mr. Czekai recommended
setting up a meeting and making it very public what she is doing. He said
to make it very clear that she is meeting with the Mayor and the President
of City Council, and discuss her concerns. He said to call for a formal
meeting.
Ms. Bruch stated that the Planning Department is the heart of making
everything better. She will meet with the Mayor and City Council
President, Sandy Allen. Mr. Czekai recommended to also meet with Joan
Bauer because she is the Planning Committee Chair and Jim Ruff,
Planning Director.
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)
C. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street,"B" Residential District to
"F"Commercial District(Tabled July 13,2005)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Master Plan Project
C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,
Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003)
b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,
2003)
C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004)
e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004)
f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4, 2004)
h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004)
i. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5, 2004)
j. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.- no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
k. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005)
I. 400 Allen Street-small port holes for windows (April 19, 2005)
M. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3,2005)
n. 704 S. Clemens Street-"For Sale"items (May 3,2005)
o. Corner of Aurelius&Cavanaugh Rds-Citgo Gas Station-high grass/weeds
(July 5,2005)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 8
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. New Contract Zoning
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the State legislature, a few months ago,
adopted this contract zoning. It amends the City and Village Zoning Act.
It used to be that once something is rezoned, anything that was allowed
under that district could go there. This was seen a year ago when the
gentleman came before the Board for the property on the corner of
Pennsylvania and Mt. Hope Avenues. He wanted to do a Chinese take-
out. The property was rezoned and there was a check cashing store. She
stated that the applicant had every right to do that and there was nothing
the Board could do about it.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that it also used to be that someone could come
before the Board and rezone a property for "F" Commercial District
because the applicant wants to do a certain project. The Boards may
have said no because it could potentially become a used car lot and the
Board does not want to see a used car lot there. Under the new contract
zoning, it allows a little bit more flexibility because someone could come
before the Board and say that they want to rezone this property for "F"
Commercial District because they want to do a McDonald's. The Board
may think that the McDonald's is appropriate for the property but a used
car lot is not. The applicant could ask the Board to review it under the
contract zoning law which means that the Board is reviewing it for that
specific use. The Board would recommend the request to City Council
and it would be approved to rezone the property for that specific use only.
The applicant cannot turn around and put in a check cashing store just
because the applicant decides to do it. It gives the Board a little bit more
control and it works a little bit like a Planned Residential Development
(PRD).
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the request can be approved for a specific use
and for a general layout of the property. She stated that the catch is that
the applicant has to request it. The statute is very clear on this. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the contract zoning law is so new that it has not
been tested in court yet.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the contract zoning law is only for rezonings
and it is her understanding that it only applies to uses and concept plans.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this gives the Board more power and little bit
more authority over these things. She stated that it is also good for the
applicant too because there are applicants who get turned down because
the Board may be afraid that the applicant may do something that they
may have no intentions of doing.
Mr. Ruge stated that he thought he read something in the contract zoning
law that said the City had to amend its ordinances in order to take
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 20, 2005 Page 9
advantage of this contract zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City did
have to amend its ordinance in order to do it. It is very simple to do this.
The City's Law Office is supposed to be preparing the documents.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board passed on the ordinance
amendment that dealt with reducing the amount of parking that the City
requires for landscaping. She stated that four cases in the last two
months have gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals asking for parking
variances to reduce the amount of parking that has to be put in for retail
stores. The Board of Zoning Appeals is granting variances and is saying
rather than BZA having to deal with the variances all the time, why not
have the Board review the ordinance and reduce the general retail parking
requirements a little bit further. This is one requirement the Board has not
done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would like to bring this before the
Board. Ms. Bruch said absolutely.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Ms. Bruch asked when elections will take place. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she
would double check when the elections will be held.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
With news of those retirements, especially with Ms. Wynant and Mr. Lysakowski,
Ms. Cordill asked if the Board could acknowledge their services provided to the
Board. She stated that Ms. Wynant has provided quite a bit of staff support for
the Board and that Mr. Dennis Lysakowski has provided staff support for UDC
now and then. Ms. Bruch asked about sending them a card. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that she would pick up a card for each one and bring it to the next meeting.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Ms. Cordill asked if 630 Kipling Blvd. was a registered rental.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.092005.doc
Approved as written 10-18-05 Draft to Clerk October 14,2005
Approved October 18,2005
To Clerk October 20,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. _
A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Frederick.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Frederick for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Bruch stated that Z-8-2005 has been tabled and will not be discussed this
evening. Mr. Hollister asked why the Z-8-2005 case was tabled. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held a week ago and the
developer was there to present the proposal for the current Lansing Gardens
property. There was quite a bit of opposition from the neighborhood and
following the meeting the developer asked that the case be postponed for an
indefinite period of time to allow the company more time to reconsider this
proposal.
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve the agenda as
amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter of opposition from Benn Nethaway regarding Z-11-2005
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-10-2005, 1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., "CUP" Community Unit Plan
to "DM-1" Residential District
This is a request by Moore Non-Profit Housing to rezone the property at
1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., more specifically described as:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6 2005 Page 2
LOT 1 EXC COM SE COR THEREOF TH N 78DEG 08MIN 12SCD
W 378.86 FT, N 85DEG 21 MIN 24SCD E 371.93 FT, S 107.98 FT
TO BEG; MOORE PARK DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
from "CUP" Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" Residential district, for the
purpose of constructing 48 new independent living apartments for
individuals with special needs.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. She stated the primary reason for
vacating a portion of Georgetown Blvd. is that the applicant wants to clean
up the appearance of the property. The applicant has indicated in
previous meetings that parking may be added to this area sometime in the
future and because it is a residential district, the applicant would have a lot
of restriction on the property in terms of front yard parking. Mr. Ruge
inquired about vacating the entire right-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that it seems to be the sentiments of the City engineers to vacate all of it
or none of it. She stated that it will be analyzed further in the ACT 285
staff report and discussed at the Urban Development Committee meeting.
Eventually the case will come before the entire Board.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the number of stories. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that the buildings have two stories.
Mr. Ruge stated inquired about the buildings on the property and if they
would be demolished. The existing buildings would not be demolished.
There will also be four additional buildings if the existing buildings would
continue to be occupied like they are now. The "DM-1" density is the
lowest density multiple family residential district that allows up to 19.8
units per acre. What the applicant is currently proposing fits in with this
density. The Master Plan designation is also for high density residential
which allows 20 plus dwelling units per acre so the proposal is lower
density than what the Master Plan calls for.
Ms. Bruch asked if there was a reason why the City would not want to
encourage a higher density. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant was
going for what was needed to accommodate this project.
Ms. Bruch asked of the applicant if there would be any possibility of going
to a higher density.
Mr. Al Martin, representative of the owner, 432 N. Saginaw Street,
Flint, stated that at this point there is no need for a higher density. With
the layout of the buildings, the parking and the lot coverage restrictions
this was the best way.
Ms. Bruch stated that her only concern with the plan is that the area is
heavily wooded and with the parking in the back a lot of the vegetation
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 3
would be removed. She would like to ask that maybe some of the design
of the parking lot be reviewed to see if there is anyway of minimizing the
impact on the site.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-10-2005, 1401-1409 Georgetown Blvd., "CUP"
Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" Residential District to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 14, 2005 at 4:00
in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316
N. Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-11-2005, North side of Jerome Street, between Pennsylvania Ave. &
Holmes Street, "C" Residential District to "DM-4" Residential District
This is a request by Neumann, Smith & Associates, on behalf Sparrow
Health System to rezone the property on the north side of Jerome Street,
between Pennsylvania Avenue and Holmes Street, more specifically
described as:
COM SW COR LOT 2 BLOCK C GOWER'S ADD, TH W 550.34
FT, N 228.54 FT, E 552.81 FT, S 227.77 FT TO BEG; SEC 15 T4N
R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
from "C" Residential to "DM-4" Residential district, for the purpose of
constructing a utility plant and other uses that would be accessory to the
hospital located immediately south of the subject property.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Ms. Bruch was concerned about someone looking at the Junior High
School running out of space and what the parking situation would be. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that there is a new Pattengill Middle School being built
over on Marshall Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property is
already owned by Sparrow Hospital and the parking lot that will be
constructed is for Sparrow parking. Ms. Bruch stated that her biggest
concern was that the lands were being taken from the school. She is
concerned about it and asked who is watching out for these schools. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the school has a nice brand new site over by
Marshall and Saginaw Streets with their own parking. There will be more
land than what the school needs and what is left will be more than what is
needed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a major hospital for the
Lansing area and it is so limited in size. Sparrow Hospital's only option on
the main site is to build up which is what will go for a variance Thursday
night. Then for some of the new things that are needed, Sparrow will
make use of this relatively small site located to the north.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 4
Ms. Bruch asked with the site being small and if Pattengill is moving, what
would happen to the building. She stated that it would make sense if
Sparrow is limited on space and if the City can protect the rest of the lands
for the High School, then maybe giving the land that has already been
used and reuse the building. She stated that it is a beautiful building. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it would be up to the school to decide what will be
done with the building. The City does not have a whole lot of control over
it. As a hospital, there are very particular needs in terms of a building.
Sparrow Hospital has been very active on the eastside with the Eastside
Neighborhood Organization, the Boys Training School plan and these
types of things. Sparrow Hospital has always reassured the neighborhood
organization that it would not expand geographically into the
neighborhoods. This is why Sparrow Hospital has really strived to stay
confined to its site and make the most use of it. This is the first physical
expansion other than building up.
Mr. Hollister asked if there was any other feedback from the neighborhood
organization other than the one letter the Board received from Benn
Nethaway. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no response yet and that
the Eastside Neighborhood Organization is very good about responding to
these things. The Planning Office will likely receive something from the
Eastside Neighborhood Organization and the Eastfield Neighborhood
Association.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that Sparrow Hospital has had a very, very good
working relationship with school system.
Mr. Ira Ginsburg, Senior Vice President of Sparrow Health System
located at 1215 E. Michigan Avenue, stated that Sparrow has met with
the Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO) and the school district
regarding this project. The property was not exchanged. He stated that
Sparrow paid the school district to move the tennis courts to the north
side. Since the tennis courts needed to be replaced, it was a win/win
situation when Sparrow purchased the old football field.
He stated that Sparrow has talked with the school district about the central
utility plant providing steam to the Johnson Field House. The field house
has an antiquated system and it is very costly to the district. There is not
an agreement on this yet, but there has been a discussion about
Sparrow's utility Plant providing steam to the Johnson Field House. At
this point, the school district is very favorable to Sparrow building the utility
plant.
He stated that Sparrow had met with the ENO about a month ago and the
ENO took a vote. There were some descending votes but the majority of
the people at the meeting were in favor of Sparrow's expansion.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 5
He stated that Pattengill Middle School is moving to the Marshall Street
property. The last he heard, the school district's intentions are to demolish
the old school and make a green space/park-like setting for the
neighborhood and for the remaining Eastern High School students.
Mr. Ginsburg stated that the scheduled time for the new Pattengill Middle
School to open is in January 2007, and that Sparrow's project will be
finished about the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2008.
Mr. Ruge asked what happened to the health education building. Mr.
Ginsburg stated that Sparrow was supposed to do this with Lansing
Community College (LCC) and LCC built its own building on the west side
of Lansing. Mr. Ginsburg stated that there is still a possibility of an
administration building that has classrooms, offices, etc. but the details
have not been determined. This project will be 5 to 10 years from now.
He stated Sparrow still has MSU and the Lansing School District who are
willing to work together on some of this.
Mr. Ruge inquired about the big oxygen tanks in the parking lot by Holmes
Street. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the oxygen tanks would be moved over
by the new facility.
Mr. Ruge asked what Sparrow's plans are for the parking lot that runs
along Holmes Street. Mr. Ginsburg stated that at the moment there are no
plans and Sparrow has been approached by the school district. The
district would like to purchase part of the property in the back and put in a
lower football field.
Mr. Hollister stated that the current plan is for the utility plant and then the
future plans are the administration building and the four level parking
ramp. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the administration building and the parking
ramp are 5 to 10 years later. The current plan is to build the utility plant.
Mr. Hollister asked if the cooling towers would be a part of the utility plant.
Mr. Ginsburg stated that is correct.
Ms. Bruch asked about the noise level of the cooling towers. Mr. Ginsburg
stated that those are the generators and that they run only when the
hospital runs out of power. These generators are tested on Thursday
mornings and they are pretty noisy. He stated that the cooling towers on
top of the building would be newer and much quieter.
Mr. Dru Venson, resident of 606 S. Fairview and Board Member for
the Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO), stated that he is a life-
long resident of the east side. He attended Pattengill Middle School and
Eastern High School. He is a former Sparrow Employee and a former
entrepreneur who went back to Sparrow and sprouted a business that
turned into three businesses: two in Lansing and one in Holt. When he
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 6
looked at this project, he looked at it from several different perspectives
(i.e. parking lot, sports).
He stated that the ENO supports this request and that there was only one
descending vote at the last meeting.
He stated that as far as the noise level, he is very familiar with the
hospital. He spent a greater part of last year there because his mother
had breast cancer. In addition to many years working there and out of
there, he is not quite sure if the sound was coming from the construction.
There is a neighborhood association directly adjacent to Sparrow Hospital
and there have not been any complaints from this neighborhood group
with regards to a noise issue. There have been a lot of favorable
responses from all the adjoining neighborhoods in regards to the traffic
flow, ease of operation (i.e. Sparrow's security working with the schools
and the parking situation). There have not been any negative responses
from the principle or any of the teachers regarding the noise level coming
from the construction site or from the Sparrow building.
The ENO definitely does not want to see Sparrow expanding out but it
would like to see Sparrow maintaining and if at all possible, expanding
inwards. By profession, one of his jobs is consulting. When someone
talks about decibels, he is very familiar with it. When Sparrow presented
the information on the new equipment to the ENO, he did some follow up
because he wanted to know what was being brought in. He stated that
the new equipment that Sparrow is bringing in is much quieter and much
more efficient than the old equipment.
He stated that there are quite a number of groups in the surrounding area
who are supportive. The alumni association at Eastern High School is
quite large and active and can be pulled into this process as well.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-11-2005, North side of Jerome Street, between
Pennsylvania Ave. & Holmes Street, "C" Residential District to "DM-
4" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
scheduled to meet on September 14, 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)
Ms. Mary Swift, resident of 6201 W. Mt. Hope Road, stated that she owns the
pond that runs along the property of the PRD-1-2005. She stated that a few
weeks ago while she was on vacation, Mr. Creagh, the developer of the proposed
condominiums at the east end of Wayne Street (PRD-1-2005), got into her pond
and did some work. He dredged it and cut off his side. He dug it out so his
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 7
shoreline is farther back in so now the pond does fall onto his property. She has
contacted a lawyer and her appointment is next week.
She stated that she would like some consideration on liability. With eight
condominiums being built and children, the park will be running along the back of
the houses right in front of the pond. She stated that there has been an impact
on this site with her pond. Mr. Creagh had trespassed on her property and she
stated that he did not have her permission or a permit to do the work. The bigger
picture is the liability: 1) Whose liability is it? 2) How should it be addressed?
3) Should Mr. Creagh put up a fence? She asked what needed to be done next
and where to go to keep the kids who will be living there safe.
Mr. Ron Sutberry, resident of 2208 E. Cavanaugh Road, stated that his
property ends at the Wayne Road project. He voiced his concerns a few weeks
ago in reference to the hazards of the streets being narrow and there being no
sidewalks. He did some research since his last visit before the Board and found
29 law suits pending against Mr. Creagh. He urged the Board not to approve the
request for the 8 units. If one, two or three nice homes are built to recoup the
money put into it then that would be fine. He has no objections to this. With 8
units and families with kids on a narrow street, visitors coming to the park and
parking vehicles on the street, if a fire truck needs to get through this area at the
same time for any reason, it would not be able to get down the street. Once the
fire truck gets down the street, it would not be able to turn around. He stated that
the street is very narrow. He urged the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Alvin Jones, resident of 1815 Lockridge, stated that he owns the property
across the street from the proposed site. There are elderly people who live right
next door to the proposed site and they need constant medical care. If people
are parked along the street, there is no way for an ambulance or emergency
vehicle to get in this area. The park would be dangerous to the kids. Kids will be
kids and they will play in it. He stated that he cannot turn his truck around in a
complete turn back there. If there are four or five vehicles parked on the street
and an apartment or house catches on fire, it will be a holy mess back there.
There was one time where it was a mess back there because the fields caught on
fire and a fire truck got stuck in the mud.
When there are that many houses and a lot of cars, there would be no way for a
big snow truck to turn around. The blade would tear up everything. This would
be a hazard. If snow gets on the side of the street, some kid will get hurt. There
are no sidewalks or lighting there. He stated that kids will walk in the middle of
the street where it's least resistant of snow. There would be a valley in the street
and an area on the end that will probably catch water. It will be slippery for cars
to travel up and down the hill. This is a hazard. There is a pond there and
vehicles have to turn around. There is a hill catching water and this has always
been a problem down there. The water does not build ice, it just builds water
about six inches deep all the way back past the culver. The water drains about
30 feet from the drain. If anything gets into the drain, it builds up water about 40
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 8
to 50 feet down the street. This will be a problem in the winter and it will be
dangerous to the kids. With eight units crowded in this area, people will get into
arguments about who will be parking where. When property becomes scarce,
people will start parking in other people's yards. He stated that no one is
objecting to units being built.
Ms. Linette Wilkes, resident of 2626 Walmar Drive, stated that she is excited
about this project. Some of the issues brought up this evening she believes are
issues the residents may have with the City (i.e. water not draining properly). As
far as the valley in the street, the residents did not pave the street. The City
paved the street and did a wonderful job. As far as a fire truck being able to turn
around, whether there is one house or eight homes, it will be the same problem.
All of these homes will have driveways for parking. If she has company at her
home, the people will park in her driveway. The green space is beautiful and is
more than adequate for the proposed amount of homes.
She stated that the pond was a disaster and was a cesspool of garbage and tires.
She removed truck loads of junk from the pond at her expense. According to the
City's plat, the pond was on her property in two places and only in those places
on her property did she clean up the pond. It looks gorgeous. If someone walks
the property and sees what has been done and then look across to the other
side, they would say why didn't this lady come and see if the guy would finish. It
looked beautiful on her side of the pond. She has made it beautiful for the people
who purchase homes. She stated that the gentleman kept referring to units like it
would be a Section 8 or something. These are going to be beautiful homes that
respectable people buy. These will not be rental units. It is sad to her to have
people come in thinking negatively instead of taking the time to look at the plans
and see what is being proposed. It would eliminate a lot of questions and
concerns.
She has concerns when people say she has done something wrong to the pond,
the property or just wrong in general. A lot of the gentleman's issues are with the
City and not with her. She has agreed for the sidewalk. The lighting is a City
issue. The homes in the neighborhoods have lights outside on the garage and
the new homes will have the same. Above and beyond that, she does not know
what the other people are looking for.
Mr. Bob Creagh, resident of 2626 Walmar Drive, stated that he just wanted to
address a couple of the issues. He owns 90 percent of the pond on his side of
the street. There are places where his ownership goes almost 30 feet into the
pond. There are other places where his property goes all the way across to the
other side.
He stated that the issue with the pond was that it has been a dumping ground for
tires, refrigerators and you name it. Frankly, if there is an issue with that, he has
left the pile of debris on the property so anybody could go and view it.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 9
With the issue of the street not draining properly, he stated that the street drains
just fine. The issue is the City just paved the street so there will be some erosion
until the grass grows. There will be some dirt going down the road. The street is
a legal street and has plenty of room for parking and emergency vehicles to turn
around. The City will not construct an illegal street.
He believes that some of the people in the neighborhood do not want to see
buildings on the property. Unfortunately for them, people need to have a place to
live. He is trying to put together a development that makes sense and not
construct something that will look bad or attract the wrong type of people. He is
going over and above what anyone else probably would do or with what needs to
be done. He wants a good project, one that he can point to and tell people to
take a look. Here is the type of projects we do.
As far as the application and density, he is within the guidelines in the Charter
section. He asked the Board to utilize that and approve the project.
Mr. Dru Venson, resident of 606 S. Fairview and Board Member for the
Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO), stated that he would like to have
the Board look into the proliferation of liquor stores (6) within less than a mile on
Kalamazoo Street, between Shepard Street and Mifflin Avenue. Only one of
liquor stores meets code requirements as far as signage. The Code Compliance
Office is running short of people and he sees that the City has some issues with
signage.
He stated that this is an unfair situation to take what was a very nice little
neighborhood that was middle class, lower middle class with college students
and elderly, and allow it to become more run down, ghetto looking and Detroit
and Flint looking after the plant closed. Having all of these illegal signs tacked up
everywhere in windows or where there should be windows that are boarded up.
All of these signs are placed everywhere. He has spoken to numerous people in
various departments. If the Board can take the time to ride by Sparrow and
check things out, it would greatly be appreciated.
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 — July 19, 2005
Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of
July 19, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of July 19, 2005 were
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 10
Minutes for Approval —August 3, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
August 3, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of August 3, 2005 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. SLU-5-2005, 1526 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Special Land Use
Construction in the 100 Year Flood Plain
This is a request by the Lansing Parks & Recreation
Department to construct 2 buildings at 1526 E. Mt. Hope
Avenue, Sycamore Golf Course. The building will be
located in the 100 year floodplain, but will be elevated one
foot above the base flood elevation. MDEQ has already
issued the necessary permits for this construction.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-5-2005, 1526 E. Mt.
Hope Avenue, Special Land Use - Construction in the 100
Year Flood Plain.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Ms. Cordill stated that it is her understanding that the City
will build the structures and the organization will lease it.
She asked if there were terms for the lease.
Ms. Bruch stated that the last time the City had a building
built the Board suggested that it meet LEED standards. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that City Council did not approve it. Ms.
Bruch asked if it could be attached to the special land use
stating that the building needs to comply with LEED
standards. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can attach
any condition. Ms. Cordill asked if this was the concession
stand near the Red Cedar Golf Course. She stated that the
intent was that these are seasonal buildings so there could
be some thought and consideration in terms of landscaping
to lower the air cooling costs.
Ms. Bruch stated that the LEED standards look into the long
term affect of the costs of energy and construction. It may
be a little more expensive in the beginning but in the long run
it is a lot cheaper. It saves on energy, construction costs
and replacement costs and maintenance. Ms. Cordill stated
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 11
that this is above and beyond a condition of building code.
Ms. Bruch stated that the building code is being reviewed to
see how it can be done for buildings to meet LEED
standards.
Mr. Ruge stated that he would accept this as a friendly
amendment especially with the price of energy increasing
the way it is, and it would make sense to plan long term.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
SLU-5-2005, 1526 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Special Land Use - Construction in the 100
Year Flood Plain.
Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. Z-9-2005, 4913 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential
District to "F" Commercial District
This is a request by A&D Development to rezone the
property at 4913 N. Grand River Avenue, more specifically
described as:
LOT 15 WESTMONT SUB, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial district, for the
purpose of utilizing the existing building for commercial and
office uses.
Staff recommended approval of Z-9-2005, 4913 N. Grand
River Avenue, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial
District, based upon its consistency with the surrounding
land uses, zoning patterns and the Northeast Area
Comprehensive Plan.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 12
Ms. Bruch stated that when she viewed the property there
was no curb on Grand River and there is a huge, open
driveway in the front. She asked about attaching conditions
to this request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that because it is a
rezoning request conditions cannot be attached because this
building is on such a small site that it practically consumes
the entire site. The building is all the way to the rear lot line.
In terms of the front lot line, it needs to be open so that
people can pull in and park in the front of the building. This
is the only area for parking on this site. People cannot park
along Grand River because it is a major street.
Ms. Bruch stated that the tire stops are so tight to the
building that it would be hard for pedestrians to walk in front
of the building. She asked if this case would go through the
site plan review process. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
applicants have been extremely cooperative and even
though there is not a process, they would be more than
happy to make accommodations.
Ms. Bruch stated that there was only one tree on the site in
the back of the property and there is space for trees
between the buildings. She stated that if there is any way to
add vegetation to the site, it would really help with the
appearance.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
Z-9-2005, 4913 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial
District.
Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
C. PRD-1-2005, Planned Residential Development,
Proposed Site Condominiums - East end of Wayne
Street
This is a request by Bob Creagh & Lynnette Wilkes for
approval of a Planned Residential Development. The
subject property is Lot 23 of Supervisor's Plat of Culver-Dale
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 13
Subdivision and is located at the east end of Wayne Street,
on the south side of the road. The applicant is proposing the
construction of 8 single family detached condominiums.
Staff recommended approval of PRD-1-2005, Planned
Residential Development, Proposed Site Condominiums -
East end of Wayne Street, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant preserve as many of the existing trees on
the site as possible, and protect the trees during
construction; and
2. The development complies with the Department of Public
Service standards for curb cuts and utility connections.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Department of Public Service
standards for curb cuts and utility connections;
2. Sidewalks be provided along the entire length of
Wayne Street, or at a minimum, the length of the
condominium project;
3. The drip line of all existing trees be protected during
construction;
4. The developer is to meet with the City Forester to
identify which trees are to be preserved;
5. The trees that have been removed be replaced to the
satisfaction of the City Forester;
6. Incorporate a playground or park area in the
development;
7. Provide details on site grading;
8. Snout houses be prohibited; and
9. Overhead power lines be prohibited;
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Ms. Stachowiak stated that since the Zone and Ordinance
Committee, there was a new set of plans and she brought
them with her this evening. These plans show new building
elevations which do not show the garages projecting in the
front of the house. The original plans showed the snout
houses. The new plans show the landscaping along the
street right-of-way and also more specifically along the east
property line. The new plans also show a pathway that links
to a 40 foot wide area at the south end of the development.
There are three locations designated for picnic tables, grills,
etc. which is consistent with the recommendation of the
Committee at the meeting. There was a lot of discussion
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 14
with the developer about doing this and he has made that
adjustment.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this plan shows the location of
the pond and some of it projects onto his property. This is
more of a civil case between the two property owners. This
has been brought to the Planning Office's attention before
this evening and the office has advised that this is a civil
matter between the property owners.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the plan more than meets the
density and the lots exceed the minimum size that the City
requires well within the density of the "A" Residential District.
From this stand point, staff recommended approval of the
request and will stand by the recommendation.
Ms. Cordill asked if the community has concerns of the pond
being an attractive nuisance for the neighborhood. Mr.
Hollister stated no and that at the time of the Committee, it
seemed like the pond was more out of the property rather
than in the property. It was not really clear at that time. The
general consensus of the people who attended was that the
pond was more off this property and on Ms. Swift's property.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the pond is already on the
property and there has been nothing to this point that has
required it. With building new houses, there is code that she
can refer to that says now the pond has to be fenced.
Someone can show up tomorrow by right and build four
houses on this lot without going before the Board. There
would be nothing that she could refer to that would say now
the pond has to be fenced in because it is already an
existing situation. Ms. Bruch asked if it was a brand new
pond, then something would have to be done with it. Ms.
Stachowiak stated not necessarily and there is nothing that
requires fencing in retention ponds. Ms. Bruch asked what
the difference is between a retention pond and a regular
pond. Ms. Stachowiak stated there is no difference. A pond
is a pond and the City does not require it to be fenced.
Mr. Ruge stated that with a retention pond the sides are so
steep that if someone steps on it, they would plunge down
into it. Ms. Bruch stated that she thought this was one of the
legal requirements with the way the shelf gets built and then
if there is not a very steep edge. Ms. Stachowiak stated if
there is an extremely steep edge, then the City does require
the pond to be fenced. A typical retention pond with a nice
soft grade would not require fencing. Ms. Stachowiak stated
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 15
that if the Board would like to make it a requirement that the
applicant fence it, it certainly can be done. Ms. Bruch stated
that if it is a steep edge, then it should be fenced. She
inquired about how deep the pond is. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that she could find out. Ms. Bruch stated from a
safety issue, she would like to know.
Mr. Ruge stated that this is straying from the Board's
business and that it certainly is a safety issue. He stated
that it is not the Board's safety issue and that if it is
dangerous, the applicant would have to deal with it or deal
with the consequences. He stated that the Board is really
looking at the use of the property and is this use of the
property a good use. He believes that the Board should
leave it to the developer to deal with these issues with the
pond.
Mr. Czekai stated that there was quite a bit of objection both
verbal and documented here and he did not see a lot of
discussion in the Committee. He asked if there was a lot of
objection and if folks attended the Committee meeting. Mr.
Ruge stated that there have been objections all along and
people feel that this is too dense of a development. The
Committee did not discuss it very much because they did not
feel that it was a dense development. He still does not feel
that eight houses on a small street like this is really
overdevelopment for this short size of a street. Mr. Hollister
asked Ms. Stachowiak to explain why this case is before the
Board.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that because this is a platted lot by
itself, by ordinance and State law, it can only be split four
times. If it is split more than four times, under current law,
the applicants would have to go to Circuit Court, have the
original plat vacated and then re-plat it. The whole process
would take approximately two years and the end result
would be exactly the same as what the Board has before it
now. She stated that the difference would actually work
against the Board. The way the applicants is doing it now,
they would avoid the lengthy process but they do it with the
condominiums so there can be open space along the back
with grills and access to it. These are things that the
applicants would not get if the request went through the
other process.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that in terms of density, the City
requires a lot size of 60 by 100 and every one of these lots is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 16
at least 74 feet wide by 138.5 feet deep. The applicants
have more than exceeded the City's lot size requirements
plus there is all the open space in the back
Ms. Stachowiak stated in terms of the street, it is narrow but
the City's engineers are of mind that the City is trying to
make the local roads narrower because it slows traffic. It is
a traffic calming device and there is less asphalt which is
environmentally positive.
Ms. Cordill stated that with condition number 8, she asked if
the Board would want to have the developer build according
to the site plans and elevations. Mr. Ruge stated that he
had the same concern and he suggested that the Board say
a portion of the garage should project in front of the rest of
the house. Mr. Hollister stated that it does not mean the
developer could do something that was not in the plan but
still comply with the Board's intentions.
Mr. Hollister stated that all of the items brought up in the
Committee report have been addressed on this revision.
Ms. Cordill inquired about street lights and stated that she
did not remember seeing street lights. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that her understanding is that street lights will be put
in. Ms. Cordill asked if the lights would be the classic
Lansing lights. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure of
the style but that lighting would be added. Ms. Cordill asked
if the Board could encourage lighting. Ms. Stachowiak said
yes.
Mr. Hollister stated that he is concerned with the allegation
made earlier of court lawsuits. He would be interested in
finding out if there is any truth to those allegations and what
the nature was of the court lawsuits, if any, pending against
the developer and what hearing there might be on this. He
asked if the appropriate thing to do is make a motion to table
the request to find out about it. Mr. Ruge stated that he
does not know Mr. Creagh's reputation and he is not really
concerned about it. The Board is concerned with what the
land use is here. If it turns out that Mr. Creagh does have a
bad reputation, he would think that the Code Compliance
Office takes this into account when handling inspections.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the bottom line is the applicants
have to meet the Zoning code, the conditions of the PRD
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 17
and building codes. Nothing will be approved unless codes
are met.
Ms. Cordill stated that the Board should move this case
forward. If you are going to have someone build your home
then you would be concerned about the reputation and take
that upon yourself to choose a builder that you are confident
with.
Ms. Bruch stated that she did view the site and she read that
all existing trees will be protected and need to be identified.
She stated that there are no existing trees and the area had
been cleared. There is a huge pile of roots and there is no
way of knowing how many trees were on the site. The
applicants have clear cut the site and this does not feel
good. This alone gave her a really bad feel for the site
because this was a step that was done before anything else
needed to be done. She could not see what the existing
trees were that had been removed.
Ms. Bruch stated that she did see the pile of tires and junk
that probably came out of stuff and she was glad to see that
at least the site was being cleaned up.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
PRD-1-2005, Planned Residential Development, Proposed Site Condominiums -
East end of Wayne Street.
Bruch . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
a. ACT-3-2005, NW Corner MILK & W Washtenaw, Market
for Sale
Mr. Hollister recused himself from this matter due to his
employment with Habitat for Humanity.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 18
This is a request by the City of Lansing Development Office
to sale property to Habitat for Humanity of Lansing to build a
single family home at the NW corner of MLK Jr. Blvd. and W.
Washtenaw, more specifically described as:
The East % of Lot 2, Plat of Taylor's Addition, City of
Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the
recorded plat thereof as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats,
Page 23, Ingham County Records.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-3-2005, NW Corner
MLK & W Washtenaw, Market for Sale.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (2-0).
The Committee found that the character of the area, which is
predominately residential, will not change as a result of the
proposal, and that the location, extent and character appear
to be reasonable.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of
ACT-3-2005, NW Corner MILK &W Washtenaw, Market for Sale.
Bruch Ave Ruge. Ave
Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. ACT-4-2005, 225 W. Washtenaw, Easement in City
Parking Lot, Lot 11, Bilk 127, Original Plat
This is a request by the Michigan Restaurant Association to
secure an easement or deed restriction on the adjacent City
owned property. The purpose of the request is to allow the
reconstruction of their building with windows (without fire
protection) on the property north of and abutting 225 W.
Washtenaw. The easement/deed restriction would entail the
north 10 feet (20' max.) of the City Parking Lot behind the S.
Capitol Parking Ramp, and would be specifically described
as:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 19
The north 10 - 20 feet of the west 110 feet of Lot 11,
Block 127, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-4-2005, 225 W.
Washtenaw, Easement in City Parking Lot, Lot 11, Blk 127,
Original Plat with conditions.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. The easement/deed restriction on building setback
extend no further than 11 feet from the north property
line;
2. The easement(s)/deed restriction be constructed in
accordance with recommendations of the City
Attorney;
3. The easements/deed restriction not interfere with the
current use of the property for surface parking;
4. The City be compensated for any costs or lost
revenue resulting from the applicant's use of a four
foot wide access easement, extending from the rear
door to the public right-of-way; and
5. A four foot wide access easement along the north
property line be authorized, conditioned on the
applicant reimbursing the City for any costs or lost
revenue resulting from the use of this area by the
applicant;
and the motion carried unanimously (2-0)
The Committee also requested that a sketch of the floor
plans for the new building be provided to the Board and that
Cooley Law School comments be obtained regarding the
requested 4 foot access easement.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of
ACT-4-2005, 225 W. Washtenaw, Easement in City Parking Lot, Lot 11, Bilk 127,
Original Plat.
Bruch . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . Ave Hollister Ave
Czekai. Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 20
C. ACT-5-2005, 3131 E. Alden Square, Encroachment into
ROW
This is a request by Jeffery L. Worrall to correct an existing
encroachment into the Alden Square Right of Way. The
method used may involve a vacation of that portion of the
ROW; an easement; or a license of the portion of the
building extending into Alden Square. The purpose of the
request is to clear up this encroachment to facilitate the sale
of the property with the lender, Comerica Bank.
Staff recommended that the City grant a license to the
applicant to continue the portion of the building at 3131
Alden Square that encroaches into the Alden Square right-
of-way, subject to a survey to determine the extent of the
encroachment.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval,
with modifications, that the applicant and the City enter into a
license agreement to permit the continuation of the portion of
the building at 3131 Alden Square that encroaches into the
Alden Square right-of-way, provided that:
1. The applicant provide a survey to determine the
extent of the encroachment;
2. The license would be intended to remain in effect
throughout the life of the existing building.
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
The Committee further recommended that the City consider
vacating the Alden Square ROW, reserving utility easements
as appropriate. NOTE: This portion of the Committee's
recommendation is beyond the limits of this review, and
would be subject to a separate Act 285 Review regarding the
entire Alden Square ROW.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of
ACT-5-2005, 3131 E. Alden Square, Encroachment into ROW.
Bruch Ave Ruge. Ave
Cordill. Ave Hollister Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 21
d. ACT-6-2005, 100 Blk W Elm St, Sale of Property
This request is by William & Francis Nakfoor to acquire City
owned property on Elm Street in exchange for an easement
across the west end of their property at 1114 (formerly
addressed at 1108 S. Washington). The Nakfoors also own
1102 S. Washington and propose to use the subject property
for additional parking. Note: An Act 285 was conducted in
the past (Act-14-99) to sell the subject City owned property
for the exchange of another property.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-6-2005, 100 Blk W Elm
St, Sale of Property.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval of
the conveyance of the subject parcel to the applicant,
provided:
1. That an easement of like value be granted by the
applicant along western portion of 1114 S.
Washington Avenue to the City of Lansing;
2. The use of the subject property be approved through
the Site Plan Review process for the expansion of
parking spaces, to include landscaping as required by
Section 1290 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. That any future use of the property prohibits
billboards, signs, outdoor storage, and storage junk
vehicles;
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Mr. Ruge asked if there was an old gas station on the corner
which is now an auto sales place. Ms. Stachowiak stated
yes. He stated that this case came before the Board several
years ago and the applicant was not able to complete the
requirements because of some restriction on the use of the
land. Mr. Rieske gave a brief overview of the case.
Ms. Bruch stated that this is really steep and she was not
sure if there was any space to add a trail. She asked if the
City was getting an equal exchange cost wise. Mr. Rieske
stated that this would be a trade. The value of the land was
assigned by the City Assessor's Office and the easement
that the City is getting in return would be of like value. The
Planning Office is still working on the exact definition of the
easement and before a City Council resolution is passed, he
needs to have a legal description that is acceptable.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 22
Ms. Bruch stated that it looks like it will be an interesting
development and the City lot is empty. There is a gate that
has already been cut through and she was wondering if the
all of the fencing could be removed. Mr. Rieske stated that
he is not familiar with the site plan review of this case. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the site plan review has already been
done.
Ms. Bruch asked if it is possible for the developer to even
develop the park. It would be an amenity for the developer,
the City would gain by having it developed into a park, and
everyone would win in the situation. Mr. Rieske stated that
this could be brought up and that it was not previously part of
the negotiations.
Mr. Larry Nakfor, Wenco Properties, stated that on the
north side of the property, the cut was made in the fence to
run the storm sewer down stream from the property to the
north. It is not a gate. As far as future plans for the site, he
stated that site is being acquired for the potential use of a
restaurant and parking for the restaurant. He did not want
there to be any misunderstandings as far as the potential
use of the parcel.
Ms. Bruch stated that she was referring to the parcel that the
City owned and that she really liked the development. There
will be people living there and it would seem that if this was
developed, it would be an amenity for Mr. Nakfor's property
to have a City park at this location. It would also be an
amenity for the City. Mr. Nakfor stated that this is one of his
interests and when someone is talking about giving up water
frontage for a largely abandoned piece of property on Elm
Street, this is a good deal for the taxpayers. His incentive for
doing this is so that a plan for erosion control on the bank for
the entire east side be discussed with the Department of
Natural Resources, the City and each property owner along
the east shore of the river. This is his incentive for the
easement falling under the City's jurisdiction.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the width of the easement. Mr.
Rieske stated that it needs to be of like value and that it has
not been completely determined yet.
Ms. Bruch asked if Mr. Nakfor would be opposed to looking
into the piece of property that the City owns right next the
river and enter into some type of an agreement with the City
as possibly developing the park. Mr. Nakfor stated that he
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 23
already presented a site plan to the City for the property
located at 1114 as part of the ground for that site. He does
not want to speak out of terms and say yes when he already
has a site plan that shows parking lots on this property. Ms.
Bruch stated that it is the property next to the river not the
property being swapped. Mr. Nakfor stated that it would fall
as much under what the City's plans are for that lot.
Ms. Bruch asked if there was something that could start a
conversation regarding the City parcel. Ms. Stachowiak
stated yes. Mr. Rieske stated that he would take care of it.
Ms. Bruch stated that it would create on wonderful space
and it would help the developer and the City.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of
ACT-6-2005, 100 Blk W Elm St, Sale of Property.
Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Mr. Czekai asked for clarification of Committee members and
stated that Mr. Frederick was temporarily sitting in and since the
Committee is wrapping up the conversation, he will no longer be
attending. Ms. Bruch stated because of her commitments with
school, her schedule does not allow her to attend the 4:00 p.m.
meetings on Wednesday. She can attend meetings scheduled
before the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Czekai stated that it
would be a lot easier if the Committee could have her as a
permanent member. Ms. Stachowiak stated that for the remainder
of this semester, the Planning Office will automatically send her
packets for the UDC meetings rather than Z&O meetings.
Next meeting, Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to set up a COW meeting to
discuss the Planning Board goals. She asked when this could be
done. Ms. Stachowiak asked if Ms. Bruch wanted to set up a COW
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 24
meeting or an Executive Committee meeting. Ms. Bruch stated she
would like to set up a meeting with the Executive Committee. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she would have Sarah set up the meeting.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a push right now to get all privately
owned benches out of the city. She said that it is her understanding that
somebody from CATA is pushing this and has the ear of some of the
elected officials in the City as well as some of the Department heads. She
stated that staff is doing what they have been told which is to get all of the
privately owned benches off the public right-of-way so that CATA can put
down its own benches. The problem is that CATA will do them one at a
time over the next 10 years and when you see these private benches right
now, people are sitting on them. The benches are serving a good public
purpose.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the private company is moving the benches
from the right-of-way on to private property because then they figure now
it is no longer a public service issue, but rather a planning issue. She
stated that the Planning Office, Code Compliance and Building Safety
have taken the position, and Mr. Ruff is supportive, that they will not
require that they be removed from private property.
Ms. Bruch asked who gave the order. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she
does not know. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board needs to find out who
gave the executive order and have them come talk to the Board.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is her understanding that someone has
instructed Dave Berridge, Public Service Director, to have his staff get
these billboards removed. Ms. Bruch stated that Mr. Berridge needs to
come before the Board and explain why he is doing this.
Mr. Ruge stated that the City generally has to get a license to place items
in the public right-of-way (i.e. signs). The benches probably do not have
any kind of a license. He stated that they are probably talking about these
advertising benches. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the license had expired
years ago and was never renewed. In fact, the Board approved an ACT
285 review many years ago, in 1989 or 1990. According to the Public
Service Department, the bench company has been great and whenever
CATA has wanted to put a bench down in a particular location, the bench
company has immediately gotten rid of theirs. The company has been
really cooperative and the City has not considered getting a license
agreement from them because they have not caused any problems and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 25
these benches serve a good public purpose. Ms. Bruch asked if getting a
license agreement would permit the benches to stay. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that a license agreement would allow the benches to stay but it
sounds as if some folks in the City have taken the position that they do not
want the benches to stay. Ms. Bruch stated that this needs to be
addressed because she believes that this would be a complete disservice
to get rid of the benches. Mr. Czekai asked if the Board could request Mr.
Berridge's presence at the next meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she
would ask.
Mr. Czekai stated that the Mayor can give a directive to the department
heads. Ms. Bruch asked if only the Mayor can give a directive and if
someone on City Council can give a directive just like that. Mr. Czekai
stated not individually and that it would have to come from the Mayor. Ms.
Bruch stated that maybe the Board needs to send a letter to the Mayor
saying that it disagrees with the stance about the benches and could he
please do something about it. Ms. Bruch asked if Ms. Stachowiak could
draft a letter to the Mayor. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she could.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council did approve the special land use
for the Quakers church in Old Town. The other request has been pulled
from the City Council agenda for further discussion by the Committee of
the Whole.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that when the Board has speakers, it is set up so
that the speakers sign in and begin talking. It takes an extra minute or so
for every person to do that. She stated that City Council has a sign up
sheet in the back of the room where people can sign up as they walk in.
She stated that the Board needs to start doing this. The Board will have it
so that people can sign up as they come in, if they want to speak. Maybe
it could be announced that if a person has not already signed up, after
speaking please sign up at the back table.
Mr. Czekai inquired about SLU-1-2005 and SLU-2-2005. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that SLU-2-2005 has been tabled at City Council, and that the City
of Lansing has entered into an agreement with the Quakers church and if
approved, the other church would also have to include the same
agreement that says: 1) They will not sell their church to another church
and that it has to stay a Quaker church; and 2) That they will not object to
liquor licenses at all. The City Attorney had drafted that agreement. Both
churches are represented by their own council and have agreed with the
terms. They felt that this covered the majority of the concerns.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Attorney advised the churches all
along that they would have a very difficult time defending this in court, if it
went there, given that they are agreeable to entering into this agreement
that satisfies all the all the concerns. Ms. Bruch asked why the Board
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 26
was informed by the City Attorney that this would be useless. She stated
that the reason why the Board voted the way it did was based on the City
Attorney's recommendation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Attorney
did change the decision. Ms. Bruch stated that this is a huge concern
because the Board was not getting the correct information.
Mr. Czekai stated that it feels as though a) The Board is not getting
accurate information at its level; and b) The Board's recommendations are
not going anywhere. Ms. Stachowiak stated that 99 percent of the time
City Council agrees with the Board. Mr. Czekai stated that it feels like on
some of the more controversial issues City Council disagrees. He stated
that it seems frustrating. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is their neck on the
line if they make a decision, and that they do take the Board's
recommendations very seriously. Ms. Bruch stated that at this point it is
just once case that City Council had turned over and it was because the
Board received the wrong information. That to her, is the worst part. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that Ms. Bruch had indicated that she would have voted
in favor of the request which would have changed the vote to a majority
vote. Ms. Stachowiak stated that when Paul Novak, the City Attorney, got
involved in the case, he determined that there was a mechanism for doing
the agreement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there will be more of these
requests and that the Board has had a lot of these types of request in the
past. At least now the Board knows where it stands.
Mr. Rieske stated that the City Council's role is different from the Board's
role. The Board's role is to ensure that public participation happens, and
that public input is received, acted upon and considered in the process.
The Board's role also is to ensure that to the maximum feasible ability that
a technically sound recommendation is presented to City Council.
Mr. Rieske stated that City Council's job is to consider all of those things
but also to weigh in political considerations that are not necessarily a part
of the Board's actions. City Council's role as elected officials is to factor in
those politics as well as the technical recommendation that they received
both from staff and their citizen boards.
Mr. Rieske stated that the Board can help to ensure City Council
concurance with some of the recommendations (i.e. the conditions) by
making sure that the Board is careful to add things like "further
recommends that this happens". The Board needs to be careful that it
doesn't attach conditions to cases and render it impossible. It things are
attached as further recommendations which will be represented when the
case goes to the Mayor and subsequently to City Council. This type of a
move helps to build credibility. What the City does not want is to attach
conditions such that babies are thrown out with bath waters. When this
happens, the Board's credibility goes down hill.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 27
Ms. Cordill stated that with SLU-1-2005, part of the issue is how Michigan
law is. Had the State law been different, this would not have been an
issue.
Ms. Bruch asked the status of the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
the City Attorney is working on it and that she does not know the exact
status of it. She will look into the matter.
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)
C. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street, "B"Residential District to
"I"'Commercial District(Tabled July 13, 2005)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj.Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Master Plan Project
C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,
Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003)
b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping &buffering (May 20,
2003)
C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
e. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004)
g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4,2004)
h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
i. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
j. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
k. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd- illegal signs (February 15,2005)
I. 400 Allen Street-small port holes for windows (April 19, 2005)
M. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005)
n. 704 S. Clemens Street-"For Sale"items (May 3, 2005)
o. Corner of Aurelius&Cavanaugh Rds-Citgo Gas Station-high grass/weeds
(July 5,2005)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Ms. Bruch stated that she was happy to see the big billboards come down and
was so dishearted to see them go back up right at Saginaw Street and Grand
River Avenue. She stated that at Saginaw Street and Coolidge Road there are
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 6, 2005 Page 28
two huge billboards. The billboards were taken down, some work was done and
then the billboards were put back up. She asked Ms. Stachowiak to look into the
matter. She stated that she would like to revisit the billboard issues.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Cordill stated for Executive Committee, she would be able to make the
meeting a lot easier if it were the same night as a Board meeting than a separate
night. Ms. Stachowiak asked if 6:00 p.m. would work. Ms. Bruch stated it would
give the Executive Committee an hour and that would work.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.090605.doc
Approved as written 9-6-05 Draft to Clerk August 5,2005
Approved September 6,2005
To Clerk September 7,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Bruch, Czekai, Hollister.
2. HEARINGS
A. PRD-1-2005, Planned Residential Development, Proposed Site
Condominiums - East end of Wayne Street
This is a request by Bob Creagh & Lynnette Wilkes for approval of a
Planned Residential Development. The subject property is Lot 23 of
Supervisor's Plat of Culver-Dale Subdivision and is located at the east end
of Wayne Street, on the south side of the road. The applicant is proposing
the construction of 8 single family detached condominiums.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Ruge inquired about floor plans, building elevations and landscaping.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have the applicant provide this
information for the Z&O Committee meeting.
Mr. Frederick asked why this land was not being platted. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the land is already platted and as such, it can only be split four
times without being re-platted. Re-platted requires a Circuit Court action to
vacate the original plat. It is a lengthy process and can take up to 2 years
to complete. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the condominium option, which
the applicant is proposing, results in the same style of development and is
a much shorter and less involved process.
Mr. Bob Creagh, resident of 2626 Walmar Drive, stated that there is a
$70,000 assessment on the property and that the new homes will range
from $139,000 to $200,000. The homes will be approximately 2,000
square feet and will have nice large lots. He stated that he would like to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2005 Page 2
market the homes to City employees. He stated that there are only four
houses on the street and that it is a very quiet neighborhood.
Mr. Ruge inquired if there would be snout houses. Mr. Creagh stated that
there would not be snout houses.
Mr. Alvin Jones, resident of 1518 Lockbridge Drive, stated that he
owns the property across the street and that he is concerned with traffic
and parking.
Mr. Paul Perry, resident of 2115 Wayne Street, stated that he would
prefer one house instead of eight houses.
Mr. Ron Sutberry, resident of 2208 E. Cavanaugh Road, stated that he
is opposed to the eight condominiums because it would be too crowded.
Ms. Jackie Smith, resident of 2019 Wayne Street, stated that she is
concerned about maintaining a residential area and that currently there are
no sidewalks along Wayne Street for pedestrians. She stated that the
condominiums would increase traffic on Wayne Street which could create
a safety problem.
Ms. Laurie Sutberry, resident of 2208 E. Cavanaugh Road, stated that
she is opposed to the condominium development and that there would be
too many units. The increase will cause crime and traffic problems. She
stated that the condominiums would have small lots in comparison to other
lots in the immediate area.
Mr. Frederick inquired about why there are no sidewalks on Wayne Street.
Ms. Stachowiak said that she would ask the Public Service Department.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing
and referred PRD-1-2005, Planned Residential Development, Proposed
Site Condominiums - East end of Wayne Street to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 10, 2005 at 4:00 in
the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-9-2005, 4913 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential District to
"F-1" Commercial District
This is a request by A&D Development to rezone the property at 4913 N.
Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as:
LOT 15 WESTMONT SUB, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM
COUNTY, MICHIGAN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2005 Page 3
from "A" Residential to "F-1" Commercial district, for the purpose of
utilizing the existing building for commercial and office uses.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Frederick inquired about the types of uses that would be permitted on
the property if it were rezoned to "F" Commercial. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that the "F" Commercial district permits office, retail, restaurant, car sales
and a variety of other uses. However, in this case, the small size of the
site and the limited amount of parking will greatly restrict the types of uses
that could actually locate on the property.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the possibility of the site being zoned "D-1"
Professional Office since the applicant is proposing office uses. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the staff report for the Z&O Committee meeting
would address this matter.
Mr. Frederick asked about the required landscape, screening and
buffering for this property, if the rezoning is approved. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that there would have to be a buffer strip behind the building,
adjacent to the residentially zoned land to the south.
Mr. Clyde Alcox, P.O. Box 12275, stated that there is no room for
buffering behind the building and that the lot behind the building is a
parking lot.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing
and referred Z-9-2005, 4913 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential
District to "F-1" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, scheduled to meet on August 10, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning
and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol
Avenue.
3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Ms. Mary Swift, resident of 6201 W. Mt. Hope Road, stated that she owns the
property located at 2125 Irene Court and the pond. She is concerned about
liability.
Mr. Jim Froehlich, CATA, stated that he was asked to attend this meeting
regarding the proposed rezoning on Jolly Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
public hearing was rescheduled for September 6, 2005 and that she would
contact Mr. Froehlich before the meeting.
4. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2005 Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
,f.
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.080305.doc
Approved as written 9-6-05 Draft to Clerk July 27,2005
Approved September 6,2005
To Clerk September 7,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Frederick, Bruch.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Frederick for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Czekai requested an excused absence for the August 3rd meeting.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Czekai for the August 3rd meeting. On a voice vote,
the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Hollister requested an excused absence for the August 3rd meeting.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Hollister for the August 3rd meeting. On a voice vote,
the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Petition of support regarding NCU-1-2005
4. HEARINGS — None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 2
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — July 5, 2005
Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of
July 5, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (4-0). The minutes of July 5, 2005 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. LS-15-2005, 1725 Dell Road, Lot Split
This is a request by Orville & Barbara Starkey to divide the
property at 1725 Dell Road into 4 separate parcels of land.
Section 1236.07(d) allows a maximum width to depth ratio
of to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, 3 of the resulting
lots would have a width to depth ratio that exceeds 1 to 2.5.
The proposed width to depth ratios are 1 to 2.97, 1 to 3.08
and 1 to 3.48. Therefore, variances from the design
requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested.
Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the
compatibility of the proposed lots sizes with the surrounding
area.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
LS-15-2005, 1725 Dell Road, Lot Split.
Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 3
b. Z-5-2005, 2211/2213 Turner Street, "A" Residential
District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by Andreas Kaliyanakis to rezone the
property at 2211/2213 Turner Street, more specifically
described as:
Lot 13, except the West 24 feet, Fairhaven
Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County,
Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the
purpose of combining the existing structures at this location
for use as a duplex.
Staff recommended approval of Z-5-2005, 2211/2213 Turner
Street, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District.
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 recommend approval of
Z-5-2005, 2211/2213 Turner Street, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential
District
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister Ave Czekai. Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
C. Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of Vacant Property, 800 Block of
Louisa Street, "DM-3" Residential District to 11D-1"
Professional Office District
This is a request by a request by Don Morton to rezone the
west 24 feet of the property located on the north side of the
road, between 739 & 835 Louisa, more specifically described
as:
East 24 Feet of South 144.25 Feet, Lot 89
Supervisors Plat No. 3, T3N R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 4
from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office
District for the purpose of constructing an office building with
associated parking on the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of
Vacant Property, 800 Block of Louisa Street, "DM-3"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District.
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 recommend approval of
Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of Vacant Property, 800 Block of Louisa Street, "DM-3"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District.
Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
d. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street, "B"
Residential District to "F" Commercial District
Mr. Ruge stated the Committee discussed the case quite a
bit and saw some good possibilities. But with the
neighborhoods, some strong opposition and the fact that
there has not been any discussions between the
neighborhood and the developer, the Committee thought it
was best to table the request to allow them to get together
and try to work something out.
Next meeting, Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the
Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 5
Ms. Cordill asked for a volunteer for the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruge agreed to
Chair.
3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — Mr. Ruge, Acting Chair.
a. NCU-1-2005: Special Land Use Permit, 1124/1126
Pulaski, Class "A" Nonconforming Status
The applicant, Michelle Griffin, is requesting a Class "A"
nonconforming status to permit the expansion of a
nonconforming use. More specifically, the applicant has two
houses on one lot that is zoned for single family use. The
house to the rear of the property (1124 Pulaski) sustained
fire damage some time ago. The applicant desires to
reconstruct the second floor of this house and construct a
new front porch. Since the property is nonconforming, a
building permit cannot be approved by the Planning Office
for this work, unless a Class A Nonconforming Status is
approved by the Planning Board.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. She stated that the
request was tabled at the last meeting and the Board asked
for additional background information on the property, the
history with the Code Compliance Office in terms of
violations, and input from the neighborhood and various City
offices. She stated that an agency referral was mailed and
the Planning Office received comments from several of the
agencies, some of which were not available when the staff
report was written. The Building Safety Office made a few
comments about whether the foundation will even support
the additional weight of a second floor and that the applicant
will have to add some emergency escape and rescue
openings per the current code. The Code Compliance
Office noted that there has been a number of violations over
the years and that it is hopeful that the new owner will
improve the property. With this being the case, the Code
Compliance Office is supportive of the NCU.
Comments were received from the City Assessor's Office
and the Development Office as no comments.
Board of Water and Light (electric and water) have
recommended approval of the NCU.
Public Service recommended a separate sanitary leave for
each building on the property, if not already done.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no neighborhood
organization that includes this property. In lieu of that, the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 6
property owner went out and canvassed the neighborhood
and has a petition that was passed out this evening. The
petition was signed by 25 residents in the immediately area
expressing their support of the NCU.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview of the violations in the
past. Both buildings have current and valid rental
registration certificates. Both buildings were red tagged
briefly back in 2004 when a previous owner owned this
property. That owner brought the buildings back up to code
relatively quickly. The red tags were removed and the
owner has had valid certificates ever since.
She stated that the Code Compliance Office provided a list
which is just beyond the staff report in the packet that shows
the violations over the past 6 years. The Board can see that
there are a number of things in terms of correction notices.
There is quite a history and the buildings have been in good
shape lately and everyone is hopeful that these property
owners will further improve things.
Mr. Czekai stated that in Committee, some of the concerns
were with the exterior of the buildings. Ms. Stachowiak
stated the reason for that is the applicants have applied for
some permits to do work on the house. In the staff report,
she indicated that there is some work that has already been
done, specifically in terms of electrical, mechanical and
plumbing. Because the buildings are nonconforming, the
applicants are limited to 35% of the value of this entire
property that they can put into it, which is not a whole lot of
money. It is just a few thousand dollars. The applicants are
at the maximum and that is one of the reasons why they are
here. The applicants cannot put new siding on this property
unless the Board approves the NCU.
Mr. Ruge stated that the drawing indicates 24 inch blown in
insulation in the porch roof. He asked if the porch would be
used as living space or if it would all be enclosed. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she is not sure.
Mr. Joe Lewis, property owner, stated that it is not a porch
and that it would be an addition to the front of the house.
The front of the house would be brought forward and that it
will be living space. It will be insulated, heated and the
whole nine yards.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 7
Ms. Cordill stated that she is trying to picture what the
building may look like with a second story addition. Mr.
Ruge stated that she could get an idea from the drawing.
Mr. Lewis stated that if the Board looked at the top of the
house where it is pitched, there was a fire there and that is
why it is slanted. An entire room was taken out. They
propose to bring the pitch up to the middle of the house to
make it a normal roof. Ms. Cordill stated like a gable pitch.
Mr. Lewis stated that it will be centered normal, 18 feet, and
the addition will be at the bottom of the floor. He stated that
the second floor will basically be restored to how it actually
was.
Mr. Hollister asked if the Board should say instead of one
year from this approval it should be approval by City Council.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board is the final approving
authority on NCUs. This request does not go before City
Council.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to recommend approval of
NCU-1-2005: Special Land Use Permit, 1124/1126 Pulaski, Class "A"
Nonconforming Status with the conditions that the all work is completed within
one year from the date of this approval and that the driveway and rear parking
pad be hard surfaced in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance for driveways in a Single Family Residential Zoning District.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to arise from the Committee of the
Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — Mr. Ruge, Acting Chair.
a. NCU-1-2005: Special Land Use Permit, 1124/1126
Pulaski, Class "A" Nonconforming Status
The applicant, Michelle Griffin, is requesting a Class "A"
nonconforming status to permit the expansion of a
nonconforming use. More specifically, the applicant has two
houses on one lot that is zoned for single family use. The
house to the rear of the property (1124 Pulaski) sustained
fire damage some time ago. The applicant desires to
reconstruct the second floor of this house and construct a
new front porch. Since the property is nonconforming, a
building permit cannot be approved by the Planning Office
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 8
for this work, unless a Class A Nonconforming Status is
approved by the Planning Board
Mr. Ruge gave a brief overview of the Committee of the
Whole discussion.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of Vacant Property, 800 Block of Louisa Street, "DM-3"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District with the following
conditions: 1) That the all work is completed within one year from the date of this
approval; and 2) That the driveway and rear parking pad be hard surfaced in
accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for
driveways in a Single Family Residential Zoning District.
Ruge. . . . Ave Cordill. . . Aye
Hollister Ave Czekai. Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
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)
C. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street,"B"Residential District to
"F"Commercial District(Tabled July 13,2005)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
C. Master Plan Project
d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,
Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003)
b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,
2003)
C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 9
g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4,2004)
h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
i. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
j. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
k. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15, 2005)
I. 400 Allen Street-small port holes for windows(April 19, 2005)
M. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3,2005)
n. 704 S. Clemens Street-"For Sale"items (May 3,2005)
o. 3610 Callihan Court-check for registered rental (July 5,2005)
P. 811 Luwanna Drive-too many people living in a rental unit(July 5,2005)
q. Corner of Aurelius&Cavanaugh Rds-Citgo Gas Station-high grass/weeds
(July 5,2005)
r. Southeast corner of Grand River&Capitol Avenues-tall grass/weeds(July 5,
2005)
With item 5o, Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a registered rental with a
valid certificate.
With item 5p, the address is incorrect.
With items 5q and 5r, both have been submitted for cutting by the City's
contractor and should be done by the next meeting.
With item 51, the Building inspector stated that the windows are in violation
of the Building code.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Wood Street Truck Prohibition Study
Ms. Stachowiak stated that a group of Lansing Township residents, calling
themselves "Save Groesback, Save Lives", is opposed to the truck traffic
on Wood Street and is petitioning the Ingham County Road Commission to
prohibit trucks from using Wood Street. If this happens, the ICRC has to
find an alternate route for the trucks, and that route would essentially
involve sending all the truck traffic down Lake Lansing Road. The City of
Lansing Transportation Department, Public Service Department, Traffic
Advisory Report Board and the Police Advisory Board object to this. The
Planning Office is bringing this request before the Board tonight because it
would like to have the Board's opinion as well. She stated that the ICRC is
holding a public hearing on this matter this Thursday and the City
Transportation engineers will be attending and would like to express the
opinions of all the City Boards.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that one of the items mentioned in the document is
that the houses along Wood Street sit back significantly further than the
houses along Lake Lansing Road, some of which are very close to the
front property lines. Any negative affects that are being felt by the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 10
residents on Wood Street will be felt at least twice as badly by the
residents along Lake Lansing Road. Furthermore, Lake Lansing Road is a
major street. It is designed to carry a high volume of traffic but not
necessarily designed to carry the volume of traffic it is carrying now plus all
the traffic that would be forced on to it by another street. It is a less direct
route for the trucks to get to the freeway so they would have to travel even
further on City Roads, which has a negative impact on the City's
infrastructure altogether. For these reasons, the staff and Boards who
have reviewed the request, are opposed to it. The Planning Office would
like to have the Board's official opinion by way of a motion.
Mr. Hollister asked where the trucks would be coming from and where
would they be going. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the problem is more with
the northbound traffic than it is with the southbound traffic. Mr. Hollister
said the trucks would be traveling down Grand River, turning on Wood
Street and heading north. He asked where the trucks would be headed.
Ms. Stachowiak stated she was not sure. Mr. Czekai asked if Granger
was along there. Mr. Hollister stated that Granger does have something
along Wood Street. Mr. Ruge stated that there is a place that recycles
concrete.
Ms. Stachowiak stated another item mentioned in the study was that
nobody likes to see huge trucks going up and down this street and nobody
wants the noise, vibrations or the exhaust. She stated that there has
never been an accident, especially one involving a truck on Wood Street.
A discussion ensued regarding north and south routes, including Larch
Street, US 127, Chandler Road, Abbot Road and possibly High Street.
Mr. Ruge stated that Wood Street is pretty wide, the posted speed is 35
mph and speeding is encouraged because of the construction of the road.
He thinks that the County could help by doing some striping for bike lanes
and perhaps it would help the pedestrians. Ms. Cordill stated that there
are no sidewalks down towards the houses immediately north of the toll
gate wetlands. By Lake Lansing Road there are some sidewalks. Mr.
Ruge stated that if some improvements (i.e. sidewalks, bike lanes,
narrowing of lanes) like these were made, slower trucks create less noise
and less vibration. He stated that this would be a safer situation. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she can transmit these comments along with the
Board's recommendation.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to oppose the request by "Save
Groesback, Save Lives" and to support the Wood Street Truck Prohibition Study. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 11
Mr. Ruge offered a friendly amendment to encourage the Ingham County
Road Commission to install traffic calming measures on Wood Street.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. RuF, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.071905.doc
Approved as written 7-19-05 Draft to Clerk July 13,2005
Approved July 19,2005
To Clerk August 1,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall =<'
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION i
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. ;
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Cordill.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Cordill for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from Mr. Carl Levin regarding Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-5-20055 2211/2213 Turner Street, "A" Residential District to "C"
Residential District
This is a request by Andreas Kaliyanakis to rezone the property at
2211/2213 Turner Street, more specifically described as:
Lot 13, except the West 24 feet, Fairhaven Subdivision, City of
Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of
combining the existing structures at this location for use as a duplex.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 2
Mr. Ruge asked if there was a reason why the applicant did not apply for a
lot split and have two nonconforming lots. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
applicant could do it that way and that the applicant would have to not only
apply for two nonconforming lots but because the structure are so close to
each other, the lot line would have to run between them, and the applicant
would also need variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for setback
purposes. The applicant may also run into other variances (i.e. lot
coverage, possibly more front and rear setbacks). The applicant would
need the minimum side yard setbacks as well. She stated that it would be
a pretty involved process and that if this request is not approved, this
might be the way the applicant chooses to go the second time around, if it
comes to that.
Mr. Ruge inquired about parking. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff would
need to make some recommendations on parking. Currently there is an
unimproved drive that runs right off of Turner Street and it sort of runs right
in front of the house. This is the existing driveway. If the request is
approved and the applicant is able to connect the two structures, a
driveway would be placed elsewhere on the property so that parking
would be in the back yard or in the side yard rather than the front yard as it
is currently.
Mr. Andreas Kaliyanakis, applicant, stated that these two houses have
been here for a long time. The first home is currently a rental unit and is a
very nice place to live. The other house is a very nice house but because
the homes are on the same property, he cannot do anything about it. He
spoke with the Planning Department and came up with the idea to make a
duplex out of it. If the request is approved, he plans to put siding on the
duplex and make it much better than what it is right now. He stated that
the City would benefit because the property taxes would increase and it
will fit the character of the surrounding properties. The other homes in the
neighborhood are much better than his and he intends to make the duplex
a nice place. He stated that in the back, there is enough room to have two
cars or more for parking. After he makes some improvements to the
houses, he will put in a couple of decks.
He has lived in Lansing for 30 years and is now retired. He plans on
staying in the area and needs a house. He lives in his wife's house. His
wife unfortunately has diabetes and is not in very good health. If
something happens to her, he has to have a house to live in. Right now
he is not going to move in to the vacant house. But in the future, he will
do it if he outlives his wife. He believes for this reason the Board needs to
make this possible for him. He stated that it would be good for everyone
involved.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the vacant home. Ms. Stachowiak stated one of
the houses has been vacant for so long and because it was
nonconforming, it has lost its ability to go back to being used for any
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 3
purpose right now. The property is zoned for single family and the
applicant can only use one of the houses for single family purposes. The
other house sat vacant for so long that it lost its nonconforming status and
there is no way to get that back except through a rezoning, or the
alternative would be to split the lots.
Ms. Bruch asked about back yard setbacks and stated that the second
house was very close to the back. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the new
addition should meet the rear yard setback. If it does not, the applicant
would have to before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Bruch asked if it
currently meets the requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated it does not
currently meet the requirement but it is there and the applicant does not
need to apply for a variance. If the applicant draws a new lot line, he has
to get a variance between the house and the new line.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-5-2005, 2211/2213 Turner Street, "A" Residential
District to "C" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, scheduled to meet on July 13, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning
and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol
Avenue.
B. Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of Vacant Property, 800 Block of Louisa
Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office
District
This is a request by a request by Don Morton to rezone the west 24 feet of
the property located on the north side of the road, between 739 & 835
Louisa, more specifically described as:
East 24 Feet of South 144.25 Feet, Lot 89 Supervisors Plat No. 3,
T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District for the
purpose of constructing an office building with associated parking on the
subject property.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Frederick inquired about what other business could be included in the
"D-1" Professional Office District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the "D-1"
Professional Office District allows office use, a bank or a savings and loan
institution, residential use (single family, duplex or multiple up to the
"DM-1" density). The most intense use that the "D-1" Professional Office
District permits is a hair salon or barber shop.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 4
Mr. Thomas Plumhoff, representative for the applicant, stated that the
surrounding land was developed by Mr. Morton back in the 1960s and he
built three office buildings in the Louisa Street section and he built five
apartment buildings which surround this parcel. This parcel was left from
the total development. Mr. Morton has sold off several of the parcels over
the years and he currently owns two of the apartment buildings: the
apartment building across the street and the 33-unit apartment building on
the adjoining land to this site. In the process of permitting these individual
buildings, this parcel was left. When he checked to find out about
developing this last lot, he found that the line of the zoning is 24 foot from
the edge of his property line. He did speak with Planning staff and talked
about the site plan review. He was given information but he was led to
believe that when the parking of the apartments and the office was being
adjoined, that parking could be right up to the lines. Consequently, this is
the way he ended up drawing the site plan. He realizes that he needs site
plan approval or whatever it takes. He needs the zoning approved as a
first step. He realizes that he needs to have a suitable site plan to fit this
site.
Mr. Frederick stated that the staff report indicates that the Old Everett
Neighborhood Association made comments and that it was not attached to
the report. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Emily Horne had contacted Mr.
Michael Wee, the Planner who wrote the report, and said that she was
faxing her comments. Mr. Wee never received the comments. In the
meantime, the report went to the secretary. The Planning Office does not
have Ms. Horne's comments yet but the neighborhood association will be
responding.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-6-2005, West 24 Feet of Vacant Property, 800 Block of
Louisa Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional
Office District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to
meet on July 13, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood
Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
C. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street, "B" Residential
District to "F" Commercial District
This is a request by Thomas & Saad Karana to rezone the south 99 feet of
the property at 600 E. Kalamazoo Street, more specifically described as:
West 9 % Rods of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 236, Original Plat, City of
Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District for the purpose of
demolishing the existing residential homes and constructing a shopping
center/parking lot on the subject property.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 5
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Ruge inquired about buffering and what would be required on the
south side of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the only thing that
would be required adjacent to the residential area to the south is an 8 foot
landscaped buffer and would have to include trees, one for each 30 linear
feet of buffering, and shrubs, five for each 20 linear feet. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that nothing else is required to separate the two properties. This
would be from the parking lot to the side property line or to the south
property line. For a building if it were to be rezoned to "F" Commercial
District, the required rear yard setback on the building would be 20 feet.
There could be a good building buffer but the parking lot could come
within 8 feet of the south property line.
Mr. Ruge asked if all the properties were on one parcel. Ms. Stachowiak
stated yes and that all the ones listed and shown in the pictures are
located on the same parcel. There are six houses and two commercial
buildings, all on the same parcel of land.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the property listed as "B" Residential. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the "B" Residential and the "F" Commercial,
directly to the north, are all one parcel of land. The north 99 feet is
already zoned "F" Commercial. She stated that it is the south 99 feet that
is currently zoned "B" Residential. The applicant would have one tax bill
for the entire property.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that on one parcel of land there are two
commercial buildings on the north 99 feet and there are six residential
buildings on the south 99 feet. It is very dense.
Mr. Ruge stated that there are houses on the property that face each other
and they are only 10 feet apart. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a number of
the homes are red tagged.
Mr. Frederick inquired about how many of the houses are actually
occupied. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure, and that at least
three of the houses are red tagged.
Mr. Frederick asked how long the houses have been red tagged and what
the status is with the committee who handles them. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that she would look into the matter and provide the information at
the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting next week.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street, "B"
Residential District to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 13, 2005 at 4:00 in the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 6
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
D. LS-15-2005, 1725 Dell Road, Lot Split
This is a request by Orville & Barbara Starkey to divide the property at
1725 Dell Road into 4 separate parcels of land. Section 1236.07(d)
allows a maximum width to depth ratio oft to 2.5 for residential lots. If
approved, 3 of the resulting lots would have a width to depth ratio that
exceeds 1 to 2.5. The proposed width to depth ratios are 1 to 2.97, 1 to
3.08 and 1 to 3.48. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of
the subdivision regulations are requested.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Frederick stated that from the applicant's letter it indicates that this
particular property has been here for quite a while. He was assuming that
the property was chopped up by the 1-96 expressway coming in and that is
why it has this weird configuration. Ms. Stachowiak stated definitely. The
lot over to the east of the property is kind of odd shaped too. She stated
that it is a really large parcel of land to be zoned for one single family
home. Mr. Frederick stated his guess is that it is an old part of the City.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan for this area calls for low
density residential, 0 to 7 dwelling units per acre. By the time the parcel is
split, the property would be well within the density that the Master Plan
requires.
Mr. Mario Flores, representative of Barb and Gene Starkey, stated that
the applicants are asking for a variance on these four lots due to the fact
that it is at the end of Dell Road. There were three sewage lines put in
when the road was paved. As the owners age, the time would come when
they would want to divide up the property into separate parcels and sell
them. Unfortunately, this time has come. Mr. Starkey has Class 3
congestive heart failure and Mrs. Starkey just had major surgery to her
digestive tract. They both are unable to sustain the maintenance of this
house, which was previously used as rental property. Although the
Starkeys did the maintenance, including all landscaping and mowing, for
someone with congestive heart failure, this is difficult to do. Now the
Starkeys are asking to separate this land and try to recoup some of the
funds that they initially put into the property.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred LS-15-2005, 1725 Dell Road, Lot Split to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 13, 2005 at 4:00 in the
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 7
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
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 —April 19, 2005
Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of
April 19, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of April 19, 2005 were
APPROVED.
Minutes for Approval — May 3, 2005
Mr. Hollister moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of
May 3, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of May 3, 2005 were
APPROVED.
Minutes for Approval — June 7, 2005
Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
June 7, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 7, 2005 were
APPROVED.
Minutes for Approval — June 16, 2005
Mr. Ruge moved; seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve the minutes of
June 16, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 16, 2005 were
APPROVED.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Hollister for the June 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 8
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Ruge for the June 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
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.
Staff recommended denial of Z-3-2005, Lot 25, 800 Block,
North side of Hickory Street, from "C" Residential District to
"H" Light Industrial District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and
the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend denial of Z-3-2005,
Lot 25, 800 Block, North side of Hickory Street, from "C" Residential District to
"H" Light Industrial District
Frederick Ave Bruch Ave
Ruge. Ave Czekai. Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
DENIED.
b. Z-4-2005, 1224 E. Miller Road, "DM-1" Residential
District to "G-2" Wholesale District
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has asked that this
case be postponed and be reported out at a later date.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 9
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to table Z-4-2005, 1224
E. Miller Road, "DM-1" Residential District to "G-2" Wholesale District. On a
voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
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 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.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-4-2005,a request to
construct a surface parking lot for Life Changes Christian
Center in the 6000 Block of Wise Road, with the following
conditions:
1. The parking lot be constructed in accordance with the
setbacks and the landscape, screening and buffering
as depicted on the site plan dated May 12, 2005; and
2. The parking lot lights be a maximum height of 20 feet
and shielded downward to prevent glare on adjacent
properties.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. The parking lot be constructed in accordance with the
setbacks and the landscape, screening and buffering
as depicted on the site plan dated May 12, 2005;
2. The parking lot lights be a maximum height of 20 feet
and shielded downward to prevent glare on adjacent
properties; and
3. A 3-foot high berm be added along the sides of the
site;
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Mr. Frederick proposed a friendly amendment to add
condition number 4, that the quonset but building be
removed when the parking lot is developed. It is in very poor
condition and really detracts from the neighborhood. Mr.
Ruge accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Bruch inquired about parking and stated that it is a very
poor design. Ms. Stachowiak stated she is not sure how to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 10
get around it in the back. Ms. Bruch stated that she is not
sure what is driveable and not driveable. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that if it is a drive behind the building, the applicant
could circulate around the building. Ms. Bruch stated that
the applicant could even pick up a couple of extra parking
spaces, and this would work. She would like to see a
second connection into this parking lot from the other side as
well so that the driveway can loop. She is not sure if this is
doable. Mr. Frederick stated that he asked the same thing
and the way the applicant explained it was cars could enter
from the parking lot in the parcel immediately to the east.
The plan did not show this clearly and these were proposed
not to be parking spaces so that there could be circulation
that would loop. Ms. Bruch stated that if the area was open
in another spot, the parking that would be lost could be
gained in another area. Then there would be a bigger loop
with more turning radius and better access. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that this idea could definitely be made as a condition.
Ms. Bruch believes that the circulation is not working well
here and she would like there to be access to the parking in
lots 71 and 81 from the existing parking area so that it would
be a cleaner circulation pattern. The applicant should not
lose any parking spaces because the church would gain
from this.
Ms. Bruch asked when the City reviews the site plan for this
addition, could trees be added at the frontage along Miller
Road.
Mr. Hollister asked who owns the two lots. Ms. Stachowiak
stated the church owns them.
Mr. Hollister stated that the house is isolated in the middle of
a concrete parking lot. Mr. Frederick stated that the church
is in the process of making a final closure on a house and
that it may already be done by now. The house will be used
as a residence but for church functions rather than a rental.
The church does not intend to rent it out. He is not sure if it
will be used as a rectory or not but the church indicated that
it would be strictly for church business. The church did not
intend to use it as a private residence or rent it to anyone.
Mr. Ruge stated that what the church will use it for is
emergency housing for families.
Ms. Bruch asked if the landscape ordinance requires any
thing to be broken up. Ms. Stachowiak stated not right now.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 11
The new ordinance amendment has not gone through the
final process.
Ms. Bruch made a friendly amendment that the circulation
pattern be reworked. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would
basically instead of having four parking spaces in one area,
they would end up in a different area and there would be two
driveways. She stated that it circulates better. Ms. Bruch
stated that vehicles would have a wider space to turn. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that not only does the church not lose
parking spaces but it may even pick up one. Mr. Ruge
asked if there would still be parking between the driveways.
Ms. Stachowiak stated yes. Ms. Bruch stated that it is a
cleaner design. Mr. Ruge stated that he would accept the
friendly amendment.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of
SLU-4-2005, 3000 W. Miller Road, Special Land Use, Additional Parking for an
Existing Church with the following conditions: 1) The parking lot be constructed
in accordance with the setbacks and the landscape, screening and buffering as
depicted on the site plan dated May 12, 2005; 2) The parking lot lights be a
maximum height of 20 feet and shielded downward to prevent glare on adjacent
properties; 3) A 3-foot high berm be added along the sides of the site; and 4) The
north parking lot aisle connect to the existing church site.
Frederick Ave Bruch Ave
Ruge. Ave Czekai. Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Mr. Czekai stated that there were no action items. The discussion
items were the Regional Growth Summary Report draft and the
Regional Growth Poster Plan Pocket addition. He stated that Mr.
Rieske had included in the minutes of the UDC meeting the two
websites where more information can be found. This was just
discussed as the Committee will be getting more information after
Committee has had a chance to review it more thoroughly. He
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 12
stated that the Committee will be taking a vote and recommending
to the full Board at the next meeting on July 26tn
Mr. Czekai stated that the Committee has lost two of its members
and seeing that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has four
members, he is formally calling upon the Chair to assign another
member to the Urban Development Committee. Ms. Bruch stated
that this would be taken up as New Business.
Next meeting, Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to dissolve into the Committee of
the Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to appoint Mr. Frederick as
temporary Vice Chair for this evening. On a Voice Note, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — Mr. Frederick, Acting Vice Chair.
a. NCU-1-2005: Special Land Use Permit, 1124/1126
Pulaski, Class "A" Nonconforming Status
The applicant, Michelle Griffin, is requesting a "Class "A"
nonconforming status to permit the expansion of a
nonconforming use. More specifically, the applicant has two
houses on one lot that is zoned for single family use. The
house to the rear of the property (1124 Pulaski) sustained
fire damaged some time ago. The applicant desires to
reconstruct the second floor of this house and construct a
new front porch. Since the property is nonconforming, a
building permit cannot be approved by the Planning Office
for this work, unless a Class A Nonconforming Status is
approved by the Planning Board.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Ms. Bruch inquired the parking pad and if it was just grass
that the vehicles were parking on. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that it is an unimproved area that has been worn down from
parking in the past. Ms. Bruch asked whether the Board can
recommend the use of grass crete so that it is grass and yet
it is still parkable. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the only thing
with grass crete on a residential surface is that it could get
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 13
misconstrued and the applicant could end up getting
violations from people who are saying that the applicant is
parking on the lawn. The Code Compliance officers may not
recognize that it is grass crete and it may make enforcement
more difficult. Mr. Hollister stated that maybe the applicant
could have an outline of brick around the parking area.
Mr. Ruge asked if any notices were mailed to the
neighborhood organization regarding this case. Ms.
Stachowiak stated the City does not usually do any
notification with an NCU of this nature. Mr. Ruge stated that
given the appearance of this property, he is not really that
comfortable with giving the applicant an NCU. To him, this
looks like the kind of property where the City would like to
see the second house be demolished. This is not a pretty
site. He stated that maybe it could work. He would like to
have some history on this property before the Board
approves it. This property has been a lot of trouble.
Ms. Bruch stated that this is a double lot compared to all the
lots surrounding it. Instead of building the houses side by
side, one house is in front of the other. She could even see
a lot split so that one parcel would be square and the other
would be L shaped. She does not know the history of the
property. Mr. Ruge stated that he personally would prefer a
lot split if it can be done. West of his neighborhood there
were some properties like this and what the owner ended up
doing was taking out the house in the back. He would like to
have a little more investigation of this property. Mr. Czekai
asked if more information could be provided at the next
meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated she could see if Code
Compliance has any information on this site. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the lot cannot be split because there
is not adequate room. Most of the lots on the street are 33
feet wide and this lot is 66 feet wide. Unfortunately, the
house at 1124 sits to far over. The houses do not sit side by
side. You would have to jog the lot line and the ordinance
prohibits that. It would have to be a straight shot.
Mr. Joe Lewis, 1124 Pulaski, stated that the inside of both
homes is new. The plumbing was done in January. In the
bathroom there is a new sink, tub and shower. All of the
lighting fixtures are new. The hot water heater and the
furnace are new. He stated that the outside has a slanted
look because there was a fire up top and he is not sure how
many years ago it happened. He just purchased the
property. The reason why the outside is not done is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 14
because he does not have a permit to do it yet. He plans on
redoing the whole house. Every thing on the inside is brand
new and it was approximately $26,000 to redo the whole
interior. The foundation and porch will be new as soon as
the request is approved.
He stated that the front house will be done after the smaller
house. The inside is already done including a new kitchen.
When the small house is done, he plans on doing the siding
and the roof on the big house. As far as the parking, he
stated that there is pea stone gravel on the whole left side of
the house for parking. After doing the addition, he plans on
constructing a garage.
Ms. Michelle Griffin, resident of 2197 Woodleaf Street,
Okemos, stated that she purchased the site specifically
because it was unique and it had two houses on the
property. When she walked into the homes, she saw how
beautiful they were. The homes were built in the 1920s.
The small house was built from the materials of the big
house. She had planned to move into the house and make
it a single family residence. The neighbors would like to the
see the house improved. She purchased the house
because it was so unique and she wanted both of the homes
on the parcel. The small house at 1124 also has a new
water meter, water heater, furnace, electric meter on the
outside that the City approved last summer. She would like
to improve the property and make it a better place to live.
Mr. Hollister asked the applicant about the garage and if it
were for the smaller or bigger house. Mr. Lewis stated that it
would be for the smaller house. The larger house is rented
out. He is in construction and he needs more vehicle space.
He was planning to build the garage closer to the smaller
house rather than the bigger house. Mr. Hollister asked
where the garage would be built. Mr. Lewis stated that he
has not figured that out yet and that he would leave that up
to the City as to where the garage could be built on the lot.
He is not to this point yet. He only has approval for the
addition to the smaller house. Building the garage would be
the next step. Ms. Griffin stated that there is a small porch
on the back of the big house that someone had built. She
would like to remove this when they get to that point and
then replace it the garage. There is plenty of room. Mr.
Lewis stated that there is a large tree there and one was
removed. This is the general area where the garage would
be.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 15
Mr. Ruge stated that after listening to the applicant, it makes
him feel more hopeful and he would be able to support it, but
he would still like to have a little more information.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to table NCU-1-2005: Special Land
Use Permit, 1124/1126 Pulaski, Class "A" Nonconforming Status. On a voice vote,
the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Frederick stated that this case will be tabled at the
Committee of the Whole level which means that the whole
Board will take up this case again when it has received more
information regarding the history of the property. Ms.
Stachowiak will provide the information to the Board and
notify the applicants when the case will be back on the
agenda. Ms. Stachowiak stated that assuming there is a
quorum, the Board will meet here again in two weeks at the
same time.
Ms. Griffin asked what type of history the Board was looking
for on the home. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see if
there is a neighborhood organization in this area and what
its input is about the property. He would like to see if there
were any problems in the past. He wanted to see what the
general impression of the property is with the surrounding
residents. Mr. Lewis stated that they would be living in the
house and that it will not be a rental property or anything like
that. Ms. Griffin stated that when the property was
purchased, it was rented so they had to honor the lease until
December 22, 2005. Mr. Lewis stated that there is currently
a renter. They plan on living on the property. Mr. Ruge
asked if they would be living in both houses. Mr. Lewis
stated that they have grown children. Ms. Griffin stated
there are too many mother-in-laws to deal with and when
they visit, they need to stay in a house. Mr. Lewis stated
that they plan on having the property for themselves. It is
not intended for rental property. He stated that when the
property was purchased, it was listed as a mother-in-law's
quarter, a guest house.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to arise from the Committee of the
Whole. On a Voice Note, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 16
3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — Mr. Frederick, Acting Vice Chair.
Mr. Frederick stated that the Committee of the Whole tabled the
NCU and that it will take it up at the next meeting of the Planning
Board, which should be in two weeks.
Mr. Ruge stated that along with the other information could Ms.
Stachowiak provide the Board with a recommendation for the
parking situation. Ms. Stachowiak asked if it was in terms of
surfacing. Ms. Bruch stated whether or not the parking would be
left as pea grass or should it be better if it was gravel. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the ordinance says paving and she stated
that the applicant should pave it. The only thing below this that she
would recommend would be the brick patterns. She stated that the
ordinance does not allow this right now.
Mr. Frederick stated that if there is not going to be any concrete to
scratch in the case number, Board of Zoning Appeals has required
that the applicants provide a metal plaque with the case number
and the date of approval. This hopefully will keep the Code
Compliance Office from writing unnecessary code violations. He
sees no reason why the Board could not add this as a condition.
Mr. Frederick stated that since this is a nonconforming piece of
property, his presumption is that no permits could be given to the
applicant for approval of any improvements. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the City can approve permits up to 35% of the value of
the structure. This is an unusual case because there are two
structures. The applicant cannot do 35% for each structure. It is
35% total for the value of the structure on the lot. If the percentage
is used up on one structure then there is nothing left for the other
structure. Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant testified that a lot
of work has been done and that some of it sounded like it needed
to be inspected for code compliance. His assumption was that the
applicant did not obtain a permit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
applicant did obtain a permit and that the City can give the
applicant permits up to a certain dollar amount. This is one of the
things that brought the applicant before the Board. The other
reason is the applicant would like to add a porch addition and the
second story addition. This is an expansion of the structure and
the Board cannot approve it regardless of the dollar value. Mr.
Frederick stated that his concern is the work that the applicant had
inspected. If there were permits, then it did.
Ms. Bruch asked if the applicant would return for the garage. Ms.
Stachowiak stated no. Mr. Frederick stated then it might be
prudent to remember that the applicant needs to cut down the tree.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 17
Mr. Ruge stated that the applicant will actually be changing the roof
line of the smaller house and will put a higher roof and get rid of the
entire roof line. He stated that the applicant will square up the
whole house. Ms. Stachowiak stated yes and that it will look
completely different.
Ms. Bruch asked if the City knows exactly what the house will look
like. Ms. Stachowiak stated yes and that some sketches were
included.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak asked the Board members who would be available for
next week's Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and the Board
meeting in two weeks. Ms. Bruch stated that she would not be available
for either meeting. Mr. Czekai stated that he would be available for the
next Board meeting and for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting,
if needed. Mr. Frederick stated that he would be available for both
meetings. Mr. Ruge stated that he would not be able to attend the next
Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting but he will be able to attend the
next Board meeting. Mr. Hollister stated that he would be able to attend
both meetings.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would be available for the next Urban
Development Committee meeting, if needed.
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)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 18
e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4,2004)
h. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
i. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
j. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
k. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005)
I. 400 Allen Street-small port holes for windows(April 19,2005)
M. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3,2005)
n. 704 S. Clemens Street-"For Sale"items (May 3,2005)
Mr. Czekai inquired about the building on Turner Street owned by Henry
Block. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the building had been vacated. Mr.
Czekai stated that it was still full and that the building was also painted.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the tenants had moved out and are living east
off of MLK Blvd., just south of General Motors. Mr. Czekai asked if the
owner plans to sell the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated yes. Mr. Hollister
asked if it was the building by October Moon Art Gallery and Gift Boutique.
Mr. Czekai stated yes and that the owner painted over the old antique
Coca Cola sign advertisement on the wall.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Restructure of the Committees
Mr. Czekai stated that the position to be filled will also be Vice Chair for
the Urban Development Committee. A discussion ensued. The overall
consensus was that Mr. Hollister would be officially appointed to the
Urban Development Committee and Mr. Frederick would fill in
temporarily.
Ms. Bruch inquired about new members and if a letter could be sent to the
Mayor for appointment of new members. Ms. Stachowiak stated the
Mayor's Office has been notified that the Board needs two members as
soon as possible.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to set up the Executive Committee meeting.
Ms. Stachowiak asked when she would be available. Ms. Bruch stated that she
would be available the week of July 26th. Mr. Ruge stated that he would not be
able to attend until after July and that August would be better. Mr. Czekai asked
if the Executive Committee could meet right before the Board meeting. Ms.
Stachowiak stated yes. Ms. Bruch stated it would have to be late August.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2005 Page 19
Ms. Bruch inquired about red tagged houses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she
spoke with Ms. Eleanor Love and that Ms. Love would be glad to attend one of
the Board meetings. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board would like to set up this
meeting. The overall consensus was to schedule this for late August.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the churches. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
information has been sent to City Council and the public hearings are set for July
18th. It will go to Committee after that and then City Council will make a decision.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the landscape ordinances. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
it is in the process of being reviewed by the Law Office and City Council.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Frederick stated that the property at 3610 Callihan Court is a duplex and has
a "For Rent" sign in the window. He asked that Ms. Stachowiak check to make
sure that it is a registered rental.
Mr. Frederick stated that 811 Luwanna Drive is a rental and there may be too
many people living in the home.
Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo Gas Station at the corner of Aurelius and
Cavanaugh Roads has high grass/weeds again. He said that 3731 Stoneleigh
Drive also needs to be mowed.
Mr. Czekai stated that there is tall grass/weeds on the property at the southeast
corner of Grand River and Capitol Avenues.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
P B M i n u tes.070505.d oc