HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 Planning Board April-June minutes FINAL APPROVED MAY 5, 1998. Draft to Clerk 4/21/98
Approved 050598
To Clerk 050698
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ,
r-
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 7, 1998 ;
: i
IL �.
I. OPENING SESSION M
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Nischan, Ruge, Smith;
Seven members present.
B. Excused Absences - Miller
C. Introductions: Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Susan
Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner; Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner; Jim
Sturdevant, Senior Planner; Amy Lynch, Recording Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Seeing no corrections or additions to the agenda, the
agenda was approved as printed.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
Act-19-97: Phone call from Pete Wagner in support of the closure of Capitol and Dwight
St. due to excessive speed and traffic on Dwight St.
Z-3-98: David Berridge outlined his comments and issues concerning that proposal.
PRD-1-98: Letter from Progressive Associates. Daniel Tosh outlined the dimensions
of the proposed buildings.
PRD-2-98: 16 letters in opposition of proposal. Also several petitions with 250
signatures opposing the proposal.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 2
228 S Foster: Letter from Erica Crosley regarding Code Compliance Notice and alleged
lack of due process. Received and placed on file.
IV. HEARINGS:
SLU-3-98, 1601 W. Holmes, a Child Care Facility. Sue Cantlon reported that David
Geiger is Director of Our Savior Lutheran Church, he is making the application on behalf
of the church for a Special Land Use Permit. The existing land use is pre-kindergarten
and kindergarten classrooms. The area is zoned "B" Residential District. The size and
shape of the property is irregular with 704,752 sq.ft. Or 16.17 acres. The surrounding
land use includes professional office, light industrial, residential, and commercial on the
North. South, East, West land use is all residential. The surrounding zoning is "A" &
"C" Residential, "H" Light Industrial, "D-1" Professional Office, and "F" Commercial on
the North. On the South and West is "A" Residential. On the East is "D-1" Professional
and "A" and "C" Residential. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for community facilities and low to moderate density residential with 7 to 14
dwelling units per acre, and also with industrial warehousing and commerical mix north
of the property. The applicant requests a special land use permit for the structure and
proposes to utilize the existing structure as a day care facility with a maximum of thirty
children as part of their Our Savior Lutheran School Program. Child care facilities
require a special land use and are permitted in the " B" residential district. This is not
a matter of rezoning.
David Geiger, 1330 Briarfield, representing Our Savior Lutheran Church as a day
care committee member. He said there were two inquiries asked of him regarding the
site. One was the fenced in area of 2500 sq.ft. which would be a protected area for the
children to play in. We had already established this need and put it in place two weeks
ago. The second matter was adequate circulation to the site. We have parking
immediately in front of the building which anyone dropping off a child can park at. We
anticipate the facility hours would be from 7 am to 6 pm. Our current school operations
go from 8:30 am to 3:15 pm. We don't envision a conflict in terms of traffic movement
regarding the school vs. the child care facility. With that in mind, we are asking for
approval of this request.
Ms. Keene inquired are the thirty child care clients in addition to the number of students
at the school already, or is it replacement type activity? Mr. Geiger replied that it would
be a combination of the two. There is a two-day three year old pre-kindergarten that
would be extended to the other three days, making that available to child care to those
families who have enrolled in our two-day program. We also have a three-day four year
old program that would be available for those parents who have students in the program.
But we also have a number of families who have children who are under that age who
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 3
are also looking for day care and it will be a convenience for them to leave their children
at our day care while their other children attend our school.
Ms. Keene stated her concern about the amount of traffic flowing in and out of the
facility. She asks, on any given day, will there be thirty more students being dropped
off? Mr. Geiger replied that at this time he can't estimate the activity because its not
open for enrollment. He summizes that if the thirty child enrollment is reached, he
anticipates that a third of those would be students already enrolled in the pre-
kindergarten program, so it would be existing traffic. The remainder would be as a result
of new traffic coming in. That's just a guess.
Seeing no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing on SLU-3-98 is now
closed. This matter is referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. The next
meeting is Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 4 p.m, in the Department Conference Room,
316 N. Capitol Avenue.
PRD-1-98, 3223 W. Mt. Hope Ave, Planned Residential Development, Jim
Sturdevant reported. You have in front of you the beginning of a staff report the front
end. Attached to that is two maps. One showing the area surrounding the subject
property and one showing the proposed design of the subject property. I also have to
scale blueprints of the project to pass out. The location is on the south side of W. Mt.
Hope Ave. between Moores River Dr. and Pleasant Grove Rd. The property is currently
vacant. There are three single family homes adjacent to the property along the frontage
of Mt. Hope Ave. This property sits in between and to the south of the three single
family homes. Its also a little bit east of Lewton School. There are some apartment
buildings directly to the west. A little further west is a mobile home park and then the
old Elks Club. Across the street to the north is a single family neighborhood as well as
condominiums along Moores River Dr. The current zoning of the property is "DM-1"
Residential which allows multiple family use. Approximately the south 150' of the site
is currently zoned "A" Residential. There is no proposal to change the zoning of the rear
portion of the site at this time. The property itself is several hundred feet deep,
retangular in shape, its about 450' wide and runs back about 1200' off the south side of
Mt. Hope Ave. The property is adjacent to single family neighborhoods along Glasgow
Dr., Skye Rd., and close to Cooley Dr., and Bedford St. off to the east as well. There
is one other parcel between this site and the adjacent homes on Bedford that is about
200' deep so its not directly abutting any of the homes except a few of them on Glasgow
Dr. The applicant is proposing a total of 150 senior citizen dwelling units on a site of
18.5 acres. My preliminary report gives a run down of the vital statistics for this and a
few that are listed that didn't make the report recently received from the applicant
include 136 units will be in a single building with 110 of those being one bedroom units
and 26 being two bedroom units. In addition, two other smaller buildings will have up
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 4
to 14 cottage apartments, probably like one level townhouses. They propose adequate
off street parking for the project. The main building would be three stories tall. They are
listing that as 35' in height. The access to the property would be strictly from W. Mt.
Hope Ave., there is no proposal to tie it in to any of the existing residential streets to the
south, east, or west. The developer is calling for a private access driveway in from Mt.
Hope Ave. The total area of the lot that is covered with buildings and parking lot is
about 1/5 of the total site. The rest is proposed to remain open space, and most of that
is the south 1/3 of the property. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be developed
sometime in the future, but at this point they're not proposing it. The Planned
Residential Development approval is necessary because the applicant is proposing
more than one building. If only one building were being built, it would be a principal use
and the PRD would not be necessary. It could be one building with many more units
rather than their breaking it down into two different kinds of buildings in three structures.
The Applicant, Dennis Varian, 19855 W. Outer Dr., Dearborn. We are proposing,
as has been reported, a 150 unit retirement community. I will only outline it in general,
if there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. One thing I should note is
that the 14 cottage units each have an attached garage. Each of the apartments,
whether in the cottages, which were properly described essentially as one story
townhouses, as well as the one and two bedroom units in what we call the manor
building which is the three story building, are complete apartments with full facilities, full
kitchens. They are one or two bedrooms in the manor building. However, we also have
a significant amount of common amenities in the manor building that will be available
to all of the residents whether in the manor building or in the cottages. Those include
a restaurant/dining room where residents can sign up for optional meals if and when
they choose to. There is also a gym area for exercise, a mini clinic for visiting health
professionals, a convenience store that will stock basic food items, a barber/beauty
salon, crafts rooms, a mini theater, a cards and game room, etc. The common facilities
that will be available to the residents of the retirement community are significant and
quite varied. The residency of this development will be limited to those who are 55
years of age and older. We've done seven of these developments throughout Michigan,
from Port Huron to Grand Rapids, in the last seven years, and typically the profile of the
resident is a single person, widow or widower, they are often quite independent, at least
when they first move in, and of course they do age over time and need more of the
support facilities that we do provide. I have photographs of some of the other
developments I would be happy to share with you.
Mr. Ruge asked whether the age requirement of 55 years and older was by some law
or the policy of the development company. Mr. Varian replied that that is the policy in
developing these, but under both the Federal and State law, as long as the entire
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 5
development is limited to people 55 years and older, that is allowable under the various
anti-discrimination laws, etc.
Mr. Ruge restated that basically, its your policy, but there aren't any sanctions on you
if you decide that you want to open the development up for everybody? Mr. Varian
replied that's correct, we're not required by law to keep it that way. However, its an
interesting problem in that if we change it, it presents all kinds of problems.
Dennis Hall, 3333 Moores River Dr. #109. 1 live in the condominium complex that is
kitty corner from the proposed development site. Not having seen the proposed site
layout, it appears to me that a good part of this site may come under the Michigan
Wetland Protection Act. I don't know if any of the planning staff has looked at this, but
I think it is an issue that needs to be clarified before the project goes forward.
Mr. Ruge responded that we do have someone who looks over the site plans, and that
is definitely something that they look at for consideration.
Mr. Hall asked if that had been done, Mr. Ruge replied no.
Mr. Sturdevant mentioned that he did ask that question about the wetlands of the
gentleman at the Department of Environmental Quality, and was told that they don't
apply in this case. I will verify that again, in writing if necessary.
Ronald Erickson, 3333 Moores River Dr. #201. One of the areas that we are
interested in, as residents of the City of Lansing, is that we are hoping that the building
of new facilities would also encourage families to move into the City, and try to maintain
a stable community network of children. We are lodging a recognition with the
committee that they consider any of these land uses to go along with what the city
fathers have tried to foster in Lansing, and that is to preserve families. Restricting to an
age level of 55 or older is not going to foster that. We would like further study on
whether this is the appropriate land use for this parcel in the city.
Vernon Mcgee, 2304 Bedford Rd. Is this an open market for the price of apartments,
or will some of them be subsidized?
Ms. Love responded that the Developer may be able to answer that question. Our
issue, when we review a development relates to whether or not the use of the land for
apartments, for senior facilities, for single family houses, for commercial uses, or
whatever the purpose is; our review relates to land use issues and not who moves in,
what their income is, or whether the units are subsidized. Our analysis is related directly
to whether or not, in the instance of a senior facility, there is a bus line and they need
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 6
bus transportation, or if there is adequate access into and out of the site, if there is
adequate landscape screening and buffering, if the properties are located within the
setback requirements, whether the use meets the minimum parking requirements.
These are the types of analyses that we do and it is not dependent upon the financing
of the particular development.
Mr. Vernon also has a concern about the power. Just recently the power in the
neighborhood got up to what it should be. Before that we were low, and that's hard on
the appliances. We are wondering if there is enough power to handle this situation, and
also the sewer.
Ms. Love replied that the sewer and electricity are very legitimate concerns. We do
refer these out to the Board of Water & Light and to the Public Service Department,
which handles the sewers. We refer them out to a variety of different departments within
the City to get a response. In the same way that we refer it out to agencies, we also
refer it out to the public to get your comments as well. If there are potential sewer
problems, or problems with any of the utilities, we will make sure we check into those
because you noted that they may be a problem.
James Davis, 2400 Skye Rd. Our property is located adjacent to the parcel being
discussed. We live on a cul de sac right behind the property. There is a wooded area
right there. Our concern is how this will affect our property adjacent to this proposed
development. Will the wooded area be preserved at all, how far back will the
development come towards our residential area?
Ms. Love took a site plan down to the podium for the audience to look at. She pointed
out that the development is primarily located in the north 2/3 of the property. She said
there is a large drain that runs through the wooded area, so it can't be built on anyway.
There may be some walking trails through there, but the development does not extend
to the south 1/3 of the site.
Discussion ensued about the site plan, and that it would be taken out in the hall so the
personal discussions would not interfere with the meeting in progress.
Audrey Magee, 2304 Bedford. I am interested in the water run-off area. Is that going
to be on the east side of the property, close to the wooded area?
Ms. Love indicated the site plan again, and showed Ms. Magee where the retention area
will be.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 7
Ms. Magee then addressed the Board regarding natural springs in her backyard and
neighbors who have standing water in their yards every spring and every rain. She is
concerned with drainage problems.
Mr. Ruge answered that part of the site plan review, and part of the statutes of the City
is that developments like this have to have a place for water to collect on site. Then the
water can either percolate into the ground or slowly go into the sewer system. They
aren't allowed to push their water off on your property.
Ms. Magee stated that if the water is supposed to slowly go into the ground, what's to
keep it from slowly going into our yards? The springs have to go someplace, and they're
back there. So please watch for that. We have horrible water problems in our
basements already.
Jennifer Holman, 3306 Glasgow. I haven't prepared a statement, but I wanted to say
a few words on behalf of the neighborhood. We just purchased our home in July of
1997. We lived in a townhouse overlooking apartment buildings for five years. We
moved into Glasgow because we wanted to live in a neighborhood with houses. I
haven't looked at the map yet, but we were concerned about how far back the
development would come. We like looking out at other houses and at a wooded lot.
Our concern is how far back this is going to come, because it does affect the quality of
living and why we chose to live on Glasgow. As well as possibly lowering the value of
property in the neighborhood.
Dennis Jacobs, 2600 Oban. I'm not really opposed to this, I just have some questions
because obviously this is the first time you people have seen the blueprints, and you
weren't even sure where some of the streets were. Most of the houses on Glasgow
have fenced backyards. Would this development also be fenced, to keep people from
running through the neighborhood? If this is approved for people 55 and over, can it be
changed in two years to subsidized housing if its sold? What are the stipulations on a
time frame with the current request?
Mr. Ruge answered that nothing is forever. Further, that the type of development that
this is, it doesn't lend itself very well to just regular housing because of the type of
additional common area that they have. Most apartments don't have a mini theater and
common dining room. But, there is nothing to keep it at 55 and over if they decide to
change it later. Mr. Jacobs asked if the matter would have to come back to a public
hearing and be approved in order to change the age restrictions. The answer was no.
John McKerr, 3226 Glasgow. Getting back to what other speakers have mentioned,
about two, three, or four years down the road, has anyone checked with the company
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 8
that is building this to see if that has happened with any of their other developments, or
if they are all still for people 55 and older? Again, I'm not totally against this, but I think
if I'm going to have something built on the wooded lot behind my home, a senior citizen
community is better than some other possibilities. I'm concerned about what this will do
to my property values down the road.
Mr. Greiner suggested keeping in mind that of the 150 units being proposed, 110 of
them are one bedroom units, which don't lend themselves to large family use.
David Leek, 2401 Skye Rd. The existing property that is open absorbs quite a bit of
rain. My back yard floods when it rains. There is no way for us to control it without the
proper people taking interest in our interests, and to do that which is going to help us
down the road. We have seen these apartments that are built, supposedly for a certain
age group, but because of the ADA laws and such, they are changed immediately to
protect the probability of lawsuits. I think we need to take a hard look at this, because
its to everyone's benefit to have nice neighborhoods. I think if you want to maintain an
area for senior people, you should not take residential property to do it.
Seeing no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing on PRD-1-98 is now
closed. This matter is referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. The next
meeting is Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 4 p.m, in the Department Conference Room,
316 N. Capitol Avenue.
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned Residential Development. Doris Witherspoon
presented the report. This is a request by Samuel Duncan of New Faith Non Profit
Housing for approval of a planned residential deveiopment. The property is just south
of the existing church at 5304 Wise Rd. The zoning of the property is "A" Residential.
According to section 1248.04 of the zoning code, planned residential development is a
use that is allowed in the "A" Residential District. There are approximately 10 acres and
the proposed development will consist of about 7.5 acres. The surrounding land use
consists basically of single family residential to the north, south, east, and west, and
also there's a park and Board of Water & Light to the east. The Southwest Area
Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The applicant is
requesting approval of the planned residential development. This development will
include six buildings, with eight dwelling units in each for a total of 48 dwelling units. Of
these, there will be 16 three bedroom units and 32 two bedroom units. The applicant
is proposing to construct a community building. The property dedicated for this PRD
contains 7.55 acres which results in a gross density of 6.36 dwelling units per acre. In
the "A" Residential District dwelling units are zero to seven so this will fall within that
area. Also, the proposed lot coverage for these structures, including street and parking
is about one third of the site. The open space area is about 82%. They are proposing
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 9
96 spaces. Approximate height of the buildings will be 28'. The average square
footage of each building type A is 8,711 sq.ft. and each building type B consists of 8,081
sq.ft. If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them, or refer them to the
applicant.
Mr. Ruge asks about an outlot that is not being built on. Do you know what the reason
for that is?
Ms. Love replied that the outlot at the north end of the property is adjacent to the
existing church, and she believes its being left as an outlot for potential future
development of the church. That can be asked of the applicant later.
Pastor Samuel Duncan Jr., of the Lansing Church of God in Christ, my address is
3422 Inverary. There are a couple of items that I would like to make the Board aware
of. Its my understanding that you've already received a packet of information regarding
this PRD, but also to make it known and help the understanding of some as to what we
are planning on doing. Its part of the vision of the church to be both natural and
spiritual, this would be our natural part to make an impact in the community to provide
needs for families in the community. This will certainly be a family oriented
development. Its low density because there's only 48 units in total. There are no
subsidized units in this project. We are looking at families with a median income of
$25,000 to $30,000. Basically somewhere in the area of average cost per unit of
$59,000 and $60,000, for those concerned with property values in that area. As Ms.
Witherspoon has already stated, there are six buildings, they are only 28' high. We
encourage the residents of the neighborhood to come and take a look. If you look at the
rendition of it, its very residential. I think it would be a plus to the neighborhood because
on the adjacent side of the street there is nothing but the Board of Water and Light,
Harry Hill Vocational, and Benjamin Davis park. We want to satisfy the concerns of the
residents in that area because what we are doing here is putting up a very residential
atmosphere. They don't have to worry about us leaving or turning it over, we are there
for the long haul as a part of that community. We would at this time welcome them to
come and take a look at the rendition, we have architects here also to answer any
questions. If there are any questions about water or run off, we've already had them
look into these matters, they have taken it into consideration with the retention pond.
There will be berms around the entire development so no one would have to worry about
someone looking in their back yards or windows and vice versa. We've put a lot of
thought and planning into this. We think by being very low density that it will fit very well
in that area. There's a lot of green space, it won't be a concrete jungle. It's somewhat
unusual and different than what you would see in normal apartment complexes. There's
only one entry and one exit, therefore traffic flow will be restricted and very limited to just
those residents of the development. I ask the Board to give it faithful consideration, and
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 10
your approval as an enhancement to that area and also meeting the need of residents
of this city.
Mr. Ruge asks if the residents of the development will be limited to people who belong
to the church or will it be open to anyone?
Pastor Duncan replied it will be open to anyone. One other thing, there will be garages
there to accomodate each of the units, so again, we've taken it in to make it look very
residential and fit into the current setting, so it won't be an eyesore.
Mike Markey, with J & L Investment Co, P.O. Box 24125 Lansing, I have just a few
questions. I don't know if I'm necessarily for or opposed to this project. Correct me if
I'm wrong, Ms. Love, in the "A-1" residential district that requires 6,000 sq.ft. lots in a
platted subdivision your net density build out when you take out the roads and those
kinds of things, ends up being right around four units to the acre?
Ms. Love replied that the development that is requested is 6,000 sq.ft. per lot, and
divided out from 43,500 sq.ft. gives you a gross density of about seven units to the
acre.
Mr. Markey comments that he understands that, but it wasn't the question. My question
is in a typically platted subdivision, requiring 6,000 sq.ft. lots, your net density for
housing units per acre is how many per acre?
Ms. Love replied that the figure would have to be calculated, I don't have that right here
in front of me. If that is a concern, we'll certainly take a look at it. I'd have to take a look
at the ordinance to see if it talks about net or if it talks about gross density.
Mr. Markey proceeds that my point is that my memory and my experience tell me that
in a typical 6,000 sq.ft. lot subdivision your net build out density is right around four
units to the acre, because for every two lots you have 60' or 30' in front of each one of
those lots that has to be dedicated for roadway purposes. Second, Ms. Love, when we
were working on the zoning ordinances, if my memory serves me right, the idea of the
PRD's was to encourage utilization of land, maintain open spaces, but maintain the
character of the neighborhoods. Is that what you're remembering?
Ms. Love replied I'm not going to debate you this evening, if you would like to have an
opportunity to talk about this at another time, or if you'd like to state your questions, we'd
be more than happy to talk about those at a later time, and we will address them in the
staff report; however, I am not going to spend my evening doing this. The questions are
fine, I just don't believe this is an appropriate forum for us to discuss it. We will be more
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 11
than happy to look into net versus gross. My recollections are a little different as far as
what the PRD is for, its to provide flexibility within the density requirements for the
developer.
Mr. Markey concluded his statements by restating that I am not opposed nor in favor of
the development at this point, I just wanted some clarifications. Thank you for your
patience.
Christine Sulk, 3310 Viola Dr., I'm a proud resident of the City of Lansing. I live about
200' from where New Faith Gardens will commence. I'm speaking in opposition of this
PRD, and I would like to share some of the concerns that I have and that we have
discussed as a group regarding this proposal. First, regarding the density issue, the
way we understand the proposal, and from the plans that we have seen so far, the units
are clustered together at the south end of the property and that would indeed be a
greater density than 6.3 per acre. I know you're going to address that issue with gross
density and net density. The other issue is that it is an apartment complex. We have
looked at our neighborhood and looked at our area. Within a one mile radius of us,
there are now 1,234 apartment units. Those are made up of 632 subsidized units within
Cranbrook Manor and Pinebrook Manor; 63 are designated for seniors only with income
restraints and partial subsidy; there are also 539 units in Waverly Park. We feel that is
already a lot of apartments and is enough to serve the needs in our immediate area.
We wondered if that has been considered here, that the density of apartments to land
is enough in southwest Lansing, or at least in the Wexford Heights area. The next issue
is the existing roads of Wise, Jolly, and Miller. These roads are already over taxed with
traffic, and are in really bad shape. Especially Wise and Miller. Right now, the buses
from Harley Franks and Harry Hill and the students and staff using these roads cause
long lines turning on to Miller and turning on to Jolly. We feel this is a dangerous
situation. We've stated this in a letter that we wrote, that the danger to children in the
area because of vehicle traffic needs to be considered when looking at the impact of the
construction that will go on, as well as the increase of 48 units that are going to enter
and exit Wise Road at one point. We are also looking at land that has quite a bit of
standing water on it almost year round. The drawings that we have seen so far indicate
that there will be a retention pond, but it looks like the inclines towards this pond could
cause excess water to build up on the houses that are adjacent on Catalpa and Nonette.
We are worried about flooding in those houses that already have a problem with
flooding during spring thaw and heavy rains. Finally, chapter 1244.6 of the code states
that location and the purpose of the development should not unreasonably affect
property values. We are proud homeowners in this subdivision. There are 156 single
family dwellings in our subdivision. We think this represents vested interest within in the
City. We live here, we work here, and we are proud to be here. With me this evening
are friends and neighbors who are concerned about this project. I ask anyone from
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 12
Wexford Heights, or the Jolly, Miller, and Wise area to stand if you oppose this project.
Ms. Love asks did everyone standing sign the petition, so that we have you all
accounted for? A couple people answered no, so Ms. Love will add a few more to the
number.
Ms. Sulk continues: Our hope would be that you would maintain our neighborhood, and
help us to maintain the property value of it. We welcome neighbors who are proud of
where they live, proud of their property, and proud to be citizens of Lansing.
Roger Weathers, 322 Swanee. I live in the Wexford Heights subdivision. I've been
coming to Lansing since 1954, 1 moved to Lansing in 1979. 1 have a few questions for
the Board. Reading from the City Charter, 1244.06E, where the dwelling should be in
harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding
neighborhood, we believe it has been demonstrated that existing multi unit complexes
increase crime, increase traffic, etc. This renders such a development to be out of
harmony with the neighborhood. Will the Planning Board take that into consideration
once this area is put up? When you look at the picture, the development seems
impressive. But when you look at Cranbrook, or look at apartment complexes, they all
look great when they first go up. Now, ten years later, the impressive appearance isn't
there. Is the Planning Board considering the Wexford community as a whole when the
question comes before you about the harmony and the appearance and the congruity
of the neighborhood? What will be the impact put upon us? Reading from section
1280.01 , economy and effect, public service and utilities, to encourage use for open
space. Even though we understand that as a Planning Board you encourage the use
of this open space, there has to be taken into consideration the community that is
already there. One lady who lives on the corner of Viola and Wexford has been there
since 1961. Her name is on the petition, and she adamantly opposes the development.
We feel that if this goes up, will we as a community be a consideration? What is behind
the building of all of this? Is it not just to offer the community, or is it to offer someone
some money? I know that is not any of your concern, but it is the concern of the
residents. They say a berm will be built for privacy. The berm will have to be at least
one story high for you to not look from your kitchen into someone elses kitchen or their
bedroom. Speaking of the water run-off, or the spill pond. Where the spill pond is
planned, there are two neighbors right behind it. Will that effect them and their sewer,
and their basement? I wanted to point out that no one in the community was informed
of the development concept until one of the residents in the neighborhood heard of it,
that we knew to even be here to stand up for our rights. I heard the Pastor mention the
target group, but when a flier was passed around through the neighborhood informing
us of this meeting, the exact words were "federally subsidized".
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 13
Devin Hahn, 3329 Nonette Dr. My wife and I moved from Dewitt to this neighborhood
two years ago. We came to Lansing with reservations because of the high incidence
of crime in the area. Upon viewing the neighborhood, we found it to be to our liking. Its
a quiet neighborhood, there seems to be a great deal of civic pride in this area. There
is a certain pride of ownership in owning your own home. We moved in and promptly
put most of our savings, love, and effort into renovating this house and making it a
beautiful place to live. We made an effort to meet many of our neighbors when we
arrived in the neighborhood. When we heard about this development we were alarmed
because of the amount of crime that we noticed was taking place in surrounding
apartment complexes. Members of the Board, you'll notice with the letter we attached
to the petitions today, there was a print out of the crime activity as reported to us by the
Lansing Police Department. You'll notice a flurry of crime activities in areas that are
apartment complexes. This is not the case in our neighborhood. This is not the case
in most neighborhoods where the residents care very much about who lives in the
neighborhood, who spends time in the neighborhood, and especially who moves through
the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is surrounded by this. The proposition for this
housing development includes a very large wall that they assure us will keep residents
out of our neighborhood, in effect building another wall to our fortress. We already are
bordered on all sides by fences. My wife and I had to install a fence last summer. While
was away in basic training, my wife had several groups of young people walking
through the back of our property which actually borders on an easement. We have no
neighbors to the back of our house, however we had many people walking through our
neighborhood. It alarms me that we have to build yet another wall to our neighborhood.
When I first moved to Lansing, it was a matter of three months and I had a bike stolen
from my property. This had never happened when I lived outside the city. I want no
more incidences of this, and I'm not assured by this proposition that this property will
change the incidence of crime in my neighborhood. I feel that such a development will
only encourage more unsupervised young people moving through our neighborhood.
There has been no assurance of any kind of crime deterrant or any monitoring that will
effectively keep this from occuring other than another large fence. I ask the Board to
please consider this in making your decision to approve this development.
Brenda Weathers, 3328 Swanee. I understand that originally Pastor Duncan said that
the rental would be for middle income residents. We have a flier that stated non-profit.
My concern is who is going to be the monitor or the management of this property?
Whether it would be the church, since they are building it. At the present time, they
have some property that is located where Catalpa dead ends. It has been reported that
that property has not been monitered very carefully. There are a lot of students who
come behind the church into that property and they do drugs. It has been stated that
the property has not been cared for, and the church has been made aware of this
concern, but nothing has been done about it as of yet. We are concerned with who will
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 14
be managing these properties. We are aware that when apartments are built in Lansing,
initially they look very nice, but after awhile they begin to deteriorate.
Andre Reddick, 3427 Swanee Dr. I've been a resident of Wexford Heights for 4 '/2
years. I think the neighborhood has a very good quality of life. It has beauty, safety,
security, and the investment value of our property. I think that my neighbors are hard
working, responsible, and friendly people who care about their homes and their
neighborhood. I think its important to state that we are not a bunch of "not in my
backyard" residents who are selfishly against any type of residential development. We
are comitted homeowners who have a sense of ownership of our neighborhood as a
community. The concerns that we've heard about tonight, about the quality of the
planning and implementation of this proposed development are supported by urban
planning research. I've done a little research in the passed few days just to check on
that. This research does show that density as measured by dwelling units per acre,
whether its gross or net, has a correlation to quality of life in terms of beauty, safety,
security, and equity in property. As the density goes up, the quality of life is impacted.
Not necessarily always negatively, but it is impacted. The variables in this complex
equation relate directly to the things that people are talking about so far and I'm sure
you'll hear more as the meeting goes forward. That is about the variable of household
size, how many people live in a household unit? Household income, what is the
concentration of income? The household age. Is it a household of predominantly
younger people, single parent families; or are they older, more mature? And the
management experience of the developer. Is this something that they have done in the
past, do they have experience to manage a residential complex? Capitalization. Do
they have the funds to provide for the long term maintenance and care of the property
development? Finally, the design of the development. Does the design lend itself to
improving or at least not negatively impacting the quality of life and how it fits in with the
overall character of the neighborhood? I support the addressing of these questions. I
don't think the people in this neighborhood stand here opposed to every residential
development. I think everyone in the state has a right to good, quality housing. But that
as a member of the neighborhood we'd like to be included in this process.
Jay Moon, 5423 Catalpa. I've lived here eight years with my sister, she's one of the
original members of the community, she's been there almost 25 years. I want to know
if I can get a clarification from the site plans, as I have not seen them, about the berms
they are talking about protecting the privacy of the surrounding houses. My sister's
house is a two story colonial. Her property line on the proposed site has quite a steep
grade to it. Every spring her yard and both neighbor's yards have to tolerate large pools
of standing water until it either evaporates or soaks into the ground. Living in a two
story, with that kind of slope, are there any plans to grade up or down along that fence
line? I believe it was stated that the berms will have to be at least one story, but these
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 15
proposed units will be two stories themselves, the berms will have to be even higher
than that to protect the privacy. Almost every house along that lot is fenced because
there was a problem in the past of people using that open field as a pathway through the
neighborhood and we were not able to control the access. Would the new berms be
able to control that access? Would there be gateways in it to allow them access to the
property behind those berms?
Greg Cooper, 3116 Nonette. A 33 year old woman was shot dead Y4 mile away in
Canterbury Commons. I'm not saying this is something that's going to happen, but I do
believe that its a probability. I have a three year old and a baby. When I came to
Wexford Heights, through speaking with my neighbors, I found it to be a relatively safe
community. Something that I'd like to see continue on. I understand that the acres in
the back are 7.55. Gross density is 6.3 for the dwelling units per acre. How much does
that really leave to build a berm around the area? I don't know, I haven't seen the plans.
I am very convinced that Pastor Duncan's intentions are well meant. But I just don't see
anything positive coming from this.
Allen Brace, 3405 Nonette. Fourteen years ago my wife and I chose Wexford Heights
subdivision to live in. The people are friendly here, we have no problems in the area
that we can't solve. You've heard about the number of apartments that our surrounding
us. Now they want to put one in the middle of all the single family residences. I don't
believe we need another multiple housing facility. I think if you were to build single
family residences there and plot it off, you wouldn't get a complaint from anybody in the
neighborhood. I'm not speaking for all of them, but I think that would be true.
Lonnie Lee, 3415 Nonette. I moved into Wexford Heights in 1983. At that time I lived
with a housemate. I left, for awhile, but when I got married I moved back into Wexford
because I liked what I saw there. There is pride of ownership in the neighborhood, and
a fairly low crime rate. We already have too many apartment complexes in the area.
I don't feel that what is being proposed is actually low density. It seems rather high to
me. In addition to pride in ownership I think that when people buy homes, they
anticipate some appreciation in their investment. For some reason Wexford Heights
property values were depressed for quite some time. In recent years they began to
appreciate, and people began to take more pride in the neighborhood, doing more work
in the yard and repair of the homes. I don't think an apartment complex is going to
continue that trend. Again, the pictures look like the complex would be an asset to the
neighborhood. But over time apartment complexes tend to deteriorate and that would
have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. I had an appraisal on my house back in
1988, and I'm just beginning to see some appreciation there. I'd hate to see an
apartment complex come in and ruin that. More importantly, I'd hate for it to result in
higher crime rates and things of that nature.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 16
Linda Mummaw, 5501 Catalpa. I bought a home six years ago, and am proud that I
took the risk in the Wexford Heights subdivision, I bought a HUD home. I put a lot of
sweat equity into my home. When my immediate neighborhood and myself upgraded
our homes, the property values in the neighborhood went up. I have a concern that
putting an apartment complex in a single family dwelling neighborhood will make
property values go back down. I agree with the Pastor that everybody deserves a
chance and that everybody should have the opportunity to have great homes, but I don't
think a residential neighborhood with single family homes is the right place to do that.
I'm also concerned with an overcrowding of the school. If you start bringing in more
children, there's obviously more bus traffic, there's more car traffic, there's more children
in the area. It will be dangerous for the children. My home will be on the back side of
this complex. If you put a fence up, it not only will prevent people from coming across,
it will block the view in the neighborhood, therefore it will prevent our Neighborhood
Watch from being effective. I'm concerned with the upkeep of the building. Ask anyone
in the neighborhood and they will tell you that the feild behind our homes gets mowed
maybe twice a year. To me, that shows what may happen with the apartment complex
as time goes on. Reputation proceeds itself.
James Jackson 3121 Nonette. I know you've had to endure a lot of concerns, and
when you get behind our feelings and our affinity for our property; I know as an
administrative board there is only so much of that that you can consider. Looking at this
from a legal standpoint, I read the Lansing Zoning Code. Section 1244.06 indicates that
"a development should not make vehicular traffic more hazardous then normal because
of turning movements or increased child/vehicle contact". One of the previous speakers
spoke about the traffic on Jolly, Wise, and Miller when the schools let out. Harry Hill has
classes changing almost every hour so there is always a long line of traffic. It's very
difficult to turn either left or right because of very fast traffic on Jolly. If you add another
48 units into that small space, you'll have a longer line of vehicles wanting to turn on
to Jolly or Miller. Eventually the people will divert through the neighborhood to go out
on the other end. On the other end is Wexford School with large numbers of children.
Its already extremely congested several times a day with buses and parents dropping
off or picking up children. Based on that alone, I don't think this proposal complies with
the zoning ordinance.
John Oliver, 3401 Penrose. I've lived there 20+ years, almost long enough to get my
place paid for. It seems good people come, and bad people come. Most of the time,
bad people always stay. Nevertheless, I respect what Pastor Duncan is doing,
expanding the church; but as far as apartments, let the Lord give him something else.
Cheryle Nelson, 5220 Wise Rd. My main concern with this proposal is the increase in
traffic. Many times I can't even get out of my driveway. If I'm not out of my driveway by
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 17
8:20 in the morning, I can forget it, I have to wait at least fifteen minutes for traffic to
clear. I'm also concerned with the depreciation of property values. I've seen a lot of
people in the community try to sell their homes and end up having to take them off the
market. This will be one more reason people won't be able to sell their homes. If this
establishment takes place, I will sell my home. I bought my home to be in an area that
wasn't so condensed. I like having the open space in the neighborhood. I think there
are better uses for the property. It's not just the housing development, its also the
community center that I have a problem with. Only because there is such a problem with
the youth that come into the neighborhood to use Benjamin Davis Park. The park is
littered with broken glass, used syringes, pit bulls hanging from swing sets. Its already
a park that can't be used by our children.
Lori Burton, 5418 Catalpa. My property faces the property where the proposed
apartments will be built. My concern is the traffic on Wise Rd. During any Sunday
service, the church members do park on Wise Rd. If the apartments are built, how will
that effect the traffic? This is a major concern, not only on Sundays, but during church
services such as funerals the road is shut down to one lane.
Rosanne Baucom, 5400 Catalpa. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. I'm a co-
coordinator for our Neighborhood Watch. I have a cushy job, and I'd like to keep it that
way. We get very few calls for crime. I don't have time to be calling all my blocks
heads because of increased crime. There are two vacant lots that are open access right
now. The one where the proposed drain is on Catalpa; and one at the very end where
Catalpa dead ends that runs into the vacant property of the church where there is also
a path through to Wexford Elementary. Unless they have plans to block those areas
too, then you've got access for people coming through, if it is lower income which we
were told in one instance it was, usually that indicates single parent homes with a lack
of supervision of kids. We have a lot of working parents and no one is home during the
day. There is no one watching the neighborhood.
Micheal Hawkins 5427 Catalpa. My property is adjacent to the planned development.
A lot of my neighbors have had flooding problems. Our basement is completely finished.
They took great care and did a lot of work to prevent water from coming in the basement
because our backyard does flood. That is a concern when you talk about the drainage
of the property, a retention pond, and a barrier being built. It sounded like earth may be
used to create a barrier, which may cause more run off onto our property. My other
concern is the number of children impacting the schools. We've run into a problem with
having to add another kindergarten class halfway through the school year because there
are so many children. With that many additional families housed in the apartments, it
could have a serious impact on the schools. I would like the committee to take this into
consideration.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 18
Lisa Hahn, 3329 Nonette. $20,000 to $30,000 income, with two or three children, I don't
see how that is non-subsidized. It sounds like low income to me. There have been
studies that prove when you have low income families many working single parents
leave the children unsupervised. That is my main concern. If I go to the Quality Dairy
at eleven o'clock at night, there are kids under the age of eighteen, obviously drunk
coming from the apartments, hanging out in the neighborhood. I've also come across
these children in my yard trying to steal my dog house, letting their pit bulls run loose.
I'm not a big person, these kids are not threatened by me. Even in the middle of the
day, there are kids hanging around. I've had them threaten my life while out walking my
dog. We don't need any more unsupervised children running around threatening
people's lives.
Scott Kring, 5322 Catalpa. There is way too much activity in the neighborhood now.
To increase the housing in this area is asking for trouble. I listen to my scanner at night,
the areas around our neighborhood are full of crime, and that's what passes through our
neighborhood. I take pride where I live and the neighbors around me. I don't think
apartment dwellers will take the same pride or establish a bond as neighbors. I'm
raising three daughters and I hate to see the neighborhood jeapordized by this type of
housing.
Pastor Duncan states that the architect is in attendance tonight. He may be able to
answer questions regarding the berm and the water problem. He's the one who
designed it, they did the architectural survey of the property. I would also like the
Board's decision not be clouded by a lot of the assumptions that have been put on the
table, that this will automatically increase crime. Because it sounds like crime already
exists in the neighborhood. I agree with the people about the traffic. Our driveway and
back property seems to be a through way. I'm not sure where the people are going, we
have considered putting up a fence to stop the traffic, we've only assumed that they are
kids of the neighborhood going through. It's not because of the development but
because of the environment already. Part of the problem, I agree, is unsupervised
children. Its up to the parents to be parents and take charge of their children. I would
appreciate you giving the architect five minutes to address some of the concerns.
Dimitrios Economides, 605 Burcham, Architect. I've got good news for the people
concerned about the water problem. The design of the retention pond is a means by
which to not only alleviate the problems on the property but to alleviate any problems
the property may be causing on adjacent properties. The retention pond, and the
engineering of a retention pond will be subject to approval of all governing authorities.
Regarding the concern of single family as opposed to what has been referred to all night
long as apartments. These are not apartments, they are townhomes. There is a distinct
difference between this type of single family housing and apartments. Each unit has its
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 19
own entry so that you don't walk down any common halls. As can be evidenced by the
rendering, it is intentionally designed to blend in with the architecture of single family
homes. I don't feel it looks any less desirable or less attended to than the average home
already in the neighborhood. This is not a congested project. It is more green space
appearing than a single family project would be. By putting eight units in one building,
and by orienting them the way we have with the drive on the inside we have
accomplished a real green space around these townhomes. There is a separation
between these living units and the homes that are on Catalpa and the surrounding area.
Jason Aldrich, 3126 Nonette. My home is the fourth house on Nonette, backing right
up to the New Faith Gardens proposed site. My house would be approximately 15-20
yards from the development. I have dogs and small children that would have to contend
with whatever goes on in the complex. I'm very much opposed to it, I don't see how the
green space is going to make that much difference. It's the same situation as
Canterbury Commons, where the crime rate is high. I don't want it in my backyard. In
fact, I asked the realtor when I bought my house if anything was planned for this area.
The realtor told me no, but if anything goes up, I better sell quick because my property
value will plummet.
Seeing no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing is now closed. PRD-2-98
will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Commitee. They will be meeting on April
15, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
V. RECESS. Mr. Frederick requested a 10 minutes recess. The session resumed at 9:20
p.M.
Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
Jim Sturdevant presented the case. You have before you a preliminary staff report with
an area map, and a plot plan of the property in question. The property is located on
Race Street near the Brenke Fish Ladder and Buchard Park. Its located behind the
buildings that front on the 200 block of E. Grand River Ave. These buildings are old
mills and industrial buildings that are some of the oldest buildings still standing in the
City of Lansing today. The condition of the buildings is somewhat deteriorated but
hopefully we can remedy that. The buildings sit between Race Street and the Grand
River. Race Street used to be part of the old mill race where the buildings got their
water power. The current zoning is "H" Light Industrial. Surrounding zoning is "H" Light
Industrial, "F" Commercial, or "G-V Business. As you can see from the area map,
have the site identified, other properties in the vicinity that have in the last two or three
years been rezoned to "G-V Business are shaded. Part of the Ferguson project on
Turner Street is also pending in front of the Board for a similar rezoning application.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 20
This property sits directly across from the City owned Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot.
The applicant also owns property adjacent to this parking lot that is undeveloped at this
time, though it is not a part of this zoning request. The purpose of the applicant
requesting the "G-1" Business zoning is to remove the zoning code's requirements for
off street parking. In the past this Board has supported that type of zoning change for
properties that are being built on from property line to property line and are adjacent to
E. Grand River Ave. In this case, its 100" off of Grand River Ave, but is basically
building from property line to property line.
Harry Hepler, applicant. We hope to rebuild on this property. This zoning has a lot to
do with whether or not we would rebuild a certain square footage of the building. Some
of you have seen this building, its about 100 yards north of the hydrafall and the
controlled DNR dam with the fish ladder. For the past ten years the building has been
detiorating rapidly. We are now removing all of the south wall. We are taking down 3/4
of the west wall and hope to reconstruct it back to its original condition, with its odd
shape windows that this industry put in. They are not the norm so when you look at the
building you can imagine what used to be there in 1836. It is the oldest industrial site
in Lansing that was on the Raceway. It is on the National Historic Registry and we are
governed by those rules because we are applying for a 20% tax credit. The reason that
I'm here is that its a speculative purchase. I love the location based on its view of the
river. The rumor is that I will put a restaurant there, but I have no plans to build a
restaurant. I'm strictly a developer that is interested in saving the building. The building
is 15,000 sq.ft. in all, on this floor plan some areas have one, two, or three levels. I do
have some plans that we turned into the National Historic Registry so that we could start
tearing down walls that have decayed and can't be saved. I can show those to you if
you'd like to see them. This building presents a large challenge because it would be
the highest amount of money I've ever paid for a building to be renovated. I'm
concerned, first, with what I paid for it; secondly, that we have adequate parking for the
facility at 15,000 sq.ft. If I'm off on these figures, I apologize. For an office structure,
for every 200 sq.ft., one parking spot is required. For retail space, which is a possibility
as far as art galleries or such, one space is required for every 150 feet. The site has
great potential but it does not have enough parking. The lot on Factory St. that we are
not asking for rezoning of, divides the city parking of about 55 spots and the city owned
lot that used to be an adult entertainment facitily. We are actually in between them.
There are discussions to merge all three of these sites and create general parking for
the Old Town area. Being as that may, if we don't give up that land, it would only
provide about 36 parking spots, its not adequate parking for the structure, therefore, "G-
1" is our answer to that, and that's why I'm here. If we don't go "G-1" it is questionable
what we would be able to rebuild.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 21
Mr. Ruge asks if the bricks will be salvaged as the walls are torn down. Mr. Hepler
answers yes, but the current ratio is about 50%, the bricks are so deteriorated.
Randy Rifkin, 405 E. Maple, Friedland Ind. I'm not actually opposed to the Old Town
development. As a matter of fact we welcome it. We have about seven acres and the
office building is on Maple and Center and we occupy both sides of Maple Street and
both sides of Center Street. Our business is a high traffic business with heavy duty
equipment. Recently the city vacated Maple Street between Center Street and the
railroad tracks. My concern is that if parking is not required, what might happen and
what seems reasonable to happen, is that there will be foot traffic in the neighborhood,
and foot traffic around Friedland during the day. There would probably be people
needing parking spaces. I see this potentially interfering with my business operations
and conceivably creating a safety and welfare problem for the pedestrians and patrons
of whatever the establishment turns out to be. Our business is very noisy. There is a
lot of dust created. This is an industrial area. I'm afraid that there may be a problem
down the road for Mr. Hepler as well as for myself. If the structure turns out to be some
kind of a retail establishment where peace and quiet is preferred, we may be at odds at
some future point. My business has been there since 1886. The neighborhood actually
grew up around it. Again, I am interested in Old Town being successful and that
development continues. My concern is the welfare and safety of the people as well as
continuing my business operations uninterrupted. The building on Race Street is
separated by Friedland by the parking lot. After that, the first segment of my business
is the bailing operation, where there are end loaders, cranes, and lift trucks using the
street all the time. These are my concerns, I want to avoid any future conflicts before
they occur.
Mr. Hepler then responded to Mr. Rifkin's concerns about street parking versus a
parking lot, but he did not step up to the podium, and was not heard by the recording
device.
Mr. Rifkin then responded to Mr. Hepler, but he also did not step to the podium.
At that point, Mr. Ruge announced that this is not the place for a debate. Mr. Ruge
states that everyone realizes there is a parking problem down there, and the City will
work hard on trying to resolve it.
The Public Hearing is now closed. Z-3-98 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Commitee. They will be meeting on April 15, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in the Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 22
LS-10-98, Aurelius Rd., Lot Split. Doris Witherspoon presented the case. This is a
request by James Fox, the Manager of the Woodside E&D, LLC. He is requesting a lot
split. There are two types of lot splits, one is done administratively in-house; and one
that has to come before the Board. This case has to come before the Board because
of the width to depth ratio. The width to depth ratio is 1 to 2.5, this case is 1 to 3. The
property is zoned "A" Residential and the property is a little more than a half acre.
Surrounding land uses to the north, south, and east consist of"A" Residential and there
is some "I" Heavy across the street to the west. Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as residential. Basically, what the applicant is proposing to do, as
you'll see on your map, is divide lot 7 which is 126' x 190'. He's proposing to divide that
equally into 63' x 190' and build two single family homes. This is in the 4400 block of
Aurelius Rd.
James W. Fox, applicant. I don't believe I have anything to add.
The Public Hearing is now closed. LS-10-98 will be referred to the Zoning and
Ordinance Commitee. They will be meeting on April 15, 1998 at 4.00 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
Proposed Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Love presented.
You were handed out this evening a report regarding the proposed amendments to the
subdivision regulations. Four sections are proposed for amendment. As I told you at
the last Board meeting that these were coming, the first of the amendments would
eliminate the City paying for any street signage or traffic control devices in connection
with any plat which is approved by the City making the developer responsible for such
devices. Our staff talked to the City of East Lansing, we also talked to Delhi & Delta
Townships. All three of those entities indicated that they have regulations like those
proposed. What we are proposing would be in keeping with current regulations in
surrounding communities. Second, the City eliminating payment for hard surfacing,
doing the final top coat. This would make the development responsible for the paving
of all streets in the subdivision as well as for the sand and gravel that goes beneath it.
The city would, however, remain responsible for storm and sanitary sewer. This is
similar to current codes in surrounding communities. Section 1236.08 and 1236.11, it
was the opinion of the Attorney's office that the Council's ability to grant lot splits on
individual basis was not as strong as it should be when lot splits are for existing lots and
not for new plats. Consequently, we are moving to strenghten the authority given to
Council to grant variances on lot size for minor subdivisions or lot splits as is the case
in chapter 1236. The Department is fully supportive of all three of these changes.
Unless there is major opposition, I would like to move these speedily through the
process since Public Service is waiting for these. Whatever could be expedited would
be appreciated since we have two lot splits, LS-18-97 and LS-10-98, which would both
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 23
fall under the section of strenghtening the city councils ability to approve lot splits on
existing lots.
Mike Markey, J&L Development Company. I think its great that we checked with the
outlying townships to see what they are doing with their subdivision regulations. First,
they are growing, we are not. The Mayor and the City Council have gone on record to
increase homeownership in the City of Lansing and we're losing population. Now we
have a proposed ordinance change that increases prospective new homeownership in
the City of Lansing. Secondly, historically in the last fifteen years there's been maybe
five plats of a total of less than seventy lots that have taken advantage of this ordinance,
we're not getting land platted in the City of Lansing at this point because the land prices
aren't high enough to dictate putting the money into the raw land and improvements
because the market won't support what it costs for improvements the way they are right
now. I'm confused of why we're adding cost to homeownership that gets passed directly
to the homeowners. In relation to the proposed changes to the subdivision regulations.
I think its a great move, and the staff has done a great job.
Seeing no further comments this hearing is now closed. This matter is referred to the
Urban Development Committee, the next meeting will be held at 4:00 p.m. on April 28,
1998, in the Department conference room at 316 N. Capitol Ave.
VI. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
Mary Patenge, 126 W. North. We would like to encourage the Board this evening to
move forward with the recommendation of temporarily closing Dwight St. at North and
Capitol this year with the intent of studying and evaluating the impact of the traffic
calming issue. We hope this temporary closure will lead us to the decision of a
permanent solution for the traffic problems in our neighborhood. We would like to thank
the Planning Division, the Urban Development Committee, and the Planning Board for
all their time, attention, and work in helping us with this problem.
Ed Lipe, 111 E. Dwight St. I am also in favor of the closure of the western end of
Dwight St. to curb traffic on that street. I've noticed that the fire trucks from Station #2
have taken an alternate route on North St., and its very nice.
Mr. Sturdevant mentions that when he did inquire of the Fire Department comment of
the proposed closure, they said they would go and run it to make sure their trucks would
fit.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the comment period is now closed.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 24
VII. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for approval: March 17, 1998. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, supported
by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of March 17, 1998. On a voice vote, there
were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of March 17,
1998 were APPROVED.
B. Committee of the Whole Meeting
C. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee-
Mr. Goolsby announced there will be a short meeting on April 15, 1998,
commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the Department Conference Room.
2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair, reported. The Urban
Development Committe met on Tuesday, March 31, 1998 in the deparment
conference room to consider ACT-19-97 Capital at Dwight St. The issue
there is to cut off Capital St. and Dwight St. from W. Grand River because
Dwight in particular is used as a short cut raceway between Grand River and
Turner. We considered the fact that both Dwight and Capital in this location
are considered local streets in the northeast area plan. We considered
further that street closures and divertors are an accepted traffic calming
mechanism and are designed for situations such as these. On its face
value, and from a land use point of view, the proposal by the neighborhood
residents is reasonable and had the endorsement of everyone, including
departments I thought would be strongly opposed to it. We considered it
and it was moved, and supported to recommend that we close Dwight and
Capital Avenues according to alternative D which is described in the staff
report. With the understanding first, that the traffic division will initiate a
temporary closure yet this year in 1998 with the intent of studying the impact
on the neighborhood. And secondly, that the temporary closure be
reevaluated during the course of the traffic study which is scheduled for that
area to assure that this action is part of an overall coordinated planning
effort. It was moved for approval and supported unanimously by the Urban
Development Committee and I move for approval tonight.
It was moved by Mr. Nischan, supported by Ms. Keene to approve ACT-19-97, with the
conditions stated above.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 25
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick . Ave Greiner . Ave
Keene . Ave Miller. .
Nischan Ave Smith . Ave
Ruge . Ave Goolsby . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried; ACT-19-97 is recommended
to be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Planning
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee has not met, and therefore there is no
report.
D. Report from the Planning Manager:
Mr. Goolsby asked if there would be a mailing about next Tuesdays meeting.
Ms. Love replied yes, there will be a mailing. Front ends will be done tomorrow,
they will be mailed Thursday at the latest. This is an incredible number of cases
for us to be pushing through at one time. There are twelve BZA's, twelve SLU's,
and eight ACT's I believe. Its a huge number of cases to go at one time. We are
getting calls, there are people out there who are interested. The meeting will be
at Dwight Rich at 7:00 p.m. next Tuesday. It will be a joint meeting chaired by Mr.
Ruge between the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Board. We are also
inviting the School Board members and the Parks Board members.
Mr. Nischan mentioned receiving thirty questions about the health hazards of the
communication towers. Will there be something that people can look up at the
library or on the internet?
Ms. Love asked Mr. Smith to download the E-mail address for the professor in
Wisconsin, and any other E-mail addresses that he has relative to the tower sites.
It will be very helpful to distribute at the meeting. Mr. Ruff already has a fairly
extensive packet of materials for this issue. The height of the tower (for the BZA)
doesn't have a lot to do with the health issue, although it will be brought up and
we will have to address it.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 26
Mr. Nischan states that if we are prepared in advance, we can shortcut a lot of
testimony.
Ms. Love agrees, and says what we will do is a question and answer forum. We
will have all of the sites presented first, and then receive comments. The City
Attorney's office will have a master agreement on this, then they will have a set of
specific site conditions. So we will have comments general in nature, and some
will be site specific. This way we hope to eliminate the same round of comments
being given for each site.
Mr. Nischan states that it would be beneficial if Mr. Ruge said something at the
outset, where he could explain the process and explain that if approved there will
be different conditions imposed depending on the site, but to try to direct the
people that most of the comments will be universal.
Discussion ensued about the best way to instruct the public hearing audience to
the fact that once a concern is brought up, it doesn't need to be brought up again
and again, we won't be taking votes as to how many people are against a certain
issue. And whether to have a handout answering the most popular concerns so
that the second time a concern is brought up, we can refer them to the handout.
More discussion regarding the set up of the hearing room, having microphones at
the Board tables, where to put the audience microphone, and whether to tape the
hearing for later television broadcast.
E. Pending Items: Future Action Required
1. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2"
Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-V
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
3. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date March 24, 1998.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 27
VIII. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Keene asks for an excused absence for April 21, 1998.
Motion by Mr. Goolsby, supported by Mr. Nischan to give Ms. Keene an excused
absence for April 21, 1998. On a voice vote, motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Love announced that she will not be at the April 21, 1998 meeting.
Mr. Smith reports that the PSD committee is going well.
Ms. Love adds that they are anticipating a public hearing on the Principal Shopping
District before the Planning Board on May 19, 1998. At the first Board meeting in May,
you will be given an update. She apologizes not being able to make it sooner.
Mr. Ruff is not here, but Ms. Love reports that we have finalized the sign brochure. We
have two of them actually. One done specifically and only for temporary commercial
signs, flags, banners, sandwhich signs. The other is a booklet for the sign code, and
a letter to be sent out to the property owners. This ) be done in two and the areas wilplllot areas to
be the third
begin with. We met with several council people last week
ward on S. M.L. King between Jolly and the freeway, and N. US127 between Lake
Lansing Road and the City limits, which is Sheridan Road.
Mr. Ruge asks if these are the two most blighted areas.
Ms. Love replied she didn't know, but they are definitely blighted. We want to test the
system, and we have the blessing of both of the ward council people in those two areas.
We will probably be sending the first round of letters out the third week in April. We will
give people approximately 60 days of amnesty to look at the brochure and figure out if
their sign complies to the code. We would be glad to work with them to figure out how
to make their signage conform with code.
Ms. Love also mentions that the Department Budget was approved.
XI. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 28
Mr. Fredericks states that at the intersection of Center St. and Saginaw, on the north
side of Saginaw, is a little building that is abandoned, its being used as a dumping
ground. The building itself is in pretty sad shape.
XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10:18 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
.\U J
V
SPECIAL MEETING
LANSING PLANNING BOARD AND
LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DWIGHT RICH MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, 2600 HAMPDEN DR. LANSING MI 48911
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
r �n
D co
if. APPROVAL OF AGENDA v i
c� t C7
f7 N M
III. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS Fri
r CO O
m
� N
N
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. SLU-05-98, 2400 Hall St., Gier Community Center(BZA-3482.98)
B. SLU-06-98, 1716 David St. (BZA-3483.98)
C. SLU-07-98, 2516 S. Washington, Washington Park(BZA-3484.98)
D. SLU-08-98, 125 S. Clippert St., Red Cedar Golf Course (BZA-3485.98)
E. SLU-09-98, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station #6 (BZA-3486.98)
F. SLU-10-98, 4801 Aurelius Rd., Biggie Munn Park (BZA-3487.98)
G. SLU-11-98, City Parcel "B",Vac.Prop.east end of Dadson, (BZA-3488.98)
H. SLU-12-98, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Fire Station #4 (BZA-3489.98)
I. SLU-14-98, 5815 Wise Rd., Hill Center(BZA-3490.98)
J. SLU-15-98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School (BZA-3491.98)
K. SLU-16-98, 3900 Stabler St., Everett High School (BZA-3492.98)
L. SLU-17-98, 102 S. McPherson Ave., Sexton High School (BZA-3493.98)
M. BZA-3494.98, Aurelius Road Landfill
N. BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset
V. OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT
VI. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY
CALLING AMY LYNCH AT 483AO87 OR 483A479 TDD.
Posted April 2, 1998
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 5, 1998. Draft 4/28198
Approved 050598
To Clerk 051298
Minutes of the Special Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
r` :13
LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium r:- - i ►
2600 Hampden Dr. ; v j
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
M ..
� N
I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of
Appeals Chairman Horne, called the meeting to order at 7:07
p.M.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed.
III. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS
A. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning Board present: Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby, Mr.
Greiner, Ms. Keene, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nischan, and Mr. Smith.
B. Ms. Horne introduced the Board of Zoning Appeals members present: Mr. Bicy,
Mr. Hilts, Mr. Frederick, Ms. Clark. Absent: Mr. Garcia, Mr. Spink. Excused
Absence: Ms. Earhart.
C. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning staff present: Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator;
Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner; Amy Lynch, Clerk.
D. Mr. Ruge noted that Eleanor Love was in attendance in the audience, as well as
three School Board members. ( Denise Chrysler, Patrick Murray, Kathy
Langschwager)
IV. HEARINGS:
Mr. Ruge states: tonight is a special meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Chaired
by Mrs. Emly Horne, to take public comment on the necessary land use applications to
allow the construction of a telecommunications tower plan for the City of Lansing. The
City of Lansing and the Lansing School Board are considering a comprehensive
telecommunications tower plan in order to promote co-location of antennas in the City
of Lansing for telecommunication providers that have been licensed to service the
Lansing region by the Federal Communications Commission. Co-location of service
providers will help reduce the potential for excessive visual clutter of the City of Lansing
skyline that could otherwise occur. Therefore, the City of Lansing and the Lansing
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 2
School District is considering the use of City and School District properties for the
location of telecommunications towers.
The Planning Board will be evaluating the Special Land Use applications for the sites
which are designated by the SLU number.
The Board of Zoning Appeals will be considering the Height Variances for sites which
are designated by the BZA number.
No decisions will be made tonight. This is strictly a forum to receive public comment.
The Planning Board will be considering the public comments and staff reports for action
at the regular meeting of the Planning Board on May 5, 1998, at 124 W. Michigan Ave,
10th floor of Lansing City Hall, Council Chambers, at 7:00 pm.
The Board of Zoning Appeals will be considering the public comments and staff reports
for action at their regular meeting May 14, 1998, at 124 W. Michigan Ave, 10th floor of
Lansing City Hall, Council Chambers, at 7:30 pm.
At this time I would like to thank the Lansing School District for making this auditorium
and equipment available and their staff for their help.
Mr. Ruff explains the procedure for tonight's meeting will be: first, the Planning staff will
give a summary of each site; second the Board members can ask questions of staff;
third, we will take comments from the audience on each site one at a time as shown on
the agenda; finally, general comments on the plan as a whole will be taken.
Mr. Ruff gave a summary of each site stating the zoning and the necessary applications.
SLU-05-98, 2400 Hall St., Gier Community Center (BZA-3482.98)
SLU-06-98, 1716 David St. (BZA-3483.98)
SLU-07-98, 2516 S. Washington, Washington Park (BZA-3484.98)
SLU-08-98, 125 S. Clippert St., Red Cedar Golf Course (BZA-3485.98)
SLU-09-98, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station #6 (BZA-3486.98)
SLU-10-98, 4801 Aurelius Rd., Biggie Munn Park (BZA-3487.98)
SLU-11-98, City Parcel "B", Vac. Prop. east end of Dadson, (BZA-3488.98)
SLU-12-98, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Fire Station #4 (BZA-3489.98)
SLU-14-98, 5815 Wise Rd., Hill Center (BZA-3490.98)
SLU-15-98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School (BZA-3491.98)
SLU-16-98, 3900 Stabler St., Everett High School (BZA-3492.98)
SLU-17-98, 102 S. McPherson Ave., Sexton High School (BZA-3493.98)
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 3
BZA-3494.98, Aurelius Road Landfill
BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
Rick McCloy, 10860 W. Jolly, Public Relations Manager of Ingham Regional
Medical Center. We oppose putting a communication tower at Washington Park. Such
a tower would pose a significant threat to the care of patients. The transmission of radio
signals would interfere with the hospital's electronic monitoring and diagnostic
equipment, which monitors a patient's heart rate and sends that information to the
nurse's station. The hospital doesn't even allow the use of cellular phones for that same
reason. (The statement read by Mr. McCloy at the meeting is attached)
Merry Kerekes, 506 S. East, President of Greater Lansing PTA Council. Strongly
opposes the use of radio towers in general, but specifically near children. She points
out that lead paint and asbestos were thought to be harmless once, and feels that not
enough research has been done. She says cellular towers are big and ugly, no one
wants one in their backyard, therefore, it would reduce property values in the
surrounding area. She states that she has a copy of the Michigan PTA position on the
towers which advocates a distance of 600 meters between a tower and human beings.
She asks for a moratorium of in-depth study and formation of long range plans, and to
consider alternative technologies. (Her testimony and historical information is attached)
Kathy Langschwager, 1328 Prospect, Lansing School Board. States she didn't
receive notice about this public hearing until late today. She feels school grounds are
sacred. The health of the children should be above all else. The money the schools
would receive from this arrangement is about the equivalent of a good candy sale. She
doesn't want to be part of The Great Lansing Experiment.
James Ellis, 3700 Weger Place. Most of the potential sites are close to hordes of
people. Why isn't there someone to answer questions about health issues? My concern
is why did you pick such populated areas?
Connie Kemmer, 3620 Pleasant Grove, Vice-President of Lansing PTA. She
understands reason for picking sites is to decrease the number of towers, but feels that
children, elderly, and disabled need to be taken into consideration.
Phil Maguire. (Did not sign in, gave no address) Asks is this setting going to be the
only public hearing? There are only thirty people here --wasn't anybody notified?! How
can a decision be made by this nucleus of citizens?
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 4
Glenn Kirk, 3930 Camperdown. I served on the Mayor's blue ribbon panel of
education. We are looking for a partnership of towers and schools. There have been
a lot of good comments here tonight. I have attended nine different public forums, and
spent an evening on health issues at City Hall with experts. Radio waves are not a
health issue. Insofar as the hospital is concerned, we have no desire to hurt people.
That matter will have to be looked into further. This is an issue of security for future
generations; an issue of leadership. Step up and make a brave decision in favor of the
citizens of Lansing.
Denise Chrysler, 416 Everett, Board of Education. She asked that staff summarize
the notification for the meeting and asked if there will be other forums?
Mr. Ruff responded that an ad was placed in the newspaper regarding the public
hearing. Also a letter was mailed to property owners within 300' of each proposed site -
which turned out to be approximately 2,000 letters and cards. We are surprised at the
lack of people here. The reason the meeting is in this auditorium rather than Council
Chambers is because we were expecting a much larger turnout. Also, the Special Land
Use issue will be addressed by the Planning Board at their May 5, 1998 meeting at
which time public comment will be received. The Board's recommendations will then go
to the City Council for public hearings prior to final action. Also, the Board of Zoning
Appeals will address the height variances at their meeting scheduled for May 14, 1998
at 7:30 pm in City Hall. The Board of Zoning Appeals actions are final.
Cheryl Miller, 3825 Bayview. I am interested in new technology in the schools. It
would be nice if the Lansing School District could collect part of the money generated
by the towers.
Merry Kerekes, 506 S. East. Wanted to let it be known that this is the first Tuesday
of the month, and there are PTA meetings all over the city. That's where all the people
are tonight.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the public hearing is now closed.
VI. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
APPROVED MAY 5, 1998 with one correction, p. 9, We felt that it was properly before us ar}d AT the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting. . . . Draft 4/28/98
Approved 050598
To Clerk 051298
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD ,-
7 p.m., City Council Chambers -
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue —
Tuesday, April 21, 1998
I. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Miller, Nischan, Ruge, Smith,
seven members present.
B. Excused Absences - Keene
C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as printed.
III. COMMUNICATIONS: None
IV. HEARINGS: None
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each): None
VI. RECESS: None
VII. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minutes for approval: April 7, 1998. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by
Mr. Greiner, to table the minutes of April 7, 1998. On a voice vote, there were:
Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of April 7, 1998 were
TABLED.
B. Committee of the Whole
C. Committee Reports
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 2
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee-
Mr. Frederick presented the report of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
which met April 15, 1998 to consider seven matters.
a. SLU-3-98, 1601 W. Holmes Rd., Child Care Facility. The applicant
requests a special land use permit to utilize an existing structure as a
child care facility for a maximum of thirty children as part of Our Savior
Lutheran school program. Child care facilities require a special land
use permit in the "B" Residential District. This isn't a matter of
rezoning. The Committee, based on consideration of testimony and
evidence, recommends approval of this special land use child care
facility for thirty children with the following two conditions: The plans
for the traffic circulation be reviewed by the traffic engineer and any
necessary improvements be made; and that the proposed fenced play
area be redesigned to encompass the required 2500 sq.ft. in play
area.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve SLU-3-98 with the
conditions as stated.
Mr. Ruge inquires whether the traffic engineer made any comments concerning the traffic
circulation, or whether that would come later during the site plan review.
Mr. Ruff responds that there were comments in the report from the traffic engineer in response
to our referral. Our referral did not show a detailed site plan. The traffic engineer had
reviewed a site plan when additions were made to the church. His main concern was basically
with the drop off of children. We will make sure he reviews the plan for accomodating the drop
off of children.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick. . . Ave Greiner. . . Ave
Keene . .Absent Miller . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-3-98, 1601 W.
Holmes Rd., Child Care Facility, recommended to be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 3
b. PRD-2-98, Planned Residential Development at 5304 Wise Rd. Was
tabled in Committee.
C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race St., "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business
District. Was tabled in Committee.
d. PRD-1-98, 3223 W. Mt. Hope Ave., Planned Residential Development.
The applicant requests approval of the Planned Residential
Development to construct 150 senior citizen dwelling units on an 18.5
acre site. This site is primarily zoned "DM-1" Multiple Family
Residential. The applicant is proposing to construct four buildings:
one bulding containing 110 one bedroom apartments and 26 two
bedroom apartments, two buildings each containing four two bedroom
cottage apartments, and one building containing six two bedroom
cottage apartments. This totals a gross density of 8.1 dwelling units
per acre. We considered issues such as the design of the entrance
onto Mt. Hope Ave., storm water detention, and provision of water,
sewer, and electrical services which have been reviewed by the
appropriate city agencies and will be addressed in appropriate detail
at the site review stage of the development process. We received
testimony from residents in the neighborhood concerned with drainage
on the property, and also the effects of past development on their
electrical service. Others issues were raised such as wetlands, traffic,
property values, and land use. The staff has reviewed the potential of
wetlands on the site and believe that they are limited to the area that
will remain as open space. The Committee moved to support approval
of PRD-1-98 at 3223 W. Mt. Hope Ave., a Planned Residential
Development to construct 150 senior citizen dwelling units on an 18.5
acre site with the understanding that the development will be required
to incorporate all requirements of the appropriate city and state
agencies during the plan review, and that particular attention be paid
toward ensuring that there will be no increase in water run off to
adjacent properties, that the traffic issues be addressed to provide for
safe access to the site, that electrical service to area properties not be
affected by the development and that the plan provide for the
necessary Board of Water Light utility easements. The applicant is
proposing to construct four buildings: one building containing 110 one
bedroom apartments and 26 two bedroom apartments, two buildings
each containing four two bedroom cottage apartments, and one
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 4
building containing six two bedroom cottage apartments. This totals
a gross density of 8.1 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve PRD-1-98 with the
conditions as stated.
Mr. Miller states the indication is that staff has visited the site since our subcommittee meeting
in making the determination that the wetlands are in that open space. Is that a new piece of
information since our meeting?
Mr. Ruff replied not necessarily. Jim Sturdevant looked over the information further. He didn't
want to debate the issue in committee. Afterwards, we talked about it further, and he had also
looked at the available maps and such. His undergraduate is in environmental sciences. He
added part of his findings to the staff report which is included in your packet tonight. We
believe as a staff that it would be necessary to get a clearance on that, make sure the
clearances are set. From Mr. Sturdevant's indications the wetlands are in the rear of the
property, which will be left as wooded open space. The other part about it is just for
information, when I've discussed this issue in the past, almost every large piece of open space
in the City of Lansing is preliminarily labeled a potential wetland. I've found that to be true
with many pieces of the large sections, especially in the south area of the city, which has most
of the large open spaces. We believe determinations need to be clarified just to make sure
everything is established there. That was the best information we have available.
Mr. Miller continues. My concern at the meeting was that I happen to know the person making
the comment. He was the Chief of the Land and Water Management Division, he spent much
of his career evaluating wetlands for the state. He had indicated that he couldn't walk on the
property, but he had walked around it. So the area was potentially a wetland, and may have
impacts in terms of after further examination by the Land and Water Management Division,
causing delays to the developer. Whereas if the considerations are made up front, it may well
be easy to design around the potential wetlands, also utilizing the natural wetland area to the
best of its ability in terms of its natural retention of run off. Thus my concerns to make.sure
that it is properly coordinated. I'm just asking that this continues to be a focus of concern.
Mr. Ruff states we don't have it defined, but I've had discussion with Mr. Latterman, who's in
the audience tonight, following the committee meeting, and told him that this is an issue they
are going to need to address sometime during the process so they might as well get started
on that part of it. As well as paying attention to the other issues, and maybe meeting with the
transportation division and working out those details around the entranceway so that when
they do submit plans or when they work on their final construction drawings they will have
some of that technical information that they will need down the road anyway. Obviously, if
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 5
they do that now, they'll also be able to deal with any juxtaposition of structures if needed,
based on the location of wetlands. That was the encouragement made, and I believe they are
headed in that direction.
Mr. Ruge brings up the issue raised of the soils. Is that even a concern of ours? The papers
that we received in our packet seemed to indicate that the soils wouldn't support a building.
Mr. Ruff explains that there are buildings all around that property, and if you look at the maps
those soils extend extensively. That would be a construction constraint, if there were
particularly poor soils, especially around the larger building. Typically, poorly drained soils
are also poor soils to construct upon. It's really construction constraint that they will have to
deal with in their design.
Mr. Ruge asks that if we approve this tonight, they still have go through the MDEQ to get
permits for the wetlands?
Mr. Ruff responded that they would have to provide MDEQ a determination. The state does
not actually do the determinations any more. They rely upon contractors that the developer
would hire as an expert or licensed in this field to go out and make the determination, draw
the lines on the maps if there is any changes on those based on the construction, then they
have to provide the proper documentation as to how they deal will that, how they maybe
enlarge the wetland to compensate, those types of things. It's a state process. It's a state law
to deal with wetlands. We rely upon the state law.
Mr. Miller states that one of the conditions of the permit was that they comply with all federal
and state statutes, so I guess we are specifying that in the permit, that they need to document
that.
Mr. Smith says in looking at the form, it says MDEQ, apparently they've stated that it's not in
the floodplain, not a wetland attached to a body of water and no concerns. I just want
clarification. Are we talking about having to go back to MDEQ to assess this?
Mr. Ruff explains that the question came about that John Grace, who responded from the
State, is in Land and Water Management in the Floodplain Division. The question came up
as to whether or not the appropriate body responded to that part of the question. That was
the initial concern.
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 6
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick. . . Aye Greiner. . . Ave
Keene . .Absent Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Smith . Nay
Ruge . . Ave, Goolsby . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; motion carries; PRD-1-98, 3223 W. Mt. Hope
Ave., Planned Residential Development is recommended to be
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
e. LS-10-98, Aurelius Rd., Lot Split. The applicant proposes to divide Lot
#7, Supervisors Plat of the Culverdale Subdivision which has 126'
frontage, into equal lots 63' x 190' to build two single family homes in
the 4400 block of Aurelius Rd. The property is located approximately
230' north of Wayne Street on the east side of Aurelius Rd. According
to Section 1236.08d of the Subdivision Regulation, the width to depth
ratio is 1:2.5. The proposed width to depth ratio of these lots is 1.3,
therefore a variance of the subdivision regulation is required. In
comparison to the surrounding lots, the proposed lot division would be
comparable. The location, size, and character are reasonable, and
there should be little to no impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The committee, based on the testimony and evidence, recommends to
approve LS-10-98 on Aurelius Rd.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve LS-10-98.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick. . . Ave Greiner. . . Ave
Keene . .Absent Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan. . Ave Smith . . Ave
Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carries; LS-10-98, Aurelius Rd. Lot
Split has been recommended to be APPROVED.
f. Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations. The Public Service
Department has recommended that several minor modifications be
made to the subdivision regulation that pertain to obligations the City
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 7
and the Developer have in the installation of traffic control devices and
street paving. Other modifications involve granting authority to council
and approving variances to lot size on minor subdivisions or lot
divisions as found in Chapter 1236. The Committee discussed two
issues with this item of business. First, the City Attorney needs to
review the language, and has yet to do so. Second, confusion
regarding the Committee's involvement. We were confused but we felt
that the problem was appropriately before the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee but we also remembered that it had been referred to the
Urban Development Committee at the Planning Commission meeting
last. We decided that we should refer this matter to the Committee of
The Whole to resolve the committee assignment, as well as the
appropriate date for the committee assignment of this ordinance
review. Perhaps we'll also have the review of the language by the City
Attorney as well.
Mr. Frederick made the motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the Code Amendments for the
Subdivision Regulations be referred to the Committee of the Whole.
On a voice vote, motion passes unanimously.
g. Schedule for the Cellular Tower decision. We discussed the
anticipated timetable for dealing with the Tower plan. Mr. Ruff gave us
an extensive report. RFP's for expressing interest in the various sites
will be received by the end of April, prior to the May 5th Board
meeting. Staff is anticipating that much will be determined for the
action on these proposed sites by the information contained in the
RFP's, with the hope to eliminate a number of the sites, that it won't be
necessary to have as many as are proposed at this point. The staff is
going to be getting together as much of a report as possible by then for
the Board's consideration in order to keep these tower applications
moving along. Requests are being made to the school district and the
Parks Department as to preferred tower locations for each site to help
with the review and with making a determination on whether the site
should be approved or denied.
Mr. Ruff added a further note, that staff is sending out the report from Dr. Moulder on human
health and towers so that everybody will get all that information. The main thing it is
information for your study. Especially since the hospital brought up how a tower would effect
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 8
the telemetry equipment; yet when I asked him what distance away was far enough, he had
no answer.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Ruff were you able to find any information regarding how rapidly the use
of PCS towers is growing?
Mr. Ruff replied no, I haven't yet, but it is on my list of things to do. I'm trying to figure out who
to ask. I'm going to start with the FCC.
Mr. Greiner says he heard a radio advertisement for cellular phones, including PCS service.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, May 13, 1998, at 4.00 pm in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
2. Urban Development Committee
a. The Urban Development Committee did not meet.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
There is one item on the agenda so far, ACT-13-97, Sheridan St. and May
St., consolidate two at grade railroad crossings applied for 4/18/97. Our
staff person said he would communicate with the applicant to find out
whether they were still interested in pursuing this. We are trying to get this
off of our pending list.
3. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee did not meet, and therefore there is no
report.
4. Committee of the Whole
a. Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations
Moved by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Frederick to resolve into the
Committee of the Whole. Voice vote carried unanimously.
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 9
This meeting is for the purpose of addressing the Code Amendments for
Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Fredericks has outlined what the problem was.
We felt that it was properly before us and AT the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting, but that was not the understanding of the people who
were in attendance at the previous Board meeting. So we brought it back
to clarify exactly where it should go, and when, as well as whether or not
there is a need for us to see the final language prior to taking this up for
consideration.
Mr. Goolsby notes page 23 of the Minutes, this clearly was referred to the
Urban Development Committee last week. I do understand your confusion.
If it's appropriate that it be Zoning & Ordinance, I would move that it be
referred back to them for the next meeting, and waiting for further
information from the City Attorney's office.
It's been moved by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Miller, to refer this item to
the Zoning and Ordinance Committee to be taken up at the next meeting, or
when final language has been drafted. On a voice vote, motion carried.
Mr. Ruff mentions to Mr. Nischan the necessity of, at the next Urban
Development Committee meeting, making reference to the above item
needing to be dealt with at Zoning and Ordinance, since it was referred
initially to the Urban Development Committee.
Motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Nischan for the Committee to rise.
On a voice vote, motion carried.
Mr. Greiner reports that the Committee of the Whole met this evening to
address the issue of the Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations. It
was determined that the issue should properly be referred to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee meeting. There was a motion that that referral be
made, and I so make it tonight.
Moved by Mr. Greiner, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to refer the Code Amendments for
Subdivision Regulations to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. On a voice vote motion
carried unanimously.
D. Report from the Planning Manager:
Mr. Ruff reports that Louise will be back to work next Monday.
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 10
Also, there might be a Public Hearing on the Principal Shopping District plan on
May 19, 1998, as Ms. Love announced at the last meeting. However, Mr. Reiske
is concerned because the PSD Study Committee will not have reviewed the plan
until the week of May 19th, but not until after the meeting. So I'm not sure if the
Public Hearing will still be for May 19th, or the June 2nd meeting. It's my
understanding that at the present time there are no other hearings scheduled for
the June 2nd meeting.
E. Pending Items: Future Action Required
2. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
3. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2"
Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
4. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-2-95, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot.
Action target date March 24, 1998.
b. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure. Action Target Date
February 24, 1998.
C. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
d. Act-19-97, Capitol Avenue at Dwight Street, Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr. Nischan mentions the pictures on Page 5 in the MSPO publication of Mr. Miller, Ms.
Keene, and Mr. Nischan.
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 11
Mr. Nischan asks where are we on the City Attorney's comments on our procedural
change? Mr. Ruff stated that he didn't know.
Mr. Miller suggests exploring the study going on of wetlands in Ingham County. It's clear
that the wetland ordinances have very arbitrary definition or at least a subjective
definition sometimes in terms of what is a wetland. It's based on things like the hydrix
soils, vegetation patterns and so on. If we could tie into that and get better definition on
the remaining open space, it may be helpful in terms of Kavez. With the shortage in
MDEQ, things aren't always looked at thoroughly. I think it's important to preserve those
wetlands, amongst other things to make sure we don't further complicate our stormwater
run off problems. I will examine what's happening with that and perhaps bring it back
to staff for Board consideration.
Mr. Smith says the last meeting went quite late so I refrained from making my comment
then. I've been attending the Principal Shopping District Steering Committee meetings.
They've covered quite a bit of ground, and is winding down at this point. They are
waiting for members of the steering committee to respond with any comments of the
draft document that they gave us. They will be finalizing that. Eventually it will come
before City Council. If you have questions about any of the things being discussed
there, I will be glad to answer them. One of the interesting points that did come up was
the issue of implementation once they have their recommendations ready and pass
them on. Even if they are agreed to, how are these things going to get accomplished.
Interestingly enough, they had suggested that the PSD itself ought to take the lead role.
It was pointed out at that time that the PSD is an appointed board, it's not independent,
and that its funding seems to be scattered to the winds to accomplish a lot of other
things. They are rethinking about who they suggest takes the lead in implementation.
XI. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS:
Mr. Ruff discussed the implementation of the enforcement of the new sign ordinance.
First we are going to send a letter to the suppliers of the banners used by distributors
(such as beer and pop). Also, we will be doing two trial areas of sections of the city that
council members have agreed to, to test the enforcement of the ordinance.
Mr. Ruge asked if anything has happened with the parking lot at Michigan and Grand.
Mr. Ruff replied there has been nothing new since the last letter. But now that he has
the brochures done, he can work on it.
Mr. Ruge also mentions the construction yard on N. Pennsylvania and May St. What
is happening on that? Mr. Ruff replied that the request for a rezoning of that property
Planning Board Minutes, April 21, 1998 Page 12
is still pending in front of Council. I've talked with that property owner and he is going
to withdraw that request for rezoning, with the understanding that he is going to build a
small office building with accessory storage there. So that if he wants to store his
equipment inside the building, he can. He can't have a contractor's storage yard, that
would require a "G-2" District; which would allow outside storage similar to that at Miller
& Pleasant Grove. But he could have an office with storage associated with it. That's
legitimate under the "D-1" Professional District.
Mr. Nischan asks how does the public in general get to know what these regulations are,
or don't they until someone shows up and says they are in violation.
Mr. Ruff responded that the principal public would be commercial people. There are
also sign companies. If you want a sign, you contact a sign company or a painter. The
sign people were involved in designing the ordinance.
Mr. Goolsby mentioned meeting with the realtors about this issue to educate them first
so they are informed when talking to prospective commercial clients.
Mr. Smith stated that not having read the brochure yet, he's wondering if there is
anything which will cover the situation down at the Bad Habits store at Holmes and
Pleasant Grove where they've strung a banner over the front of the store.
Mr. Ruff replied that the purple sheet in the brochure is the form that the building
inspectors will have to help educate people about temporary signage.
XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
PRD-1-98
3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
150 Dwelling Units on 18.5 Acres
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Housing & Finance Associates, Inc.
19855 W. Outer Dr. Ste. 107E
Dearborn, Michigan 48124
OWNER: Summerhill Estates Apt. Co.
C/O DTN Management Co.
1905 Abbott Rd
East Lansing, MI 48823
REQUESTED ACTION: Planned Residential Development of 150 Senior
Citizen Dwelling Units on 18.5 acres
LOCATION: South side of W. Mt. Hope Avenue between Moores
River Drive and Pleasant Grove Road.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
ZONING: "A" and "DM-1" Residential Districts (primarily "DM-1")
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 18.5 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential, large lot and
Condominium
S: Single Family Residential
E: Vacant, Single Family Residential, and
Institutional (School)
W: Single Family and Multiple Family Residential,
& Mobile Home Park
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District & Community Unit Plan
(C.U.P.)
S: "A" Residential District
E: "A" Residential & "DM-1" Residential Districts
W: "A" Residential, "DM-1" Residential & C.U.P.
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The South West Area Plan designates the subject
property for medium density residential land use at
approximately 7-14 units per acre. W. Mt. Hope
Road is classified as a Minor Arterial street.
PRD-1-98
page 2 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned
Residential Development (PRD) to construct 150
senior citizen dwelling units on a 18.5 acre site. The
site is primarily zoned "DM-1" Multiple Family
Residential. The applicant is proposing to construct
four buildings: one building containing 110 one-
bedroom apartments and 26 two bedroom
apartments; two buildings each containing four two-
bedroom "cottage" apartments; and one building
containing six two-bedroom "cottage" apartments.
This totals a gross density of 8.10 dwelling units per
acre.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH TELEPHONE: None received.
ASSESSOR: Please contact Dave Tijierina of this office, with info
on proposed living area/sizes of these apartments.
ATTORNEY: None received.
BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT:
The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing
Department has no objections to the proposal as
written. Requesting a set of plans when available.
Water Technical Support/Distribution - Site possible
for water service. No working drawings received.
Water Technical Support needs owner requested
layout for water service with sizing so BWL flow
model can be run. Owner to contact City Fire for
private hydrant requirement. Easement required on
site. Also, possible second feed required from south.
BUILDING SAFETY: This project is subject to the City's Building Permit
Process. Contact the Building Safety Office for
information relating to the permitting process.
CATA: None received.
CODE COMPLIANCE: None received.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: None received.
PRD-1-98
page 3 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
DEVELOPMENT: No Comment.
FIRE MARSHALL: No remarks at this time.
INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: None received.
INGHAM CO. HEALTH DEPT.: None received.
LANSING NEIGHB'HOOD COUNCIL: None received.
MEDIA ONE: Media One has no concerns at this time.
MI DEQ: Not in flood plain, not a wetland attached to a body of
water, no concerns.
MI DNR: None received.
PARKS AND RECREATION: None received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : None received.
TRANSPORTATION: The Transportation Division has reviewed the
planned residential development request and has the
following comments: 1) A boulevard treatment for the
project access is not recommended, but can be used
if the owner requires it. 2) The access should be
designed for trucks. Based on information available
for review, this does not appear to be the situation.
3) Landscaping near Mt. Hope Avenue should be
placed so as not to impact sight distance
requirements. 4) Two exit lanes should be provided,
one for right turns and one for left turns. 5) Visitor
parking for the cottage units seems to be limited or
located a significant distance from the units. 6) In
general, it appears that the site can accommodate
this development with the proper planning
considerations. If you have any questions, please
contact me.
TRI-COUNTY R.P.C.: None received.
PRD-1-98
page 4 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
Review of the Planned Residential Development (PRD)
Section 1280.01 of the Zoning Code states the intent of the Planned Residential
Development Chapter of the Code is "to permit flexibility in the regulation of land
development; to encourage innovation in land use, design and type of structures
constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in public services and utilities; to
encourage useful open space; and to provide better housing developments which are
particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the City."
The PRD regulations allow a developer to construct a variety of housing units at a
dwelling unit density greater than the density allowed in the zoning district if specific
design standards are met. These requirements address design issues ranging from
building heights and setbacks to open space and energy conservation techniques.
Bonus density is not being requested for this development.
Uses permitted in a PRD according to Section 1280.04 include:
a one-family dwelling;
a two-family dwelling;
a townhouse;
a multiple dwelling;
an accessory building;
a public park or playground and recreational facility; and
off-street parking.
The permitted density of residential units shall be the density permitted by right in the
district in which it is located. Since the current zoning is primarily "DM-1" Residential,
the density which would be allowed ranges from 11.4 to 19.8 dwelling units per acre.
Summary, Planned Residential Development
Section 1280.03(b) of the Zoning Code identifies the information which must be
provided with the development plan provided by the developer for approval of a
Planned Residential Development. This information is described below.
1. The total number of dwelling units by type and bedroom count:
The development plan includes a total of 150 apartments
110 one bedroom units;
26 two bedroom units;
14 "Cottage" apartments (two bedrooms each).
On this 18.5 acre site, this results in an average of 8.10 units per acre.
2. The lot coverage for structures, streets and parking: 154,367 square feet.
PRD-1-98
page 5 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
3. The total square footage of open space: 651,667 square feet.
4. The total number of off street parking spaces: 164 proposed.
5. The heights of proposed buildings: Three stories.
6. The average square footage of each type of residential unit:
One Bedroom: 571 square feet;
Two Bedroom: 839 square feet;
Cottage Units: 1,017 square feet.
7. Information on the dedication of any public or private streets, alleys and other
public ways: the applicant indicates that all streets and/or drives are to be
private.
8. Dedication of public parks, recreation facilities, and preservation of open space:
The proposed site plan indicates retention of approximately the southern 1/3 of
the site as "naturalized open space".
Description of Site
The 18.5 acre site is located on the south side of W. Mt. Hope Avenue (Figure 1, Area
Map). Surrounding land uses include three single family homes on W. Mt. Hope
Avenue and adjacent the south and southwest borders of the property, a 96 unit
apartment complex to the west, and undeveloped property to the east. Lewton School
is located approximately 300 feet to the east, the Riverview Estates Mobile Home Park
is approximately 300 feet to the west. A single family neighborhood and the River Park
Estates condominiums are located north across on W. Mt. Hope Avenue.
The site is relatively level. Soil conditions are loamy and poorly drained. The site is
heavily wooded. Easements for storm drains and gas lines transect the property.
Presently, the only street frontage/access for this property is from W. Mt. Hope Avenue.
Concern was expressed at the Public Hearing of April 7, and again at the Zoning &
Ordinance Committee meeting of April 15, that the site may contain a "wet land" area
regulated under State Law. Staff has reviewed available topographic, aerial photo, and
soil survey information and has formed the opinion that if there are wetlands on the
site, they are limited to the southerly one-third of the property that the applicant has
indicated will remain as open space.
Description of Site Plan
The proposed site plan (Figure 2, attached) illustrates the layout of the proposed
PRD-1-98
page 6 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
development. There are three residential structures: the primary structure (the "Manor"
building) is the largest, it is three stories (35 feet) high, contains 136 units, and
accessory uses which are common facilities such as a barber/beauty salon, lounge,
dining room, exercise room, laundry, etc. Carports are shown in the parking lot area.
The minimum setback required is 15 to 25 feet: the minimum setbacks shown from the
property lines are 35 feet adjacent the west property line. The maximum height
proposed for the primary structure is 35 feet: this is substantially below the permitted
maximum height of 45 feet.
The proposed structures cover approximately 7% of the land area and the coverage of
the land with structures, driveways and parking is 19.1%. The maximum lot coverage
for structures by Code is 40% for structures and 60% for structures plus any driveways
and parking areas.
The applicant has also provided information regarding accessory uses (retail, service,
and entertainment) that will be included in the primary structure. The applicant is
providing documentation that these uses are accessory and contained entirely within
and internal to the primary structure.
ANALYSIS
Section 1280.02(d) requires the following criteria used in the evaluation of special land
use permits be utilized to evaluate Planned Residential Developments.
1. IS THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNED,
CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER
HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND
SURROUNDING USE?
Most of the surrounding properties are multifamily residential, singly family residential,
or undeveloped. The single family neighborhood to the south is buffered from the
proposed buildings by a large area of "naturalized" open space. In addition, the south
100 to 150 feet of the property is zoned "A" (single family) Residential, which acts as
assurance that additional future development site will still maintain significant transition
area between the differing land uses.
The proposed development is designed to contain the parking and driveway circulation
areas oriented to the site's interior, with the buildings oriented at angles to the property
lines where possible.
PRD-1-98
page 7 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
2. DOES THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHANGE
THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA?
The development of the subject site for senior citizen apartments will form an
appropriate transition between the existing commercial and multiple family residential
uses to the west. The P.R.D. also provides the opportunity to cluster buildings and
paved surfaces, therefore reducing the impact on drainage of storm water runoff onto
adjacent properties.
3. DOES THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT
PROPERTY?
The proposed development plan shows retention of significant portions of the existing
trees and other vegetation on the site for use as landscaping and buffering the
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Existing or proposed fencing along the property lines is not indicated on the site plan.
Because of the proposed nature of the development, it is debatable whether or not to
require fencing of the perimeter in order to discourage inappropriate pedestrian travel
patterns, particularly into the single family neighborhoods.
4. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENT AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND
WILL THE USE BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF
THE LOT?
The development should represent an improvement to this property. Public utilities will
be extended to the site, and storm water runoff facilities will be required to actually
improve flows from this property.
PRD-1-98
page 8 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
5. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE
HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES,
ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY
THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE,
ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE?
Because the property is already zoned for multiple family residential use, the proposed
P.D. will not "be hazardous to adjacent properties", and will actually permit more
sensitive development of the site than if the property were developed with one large
structure and the P.D. procedures were not required.
6. CAN THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE
ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND
FACILITIES OR IS IT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE
TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND
FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION?
The Public Service Department and Board of Water & Light have indicated that utilities
can be made available, with the proper engineering considerations, to service the site
(see AGENCY RESPONSES, earlier in this report).
7. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLACE
DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF
CURRENT CAPACITY?
None have been indicated by the appropriate state and city agencies.
8. IS THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT
WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The proposed use is in conformance with the South West Area Plan, which designates
the subject property for medium density residential land use at approximately 7-14 units
per acre. In addition, W. Mt. Hope Road is classified as a Minor Arterial street.
9. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MEET THE
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
The property is zoned "DM-1" Residential which allows multiple family residential
development at a density that could range from 11.4 to 19.8 dwelling units per acre.
This development would be 8.10 du per acre. It is therefore in compliance with the
Zoning Code since it meets the other requirements of the "DM-1" Residential District
such as parking and setback requirements.
PRD-1-98
page 9 3223 W. Mt. Hope Road
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting Planned Residential Development of 150 Apartment Units
on 18.05 acres. The location is South side of W. Mt. Hope Avenue between Moores
River Drive and Pleasant Grove Road. The proposed layout of structures meets
setback requirements of the "DM-1" Residential District. Accessory uses proposed
(retail, service, and entertainment) will be contained entirely within and internal to the
primary structure.
Issues such as the design of the entrance onto Mt. Hope Avenue, storm water
detention, and provision of water, sewer, and electrical service have been reviewed by
the appropriate city agencies and will be addressed in appropriate detail at the Site
Review stage of the development process. Staff has reviewed the potential of wetlands
on the site, and believes that they are limited to area that will remain as open space.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the understanding that the development will be
required to incorporate all requirements of the appropriate City and State agencies
during plan review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
PRD-1-98.FE
rev. April 16, 1998
PRD-1-98 3223 W. MT HOPE AVE
If 1p n , fY(g�
'
R
A Ott f 1°s,
021
t� 451 x ,�
a �4- 376 4 ..'131 � 07, ov46
µ '124 45
0
,L4
'IIOAD �
oy/ h.h' ra• .w•� 1ls� .
071 O!/ 091
.LDL.r YXITC•11,N ^1 � M
16
A 7
L[NTOn CMOOL
JI rA
1 x7f/ f
+1, r
I.l\ n N LCMTOM 01\
� LA
�y .
'� �' oti �1r i � ♦°"
•Its
.. p/A" d 11 a ♦ti
It]
O 1 ) • s I• / I lla Q t
� u
it
f / LL Ixl t�
Ofull todft
,•, r O' / xr
I
,GLASGOW .. ... .r�. r�.. DN
+]I s`1 s" ,d rl dl t � 1 I¢ -i) 11� xll ,.1 xr .i .._ -� n ♦ ,
j1 / p1
NORTH
PRD-1-98 3223 W. MT HOPE AVE
r•A.srrr r ui..
1 LEG&L DBWTION M ss�an Yv
a��M1/Ia4W rYrrYY%r.L W l0.Yr.M.tlr W ur
C rL11r WrL Y�iM r��s�•i�Asa Tel aMfq Y•ua
YwYf�Ya'.IYF•
YwMYYI►O�.a-
TrMrYMNA..rr%r s.r•aA TYI RII firr yr.rAl.
• PROJECT - Yrq-a-Rls- rYr►rWriTul�izwr.Wsuts
LOCAIIWI - rrrl..YlYArb•a.r.ltr.��rrlsli%(Wistrw.Yr
sTWLaaarrr el WYrr•�YI/Yratpll-.-DIY YYr u
rR✓.-Mrtlr tlrY Yr-T-.R W.itrr IeNY11YC glass r
.YaYW YrYr•s>_r YleaY�llW MrRAY..IY�WI•affYl
•/, aarrcr�r Irnrcr.tlaYrasan,atlaarrr Y•R rr
aW 1R rY-4aYtlr�..raYYMrra�...irYSYrs.r�s
W-�.Y%I•..1 -�w.M�.`Y11+Yrir• �ra�.r
raa..-1 t 1I
1 I NCINITY YAP
I Mp SCW
' 1 C3:dL`3c,
2DIea I I µoro:GW7N TV&t*-P it: S,•.u.v .
that►"Kv Fl4c"Im 1 t �rp.cA K)"GAIA —
� —
I wm�uT1E1 '1
__ __ y_
r
•.,..r ..
e
��� •l , i.• 6 4 I a
I ••� , V`� ` � � IN '�•`7y PYfItS Frfi70t0� �E• ��
T �v i'•
Tk
Si�iilLLTi1 1 j — //�I l (J
tRlat/Ii�t-KibO1UAL 11 M,1 _4 '... I OWN /
�I I
_ ____
_ �AA�IaYI
ss� n rroLVsl of
701m• W -� 1 ZDNCD' i
CQWLLN T WIT,,-rAYILY RESIDENTIAL bl III
�R�IaM tIR DITL• _
tacRr.oT ma1Rl tmt/MeA.weioa hCJlt//.004.2.s SOL".SITE ARIA Proposed Orelvlu
eAI a� Vg6"70e0e.OSM I MGIORlaL D.NSEIGT Uuw Sanlor CPU,
rr r .a r Aptw4nentt
Iavw W.ou tRORlre
PrOLLw W1e-
60.oK MORK W»
City d LAr�as
C W•TAD eORK IMT ® ladu•�
rwI%w nu•rAwloue trice FKOAvry
Prellminery
eliow w7.N eTowr
AAr/ellftt KA..I I•.10'd' SE PLAN
VV,@Uj a WM IW•TNO epwt Ue»TOTAL rarDla
IdI1.Nle.f W•N Nda A R.P e+w
ea)•N ble•rRw raleur e►ALe nlovlam ORAlDFU1VO1 YANOflr—��p�•�ppp
(wMr bo"q..v WPJ Lp.HOUBM A850CIATION rs u
*&U W.OAw Ofte
LAW M• sm ia: /i(r C SIt6 lb r r a ar
m"& 10 Pill +w m aft"P. (.o.bolam w sou -- S_i
gym,
V64MPI&O" VVW#� �—
LS-10-98
4400 Block of Aurelius Road
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: James W. Fox, Manager
Woodside E&D , LLC,
4615 W. Grand River
Lansing, MI 48906
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 126' X 190' =23, 940 sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant
S: Vacant
E: Vacant/Single Family
W: Industrial Use
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential
S: "A" Residential
E: "A" Residential
W: "I" Heavy Industrial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area residential.
LS-10-98, 4400 Block of Aurelius Road, Page 2.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH: No response received yet.
Assessor: If approval is granted, please send notification to
Assessor's office.
BWL: Electric Utility
The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing
Department has no objections to the proposal as written.
Water Utility
Water Technical Support/Distribution - No conflict with
land split. Owner or builder to apply for water service
6-8 weeks before required turn-on.
Building Safety: No objection.
Consumers Power: No response received yet
Media One: No concerns at this time.
Development: The proposal seems consistent with other single family
lots in the blockface. However, recommend the proposal
be evaluated with impact of development on large vacant
land holdings to west. What is projected use of this
property?
Fire Marshal: No response received yet.
Ingham County Drain
Commissioner: No objection. Preliminary site review.
Lansing Neighborhood
Council: No neighborhood organization in this area.
Parks & Rec.: No comment.
Public Service: No response received yet.
Report Prepared by DMW 10/97.
LS-10-98, 4400 Blk. Aurelius Road, Page 3.
Trans. Eng. See attached.
Background Information
The applicant is proposing to divide Lot 7, Supervisor's Plat of Culver-Dale
Subdivision, which has 126' frontage, into equal lots, 63' x 190' and build two (2)
single family homes in the 4400 Blk. of Aurelius Road.
ANALYSIS
Location Size and Character
The property is located approximately 230' N of Wayne Street on the east side of
Aurelius Road in the 4400 block. In comparison to the surrounding lots, the
proposed lot division would be comparable. According to Section 1236.08(d) of the
Zoning Code, the width to depth ratio is 1:2:5. The proposed width to depth ratio
is 1:3. Therefore, a variance of the subdivision regulation is required. The lot
division will not change the residential character of the area. The location, size and
character are reasonable.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
This particular location of Aurelius Road is considered a minor arterial. There
should be little to no impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Summary
The location, size and character are reasonable and there should be little to no
impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Recommendation:
Based on the analysis of the size of the adjacent lot, staff recommends approval
of the lot split.
Report prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,3/98
LS-10-98. 4400 Block of Aur lip s Road
NORTH
/ r 865.6
86C.'71 18,60.7
y
867.8
,8 ro
E16
/4
861.3
G
K
862 2
x
23
60
17
858 57.5
+' '-A" -P\e 5 d ey*.
� ` 4
A'
x
�D `*-5 860.E
i
22 85
h
67.8 WATER x
EL 855.2
PARKING
28 I 86/.6 x
�0
fFWALL
858
864.4 858.1 �,/��f/�[ (�E[:r 865.5
�� 856.5
APPROVED MAY 19,1998. Draft 051898
Approved 051998
To Clerk 052298
_ c Minutes of the Regular Meeting
i — ; LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
r~- Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
`-' c., 124 West Michigan Avenue
�' r � Tuesday, May 5, 1998
I. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7.01 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Nischan, Miller, Ruge,
seven members present.
A. Excused Absences - Smith. Mr. Smith, who has an unavoidable commitment,
requested an excused absence; motion by Mr. Goolsby, second by Mr. Miller,
voice vote, unanimously approved; the excused absence was granted.
C. Introductions. Ms. Love introduced staff present, Jim Ruff, Zoning
Administrator; and Louise Christian, Recording Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Nischan said the Urban Development Committee will
not meet during the recess. With that change, the agenda was approved.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Letter dated April 16, 1998 addressed to Jim Sturdevant from Lanny L. Johnson
MD regarding SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. (Act-9-98)
stating that towers should not be visual nuisances or physical barriers that
could compromise property values.
B. Telephone message dated April 29, 1998 to Jim Sturdevant from Dennis Mead
regarding SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98), in
support.
C. Telephone call from Richard Leed, Engineering Supervisor, Sparrow Hospital.
He will have comments prepared for the May 19, 1998 meeting regarding their
concerns for potential interference with internal communications systems at
Sparrow Hospital.
D. Letter with copy addressed to James A. Ruff regarding 1508 E. Michigan Ave.,
a nonconforming use before the Board last year. Promised progress report in
advance of May deadline.
IV. HEARINGS: None
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 5, 1998 PAGE 2
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
Mr. Ruff said, at his request, no decisions will be made tonight about towers. Today
we received the RFPs from the tower companies expressing interest. They have not
as yet been evaluated. The items will be on the agenda for the May 19 meeting.
Tonight's agenda allows for further comment from the public and possible questions
regarding the draft reports, in preparation for May 19.
EMLY HORNE, 110 W. HODGE. I am opposed to the granting of special use permit
for Everett High School and the Washington Park sites due to the health and safety
factors now and in the future. Thank you.
KELLY PROPER, 111 E. CAVANAUGH, representing the Cavanaugh PTA. We too
are opposed to towers at any school. I have information concerning the FCC Act of
1996. It is in litigation by at least 26 Michigan municipalities and others. (Information
received by Mr. Ruff.) Cavanaugh PTA has questions. We understand that these are
multiple-tenant towers. Our concerns include the wattage produced; limits as multiple
users create a larger danger zone; size of the danger zone; should a tower explode,
will it jeopardize the health and welfare of the children and the community. The
Everett High School tennis courts are near a proposed tower location; was this
considered. We need to look at health and well-being of the children and determine
limits of danger zones.
DAVID EICK, CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER FOR INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER. Ingham Regional Medical Center is very willing to work with the Planning
Board for the establishment of these towers if it does not interfere with our patients.
We are investigating with the appropriate suppliers to find out what the impact might
be on the telemetry issue, such as patients with pacemakers, and hospital equipment.
Should there be interference with pacemakers and hospital equipment, we could run
into a flatline situation, and improper readings. That is a major concern for us. So
far we have heard conflicting reports. I pledge our support to prevent a future
disaster.
RICK WAYNE, BIOMEDICAL TECH AT INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.
We are mainly concerned with radiation levels, frequencies, future plans for
colocation. We have had trouble with our antenna systems. The hospital is wired as
one large antenna system, so we can monitor patients on any floor. A high-power
system right next door could cause havoc anywhere throughout the system. We want
more information.
HOWARD L. JONES, 426 W. BARNES. In 1996, the Lansing City Council sent a
letter in opposition to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 5, 1998 PAGE 3
abrogated the rights of local units of government to enter into contracts and also
other understandings with the telecommunications industry. You should pay attention
to the information presented by Kelly Proper. Many cities throughout the country are
challenging this act. We must look at the long-term effects of digital towers on
hospitals, police and fire departments, and citizens. It's public air space. I hope you
are not stampeded on this.
DOROTHY B. JONES, 426 W. BARNES. I too would urge you to be careful placing
towers near schools where they will be affecting young people. Make sure you know
the potential impact of these towers.
J.C. RINGENBERG, 1013 W. MT. HOPE AVENUE. I agree with the Jones, that we
have to take care before we rush into high tech. I too am picking up transmissions
on my phone with the towers near my house. The one near Washington is pretty
much in my backyard. I am also concerned with the aesthetics. Some of the
telecommunications towers on Cedar St. are so ugly.
EDWARD SIMMER, 2609 DIER. I am a retired staff sergeant, United States Army.
I was a nuclear biological and chemical specialist for the army for ten years. I
attended a meeting at the Lansing School District where I asked about radiation from
the towers. People did not know. That scares me. Let's find out the actual radiation
of the towers. My daughter attends Everett High School. If children exhibit low levels
of radiation poisoning, you will have lawsuits. Go slow and get the facts before
making a decision.
MIKE ZDEBSKI, 1024 PDXSON. Through the first process of the towers, I
represented Elmhurst PTA. We were glad they were withdrawn from the list of
potential sites. I am opposed to the one in Washington park; it backs up to my area.
There being no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
conclusion of the public comment section.
VI. RECESS: None
VII. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minutes for Approval: April 7, 1998 (Tabled April 21, 1998). Mr. Greiner made
a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of April 7, 1998.
On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7, Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the
minutes of April 7, 1998, were APPROVED.
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998 Page 4
April 14, 1998. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to
approve the minutes of April 14, 1998. On a voice vote, there were. Ayes: 7;
Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of April 14, 1998, were
APPROVED.
April 21, 1998. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve
the minutes of April 21, 1998. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7, Nays: 0,
motion carried unanimously, the minutes of April 21, 1998, with one correction
Pg 9 Ln 1.38" Pos 1" "We felt that it was properly before us and AT the Zoning
and Ordinance Committee meeting . . . . " were APPROVED.
B. Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr.
Frederick, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole; carried unanimously. Mr.
Ruge passed the gavel to Mr. Greiner who called the committee to order for the
purpose of discussing the SLUs and Acts related to towers. No decisions will
be made this evening. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the towers.
Mr. Nischan said he preferred to act in response to a specific proposal and a
specific site. Mr. Goolsby said the RFP would address that issue, asking Mr.
Ruff if the RFPs are specific to a certain technology. Mr. Ruff said it should be
specific to site and to anticipated technology, then calculations can be made
relative to radiation. There will also be information regarding per-site
payments. The City and the School Board have the right to reject all proposals.
"I am getting other companies looking at other sites."
Mr. Goolsby said if we approve these sites, do other companies have the right
to come in and request other sites, and what would be our rights to deny. Does
having a master plan in place for siting provide a defense for denial? This gets
to the Communications Act and some of the language regarding our rejecting
or approving sites. We need to look at this. Given the concern in the
community concerning radiation levels, we also need information clarifying
radiation outputs of a cellular phone on a tower right now, as opposed to digital
technology and TV and microwave. We need information from Sparrow and St.
Lawrence and Ingham Medical. We do not want to jeopardize people's health.
Mr. Goolsby also wondered if cellular phones caused problems. Mr. Ruff said
they have been banned from the campus.
Mr. Goolsby asked have they had problems, or are they being prudent? We
need to know if there can be interference, and if so, what is the radius? Mr.
Ruff said we are looking at this. There is a difference between the type of
radiation emitted by a tower and a point source such as a cell phone. Dr.
Moulder's paper is helpful.
Page 5
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998
Ms. Keene asked if there is information and feedbackcities are other doing is
have these systems up and running. Mr. Ruff said
in
different ways. One city has a tower ordinance fore l mommunic tior else
ons to
ensure colocation. Many cities have imposed a shot
t- rmare addressing towers one at a time. Ms. Keene asked
if orany ordinances have
not hospitals have
been in place long enough to determine whether
experienced interference problems. Mr. Ruff said d S whre trying to l equipment
this
information, both from the hospitals, and from ven
operating on particular radio frequencies. Mr. Ruff has conhostacted
a digital ls put
concern about this issue who said they are now contracting with
towers on their sites. FCC requires that they not interfere with other electronic
devices, so the design has to meet certain standards.
Ms. Love said we are trying to get trend information statewide and over t the fedearswe
ral
level from the FCC. PCS tower systems are fairly new,
but have dealt with microwave and antenna towers. technical
and wpeoith radio and
have
indicated that if there is interference household appliances
TV reception, likely the interference was from AM radio Lowe to Householders
can complain to the FCC and they will send someone
determine the
source of the interference. By FCC regulations, whatever is causing the
interference must cease and desist.
Mr. Nischan reported two comments from a reliable source
function lvedtsid with
systems and components testing who said (1) all the units
he
work area, with results and monitoring information transmitted
i environment,caand
They do not want to be exposedones should not be used more than 30 minutes a
(2) the person said cell ph
week to prevent excessive amounts of radiation We to o Slowly.t least need. Love said
careful to make the right distinctions. We need 9 Ms osed id
that goes back to Jim's point that a cell phone is a point source, as opp
to
a tower that would be more diffuse.
Mr. Frederick said, according to question No. 13,
the last paragraph says that
cture
safety standards would be violated if antennas were ed on a s required. That
where worker access to areas within 10 feet of the antennas
goes right along with the previous cautionary statem n s thag within
the 20 feet cal
of it probably would not be e. (to thelrate of energy absorption, and the
effects of radio waves are proportional
duration of exposure matters very little." Apparently, length of exposure doesn't
make any difference, it's how much is absorbed. Personal damage would seem
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998 Page 6
to depend on the frequency of the radio wave and the person's likelihood of
absorbing the radio frequency from a cell phone rather than length of time the
phone is used.
Mr. Ruff said in the past damage has occurred from the impact of thermal
radiation caused by radio frequencies. Studies of tumors try to relate
nonthermal radio waves, but so far they are inconclusive. Mr. Frederick said
the highest frequencies of digital phones is just below the frequency of
microwave ovens. The safety of microwave ovens has been pretty well
established. Mr. Ruff called members' attention to a section of a chart
displaying PCSs in the electromagnetic spectrum which includes the microwave
oven vs. PCS phones "You will see some of the relation in the wave length vs.
frequency and actually how far down the scale it is, when you get down from
microwave ovens. There is a difference there. Even though it is fairly close on
the scale, these are to powers of ten."
Mr. Miller asked for clarification about safety issues in terms of the Planning
Board and what we look at. Is it an expectation as a Planning Board, without
a technical background, that we will make our recommendation based in part
on our conclusions about the safety of the technology?
Ms. Love said, regarding the height limitation, that would not be one of the
criteria reviewed. Regarding the special land use, however, there are nine
criteria, one of which is the relationship to the environment, that we would
consider. We do need to make the caveat that other than Mr. Miller, most of us
are fairly limited. We can't say yes or no conclusively, no more than.City
Council can; however, there is an environmental concern. Mr. Miller said, in the
federal statute, part of the concept was that the FCC and research communities
and independent bodies with the technical expertise would look at issues on a
national level so you don't have boards sitting across the country and trying to
make that determination. Mr. Ruff said the public health issue has been taken
out of our hands. "If the Board or Council denied one [case] because of a
perceived health issue, just because it was, say, near a park, I think it could be
challenged successfully." We need to define issues. If members have
questions on specific sites, Mr. Ruff will go over them.
Ms. Keene asked about saturation of towers--how many do we need? Will
other tower companies want additional towers? Can we say no, we already
have enough. Ms. Love said if we have a master plan of sites, do we have the
basis for denial, under the Act? If we site towers appropriately, it seems like we
Planning Board Minutes, May 5. 1998
Page 7
should have some basis for saying enough is enough. Ms. Keene said the Act
does not seem to address this.
the
Mr. Goolsby asked about the cities that have adopted ordinance,
terms of a masbtertplan
impact. It would seem that the ordinance is ado p n
for towers. If the ordinance is in place, can that provide the basis for denial.
Ms. Keene asked if the ordinance could be challenged.
Mr. Greiner requested that the Board be provided with copies of the
telecommunications act for next time. Mr. Greiner antenna it was his s; they they justp coession
uld not
that a municipality could to some extent regulate
exclude them altogether. There should be a way,
you
provide
places sufficient
where you
for coverage, that you could then say, no, we have enough
can go. As far as health issues, we were precluded from using that as an
excuse. If it was going to create interference, as at a hospital, that would be a
legitimate reason for denial, but the right was taken away from us of saying no,
these things are unhealthy, and we don't want them in our community.
Mr. Goolsby said this is a young technology, and if we have concerns, and say
not in the elementary schools, that is all right as long as we have other sites.
. If we as a body say we do not have enough information,
lower.)ook at That's within tive
our
sites where what we might perceive as a risk would
purview, but to say we are not going to put it in the schools because it is a
public health risk; and because there is a publichealth
can tuse thatrn, we are not
as a basis for
going to put it anyplace else--we can't do that. W
putting it someplace else in an appropriate location that meets the needs.
Ms. Love said it can be likened to mobile homes. The Supreme
you do not have to
you cannot zone mobile homes out of your city, Y
allow them everyplace. You can have appropriate locations.
The Chairman asked for any other concerns. Mr. Goolsby said Mr. Ruff has a
list of things we talked about after the public meeting at the middle school.
Mr. Ruff said a major question was the distance from a hospital if there is a
problem with telemetry and trying to quantify it, another thing was numbers of
towers and numbers of users of various technologies--cellular,o digital,
because
what are trends. We need to look at parameters, requirements,
even if this board denies a site, that doesn't mean Council couldn't approve it.
In the past, when we did not approve something and did not include parameters
on the problems, then it was left up to Council resolution.
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998 Page 8
Mr. Ruge said he was concerned with the fire station site and proximity to
homes and the accompanying hazard. If a more viable site is in private
ownership, would it make sense to approach a private owner? Mr. Ruff said
from the standpoint of putting together a plan, we don't want to be in that
position. "I do not like proposing these sites. I would rather react to what sites
they want, but I like the idea of trying to colocate."
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan that the Committee of
the Whole arise; voice vote, carried unanimously. Chairman Ruge resumed.
C. Committee Reports
1. Zonina and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, May 13, 1998, at 4.00 pm in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair.
a. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings.
This item was introduced over a year ago. Staff has made
numerous attempts to contact the applicant by letter, telephone, and
fax, and has not received any response, which raised the question
of their continued interest. The second thing we found in committee
was that the City was unable to accommodate the request because
it does not own all the property it would have to own in order to
close the street. It is private, not City, property. Were we
interested and willing to do that, we could not, because we don't
own the property. Given those two factors, the apparent lack of
interest and the inability to approve it anyway, in committee, it was
moved, seconded and approved unanimously (4-0) to deny
Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to deny Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and
May St., Consolidate Two At-grade Railroad Crossings.
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998 Page 9
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner . Ave Keene •Ave
Miller . Ave Nischan . Ave
Ruge • Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-13-97, Sheridan
St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade Railroad Crossings, was DENIED.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee did not meet, hence there is no report.
D. Report from the Planning Manager:
Ms. Love said David M. Griffiths Co. completed a draft fee study for our
department. They looked at the number of hours spent on a particular project
vs. the fee and the cost recovery on each of 21 fees, in Building Safety, Code
Compliance and Planning Offices. Code Compliance recovers about 60 to 70
percent of their fees; Building Safety about 50 to 55 percent, and Planning from
0 to 29 percent of fees. In terms of cost recovery, our office does not recover
anywhere close to the other offices. Many Planning activities deal with
individual residents, or activities to improve residences. Fees are at about 24
percent now; increases would discourage people from improving their
properties. We are looking at changes, at increasing fees, which have not
increased since 1991. The consultant is recommending average fee increases
of about 20 percent, some of which are justified. On the other hand, because
of our other policies, i.e., wanting to encourage property improvements, we may
be recommending additional striations in the fee structure which will allow us
to bump up some of the costs while, for instance, allowing home owners to go
through the BZA process for a minimal price increase. The other
recommendation deals with other home owners who are supposed to bring in
a site plan when applying for a building permit. You can tell they haven't a clue
about a site plan. The consultant recommended that we charge people $100
for helping draw up the site plan. "I still think that is a service the department
needs to provide. It would be totally out of line to charge somebody $100 for
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998
Page 10
a single-family residential site plan to add a garage. . . .
We are still in the
process of working with the fee structure. . . . I will be reporting back to you at
the next meeting."
nally
The public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan We
ahe moving that to was June
scheduled for the Board Meeting of May 18, 199
2, 1998 in order to gather more input from more
mall opened.
Some downtown
merchants would like to have the N. Washing
Our department has been requested by the City Council's Committee on
Development and Planning to do a housing study, a market analysis trend study
Of housing needs in the City. If Council appropriates the money, this will be an
extensive study throughout the entire City. It will help this board and the City
Council make better decisions. I have forwarded a din mto through a fu blown
Sykes to the Mayor asking the City Council 9
housing study."
We are moving ahead on developing a groundwater plan for the City. We want
to make this a cooperative effort with other municipalities and townships, so we
have met with people from the state, Tri-County, the City, Ingham County
Health Department and Michigan State University to develop a tool which will
allow boards and the City Council to make good land use
SeGroulsions Groundwater does the
not
groundwater model to protect the City's ground
recognize municipal boundaries. We want to get two grants,
the se o nd fromne from the EPA foe
of Michigan for wellhead protection programs a
cr
upwards of $250,000. We have the basis for an excellent program.
Ms. Love said Representative Lynn Martinez is introducing the BTS bill on
Wednesday, May 6, 1998.
D. Pending Items: Future Action Required
1. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-
2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light ndu8strial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, )
Planning Board Minutes, May 5, 1998
Page 11
C. Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled April 14, 1998)
Vill. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr. Nischan supported not raising fees for people trying to improve their property.
XI. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS:
Mr. Ruff said he was working on the SLU for the parking lot at N. Grand and Michigan
Avenue. Ms. Love is preparing a letter concerning banners to be mailed to a list of
beverage suppliers. Staff is compiling the mailing list. Ms. Love said we also must
make sure we have notified all City Council members.
XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:42 p.m.
z
ectfully Submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
=050598 a:\45
APPROVED AS PRINTED. Draft 051898
Approved 060298
To Clerk 061298
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers r
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall _
124 West Michigan Avenue `==
Tuesday, May 19, 1998
I. OPENING SESSION:
c�
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Nischan, Miller, Ruge,
Smith, eight members present.
A. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions. Ms. Love introduced staff present, Louise Christian, Recording
Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented.
Ill. COMMUNICATIONS:
Memorandum from Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator, dated May 18, 1998 to Planning
Board Members requesting that the tower SLUs be tabled until further notice.
IV. HEARINGS:
A. LS-13-98, 4208 Bristol Street
Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Sherrie Tyler for property at 4802
Bristol Street, zoned "A" Residential. The large rectangular lot contains almost
seven acres of land. At present there is only one single-family house on the
property, located just to the west of the end of Bristol Street. The proposal is
to put a second house on this lot, configured as on the Certified Boundary
Survey in the report. This is a difficult situation if you are only going to put two
houses on it; however, in the future it may be appropriate to plat the property
and add additional homes. The Planning staff has recommended approval, with
conditions for a joint driveway easement with new deeds, paved to meet current
codes and the new structure placed so that expansion of a subdivision would
not be prohibited in the future.
Mr. Ruge said if this is an easement for access to the one house, that does not
give the next property owner permission to use the easement for, say, 14
houses. Ms. Love said if in the future a plat were developed, it would cease to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 2
be an easement, it would be an extension of Bristol Street, established public
right-of-way, dedicated to the City. Ms. Love said we were suggesting not
locating the house at the south end of Bristol, which would obviate the
possibility for additional future development. It is only a suggestion to think
about potential future development.
SHERRIE TYLER, TYLER, 337 ANACONDA, REPRESENTING HER FATHER
WILLIAM TYLER. I have power of attorney and am his legal guardian. My
main interest is for my dad, who has owned the property for a long time. I have
had many developers look at that land, but not too many are interested in
developing it. Their biggest concern is that existing homes around the property
would depreciate any new homes. There has been concern over the years
about weed control, and kids using drugs and trespassing. About four or five
years ago, there was a killing on the property. I see this as a deterrent to that
behavior, and a way of beautifying the area and taking care of the weeds. I see
it as a plus for the City, and a big plus for my dad. I have questions bout the
shared driveway. What would be a dimension, and must it be paved?
Ms. Love said yes, the driveway would have to be paved. This is the staff's
recommendation, though not necessarily what the Board eventually would
approve. The easement itself would be 25 feet on either side of the proposed
lot line, or 50 feet, equal to the width of Bristol. Because a number of driveways
in the area are paved, paving would make it similar.
ARNOLD METOYER. 216 S. BUTLER BLVD., LANSING. I currently have
ownership; I pay all the property taxes, and I am billed for the rain tax. The split
would give us identifiable parcels. What I object to is that Parcel Owner A and
Parcel Owner B will be locked into their four- and three-acre parcels. That
would hamper marketability. I would like for this to be taken into consideration.
I don't mind cutting grass, but three acres gets to be a little much.
CLUSTER SMITH, 4814 TRESSA DRIVE, LANSING. I have no problem with
the house being built and the land being split, but we are told that once that is
done, there cannot be any more housing added because it is landlocked.
Ms. Love said as it is right now, that is correct. You could not add additional
houses. In the future, if they decide to put in additional houses, they would
have to plat and put in sewers and a public street, at the developer's expense.
JANE CLAYTOR, 4916 TRESSA DRIVE, LANSING. My yard backs up to the
property. We have had problems with this property. Some years ago, the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 3
property was raised much higher, about five or six feet, so water runs off into
our yards. I had to put in a drain to drain the water. It is a dump yard. If
houses are built back there, they would be landlocked, and it is swamp. I have
no problem with the one house, and the dividing of the property. We are
concerned on what is coming back there and the low level of housing. If the
street goes in, it would have to be a dead-end street.
Ms. Love said cul-de-sac streets are still permitted; they are still a proper type
of street development.
There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the
conclusion of the public hearing and referral of LS-13-98 to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee meeting, on June 10, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department of
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
ROGER D. WEATHERS, 3328 SWANEE DR. Speaking about PRD-2-98, and the
proposed townhouses. Even after the staff opposed it, the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee recommended approval. I want to speak against it, because it will be
townhouses in a subdivision. We bought our house in 1986, and now in 1998, the
value of the house has increased about$18,000. If the townhouse development goes
in, we will lose a great portion of that increase. I would like to read from the Planning
and Zoning Code, 1244.06.(e), paragraph 2, ". . . . with particular attention to
minimizing child-vehicle contacts in residential districts." That will increase in that
area. The streets are not prepared for that increase in traffic. Children coming from
the apartment complex do not have direct access to Wexford Elementary School
unless they cut through people's yards. They would have to walk down Wise to Jolly,
Jolly to Wexford and Wexford around. Chapter 1244.09(e)(4) reads ". . . .discourage
the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and structures or
unreasonably affect their value." It would have an unreasonable affect on property
values in our neighborhood. The average income in that area is given at $30,000,
which is completely false; the average income is over$60,000. If your house is worth
over $70,000 and townhouses are built and $30,000 people move in, property values
will go down. You can have a strong neighborhood coalition, but when you have
invested a lot of money and time in your house, and you are trying to get back what
you put into it when you sell, potential buyers standing on your porch will see
townhouses five-six hundred feet distant, and that will turn them away. Property
values will drop to $50-60,000. Just this year my house came out at $71,000. The
harmony of the neighborhood would be affected. Even though the townhouses will
have professional management, when it comes times to sell or be reappraised,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 4
values will go down. We don't want home values going down, we want them going
up. When the mayor ran, he wanted more home owners, and less renters. Now it is
turning upside down; we are being overrun with apartment complexes. It is a ten-acre
lot. There are many other things that can be built there that can be attractive and
bring interested young residents into our community and keep it at a level where
people want to move in.
JASON L. ALDRICH, 3126 NONETTE, LANSING. My property backs up to PRD-2-
98. 1 want to read from the zoning code. Principal uses permitted for "A" Residential
is a one-family dwelling, public park or playground or family day care home. Other
uses are permitted subject to special conditions, one of which is the PRD. The PRD
must fit in with all of Chapter 1280 to be permitted with "A" Residential, and all of the
strict codes for that must not affect surrounding property. Some of the specs that we
have not received for the PRD, we are concerned about. Chapter 1280 gives
necessary proposed lot coverage for the structures, the proposed lot coverage for the
streets, the gross and net residential density, the total square footage of usable open
space, the average square footage for each unit type, the existing grade elevations
and proposed contours, the location of proposed trash storage areas and the
identification and location of proposed exterior lighting. All those come into play
because, as the previous speaker said, in Chapter 1244.06(a), "The Board of Zoning
Appeals may authorize a variance described in subsection (b) hereof. For the
purposes of the section, "variance" means a modification of the strict letter of this
Zoning Code, granted when strict enforcement of this Zoning Code would cause
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship." This is not a zoning issue, but it is part
of the strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, and the unnecessary hardship that it
causes. This is one of the reasons why we had 250 people sign a petition, and had
dozens of people come and talk about it. Another issue: Chapter 1233.060 "When
considering a variance described in subsection (b) hereof, the Board shall consider
the following criteria in determining if a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
exists: (1) If the owner of the lot complies with this Zoning Code, he or she can
secure no reasonable return from, or make no reasonable use of, his or her property."
I am sure he could still get a reasonable return on his property and use it for other
uses. I don't think that the only thing that can be put up there is a town home
community. (2) The hardship results from the application of this Zoning Code to his
or her lot, rather than from some other factor. (3) The hardship is not the result of
his or her own actions. (4) The hardship is peculiar to the lot of the applicant." They
are all single-family dwellings around it; this is different. "Chapter 1244.06(e) In
considering a proposed variance from this Zoning Code, the Board shall first, in each
specific case, determine that practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships exist,
according to the following standards: (1) The proposed use will be of such location,
size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 5
development of the surrounding neighborhood." These are all single-family dwellings
around it. What Rev. Duncan is trying to put in is not a single-family dwelling. All of
our neighborhood is single-family dwellings, except for this 48-unit complex. "(2) The
proposed use will be of a nature that will make vehicular and pedestrian traffic no
more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, . . . . with particular attention
to minimizing child-vehicle contacts in residential districts." Harry Hill and Harley
Franks are on Wise Road. There is very little traffic on Wise Road now because it
is a side street, not a major road. But this 48-unit complex is going to bring a lot of
traffic. Also Davis Park is right across the street; children play there. If this 48-unit
complex gets built, a lot of kids are going to be crossing the street, and this is going
to come into play. "Chapter 1244.09(3) The location, size, intensity, site layout and
periods of operation of any such proposed use will be designed to eliminate a
possible nuisance emanating therefrom, which nuisance might be noxious to the
occupants of any other nearby permitted use, whether by reason of dust, noise,
fumes, vibration, smoke or lights." That's where the location of the trash units and
lights would come into play. This complex and also the berm and the tree line that
is necessary for this complex to cut off from the single-family residential areas is
going to be pushed so close to our backyards because of where it lies that it is going
to be an eyesore, and it will affect the value of the houses around that area. It is hard
to keep my emotions out of it, and I am trying to keep with the facts,just with what you
want, but I see a lot of facts here that show a lot of problems. This is the Lansing
Codified Ordinances, not just my emotions. I see that this is wrong. Thank you.
SAMUEL DUNCAN, 5304 WISE RD., LANSING. I am the applicant. I wanted to
state a few facts of my own. As far as traffic increasing throughout the residential
area, there is only two entrances to that subdivision, one off Jolly on Wexford, the
other on either Nonette or Catalpa off Miller Road, so there would be no increased
traffic through that subdivision based on this project. It would not make sense to go
there to get to a major throughway. You would either turn right or left on Wise to get
to Miller Road or Jolly Road. The other thing is about Benjamin Davis Park; I am
familiar with that park, too. They are referring to the back portion of that park, which
is seldom used. Most of the major baseball diamonds and equipment are around the
innermost part of that park, entered from Pleasant Grove Street. Also, about the
berms being unsightly, they have been designed to meet the specs and code
regulations. They can be modified to go along with the existing ecosystem. We
would be willing to consider it to enhance that. There were strong assumptions about
property values going down. No real facts were presented that values would
decrease because of a 48-unit townhouse project. I would like the Board to look at
the facts and the codes and base your approval or denial on the facts.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 6
JANICE GROSS, 5313 CATALPA, LANSING. My backyard backs up to the property
that surrounds the church. I have pictures. That backyard view, the picture window
looking on a backyard that was full of trees, is what caused us to buy the house. It
is a beautiful area, and we have talked to the Reverend about the need to preserve
some of the ecological beauty of the area. I am concerned about how the area would
be managed, and whether he could rent that type of property. There is a lot of rental
property in the south end of Lansing. You are surrounding our neighborhood with
rental properties. I am concerned about the overall balance, and I would appreciate
the Reverend's commitment about how the back of the property looks. I have seen
berms with evergreens that can be pretty or look like a green fence. The berm would
be built up so that if you were walking between the evergreens, you could look into
our bedrooms because you would be at the same level as our bedroom windows.
The Reverend mentioned Benjamin Davis Park. It is true that the driving entrance is
on Pleasant Grove coming from the other direction, but the kids walk in from the
entrance that is off Wise Road, so some consideration should be given to the traffic
on Wise Road. Thank you.
BRENDA WEATHERS, 3328 SWANEE, LANSING. Have you considered the
saturation density factor for the Wexford Heights Subdivision and the Wise Road
development? There are already apartments at Cranbrook and on Miller Road. Also,
there are two baseball diamonds that have just been developed at Benjamin Davis
Park. There would be a lot more traffic on Wise Road. There is a lot of cut-through
traffic from Jolly Rd. through the subdivision to Wise Rd., and if the townhouses are
built, traffic would increase. Please consider the density factor, my major concern.
GREG COOPER, 3116 NONETTE. I have questions for the Planning Board and
staff. The last time you met I understood that staff said Lansing's longstanding policy
is to reduce the number of multi-unit facilities in favor of single-family dwellings.
Chairman Ruge said we have conflicting policies that we are trying to reconcile. We
do want to increase the number of single-family home owner-occupied units, but we
also have a policy of increasing affordable housing. So we do have conflicting goals.
Mr. Cooper continued. It is also my understanding that the staff said that the
Planning Board's goal is to increase single-family by ten percent and to decrease
multi-unit sites by ten percent.
Chairman Ruge said the first part of the statement is correct. "I don't know about the
second part."
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 7
Mr. Cooper continued. You can't get away from personality and emotions. There are
major issues that need to be considered. One of my main concerns is with my
children. Putting 48 units in there will increase traffic. Nobody likes to wait when
they are in a car, and everybody has different schedules. Some will use our
neighborhood as a pass-through to get their kids to school on time, or to get away
from having to wait while buses load at Harry Hill, or by the kids coming back from
Harley Franks. I am asking you to do the right thing. You know what that is.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of
the Public Comment section.
VI. RECESS: A five-minute recess was announced.
VII. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minutes for Approval: May 5, 1998. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded
by Mr. Goolsby, to approve the minutes of May 5, 1998. On a voice vote, there
were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of May 5,
1998, were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. Committee of the Whole.
a. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98);
b. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street (Act-7-98);
C. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98);
d. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. (Act-9-98);
e. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98);
f. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98);
g. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd.
(Act-12-98);
h. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98);
I. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise
Rd.;
j SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.;
k. SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St.;
I. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to table the
tower SLUs until further notice in accordance with request by Mr. Ruff.
On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried
unanimously; until further notice the tower SLUs were TABLED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 8
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
a. PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned Residential Development
The applicant is requesting the approval of a Planned Residential
Development (PRD) located south of 5304 Wise Road. The
proposed PRD includes six buildings with eight dwelling units in
each for a total of 48 dwelling units. Of these, there are 16 three-
bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units. The applicant also
proposes to construct a community building. The property
dedicated for this PRD contains 7.55 acres, which results in a gross
density of 6.36 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed planned residential development could be designed
to be constructed and operated in a manner harmonious with the
character of adjacent property and surrounding uses.
The proposed planned residential development will change the
area, yet still be residential in character.
The proposed planned residential development should not interfere
with the general enjoyment of adjacent property.
The proposed planned residential development should not have any
negative impacts on the surrounding area.
The proposed planned residential development will not be
hazardous to adjacent properties or involve uses, activities,
materials or equipment which are detrimental to the health, safety
and welfare of persons or property through excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare.
The proposed planned residential development can be adequately
served by public services and facilities and should not place any
additional demands on public services and facilities.
The proposed planned residential development is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the zoning code.
The proposed planned residential development meets the
dimensional requirements of the "A" Residential District.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 9
Even though the proposed PRD is a small development, it is the
type of development that encourages an increase in the percentage
of rental dwellings in this area of the City. If this property were
developed with a plat instead of the PRD, only approximately 32
dwellings could be constructed and would have a density (4.7
du/acre) comparable with the adjacent subdivision. Development
of this property as a PRD as proposed would be in opposition of
one of the Planning Board's Goals and Objectives, that is, to
increase home ownership by ten percent by the year 2000.
Conversely though, the Board's Goals and Objectives also promote
PRDs that provide alternative housing types at lower costs.
Staff believes, if it is the intent of the Planning Board and a goal of
the City to increase home ownership in Lansing, that it would be
advisable to deny this request for multiple family development.
Staff believes it would be more feasible, taking into consideration
the large number of renters in the abutting areas (south of Jolly and
west of Washington Avenue) and based on the aforementioned
report, that the property be platted for single family development.
The committee discussed the goals of the Planning Board in
comparison with this PRD development. It was noted that on P. 8
of the staff report, there is no "proposed plat." Discussion also
ensued about how home ownership can be promoted and what
body should give this direction.
The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff
report, that the proposed PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned
Residential Development, meets the criteria of Chapters 1280 and
1282 of the Zoning Code, has an on-site owner and will have
professional management. Further, approval of the PRD will allow
for buffering between the development and the adjacent subdivision
and increased green space as opposed to a plat.
In committee, based on the preceding and on the committee's
findings, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to
approve PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned Residential
Development, for 48 dwelling units contained within a total of six
buildings and construction of a community building.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 10
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned Residential Development, for 48 dwelling units
contained within a total of six buildings and construction of a community building.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Mr. Nischan said he supported the staff report finding, but, first, that it is a missed
opportunity for the development of single-family situations. The second point is because
of the size and the location of this parcel, whatever is done will dramatically either unite or
split the residences there. The third and most significant observation is that the
development changes the neighborhood from a 100 percent single-family dwelling
neighborhood to a 30 percent single-family dwelling neighborhood. That is a substantial
change of character. That, plus combining all the large amounts of rental, an affirmative
vote is the same as writing it off as a single-family neighborhood for the future in Lansing.
"I would be voting in favor of the staff recommendation and in opposition to the motion."
Mr. Goolsby addressed the point regarding the staff report finding. This is a difficult
position for the Planning Board. We like seeing single-family residential in the city. We
want to encourage it. At this time it is merely a goal that we adopted for the City. In
committee, we discussed whether or not a request for an appropriate use such as a PRD
in an "A" Residential District is the appropriate time and forum to address the issue of
encouraging single-family home ownership in the City. We felt as a committee that further
study by the Planning Board and Urban Development Committee is warranted. We need
to look at the kinds of incentives and measures we should take to fulfill that goal. In the
interim, we need to look at proposals before us in the context of suitability of the land use
in the district in which it is being proposed within the guidelines of the Zoning Code. To a
person, in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, we felt this proposal meets the criteria set
out in our code. We all do have reservations to the extent that we want to encourage
single-family housing, but there is a question whether or not that is something appropriately
done by the Planning Board. If we are talking about incentives to encourage single-family
residential development in the City, it seems to me to be more appropriate if decided by
City Council. They are the decision-makers in the City. I also think it is appropriate for the
Urban Development Committee to make a recommendation that the Board can make to the
City as to potential steps to encourage home ownership in the City. I personally feel this
is not the appropriate place to do that.
Mr. Miller said we struggled with this proposal. "I am from that part of town and I recognize
the need for more single-family and was particularly troubled by this being an "A"
Residential District and the change from that." It seemed to be a quality proposal from a
quality applicant willing to support the property. Mr. Miller would like to hear further
explanation from staff. He was very concerned with the potential negative impacts.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 11
Chairman Ruge said Ms. Love would like to address the Board. Mr. Miller made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Frederick, to allow Ms. Love to address the Board on PRD-2-98, 5304
Wise Road, Planned Residential Development; voice vote; carried unanimously.
Ms. Love said the staff deliberated a lot about this project. This would appear to be a
quality project. The applicant wants to do the right thing; the site plan is adequate; and the
layout is reasonable. "I think this is a policy precedent-setting type of vote." If every time
you have a large parcel zoned for single-family use and it is developed for multiple family
dwellings just because it meets the minimum qualifications of the code, there would be no
new single family units developed. At what point should that trend stop? Stoneleigh? The
north end? The east side? BTS? All the places in the city where we still have some
possibilities for single-family development? We are abdicating our responsibility in
attempting to meet those single-family goals. In order for this to be a stable, desirable
community, we have to offer as many incentives as possible to promote single-family home
owner-occupancy. Eliminating potential sites for single-family houses will not promote
future single-family development. This proposal is different from the others you have
considered. One was in a commercial district, and the other was in a multi-family district.
"Also, I wrote the Master Plan for this neighborhood." When the people in this
neighborhood worked on this in 1980 or 1981, they anticipated single-family housing, not
multi-family. "I think you do have the discretionary power to recommend denial of the
proposal for legitimate land use and policy reasons." There is the need to look beyond this
as a specific proposal, and consider what it means in setting precedent for the future. This
does not prohibit future development. You can put about 32 units on the property in a plat
format. Even if you put single-family housing in there, you would lose the woods. When
people look at the Master Plan and buy into residential districts that show low intensity
single-family housing, they have a right to expect it to remain that way.
Mr. Nischan said Mr. Goolsby's and others' remarks are important to consider because we
do have apparent conflicts in policy and we do lack clear and specific criteria for some of
these things. My fundamental point isn't about home ownership and the presumed conflicts
with ownership vs. renting. The sheer size change, going from 100 percent single-family
to 30 percent single-family, says something about the vulnerability of the neighborhood.
I feel the City has not protected, and helped neighbors protect, vulnerable neighborhoods.
I am not opposed to multi-family dwellings, or mixed uses, or mixed economic levels, I am
opposed to any pressure on the vulnerable neighborhood that can fracture it, because it
is almost impossible to recover from that.
Mr. Smith said he is going to support the staff recommendations. He was struck by the
unity shown by neighborhood people, and the eloquence of their statements. One difficulty
is that people do need to have the opportunity to rent also. The contradiction here is that
we are trying to promote home ownership on one hand and on the other provide good
rental for those who need it. We have an opportunity to set a precedent. This area was
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 12
established to be primarily single-family, and these people have an investment in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Greiner said since we are faced with conflicting goals, there is no right or wrong
answer, it's how people feel about it. When we look at the goals, one is to provide
affordable housing. Another is to promote home ownership. Voting against this proposal
does not promote home ownership, it merely discourages multiple dwelling units. The only
thing that will happen if this is denied is that it will remain vacant. That is not promoting
home ownership. I don't see any winner here no matter how you vote.
Mr. Frederick said the staff report supports the PRD but draws the conclusion that it should
not be approved. "I have difficulty with the Zoning Code that allows these developments
as long as certain conditions are met. This one appears to meet the conditions." Mr.
Frederick has not heard any compelling evidence that the development will cause property
values to diminish, and, having lived in cities where rentals and owner-occupied houses
were mixed, he can see that there can be nice neighborhoods. The neighborhood is set
by the residents, whether they rent or own. Mr. Frederick would like to see a positive move
toward encouraging owner-occupied homes in the City rather than a negative connotation
of denying all multi-family dwellings. I am going to have to continue to support the motion
that I supported in the Z&O committee meeting and would encourage the Planning Board
to somehow develop a positive method of encouraging home ownership in the City of
Lansing."
Mr. Miller explained his change of vote from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting
to now. "I believe it will substantially change the character of the neighborhood, and from
the discussion tonight and the staff report, I believe we have the discretion to deny it, and
I intend to vote against it."
Mr. Smith clarified a couple of points. "I don't necessarily think if this is denied, it
necessarily it encourages home ownership. A strong neighborhood was expressed by the
many voices that they have lent. The strength of the neighborhood is as important as the
number of homes are owned, or number of rental units located there. We also can't
disregard the feelings of those whose backyard this will be in.
Chairman Ruge stated to the audience that he did not how the vote was going to come out,
but he hoped they appreciated the thought the Board put into the request. Board members
are voting their conscience and their perception of the situation. "I hope that you
appreciate that."
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner . Ave Keene .Ave
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 13
. Nay Nischan . NaY
Miller Smith . . Nay Ruge . Nay
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 4; Nays: 4. PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Planned
Residential Development, will be forwarded to the City Council withNO RECOMMENDATION.
2. Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations
The requested report from the City Attorney had not been received;
therefore, this item remained on the table.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 10, 1998, at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
3. Urban Development Committee
The next meeting will be Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
4. Executive Committee - Did not meet.
C. Report from the Planning Manager:
Ms. Love reported that the budget passed on May 18, 1998. We are working
on a network to link the Planning, and Development Offices, and EDC with
Building Safety and Code Compliance.
Regarding the Master Plan, it is a fairly extensive
document,
beabout
moved to June
pages.
The PSD Board last week requested the public hearing date
16. We hope to have a draft copy for the steering committee this Thursday,
and for the Planning Board also.
D. Pending Items: Future Action Required
1. Plannina Board
utler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. B
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to"G-
2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
C. Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled April 14, 1998)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 PAGE 14
3. Urban Development Committee
VIII. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr. Goolsby said that Urban Development Committee should look at policy conflicts
between home ownership and affordable rental housing.
Ms. Love said she has sent a memo to the mayor and City Council indicating that,
given the number of multi-family projects recently, we need to do a complete housing
study for the entire city.
Mr. Frederick remarked about the number of expensive single family units being built
outside the City. 1 don't see a way of changing the trend without getting a
comprehensive plan with the City and surrounding communities." Ms. Love said
water may be the one thing that may cause more regionalism to occur.
Ms. Keene said the City should encourage developers to invest in single-family
homes. The area was designated for single-family almost twenty years ago, and the
land is still vacant. People willing to invest are told we don't want what you have to
offer. The City is not doing anything affirmatively to make progress.
Mr. Nischan said we need a good solid vision, based on the ultimate values we want,
the neighborhood interaction, economic stability, aesthetic appeal, multi-age group
groupings, economic integration, etc. that other cities approximate.
Mr. Smith said zoning to some extent is coercive and a vehicle of separation. True
communities are organic; they put diverse things together in a way that works. Ms.
Love.said it is true we have done separation--that's the way our code is structured.
There are ways, and we need to look at those, in our vision for the future.
X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS: None.
XI. ADJOURNMENT -was at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitte -,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary, Planning Board
Planning Board
mn051998 a:k15
PRD-2-98 - New Faith Gardens
5304 Wise Road
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Samuel Duncan _
New Faith Non-Profit Housing
5304 Wise Road
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Planned Residential Development
Plan
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 10 acres, proposed development
will consist of 7.55 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential
S: Single Family Residential
E: Single Family Residential/Park/BWL
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential
S: "A" Residential
E: "A" Residential
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for low density residential.
AGENCY RESPONSES
Assessor: Will parcel 091 (existing church) or any part of it
be combined with the townhouse parcel 176-003.
Building: This project is subject to the city's site plan review
and code review process. Contact Christine
Segerlind at 483-4381 for information relating to
the process.
BWL: Electric Utility
The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing
Department have no objections to the proposal
as written. A ten-foot lot line utility easement is
requested.
Water Utility
Water Technical Support/Distribution - Site Plan
Ok for possible water extension. Need owners
layout for requested water to run flow model. Also
need locations of any hydrants required on site
by Fire Department.
City Attorney: No response received yet.
Development: No comment.
Fire Marshal: No response received yet.
Ingham County Drain
Commissioner: Not enough information on retention pond to
comment-please submit information on soil types
and does retention pond have an outlet.
Lansing Neighborhood
Organization: No neighborhood organization is in the area.
Media One: No concerns at this time.
Parks & Rec: There might be a conflict with the single family to
the west and south.
Public Service: Public Service Department has no objections to
the planned residential development. Public
sanitary sewers will need to be installed under a
letter of intent and storm water detention is
required. A site plan must be submitted and
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 3.
approved prior to any construction.
Transportation Engineer: See attached.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting the approval of a Planned
Residential Development (PRD) located south of 5304 Wise Road. The proposed PRD
includes six buildings with eight dwelling units in each for a total of 48 dwelling units. Of
these, there are 16 three-bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units. The applicant also
proposes to construct a community building. The property dedicated for this PRD contains
7.55 acres which results in a gross density of 6.36 dwelling units per acre.
Purpose of a Planned Residential Development(PRD)
Section 1280.01 of the Zoning Code describes the intent of the PRD provisions is "to
permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to encourage innovation in land
use, design and type of structures constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in
public services and utilities; to encourage useful open space; and to provide better
housing developments which are particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the
City."
The PRD regulations allow a developer to construct housing at a dwelling unit density
greater than the density allowed in the zoning district if specific design standards are met.
These requirements address design issues ranging from building heights and setbacks to
open space and energy conservation techniques. Bonus density is not being requested
for this development.
SUMMARY ----- Planned Residential Development
Section 1280.03(b) of the Zoning Code identifies the information which must be provided
with the development plan provided by the developer for approval of a Planned Residential
Development. The most important part of this information for consideration is listed below
and followed by how the development plan addresses each item.
1. The total number of dwelling units by type and bedroom 48, 16 three-bedroom and
32 two-bedroom.
On the 7.55 acres, this creates a gross density of 6.36 dwelling units per acre
(du/acre).
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 4.
2. The proposed lot coverage for structures, streets and parking:
Structures 58,575 sq. ft.
Roadways 19,674 sq. ft.
Parking 17,285 sq. ft.
Total 95,534 sq. ft., equals 2.19 acres or
29% of the site.
3. The total square footage of open space:
5.36 acres, equals 233,481 sq. ft. (71%).
4. The total number of off street parking spaces:
96 spaces
5. The heights of proposed buildings:
Approximate total height is 28 feet
6. The average square footage of each type of residential unit:
Building Type A - 8,711 sq. ft.
Building Type B - 8,081 sq. ft.
7. Information on the dedication of any public or private streets, alleys and other public
ways:
There is no information on the dedication of any public or private streets, alleys and
other public ways.
8. Dedication of public parks, recreation facilities, and preservation of open space:
There are no public parks, recreation facilities of preservation of open space
dedicated to the city.
Description of Site Plan
The existing site consists of a couple of large trees. The proposed development plan
(attached) illustrates a unique and high quality development. The site is located in the "A"
Residential District and would require a minimum front yard of 20', side yard of 6' minimum
lot width, rear yard of 30' maximum height of 35'. Maximum lot coverage is 40% for
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 5.
structures and 55%for structures and driveway/parking areas. The proposed development
has a minimum of at least 30' around the perimeter of the development. The required
number of parking spaces is 96 and the applicant has met that requirement.
In review of this development, staff included information on housing studies in the area as
well as the Goals and Objectives of the Planning Board for the 21 st Century.
The Lansing Housing Partnership Study, 1992, revealed some important housing needs
in the city. In general, the policy and high priority of Lansing City Government for several
years has been to preserve the safety and economic viability of neighborhoods through:
Preservation of sound housing stock with an aggressive code compliance inspection
program and demolitions wherever necessary to improve neighborhoods
Expansion of homesteading or other similar programs to increase the percentage
of owner-occupied housing compared to rental housing in the city.
In review of the City of Lansing Planning Board, 1993, Goals and Objectives for the twenty-
first century, the following objectives were identified:
Promote increased homeownership by 10% over 1990 Census levels by the year
2000. Homeownership is a positive enhancement to neighborhood stability.
Also, under the affordable housing section, one of the objectives identified by the Planning
Board included:
Encourage use of Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) to provide more
intense housing development. Additional units may provide sufficient incentive to
create a lower per unit cost of housing even in single family subdivisions.
Homeownership of these units may also be achieved if lower unit costs are
combined with condominium purchase provisions.
In the New Subdivision/New Housing section, the Planning Board identified the following
objectives:
Promote quality neighborhood development with a variety of housing types, styles
and price ranges.
Promote Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) to encourage concepts such
as zero lot line development and clustering to, to provide a variety of housing types
and styles.
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 6.
Require developers to provide a market analysis to and impact assessment prior
to rezoning, special land use requests, or building permits to construct new housing
adjacent to or in the City's residential neighborhood.
ANALYSIS
To evaluate the proposal, Section 1280.02(d) requires that the criteria used to evaluate
special land use permits be utilized.
1. IS THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNED,
CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS
WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING
USE?
The adjacent properties are essentially residential in character. The surrounding land
uses basically consist of single family residential to the north, south and west. Also, the
park and the Board of Water and Light property are located to the east of the proposed
development. The zoning of the property and area are "A" Residential. The proposed
development will consist of a townhouse community development with single story
buildings with house type design features. The gross density of the surrounding residential
neighborhood is 4.68 du/acre and the proposed development for the townhouses will
consist of 6.36 du/acre. Even though the proposed development has a greater density
than the immediate area, it incorporates significant yard areas for setbacks and buffering.
Based upon this, the development could be operated in a manner harmonious with the
adjacent neighborhood.
2. DOES THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHANGE
THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA?
The residential character of the Southwest area will not significantly change as a result of
the development of this small townhouse community. Staff analyzed the homeownership
vs. rental community within a larger surrounding area, south of Jolly Road and west of
Washington Avenue. In evaluation of that area, the following results yield:
'Census Tract(CT) Block Group Total Occupied Owner Rental
Housina Units Occupied
51 2 719 479 240
52.01 1 817 477 340
2 185 128 57
9 8Q 2 547
1.842 898 944
Totals for CT 51&52.01 2561 1377(53.7%) 1184(46.3%)
*1990 Census Information,STF 1A. This information includes all types of housing(i.e,homes,townhouses,apartments,etc.)
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 7.
Overall, the area consists of approximately 53.7% homeowners and 46.3% renters. Refer
to the attached map, in CT 52.01, there is a larger percentage (51%) of rental properties
in the area compared to the percentage (49%) of owner occupied units.
This proposed development is adjacent to single family homes in a subdivision to the west
and south consisting of a gross density of 4.68 du/acres. Within this adjacent area, there
are 128 lots on 27.34 acres of land in comparison to this proposed townhouse community
containing 6.36 du/acres. This development would be the only rental development in the
immediate area.
The proposed rental community is not consistent with the neighboring subdivision with
regard to density and when comparing it with areawide statistics, the development would
increase rental percentages in the area and be inconsistent with the Boards goal of
increasing homeownership.
3. DOES THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTERFERE
WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY?
The proposed development plan illustrates an approximate 30' wide buffer strip along the
south and west of the proposed road and the abutting residential properties abutting the
development. There have been concerns expressed regarding the berm separating the
development from the residential neighborhood. According to the architect, the berm
would meet the needs and concerns of the residents in the area. Essentially, landscape,
screening and buffering would be a requirement for this type of development. However,
if the property were platted, thirty-two (32) single family lots could reasonably fit on this
property (See Diagram A)which has a gross density of 4.7 du/acres. This would be more
compatible with the surrounding residential area. However, there would be no landscape,
screening and buffering requirements for a plat for single family development. Even
though a plat does not insure homeownership, there is a correlation between single family
plat and homeownership. The development of a townhouse community should not
significantly interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property.
4. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENT
AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL THE
USE BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT?
The current site is vacant. The proposed development is for a townhouse community
which is being proposed to look similar to the residential character of the residential
structures in the area. The character of the development will remain residential in nature.
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 8.
There is a higher gross density(6.36) for the townhouse community in comparison to not
only the surrounding single family residential area but a proposed plat for single family
development. If the development were comparable to the existing situation in terms of
du/acre, the elimination of two of the buildings would be needed to get 4.7 du/acre, which
would be consistent with the surrounding land uses as well as a plat.
5. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE
HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES,
MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH,
SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE
EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR
GLARE?
This townhouse community development should not create a hazard to the general
public's health, safety or welfare. There will be some interruption in the traffic, noise ,
smoke during the construction period as with any type of new construction. The forty-eight
dwelling units will add some traffic to Jolly Road, a minor arterial and Wise Road, a
collector street. However, any residential development, single family or multiple family will
slightly increase the traffic in this area. A representative of the applicant has testified that
the proposed development will be managed by a professional management company
which ensures consistent maintenance.
6. CAN THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE
ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
OR IS IT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE TO
CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
UNDER CONSIDERATION?
According to Public Service, sanitary sewers will need to be installed under a letter of
intent and storm water detention is required. The Board of Water and Light has no
objections to electric and water utility. In terms of electric utility, a ten-foot lot line
easement is requested.
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 9.
7. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLACE
DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT
CAPACITY?
There should be no demands in excess of the current capacity. As previously mentioned,
the BWL, electric utility division would require a ten-foot utility easement--
8. IS THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT
WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The Southeast Area Development Plan designates this area for low density residential
use. The proposal is consistent with the plan. The planned development appears to have
more than adequate lot area to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Code.
9. WILL THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MEET THE
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY
IS LOCATED?
The Planned Residential Development appears to have more than adequate lot area to
meet the requirements in the "A"Residential District. A PRD is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Zoning Code, and the development of structures is required to be
consistent with the dimensional requirements of the code.
Other
Residents in the adjacent neighborhood were particularly concerned with the density in the
area. Staff addressed those issues as part of this report. There were several letters of
opposition to the proposed development. Also, a petition was circulated with more than
200 signatures from the surrounding neighborhood opposing this developments
Summary
The proposed planned residential development could be designed to be constructed, and
operated in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding
uses.
The proposed planned residential development will change the area, yet still residential
in character.
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Road, Page 10.
The proposed planned residential development should not interfere with the general
enjoyment of adjacent property.
The proposed planned residential development should not have any negative impacts on
the surrounding area.
The proposed planned residential development will not be hazardous to adjacent
properties or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which are detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of persons or property through excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare.
The proposed planned residential development can be adequately served by public
services and facilities and should not place any additional demands on public services and
facilities.
The proposed planned residential development is consistent with the intent and purpose
of the zoning code.
The proposed planned residential development meets the dimensional requirements of the
"A" Residential District.
Recommendation
Staff believes, if it is the intent of the Planning Board and a goal of the City to increase
homeownership in Lansing, it would be advisable to deny this request for multiple family
development. Staff believes It would be more feasible, taking into consideration, the large
number of renters in the abutting areas (s. of Jolly and w of Washington Avenue) and
based on the aforementioned report, that the property be platted for single family
development.
REPORT PREPARED BY DORIS M.WITHERSPOON
PRD-2-98, 5300 BLOCK OF WISE ROAD
NORTH
Ro 3s
!2 I 3S �C51 ITT 'T�Q'�' „ `
fir.r Io0
.I--`-
41
33N :{�C'StdP_.11{'ia ,�4 1 ..//VV/ ♦��
7 � 46 1 a .M •s'• .z of � poi p' "• _
1 .eG,/ , ,o `t i
`/ J
y I OL 0- DR.
,• IRE ED,, , n.• M y� re
.. 0
77
»�or 1b1 l02 la• ` Cc p - — — —
`"a'1 i 5idcntia(
1 110 �c_ }o 1 i : 7 , 106 105 �: as 76 PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE
o ,L' y� 73 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
I.
(48 DWELLING UNITS)
ranee DR. '•
« 04% 73
e 2 `
II
',2 12• 23 7 12. i: pit 72
,••
\ 7 ! 10 1 11 I 12 O' 71
1' p� t •
j o� to i
• os DR a . ptl ss
• N � Q
1i 1• 11'' •41t IS >`'I 13
i I 30 29 20 27 23 `
.s N {S N 43 42 Al 60 S!
001 ' �11 ��' I ''' p�` pv` '` 00` i pltt t0 l�
� �s 1
NONETTE DR. a
•; - - „ hh, 'ISM-• I a-
;�'
,I set 12
•1 •2 �3 ' �• I .S •• 4.1
7 40 •! SO ',1"I i 52 33 SI SS K 57
rL
�1 r
co
:__ ————
----—:e---��e-_:-:::::r:::::::::::e:::::::::::e::::::::_::a::.::::::.::..::.:.:::_::::::: W15E ROAD-------------
5
�-3l OUT LOT • , •• d`e v / 199e UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
f� AREA= 2.3 ACRESLL
(rce rvnxc auxa[xv.xsm,t •. .�I h' � & �� • o�� - � � u�aw xoun ars'v.c�c.
® ®j /• ' z PARKING
FasR.
nxc
e d'A. QA
I ' ..• `� � .no xPaooe401
c.rs vq 9N'xP.
s ,v
.nxnz emeow van . .
I I • • - ¢ BUILDING ME 3
0
41
�___ _________ __________ G • �
4:0 S • 6 BUILDINGS TOTAL
�� I � _ • ��/�y • � .e mr.i urn U rt — _ _
AREA T ALS
� eswxc c.
RETEN•f
\ / 1
r. v as
a
<
.... -.
�...r.. .. — T.._.,_,..
I I
.. T
EAST UNE OF %FORD HEIGHTS N0.2
EA T UNE WFORO HEIGHTS N0.1
PIRELOWaARY
SCALE: 1••=40•-0•• L_
1 1
New Faith Gardens —�@ THESE DRAWINGS ARE CON PRELIMINARY ONLY
LOCAI N NAP NOT TO BE USED FOR STRJO':O':
Q �o��[bo�o C�oMm UnRy 9�}
Lansing, Michigan o 0 0
...+`;_ :.0 .y,r.'�1t -` _;s,. < t k,t' t`•. yt; :d ,xtf"�SjX va�b',`� :•^i..y1 '
,'r• ;ta as n , w G2't•a }Fro�" K aZL9 FS£ QL S) 3N0Hd
•`.. ` .:\ j1,�.- t t� rtr?n_, .�l!J tV r..F;L�' .jury >r .a ?t- s
SZ88V IN 'ONISNV-I 1SV=
.r n1i� .. ii��.rY. to l..�:uY'Lnt t .F'•lt.1+)!} !� .t
•: . 4 � ,. .. r4 ti Sa �,.��'�,�;-�` c.3 f>f^�.^i �::: 3/1180 Wb'Hoana so9 �
}i \a� ` �1 yk �D S� • ,tip x, �`}�"�+� y �"``� ` ' I .�S1O311HOHV*S31VIOOSSV SDOMONO03 S01811NI
••:{ kl vlt+J,, .S GRi i I•.'t•1A .t ta,r+ ilF+yy.� �✓ f:�x ' r _ Q
►'C r V T t"i. t u i it ,Ia.�l�✓��� � /t ^9 ST I
Atj !� .- to" ,'�
�., �� t ��• � y,K ir,r �` tr .3 t �� �, NVENHOIW ONISNVI - AiMnINW0O 3WOHNM01 d
.v:✓�'J Ff:��✓t a � 'rt.4.
�j��'�tldi :s
t t }•'+ .,'1v F.1
d ;S f. �:�4' '', •� �j,�t t,i i' i"'"' ,.r �S. i � �'t'�i,i'�t� 1? i
r aw
.g t. # 5. .21L��t�z'a r.` 1 �✓� �{}n:+Jr` �1� '��i,, f't 7 . � � � � ,
i'e$ .f•:a yr i� t4�a t1Y 1rM�j., 'Ea- � >S..ti� .? �• •y �i,'�^ rr'Sa• .�
y,'�W':.��%���Yy,�b•�'r1!!1}�'' .>, uti�+'i•. .h� >t:'�, '; ,t ��','�, taR�' � a ,r. \s''• .:,
7•:. RIM 1qY�� �`�vf �? �?�"t" 4t �rc.7, rJf,�.'.Yt��i� rQ' !7•.'� µ77 '•' a •f� r r•Fi.y�• - •\- ,
�r}� �011
w,�d'� �' • ��•y�'� vr>,Y�'3"y. ei < r4 t L •,9l 31 .' )L .` ..� •.l,••
49
i .v �,�{. �,�2" t .S•, a •t • rD.�7� j7y''� .'V� ::r s-r t � �::�:.Z_ i � _�.?`.�,n` J
�C'7�..�.SW,(�a...}�,�� 7•� i�. �i,.-•:�iiy.�t'�j 1 e` .. '.. .. .'.` \� .! t
.,s�5."1/.1ri i'i:p��t .;�;� +�t+c 'ita�.� �'+0 �'s .•� :.� r«'_- .
.(•?tom h .R� t. .. .. .... +•e'` !
1ti, t tt�`�* `�r��. re a'•' 1 .a .. ldt•.'a `'"�k°!r.{ , -� �. . .. .
! �}T'>g �1c '" ►Y ..Z�.y• la i'^ !n,y �y1t� •' ry1 ti y �.
Ift
s f �"v3t'`�j. �}- � �SI �' .ra 2. j'.. tY�.•t .�. fir• 1. f= ` t. tV �•t. �,7 ��r:.l >4 �." r 1 a
��C.• `� r. .l. ..e..t '�' • ' .a1%Y• •f V� ...Yn`°... ...
>A: �.{!')�''p i..�.�i 3t,✓ x%!�rb,y� �bnt.• `i C ,�r9 K-' i ,7, - i 1 �•Y•`. ,:r J / L '.
-d�w; F i'k µ t-' t .�•• +Z�r1 �� � '7 f .✓'�: '.' t�� Ir 1 'i .j r•,4 to
zt'iS;` � )a t t � (�'E tis�rrr'1� �q yi1 -.•3. 4a �}a x`t 1 `t �_� .\,� r�
.�'d•4'z'r8 �k Y.. ��� W•��.° a ti•� t,fi��,•/�•t'.�'�2.1��I R• w.' IY,� a. I r�r4� 1 '
. r _
< �. i!( .f�'2 rYt\�V lCt. 1•''✓'�w t.,t� '..1., al � Sl 7 ,...
.7 ` ,'� •� a•ru..l=ia° t{�! .1t �M,r}i l�jj j
y � .. :•Ik c � J 7�•� 'A f ti t
9 ?K n r?r `r4' j ,J B C .i•„t M.r.t � ':r 1 ' ,i
ZZ
rraj` ' �ia�'-r P..,r N.f kr�1•t t!i t 1'
�• .f y,:eT' .. e 10.1%
I
Ile-
",o
C
.
�y°�� �' a.: e;;. fir .yp� "F• 4�•'', a°�r,.n�a. .r ` _ ` �
i T h 'r -7 4°`ttt,� a•}- -�w.`� nP',�`, `',L u �S Z..h'F2:.� .. i``L .� .il� 'K � -Mr�{'�"'R�"R?F L f'• � 6
a = J:•a.,,evi+F,,;'�+afn�, rra - r,'1 Y d? Y � •y,�sc� y„J,JR ;�Rr
v1• t YaZm
:a.u" ,n�„t'j� ASa � a
S`,;; m'" �r„S-,n.''t'"' 5,+'".�' +�.fsr.`&' v"k' t'� t .:I f 4 '_i I. i-• ;,,6 ,«.. zaA'+t�r333
yvu�
,r, 1
,: r ..7 ,.� t• Pdex� ,✓ .['/ �Y�l I �,;_+ ".. + t _1 .- _. I �. �7y.. '�� �,;�r,
„ r Y}\�. a ,'� ,� --,- ,`�a..ak--"�y�'�fi �,:,rr.� - - ,a••f. �ri:1y', t Y� .
-+.,,:�.,, �4� .•� ,"` `�, ® � �r 43.3;, 2:""�'sr� � ..; --� - '�y. s�``'+`a �ce;y�6�0" 16-i'.�,1n�.jrr'.v f� �}�� i a
-
k a
I
____________________________________________________ U.
________________________________________ _____________ ________________________________________________________ __ ___ _______________ _ _ _ 3
Y
m �
'_____________ ____-__------
SCALE: 3/16"- 1•_0••
1=
,
, t _
� rn,
m r 3
------------------------
G
HOO Old PUH TYPE 'A' Z
--
SCALE: 1/16--1'-0" __________
BODE ELEVATOO[M TYPE 'Aw
SCALE:3/16•' L
1 1
New- Faith Gardens THESE TC BE USED
ARE ARE IMMAq�—O".
NOT i0 9E JSEC FOR CCNS"90C^�'.
//p�� �/�// �j �'`� (� (���`�(��(� {}
u-l1 ��V1J�ll ll�UllU� `VQl1lII1lllllllYllll Ny 3]}5
Lansing, Michigan o 0 0 2
<. 6 6
b �€
i � b
x 6 e �R
3-IdW } 2-BRB-®ot f 3-®W -®W a-3Pi F a-31W 3-BR L -
-RIR84 FLOOR BULDNO PLAN TYPE •A' SECOND FLOOR BUOL09MG PLAN TYPE 'A' .�
SCALE: 1/16" 1'-D" AREA 6.614 SO.FT. SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" AREA 1.897 SO.FT U.
ch cat ch A, -
� 4 W
PAW EI�WQ lMIRNNffiAlq Z
om
I'd
4z�
<
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ''
172 S0.Fi. 545 SO.FT. •.x¢x nmec ar -
-•c T-u -
7W(o IMEDD RGGN UH07
SCALE: 1/4"- I'-0" AREA 1.017 S0.FT.
f
SCALE: 1/4"- 1'-0" AREA 1.153 50.F-. -
LZ
New Faith Garden THESE DRAW IIGS ARP PRELIMINARY GI!_ 5
NOT 7C BE USED �Oa CG':5"RJC-oa
9,35
Lansing, Michigan
* + A C
A b ^I
6 A +o.ma t •oo m. @
b �Y
4 ICI � °
a-®w 2-OR 2-39t a-®W a-®R 2-BR 2-9R a-®R r `
FORST FLOOR BULDONG PLAN TYPE '03 SECOND [FLOOR BUOLDONG PLAN TYPE
SCALE: 1/16 = 1--0" AREA 6,164 S0,FT, SCALE: 1/16..= i'-0" AREA 1.B97 50 7 LL
1 h
IATM. dAYQ Q
-� Oeeq 110011 � 4z�v m10011�
4z�
6 1AM01100� ® �8 1 #die uwo 110cm
oar emem le
c
BATH
li ••� � � to.�a owo eoo� �� ,.
h h
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR MTM '°T'I
172 S0.FT.
Say 50.FT. • e T-.F T-n —
-TW 00 [�CDG����il QDa04
SCALE: 1/t.- I'-V AREA 1.017 S0.FT.
:r
[�QD�dDOGvICc 4�IpC •[; • 4Mn7® BEDROGo N UH07
SCALE: 1/4'- 1'-0" AREA 996 50.FT. —
1 1
New Faith Gardens THESE ORAx NC5 ARE RREUMiysRY ONLY i
r107 TO 9E iJSED °OR CCr:S"RUC-'C'.
Lansing, Michigan ° TWWnh@M8 COMMUMY
a
.mc.swTUN .w•eNw o.R ma
arvu. wrv.0 S
sM.aEs w+,m sunr ��
LL
ILORAiST.NO •• ^
Prv.0� Prv.LL wrv.LL .,.n..o[no[ .n�N na I
OWeiL sNo r.v. Y[.ar ru 'J.
Jbf-.0.SSC...r nRC-..nD wrru OM2 srJo r.LL E,nJew SNGMNO rvu v '
xNn sn.Nc
w.c sue caP[rt ane � -
�'ctJ 'e• _
I I I I
o.wm coca[*[ane m cONa[R sue I ��S.3.'Rm m5�[nnw L _II ��S•].Rico.sw.nw LI
/;44® 9 HR. ` §ALL SECVD® HR. WALL SECTO®a -
(��® Scot]/s"-I'-P .T BEMiNO w.LL (��� SGIL]/.'-t'-O' BNETMfEIt ONE-STORY O]N[A[,E EOOn.t CWP[rt EOenN. i
O 1WO-5}IXIT �
-T� L
Q�� SONE ]/.•1' S oxT Q'® SC L]/.'-t' O E-ST-
N e w Faith Gardens L:
THESE DRAW NGS ARE oRELI UiN]Rx ONL s
NOT 70 9E L'SEC FOR OOh S'4LO°�O'�
Q �1 OO Mln �Il�OO t1i O COO(�(hTlt N�lhlBf�� s - 9�5
Lansing, Michigan
C �
�g
Lo
�0
_ LL
SCALE: 1/4"s 1'-0" AT ONE-STORY
ffi _
f�NJ�dD�bC� �C�C�400b _-
SCALE: 1/4'-1'-0" AT TWO-STORY
s$
LZ
New Faith Gardens THESE DRAWNGS ARE PREUMu14RY ONLY
NOT?0 BE USED "OR
Lansing, Michigan Q TOO vimhom® GmmMnny
27'-0" 25'-6•.
Q
10'-6. '�RR•/
45 DEG, V 8
WDMEN STONE OO '
STORAGE ® ® n y \
F T
txns ,R, STORAGE C R1
M40 t FN�ILAL MEN LL
JJ`
STORAGE S
COMMUNITY RM.
/DAYCARE L
��� 2}t x 2)-5 •F.
I� LEASING
EXERCISE RM. HVAC
1 x 21-1 MAINTENANCE
-
••
KITCHEN WORK
0_ 1. ♦\ OFFICE
rah
PRELONHHARY 1FL OO Old MAIM
z
2.769 SO. FT. SCALE: 1/4"=1'-O"
i —
L
1 1
Ne W Faith GardensTHESE DRAWINGS US ARE-R'C'. 7R G\N
�(' �/T// ( � (/('�� � \ nn(� {} NOT TO BE USEDCd CC'•5-R„C-'C'.
Q ll ��A/���Ll ll ll® V/011ll{Jml�Jll{J�IS�
Lansing, Michigan o 0 o
C �
o
0� ; PEE
a LL
11 1
[FROM ELEVATu®a
3 =.
Z
IL
L r r
C
�4l �1 1/r
Lr.
f
G
�ra�n r.pw nti w.![
ptv..m- .... ...... .._....... .... ............ .. 'f.
BACK E LEVATO®a
L1
New Faith Gardens NOT DREUS F C0fi -Rj
t1pT TO BE USED FOR OOf�S*RJO"O':
5-7=y
Lansing, Michigan C OO mmu nlny ®!_ �-_«Cg
C �
0 g
LL
a LEFT ELEVATOOM 3
b
-erc
.,,o. -
<
..,....� .m.�Ie=.
.mrwc
a s RU®Hp ELEVQTDONL anwa
KI EXT. WALL SECMOH
1 1
New Faith Gardens THESE DRAwNGS ARE?REUUWAR°Gnbv
y� �y NOT TO BE us=D -•G.
Lansing, Michigan
DIAGRAM A - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLAT
'
T/'o 9
(le Go' l ba' 60'
J t� 27
o
/7 2� 28 y
v 'Z 3a �, 0 Z
m ,11/ot
oA/ � 8
11G�'CO
CU�s� �a✓— ors
LANSING
1990 CENSUS TRACTS
33.01 32
' 31 .02
' I-----------
33.02 2 1 -------
.1 L7 8 9 i r -•-
34 -� '
5 7 31 .-0 3 .01
4 6 10
1 •,
65 ----, 40
35
14
-
i
16
15 19 12
i
21
20
24
22 -- -
17.02 25 23 ?01.29 -
- --
26 44.01
37
36.02
%202.02 36.01 27 28
--------------- 29.02
LLY-E-- ---
�- i
214 i r
L._., 53.94 _._► _,
53.03
i
53.02 i r,
i
-- uremar•••-
52.02
i 55.01 NORTH �
APPROVED JUNE 16,1998 Draft 061298
Approved 061698
To Clerk 062398
Minutes of the Regular Meeting CO
LANSING PLANNING BOARD {?
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, June 2, 1998
,r, ..
C,:)
Ul
I. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith, six members
present.
A. Excused Absences - Jarl Nischan, who had a conflicting obligation, phoned a
request for an excused absence from the Planning Board meeting, and from the
Urban Development Committee meeting of June 23, 1998. Mr. Goolsby, who
had a work conflict, phoned a request for an excused absence. On a motion by
Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Frederick, voice vote, unanimous; Mr. Nischan and
Mr. Goolsby were given excused absences.
C. Introductions. Ms. Love introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Letter dated May 20, 1998 to members of Planning Board regarding PRD-2-98,
5304 Wise Road, Planned Residential Development
B. Memorandum dated May 29, 1998 to Jim Smiertka from Eleanor K. Love
regarding Information Request from Planning Board regarding PCS Towers and
the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
C. Memorandum dated June 2, 1998 to Jack Roberts from Jim Smiertka assigning
research and opinion regarding "If the other sites network is in place, and
adequate space has been provided to accommodate the users, can the
Planning Board and City Council deny other sites which do not fit into the
network already established?"
IV. HEARINGS:
1. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to
"G-1" Business District
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2 , 1998 PAGE 2
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by River Vision LLC, represented by
Mark Kerrins, to rezone the property at 201 E. Grand River Ave. from "F-1"
Commercial District and "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District.
The potential land use is for restaurant purposes. Only the building is proposed
to be rezoned. They would retain the existing open space on the site for
parking. Remodeling of the building, which is in the floodplain, would be a
positive improvement to the area.
Mr. Ruge asked about rezoning only the building, not the surrounding property.
Mr. Ruff said they want to use the building to its maximum potential and provide
as much on-site parking as possible. They want the remainder of the property
as something other than "G-1" which will allow them to use it for parking. Also,
as proposed, they could not completely build out the site and not provide any
parking by keeping some of the zoning industrial. Ms. Love said if you rezone
the entire parcel "G-1", you have no control over any additional building on the
site because "G-1" has no setback requirements and no parking requirements.
Technically, if he rezones the entire parcel, he could expand the building over
the entire footprint of the site. He is attempting to demonstrate good faith that
he wants to use the building as it exists and to preserve part of the lot for
parking.
Mr. Ruff said there is enough parking on-site to use the building for office or for
a supply store, as it formerly was, but not for some of the more intense uses,
such as a restarant, that are wanted there. This is a balance of getting this
request before the Board and Council as soon as possible without waiting
entirely for the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan to be completed.
MARK KERRINS, REPRESENTING RIVER VISION LLC. I am trying to do the
rezoning on the building, leaving the rest of the area for parking. I am trying to
give everybody what they want, while still creating a more intense use than
office. The natural potential is for a unique restaurant on the river.
There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the
conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-4-98 to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting, on June 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and
Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business
District
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 3
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Fady Aibout and Sanco Land Co.
The property is being used as a restaurant with hotel/boarding rooms;
additional restaurant space is possible. The request is to rezone the property
to "G-1" Business District in order to remove the burden of off-street on-site
parking from the property. The applicant is proposing either expansion of the
existing restaurant or adding another restaurant to the building.
FADY AIBOUT. I own the property at 401-407 E. Grand River. We have a
restaurant on the first floor and one of the oldest hotels, 33 rooms upstairs. We
do not have any parking space. The rezoning would maximize our usage to be
able to meet the demand that is going to occur on the North side.
Mr. Ruge asked what is the piece of property used for that is behind the house
to the north. Mr. Aibout said it is a land-locked property that cannot be
accessed. It is a dead area. "Next to us is a parking lot. We don't own that
parking lot. The building sits between Center St. and the parking lot. . . . We
cannot access that specific parcel unless we go through the building."
There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the
conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-5-98 to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting, on June 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and
Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S. Washington, Class A
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Engineering Applications,
representing Ron Rycus, owner of 1000-1006 S. Washington, a fire-damaged
structure which Mr. Rycus wants to rehabilitate. It is a commercial structure
near the front property line with some parking in the rear. It is nonconforming
because it does not meet the minimum setback requirements of the
"F" Commercial District, it lacks the required parking, and it is located in the 100
year floodplain. In order to rehabilitate the building, Mr. Rycus must obtain a
Class A nonconforming status. Class A is allowable if they can prove the
parking demand does not exceed the use of the property. There are
approximately ten spaces on-site, plus the loading area behind the building.
There is some parking on-site, supplemented by on-street parking. They are
requesting a Class A nonconforming status so they can rehabilitate the
structure and bring it up to code. The structure has a basement, and because
it is both residential and commercial in use, they will have to change the
structure significantly, filling in the basement. Re-using the building would
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 4
provide the storefront appearance, maintaining the unique nature of the 1000
Block of S. Washington.
Ms. Keene said she has entered into a contract with the applicant to install
ceramic tile. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, she asked to be recused
from participating. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to
recuse Ms. Keene in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest or the
appearance of impropriety; voice vote; unanimous, Ms. Keene was recused.
She left the room.
Mr. Ruge asked if all the buildings on the street are nonconforming because
they are right up to the street? Is there a zoning that allows buildings to be
right up to the street line? Mr. Ruff said near Elm St. there is some
"F-1" Commercial, which is a special commercial designation allowing buildings
to be built up to the front property line. We no longer rezone to that
designation. It could not meet the rear yard setback and parking requirements,
so we are addressing the nonconforming use. If it were "F-1", it would be
nonconforming because of floodplain measures and parking.
Mr. Frederick asked how many buildings here are in the floodplain? Mr. Ruff,
pointing to the area map, said it varies.
RON RYCUS, 2947 FOOTMAN, EAST LANSING. I do not have anything
specific to add. I have owned the property for eight years. It was a
floorcovering store prior to my ownership; it used to belong to the Clausen
family. There are eight residential units upstairs. Formerly there were nine.
LLOYD TEETS, 116 E. ELM ST., past president of River Point Neighborhood
Association, and now secretary. This property is located within the boundaries
of River Point. The area has a strong neighborhood association. When
moved into the area nine years ago, it was about 90 percent rental, and they
were not good renters. River Point is a desirable neighborhood because of
proximity to the river, parks, recreational opportunities, fishing piers. Mr. Rycus
has been an asset to the business community on S. Washington, and Rycus
Floor Covering has been an asset to the River Point Neighborhood Association.
It makes sense to rehab the building. If it was demolished, and a new building
put up, it would still need to be close to the street because the lot slopes to the
river. We would like to see the building rehabilitated, or a new building, not
demolition and replacement with a parking lot.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2 , 1998 PAGE 5
TED SAMRA, 1027 S. WASHINGTON. I own the property across the street,
and also the lots immediately to the north. We are about to start construction
on a new building. I am supportive of Mr. Rycus's improvements to the
building. It is going to help the neighborhood. I have my investment there, and
want to protect it by supporting him.
There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the
conclusion of the public hearing and referral of NCU-2-98 to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee meeting, on June 9, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department of
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
Ms. Keene returned to the meeting.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None.
VI. RECESS - None.
VII. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minutes for Approval: May 19, 1998. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded
by Ms. Keene, to approve the minutes of May 19, 1998. On a voice vote, there
were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of May 19,
1998, were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports -
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair.
Next Meeting Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue
2. Urban Development Committee. Ms. Keene, Vice Chair.
Next Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference
Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue
3. Executive Committee - Has not met.
C. Report from Planning Manager
The Central Lansing Comprehensive Master Plan will have a hearing before the
Planning Board on June 16, 1998. Copies will be available for Board members
on Monday, June 7, 1998. Ms. Love presented a brief summary of alternatives.
Saying that the Master Plan does not dictate zoning but rather guides zoning,
Ms. Love reviewed plan elements such as the Entertainment District, State
Complex, Washington Ave. commercial area, the riverfront and associated
parks, Old Town, and Lansing Community College. Constraints are one-way
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 6
streets, views both positive and negative; transitional areas; industrial zoning
around Old Town, and lack of flow through Lansing Community College
campus. Activity areas include Capitol Complex; the Entertainment District; and
residential development to support the activity areas; and Old Town. Another
concept was gateway commercial, for commercial development to support the
residential development; however, it does not need to be in the Old Town area.
They have talked about opening up LCC. The last is a high tech-industrial
development, like Neogen, clean industries that do not generate pollution in a
campus setting, manufacturers of computer chips, mother boards, high-tech
testing equipment, bio-tech and bio-med laboratories.
Conceptual development proceeded through various iterations to the final land
use concept, including the Capitol District overlaid with the Entertainment
District which supports both districts, and commerce park/high tech-industrial
as the rivertown neighborhoods. Large areas of land are recommended for
development of future residential development with associated nonresidential
uses, like Roma Bakery. The river would be utilized as a main theme in the
residential development, building off the assets of LCC, Old Town, and the
residential areas to the north. Major changes in circulation have to be made in
the circulation system to facilitate this kind of development.
In the first phase, Washtenaw, Ionia and Shiawassee would be changed to two-
way streets. Kalamazoo is two-way now; when it was changed, traffic on
Washtenaw diminished. If Shiawassee is changed, then traffic on Ionia should
also drop substantially. The change would facilitate movement by both
pedestrians and vehicles to further solidify the joining of the entertainment
district with S. Washington Mall. The second phase would facilitate cross
movement and tourist development in the downtown. One thing that was noted
is that you can't go around the Capitol Building. Capitol is one-way
southbound, Walnut is one-way street northbound, but right now Allegan goes
east and Ottawa goes west. If the flow were reversed on Ottawa and Allegan,
leaving Capitol and Walnut as is, then you could drive around the Capitol
Building unimpeded. Only the flow would be reversed. The number of lanes
available or the parking would not be changed.
Another proposal made to the State traffic engineers was to keep one set of
one-way pairs, but the middle two, and we will make Pine a two-way street,
and make Grand a two-way street. Grand is an intimidating street the way it is
now. CATA has to discharge passengers on the east side of the street, which
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 7
is not conducive to using public transit. The ramps are all convertible to two-
way street flow.
Regarding Cedar-Larch, and creation of large masses of critical areas for
development, right now it is hard to create meaningful development between
the two one-way streets because of the jumble of land uses there. Nothing is
coordinated.
Larch is three lanes north, and Cedar is three lanes south. For people who
don't want to come downtown, who are just passing through, we propose
making Larch two-way, with four lanes, two in each direction, and no parking
lanes. There would be restricted left-turn movement. For those people who
want to turn left, and go downtown, they would use Cedar Street, which would
be two-lane, two-way with a parking lane along the west side.
Traffic engineers never reduce the number of lanes, and or reduce the capacity,
but positive things happen if you reduce the number of lanes on Cedar. A lane
of parking slows traffic. Left-turn lanes slow traffic. With only two moving lanes
of traffic, people can progress through in a reasonable manner, and it is easier
to get between the stadium and the Lansing Center, and between the stadium
and the market. By reducing the street in scale, a situation is created that
allows development to occur in a larger area. You can expand beyond Cedar,
because it is no longer a one-way street.
On Larch, the narrowest spot is about 200 feet north of Michigan Avenue, right
at the stadium. We would propose moving the existing curb line three feet to
the west. If you have a seven-foot sidewalk instead of a ten-foot sidewalk, you
would have enough land to put in four regular moving lanes of traffic without
doing any acquisition, or anything else, except that for about 70 feet, you move
the curb line over three feet.
"The traffic engineer said why do you want to do this; I said because we want
to facilitate coordinated development of the land. They said there is no traffic
problem; everything runs fine. Why change it? We can't spend money if there
is no traffic problem. I had never thought of it from their paradigm before." We
are still in the process of working with MDOT; it bears study. Before we can
fulfill the type of land use we want, we must address circulation. This is a
reasonable practical way to do it, without having to acquire land.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 8
Regarding future land use plans, we would have the major districts, with the
center section supporting them, river development and new housing
development, maintaining Old Town in a concentrated area and development
around it; the Gateway commercial at front nodes. The other thing the
consultants have addressed is design issues—developing a better, more easily
understood signage system to get around downtown, utilizing streetscape,
street furniture and street lights as clues to help people recognize their
destination. The consultants mentioned downzoning.
A public hearing will be held on June 16 before the Planning Board. A
preliminary plan for is available for examination in both the Clerk's office and
the Planning Office, and postcards will be mailed to the entire area. We are
having another steering committee meeting on Thursday, June 4, 1998.
Hopefully at that meeting, the committee will approve the general concept and
formulate a resolution to forward to the Planning Board. There will probably be
comments that we will simply attach to the plan. The Planning Board will take
comments and then refer the plan to the Urban Development Committee. The
Planning Board is the final adopting body on a master plan. We have always
forwarded plans to the City Council for concurrence, but it is not required.
Once the Planning Board has adopted it, it becomes an official master plan of
the City, and recorded with the County Clerk. At the meeting on Thursday, we
want Steering Committee to approve the general concept and actively support
and endorse the plan when it goes to the Planning Board and to the community.
We have been interviewing for the Senior Planner position today and tomorrow.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Committee of the Whole
a. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98);
b. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street (Act-7-98);
C. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98);
d. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. (Act-9-98);
e. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98);
f. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98);
g. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. (Act-12-
98);
h. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98);
i. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise
Rd.;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DUNE 2, 1998 PAGE 9
j SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.;
k. SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St.;
I. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue.
(Tabled in Committee of the Whole May 19, 1998)
2. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to
"D-1" Professional Office District (Tabled January 6, 1998)
3. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2"
Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to
"G1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to
"G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998)
4. Urban Development Committee
8. NEW BUSINESS - None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Ruge said on 4720 S. Cedar there is a "For Sale" sign stating that zoning is "D-1"
Professional Office. Mr. Ruff said an inquiry has been received regarding locating
a law office there, and a second inquiry has been received regarding locating a
photographic studio there.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Greiner said he will be unable to attend the Zoning and Ordinance Committee
meeting to be held on June 10, 1998. Mr. Smith volunteered to attend if needed.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Smith asked about the site at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania and Mt.
Hope, formerly occupied by the Laboratory of Clinical Medicine. Discussion ensued
about it and the unoccupied gas station at this intersection.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUKE 2, 1998 PAGE 10
Mr. Frederick asked who owns the parking lot next door to the Lamai Thai
Restaurant, because it is full of trash.
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitte ,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
a:k15=060298
APPROVED ON 7/21/98 WITH CORRECTIONS:PAGE 27,#10. Draft 071498
TO READ:Mr.Frederick stated that I will be sending you a memo regarding the Lansing Comprehensive Plan proposed. Approved 072198
Mr.Greener TO READ:Mr.Goolsby stated I will do the same. TO Clerk072798
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers r
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue `.
t
Tuesday, June 16, 1998 �
=i
I. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., remarking that this is the
first night that we have been televised.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge,
Smith; eight members present; none absent.
B. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions. Ms. Love introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal
Planner, here for the Comprehensive Plan, and Louise H. Christian, Recording
Secretary. Ms. Love noted that members of the consultant team from McKenna
Associates, HNTB, and the Green Group are present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved, with the addition of six
communications.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Eleanor Love, Secretary, Lansing Planning Board, Notice of Public Hearing,
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, Plan #1 - 5032 S. Cedar Street
B. Agenda for the presentation tonight (this was not really a document).
C. Memo, Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, Chair, Historic District Commission to Dept.
of Planning and Neighborhood Dev. Re: Central Lansing Comprehensive
Master Plan, with attached letter to Mr. Trig Vigmostad, Chairperson, PSD
Steering Committee
D. Communication to the Planning Board from Gerald Bump concerning the
Master Plan.
E. Letter from the Michigan Optometric Association, William D. Dansby,
concerning the Central Lansing Comprehensive Master Plan and indicating that
they strongly oppose the Plan.
F. Letter from Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis & Gotting Re: City of Lansing
Downtown Plan, 1998 Proposed Future Land Use Map and Plan.
IV. HEARINGS:
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 2
A. Central Lansing Comprehensive Master Plan (a.k.a. the Lansing Downtown
Plan)
There was a motion by Mr. Goolsby, second by Mr. Greiner to allow a thirty minute
presentation instead of the usual five minute presentation. No Discussion, on a voice vote
motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Love explained the consultants of McKenna &Associates, HNTB (for traffic analysis),
and the Green Group (for marketing analysis) have been working on a new master plan for
the downtown area of the City of Lansing. Ms. Love mentioned the forms of public input,
and the steering committee involvement in the formulating the plan. Ms. Love noted that
since the printing of the final concept draft plan, there has been a great deal of discussion
about another alternative. That alternative would take the area between Cedar and Larch,
north of Shiawasee retaining primarily industrial and commercial type uses. That
alternative will also be open for discussion and consideration tonight as well as in the
future. A number of alternatives have been looked at, the consultant team will be going
through those in a few minutes.
Ms. Love further noted that this is simply a public hearing for the purpose of gathering
public comment, the Planning Board will take no action tonight. The Steering Committee
has asked the Planning Board to gather all the public comment tonight and refer it to the
Steering Committee for deliberation at their next meeting. The Steering Committee will
then evaluate all the public comment received before making it's final recommendation
back to the Planning Board.
Ms. Love then introduced Ken Dettloff, the project manager. Mr. Dettloff then introduced
the members of the consulting team, Mr. McKenna, Ms. Leland-Kirk, Ms. Champine, Mr.
Green, Ms. Luz and Mr. Waterman.
Mr. Dettloff summarized the development of the Central Lansing Comprehensive Master
Plan, beginning with the formation of the Steering Committee in September of 1997. He
stated it is a community driven vision for the future of the city, a working general blueprint
for guidance in land use, redevelopment, transportation, and zoning issues. It is supported
by a detailed market analysis. It will be a guide for the Planning Board, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and City Council. Mr. Dettloff also stated what the plan is not. It is not a zoning
map, it is not a law, it is not inflexible, and it is not permanent.
Mr. Green summarized the market analysis and rationale. He explained the three patron
segments studied: the residents, those working in the city, and the tourists or visitors to the
area. Mr. Green reported the key findings as being: 1) the PSD is a convenience oriented
retail area; 2) it has limited destination orientation; 3) the potential for additional
businesses; 4) strong competition in neighboring trade areas.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 3
Mr. Green then detailed the types of stores and businesses that Old Town could support.
Ms. Leland-Kirk spoke about the community's needs and wishes regarding the master plan.
She talked about incorporating pedestrian traffic and residential uses into the downtown
area while keeping the historical architecture and maintaining downtown as the ceremonial
center of the region. Ms. Leland-Kirk spoke of the opportunities and constraints of the
area, noting ways to link the capitol district and the entertainment district with the river.
Mr. Waterman addressed the traffic issues such as the problems of having so many one-
way streets. He spoke of ways to improve the traffic circulation such as converting some
one-way streets to two-way streets, and reversing the flow of traffic on other one-way
streets.
Mr. Dettloff concluded the presentation by recommending the creation of one entity to be
responsible for implementing this plan. He also notes that a partnership should be formed
between the public sector and the private sector for implementing the plan.
Chairman Ruge asks if there are any questions from the Planning Board for the
consultants.
Seeing none, we will now take public comment.
Mr. Ruge instructed the audience on the procedure to be followed when making comments.
Mark Canady, on behalf of Friedland Industries. I have a message from Friedland which
is one of caution and concern. Friedland has been in business in this community longer
than anyone in this room has been alive. It employs fifty people on a regular basis, it
employs many more on a seasonal basis. It contributes several hundred thousand dollars
to the city in revenue. It is a major source of business to other businesses in the
community. The concern that we have is one of the lack of input from Friedland into the
plans that have been presented here this evening. We are somewhat gratified by the fact
that there is a post-it note that recognized the importance of the industrial area. But we'd
like to have that importance emphasized a little more in the plan. We are somewhat
concerned about certain statements in the plan which specifically target industrial
properties as being either down zoned or cut out altogether. This is somewhat perplexing
in light of the statements that this project is something that the community wanted and is
community driven. Certainly one of the major concerns of the community right now is
keeping General Motors, and Friedland is a major servicer of General Motors in this city.
Anything that would hamper Friedland's business to service General Motors would hamper
General Motor's itself and would certainly have an impact in it's decision making process.
This is not to say that Friedland is not sensitive to the needs of the community, certainly
Friedland is in favor of development of Old Town, and expansion of the principal shopping
district. But we believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on finding a way to
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 4
peacefully co-exist with the other developments, and not have a plan that is essentially
going to plan Friedland out of business. Friedland has always been able and willing to
work with the city. For example it spent over two million dollars in just the past few years
on upgrades and improvements of the property, both safety wise and aesthetically. We'd
certainly be willing to continue with such an effort and would hope that the city and the
Planning Board would allow an opportunity for more input prior to any decision making
process. We believe that Friedland is an important part of this community and as such it
should be heard also.
Randy Rifkin, co-owner of Friedland Industries. Most of the comments that Mark made
are the comments that I would make. When we read the downtown plan draft, we were
very concerned because we had never been contacted. I suppose that businesses that are
similarly situated to us, had no input into this either. I was also happy to see that the final
land use concept, with respect to the area that is next to Old Town is being thought about.
It's nice that you're thinking about it as industrial, because it's been industrial for over one
hundred years. I also find it interesting that it is called a transitional area. Friedland was
formed in 1885. It's been serving the Lansing community for well over one hundred years.
It's definitely one of the first businesses that was established in Lansing after Lansing
became a city. We feel strongly that we contribute to the community, to the business
community, to charities, to Lansing as a whole. We are probably, in our area, the largest
tax payer. We definitely occupy the greatest geographic location. We are probably the
largest employer. We do work with General Motors, I think what we do with them is very
important to them, as it is to us, as it should be to the city. We would be supportive of the
alternative plan to keep the industrial area industrial. We have no intention of moving, and
we certainly hope that you have no intention of moving us. That would be a very costly,
and adversarial, and time consuming situation for everyone. We are happy to work with
the city, we always have, we always will. But we need to be contacted so that we can give
our input. I'm sure that there are other businesses that feel the same way.
Paul Emery, neighbor of Friedland Industries. I own a business and I live at 306 E.
Grand River. I've had several opportunities to input into the plan, in the sense that I'm a
member of the Old Town Commercial Association's board. Throughout the planning
process, we've had the opportunity both from our own business people who are on the
board, plus our staff person to communicate with this. I want to tell you that the thing that
excited me most about this plan was the notion that you were planning to bring more people
to live downtown. It seems to me that is really the key to the next ten or fifteen years. I'm
all invested in the Old Town area, but I happen to live there too. Of course, we want to
have nice boutiques, in fact I have a new tennant who is opening a garden and home
furnishings place. We want to develop that. The fact that they are going to build those
residential units a few blocks up from Friedland on the river, is probably going to do more
for us retail and residential people economically than the stuff we are doing in our own
buildings. If you can figure out a way to connect Old Town and downtown with residential
uses, make the property value so great that Friedland will see it as a business opportunity
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 5
to move someplace else. We're not talking about adversarial, but you've been there one
hundred years, maybe it's not the appropriate place any more. If you can figure out a way
to make the numbers work, so that you don't lose money.... If you can revitalize downtown
by bringing in new residential people and connecting Old Town and downtown, that would
be great for the people that are part of our commercial association.
Antonia Miernik, 629 W. Lapeer. I have some real concerns with the process of the
master plan development. The June 3rd meeting, which was supposed to be an open
meeting, was not. I couldn't get in. True, I was late, but when I tried to get into the meeting
at ten minutes after eight, the building was locked. I could not participate, even in the
ending of the meeting. This is not an open meeting to me. Also, to obtain a copy of the 87-
page plan, was very difficult, lots of hoops to jump through. I started jumping through the
hoops on June 5th. I went to Planning and Development and they didn't have any, they
sent me to the clerk. I went to the clerk, and they didn't have any and told me to come back
later. I came back later and they still didn't have any. Being very persistent, and somewhat
retentive, on June 8th I went to the Planning Dept, and the clerk, they still didn't have any.
I called the Planning Dept. on the 9th, and was told that they were working on it. Bill has
been very nice to me, and I really appreciate that. I was able to obtain a copy of the entire
plan on the 10th. I was told that I could keep it for 24 hours and to please return it promptly
so that others could see it as well. I did that. I'm a librarian, I return things promptly. But,
at 87 pages, this is not a light read. And, it's impossible to receive the concept if you don't
have the color. The color is very important. The entire plan is predicated on understanding
the color. They would copy it for me for$9.70, I'm more that happy to do that, but it had no
color. Without the color, it's useless. So much for my complaining about the process. I
have some real concerns about the street patterns and traffic. Will Pine be two-way from
Willow all the way up to Main? Will there still be on street parking allowed on the streets
that are currently one-way, namely Pine, Shiawassee, Ionia? I'm concerned about these
streets, they impact on my neighborhood tremendously. It is currently difficult to cross
Shiawassee at Sycamore St. because of on street parking. The sight line is just not with
you. It's also difficult to cross on Butler. Has someone actually gone out and seen about
crossing these streets if they are two-ways? I know the idea of having two-way traffic is,
ostensibly, to slow it down. But if you're crossing at not one of the major streets, like Pine
or MLKing, I can see that you might have difficulty there. Will traffic patterns and the berms
that are now effecting MLKing be changed again because of the two-way traffic that is
proposed for Ionia St.? The neighborhood groups have repeatedly said the City Hall is the
heart of Lansing. It has not been addressed, and we really don't want it moved from this
location. City Hall needs to be here. Also, what will happen to the historic city market if the
center for the performing arts is built on it's present location? I'm all for performing arts, but
the city market has been there since the 1920's, it has a very historic significance in
Lansing, and it should stay there.
JoAnn Bump, representing Gerald Bump. I grew up on Center St., went to school in the
neighborhood, worked for the state government for the last twenty years, so I'm very
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 6
familiar with the area. Our recommendation for the Cedar/Larch area and extending it to
Center St., where my dad has property, is that the land use be commercial. The major
reason is that it is a very poor area for residential use. The biggest reason is the traffic.
My dad's property is on the corner of Center and Oakland. The land use plan recommends
that you slow down Cedar traffic, but you still have to deal with the five high speed lanes
of Saginaw, Cedar, and Oakland. In that two block area, you've got three highways
crisscrossing it. The posted speed limit is 35 miles an hour, but people who live there know
that the cars go 40 to 50 miles an hour. The other reason is that much of that area is
already commercial. There is O'Leary Paint, there is a large office building, a dentist office,
and several fast food places. The junkyard that is a block from my dad's house has a two
story high pile of junked appliances that is visible from the street. We don't believe that an
investor is going to spend money to develop family housing with this kind of situation. We
don't think that this land is the best and highest use for this property. To the south of my
dad's property there is a whole block that is on the flood plain. Most of the houses on that
block have been cleared, for one reason or another. They are dilapitated. They started
being cleared in the 60's. This is the 90's. That property has been up for sale for all that
period of time, and there are no buyers. My dad is 83 years old, he was involved in the
model city's program in the 1970's, he was on the planning task force then. At that time
they proposed urban renewal. But budget money was cut and nothing happened to that
area. All this is to say that we feel that to propose it as a residential area is just a further
roadblock to any further development. It's been residential all this time and nothing has
happened. I don't see the city, or government in general, willing to spend the kind of
money that would be required to change the land use from flood plain to something else.
It would require a dam, drains, change in the traffic patterns, buying out Friedland's. In
conclusion, we oppose the designation of this area as residential. We think it would be
more appropriately used as commercial. We would hope that the planning committee could
acknowledge the problems that are there, and the idea that the city probably isn't going to
have the money to do what's required to make this plan go. We appreciate your time and
consideration.
Jim Blair, 511 Fulton Place. I own a business at 410 S. Cedar St. I have several
comments regarding the plan. First of all, I wanted to thank the planning board, the
planning staff, and the city for doing this comprehensive plan, it needed to be done. I
applaud you for getting that done and the amount of time that you've worked on it. I want
to thank the consultants as well. 90% of this plan I can support and believe that it has good
ideas. There are several areas that I would like to see expanded in the plan. In general
in the area of housing, I don't think there is strong enough wording, or enough emphasis
in the plan, to try to put housing from north Lansing and down through the city, down along
the river, and create more housing in downtown Lansing. I don't think just building
apartments above some of the retail stores is going to create anywhere near the housing
that we need to support a viable business district downtown after the employees go home.
I would like to see more usage of housing along the river. I would like to see the city
consider the river for some type of transportation system rather than the trolley idea. I don't
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 7
think there was enough emphasis on the river itself and development along the river. I've
asked them to expand the entertainment district along the river. Right now the river is the
back yard of businesses. We need to orient the development of a master plan that makes
the river the emphasis, and a river walk on both sides which will be the front doors rather
than the back doors. We need more pedestrian bridges across the river to be able to tie
the musuem area to the downtown area. To make housing a viable and fun place to live,
you have to create more use of the river to boating. I would propose an idea that Alan
Tubbs came up with several years ago as the planning director, which is put a lock in at the
Moores Park dam. So that we open up boating from north Lansing all the way up to
Dimondale. The only impediment is the Moores Park dam. Regarding the Cedar/Larch
corridor, I don't think it's a good idea to try to put residential north of Shiawassee.
Traditionally, it's been a business area. We need to encourage and help that business
area develop. I also oppose changing Cedar and Larch to two-way streets. This plan
seems to have lost the idea of the capitol loop. This Planning Board, the City, and the
State of Michigan adopted a policy about ten years ago to set up a capitol loop. That plan
and that entrance to downtown idea seems to have lost the emphasis in this master plan.
Those would be the areas that I would ask be taking into consideration. I think they are
very positive things that could be added that would make it a more viable plan, a more
exciting plan. I want to thank you for your time and effort in putting the plan together.
Carol Wood, representing West Town Redevelopment. West Town Redevelopment is
made up of commercial ventures that are on the Saginaw strip, St. Lawrence Hospital, and
several neighborhood groups and non-profits within that area. I was asked to read this
letter this evening. (Letter written by Neil Park, President of West Town Redevelopment
is attached.)
Steve Hrapkiewicz, PSD Board member. I'm here to make a statement on behalf of the
principal shopping district. I'm also employed by the Accident Fund Co. Mr. Hrapkiewicz
then read the attached statement.
Howard Soifer, attorney with Lewis Law Firm, 230 S. Capitol. I have the privilege of
being before you on behalf of a number of different individuals and entities. I am here on
behalf of Roma Bakery, Commercial Blueprint, A-Z Rentals, the State Chamber of
Commerce, also on behalf of several landowners and homeowners in the downtown area.
I'd just like to remind you, as Mr. Canady did, about representing a long standing and well
founded Lansing business that I am honored to tell you that Roma Bakery is an endeavor
that has existed in one form or another in Lansing for 98 years. Commercial Blueprint has
existed as a business at that location for approximately 40 years. A-Z Rentals, although
operating as A-Z for nine years, there has been a rental type facility on that property for
approximately the last 25 years. I will try to touch upon each of these different clients as
separate comments. The one thing that strikes me about what is going on so far is the lack
of dealing with the absolute importance of what's going on here from your prospective.
think it's important to note that you all know that your decision on the land use map and on
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 6
the zoning plan is a final decision. In looking at all the statutes of the State of Michigan and
looking at your ordinances, the decision on the land use map on the comprehensive
development plan, call it what you will, it's one of the few decisions that the Planning Board
can make that is "not reviewable" by the City Council. Re-zonings, special use permits, all
of these other types of municipal decisions that eventually come before City Council, by
statute and ordinance, naturally come before the Planning Board fortheir recommendation.
This decision is probably one of the most important decisions that is going to be made in
the next twenty years in Lansing, and it's going to be made by you. I would urge you, on
behalf of everyone that I represent, and everyone here, to please take your time, look at
it very closely, do a very careful analysis, and come to a decision that you feel comfortable
with because we are going to go into the next millenium with your decision. The City
Council can vote to accept and approve your master plan, but it doesn't matter if the City
Council doesn't like it, they are going to have to live with your decision as well. Going back
to what the experts said regarding the fact that this is a community driven vision. Right
now, it could arguably be called community driven vision. Except once you adopt it, I would
say that what you have done is created city policy. That map, that land use plan will be city
policy. If it is not viewed as that, then taxpayer dollars have been wasted because this is,
then, just an academic exercise. What you will create will be the road map for all future
land use and zoning. To not think about zoning at the same time that you are creating this
master plan would be a serious mistake. It's interesting because I had the opportunity to
be at one of the last meetings of the steering committee in which there were some
comments that they wanted to defer zoning at that point. I submit to you that you can't
defer zoning. Once the map and plan are adopted, the suggested categorizations will be
the expectation for the resultant zoning. You all know, as the Planning Board, that when
a request comes before you that is inconsistent with the current map that is one of the first
basis that you will arrive at if you so decide you wanted to not approve that request, it's
inconsistent with the plan. So this plan is so important. As to the Chamber of Commerce,
my comments are expressed in a letter to you, I think the letter is clear. As to the matters
involving A-Z Rentals, Roma Bakery, and Commercial Blueprint, I'd like to indicate it's my
understanding, after having an opportunity to meet with Ms. Love and Mr. Sykes that there
is going to be a recommendation that the current designation be retained and that this body
will be considering that recommendation. The current designation being light industrial
commercial. Lastly, I'd like to mention that there are a number of existing residential areas
in the downtown that are being left out of the plan. Specifically, that property west of
MI-King and north to Saginaw. The plan itself states that the lifeblood of downtown
development is a permanent residential presence. Instead of trying to plan future
residential uses for areas where commercial, industrial, and office uses already exist, why
not plan for the future development of existing residential areas instead of just leaving them
out there on their own. Two of the earlier speakers from the experts used the phrase"infill
redevelopment opportunities". I am a lawyer, words are what I deal with every day. But I
don't know what that means. I'm just wondering, is that the politically correct way to say
that your current business is not welcome or something?
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 9
Judith Corlett, Dancing Goat Coffeehouse, 301 S. Washington. I am a member of the
PSD Board, but tonight I'm speaking just as a business owner. I believe that I like most of
the business plan. I've gone to a lot of meetings on it, and certainly discussed it at the
PSD. The thing that concerns me the most is the wording that said "high quality retail" and
"many specialty retail shops" that we already have in downtown Lansing. I had trouble
thinking of very many, only four or five places. If you're a visitor in this town and you
wanted to go shopping and buy stuff to take home, you wouldn't be able to buy it anywhere
downtown. I'm thinking and wishing that we could develop the area that we already have,
the 28,000 workers and I don't know the number of visitors that come to town on a monthly
basis; but the books and galleries, and the pottery, and the jewelry, and the arty stuff, and
the great food, and the things to buy, I wish that we could develop that part in downtown
Lansing before we think of sending it off to Old Town. Even though I shop in Old Town
now, I buy food there for the Goat and I buy other things. I personally like that place, and
I wouldn't want to downgrade them at all. But I know that people wanted me to put a coffee
shop in where Albinger's is beside Hankins, and Hankins is gone because he couldn't
support it. I don't think there's enough traffic there right now in this near future to put our
focus on putting all of this cool stuff in Old Town because I don't think people are there yet.
It will take awhile to get all of those apartment buildings built. I hope that the city is really
serious about developing both sides of the river, the Washington Sq. side is important to
us, developing Michigan Ave. and Grand River. A bunch of the stuff that Jim Blair said
made sense to me. That boating thing sounded good. I wouldn't have thought of it,
because I'm not a boater, but it seems like it would be easier than a trolley. I hope we can
develop a look. I hadn't seen those pictures before, and that makes sense to me. We have
to have downtown Lansing look like a place we want to go to. Housing, everywhere we can
figure out to put it. We need to have lots of housing. I like the idea of changing the one-
way streets. I like the idea of being able to go around the capitol, I like the idea of Grand,
Larch, and Cedar being slowed down. I know that Washtenaw needs to be changed. I'm
on that corner and it can easily be changed. I'm a little nervous about parking, I barely
want to bring it up. We do have a lot of parking downtown. I think that our parking meter
people, I don't know what to say about them, except that I wish we had at least a minute of
grace time so that you could actually speak to someone on the way to the parking meter
without getting a ticket.
Mary Clark, 223 S. Eighth St. I'm here this evening as a resident who was a participant
in both the northeast area master plan process and also the Green Oaks target area
development plan. In my experience the creation, adoption, and implementation of master
plans is an incredibly valuable process for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of plan
areas. It's an opportunity to ask people to think about their areas in terms of how to
capitalize on their assets and to consider solutions to problems that may exist. The end
product should be a blueprint for future development based on input from as many
prospectives as possible. Those prospectives need to include not just those of paid
professionals, but also the prospectives and insights of residents, property and business
owners who have a vested interest in their area. I'm concerned that the process for
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 10
developing this plan has been too narrow. That many of the people with vested interest in
this area are not even aware that a master plan is being developed, much less the
consequences of the recommendations that this plan may have for them. The stakeholder
and focus groups were held and I was invited to attend a couple of those and did so. But
frankly had no idea that I was involved in a master plan process. I knew that there was
discussion about how downtown might be developed, and was certainly interested in that
because my neighborhood is one of the first neighborhoods east of this area, and it's going
to directly impact me. So I went to those meetings thinking that I was getting information,
and that people were interested in what I had to say, but I had no concept that this was a
master plan process. I think that opportunities such as this hearing cannot be considered
meaningful unless the people being asked for input have had the opportunity to look over
a finalized plan, and the opportunity to question and understand what the implications of
that plan are going to be for them. People have not had access to this plan nor the maps.
It's sort of all in process. To have a public hearing on something that's in process is
probably not not very meaningful. Particularly when people haven't even seen the
proposed document. I'm concerned that the lack of communication and input by interested
parties is a serious flaw in the process utilized to create this plan. It's creating feelings of
animosity and distrust that I believe are unnecessary. I hope at this point that before
adoption by this Board, before you have a final public hearing on the plan, that some
process be developed for distribution of the plan to interested parties and opportunities for
those people to look over the plan, to question it, and to understand what the plan is going
to mean to them in the future. My experience with master plans has been that they are,
indeed, meaning documents. The comments made about what this plan was not tonight,
was very interesting to me, because in my experience with master plans, people look at
something being proposed in an area whether it's this Board, whether it's the Board of
Zoning Appeals, or other powers, and they say is this in keeping with the plan. This plan
has a definite impact on what's going to happen in these areas in the future. I recognize
that meaningful participation in a master plan process involves an extraordinary
commitment on the part of interested parties and the paid professionals, everyone involved.
But the product, namely a plan for the future development of this city is important enough
that it's deserving of that effort.
Kelly Proper, 111 E. Cavanaugh. Tonight I'm here as President of Citizen's for a Better
Lansing. At our meeting last month we studied this issue and voted unanimously that we
could not support it in it's present form. That was before the gray "sticky" was attached.
We would need to reconsider that. Downtown health is important to everyone, including
those of us on the south end. This plan harms residential areas and commercial areas.
It turns commercial into residential and doesn't do anything to include or protect real
residential areas which are the customer base for the commercial areas. We also
disapprove of the process. We need to do more than just announce meetings to the public,
we need to encourage and invite them to attend. Master plans should create a harmony
between businesses, residentials, and government; especially since we have the State right
here. We encourage you to keep this in mind as you continue to look at this and other
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 11
plans that will be developed throughout the city. That's my speech from CBL, now I'd like
to touch base just as Kelly Proper. I was born and raised in Chicago. One of the essential
things of the downtown area of Chicago was one-way streets. When you create a huge
amount of road, you create a huge amount of traffic. In Chicago, it was very effective to
have a continuos flow of one-way streets. People can cross all the time. I think you need
to consider that very seriously. Cedar St. is a state trunkline. I would have to question
whether it can just be changed due to what the city wants to do. It does hook up the city
residents to 127 as well as 496. Having parking along Cedar would be a detriment to what
the purpose originally was.
Ken Smith, owner of Standard Electric Co. 733 N. Larch, I'm the former owner of
Michigan Brass & Electric, a business that's been associated in Lansing for many years.
I'm also a thirty year resident of Lansing and I've raised my family here. I feel a lot better
about the situation at 733 N. Larch right now than I did before I came to the meeting. I just
wish to add one more voice in favor of the alternative plan of maintaining the Cedar/Larch
corridor as commercial industrial. I know before we built our new Michigan Brass & Electric
building at 733 N. Larch, there were a bunch of run-down houses there. I owned them.
They were rental units. In one unit, I don't want to know what they were doing there, but
I think it was some pretty bad business, and fortunately I was never called upon by the
police department to do anything. I got the tenants out when we tore down the house and
built the new building. We built that building in 1986 after going through all of the planning
commission and submitting all of our plans and details. If the situation under which the
building was built were changed onus, it doesn't seem like the fairway to play ball. I'd also
like to mention that Standard Electric, having acquired Michigan Brass & Electric in 1993,
has done nothing but improve the property, the community, their service to customers, their
service to their employees, and have created a feeling of mutual respect throughout. In
addition, as an operating electric wholesale distributor with a large residential lighting
business, we bring people in to downtown Lansing from Okemos, Dewitt, Grand Ledge, all
over central Michigan. Some customers over the years have come from as far away as Mt.
Pleasant. Part of the thing that the Planning Board is trying to accomplish along with the
consultants is once those people come to Lansing, how do we keep them here? How do
we keep them here for another hour or two, for lunch, dinner, shopping, or overnight? I
think this would be the work of an additional committee or an additional part of the planning
which some of the speakers here tonight have referred to as marketing. We need to sell
our downtown and keep the people in the downtown area. With me tonight is Dan
Chimkos, Vice President of Standard Electric, he has helped in the revitalization of that
business at that location. We hope that you do adopt the alternative plan.
Stephanie Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia. I live just outside the boundaries. We've lived in
downtown Lansing since 1980. 1 also chair the Lansing Historic District Commission, I'm
very involved with the Downtown Neighborhood Association. I have been the representive
on the steering committee and have attended every meeting since I realized what was
going on in November. Pretty tough when someone as attuned to land use in the
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 12
downtown area as I am, didn't really realize that a comprehensive plan, for a portion of
what had been previously named the River Island master plan had begun. A difficulty here,
and a problem when you go on with other land use plans, is the change of language that
we have all been so accustomed to. Not using the names of the master plans that are
being reviewed is a problem. It obfuscates what is going on. Beginning to use words like
"stakeholder inverviews" need to be understood by the population as master plan is
beginning to be reviewed. People don't know what's going on. Property owners,
particularly, don't know what's going on. I'm glad to see that there is some movement
occuring in the Cedar/Larch/Center St. corridor. The problem there has been of non-
conformity when there is a difference between future land use and what one's property is.
We all understand grandfathering. The reason that the property owners have been so
upset is what was being creating for them, and in other areas of this plan not discussed
clearly yet, is what's being fixed in the area north of the Old Town district. The area that's
shown as yellow as residential has, for many years, been zoned "H" light industrial. But
what is on the land are houses used as residences. The problem, therefore, in trying to
deal with the nonconformity because the cost of fixing doesn't meet what the requirements
of the code are, which is why there has been the problem of blight in that area. So what
would have occurred, and may occur if you don't go with your gray "sticky", is creating the
problem you're currently fixing, but creating it for the businesses that have long been
established in the Larch/Cedar corridor. And, undiscussed yet, and being created in the
area south of the capitol district, the area that's bounded by Pine, Kalamazoo, Capitol, and
St. Joe. The area that has buildings that include the State Chamber of Commerce,
Michigan Manufacturer's, Seventh-Day Adventists, Riley Funeral Home, the YMCA, the
Lansing School District buildings, the county building and the site of the expanded courts
area. That's an area on this land use map that no one has discussed, as being described
as medium density residential first floor office. It presents the same problem for those
existing buildings as have been discussed in the Larch/Cedar corridor. This plan also talks
about the need, and we've been discussing it tonight, for more residential. And yet we
have taken a little neighborhood that is south of Curtis Drug, that is fairly isolated, we are
changing that now and putting it into this high tech area, for which no one has really talked
about there being any demand. Maybe there's wishes, but there doesn't seem to be any
demand which would follow a land use change. Other people have talked about the need
to deal with real residential. In 1976 you updated the code of ordinances to say that there
are four quadrants in which this city does comprehensive planning. River Island has been
the river king. That deals with all of the areas that have been commercial, those which we
wish to become even better commercial, the state employment, and all of the existing
residential. This plan, by ending at Pine, is bisecting the largest downtown employer, and
it's not being considered part of this mix. We do not have state employees who are in the
Hannah building, the Ottowa building, the Capital Commons civil service building, the
musuem archives and library, the site of the future supreme court, and vast tracks of vacant
land which in the next twenty years under a future land use plan will be developed. They
are not part of the mix in how we are approaching the downtown. Similarly the residential
area is not included. Here's why it's important. That's where there really are houses on
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 13
the land. Part of this whole issue is the similarity of houses on the land. We are not
developing corn field. This is long established city. If the other residential areas are not
there to be bolstered and provide the customer base for the central business district, the
Cedar/Larch corridor, and the Old Town district, they will then be continued to be governed
for land use purposes of rezoning under the current River Island plan. If you're familiar with
that, the areas where there are somewhat boundary area labeled transition, along the
Ottowa, Ionia area and streets in between, and Walnut and Seymour are continued to allow
the erosion of buildings that are houses currently used as residential for office purposes.
One of the major reasons we've spent$100,000 in talking about marketing and building the
downtown commercial and entertainment district is we want concentrated nodes of activity.
By not including these boundaries, you're still allowing leakage of future offices coming
downtown not being channelled by zoning purposes into the central business district and
to Old Town. There's a lot of work that needs to be done on this, I would strongly hope that
the Planning Board would look at the issue of boundaries. I would hope the City Council
would look at it based on the ordinance and based on the cost . I just recently came across
some material from about a year ago where we're going to be looking at twelve little
comprehensive plan areas for the City of Lansing notwithstanding the fact that the code
says that there will be four. If we are doing one for $100,000 I'm not sure how we can
afford to update the entire city. This doesn't really get us all the way we need to go. We
can get there, and we need to get there. There really does need to be harmony, and I think
there can be harmony between all of the property owners and users in these areas which
are residential, government, entertainment, and commercial.
Ellen Sprouls, Executive Director of Impression 5 Science Center. I'd like to reiterate
the concerns of the Lansing Historic District Commission. The land use map is the
singularly most important part of a revised comprehensive plan. I agree with, and I support
the position put forth by Stephanie Whitbeck. I agree with the words spoken by Mr. Blair
this evening, and by Howard Soifer. I should also mention that I represent not only the
Impression 5 Science Museum, but the other members of my condominium association,
which are the Riverwalk Theater, the Circle Players, and the Surveyor's Museum. The
current land use plan does not make sense and has the potential to do more harm than
good to the City of Lansing. However, I am glad to see that the little "sticky" has been put
up here and we are starting to discuss the use and return of that area as industrial and
commercial uses. As the Executive Director of the largest science center in the State of
Michigan, I feel very strongly that we need to develop and strengthen our downtown area.
In an institution, Impression 5, that is highly dependent upon admissions, I would support
any effort that would result in attracting more people to the downtown Lansing area, or to
the greater Lansing area in general. Efforts to revitalize the downtown will have an impact
upon the cultural institutions of Lansing. Not only mine, but the State History Museum, the
Turner Dodge Museum, a cultural arts center if it's built, and even the museums and
institutions at MSU. I have a vested interest in the development and implementation of a
good, workable comprehensive land use plan. I take this whole issue very seriously. Since
I've arrived here in February I have worked with the director's of the other large cultural
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 14
institutions in town and the CBV because we are trying to address the whole issue of
cultural tourism as another way to bring more people to Lansing and to the downtown area.
If we all work together, we could really come up with something working towards. I think
the plan does have many good aspects to it. Emphasizing the river is an excellent idea.
Many cities, both larger and smaller than Lansing, have focused on a waterway as a way
to redevelop and revitalize their downtown areas. The Inner Harbor in Baltimore and
South Sea Streetport in New York City are examples of large cities. Cleveland has used
their waterway, and many other small towns, especially in the midwest have chosen to
redevelop along the river. I am new to the area. I was appointed as Executive Director to
the Impression 5 Science Center in December of 1997. 1 assumed the responsibility of
CEO in mid February 1998. 1 have walked the entire downtown area as a result of
becoming interested in the land use issue. I feel like I'm very familiar with the area. As a
result of moving here in February, I've come to the whole process of the master plan for
land use at a rather late date. Nonetheless, as the director of one of the larger cultural
institutions in Lansing, and a member of the principal shopping district, I have concerns
about the whole process by which the central Iansing comprehensive plan was developed.
It appears to me as though the plan was developed without the benefit or the input from
many of the affected constituents, stakeholders, businesses, whatever the language is that
we are going to use to describe the people who will be affected. The Impression 5 Science
Center, which is in the entertainment district at the end of Musuem Dr., no one from our
institution was ever contacted, no one from the R.E.Olds Transportation Musuem was ever
contacted, no one from Riverwalk was contacted, nor was anyone from the Surveyor's
Museum contacted. Yet in this plan, there is a proposed bridgeway to bring people over
to our institutions. At the same time, we are being courted by the folks doing the survey
work, or the consultants from the performing arts and cultural center, and that would have
an impact. If we moved there, then why develop that area? The businesses and the
people do have a stake. It also appears to me that at no time did the steering committee
spend any substantial amount of time talking about the land use issues in the plan. This
became apparent to me at the last steering committee meeting that I attended because
many of the committee members had basic questions that I assume would have been
answered as part of developing the plan. Also, this evening it struck me as odd that there
has been no real meaningful discussion of the land use aspects of the plan, and many
references to the plan were confusing and different languages were used to refer to the
different plans. There were so many questions that were unanswered that at that last
meeting I attended, the steering committee did not feel comfortable forwarding the plan to
the Planning Board unless they could be guaranteed that it would come back to them after
this public hearing. To me, that says a lot. These are the people that are supposed to be
working with the consultants to develop a plan that could be put forward that they all felt
comfortable with. They do represent many constituents. Partnership and collaboration are
increasingly important. Collaboration and projects done where people work cooperatively
together, work. Many organizations, governments, and nonprofits, have really
accomplished a lot by working together to achieve many of the same purposes. Nonprofits
and governmental institutions are under increasing pressure from the public to be
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 15
accountable for what we do. That's why I feel that we do have to listen to our stake-
holders. When you don't listen to stakeholders, the stakeholders increasingly are
becoming more political and are voicing their opinions. I'm a survivor of the Enola Gay
controversy at the National Air and Space Museum. I know what happens when you don't
listen to your constituents.
Ellen Beal, 227 Custer St., I believe I am the closest council member to the downtown
area. My husband and I walk or bike in the downtown area quite frequently. One day I was
driving down N. Cedar St. because we were supposed to look at this house on the 800
block, that the Historic District had pointed out was one of the original houses in Lansing.
It suddenly struck me that at one time it was all houses, then eventually it was replaced by
commercial interests. I'm happy to see that we've corrected the problem of this area which
naturally became a commercial area by putting up a "sticky", although I'm not sure I feel all
that confident, since we just spent $100,000 and a lot of months to develop this plan, and
apparently we've just changed it. I wanted to correct one thing I heard tonight and that was
the fact that Ms. Love said that the administration and the downtown and the City Council
were clamoring for a downtown master plan. In fact, my recollection of our input as council
members is that we really wanted the planning department to do the southwest part of the
city. The south part of the city in general, as you know, we are getting inundated with
requests for large low income housing developments and we are dealing with a master plan
that is over twenty years old. As you know, we have several lawsuits we are dealing with.
Quite frankly, we felt that we established the principal shopping district, we wanted to let
them do their thing. I think there has been somewhat of a confusing idea of what we've
actually been about here in terms of is this a marketing plan, is this a master plan. We
were told that several groups had put the money together to do the downtown so we said
okay, go ahead with it. So that you know, I think there are some of us who would like to
see some attention turned to the south side of the city. My observations are, in terms of
padding residential development, I want to echo what I heard Ms. Corlett say which is we
need to build on what we have already. I attended a meeting about putting in second story
apartments along Washington Ave. at least four years ago. I don't know what's happening
with that. I do think that although somebody said this area is quite a large area, I think you
heard Mary Clark say that we used to divide the city up into quarters and do the entire
thing. Quite frankly, that makes a lot more sense in terms of trying to see how all these
things fit together. And at $100,000 a pop for consultants, twelve little districts does
represent a lot of money. I think the traffic patterns are great. I've been saying this for
years. I congratulate the gentleman from Kalamazoo in getting rid of your pedestrian mall.
As a person who comes downtown fairly often on the weekend on bikes, I'm here to tell you
that although the pedestrian mall is very beautiful, there is no one there. In fact, we are not
supposed to ride our bikes on there, but we do. We understand now that for a city to be
vital that traffic has to move. There has to be traffic and pedestrians moving together. In
terms of slowing down traffic, the one area which is really a thriving economic area is over
in the 2000 block of E. Michigan Ave., and it has a lot to do with the fact that the traffic is
slower and that it is two-way and we have parking. That's all been done without a lot of
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1996 PAGE 16
assistance, but just having a strong residential neighborhood and some good businesses.
I want to put in a word for the City Market. I don't know what zoning entertainment district
is. I am very concerned about our historic city market, and I continue to believe that the
Lansing City Market can be a viable, thriving market, with the commitment to keep it there.
I think the biggest thing it's been fighting against over the years is everybody looks at that
property and says it's too valuable to be the market. Well, it's our historic city market, and
I think that Lansing residents would like to think enough of ourselves to keep our assests
right where they are and not sell them to some developer that wants to come in and get city
assistance to build a hotel or whatever. When we try to protect the market as best we
could as the City Council, we reserved the possibility for development vertically. In other
words, keeping the market where it is, but if somebody wanted to put condos, for example,
they could build up and use the market as the first floor. This has been done successfully
in big cities where they have been able to retain their historic assests, but also be able to
bring multi-use to land. I would really hope that we get this clarified. There are a number
of vendors in the audience tonight. It's very difficult to attract new businesses to the
market. When you talk about a grocery store, the city market and Roma Bakery are there.
All they need is the support of this city. We do not need to talk about bringing in new
businesses. Finally, I would ask when you consider this, that we not create impediments
to development. I guess what I'm saying is that it's nice to talk about performing arts
centers and hotels, and whatever. The reality is a lot of things that are being talked about
probably are not going to happen without support from the city in terms of money. Quite
frankly, our revenue picture is tightening up significantly. I was just reviewing the loans that
were made by the Economic Development Corporation, most of that money is gone. Less
than half a million if left. The money is loaned out. Don't create a situation where the
property is not going to get developed because there simply isn't a market there. We have
courts facility to pay for, a fire station that we are putting on the ballot. The City of Lansing
really does not have the finances to support a lot of additional downtown development. Let
this be a starting point for this process. We've heard a lot of great ideas. It's great to have
consultants come in and get the thing going. But you have people who live here who know
what Lansing is all about, what's been here before, what has worked and what could work.
I think you need to listen to the people.
Lisa Carey, Program Manager of Old Town Mainstreet. I also sit on the Steering
Committee, but I am here to represent the Old Town Commercial Association and the
neighborhood. The association has reviewed the draft of the master plan for the principal
shopping district and has several comments they would like to make and hope that you will
consider as a Planning Board. Most of our comments deal with the Old Town
neighborhood, but I would like to preface that the master plan as a whole is extremely
important and Old Town cannot survive without a strong downtown and central business
district and entertainment district as proposed. One of the areas that we are concerned
with is zoning identification. This is first and foremost. The current zoning and existing
land use are incompatible in many locations in Old Town. We would like to see mentioned
in the master plan the issue of spot zoning and consider the option of blanket rezoning over
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 17
some parcels of land. This would be especially useful in the core historic commercial
district where parcels are often zoned "F-1" Commercial with zero or almost zero lot lines.
And also in the residential district immediately to the north of the commercial district which
is mostly zoned "H" Light Industrial. Another issue is parking. We would like to see this
addressed as more and more businesses have been locating in Old Town. More property
is being purchased and people are trying to figure out what to do with their buildings.
Parking is becoming a major concern not only to meet zoning regulations, but also to meet
future customer needs. We would like to see a recommendation of future parking locations
in the Old Town district. It is mentioned in the draft plan that additional parking will be
needed. We strongly recommend that location and types of parking should also be
identified. Another concern is circulation. Heavy truck traffic in Old Town has been an
interference, to say the least, for the safety of pedestrian traffic as well as the noise
pollution produced. We highly encourage that an alternative for heavy truck traffic be
sought and identified in the master plan. We do not, however, endorse that such traffic be
routed directly north through the north street corridor, as that is a low density residential
district. We also recommend that Liberty Street be made two-way between Cedar and
Larch streets. It's currently one-way going west. The historic Old Town commercial district
provides unique advantages for the principal shopping district mostly due to the integrity
of the historic structures. Historic protection for those buildings within the north Lansing
National Register of Historic District and other key sites such as the historic homes on
Washington Ave. and historic church structures that serve as landmarks to the city should
be enacted. There's also a number of future land use recommendations, but I have those
in writing and will leave those, there are some minor things that address specific lots of the
draft. I would like to say, finally, that everyone in Old Town is very pleased that a master
plan is being produced that includes the Old Town historic commercial district because it's
been a long time coming. Without a plan, we have a very difficult time planning ourselves
and developing what we are working on.
Dorothy Jones,426 W. Barnes. I'm a member of the LCC Board of Trustees, I'm an active
participant in the Moores Park Neighborhood Organization, and also secretary of Citizen's
for a Better Lansing. It's only been a couple of months ago that I realized all the meetings
that had been talked about were, in fact, leading to a master plan. So when I heard about
the steering committee meetings, I started attending those. It appears to me that part of
the problem of the negative attitude that you are feeling is because groups thought the
language was so confusing that we didn't know that you were talking about a master plan.
This has all been produced with no opportunity for those of us who are interested in master
plans to even know that you were dealing with it. In watching the steering committee it
seems like those people, too, were very ignorant of what was going on, and it's hard for me
to figure out how they can do much steering if they are just now beginning to understand
the whole thing. As a Board of Trustees member at LCC, I was quite surprised to see that
LCC was in there, and that they had all kinds of plans about opening up the campus. I'm
not saying that I'm negative to it, I do understand now that our administration was informed
and we do have a person on the steering committee. But it seems to me that it would have
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 18
been courteous to have sent a letter to the Board of Trustees to know that we were part of
what was being discussed as a master plan. I asked one of the school board members if
they had heard about it, and they had not even heard about the master plan, which does
include part of their buildings. It's also very confusing to me to read or hear that we are
very interested in improving the number of houses downtown, and at the same time, I watch
three historic house being torn down. I would agree with Stephanie that the area needs to
include places that are already residential so that we can protect their demise as well as
trying to develop new residential areas. I suggest that you please get a plan that is based
on reality.
Howard Jones, 426 W. Barnes. One of the cornerstones of democracy is a free flow of
ideas, I think we are just now starting to have a free flow of ideas on this master plan
concept. I hope that you slow down the process enough so that we are able to get the input
of our citizens. There are many creative ideas, I think we would be remiss to not let these
folks tell you what we need to do to revitalize this area. This was brought home to me when
I asked employees at a local restaurant what the impact of the Oldsmobile Park had been
on their business. They said none. I think that is part of our problem. What we've done
is set up isolated groups within this whole area that we are talking about. Another thing we
need to do is address the very adversarial situation that is developing between the north
Lansing community association people and Old Town. The creative ideas, hopefully, do
not include more parking. If we need more parking, let's put another level or two on the lots
we already have. Parking spaces do not create vitality. It's dead space. We need to look
upon the City Market as a real asset of this city. It can become a hub of other activity,
similar to Balboa Park in SanDiego, or Harbor Place in Baltimore, or the River Walk in San
Antonio. We need to use our river much more creatively than we have in the past. I think
Jim Blair's comment about turning the main entrance to these businesses around so it
faces the river makes a lot of sense. We also need to look beyond this boundary of the
downtown master plan. Especially in the north where we have three real eyesores for
people that are coming in to the downtown area. I'm talking about the Melling Forge
operation, Motor Wheel, and Lindell Drop Forge. Until we do something to clean up these
eyesores, this city is not going to make much progress. I want to thank you and
recommend that we stop talking about building something for performing arts. We've
already got a building for that, it's called the Ottowa Street power station.
Jon Ezzo, 507 N. Hayford. I really don't have a recommedation, I'm not as prepared as
some of the other speakers. When you speak of community and bonding, and the cement
that goes with the bricks and the nails that go with the wood; if you would just think of us
people that are on these sites, at these locations, in terms of residents, in terms of
businesses. Nothing is more damaging than every time one of these plans or ideas come
up that we must be on wheels. We are going all which ways. Please don't send us to
Gilligan's Island by way of the Titanic. Give us a little consideration.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 19
Ed Carpenter, Liskey's Wheel Service at Larch & Cedar. I'm glad I don't have yourjob,
you've got a tough one. None of us likes change, even if it's good. I remember when I was
opposed to the cleaning up of the Grand River, we can all be wrong. I'm concerned about
the proposed change of the Cedar/Larch one-way. What little expertise I have would be
working on that corner since 1962. All it takes is one lane of that street, either side, to be
closed for construction or anything going on at the stadium and traffic will back up for two
or three blocks. That's the only north side that we have to hook up to Holt, to Dewitt, to
Bath and those areas that are growing. I think it would be a mistake for our community to
slow that traffic down. Even with going to the baseball game. If you notice, it's easy to get
to the game. Traffic flows in and out of there easily, it hardly interferes with our businesses
at all when there's a ball game. To make that two-way, those two streets would be a
problem. I hope you consider that.
Edward Simmer, 2609 Dier. I'm the Vice-Chairman of Citizen's for a Better Lansing. I'm
asking this Planning Board tonight, when you look at this plan, remember it's going to go
with us into the next millenium. Take your time and get more citizen's input. Talking about
the City Market, that was dedicated on my birthday, but long before I was born. The main
thing is, it's like tearing the heart right out of Lansing. We've torn enough historic buildings
down. Don't take any more.
Sharon Kellogg, 421 W. Ionia. I am a resident of this Lansing downtown plan, but I never
received an invitation to any stakeholder's meetings or any other meetings on this particular
subject. In the early 1980's I was elected chair of the committee to recommend
amendments to the River Island plan. We met from November of 1984 to March of 1986.
Anyone who came to these meetings was welcome to participate. We didn't have any
consultants. We worked closely with the city. We had a good relationship with the city and
coming together with our final plan, which was eventually adopted by the Planning Board
and is still in effect today. The consultants say tonight that this is not a land use plan.
What is this if it is not a land use plan and it clearly says this is the future land use plan?
I'm very confused. Copies of this report have not been available. I picked up a copy of the
document on Monday, which was due late this afternoon. I anticipate a visit from a police
officer tomorrow if it hasn't been received. I don't agree that this has been a community
driven document. I do agree with the converting of Shiawasee, Ionia, and Washtenaw
Streets to two-way traffic. Dave Berridge in the transportation department swears that I'm
going to lose my parking meters if that happens, but I guess I'll have to fight that one when
I get to it. Ionia Street is designated as low density residential, ground floor office. I am
one of the few in that proposed four block area who will be in compliance if this plan is
adopted. Medium density residential ground floor business, do you realize this is the area
from Kalamazoo to St. Joseph Street? It includes the Michigan Manufacturer's Association,
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Riley Funeral Home, all the way north to the Lansing
school board buildings. Does this seem like a reasonable classification of land use to you?
hope you're able to drive these areas before you seriously consider adopting this plan.
The Cedar/Larch corridor from Shiawassee to Maple St., it includes our only grocery store
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 20
for those of us who live downtown. Hopefully, you will be acting on the alternative that has
been offered tonight. I want to make sure that you did get the DNA position letter delivered
to the department on Monday afternoon. I delivered the letter to the Planning office
yesterday and asked to have it copied for your packets tonight. I certainly have another
copy if you don't have it.
Beverly Miller, north Lansing resident. I guess I'm one of their studies, the $28,000
medium income, since nobody elses income but north Lansing's has been mentioned. I
really don't think it's anybody's business what our income is. I'm tired of being part of
studies. When you wanted money for block grants, north Lansing was your target. What
do you do, you tear it down. All you have left of Lansing, as a historic area is mostly north
Lansing. Except for the historic buildings that are downtown used for offices, actual
residential area will probably be our area. Zoning there is a hodge podge. There is no way
you can use land without zoning it. You can't separate them. Zoning of that land is just as
important as the use of that land. Since I don't think you really plan, since you need
somebody to study for you, dumping a bar in our neighborhood is not part of your plan.
The study says the best thing that could happen to this town is cafe with alcohol and liquor.
With people who have problems with that already on every corner, and you go along with
it. You call yourself a planning board, but you don't plan. I think you know how to do it.
You need to listen to input from the people. This is a good thing here. You do have a lot
of business here, a lot of people who are investing. While they're investing they shouldn't
be disturbed with changing a residential to a commercial district. Why do you want to tear
down residential to build commercial. We're compatible. A study is alright, I suppose. We
did a study that says most of us go out to Meijer's and shop. You know why? Because we
can't park here. The study doesn't address parking at all.
Michael Marciniak, 519 Monroe St. Everyone is this room, every worker in this country
has free will. We can build all kinds of housing, but what are we going to use to entice
people to live there? Most people, when they have to find a place to live, they try to move
a little closer to where they work or shop or have friends. Most cities that do well have a
strong economic base. You can't do that with just housing. You've got to have enough
businesses to employ people that want to live there. A prime example are the tourist towns
we have around this state. Who lives there? The people that work there. I believe it would
be economic suicide for this city to push the businesses out of the industrial area. We
need more businesses here so we can have a stronger economic base to attract more
people to live here.
Harold Leeman, First Ward CounciImember. I want to thank Karen Schmidt for televising
this meeting today. I'm sure a lot of people that are watching are getting a lot of
information. I want to thank the Planning Board. You're all volunteers, and I appreciate the
time and effort you put in. Close to over 80% of the people you heard tonight are in my
district. I would just hope that you will look at each comment that they made, understand
where they are coming from, and make sure you do a reality check. Visit the area. Slow
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1996 PAGE 21
down this train regarding passing anything. Especially during the summer months, a lot of
the residents and citizens of Lansing are not paying much attention due to summertime
activities and vacations. I would hope that you could study this and gear up again in the
fall. Make sure that everybody that has an interest knows about the process that you're
going to deal with. In regards to north Lansing, I represent several parties in the Grand
River/Turner St. area. The main group that has been there for years is the North Lansing
Community Association. The new group formed over the last few years is the Old Town
Mainstreet. Don't forget those residents. There's at least 25-50 homes off of Center St.
The residents have been and will continue to be upset about the bar that was approved by
the City Council. The neighbors are going to demand that there be no more intrusion into
their neighborhood. I hope that if you have any questions or concerns, please call me. I've
been a councilmember for two and a half years. I'm a life-long resident of the City of
Lansing, and I do what I can to understand the people that I represent.
Seeing no further comments, Chairman Ruge closed the public hearing at 9:50, and
referred the matter to the Urban Development Committee, next meeting on 6/23/98 at 4:00
p.m. in the Department conference room at 316 N. Capitol Ave.
Mr. Ruge notes that the UDC will not take any action on this matter until we receive
comments from the Steering Committee so that they have a chance to review the plan and
make their recommendations and changes.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None.
VI. RECESS - The Chairman announced a short recess.
VII. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minutes for Approval: June 2, 1998. Greiner made a motion, seconded by
Smith, to approve the minutes of June 2, 1998. On a voice vote, there were:
Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of June 2, 1998,
were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports -
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Goolsby, Chair. Mr. Goolsby
explains that he had an excused absence from that week's meeting. The
committee did meet, and took some action. In looking at the rules, there
should have been a quorum of three for them to do any action. I've talked
to Mr. Frederick. I'd like to move that we discharge from the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee NCU-2-98 and LS-13-98 and refer those to the
Committee of the Whole this evening. Then have Mr. Frederick, who is
very familiar with both of those items, give the report.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 22
Motion by Goolsby, supported by Frederick to discharge NCU-2-98 and
LS-13-98 from the Zoning and Ordinance Commitee. On a voice vote,
there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously. The items are
discharged.
Motion by Goolsby, supported by Frederick to resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
On a voice vote there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously.
2. Committee of the Whole. NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S. Washington Class
"K. Mr. Frederick reported. This is the location of the old Rycus Floor
Covering that recently burned. The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate
the existing fire damaged structure which has business offices and retail
showrooms on the first floor, and apartments on the second floor. The
structure is nonconforming on two counts. It does not meet the minimum
setback requirements of the"F" Commercial District and it's located in the
100 year flood plain. As a nonconformity, the fire repair is limited to 50%
of the value of the structure. Because the estimated value of the
rehabilitation work exceeds this limit, Chapter 1294 of the Zoning Code
requires approval by the Planning Board for the repair work. The amount
of parking available is also an issue with commercial uses on the first
floor and residential on the second. The Committee found, based on
testimony, evidence and the staff report, that parking will be adequate for
the rehabilitated structure based on the eight residential units on the
second floor which is reduced to eight from nine with elimination of the
basement unit; and the continuation of the commercial use on the first
floor, the floor covering business and two other tenants. The applicant
has agreed to comply with floodplain regulations and will obtain project
approval with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The
basement will be filled with gravel which will facilitate drainage of flood
water should flooding occur, and essentially floodproof the structure.
Heretofor the structure had rental in the basement and it was not possible
to waterproof this adequately and still have it habitable. The Committee
found that the project is nonconforming because of the parking. However,
parking needs can be met on the site and on the street. The setback of
this structure also conforms with the character of the neighborhood. The
Committee felt that NCU-2-98 at 1000-1006 Washington should be
approved with the conditions that I mentioned in our finding.
Moved by Frederick, supported by Smith to approve NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S.
Washington.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 23
Ms. Keene reminded the Board that when this matter came up for public hearing she
mentioned that she had entered into a contract with the applicant for some tile work.
At that point she was recused. At this time Ms. Keene left the room.
Mr. Ruge questioned the parking situation.
Mr. Frederick stated staff did present evidence that they had evaluated the parking
situation. The parking is considered street parking and will allow them to have
enough parking spots along with some that are on the rest of the property that will
allow them to meet the needs of the tenants and customers.
There were no further comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby Ave
Greiner. . . Ave Keene. . Recused
Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . Aye
Smith . . Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0. NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S.
Washington, Class A , was APPROVED.
LS-13-98, 4802 Bristol St. Mr. Frederick reported. 6.89-acre parcel that the
applicant proposes to split into two lots of 3.00 acres (parcel A) and 3.89 acres
(parcel B). The proposed lots, which are much larger than other established
lots of record in the neighborhood, would each have 25 feet of frontage on the
Briston St. right-of-way. The lot would be split down the middle and a joint
access easement for the two lots would be recorded with the County Register
of Deeds. Based on testimony and evidence, the Committee found that the
division is compatible with the surrounding road development and is reasonable
based upon the situation. In our discussion, the Committee felt that because it's
a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Planning Board must send
a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the lot split. We
recommended that the lot split be approved with the following conditions: 1)
there needs to be an easement for a joint driveway as shown on the report
maps; 2) that the driveway must be paved to meet code when it is constructed;
3) that homes to be located on the parcels to be created should not be placed
so as to prevent the extension of Bristol Street, or else a cul-de-sac street
should be specified in the plat; 4) that all necessary and existing easemenst for
utilities should be reserved.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 24
Motion by Frederick, second by Smith to approve LS-13-98, 4802 Bristol St. with the
four conditions as stated.
Mr. Frederick commented that at the public hearing for LS-13-98, there was concern
from the neighborhood that Bristol Street not be extended through to Jolly Road and
that explains why we included a cul-de-sac street be specified in the plat.
Mr. Ruge stated his opposition to the lot split as proposed. As proposed the lots are
land locked, and neither of the lots can be developed without the concurrence of the
other lot owner. He would be supportive if Bristol Street was extended into the two
lots so that they both had frontage on an actual street for future development.
Ms. Love stated if you try to extend Bristol St., both of the owners would be
responsible for the extension for water, sewer, and the street. I'm not certain whether
they would be willing to incur those costs.
Mr. Frederick notes the matter was discussed at the Committee meeting. We were
aware that the way the lot split was proposed could prevent further future
development. At that time Mr. Ruff proposed that cul-de-sac be specified in the plat.
He felt that would allow future development. That's why we included the third
condition.
Further discussion regarding the inclusion of the cul-de-sac in the plat, the placement
of the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Frederick's interpreting Mr. Ruff's reasonings.
Mr. Frederick proposed changing the third condition to read that Bristol Street be
platted as a cul-de-sac to insure that future development of the two lots as a
subdivision be possible.
Ms. Love stated the extension of a road is not normally contemplated in a lot split.
She suggested that instead of making that decision this evening, it would be prudent
for staff to take that back to the Public Service Department and some of the other
agencies to make sure that if we are going to recommend this that it's something that
is viable. I don't believe that they have had an opportunity to review it as they would
review a plat.
Motion by Frederick, supported by Smith to table LS-13-98, 4802 Bristol St., for
further investigation. On a voice vote, motion carried unanimously.
LS-13-98, 4802 Briston St. was TABLED.
Motion by Goolsby, supported by Frederick to rise from the Committee of the Whole.
On a voice vote, motion passes unanimously.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 25
Next Meeting Wednesday, July 15, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nischan, Chair, reports the
committee hasn't met. Next Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 1998 at 4 p.m.,
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee - Has not met.
4. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Greiner reported. The committee met this
evening to consider two items. NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S. Washington,
Class "A". This was nonconforming on setback requirements and is
located in the 100 year floodplain. Available parking was an issue. It was
found based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the parking
will be adequate and that the requirements causing the Class "A" can be
overcome. The item was recommended for approval, it was approved.
Moved by Greiner, supported by Goolsby, to approve NCU-2-98.
At this time Ms. Keene again left the meeting.
There was no further discussion.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner . Ave Keene. . Recused
Miller . Ave Nischan . Ave
Smith . Ave Ruge • Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0. NCU-2-98, 1000-1006 S. Washington,
Class A , was APPROVED.
The second item taken up by the Committee of the Whole was LS-13-98,
4802 Bristol Street. After much discussion and consideration, this item
was tabled for further review.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love introduced Sam Quon, the new senior planner. Ms. Love also spoke
about the University of Wisconsin seminar she attended, and indicated the
materials she brought back for review.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
PLANNING HOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 26
1. Committee of the Whole
a. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98);
b. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street (Act-7-98);
C. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98);
d. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. (Act-9-98);
e. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98),
f. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98);
g. SLU-11-98,Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. (Act-12-
98);
h. SLU-12-98, Fire Station#4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98);
i. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise
Rd.;
j SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.;
k. SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St.;
I. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue.
(Tabled in Committee of the Whole May 19, 1998)
2. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to
"D-1" Professional Office District (Tabled January 6, 1998)
3. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to"G-2"
Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to
"G1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to
"G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998)
4. Urban Development Committee
8. NEW BUSINESS - None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Ruge stated it's his understanding that the staff has proposed or designated
areas for the next master plan. Rumor has it there are twelve separate areas. I
wonder if we might be able to have a look at those and give our input. Perhaps it
would quell some of the negativity from the public.
Ms. Love stated the twelve areas came from a memo generated about three years
ago from the mayor, before we started the master plan. Ellen Beal corrected me
tonight, but she didn't hear properly, because what I said was that City Council
wanted to have comprehensive plans, I did not say that they only wanted to have a
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 27
downtown plan. Ms. Love explained the reason for bringing in consultants was
because the Council wanted the plan"done yesterday". Ms. Love also explained the
quadrants and twelve areas of study. Ms. Love noted the Planning office has been
trying to figure out ways to be more effective in terms of responding to citizen groups.
There are a number of groups out there who used to have close ties with the
Department. When we went through early retirement, there just weren't enough of
us left to go around. We couldn't do all of the neighborhood work that we used to do.
Consequently, we got away from being geographically based. At this point, we feel
the need to become more geographically based, to provide that point of contact for
neighborhood groups. As a result, now that we have our fifth planner on staff, we are
going to divide the city geographically, and designate a section for each planner.
One of the things I got out of last week's seminars was an environmental scan
system. Each planner will be going out and developing material on their area and
finding out what the issues are in their area, and meeting with the neighborhood
groups and letting those people know that they now have a point of contact.
Mr. Ruge mentioned the Quality Dairy parking lot on Mt. Hope just west of
Washington. I see that the property is now for sale. I don't remember what we did
to the property, if we rezoned it.
Ms. Love stated to the best of my recollection the property is zoned "D-1"
Professional office. I think we rezoned it more than a couple years ago, it's more like
five or six years ago, it was before Quality Dairy owned the property.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick stated tee-, that I will be sending
you a memo regarding this the Lansing Comprehensive Plan proposal.
Mr. Ger Goolsby stated I will do the same.
Ms. Love suggested sharing those with Mike because he is going to the steering
committee meetings. And, if you give them to me, I'll make sure the Board gets them.
Mr. Nischan noted we are not taking the master plan up in the Urban Development
Committee until the steering committee has had a chance to respond.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - none
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JUNE 16 , 1998 PAGE 28
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
West Town Redevelopment
1018 West Lapeer
Lansing, Michigan 48915
"Together we area whole." Phone 517-482-0213 Fax 517-482-0213
President Neil Park Vice President Tom Croff Secretary/Treasurer
Carol Wood
June 16, 1998
Planning Board
316 N. Capitol Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Dear Sirs;
Subject: Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan
West Town Redevelopment monthly meeting was held today June 16. At this meeting the
comprehensive study plan was discussed. The membership's opinion of the plan was concern and
frustration. West Town Redevelopment has been working for the past three years in trying to crave
out a place for itself with the Lansing community. The fact that part of their boundaries are involved
in this plan without taking in the complete Saginaw strip is confusing. We are well aware you must
establish some kind of boundaries but we feel there should have been more consideration for this
area that does not have a river, or major highway which would cut us off from the downtown area.
This neighborhood has been known for years to be a walking community for the downtown
businesses.
West Town also asks that there be continuous input from neighborhoods and businesses, which
could affect the success of this project. We need to have businesses that will complement what will
be happening in the downtown area and not to consider West Town as part of this could create
failure for an area that is making a difference today in Lansing. Our brief study of the information
presented to us raises more questions than answers. We strong suggest that this plan be returned
to the steering committee after public comment, and continue with more dialog and citizen input,
now that a foundation has been laid. We are well aware that this committee and consultants have
made efforts to include citizens and neighborhoods, but we do feel that the importance of this project
needs more than just the average meetings.
Lansing has been wrestling with the rain fee for three years because of the lack of information,
which in turn caused the community not to buy. We do not wish to create another rain fee crisis with
the master plan. We have a change to encourage more participation, now is the time is examine,
refine, and produce a plan all of Lansing can truly say they been part of. World-class cities do not
happen over night.
Sincerely
Neil Park
President
G
N1 9
79 8
PRINCIPAL SHOPPING DISTRICT
FS O
F•OT
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Comprehensive Master Plan, June 16, 1998
Statement by Steve Hrapkiewicz, PSD Board Member
My name is Steve Hrapkiewicz a member of the Board of Directors of the Principal Shopping District
(PSD). I am here to make a statement on behalf of the Principal Shopping District. We appreciate the
opportunity to serve on the Steering Committee of the Master Plan.
1) The PSD funded the marketing and business recruitment/retention study of retail business in Old
Town and Downtown portions of this plan. We request that the Planning Commission SEPARATE the
marketing issues from those raised by the Land Use map. The PSD has an immediate need to begin
collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce,Lansing 2000,and its other shareholders to develop a
marketing and.business recruitment/retention plan based, in part,on this plan.
2) The PSD is unable to endorse the general recommendations of this plan regarding retail space, until it
receive a more detailed information and explanation of the underlying assumptions of market study by
those who prepared the data. Specifically, we need more information about the rationale for only 24,000
square feet of retail space recommended for Downtown Lansing when we have four blocks of retail district
to fill. We also need more information about the assumptions for existing businesses,facade development,
and other issues as outlined in the draft plan.
3) Equally important, the PSD Board has received testimony and several distraught calls regarding the
Land Use Map and its potential impact on their livelihood from its shareholders in"C"District, i.e. along
the Cedar/Larch corridor. The PSD is willing to facilitate and host a meeting between the Planning
Department and these business owners to explain the details of the Land Use Plan for this corridor in an
effort to reach consensus. As land use and zoning issues are not the responsibility of the PSD,we do not
wish to take a position on the specifics of these issues,we are willing to help facilitate dialog to reduce
fears of business owners. The PSD urges the Planning Department and Planning Commission to take the
necessary time to seek input and resolve the concerns of our shareholders in order to address the potential
impact on their livelihoods.
4) We also urge to engage the residential areas adjacent to the PSD in a deliberative and consultative
process to ensure concerns about business development in residential neighborhoods are adequately
addressed. The PSD Board has received testimony and calls from residents adjacent to the PSD about the
boundaries proposed in the Land Use Plan. Again,the PSD does not wish to take a position on the
specifics of these issues as they are outside the boundaries of the PSD,but we urge the Planning
Department and Planning Commission to take the necessary time to seek input and resolve concerns of
these residents who are our customers to address the potential impact on their neighborhoods.
5)The references regarding the PSD need to be edited throughout the document to correspond with the
changed title. The section on implementation should be revised and the reference to the PSD re-
evaluating its mission should be deleted. Make no mistake, the PSD is ready to offer its support and
collaboration to work with the City, Lansing 2000 and other organizations to implement the portions of
the plan that are consistent with our mission and ordinance. However, the PSD will need additional
resources from the City of Lansing to do so.
Please forward to the PSD the changes that result from this hearing. We look forward to meeting with the
Consultants to discuss the marketing portions of this plan in greater detail. Thank you for your
consideration.
P.O. BOX 12301 ■ LANSING, IAIRIGAN 48901-2301 ■ TEL: 517-487-3322 ■ fAX: 517-487-5889■ [MAIL: PSDLANS®IX.NEICOM.COA1
M
E M O R A N D U M
To: City of Lansing Planning Commission
AFrom: Old Town Main Street
i 0 l)
Subject: PSD Master Plan Draft �!
LLD TOWN Date: June 16, 1998
ilafnstreet
513 E.Grand River The Old Town Commercial Association has reviewed the draft Master Plan for
Lansing,Michigan p
aaeos the Princi al Shopping District and would like to offer the following comments
for your consideration:
517-485-4283
517-485-4303fax
i-Town@woridnet.att.net 1. Zoning Identification
Current zoning and existing land use are incompatible in many locations in Old
Town. We would like to see mention in the Master Plan to address the issue of
spot zoning and consider the option of blanket rezoning over some parcels of
land. This would be especially useful in the ore t-,e Nstoric commercial
it a cZ ro or almost zero lot
district, where parcels are often zoned F-I
lines and in the residential district immediately to the north of the commercial
district, which is mostly zoned�l-light industrial.
2. Parking
As more and more businesses have been locating in the Old Town District,
parking-is becoming a concern, not only to meet zoning regulations, but also to
meet future customer needs. We would like to see a recommendation of future
parking locations in the Old Town District. It is mentioned that additional
parking will be needed. We strongly recommend that location and types of
parking should also be identified.
3. Circulation
Heavy truck traffic in Old Town has been an interference, for the safety of
pedestrian traffic and for the noise pollution they produce. We highly encourage
that an alternative for heavy truc�s��a tsuch sought
traffic be identified
routed directly through
Plan. We do not, however, end
the North Street corridor as that is a Low Density Residential district
AL pra6ect of the We also recommend that Liberty Street be made two-way between Cedar and
Old Town Larch streets.
Commercial
Association
City of Lansing Planning Commission
Page 2
une 16, 1998
4. Future Land Use- Additional Recommendations
The "On the Grand" condominium_site should be identified as Medium Density Residential.
The east side of the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Turner Street should be part of the Old Town
Commercial District
The block bounded by Turner, North, Center and Beaver should not be low density residential,
but either identified as Gateway or Neighborhood Services. This will help to buffer the
warehouse/industrial blocks to the north of the residential district.
The northwest corner of Clinton and Center Streets should be designated as Low Density
Residential.
The blocks bounded by Washington, Oakland, Grand, and Saginaw should be changed to
Medium Density Residential/Ground Floor Business.
The site of O'Leary Paint and the Oakland Center should remain office and commercial use as
they are not a threat to the river and they are in the flood plain.
The block bounded by Center, Oakland, Cedar, and Monroe should be changed to Medium or
High Density Residential. This land use could better make use of the river views and river
access.
5. Historic Preservation
The historic Old Town Commercial District provides unique advantages for the Principal
Shopping District mostly due to the integrity of the historic structures. Historic protection for
those buildings within the North Lansing National Register Historic District and other key sites
such as the historic homes on Washington Avenue and historic church structures that serve as
landmarks to the city, should be enacted.
yPN S 1NC
�r P�
lC G
Office of City Clerk
Marilynn Slade City of Lansing
City Clerk FAX COVER SHEET
TO: /� `J ✓' /' /�'o
FROM:
RE: /�"'/ -t �wtrz'uj
DATE:
TOTAL PAGES:
1
� v
Ninth Floor,City Hall, 124 W.Michigan Ave.,Lansing,MI 48933-1695•517-377-0068 FAX
Main Office•517-483-4131 • Voters Registration,Absentee Ballots•517-483-4133
Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 • 517-483-4131 • 517-377-0068 FAX
A