Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 Planning Board Jul-Sept minutes FINAL Draft 071098 Approved 080498 To Clerk 082099 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD r� 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, July 7, 1998 I. OPENING SESSION: U Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith; seven members present. B. Excused Absences - Nischan. Mr. Nischan, because he will be out of town, requested an excused absence. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller to grant Mr. Nischan an excused absence; voice vote; unanimous; carried. C. Introductions. Ms. Love introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, and James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Patricia Cook, Economic Development Corporation, transmitted proposed amendments for the Seven Block Development Plan and Ordinance #866. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Bulk Petroleum to rezone a portion of property of 5161 N. Grand River Avenue at the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Waverly Road. The property currently has a gas station and a canopy. They plan to remodel the facility. The extreme west portion triangle adjacent to Waverly Road is still zoned "A" Residential as a result of improvements when the connection was made to Grand River and Waverly. The applicant wants rezoning from "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District in order to build the canopy which will extend into that area of the property. To the north, east and west is nonresidential use; to the south is residential use, multi family development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 2 TOM SCHUMACHER, REPRESENTING BULK PETROLEUM, 9653 NORTH GRANVILLE ROAD, MEQUON, WI. Mr. Ruff will be requesting that the existing driveway on Waverly be moved away from the intersection. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the close of the public hearing for Z-6-98 and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on July 15, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-19-98 6324 Aurelius Road, Proposed Church. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Thomas Hummer of South Lansing Christian Church, which has an option to purchase the property at 6324 Aurelius Road in order to construct the church. The 16-acre property, zoned "A" Residential, is owed by Mr. & Mrs. Balmer, who previously lived in the home on the site. The property has been for sale for a considerable period of time. The church has an option on the property for development of the church and church facilities including a bible school and family life center. They have presented a site plan. They want to get approval to construct a church on this site to finalize the purchase, recognizing that exact building plans may change. The properties to the north are larger pieces of land with single family homes on them. The parcels to the south have no street frontage on Aurelius Road, but they are in common ownership with access off the road to the west, the stub street. Marscot Park, immediately west of the property, is adjacent to the single family neighborhood west of that. The church proposes a family center of 20,000 sq ft, an educational unit of approximately 10,000 sq ft, and a worship sanctuary of 22,000-plus sq. ft. for approximately 800-1,200 members. The seating capacity has not been determined for the hall of worship. Mr. Ruge asked if the housing on Scotmar and Masonet is apartments; Mr. Ruff said yes. Mr. Smith asked how the parking area is accessed? Solely off Aurelius Road? Mr. Ruff said this site is accessed solely off Aurelius Road. There is a driveway that leads to the existing house which is on the extreme south side of this property. That is the limit of access to this property. Mr. Ruge asked what is the zoning of the triangular-shaped piece of property; Mr. Ruff said it is "A" Residential. Mr. Ruff has met with Mr. Balmer and with Mr. Skorey, who owns the parcel south of the site, to discuss options for the collective use of the property. A big concerns is how the development of this site affects the potential development of the surroundings, because these are large pieces of land, and this bisects them. TOM HUMMER, 10378 DIMONDALE, SOUTH LANSING CHRISTIAN CHURCH, one of the elders and chairman of the building committee of South PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 3 Lansing Christian Church. Our present property is at 4002 S. Pennsylvania Avenue in South Lansing. We've been pleased to be in the City of Lansing, and we would like to stay. At present, we're outgrowing our facilities. Our congregation is running just under 400 hundred a week. We see future growth. We've been at that location for about 45 years now; this property seems to fit our needs. Hopefully, it will fit the needs to the neighborhood also. JAMES SWEANY, 6928 AURELIUS RD., LANSING. I am opposed to this development. The way it is right now, I have one day of rest, and it's Sunday. Since that road was widened and the sewers put in, it's just a race track. There's a lot of heavy trucking, it's really a noisy street and dangerous, hard to get out on certain times of the day. Two hours in the day, it's just merely dangerous to get out of my driveway, and it's just going to drag the problem into the weekend where, depending on what sort of activity they have throughout the week, they are talking in the paper and estimating 1,800 people, between 400 people and 1,800 people. But, still, with the road, it's just a hazard for myself and my family presently. I don't dare let the children cross the road unattended or anything, so all I can say is, maybe we can talk to the neighborhoods and make the neighbors more aware of what's going on and see how they feel about it, because I don't think anybody is happy with the traffic as it is. It's a nuisance, and I only have one day of rest, and I would like to keep Sunday at least a day when I can get out of my driveway safely. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge closed the public hearing for SLU-19-98. C. Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Plan #1, 5032 S. Cedar St., Lansing. Ms. Love said board members at the last meeting were given a package of materials regarding the Brownfield Redevelopment public hearing, which is before you this evening. "I would like to give you some background." The State of Michigan in 1996 developed legislation which allowed individual communities to create brownfield redevelopment authorities. Those authorities had several purposes. One was to create a mechanism which would allow communities to help fund the cleanup of brownfield sites within their boundaries. Secondly, it would permit them to create a revolving fund which allows five additional years of continued tax capture after the cleanup. Thirdly, it creates a mechanism to match businesses with sites within the municipality, and lastly, it is a method which allows the City to better compete with greenfield sites in suburban areas, because it provides a mechanism to negate the additional cost that would normally be incurred by businesses if they were to move into a brownfield site. In 1997, the City of Lansing designated the entire city as a brownfields redevelopment district, and City Council designated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 4 the Economic Development Corporation as the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. Last year they created an overall brownfield plan which included a process for identifying and approving individual sites to be included. The process includes a public hearing before the Planning Board as the board that deals primarily with land use in the city. The recommendation would then be made to the City Council for their final approval. We are working through this process for the first time tonight, and we do have a member of the Economic Development Corporation staff here this evening who will explain the particulars of this site. CYNTHIA LIDTKE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 316 N. CAPITOL. This site is on the northwest corner of Jolly and Cedar, the Rite-Aid Pharmacy. Initially, it was thought that there were two underground tanks. Later, a third tank was found. The developer has paid for the initial clean-up. We will be repaying them over six years, and then after that we have five years of tax capture that we will put in a revolving fund that we can take to any other site in the city. We do have some cost up front, but we have a total of 11 years of tax capture for this project. It is approximately $45,000 for the project, and $56,000 that will be put in the revolving loan fund for a total of approximately $100,000. Mr. Ruge asked if this is the first site under this new legislation and if it can be used for other abandoned gas stations; Ms. Lidtke said yes, abandoned gas stations and industrial sites--anything that is contaminated. We have four or five sites that we are currently looking at, and only one was a gas station; the others were industrial sites. The reason the whole city is a brownfield zone is so we can take the money from the project on Cedar and Jolly and use it on any other site in the City of Lansing for the revolving fund. Mr. Ruge asked if Rite-Aid came to the City for help, or did the City go looking? How did that happen? Ms. Lidtke said "I can't remember how we made our initial contact." We contacted the developer who actually dug up the tanks and explained the program to him. We needed a site that will have significant tax capture, so we could quickly capitalize our revolving fund. We have been talking to developers throughout the city, explaining to them what this program is, and how they can use it, and that they need to make initial contact as early as possible. E. Love explained that it is important to keep in mind that we can't just go in to capture money and clean up a site unless we have a business ready to develop the site, because it is the return on the taxes that allows us to repay the fund, replenishing it and making it grow. Without the new business going PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 5 into the site, and without the tax dollars that come from property and income and personal taxes, we don't capture enough to pay for the Brownfield. So what we have to do is make sure we have a business when we are ready to do the clean-up, and then marry the two. That is what we can do here. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each): Seeing no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman declared Comments closed. 6. RECESS: A fifteen-minute recess was announced. The Chairman reconvened the session at 8:11 p.m. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for approval: None available. B. Committee of the Whole: Did not meet. C. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Goolsby, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, in the Conference Room, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee, Ms. Keene, Chair. The Urban Development Committee met on June 23 and again tonight. a. Act-1-98, 100-200 N. Capitol Ave., ROW Encroachments. Act-1-98 is a revised plan from Capitol Outlook involving some new encroachments that have been apparently necessary to construct the Legislative Office Building. Some changes have been necessary. The Capitol Outlook Project would include an existing 8 in encroachment at the 200 N. Capitol Bldg. to accommodate the change in the facade, and also subsurface encroachments at 123 W. Ottawa for underground parking that exists at present; in addition, a proposed 5 in encroachment for the former Board of Water and Light Building at 123 W. Ottawa, and an additional 24 in encroachment for bay windows projecting into the air space at and including the third story above street level of the Legislative Office Building to an unspecified story. We don't know how high these 24 in encroachments will have to go, because the plan has been revised again very recently. The proposal was acceptable to the Committee. A motion was made, seconded and carried to approve the proposed changes subject to approval by the Michigan Department of Transportation and the City Transportation Engineer. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 6 In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve the proposed changes, subject to approval by the Michigan Department of Transportation and the City Transportation Engineer, because we still do not have recommendations from those two organizations. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve Act-1-98, 100-200 North Capitol Ave., Right-of-way Encroachments. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said when Capitol Outlook was before the Board previously, he felt it was prudent to recuse himself because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. At the time, he was a tenant in the building; however, since he is no longer a lessor there, he firmly believes there is no conflict. "I will vote on this matter this evening." Frederick. . . Ave Greiner. .Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . .. . Ave Smith. . . Ave Goolsby . .Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-1-98, 100-200 North Capitol Avenue, Right-of-way Encroachments was APPROVED. b. Act-14-98, 302 Mifflin St., Handicap Ramp in Right-of-way. This is a proposal by the Apostolic Tower of Power Temple Church at 302 S. Mifflin Street to construct a handicap ramp that would extend into the right-of-way. The church is located on a lot that is extremely narrow. They already have a ramp in place which is in the right-of-way, and it doesn't meet the code. The applicant would like to rebuild the ramp on the north side at the same location, but the front yard setback is shallow, so the ramp at either entrance would be at least partially located within the right-of-way. The rear yard provides enough space for the ramp, but, according to the applicant, using the rear entrance would impede activities in the pulpit area. The staff recommended, based upon review of the location, character and extent of the proposal, that the Board deny locating the ramp in the public right-of-way. The staff suggests the applicant relocate the ramp possibly in the rear. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, to deny the proposal. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 7 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to deny Act-14-98, 302 Mifflin Street, Handicap Ramp in Right-of-way. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Goolsby . Ave Greiner. . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith .Aye Frederick . .Ave Ruge . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-14-98, 302 Mifflin St., Handicap Ramp in Right-of-way, was DENIED. C. Act-15-98, River Trail West Project. The applicant, the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, is requesting an Act 285 review be conducted to extend the River Trail from Elm Street to Moores Park. They presented their proposal at the June 23, 1998, Urban Development Committee meeting. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Act-15-98, River Trail West. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal, that: 1. This project is in conformance with the River Point and Southwest Area Comprehensive Plans, as well the Plan for Development of Lansing's Waterfront, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. This project provides opportunities for linking parks and cultural amenities in a multi-use trail for nonmotorized transportation. 3. Additional linkage opportunities could exist by expanding the project to extend River Trail access to the Cooley Gardens area on the west side of the Grand River. 4. River Trail patrols by the Lansing Police Department, and the visibility and public use of the trail will work to ensure the safety of trail users. In Committee it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, to recommend approval of Act-15-98, subject to the following: 1. The architect work closely with the Board of Water and Light regarding their concerns about safety in the event of a dam breakage. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 8 2. The connection from the Riverwalk to the area's points of interest (i.e., Cooley Gardens, Women's Hall of Fame and Scott House/Garden) be strongly encouraged. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve Act-15-98, River Trail West, with conditions that 1. The architect work closely with the Board of Water and Light regarding their concerns about safety in the event of a dam breakage. 2. The connection from the Riverwalk to the area's points of interest (i.e., Cooley Gardens, Women's Hall of Fame and Scott House/Garden) be strongly encouraged. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Extensive discussion ensued in which the Board recognized the need to connect the River Trail to Cooley Gardens, etc., for signage as an interim measure and that high priority be placed on securing future funding in the form of a time frame for making application for the money for the goal of accessing Cooley Gardens and connecting to other points of interest. Mr. Goolsby asked about a previous question concerning the River and Waterfront Board. Mr. Ruff said the River and Waterfront Board did review this extension, though not in this particular form, but had supported its extension. They encouraged the extension to Moores Park. Chairman Ruge handed the gavel to Mr. Greiner. The nature of funding cycles was considered, also interactions with state funding agencies, and the difficulties of connecting the site to the River Trail. The decision was reached to put this off for two more weeks until July 21 when Mr. Reickel will be here for the public hearing for the sale of the Boat Club property. The Board can then communicate to Mr. Reickel its keen interest in the River Trail West project. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to table Act-15-98, River Trail West Project. Mr. Ruge resumed the chair. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 1; carried; Act-15-98, River Trail West Project was TABLED. Mr. Frederick said, because of the public perception of the potential for crime on the River Trail, there is a need for additional police patrols on this new section of the River Trail and suggested that the issue be brought up on July 21 when Mr. Reickel is in attendance. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 9 The next meeting Urban Development Committee will be Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - did not meet. C. Report from the Planning Manager Ms. Love said we need to set dates for the Executive Committee to meet. The consensus is that prior to board meeting is the best time. After discussion, the next meeting of the Executive Committee was set for 5:30 p.m., September 1, 1998. This evening's packet contained the Seven Block Amendments materials for Board review. We have been working with the Citizens District Council for the past year to find developers for the commercial section of the Seven Block Plan. We sent out one RFP, asking developers just to bid on commercial; then we sent another RFP asking for the whole development, including the residential and commercial. Some companies indicated an interest in the residential, some were interested in nonresidential, but mostly they needed more flexibility than proposed in the plan which was for a neighborhood full- service grocery store and neighborhood commercial center. They also wanted the flexibility of office development in the plan. The CDC feels that, to take advantage of the Renaissance Zone, it is important to move quickly and that it would be appropriate at this time to provide the additional flexibility to potential developers of the nonresidential section to include office as well as commercial. Most of the amendments deal with changes in the neighborhood appearance standards or in the way funding is structured. This is the information that we are sending to the City Council at this time. The plan amendment is not so much in terms of the zoning of the land or actually even in the use. The previous wording of the plan was so specific that it eliminated any other possibilities. "The basic change is to encourage office/commercial and that it still be targeted toward use by people in the neighborhood. I bring it to you tonight asking for the Board's recommendation for approval and knowing that the City Council has a public hearing scheduled for August 3, 1998, on this particular issue to change Ordinance #866." Mr. Smith asked what happened with the purchase and relocation of the congregation of the Church of Greater Joy. Ms. Love said the City bought the church and paid to have it relocated. Mr. Smith asked if you will still maintain the residential character even though you are looking for office and commercial. Ms. Love said the residential uses are primarily located south of Kalamazoo, and nonresidential uses are located PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 10 primarily north of Kalamazoo. That overall strategy has not changed, and we are moving right now with several of the non-profit organizations to do five brand new houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge said, regarding the second page, amendment No. 1, taking out the word "neighborhood" and adding the word "office", it then says "General professional office use not in competition with office development in the Central Business District is also recommended" and then they give examples such as medical offices, which are not in competition with the Central Business District, but then law offices, insurance offices and lobbyists' offices. These offices are prime for being in the Central Business District. We're trying to concentrate office downtown in the Central Business District. This is going to muddy that up by giving people tax breaks to put office away from the CBD. It could become a big office complex that's tax subsidized. Ms. Love said this is certainly is an area of concern for staff as well. Insurance agents don't typically locate downtown. Lawyers can locate any place in the city. Lobbyists we have discouraged north of the Capitol Building. The whole purpose of the 1986 amendment to the master plan was to reduce the pressure on the housing stock north of the downtown area. We would want to maintain smaller buildings with more of a residential scale. There is a place for small lobby groups here. Large lobby groups such as the State Chamber and Michigan Manufacturers tend to locate along the freeway where they are available to their state membership. Mr. Goolsby said it's too far for lobbyists to walk to the Capitol so for the most part they won't locate in the Seven Block Area. He was concerned about a large building or several large buildings there. It is very important that they not be there, and it is also very important for the buildings that are constructed to look more residential than commercial. Mr. Ruge said we should put in language reflecting Mr. Goolsby's statements, because nothing here says anything like that; it only says office. Referred to Urban Development Committee meeting at 4 p.m. July 14, 1998, in the Department Conference Room. Mr. Ruff reviewed the status of communication tower planning. The City is close to choosing one of two RFP respondents to be the manager of communication tower sites. To start with, we will bring maybe five sites to the Board for consideration. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 11 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.; 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 "G-1" 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) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98,401-407 E.Grand River,"F"Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) 4. Urban Development Committee a. Central Lansing Comprehensive Master Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge said that the Capitol Limited Partnership, represented by Emerson Ohl, has invited the Planning Board and the Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood Development to attend the demolition of 200 N. Capitol at 1.30 Wednesday, July 8, 1998. Mr. Ruge will be away July 9-21 and will miss the July 14 Urban Development Committee meeting, and possibly the July 21 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to excuse Mr. Ruge from the two meetings; voice vote; unanimous; carried. Mr. Ruge was excused. Chairman Ruge commented that brownfield redevelopment is very exciting. Why can't the City seek developers for Action Auto sites. Ms. Love said while they are highly visible, we are trying to work some of the larger sites such as Heatherwood Farms, where we can capture significant revenues. There, with Bud Kouts, Logan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 12 Brothers, and some of the other more positively placed developments nearby, you can also capture taxes for five years from the surrounding area. That is what builds up value. Also, it is more difficult to attract a new business to a small site, like Drake's or Action Auto, because they don't typically have a lot of capital. On a bigger site, you can locate potentially a bigger company that may have capital to float up front. We only have to pay them back over time. So there are many factors to consider concerning which site we do first. Chairman Ruge said, regarding the sign that was in the right-of-way on West Mt. Hope, the City Council didn't go along with us. They worked out some kind of license deal. It would be helpful if we could learn of these things somehow so that the Planning Board can know what City Council did to our work. Ms. Love said we can provide you with a chart at least quarterly, because it takes about three months for things to get through the process. Chairman Ruge said the West Mt. Hope sign was approved, but totally different from what we approved. Ms. Love said we could indicate that. "I try to keep you updated on the ones where we have major differences of opinion like Blue Water or the PRD on S. Martin Luther King Boulevard." Planners should review the resolution, because the Planning staff has to carry it out anyway. What we are going to do is assign planners geographically so they will know the final outcome of things in their own area. Having to compare what the Planning Board did with what the City Council ultimately did is good practice for the planners. Chairman Ruge asked about the status of the parking plan for Old Town. Ms. Love said it is progressing and is in the hands of the Transportation Engineer. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS: Mr. Greiner requested an excused absence for all August meetings. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to grant an excused absence to Mr. Greiner, voice vote; unanimous; carried; approved. Ms. Keene asked, regarding the Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan, if all the public hearings have been held or if there will be additional public hearings or meetings to get input. Ms. Love said she wants to talk to the Executive Committee about a process that everyone here is comfortable with before we venture out into the rest of the City. It has been her experience working with neighborhood groups, that when you get close to making final decisions, they get cold feet. We have had one more meeting since the last board meeting and we plan to have one more meeting July 23, 1998. We PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 Page 13 will come back with a finalized plan. The Planning Committee will probably be sending something to you in August. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS: Mr. Smith notified staff about the Bad Habit signs; across from there is a Quality Dairy with signs up on the light posts and asked what is acceptable? Mr. Ruff said even if they are allowed without permit, they still have to meet the sign code. Mr. Ruge asked about the parking lot on Grand and East Michigan Avenue. Mr. Ruff sent the owner a letter in June. It is past the cut-off date, so he will send a letter notifying them to cease using it. 12. ADJOURNMENT -was at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board aAmn070798 51 Act-1-98 100-200 Blk. N. Capitol Ave., ROW Encroachments GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Capitol Outlook L.L.C. 309 N. Washington Avenue Suite 115 Lansing, Michigan 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review, ROW Vacation EXISTING LAND USE: Office, Capitol Ave ROW EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business, unzoned ROW PROPOSED ZONING: Encroachment area would receive "G-1" Zoning Classification PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Office Buildings S: Office Buildings E: Office Buildings W: Capitol Building and Capitol Avenue ROW SURROUNDING ZONING: N: G-1 Business S: G-1 Business E: G-1 Business W: Unzoned MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Comprehensive Master Plan recommends continued use of the right of way for street purposes. However, it does not speak to the use of the air or subsurface rights. SPECIFIC INFORMATION: APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Use of existing encroachments into the Capitol Avenue public ROW(approx. 8") at street level, use of existing underground parking area (which already encroaches into the Capitol Avenue ROW), and the use of an additional 24" of ACT-1-98 100-200 BLK. N. CAPITOL AVE. RnW Ff�If Qnnr 4MENTR Capitol Avenue ROW air space above the third floor. BACKGROUND: This project utilizes the air space over the Ottawa Street ROW in order to construct a span which will connect two separate buildings. The new combined structure will house State Legislative Offices under a lease with the State of Michigan. This project was reviewed by the Planning Board (Act-1-98) and approved in concept. During the course of this project, it was determined that approval was necessary for the private use of existing and proposed encroachments into the Capitol Avenue ROW. (See attached). AGENCY RESPONSES: Respondents were given until July 1, 1998 to provide their comments. The following are the comments received to date: AMERITECH: No response received at this time. BWL: Electric Utility: No response received at this time. Water Utility: No response received at this time. Street Liight� No response received at this time. Steam Utility• No response received at this time. Consumers Energy: No response received at this time. Media One: Media One has no problem with the encroachments. We have conduits located on the west side of Capitol Ave. The proposed encroachment of this project will not interfere with us. Public Service: No response received at this time. Trans. Eng: No response received at this time. MDOT: No response has been received at this time. ACT-1-98 100-200 BLK. N. CAPITOL AVE. A A I According to Act 285 of the Public Acts of 1931 aand must edbehe S ua,tedpurchase three substantial change in use of publicly ow criteria. Those criteria are: Location, Character and Extent. I O ATION: The current encroachments into the Capwith suol e nue oundingVusesV have Thesproposed number of years, with no incompatibility encroachments consist of an additional 24", located above the third floor. They provide each office with a view of the State Capitol, and are important to the exterior appearance of the building. CHARACTER: The building design features bay windows, which afford the Capitol views, and enhance the building appearance. They also would encroach 24" into air space in the Capitol Avenue ROW. EXTENT The encroachments for 200 N. Capitol (8") and for the underground parking already exist. The BWL building at 123 W. Ottawa and the bay windows would extend 5", and 24" respectively, into the ROW. SUMMARY The proposal has been approved in concept (Act-1-98), and this review is a more detailed look at the effects of utilizing portions of the Capitol Avenue ROW. Surface and subsurface encroachments already exist, and the request is effectively to reaffirm their approval. New encroachments include 5" at the ground level, and additional 24" of air space above. It would appear that their impact will be negligible, especially in light of the entire project. ACT-1-98 100-200 BLK. N. CAPITOL AVE. RnW F ir-RQA + RECOMMENDATION Staffs preliminary recommendation, pending receipt of Agency Referrals, is that the proposal be approved, and that the administration be directed to draft the necessary legal documents. Report Prepared by and date:B.Rieske,July 1,1998 Attachment#1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: Board of Water& Light That part of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 101, Original Plat of City of Lansing, as recorded in County Records, described as; Liber 2 of Plats, Pages 36 through 38 of the Ingham Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Block 101; thence N89059'22" E along the South line of W. Ottawa Street 197.92 feet to aea Northeast e of comer 6 18 feet said the 3; thence Southeast S00°O1'46" E along the East line of said Lot corner of said Lot 3; thence N89059'52" W 24.00 feet; thence N00°04'49"W 1.75 feet; thence 89059'52'W 118.59 feet to the East line of Capitol Avenue; thence N0000olu33'o along said East line 103.13 feet to the point of beginning, City of Lansing, Ingham, State of Michigan. Containing 21,204 square feet, more or less. PARCEL B: 221 N. Capitol Avenue (parking) Lot 3, Block 95, of the Original Plat of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (also known as 221 N. Capitol Avenue,Lansing,Michigan). PARCEL C: 200 N. Capitol Avenue 2.0 feet of Lot Block The West 72.0 feet of Lot 7 and the West 72.0 feet Nlithhig° cording to the gecorded 96, Original Plat City of Lansing, Ingham County, County plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats, Pages 36, 37 and 38, Ingham Records. PARCEL D: Bridge across Ottawa Street Aart of West Ottawa Street between Blocks 96 and 101 of the Original Plat of City of p Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, described as: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, said block 101; thenceS89°59'22' W on the South line of West Ottawa Strom extended 4.00 feet; thence N00002'05" E along said North line 80.00 feet; thence S00002'05" W 82.50 feet to the South line of said West Ottawa Street; thence S89059'22" W along said South line 76.00 feet to the point of beginning. Attachment#2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL 1. The underground parking at the Board of Water & Light building is in the Capitol Avenue right-of-way and has been for many years. As a public building, review was unnecessary but conversion of the building and the parking, for private development requires approval. 2. The ground level of at the 200 N. Capitol building extends eight (8) inches into the Capitol Avenue right-of-way. Now with further development approval to continue this extension is necessary. 3. The ground level of the Board of Water & Light building fagade and new construction will extend five (5) inches into the Capitol Avenue right-of-way. Approval is requested for this extension. 4. Above the third floor of the new Legislative Office building windows on the West side of the structure extend approximately twenty-four (24) inches in the air space about the Capitol Avenue right-of-way. These windows afford a view(State Capitol) for each of the office suites of each State representative. Attachment#3 WHAT POSITIVE IMPACTS WILL OCCUR... A new single office building for Michigan's House of Representatives. Efficiency, rations of the House will result. In three(3)of the in o cohesiveness and cost saving Pe right-of-way has existed for decades. The four(4)request the infringement of the rig Y building plan merely continues its established���by the H u�sersaff o on the windows(above the third floor) a firm request each representative a view of the State Capitol from her/her office suite. .., `v ■I���n �.M ILIL Pik Ulm tetteet MUM MI ■ 1 1� - ;IIIII=I F1111 i111_=aIIHIII ,I�NI I--i I•� _ . '� ►. �� ��r,��,'uau /�l�fi►. fil�_ I�il._ ,. Ifl;:�_- l / h1 j-1�1 L31_SL'I '©I—ill—lam! 5leT.L(t��l` r, l�_ l_ft 1 l(11_rLII—Ilh AZ AE -( /iiill��llU_ ME wT 1 rV ,:;� '. fir: - .+�. r.,_ .. 1•+!": �'S.:ieRje lLlti,��f� 'r ry�,r� !•`bt�w��u •_ •t"•r� h•`':i+Y m r Act-14-98, 302 Mifflin Street, Church Ramp GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Nathaniel Edwards Apostolic Tower of Power Temple 302 Mifflin Street Lansing, MI 48912 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review EXISTING LAND USE: Church EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 33' X 127' = 4,191 ftZ SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential S: Single Family Residential E: Lansing Township W. Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "B" Residential S: "B" Residential E: Lansing Township W: "B" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area residential use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant, Nathaniel Edwards is proposing to replace a nonconforming handicapped ramp at True Church of Apostolic Faith, 302 S. Mifflin Street which extends into the public right-of way on Prospect Street. The new proposed 2,264 ftz handicapped ramp will be located in the public right-of way on Mifflin Street. Street. Therefore, an ACT 285 Review is required. ACT-14-98, 302 S. Mifflin, Church Ramp - Prospect Street, Page 2. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received as of yet. Assessor: Is something wrong with the site plan. Building Safety: Ramp shall comply with State of Michigan barrier free design requirements. A building permit shall be obtained from the building safety office. The office has no objections to the ramp location. Code Compliance: No response received as of yet Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: No comment at this time. Lansing Neighborhood Council: No response received yet. Media One: No concerns with this proposal. Parks and Rec.: It does not impact parks. Public Service: The site plan in inaccurate and cannot be approved as is. The proposed would extend into the R.O.W. of Prospect Street-not Mifflin Street as shown. R.O.W. line of Prospect Street needs to be accurately indicated on the plan. Trans. Engr.: See attached. ANALYSIS An Act 285 Review is conducted when the City purchases, sells or substantially changes the use of property. According to Section 125.36 of Act 285, PA 1931, as amended, the character, location and extent of the proposal must be evaluated. The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). ACT-14-98, 302 S. Mifflin, Church Ram - Pros ect Street, Pa a 3. RnCKGROUND The applicant wishes to replace a nonconforming handicapped ramp at True Church of Apostolic Faith, 302 S. Mifflin Street which extends into the public ding way on Prospect Street with a proposed 2,264 ft handicapped e raxtend into the public to the architectural drawing, it appears that this ramp right-of way on Mifflin Street. Street. The applicant has indicated that them posed amp is needed for the elderly members as well as those with disabilities. Any p p ramp would need to meet code requirements and require an architectural drawing. and also does not meet The current ramp was erected without a building permit code requirements. Since that time, an architect was hired to design a ramp for the church which would meet code requirements. The information staff has communicated wit not ons meet code requirements. On several occasions, the applicant and the architect regarding the site plan requirements. However, the information provided is inadequate. LOCAIM: The property is located on the southwest corner of Prospect and Mifflin Street. There is an existing nonconforming ramp which encroaches into the R.O.W. on Prospect Street. The applicant is proposing to replace the architectural drawings handicapped ramp. Based o submitted, it appears that the the location of the handicapped ramp will extend into the public right-of-way on Mifflin Street. This location is unreasonable th considering that aere the nadverten inadvertently lot is only 33' wide, unless e labeled on the proposed site plan. CHARACTER: The residential character of the neighborhood willn t changre, as a result of a ramp being erected at the the proposed ramp is huge compared to the lot area. In fact, any proposed ramp would extend in the right-of-way and would need approval from the public service department. Generally speaking, churches are uses allowed in a residential neighborhood with a Special Land Use permit. This church is nonconforming due to lot size and has been orating taxesasinhis ce location, or this address has been exempt from 1947. EXEX In comparison to the lot area and considering building code requirements, it will be difficult to locate a ramp on Mifflin and Prospect street. Also, the construction of a ramp encroaching into the public right-of-way would interfere with vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. ACT-14-98, 302 S. Mifflin, Church Ram D - Pros oect Street, SUMMARY This location is unreasonable considering that the width of the lot is only 33' wide. The character of the neighborhood should not significantly change as a result of the ramp. The construction of a ramp encroaching into the public right-of-way would interfere with vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. The lot is very small for a church and to accommodate a ramp at this location will be very difficult. Staff understands the need for the handicapped ramp and would suggest that the applicant try to either locate the ramp preferably at the rear of the building, or provide some other means to assist or accommodate the needs of the elderly and/or disabled persons. RFCOMMFNDATION Based on a review of the location, character and extent of this proposal, staff recommends denial of the handicapped ramp being located in the public right of way. Staff would suggest that the applicant relocate the ramp, possibly at the rear. CIE CITY of LANSING r, :, yr INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION 79 98 •"LANIYuNG. r)/�//Slp TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner FROM: David A.-Berridgg, Transportation EngiPeer DATE: June 12 1998 SUBJECT: ACT-14 98 Churoflam --Prospa at,titre s Y s , , The Transportation Division has review e. 'd the siJb�ect [equast end has the following comments. �' a•G 3- 1 ) The ramp, may hive an.irb act on't . uture pub i i provem'ent of Prospect Street, This poteintial 'should be'reviewed with the City Ertgnl er, ;office prior to approval .,Thb.presence of this private improvement in the public right of ways la ba subject to a r1 Vocable per is l d by Xhe i?�ublic S,eNieeUepat.�m���. Cr 7� 'i - P•Vt��`M -�� �r�'r•'F� s�'1k"'f dC• y c`}µ,to v i -! ✓d ���t ''t 4+ Y � � Cy t t , 2) The proposecf`re js approximately-1 ��tS ht��P�`o>? ect i 4 CSC i nt of Stre t4;' hi's?tesul in an ade ti�te as ist �s tlr�st n 4 ' tl1e `� � Pit trt "€t a h 4 3) it ap e r £� !: Qject cane 11�rOC edxa� nri , a l;= me impact On # 3 Wit,r , _ ,� �' a 11 file: Prospect. C:lCorel\Office7lWPWm!\DATA\P NjNCi act}4 J$,dw:wpc� zZ � T �}' 'xM•yc '�'�.3'aa.rh i=`!x�.. •� rr -}rt`{'{} .'• S + kt ..rc +,r:���� - -•�'t,h,zyx�"'-Ry �.4it Y�1www... ..., ri. .. t - . O [,.. i�' �r'�p''�,Ot.,r � hiP � �llj)llll��►�i► V) 4tox: 3 T 1 PLRN 'Ramp c� N� 0 . yo'c�uRcN A PeOPL,erY U0V� / eWA6k Cl�PB rAl�� vo NEW PROPOSED HANDICAPPED RAMP AT 302 S. MIFFLIN STREET Ex/sting Church Bullding * f�wf tQ+arg �' 4•csncrrfaD+d...vllc..eh 2SMIN6 INDEX cwrpoct�s.a+d Fimdran� 2 do c v"awr■ _ _ OJ fbVT PLAN 8 rrr w-s dig will pqC I FFI.I A! V Rll.Wr if f.I1� Edwd•kii *I- Ro,e,D1a,n�.�a �pyy iF wAY[ N dtlifl 1 /Pl �—�- oNin l�vFatnn�l77ov Flo r1 i GITy Of LhaiS iNG ?V(i L/G Sr-F if ai:a .1 § 14 L4' EX7ERIOR RAMP PLAN k•■ MI FFL I N STREET i�o• o f s fo APPROVED AS PRINTED ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998 Draft to Clerk 072498 Approved 110398 To Clerk 111198 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue ? Tuesday, July 21, 1998 1. OPENING SESSION: .'. Vice Chairman Greiner, in the absence of Chairman Ruge, called the rribet+rlg to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Smith; seven members present. B. Excused Absences - Ruge. Mr. Ruge was given an excused absence. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Referral sheet with letter and attachments from Stephanie Whitbeck regarding the Fire Station. B. Package of 384 petitions regarding Act-17-98, Lansing Boat Club Property, in opposition. C. Copies of comments from three speakers tonight. 4. HEARINGS A. ACT-17-98, Lansing Boat Club Property, Market for Sale. Ms. Witherspoon presented the case, a request initiated by the Parks Department to allow for the sale of approximately 17 acres of property located along the north bank of the Grand River south of Lansing Road, west of the newly-constructed Grand River Park boat launch. Developers are interested in the property for residential development; however, it is dedicated parkland. Because of that, sale of the parkland will need to go on the November ballot for a vote of the people. A parcel of 16.2 acres is being considered for residential development. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCES (5 minutes each): PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 2 ERIC REICKEL, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. This request is before you because the Parks Dept. has had several inquiries from private parties as to the possibility of development for upscale residential use. The unused parkland was appraised at over $1 million for approximately 15 plus or minus acres. The development would have roughly a $50 million SEV, which would generate about $400,000 in annual revenues. The proceeds would be placed in the park acquisition development fund which would be used for other park acquisitions or developments or improvements. The citizens would vote on the issue if it goes on the ballot in November. The administration wants to determine the interest of the general public in this property regarding the developers. Mr. Nischan asked about Parks' response, "to support the project fully;" does that mean support as parkland or as something to be sold? Mr. Reickel said the Park Board is not taking a stand at this time. We support the idea of taking a look at it as it impacts both the parks system and city development. The Parks Board would not recommend less than a 100-ft. easement in that area. We would not dispose of any of our riparian rights nor any property along the river. Mr. Goolsby asked about usage statistics for this particular park. Mr. Reickel said there is the Boat Club activity on the river. Since the lease has expired, they are operating on a day-to-day basis. It is not a highly used area. FRED ADAMS, 3823 PALMER, LANSING. I have been a Boat Club member since 1941. The Club was often visited by Mr. Olds to assure himself that the site was being used for a common good, and not being abused. He wished that his land would become and remain a public park and that fellow citizens would be able to use the Grand River for boating activities. He indicated to the officers of the club that we would be "well provided for." Subsequent to the conversation, Mr. Olds gave an abstract of title and deed to the city to use the land as a public park and to name it the Grand River Park. He also donated $15,000 to purchase the Gregory property. A provision was written and understood that this offer is not separable. This offer in its entirety was given to the Mayor and Council of the City of Lansing on May 22, 1944. By council resolution, it was accepted unanimously, and the properties were turned over to the Board of Park Commissioners with the instructions that the combined properties were to be known as the Grand River Park. The City Council by resolution ordered a bronze plaque acknowledging the gift. The Lansing Boat Club has and still does sponsor and cosponsor events on the Grand River. The Lansing Development Office has for many years tried to get the Lansing Boat Club area of the Grand River Park sold to developers. We would respectfully request a refusal to the developers and to continue leasing the property at our existing site. We have done a great deal to make this a public and private organization that can and will be of assistance to the parks environment and the people in the various offices in the City of Lansing. Prior to Mr. Reickel coming here, those sledding hills were crowded with people watching the races. I can't fault Mr. Reickel because he is a nice gentleman, but this is still a public park for the Lansing Parks Department. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 3 JIM HEPFER, 917 SPARROW AVE, LANSING. I am a member of the Boat Club Executive Board. You have a copy of my packet and comments and minutes from the City Council proceedings on May 29, 1944 containing R. E. Olds' letter donating the western portion of the property now known as the Grand River Park and part of that portion containing the property lease of the Lansing Boat Club. The western rear portion of that property is not leased to the Boat Club. The western rear portion at one time was the toboggan sledding hill but was closed. The westernmost section was never developed. The eastern rear portion of that half of the property adjacent to the access drive and Business 27 is used for overflow parking both for the River Boat operation and for the Boat Club during major events such as ski tournaments. Part of the eastern part is leased to MSU for their rowing teams and contains their buildings. Another part of the eastern portion is used by the Forestry Department for growing nursery stock. R. E. Olds gave the property with the $15,000 with the understanding that it was to be a park; the money was to be used to purchase the Gregory property. The intent was for City have possession of the entire River Front for park property for use by the citizens. The offer was stated as "not separable." If the city took the property, it had to use the money to purchase the Gregory property and turn it into a park. The deed in the packet shows the dates that the City actually took ownership of the Olds portion, on May 22, accepted in a motion by the City Council on of May 29, a copy of which is attached. Also included is the copy of the deed to the Gregory property which was transferred to the City on June 30, 1944. The Lansing Boat Club was in operation on the Olds portion of the property at the time of the transfer to the City in 1944 and has had an official lease since February 1948. Also in the packet is a letter from Mayor Graves saying that we have done our part to be a good part of the community and he did not see the sale of our property as a possibility. Over the years, the Boat Club has maintained and improved the property at no cost to the city. We have a clubhouse, a security trailer, storage buildings, water service, security lighting, electric service within a reasonable extension cord length of any dock, a paved drive going to the length of the property, and two stretches of pavement to our boat launch. We have extensive landscaping, a club dock and over 50 member-owned and -maintained docks. We have put a deck on the clubhouse, sidewalks, a winch to pull out heavy boats, a fountain, shuffle board court, campfire areas, and picnic tables. When we started, the riverfront was a wilderness area adjacent to the river. Now there is a plan to care for the trees and lawn, and the river is clear of obstructions. Anywhere that we would go, we would have to start over, clear property, get the stumps and trees out of the river and the river bank, clear and improve the grounds, and in most cases contour the river bottom to allow safe boating, skiing, and passage around our dock. We have always operated as a nonprofit organization. Dues are for maintenance, electricity, our ever-increasing lease, and taxes. We accept members every year. We have limited dock space. Many members use the grounds and trailer in. We are a state- licensed marina. Most of the members either own a dock, or rent from other members. You want to put a private condominium community and use the property our members have busted their behinds for to make more money for the city by leasing that improved riverfront only to the condominium residents. How can this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 4 compared to our public operation? Our lease gives us no rights or compensation for improvements. If we left, we have nothing. We have no written offer or promise to negotiate from the City. We were not even notified of this action before it hit the paper. We have a hearsay statement to a committee member made on July 16. What are we to be compensated for all our efforts that you are going to benefit from, all that cleaning, clearing land and improving the riverffont. How is this improvement for the City an improvement for us? ARTHUR PHILLIPS, 3007 COOLEY DR., EATON DOWNS SUBDIVISION, LANSING, I am the Treasurer of the Boat Club. In 1990, when our lease was running out, I contacted the property section of the City of Lansing. They inspected the site with the Assessors Office. For many years, the boat club paid taxes to the city for its personal property but was not taxed on the city-owned land leased to the club. Following this site visit, the Assessors Office sent a statement covering real estate taxes as well as personal property. Our taxes rose from about $100/yr. in 1989 to $349.61 in 1990 and to $1,162 in 1991. It continues at the rate of about $1 ,000 a year. We had to raise our dues from $50/yr. to $95/yr., and then to $100/yr.; in 1946, the dues were $5 per year. This should have alerted us that something was going regarding our site. We didn't get the message in our naivete and the belief that our city would be open in dealing with its citizens. The lease was ultimately completed and signed, and it ran for five years to December 1996. 1 wrote the City of Lansing to renew the lease. The City Attorney sent a letter indicating that we should either vacate the premises or enter into a new lease. Our efforts to renew the lease were thwarted. He advised us that he had been directed not to work on any renewal of the lease as the city was doing a study of all public lands. We were concerned with the wording of the letter from the City Attorney, "vacate the premises at the end of one year". We tried to find out what the problem was. On August 5, 1 wrote the City Attorney offering to meet to help satisfy problems of the lease renewal. At that time, I was told that the City was looking at all properties in Lansing, not just at this one. Then a boat club member saw the public hearing notice in the newspaper, indicating that the land was bought in the 1940's as a possible housing site. It was given by Ransom E. Olds to the City for a park. In fact, money was given to expand upon his own property to consolidate the land that was going into the Grand River Park. We don't want to be adversarial, as we have felt for decades that we were providing the City of Lansing a boating facility for its citizens, in particular, those that don't have weekend lakefront cottages. On the beautiful Grand River, we are doing so at no cost to the city. We incorporated the rules for city parks into our own bylaws. I ask for reconsideration of the effort to exclude the Lansing Boat Club from the Grand River Park. I'm convinced that Mr. Olds, who let the Lansing Boat Club use the land prior to giving it to the City, wanted the land to be open to the citizens of Lansing for their recreational purposes. I base this on the City Council consideration prior to the gift. How many people here are in favor of keeping the Boat Club where it was? Quite a majority in favor. Thank you for your interest and consideration. FLOYD WRIGHT, 1319 W. RUNDLE AVE, LANSING. I live approximately one mile PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 5 south of the Grand River. I'm not a member of the Boat Club and never have been and never will be. I have two points. Mr. Reickel said earlier that that there has not been a lot of interest by the general public in the Grand River Park, and many of the areas seemed not to be used at all. I was out there the other day. The City of Lansing spent $362,000 to make a boat launch, restrooms and parking lot. It is a wonderful facility. It shows that the State of Michigan as well as the City of Lansing believe that the people of Lansing wanted a place to launch boats. I think this is evidence in itself that there is interest on the riverfront by the people of Lansing. The other point is this. You should visit this area and walk it. OLDS ANDERSON, 702 MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWER, LANSING. I live in East Lansing. I am the oldest grandson of R. E. Olds. I speak for the family tonight and in hopes that this parcel of land will remain as a green area, as a park as it was intended. Many times Mr. Olds told me and other members of the family that he hoped the City would keep this as a park because this open space land is getting very scarce. There is nothing you can do to replace it. I have a letter for the mayor which sets forth our feelings. I heard Mr. Olds say many times he hoped that the City keeps this land and not turn it into a commercial development. JOE SCHNEIDER, 3516 LOVESIDE TERRACE, LANSING. Anytime a developer wants to develop parkland such as Francis Park, Potter Park on the river, Moores Park, that scares me. If you're going to do that with this piece of land, what is to stop it from happening with any other piece of land because some developer says "I can make some money on that." JUDITH FILICE, 1462 CAMBRIDGE RD., LANSING. I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen and not as a member of the Park Board. I would like to repeat the encouragement of previous speakers. Please try to walk this property. If you walk that shoreline you will notice that there is public land on both sides of the Grand River. I don't think too many communities can say that. LOLA ARBAUGH, 607 PACIFIC PARKWAY, LANSING. I have been to the home of Mr. Olds' grandson and granddaughter, and their feelings were the same, to have the Boat Club or the property to remain as it is. JOHN ARBAUGH, COMMODORE OF LANSING BOAT CLUB. I was made a member of this club in 1944 when I was overseas. I didn't know what the Boat Club was until I got back. I have been a member ever since. Through the years, we worked with the City. The idea was that we were to be here forever if we maintained and followed the rules of the City and park rules, which we have done. won't repeat what's been said, but those are my feelings. We want to stay. SETH BERRY, 2430 BURNT TREE LN., EAST LANSING. I am president of the MSU water ski team. We have approximately 40 members, and we've been members of the Lansing Boat Club since 1982 when our club was started. As little history of our club, in the water ski arena, MSU has been the dominant force. We PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 6 never missed a national championship in 15 years, except for one in 1995. We are one of the most feared teams because we have a great facility for our members to use and to teach in and to improve our program. We have always been nationally ranked at the top, seventh in the nation is our highest ranking ever. We are concerned that it won't be anymore. We're concerned that our young but rich history is going to end. We're also afraid that we're going to loose the opportunity for students learn the great sport of water skiing. If you go down to the river and stand on top of the steamboat, there are trees, the grounds at the Lansing Boat Club are beautiful, there is a huge park. If this goes through, you're going to see nothing but condos, houses, and very few trees. It just won't be pretty to look at and it won't be pretty to ski. MIKE KUSIAK, 1600 CATALINA DR., HOLT. I'm with MSU water ski team as the men's team captain. I came to MSU and joined the water ski team. I've gone from hardly knowing how to ski to becoming one of the best in the City of Lansing and the State. The Lansing Boat Club has allowed us to practice every day. If anyone would love to come to the river, I would be happy to take you out and show you the river and put on a ski show for you. BOB JOHNSON, 800 W. SHIAWASEE, LANSING. I am speaking on two fronts tonight: one as a private citizen and resident of Lansing, and the other as one of the proponents to see Grand River Park, the portion being considered, developed. I have much respect for the Oldsmobile name and the family which started the organization in this community. I have done a lot of work on the centennial community. I was a former employee of Mayor Hollister, and I went to the Grand River Park as a youth in the mid-70's, tobogganing on the hill. In terms of taxation, private use of public property must be taxed. That is state law of Michigan. The tax issue is by state law and not by City of Lansing ordinance. That is the first point regarding the expense. Given the fact that the property has been appraised, if there is going to be continued private use of the property as a boat club, it would be incumbent on the City of Lansing to treat it at least as fairly as any other property. In the absence of a reversionary clause in the deed or some other type of restriction, with regard to maintaining it in perpetuity as a public use, it is at the pleasure of a vote of the people to determine whether it remains a park or not. We may not get the proposal. We may not be able to develop it. That is really not the issue. I think the issue is how public policy is enacted and the recommendations you make to the City Council. When you go to the Boat Club, again, with all due respect to the boat club members that are in attendance, the first thing you encounter is the "No Trespassing" sign. I'm offended by that as a city resident. It is a public property, and I don't feel it is welcoming. It is a private club and you have to have a membership. I think there is public property that would be made available for accommodating the MSU crew team, and the water ski team. I just have one more comment. That is the basis of the Parks Board talking about a 100- foot easement or retaining the control of 100 feet. They are very serious about that. As a developer, you want to have riparian rights. I believe that the Olds family own property in Delta Township, but that property has been developed for residential PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 7 use. Part of it is Woldumar Nature Center. There is a very public use and then there is a very private use of former Olds family-owned property. Today, the City of Lansing and two affordable housing developments were shot down; we are going to federal court. The City of Lansing wants the upscale higher-priced market rate housing that you see in Delhi Township, Delta Township, DeWitt, East Lansing, Okemos, etc., but when we as developers present the proposals without asking for an abatement, without asking any consideration from the City, saying we would be willing to give up riparian rights, developers are saying you shouldn't be doing that in the City of Lansing. I don't understand that, because we are talking about brand- new residential housing in the City of Lansing, units ranging from $118,000 to up to $205,000 per unit, without any type of consideration, putting in a lift station of $125,000 and other improvements that would be deeded to the City of Lansing. This is no free ride. The property is unrestricted, there is no reversionary clause. Please engage in wise public policy and the implementation thereof. This is an emotional issue, but it has to be very practical in terms of your decision. DAVID RAY 3925 DELL RD, HOLT. I have to address some things the last speaker said. I think the reason we have a "No Trespassing" sign is because of the MSU ski boat, worth probably $30,000. My boat is worth upwards of that, a nice Mastercraft. Pontoon boats go for $10,000. People have jet skis down there. think it is so people don't come in and vandalize our boats. It's to keep people away. It's not to say "No Trespassing." Have we ever denied membership there? Not as far as I know. For $100 anybody can come down there and become a member, use our dock. The city built one right next door that's a lot better than ours but in the past, ours was the best place to launch pontoon boats because it went off deep. Another point that was mentioned, he said we are using that property just for our members. The J-K steamboat uses the property for parking 40-50 cars when they have their activities. The only way you don't get a space on the river for a dock is limited space. Make it a tourist attraction instead of Lansing having more condos. You have a ball park, pubs downtown and you're trying to get people to come downtown to enjoy Lansing. Well, make it so we have more dock space. There is plenty more land available. There are fifty people using those docks down there. It is not like we are the only people using that little facility. You can help us out and grant us more space and we could put in more docks and accommodate more people. Don't sell this just for the fortunate few that have 200 hundred thousand dollars to buy a condo. Save it for the working families in town that can afford a dock and afford to be a club member, those who go down and clean up the river, pull tires out, shopping carts. We all have done our share on river clean-ups. WILBUR HOWARD, 6200 LERNER WAY, LANSING. I'm a citizen of Lansing. Also I'm on the Park Board. I walked the property and was offended to see on public property a sign, "No Trespassing." I understand that we leased it to the boat club, but you can't have it both ways. I understand you have the right to have your own private organizations, but I think you can't deny anybody access to that property because you leased it to somebody else. I came here to find out what people were saying. I know Mr. Olds Anderson, and his family has done a lot in this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 8 town, and I wanted to hear what his view was and I heard it tonight. JENNIE DOVER, 343 CHARLES ST., EAST LANSING. I'm the women team captain for the MSU water ski team. One important thing that has not been mentioned is what the Boat Club does for MSU students. Several thousand students have utilized the boat club for the past 15 years. Right now, there are approximately 40-plus members who bring their friends. The boat club offers MSU students the opportunity to get away from everything and to learn to ski, socialize, have fun and relax. PHILIP DORLAND, FOURTH FLOOR, CITY HALL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. I have been with the City for 21 years and the question that the Parks Board, Planning Board and the City Council have to ask themselves is what message do they want to send to developers? Is it going to be OK for the land use policy involving parks to be such that developers can develop within 100 feet of our river, no matter where it is in the city? The City Charter of 1979 put a provision that parkland was to be protected and if it were to be sold, it had to go to the public for vote. The City Council in 1981 established a resolution designating certain areas as parklands, and this is certainly one of those areas that they designated as parkland. I'm talking about an area that encompasses more than the area that the Boat Club uses. The public land use policies, prior to the Charter being developed in 1979, that were adopted by the Planning Board and the Parks Board, indicated that it was in the best interest of the City to acquire land along the water ways and not divest themselves of those lands. JOHN CHAMBERLAIN, OPERATES THE J & K STEAMBOAT LINE, LANSING, started 25 years ago. I also run the canoe rentals at Potter Park. I have made my life working on the rivers here in Lansing. I have watched the city gain more parkland, and they have done a nice job of monitoring the river and trying to improve it. A few years ago, I approached Eric Reickel regarding this piece of property. I thought that it would be nice to own it myself. He said that we are trying to gain parkland, not sell it. I was a little surprised to hear that this property was for sale. My thought was maybe they want to expand the Boat Club or at some point it will get upgraded. Security is a problem, and the "No Trespassing" signs are for the good of the people. I tie my boat up there because I didn't want people getting on it, with the liability of having something unattended. If the property is developed, I would not mind being one of the bidders, but my use would not be for condominiums. I am opposed to condominiums there. ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, 6794 CREYTS RD, DIMONDALE. I'm not a member of the boat club, but I have a good friend that owns a slip at the boat club, and a very nice boat. We enjoy the use of the facility from his slip. We barbeque, have picnics, and enjoy the river. Building condominiums will take away that enjoyment. ISABELLE RAY, 3925 DELL RD, HOLT. I have two little kids, one five years old and the other one year old. We have a small swing set, small sand box, and a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 9 small kiddie pool. My kids don't use the water, they use the land. If you build condos, you take away their little playground. Where will we go and play? GERRY MARKS, 2424 BRIARHILL DR., LANSING. I am a new Boat Club member. What I'm hearing is that this park is being used like a park should, with everybody using that land. If you put up condominiums, you are going to have 30- 40 families with exclusive use of the land. It's going to take away one of the nicer, better-maintained parks in the Lansing area, and to me that seems wrong. There being no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Act 17-98 and referral to the Urban Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 28 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. In answer to a question from the audience concerning petitions submitted, Ms. Love said receipt of the petitions will be noted when the committee meets next Tuesday. The petitions will accompany the recommendation from this board to the mayor and City Council. Space in the conference room is limited, and several speakers may wish to represent the group. The Chairman noted that these subcommittee meetings are working sessions and not necessarily forums for public comment. They are public meetings, and the public is welcome, but attendees generally speak only when board members have questions. This forum tonight is for public comment. The issue will come back to this board following the action by the committee. At that time, there will be an opportunity for comment from the audience on any matter of Planning Board business. The matter then goes to City Council, and the process begins again, with a public hearing and consideration by subcommittees. The Parks Board will meet will be on August 19, 1998, at 6 p.m. at Foster Community Center, Room 213. B. ACT 19-98, 128 SHIAWASSEE, FIRE STATION NO.1, LANSING. Ms. Love presented the case, a request by the Lansing Fire Department to determine interest in potential sale of Fire Station No. 1 on the southwest corner of Grand and Shiawassee. The property has been appraised, and the City has been approached by a local developer for construction of a high-rise apartment building (up to ten stories above existing station) with mixed use. The proposal includes using the first floor for retail/service/restaurant and retaining the fire poles and similar interior elements and converting the second floor to more apartments or office. Existing underground parking, accessed from Grand Avenue, would remain. City voters will have the opportunity to approve a bond sale to purchase items needed by the Fire Department. If the bond sale passes, money will be made available for several new fire station, possibly leaving several of the existing stations available for development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 10 Cost of rehabilitation is estimated at $2-$2.5 million dollars. This proposal would be on the August primary ballot for a vote by the people. a question was raised regarding the appraised value of the property. At this time, the appraised value cannot be shared. The Chairman announced referral of Act-19-98 to the Urban Development Committee which meets on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 6. RECESS - Five minutes. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: Minutes of June 16, 1998. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of June 16, 1998 with corrections as follows: P. 27, 10, COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. Mr. Frederick said that the sentence should read Mr. _.,, _ick ..Laced "MR. NISCHAN stated thatr "rban resat will send the Urban Development Committee a memo regarding the Comprehensive Master Plan. Mr. der GOOLSBY stated I will do the same. With corrections, on a voice vote, the minutes of June 16, 1998 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that special land uses pertaining to the towers, items A-L, be discharged from the Committee of the Whole, and referred back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, carried, unanimous; 7-0. The special land uses were discharged. 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River The applicant is requesting a rezoning from "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District to reconstruct a gasoline filling station on the existing site, which is zoned mostly "E-2" with the exception of the described area indicated as Parcel B on the survey. The improvements for the station will encroach into the portion zoned "A" Residential. Therefore, a rezoning is requested. The proposed construction of a gasoline filling station is compatible with commercial uses fronting along North Grand River. Landscape, screening, buffering, and site plan review PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 11 of the proposed new driveway and any changes in signage location should protect any encroachment in the residential neighborhood. The rezoning of Parcel B or the property is in compliance with the Master Plan. There is a potential for a slight increase in vehicular traffic. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Frederick. . . .Ave Greiner . .Ave Goolsby . . Aye Keene . .Ave Miller . .Ave Nischan . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave RuQe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absent On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. SLU-19-98, 6324 AURELIUS RD. The applicant wishes to build three interconnected buildings on the 16-acre parcel, zoned "A" Residential, to accommodate a family center (20,000 sq. ft.), and will have approximately 800-1200 members. A Special Land Use permit is required for a church in the "A" Residential District. The applicant does not plan to begin development until approximately three years from now. They have indicated that they will exercise their option on the,property once they have obtained the SLU that approves their church proposal. Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding land use. The surrounding area is characterized as primarily residential with some light industrial/warehouse development to the east, in the Township. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding property. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties provided adequate landscape, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 12 screening and buffering is in place. The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. Staff recommends the Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of a church at property located at 6324 Aurelius Road subject to the development meeting all local, state and federal agency requirements. These improvements will include landscaping, storm sewer, and potentially any roadway improvements to accommodate any turning movements as deemed necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer. A revised site plan must also show the minimum number of spaces required by code. Staff further recommends the applicants work with adjacent property interests to ensure good circulation within the overall area. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of SLU-19-98, 6324 Aurelius Road, Proposed Church, subject to the development's meeting all local, state and federal agency requirements, and with the further committee encouragement that the applicant consider access to the adjacent landlocked property. APPROVED. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-19-98, 6324 Aurelius Road, Proposed Church, subject to the development's meeting all local, state and federal agency requirements, and with the further committee encouragement that the applicant consider access to the adjacent landlocked property. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . .Ave Miller . .Ave Goolsby . .Ave Nischan . .Ave Greiner . Ave Smith . .Ave Keene . .Ave Ruge . .Absent On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-19-98, 6324 Aurelius Road, Proposed Church, with conditions the development meet all local, state and federal agency requirements, and with the further committee encouragement that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 13 applicant consider access to the adjacent landlocked property, was APPROVED. The next meeting will be Wednesday, August 12, 1998 at 4 p.m. Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee: At this time, Mr. Goolsby requested to be excused from the remainder of the meeting due to travel time for a business meeting in Ohio. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to excuse Mr. Goolsby; carried; unanimous; Mr. Goolsby was excused. a. BFR-1-98 (Brownfield), NW Corner Jolly & Cedar The Urban Development Committee met preceding this meeting to consider BFR-1-98 (Brownfield), NW Corner Jolly & Cedar. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of BFR-1-98 (Brownfield), NW Corner Jolly & Cedar. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve BFR-1-98 (Brownfield), NW Corner Jolly & Cedar. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . .Ave Miller . .Ave Goolsby . .Excused Nischan . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Greiner . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absent On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; BFR-1-98 (Brownfield), NW Corner Jolly & Cedar was recommended to be APPROVED. The next Urban Development meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. The Committee also scheduled a meeting for Thursday, July 23, 1998 at 12 noon, 316 N. Capitol, Department Conference Room, to continue the Urban Development Committee agenda. 3. Executive Committee C. Report from Planning Manager- None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 14 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Committee of the Whole 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 "G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-I" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); g. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street (Act-7-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. (Act-9-98); j. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98); k. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); I. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. (Act-12-98); M. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); n. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd.; o. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.; P. SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St.; q. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Tabled in Committee of the Whole May 19, 1998) 4. Urban Development Committee a. Central Lansing Comprehensive Master Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Smith inquired about the special meeting which was held on July 14, 1998 regarding Act-15-98, River Trail West , the extension of the River Trail. Mr. Greiner said that the item was tabled. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 15 Mr. Smith made motion, seconded by Mr. Fredrick to remove Act-15-98, River Trail West from the table for further discussion; carried. BOB FORD, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, 809 CENTER ST. Mr. Ford provided a summary of the extension of the River Trail. He has been involved with the River Trail for a number of years. Discussion ensued concerning the River Trail, Moores River Dam, and accessing Cooley Gardens via a stairway from Washington St. Bridge. Mr. Ford said on the south side of the Washington St. bridge, there is a ramp-switchback to cross the bridge for access. Access to the Gardens brings up several issues including security, the historical nature of the bank, and vandalism. Restoring the bank would be an excellent park project, with stairways and landings like the originals. Other discussion dealt with the dam breaking, and a warning system. MIKE BRISTOR, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, 809 CENTER ST., LANSING. John Rossey from the Board of Water and Light and I met and reviewed the system, which consists of a series of sirens along the River Trail, one located at Moores Park, another located by the Kalamazoo Street Bridge, and a third one on Park Point. The first can be heard for two miles; then a recording warning message in both English and Spanish can be heard for approximately one- half mile. There is a second line of defense when the warning goes off. At that time, 911 is notified and police are dispatched. Officers precede to a main intersection, such as Elm Street, where there is a bridge. Citizens are within a five- minute period of a bridge access. If the dam were to break, there would be a 15- minute evacuation period before the water would rise above the high water marks. The elevation at which the path is set at that location would flood after 15 minutes. Mr. Nischan said, according to the report, if the dam breaks, the earliest water would flood above the 100 year flood in a 15-20 minute period. That seemed inconsistent. Mr. Bristor said It should not say the 100 year flood, it should say in that area, 15 or 20 minutes. Mr. Smith asked about the Washington Street Bridge and across. Is that feasible given available funding? There is concern about the time factor and using monies available to link to Moores, while at the same time not losing the opportunity to connect to Cooley Gardens. The committee does not want to see it go to Moores Park and then lose the possibility of connecting to Cooley Gardens, the Woman's Historical Museum, and Scott Center. Mr. Ford said that ramp was not included in the original application. It was only because you and others pointed out the need by people traveling on Washington to access Cooley Gardens. In order to make that ramp, we are stretching the funding available, and also stretching the grants timewise. This project is very tightly budgeted. It has taken four years to assemble. It still isn't assembled because of the various easements that have to be in place, and all of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 16 requirements of the various agencies. We are very relieved to see it coming to fruition and think it stands the very real chance of being built, but we're afraid that it's going to go over budget. Mr. Smith said, regarding Cooley Gardens, the volume of traffic departing from GM is falling now that many workers have been transferred. People arriving are coming other areas, so the riverwalk link becomes vital to making Cooley Gardens a viable destination. The highway presents a barrier. The Riverwalk would be one way of opening it up. Mr. Ford said in order to build that link now we would have to give up a section of the River Trail. That's how all the grant application were written. Ms. Love asked if the matter is before the Board for a recommendation on the purchase of land, or the purchase of easements. Mr. Reickel said it is for an Act 285 review. Mr. Ford said the easements being assembled for the project are being dealt with through the City Attorney's Office. They are going through en masse. Although we have some in place, others are currently being drafted. Those in place are being held up for the others to catch up and then all move through together. Ms. Love asked are these City easements over private property? Mr. Ford said yes. Ms. Love said she wanted to establish that as the reason for the 285 review, and if Mr. Ford felt comfortable in moving this forward with the link that the Board is recommending? Mr. Miller said he does not want to impede the process in place, but he fears if Cooley Gardens is bypassed now, later there will be no money and it won't be connected. There doesn't seem some mechanism to say the next link in the River Trail will be going through to Cooley Gardens. Mr. Reickel asked for a strong recommendation from the Board that the link be a key phase in the development of the River Trail. It was never our desire not to link Cooley Gardens, "but unfortunately, I have to be practical." We submitted applications to link the River Trail to Moores, and the applications were approved on that basis. It is incumbent upon us to follow the directions of the DNR. We would have no problem with a recommendation of this board that the next phase of the River Trail, the connection between the River Trail to Cooley Gardens, would be highly desirable. "I have no problem in making that a high priority, and a recommendation from you folks will be helpful in doing that." Ms. Keene pointed out unanimous support both in the Urban Development Committee and at the the Planning Board. "I wanted to represent what Mr. Ruge's concern was. We discussed passing it with a strong recommendation that it would be a priority, and rethinking, Mr. Ruge again pointed out that maybe that's not good enough, and that's why it was tabled, and that's why it is before us again, because there is concern. It is very easy to say 'with a strong recommendation' and then PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 17 nothing happens down the road." Mr. Reickel said there are only so many financial resources. We have three projects in process right now. There is not enough money to do two extensions of the River Trail, and the entrance plaza to the Zoo, plus the skate board park, and an extension to Cooley Gardens. I have to deal with three approved projects, the two River Trails and the zoo plaza. I am primarily trying to develop or maintain into the twenty-first century a manageable park system. I also know that there is demand for high-end housing and also problems with cash flow in our general fund monies. There are emotional issues, but I still think a strong recommendation from you helps us develop our Five-Year plan or our five-year capital program. It is difficult to assign priorities. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve Act-15-98, River Trail West, with a strong recommendation that consideration be given to a direct link to Cooley Gardens. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Mr. Frederick asked if the strong recommendation to connect Cooley Gardens would appear on Parks' Five -Year plan with the intent to find funding. Mr. Reickel said the Land Trust Fund is a natural project for funding, because projects have to be water-oriented. The extension of the River Trail and Cooley Gardens is not in the Master Plan, but we can put that in and take it to Council to include that now. In your recommendation you could recommend that the Five-Year Master Plan be amended to include the extension to Cooley Gardens of the proposed River Trail to Moores Park. Mr. Smith made a friendly amendment to the motion, agreeable to both Mr. Frederick and Mr. Nischan, to add the recommendation that Five-Year Master Plan be amended to include the extension to Cooley Gardens of the proposed River Trail to Moores Park. Ms. Love will send the item to the mayor and City Council, and to the Parks Board as well. Frederick .Ave Nischan •Ave Greiner . Ave Smith .Ave Keene Ave Goolsby .Excused Miller .Ave Ruge .Absent On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; 1 Absent; one Excused; Act-15-98, River Trail West was approved with the addition of a recommendation that Parks' Five-Year Master Plan be amended to include the extension to Cooley Gardens of the proposed River Trail to Moores Park. Mr. Frederick asked about car break-ins in the parking areas on Aurelius and near East Lansing. Has there been discussion about patrolling the River Trail? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Reickel said the chief visited with the Park Board at their most recent meeting, and stated that his motorcycle and community police officers traverse the trail as much as possible, but unfortunately not a a regular routine patrol. It will never be like it was when we had our own police. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS: None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Smith said, about Holmes and Pleasant Grove, that the problem has been taken care of. Mr. Frederick asked if it is legal for a temporary employment agency on North Capitol by L.C.C. to have a big banner announcing that they are hiring. Ms. Love said probably not. We are going to start our targeted sign code enforcement in about a month and a half earlier. We will have it checked out. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board �`s'r Z-6-98 Page 1 6161 N. Grand River Avenue "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District GENERAL INFORMATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Bulk Petroleum Inc. 9653 N. Granville Road Mequon, WI 53097 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Bulk Petroleum REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District EXISTING LAND USE: Gasoline Service Station EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential and "E-2" Local Shopping District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Parcel B, triangular portion approximately 11.47' x 64.06' x 150'; (5,300 sq. ft.) of a total parcel (A and B combined) approximately SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Parking and Light Industrial South: Residential East: Local Shopping District West: Wholesale SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial South: "DM-1" Residential East: "E-2" Local Shopping District West: "G-2" Wholesale MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial development. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant is requesting a rezoning from "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District to reconstruct.a gasoline filling station on the existing site, which is zoned mostly E-2 with the exception of the described area indicated as Parcel B on the survey. The improvements for the station will encroach into the portion zoned "A" Residential. Therefore a rezoning is requested. Z-6-98 Page 2 5161 N. Grand River Avenue AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritek: No response Assessor: No response Building Safety: No response BWL: No response City Attorney: No response Consumers Power: No response Development Office: No response Depart. of Environ. Quality: No response Media One: No response Police Department: No response Public Service: No response Transportation Engineer: No response ANALYSIS BACKGROUND The applicant wishes to rezone the west section of the property at 5161 N. Grand River Avenue from "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District to reconstruct a gasoline filling station on the existing site. The property is zoned mostly "E-2" with the exception of the described area indicated as Parcel B on the survey. The improvements for the station would encroach into the portion zoned "A" Residential. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The subject portion of the property has "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial on the north, "G-2" Wholesale on the west, "DM-1" Residential on the south and "E-2" Local Shopping District and "J" Parking/"F" Commercial on the east. The entire property is located on the southeast corner of the block at Waverly Road and North Grand River Avenue. The proposed construction of the filling station canopy would be an intrusion into the northwest part of the property, zoned "A" Residential. The relationship of the local shopping district to the residential zoning of Parcel B of the west section of the property is inconsistent with land uses further west, north and to the east. The residential land use to the south; however is clearly identified in this area. Developments along commercial strips adjacent to residential areas are required to comply with the landscape, screening and buffering ordinance. The inclusion of Parcel B into local shopping district zoning will straighten out the land use and zoning patterns on this corner of the intersection. This would help to define more clearly where residential land use begins and local shopping district ends. Screening the local Z-6-98 Page 3 5161 N. Grand River Avenue shopping district from the residential development would make the local shopping district extension more compatible to the adjacent neighborhood. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area along the frontage of North Grand River Avenue for commercial development in this area. The area south of the frontage is designated for moderate density residential (8- 14 du/ac). The proposal to rezone Parcel B of the property to local shopping district, within the commercially designated frontage is therefore in compliance with the plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The applicant is proposing relocation of the driveway, south on Waverly Road to accommodate better traffic flow on site. This will be evaluated in the site plan review process along with the landscape buffering adjacent to the residential property. There may be a slight increase anticipated with vehicular or pedestrian traffic due to the enlarged pumping area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The zoning of the residential property to the "E-2" Local Shopping District should not impact the environment negatively. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT No impacts are anticipated on future development in this area. SUMMARY The proposed construction of a gasoline filling station is compatible with commercial uses fronting along North Grand River. Landscape, screening, buffering and site plan review of the proposed new driveway and any changes in signage location should protect any encroachment in the residential neighborhood. The rezoning of Parcel B or the property is in compliance with the Master Plan. There is a potential for a slight increase in vehicular traffic. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning request. Prepared by.Susan Canton,Preservation Planner ' CERTIFICATE. ..r Nome ESr CORNER . SECTIGN i r4N-R2W 1 ' (L:E. PC.304)' DETAIL 'r' / � • m4rsa't �/ _ \ aN TOTE 11 P.O.A. tasrinpf fame" from fgA01chIm Ot►•Am*M of S6S•21'30'E rroAM urt. rrcna_a \ , ( jo it;remarried M Mean aC Rein b•map 4r. 1l-R-2. SA«r 31 aM kyhem Cwnry Rood took, 33-R-3, Snool 91. ` \ NOrc 2; \ 'Underground rwd ranks are not Iooarel. far: Sulk Pafrolaufh Corporation - •s1 C C Loyal boscrtptlon (as /urtnished - Llbef Ills, Pope 1173): ParcohA: \ /Vo T. �O�E• AR Thof certain tract or 9l of land and promises horainaffoK parllculorty described, sHuafe, lylnp and r~�O \ boMg•tn Ilya Towline; al Lantlnp. County of kqn m oM S I* of WsMpon, now City of Lensing: Commencing I KE ra Y al Iga-pomf o/Intsnoctloh of Me Southerly right of way Rn• of G•Ad River Avenue (U.S. IS) and Fast �I iuecR-a AND '�� line of the Weal.2.1.2 acres of the 40 acres In square form In the North.osl corner of SeciroR i. Town ' (lam. 4 NMh:R•nge S•Wasl, Nnctnp TawaM►, IngMm C.anry, Yknlgsn, oosgl that p1r1 hlnn!q North pi sold Pr Nlpgway. Monte Alulh;aMnp me Earl Una of sold 23.2 acres 130.0 fool; thence NaRh if'30' Wall rorf Or �r f. 133 fact; Monca Nerfh, ISO foot to the Sourhorly rf�hl o/ way mine of Grand River Aoonus (U.S. 16)• Q IFONW4 \ rhento South N'J;1'rest. 135.0 leaf to the point• begfria". To"Mor with ON rights, reversionary Q / 1 w ,•` q� Cr or eit orvdoo, In arid to abuffing highways and streets. ►ousel C' ,. � / � r / r 6Tdo: 6 1 ` \ That pis of the Northwest 1/4 of Section S. Town 4 North. Rungs 2 Wall. Clfy at,Landnp. Ingham County, Y;chigon, described as. Commencing at the Northwest corner IL o1 Secl;on rown a Karin, 1 Rotlgo 2 Wolf..thence South 01'd3'3!" East, MOO fvor, thonc4 South SS'11'22' Ever. 30LOO (� `' ���/ �l � � r• ►.Ol �- PUMPS fast.• lheneo So! 01'45!39"East, 111.73 lash (nonce South Sr43'00"E•rt, 291.97 foot along Soulfary rlphl of way Rno of Gand'1tf.•r Avonu• (U.S. 16) to the truo po1M of bopinning 'nome south ird3.0o'East. 140.47 feel along sold ARM of way; thence South ISO.0 lost; rth 'hence No Srd•1'DO' Wolf. 119.06 /oeh memo North IS0.0 foot to the point of ►►pinning. �` FXC;?r the Mrt too t" to the Cloy o/Lonsing for We" Road described ac That/4r1 0l rho g / ,4r r \ - 'i a r '� .Ngr')It4a1.J/1�:f„S&d" 6. ToWn a/loeft Iten" 2 Wolf,,Clfy of Lansing. Ingham County. h (- Michigan, described aa; Conim•ndng of the'N•llhaal comer of Secllen d Town 4 NarM:Ronpe - ✓ MewU [ ' /C 4 `'"`"` '�� 2 wect, fhenea Sevin 01'I5'39' Eoof, II3.00 tool. Menae South IR'to'22 Fu4 306.00 four; �O / roxp-.1 r Ofk� lheaco.Nwth 01'd!'3t'East. 111.75 fool; Menlo Savth ir43'00' rest, 291.97 foot along ypr = Ka r. souther ry'r}phf o/'.oT Mo of Grand River Aroma (U.S. IS) to rho hue paint of Npinnln9: }•, Inence Savth dr4J'00'test. 52.29 feet:Hance Sevin 22*17*00' West. 140.4E foe. thence �sJ / \: s. \�• (forth 01-45'49" Last. 130.0 foot to the pplM of 6agkvdng. Conlalning 0.0E •croo. Lopirl Description (as suntyed): MR[E \ sr[raw Y sou ti.as.ho RN[R \� a Tint part of the Nerineesl 1/� of Salton a Town d North. Range 2 N'•tl, City d Lonsing, I N C`11 1 AORr ROCS •• mph•m C""Ir. Mlehipan, doocrib•d as•. CNmront tg at rho Northwest corner of Section S. 'i• ~~oo':• fown'i NMn. Range 2 West. lhonce South St71'00"East; 100.43 fool; Monce South PARCEL a •�' f M40'o0'real. 55308 fed Nang rho SoutheAy right of way line of brand River c•4, I ''A' A,onuf'fs Me true point o/ boglnnkp; Monc#.Swth 67*40'00"Fast. I46.47 fool; Mtnoo S u outh 30.1'4t'J4' West. 100 feet: the me North sr40'00" west. itt.0t /sal. Monte North 2r •00'East. 140.48 foal to rho print of beginning. ent Colninp 0.3t mares. s6j, a X We hereby certify that .a he'd surveyed rho property heroin described; that trio buildings 00 r end knpnnaloahl as shown or* enllrely within the property lines; and Inal Meld are no / ! r -- vlslbla encroachments upon the above doscrtNd property. except os shown hereon. III /� ^ /IR Oa Ado./DCrA1L Z" \� �$ Nff•»'aiY • ter IV to o:1' rawq \t'• �•:� . � 1,r1.aM C7•� 1 e.�,.Zh `! M • ' INCH ■ 30 FEET 4%a ,•"' !M n..ess,/.i New IIaN -_ STAWN r662 LEGEND k1+TLw: :IVLK PETROLEuL+ CORPORi • P1;y JTr CORNER r.)uND au "" Cf D??nCA7r 0r SURW •D SES014 CORNER PART fin c Vf0�d�or LA POLE ST[ cot.wrr. wKwasN UZ-6-98. 5161 N. Grand River Av j• ►+ATM •A•Residential to"E,2"Local Shopping Dishict F. DETAIL 'Y' 47.1 PARCEL "8 100, (?rJ\ POINT OF o�� jv . Q \BEGINNING \ x,t7,� \ QL•7 �l�F� \ SIGN S G � � ® o� r e �s P.O. PAR X� ,per X l� `� , N •ham , �`� ' • ` ` X4).4 5 ed C'0^� { SIGN g V J X d rn i G' PARCEL 8S' � ►, G Q ► _. �, 5167 N. GRAND RIVER 1 STORY BLOCK 0 48.9 BUILDING, 3 � w G,. PARCEL x k All 3 "A le>7� oMp r,.i CONCRETEr 2 t 'S6�•*� are,h 0 a. 00- 6 DETAIL "Z" N75.33'07"E 0.23' 2c'0) FOUN1/2- �2 BAR �W�AJ0 v � � _ .-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River Ave- NORM 'A'Residmtial to`&26 Local Shopping District 6'gd.6 `'�/ ,, 848.7 L�¢KT *8 0 �'� UST 847.3 848.6 849.9 ?S WAi M a p 848.8 's = NORry r vC A. i 8s'6 i n mac,A L- h co�M C.0~`M 4�63 Y �4� 844.3 �M--/ 447 847� P4 RKING 2 468 25 I 3 25 x 843 9 \ 2B 942.2 84/.6 " PARKING 843/ X F O X PARKING 943.0 X 25 �B 5 / 8430 a F ] 25 84/.9kl-61 cn �in, 542 // ti45 // Z-6-98, 5161 N. Grand River Ave. NORTH 'A'Residential to'&2'Local Shopping District 'ICA I✓ CLINTON COUNTY 6A �,4 o° ' 0 003 'a• }� ' o 0 44 It ,,� a C fi M N 0/1 �t M P C�� 0 R 5�5 a LOT Q. ! o• .t r '6 i •.•.,`. :� /�/,r 010 i ��o ; 1 -t S. 0�� 1� PLAZA OR: 0 T • N Z Q J �• 0 U K M • � rr• V � El to A. 0 J 00 M 01 w r �Qv LOT f• t tf _ •1 .� •• n to � 6 � H � T • tt k 0� Q 4 Z �: • sa m . i o .. t f LJ 1�,J °a f tt u f � t , .. .a as % •• W '1:SLL7 •• •t N a ® u N t0 �.•. ' w ai u r s. . .. % f• is '•: a AO \ �• `} f: a a• fa It % Q7'Ot �t i• N M 20 i •. t•• ♦ 32 .. r l SLU-19-98 6324 Aurelius Road GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Thomas Hummer South Lansing Christian Church (Option to buy property at 6324 Aurelius Road) 4002 S. Pennsylvania Lansing, MI 48910-4740 Owner of property: Harold & Doris Balmer 100 E. Dansville Road Dansville, MI STATUS OF APPLICANT: The applicant represents the South Lansing Christian Church REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit to construct a new church facility. EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home on 16 acres EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangular in shape; 693 ft. wide X 968 ft. deep (Approx. 16 acres in size) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential (3 homes front onto Miller Rd. on lots 825 ' deep) S: Vacant land E: Out of City(Development in Delhi Twp. is primarily industrialfwarehouse. Existing residential development is nonconforming) W: Public park (Marscot Park) SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential P. PL i4 of (`ihi Inalhi Tum'c 7nninn is for ..... ... .. j ........ . ..r. ,, r........� ._ ._. PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 2 6324 Aurelius Rd. Industrial/Warehouse development W: "A" Residential (Marscot Park) MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Master Plan identifies this area generally as one of the remaining major vacant areas in the Southeast Area. Future land use designation is Residential (0-7 units/acre) SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to build three interconnected buildings on the 16-acre parcel, zoned "A" Residential, to accommodate a family life center (20,000 sq. ft.), an educational unit (10,000 sq. ft.), and a worship/sanctuary area (22,500 sq. ft.), and will have approximately 800-1200 members. A Special Land Use permit is required for a church in the "A" Residential District. The applicant does not plan to begin development until approximately three years from now. They have indicated that they will exercise their option on the property once they have obtained the SLU that approves their church proposal. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: (No comments received). Assessor: (No comments received). Board of Water& Light: (No comments received). Building Safety: This project is subject to the City's site and plan review process. The applicant should contact Christine Segerlind, Chief Plan Analyst concerning the process and appropriate fees. City Attorney: No comment at this time. Code Compliance: (No comments received). PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 3 6324 Aurelius Rd. Consumers Energy: (No comments received). Development Office: (No comments received). Fire Marshall: (No comments received). Ingham Co. Drain Com. (No comments received). Media One: (No comments received). .Parks& Recreation: We support this concept. The soccer location will fit well with the activities that occur at the park immediately to the west. Public Service: Public Service- Engineering has no objection to the proposed special land use permit. We reserve the right to review future site plan for the project. Traffic Engineer: (No comments received). Lansing Neighborhood Council: (No comments received). Evaluation Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows. 1. Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties The surrounding area is primarily residential in character. The Marscot Meadows subdivision is located further to the west, beyond Marscot Park which consists of single family homes. A townhouse condominium development is located to the northwest of the subject site. Although land to the north appears vacant, the three large 825 foot deep lots to the north each have single family homes. A City park, Marscot Park, is located immediately to the west, and features two tennis courts. Vacant land is located to the south. Land to the east, across Aurelius Road in Delhi Township, is zoned Industrial/Warehouse. Development there consists of lumber yards, small motor repair shops, the Granger Company Office, etc. Any residential development in the township along this section of Aurelius is considered nonconforming according to Delhi Twp. officials. PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 4 6324 Aurelius Rd. Churches are permitted in residential zoning districts by Special Land Use permits and are generally considered compatible to residential development, provided any potential impacts are addressed. Staff believes the proposed church on the 16 acre parcel to be compatible with surrounding development. 2. Change in the Essential Character of the Area The proposed church will not change the essential character of the area which is predominately residential . The Master Plan shows a buffer strip along the west side of Aurelius Road (See attached proposed land use map.) Staff believes the church will be set back from Aurelius Road property line 168 feet which should serve as a substantial buffer. The intent of the buffer strip shown on the Master Plan was to protect property values and screen views of future residential development in this area. 3. Interference with General Enjoyment of Ad*acent Properties No significant impact on adjacent properties is anticipated, particularly with landscaping in place and screening of any parking, dumpsters, etc. which will be more closely reviewed during the City's administrative site and plan review process. The location of the structure is proposed to be central to the overall 16 acre site. The applicant has indicated that development wjll most likely not begin until 3 years from now. They have also indicated that they do not anticipate the clearance of the site of the existing single family home which is currently rented to its occupants. Therefore, the proposed development should not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area The proposed development should represent an improvement to the property. The vacant land will be developed with a quality structure on a property to be well maintained. The proposal will include a school and family life center and will also include basketball courts and a soccer field. The subject site is located between vacant land to the south and land to the north having residential structures on large lots with vacant open space having future development potential. Consideration needs to be given to the future development of these areas to the north and south. The applicant has indicated their willingness to site their structure to allow for possible access and connection for circulation I PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 5 6324 Aurelius Rd. within this overall area. The properties to the south are large enough to be reasonably developed according to the Master Plan. The three lots south are under the ownership of the same family and thus have access to Lockbridge Drive. Their combined area of just under ten acres would support reasonable residential development in accordance with Master Plan. The large residential properties to the north have adequate access and area to allow for their independent development. 5. Environmental Impacts The proposed church will not represent a hazard to adjacent properties or involve the uses, activities, materials or equipment detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odors, fumes or glare. The development will be on 16 acres of land which allows the structure to be placed a good distance from any adjacent residential development. 6. Impact on Utilities No negative impact.on utilities are expected to result from the proposed church since utilities (e.g. water, sanitary sewer, electricity) are already available to service the site. 7. Impact on Public Services No significant negative impact on public services is anticipated from the proposed development. Ingress and egress onto Aurelius Road will be more closely reviewed by the traffic engineer during the site plan review process. 8. Compliance with the Master Plan The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates future land use at this location as residential up to 7 units per acre with a landscape buffer along-the west side of Aurelius Road. The proposed setback of the church at 168 feet back from the Aurelius Road property line should serve as a substantial buffer. Churches are considered compatible uses in residential areas. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with the Plan. 9. Compliance with Zoning District Regulations The property is zoned "A" Residential. Churches are permitted in the "A" Rpsidtgntini nicfrirt ci ihiart fn a cnarial InnA i ico normif Tho aifa moafc fha PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 6 6324 Aurelius Rd. locational requirement of abutting collector, principal or minor arterial. The minimum required area of two acres is in the residential district is far exceeded with the subject site being 16 acres. Approximately 400 parking spaces are required to accommodate up to the anticipated 1200 members. Parking is determined by the number of seats in the main hall of worship. Since 224 spaces are show on the site plan, an additional 176 spaces may be needed. This 16 acre parcel has plenty of land to accommodate additional parking as the congregation grows to an eventual size of 1200 members. SUMMARY Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding land use. The surrounding area is characterized as primarily residential with some light industrial/warehouse development to the east, in the Township. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding property. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties provided adequate landscape, screening and buffering is in place. The proposed special land use will not be-hazardous to adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of a church at property located at 6324 Aurelius Road subject to the development meeting all local, state and federal agency requirements. These improvements will include landscaping, storm sewer, and potentially any roadway improvements to accommodate any turning movements as deemed necessary by the City's Traffic PLANNING BOARD SLU-19-98 PAGE 7 6324 Aurelius Rd Engineer. A revised site plan must also show the minimum number of spaces required by code. Staff further recommends the applicants work with adjacent property interests to ensure good circulation within the overall area. L� sLv-19-1998 ►OfM 6324 Aurelius Road R0.- uses-es - ��- MILLER-T • f r Y ve t L . 'w.t I I 05 1 10 .. •'{•` _ ;• MLDOMETTE OM. Fr-1 .1{ 'W e•`r l r E• ♦ Y ..� ` e Vj� • a� J .e ..— �. IM A� za r`•.. . •I t96 - 1 SECS �', E e^ •�- T—I—T T — T T—I— T —f 7•I` I i' 1 too IL 1- - --DELL- - - r{{c uo{-.e•aool x V SLU-19-1998 6324 Aurelius Road I o900=FIMO o; "wctw mo x Mo _ �+ a-eK►. �JJgg e1ELE 9LHOM ao.Wo so rr CMICKS a avwfl_ so x goo a� 100. �Z � .a /• -. .fir;l�r•�� S .ri - .. ._..�.�........ ��• .. .. `.. ItI1 .• .' ...r_.•.J.J_.w suJ�y�:^"1� .•+r...w.r.4 Lr.•�•~�. - .._ ` • : ':til. � 1 c'::.::n,S1'r.:rf��,{..,I•Il•�.�•�•;1rq!;�yy5y.�/I'�.:�i,iay:r�.r�.�frP�I�..�n!y.ar�' ,• _ .. :py• ^y1tii.�IN'{d� ! �!.•.�{•J•ik•`:�(r�r�..'rh q�L� _. .. y-._�,,:..:.•:.�- ��:;���:-r. �„ r f.3rr � ;s •r.:a .•• a '.r.:,yfL :� .�.r r J-r i:.��!•, .y •N� �.,�� � •. �,w it Y iz 44. Iwo Gj s v Its .�;.�: �\ d :L'"`S';�(r5r `'; M1 rtl•.� ,�.,,`` • . . , . ` I y .� • ~�.t.. ,u • r � _y7 • • • SLLJ-19-1998 6324 Aurelius Road .oa• I I i 0 0.1 I I l FAMIM wo x 4w 0 • � L :i Pvtm PLAY AAFw g �' SISLE s+am_ 30.000 so Fr p a� Y} so x ioo i "( r _'_' HE � ..w. � _ :::•7•dTP::••. ilS:, r°'c" '.Si Sf Sjt:j��l Cf S:::::i�:i :l I ...A....•• : .�....:: ...::::. .. ................ ::Goes.:ssei M:rF' t .. .J.J.•M.•ua.... N.H.M. ........H►.....-.H. .N.MH• •••.. tea. �6.6.64................. ......... .... i A ................... IIl........ ... 66.6 •• `"""� .w.. �. uN.u...l` .G...M. G.•..u... Y.G.. .. .. ,:•u, �...... ...... ........ .. 6.6. ....... ..... .:: ... ......... y y'?v i': `�'�y •...• •u..• •.0 GG.u.0 •o.....• •unu- ::• ::::::• ::::::::see::::.• Ga. •....•• NMN..HMNN.NNN. r • aun �G•..• .........N.HM.NM.H \ / �.,. ..• �.M •MM......000..G....G...• I tL RESIDENTIAL 0-7 u/ac RESIDENTIAL 8-14 u/ac Q ...... RESIDENTIAL 15-20 u/ac 0 ? ; RESIDENTIAL 21 + u/ac PROFESSIONAL OFFICE : .. COMMERCIAL ...... � PARKS/OPEN SPACE/CEMETARY E UTILITIES ••••• LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ' ► G3 i{UiQi�, �]] HEAVY INDUSTRIAL •° COMMUNITY FACILITIES s f"':^7 MIXED USE (COMM/OFF/APT) WAREHOUSE/RESEARCH PARK . , S SPECIAL LAND USES LANSING PLANNING DEPARTMENT r - PROPOSED LAND USE TO 1990 IL SOUTHEAST AREA. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Act-15-98 RiverTrail West Project GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Parks & Recreation Dept. City Hall -4th Floor 124 E. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Parks & Recreation administers all RiverTrail projects. REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review. EXISTING LAND USE: See attached land use map. EXISTING ZONING: See attached zoning map. MASTER PLAN: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan policy includes pursue the preservation, acquisition and/or control and development of the waterfront by acquiring waterfront parcels as they become available", "obtaining rights and easements to provide access to the river when acquisition is not feasible", and "improving access and use of public lands adjacent to the river." The River Point Plan calls for a pedestrian walkway at River Point Park to be linked to the RiverTrail. SPECIFIC INFORMATION APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Parks & Recreation Dept. is planning an extension of the RiverTrail from Elm Street to Moores Park. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: (No Response) PLANNING BOARD . PAGE Assessor: (Subdivision Map sent and attached to response sheet.) Board of Water & Light: Electric Utility: Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department- BWL has poles and anchor to relocate and an existing service. There will be costs to Parks Department for relocation. The rest of the drawings are too small to tell if facilities are in the way. (See attached tabbed sheet.) Contact Person: Bob Strobel, 371-6082 Water Utility-: Water Technical Support/Distribution- No conflict with surface paved trail. Trail may cross over existing water mains. Contact Person: Terry Robison, 371- 6494. Environmental Services Department See attached E-mail (as follows) from Gail Peterson. Contact Persons: John Rossi 371-6364 and Gail Peterson, 371-6366. ESD would just like to reiterate their comments made when this (or a similar) segment was proposed several years ago. Our primary concern relates to the ability of people to get off of the RiverTrail in the event there is a dam break. Since the trail will pass along private property, it will likely be fenced (i.e., near Eckert Station). I the sirens were to sound due to a dam break at Moores Park, people would need to be able to get off of the RiverTrail and onto high ground quickly. The design taken should evaluate whether or not additional measures need to be in the proposal. If they need specifics related to the dam, they should contact John Rossi. Steam Utility See attached memo (as follows) from John Hundt, 371-6497. This project crosses the BWL 18-inch steam main at (2) locations north and south of Elm Street. Fencing will be needed at any location where the public may have access to physically touch this piping system. Hazards from high heat exist. Where RiverTrail crosses our steam main maximum clearance ecover our steirin install a protective shield to pipe at the crossing locations. Building Safety Office: No objection. Development Office: Condition approval subject to property acquisition or reservation of easements across private property. Fire Marsh al: Approved (Signed: Greg Martin, Fire Marshal) MI DEQ: (No Response) Public Service Dept. We have no objections to the the prrigh po sed proand ject at this stage. We reserve comment on the pros{u pion rior to the development plans a The Public of the actual con Service Department has infrastructure along the river to which acceswith the architect and will t be maintained. We have been working continue to do so. Traffic Engineer: (No Response) Media One: (No Response) Parks & Recreation: We support the project fully. Ing. Co. Drain Commissioner: Our office does not see any adverse drainage or impacts. Moores Park Neighborhood: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Great idea! We (Moores Park Neighborhood Organization) heartily approve of this project. One consideration- in Moores a lot, is t Park to h elevated trail e awarreof the flooding existing parking It is lo PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 quite extensive in that area. If you can bring the trail close to the retaining wall, it ought to work well. (Susan Dougherty, President) Police Dept. We support the project. This project increases the likelihood that people (good or bad) will use it. We currently patrol the RiverTrail on bicycle and motorcycle. If it's built, we'll patrol it. (Capt. Rick Cook, by telephone, June 19, 1998) Riverpoint Neighborhood Assn: The Association is in favor of this project. The only concern is the number and location of the foot bridges. Are they all necessary? Are they invitations to a disaster? Will they be used by the gang bangers? Will these bridges be well lit at night? (David Zimmerman, President) ANALYSIS Evaluation Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the vacation of a public right-of-way be evaluated. Location This section of Riverwalk under review is located between Elm.Street to the east and Moores Park to the west. The trail generally is located along the northern edge of the Riverpoint Neighborhood and then follows along the western edge of the commercial area along S. Washington Avenue. This section of RiverTrail passes through both the River Point and Moores Park Neighborhoods. Responses were received from the presidents of both these organizations. Concerns were expressed by the Riverpoint Neighborhood about possible criminal activity along the rivertail. These comments were presented to the Police Department for a response, which is included among the agency referrals. PAGE 5 PLAN ARD Character and Extent The proposed RiverTrail will be along an asphalt walk where it exists on land and will be on a boardwalk as it extends over the river. The overall length of this section will be 5,255 feet long, which is just under a mile long. The trail, as mentioned above, moves along the north edge of the Riverpoint Neighborhood, and then along the back end of properties along the west side of S. Washington Avenue, which include a high rise apartment building and retail store (Rycus Floor Covering) and Volunteers of America property. The remainder of this section of trail is primarily along the west bank of the Grand River along the eastern edge of a GM parking lot and buildings, crossing s�eof thlroad tracks,e Grand Riverhen under the Island across Glenn Island Avenue Bridge crossing to the south and ending in Moores Park. This section of trail appears to have a lot of variety within this one mile stretch, ranging from residential, commercial, and industrial development. It also passes through a park and crosses the river three times and includes three underpasses. The trail is located in the floodplain and appropriate permits will be required from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. As discussed in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the RiverTrail Project West is the next section of RiverTrail to be extended. The River Trail which currently extends from Dietrich Park, in the north end of Lansing, to the border of East Lansing at Clippert Street is six miles long and provides linear recreation and transportation opportunities along the Grand River for bicyclists, rollerbladers, joggers and walkers. It interconnects a series of facilities such as RiverFront Park, the City Market, the Downtown Central Business District, the Capitol, Impression 5 Science Museum, R.E. Olds Science Museum, the Solar Walk, the Lansing Center, the Turner-Dodge House, the Brenke Fish Ladder and Potter Park Zoo. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan also points out that future plans include completion of the trail on the west side from Moores Park to Waverly Road, continuing the path northward from Dietrich Park to Waverly Road and to cross Kalamazoo Street Bridge and makes the connection with East Lansing, Michigan State University. Future plans also include the extension of the trail along Sycamore creek linking Potter park and Zoo across Mt. Hope Road, through Sycamore Golf Course and connecting with the proposed Ingham County Park known currently as Solomon Pits, located west of Aurelius Road and north of Cavanaugh. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 u a The request by the Parks and Recreation Department appears reasonable based on the review of the Character, Extent and Location of the proposal. Some concerns involving the details of the development will need to be more specifically addressed in the plan review process. The RiverTrail West Project will be an significant improvement to the City and has been recognized as a community asset with a regional impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request by the Parks and Recreation Department that the City construct a trail along the Grand River from Elm Street to Moores Park be approved subject to property acquisition or reservation of easements across private property and subject to all concerns of the various reviewing agencies be addressed in a satisfactory manner. MAP 2 EXISTING LAND USE / RIVER POINT NEIGHBORHOOD N\ ,L , 1 - I'• 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ,�� I1'I I ��'• I C'� I S 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rj',�D MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL COMERCIAL/OFFICE WAREHOUSE/STORAGE VACANT I ttttvt \�. I I D PARKING LOT II r " �l+• �� CHURCH j II. •i,i�• I I n• t 4 �' I •z• E �ti / c1, oil ............ E. VIA HE min Um P-M m MAN AS molm'=" monsoon NMI /`, MAR HALL FIES 1 � .a as �::.�'•f. �;.A y.. EASTERN mHIGH W.mummm,mm"Em SEUON lE10��■ MEMO-illN NINE i�� ice■ � ������������...����� -=1„ WLUAM } X-0=42mm- OMEN �111..oft w-WIS le; �1//////// / it � .. l.,:v::•>>:}:. frr,w>. ■■1�', ////1 Aw/ /I ,•~> LLL r �;t•y URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT Page 3 Tuesday, June 23, 1998 2. Act-15-98, RiverTrail West Project. Donna Wynant presented the case. Mike Bristor, of Landscape Architects and Planners, was in attendance and spoke in favor of the proposal. The project extends the RiverTrail from Riverpoint Park to Moores Park. The proposed RiverTrail will be along an asphalt walk where it exists on land and will be on a boardwalk as it extends over the river. The overall length of this section will be 5,255 feet long, which is just under a mile long. The projects connects north edge of the Riverpoint Neighborhood with Moores Park, and passes through residential, commercial, and industrial development areas. It also passes through a park and crosses the river three times and includes three underpasses. Some property acquisition and easement agreements have yet to be secured. The proposed trail is located in the floodplain and will be required appropriate permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. SUMMARY The request by the Parks and Recreation Department appears reasonable based on the review of the Character, Extent and Location of the proposal. Some concerns involving the details of the development will need to be more specifically addressed in the plan review process. The RiverTrail West Project will be an significant improvement to the City and has been recognized as a regional as well as community asset. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request by the Parks and Recreation Department (Act-15-98) that the City extent the RiverTrail along the Grand River from Elm Street to Moores Park be approved subject to property acquisition or reservation of easements across private property and provided that all concerns of the various reviewing agencies be addressed in a satisfactory manner. COMMITTEE ACTION Finding: The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal, that: 1. This project is in conformance with the Riverpoint and Southwest Area URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT Page 4 Tuesday, June 23, 1998 Comprehensive Plans, as well as the Plan for Development of Lansing's Waterfront, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. This project provides opportunities for linking parks and cultural amenities in a multi-use trail for non-motorized transportation. 3. Additional linkage opportunities could exist by expanding the project to extend RiverTrail access to the Cooley Gardens area on the west side of the Grand River. 4. RiverTrail patrols by the Lansing Police Department, and the visibility and public use of the trail, will work to ensure the safety of trail users. Action: It was moved by Mr. Ruge, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of Act-15- 98, subject to the following: 1. The architect work closely with the Board of Water and Light regarding their concerns about safety in the event of a dam breakage. 2. The connection from the Riverwalk to the area's points of interest (i.e. Cooley Gardens, Women's Hall of Fame and the Scott House/Garden) be strongly encouraged. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 3. Scheduling of a meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 1998 Mr. Rieske requested a special meeting of Urban Development Committee for Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room. The Committee agreed by consensus, although Mr. Ruge indicated that he would be unable to attend. PENDING ITEMS 1. Downtown Comprehensive Plan. No discussion or action took place. r I ,,. LANSING PLANNING OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. CAPITOL AVENUE c1Ty of LaMs1Nc LANSING, MI 48933-1236 David C. Hollister, Mayor The Lansing Planning Office is pleased to provide the attached material. If we may be of further assistance, please contact us. PHONE 517-483-4066; FAX 517-483-6036. APPROVED AUGUST 18, 1998 Draft 080798 Approved 081898 To Clerk 112499 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall �- 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, August 4, 1998 I. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Nischan, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith; seven members present. 2. Excused Absences - Greiner. Mr. Greiner requested and was granted an excused absence on July 7, 1998. 3. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Bill Rieske, Principal Planner, and Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Membership Letters from the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO). B. Letter from Lansing School District withdrawing SLU-15-98 and SLU-1-6-98. C. Copy of letter from Pastor Duncan withdrawing PRD-2-98, 5304 Wise Rd. D. Letter from Mayor Hollister regarding Act-17-98, possible sale of part of Grand River Park and requesting that it be tabled. E. Letters from Bonnie Smith and John Harrington concerning Act-17-98, both in opposition. 4. HEARINGS: A. Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP) to "DM-1" Residential District. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kevin Thompson to rezone property at 4000 Hunters Ridge, a development partially completed in the early seventies. The former community center for the development is located on the property. It has a full basement, tennis courts, pool, an apartment plus community rooms, etc. The applicant would like to rezone the property from Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" Residential for the purpose of making it all residential. The former Community Unit Plan zoning was specific to development of a property for apartments prior to 1983. In 1983, the ordinance was amended to drop Community Unit Plan from a specific zoning designation for future rezonings. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) process was substituted. So instead of a zoning for a multiple family, multi-building Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 2 development, we use the density ranges of the various residential districts for a Planned Residential Development potentially in any residential district. That is how the ordinance has changed. The request is to convert the existing building into two or three apartments and add another four-unit building, which will total seven or eight units on this two- acre piece of land fronting on the Grand River. It is west of Waverly just north of Holmes Road extended. There is property around it which is Community Unit Plan, remainders of vacant land that one of the children of the original developers owns at present. Mr. Smith asked about the dotted lines coming off the end of Holmes Road and going back to the river, is that River Drive? Mr. Ruff said no, Hunters Ridge Drive was intended originally to connect with a possible extension of Holmes Road. Neither the extension of Holmes Road nor the extension of Hunters Ridge Drive has occurred, so the only access to this property is across an easement which would be the extension of Hunters Ridge Drive to this property. Mr. Smith asked if that extension to Hunters Ridge Drive would then have become River Drive? Mr. Ruff said it might have been called that. A number of plans called for drives around the city, for scenic roads near the river that would link some of the development. Mr. Smith said when he tried to visit there today, it was gated, with a "Beware of Dog" sign. Mr. Ruff said the property has been vandalized. It was in the demolition process, not because of its structural unsoundness, but because of the hazard factor. People were constantly breaking in. It is a potential fire hazard. The applicant has secured it as well as possible. We have issued a building permit to repair the existing one-unit so that someone could occupy the building. That's where it stands at present. There have been many security issues, and Mr. Thompson is trying to address them. Mr. Ruge asked what is the density of this property right now? Mr. Ruff said he did not recall the exact density that was approved with the plan development, but "I believe it was around ten to twelve units per acre; as recall, 457 condominiums were proposed to be built over the entire development." Mr. Ruge asked if the whole development has been abandoned, or just this building? Mr. Ruff said just the back half of it. The Community Unit Plan was approved over the entire development, and it was platted and developed in stages. The first stage, developed in the early 70s, has Hunters Ridge Drive as a public road. Since then it has not been developed further. There have Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 3 been legal issues, and the original association that had the entire development is no longer intact. It was repossessed by the bank. KEVIN T. THOMPSON. This property has been vacant for eight years. The developer built the condos but couldn't sell for the price he wanted. He put apartments in the second phase, and there was a legal issue with the association regarding the apartments. So the developer boarded up the clubhouse, and it was vandalized for eight years. The outside is salvageable. I want to convert it to up-scale condos, either two- or three-units. I have to clean up the neighborhood and keep out vandals. I'm glad to see my sign is working--there is no dog there. The property is on the river. That whole area is coming around. There have been problems with prostitution, drugs, car theft rings, and so on. I have talked with the association personally. They are elated that I am cleaning up the property and keeping the vandals out. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the close of the public hearing for Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP)to "DM-1 Residential.District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on August 12, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1 Business Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request from Brian Huggler to rezone the property at 208 E. Grand River from its existing "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District. This property was developed when cars were not too numerous. The property has minimal space for parking. Mr. Huggler would like to rehab the property with commercial on the ground floor and residential on the upper two floors and also provide a couple parking spaces for the residential use in a garage in the back of the building. The rezoning to"G-1" Business would exempt them from parking requirements. This is similar to other requests that you have received, most of them highlighted on your area map and also on the back of your agenda as tabled items pending the outcome of the parking plan for this area. BRIAN T. HUGGLER, 505 CAREY ST., LANSING, owner of the property at 208 E. Grand River Avenue in Old Town. There are several properties coming before you for this rezoning. I would like to point out, as Mr. Ruff said, that currently the building has no parking. The architect was able to provide two on-site parking spaces in an attached garage that would be built. This will improve the parking a little. Mr. Ruge asked is this a three-story building; are you going to put in two apartments on each floor; and how big will those apartments be? Mr. Huggler Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 4 said this is a three-story building with a full basement; it will have an apartment on the third floor, an apartment on the second floor, and a commercial store on the first floor. The apartments are approximately 1,000 square feet. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the close of the public hearing for Z-8-98, 208 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to."G-1" Business District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on August 12, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each). Chairman Ruge read a letter from the Mayor regarding Act-17-98 as follows: "Dear Mr. Ruge: "It is my recommendation that the Lansing Planning Board take action at their meeting this evening to table Act-17-98, the Public Act 285 review now underway to evaluate the possible sale of part of Grand River Park. "It is clear to me that a number of questions and issues related to this proposal remain to be answered and addressed at this time. I believe that any decision made now would be made without full knowledge of all relevant facts and before critical input is received by interested parties. For example, it is my understanding that the Parks Board has yet to take a formal position on the proposal. I also believe it is important that the issue of private use of public land, such as the use of Grand River Park by the Lansing Boat Club, be further discussed. "It is important that all the facts be clear before this issue is presented to the City Council, who must also weigh the merits of the proposal and ultimately decide if it will be placed on the ballot for consideration by the citizens of Lansing. Tabling the matter at this time will enable us to more fully investigate the impact of the proposal and present all the facts to the City Council and voting public. We will keep you informed as we proceed with our investigation. "Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this recommendation." FLOYD D.WRIGHT, 1319 W. RUNDLE, LANSING. I am here to speak to you about the Grand River Park property. My comments will be in the form of a question. Are you going to discuss the Urban Development Committee report or simply move to table? Chairman Ruge said generally what happens when an applicant asks us to table an item is we table it. I would imagine it will be tabled. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Wright then asked if Act-17-98 is brought up again in the future, will the action taken by the Urban Development Committee last week stand? Ms. Love suggested that the Board consider withdrawal as to opposed to tabling. If the Board were to recommend withdrawal, if or when it were brought up again, there would be a new public hearing. The committee would also want to review any new information that might come forward. Mr. Wright said that explained everything to his satisfaction. He also wanted Planning staff to keep him informed so he can follow up on the issue. ROBERT BETTMAN, 2909 E. GRAND, LANSING. I came tonight to oppose the sale of Grand River Park for private development of homes, condominiums or apartments. This is a beautiful area; I've lived in this area and have enjoyed the area. It was donated by R.E. Olds for a park, and I think it would be to keep it as a beautiful I to develop park area it for commercial private use. I urge the Board DAVID RAY, 3925 DELL RD, HOLT. Concerning Lansing Boat Club, I like the idea of withdrawal. Anderson Olds read in the newspaper that it was our property has was going to be sold, and we got people to comedown and show supp grandfather's land, and his grandfather donated it to the City as a park. He didn't spell it out as good as Moores did on some of his park land, and some of these other people where, if you ever sell it, it goes back to the heirs. I wish he had been a little more clear, but I think his intent was clear. Please withdraw it. KATHY BAUER, 6469 E. ISLAND, EAST LANSING. I have enjoyed the Grand River Park for about the last ten years. Waterfront property is very limited and becomes more and more limited with urban development. To sell it to the private sector, rather than keep it open for public areas are becom rig scarce. Lelt ther the public country, all over Michigan, waterfront enjoy it. It's a beautiful area. People boat, fish, water ski, and just go and enjoy the view and have a picnic. We strongly oppose its development and sale. FRED ADAMS, 3823 PALMER, LANSING. Comments so far have been in favor of the Lansing Boat Club, but no one has spoken about the possibility of the Club continuing their lease. We pay personal property taxes, property taxes, and our lease, and we would like to continue to do that. I understand the Parks Department recommends that the lease be written. We would like it for more than one month. We would appreciate anything that you folks can do so that we can have a five-year lease, or a two-year lease, or at least make it more than day-to- day (as Mr. Reickel has said--sometimes they say it's a month). We really would appreciate some communication to let us know where we stand. RUSSELL RIVET, 3811 PALMER ST, LANSING, a recent retiree of Michigan State University. I want to speak against Act-17-98 and hope that the mayor sees Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 6 it the same way along with the rest of the folks in the city. I want to encourage a new lease. The Boat Club has kind of adopted the students, and when they return here later in August and find out that they don't have a place to conduct their activities, they are going to be upset. There are over a thousand students who have worked with the Boat Club to maintain the property and to keep the water clean. Many have learned to water ski there. They rank fifth in the nation right now. They conduct activities and championships on the Grand River. About three years ago, they conducted a handicapped national championship for water skiing. When the students get back in the fall, they would appreciate having a home base. ARTHUR PHILLIPS, 3007 COOLEY DR., LANSING. An issue that needs to be talked about is membership. We have only 55 docks where people can keep their boat in the water. We have around 80 members, so it is evident that a member doesn't necessarily have to have a dock. Anybody can join; we have all members from all races. Another issue is that we provide security to these boats so we could leave our life preservers, fish finders and other things by having a person live-there. I think some people were offended by our sign that said Private or Keep Out or something like that. The intention was to prevent people coming in vandalizing property. Anybody can join our boat club. BOB JOHNSON, 800 W. SHIAWASSEE ST., LANSING, REPRESENTING DMR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES AND GILLESPIE DEVELOPMENT. We commend Mayor Hollister for submitting a request to table Act-17-98. There are issues that need to be worked out. I think the editorial in the State Journal said it best, that the park has been underutilized. It is essentially used for private purpose, supposedly available to the public. Availability to the public is somewhat questionable. In terms of betterment for the citizens of Lansing, if we were to ask members for a show of hands, and City of Lansing residents for a show of hands, it would be a dramatic demonstration that the majority do not live in the City of Lansing. I think this speaks to regionalization. Talking about taxes, the City of Lansing doesn't charge the Boat Club its fair share of taxes, assuming it is not a tax-free entity. By my calculations, it would approach $8,000 per year, based on the recently completed assessment. So when we look at the request to sell an asset of the City, we look at how it serves the community. As the State Journal editorial stated, this brings the public closer to the river. The waterfront would be controlled and maintained by the City of Lansing.. It would be more accessible to the public, without signs, without a resident living on City park property. There are special interest groups, and I happen to represent one, but I am also a City of Lansing resident. Yes, I think it should move forward as a development. LOLA ARBAUGH, 607 PACIFIC PKWY., LANSING. I was with Bernice Olds Smith, Mr. Olds' granddaughter, last night. She is unable to be here tonight, and Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 7 she wanted me to express that to you. You have her letter. Paul Sanderson also had other commitments tonight. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman declared the Public Comments section now closed. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: July 7, 1998 Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. .Nischan, to approve the minutes of July 7, 1998. Voice Vote; Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; the minutes of July 7, 1999 were approved. B. Committee Reports - 1. . Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Goolsby, Chair. Next meeting Wednesday, August 12, 1998, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. Act-17-98, Grand River Park Property, Market for Sale, considered on Tuesday, July 28, 1998. The Committee considered testimony and evidence, based on the location, character and extent of the proposal. In Committee, it was moved and seconded, by a 3-1 vote, to deny ACT-17-98. Mr. Nischan was made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to deny ACT-17-98, Grand River Park Property, Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said we do have a letter from the mayor requesting that this item be tabled. Mr. Goolsby thinks withdrawal is the prudent course, considering the many unresolved issues. If there is any resolution of those issues, we should have another public hearing: Ms. Love has indicated that it is most prudent to withdraw at this time and let the administration put forth another application which would require a public hearing and notification of property owners within a certain distance, and give notice that this issue is again before us. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Ms.. Keene, to withdraw Act-17-98, Grand River Park Property, Market for Sale. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Ruge said he understood that when the applicant withdraws their application, the Board accepts it. Is Ms. Love indicating that the applicant, the City of Lansing Parks Department, wishes to withdraw their application? Ms. Love said they wish to table, but it may have been a semantic issue for them, not realizing there is a difference in the way it is treated relative to a public board, whether it be tabled or withdrawn. Mr. Goolsby did have another point. Mr. Goolsby said he thought Ms. Love is right in terms of language. The applicant here is the City. Ms. Love represents the Planning Board. "I think her recommendation is appropriate this evening." It is a little bit unusual because the City is not the applicant in very many cases. If this were something that came before us from the applicant by letter, we would accept it without question.' "I think, regardless of whether it is semantics or not, the appropriate thing to do is just to withdraw." Mr. Miller said, "I'm going to oppose withdrawal." We have a letter from the mayor asking us to table it, and that's the action we should take. There are some issues that need to be resolved, but it's clear from the public hearing that the members of the Boat Club oppose this project and will continue to oppose it. We don't need to sit and hear that again. "I understand that completely." This should be put to the electorate for a vote. That's not going to happen. "It's been requested that we table it; I would support tabling." Having said that, from living on that side of town, Mr. Miller sees a desperate need for high-end housing. "I also see the need for riverfront development. I have supported that; that's my career, supporting water resources." Chairman Ruge asked Mr. Reickel if the Parks Department wants this withdrawn or tabled? Mr. Reickel said his discussion with the mayor pertained to tabling. I agree with the mayor. There is more information required, but I don't know that we need to go through the complete 285 review. The only problem I have personally on the public hearing process is the fact that the general public at large really, unless they read the ad, did not have an opportunity to speak publicly. The only people that spoke were those who had direct immediate vested interest, and I'm not convinced that people at large may have the same feeling, but I think that they should have that opportunity to do that. Because the whole intent here was to look at the options as to where exactly we stand pertaining to that acreage. And I would like to make it quite clear that we are not selling Grand River Park. That bothers me very, very much. I heard a lady say that within the last couple minutes. We are not selling the Grand River Park; we are not selling the frontage, we are not selling the Boat Club per se. We are maybe a piece of the property that abuts to up into the hill, but the property that the Boat Club is on is not being sold. I think those are things that concern me, that the general public at large should know. I think the editorial spoke to that well, and I think the editorial will generate some more input, but to completely put it aside I think would be a mistake. I Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 9 think if tabling doesn't serve the purpose because there is some type of procedure that we bypassed, then we can put it aside and reinstitute it. But for the time being (I was not comfortable at Urban Planning, we did not get a chance to talk about it), I don't think it was fair for you folks to have to make the decision before you hear a recommendation from the Park Board. That puts it all on you folks, and I don't think that's fair. The Park Board is part of this process; they should give you a recommendation. That's why I am strong on the tabling aspect. You should hear from the Park Board before you make a decision. Mr. Goolsby agreed that the Planning Board needs to hear from the Park Board. We also need to hear from elements in the City other than the special interest involved. The problem is, if we table it, there is not really a vehicle available for public input other than tabling and subsequent removal from the table. If the matter is withdrawn and resubmitted, then it again goes through the public hearing, and that would give the community at large an opportunity to give their opinion. There's a problem in getting the public at large down here to speak on this issue. The only way that we could guarantee that would be through another public hearing. . If we did table it for three or four months; and got additional information, at that time it might be prudent to have another public hearing because of the additional information. Withdrawal would give the administration an opportunity to collect that additional data bring it back, have another public hearing and get the people at large, unaffected individuals, to give us their opinion. It would facilitate the process. Tabling it would not necessarily do that. Mr. Miller said, again, the applicant does not want to withdraw the application, so we shouldn't withdraw something that the applicant does not want to withdraw. Ms. Love said her concern was making-sure that people have adequate notification when and if this item comes up again. If people would give their names and addresses, we could notify them. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to table Act-17-98, Grand River Park Property, Market for Sale, with the understanding that efforts be made to notify the audience and the general public when this comes up again. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-17-98, Grand River Park Property, Market for Sale, was TABLED. Mr. Ruff provided a sign-up sheet for audience members' use in providing their names and addresses for notification purposes when the matter is returned to the Board. A five-minute recess was called. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 10 b. Act-18-98, 5400 Blk. Wexford St., Market for Sale. The City is interested in using a request for proposal process to market about 4'/2 acres of vacant land in the 5400 Block of Wexford Street for residential development. This property is excess Board of Water and Light property. The subject parcel has been transferred to the City by the Board of Water and Light, which had purchased the property from the state of Michigan. Apparently, taxes were owed on it. The value of the property, established by appraisal conducted on behalf of the Board of Water and Light, is $27,000. Because of the taxes due, the sale proceeds from the City will go to the State of Michigan. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal, that: 1. The property would be marketed for single-family residential use, and.that would be consistent with surrounding land use and zoning in the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan, and 2. That the land right now is vacant and that a single-family residential development would increase home ownership in the area. In Committee, it was moved and supported to recommend approval of Act-18-98, 5400 Block Wexford Street, Market for Sale. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of Act-18-98, 5400 Block Wexford St., Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Rieske said as a point of clarification, the Board of Water and Light did not owe the back taxes of this property. The state acquired the property because of back taxes owed on it. BWL did not want it put on public record that they owed back taxes on the property, Mr. Rieske stressed that the sale proceeds go to the state to pay taxes already owed before the state took possession. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-1 8-APPROVED. 400 Blk. Wexford Street, Market for Sale, was C. Act-20-98, 1131 Race Street, Lease/License for Private Development Planning Board Minutes, August 4. 1 998 Page 11 The subject property is a vacant warehouse and commercial building south of East Grand River Avenue, located between Race Street and Grand River, north of Burchard Park, in North Lansing. It is in the Old Town commercial district, which is designated on the National Register of Historic Places. The building has been unused and dilapidated for a number of years, and is now under restoration. The building is located on the south property line of the developer's property and immediately adjacent to publicly owned property that is a part of Burchard Park. Harry Hepler, the developer, proposes to utilize a portion of publicly owned parkland for an outdoor deck in connection with development of a restaurant or office building. The proposed deck is approximately 2,400-sq ft in area, and extends approximately 35 ft from the building at its widest point, and approximately 158 ft along the edge of the Riverwalk structure to the south and west sides of the building.- Since the building essentially abuts the property line, the proposed patio/deck, if constructed, will be mostly over the adjacent Burchard Park property. The portion of the deck on the west side of the building would tie into the River Trail, spanning over City property that is either part of the floodplain or the river itself, and is currently unmaintained and permitted to grow wild with weeds and bushes. If any construction is over the river, or if any piers or supports are in the flood plain or floodway, a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality would be required. A 36- inch storm sewer and a 54 in x 66 in /will not allow th sewer are e in the area. The Public Service Department construction of a new structure within 50 ft of these pipes. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal that this proposal is not in conflict with the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan. This project could, with careful project planning and site plan review, help utilize an historic industrial tere for a use that is of the river as an compatible with the riverfront, take 9 amenity, and could encourage greater public use of Burchard Park and the River Trail. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 4-0 to recommend approval of Act-20-98 with two conditions: Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 12 1. That the Parks and Recreation Department approve the conceptual design, and 2. That the proposed deck's architectural design and building materials be appropriate to the historic character of the building. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Act-20-98, 1131 Race Street, Lease/License for Private Development with two conditions as above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of"tie in" as in "The portion of the deck on the west side of the building would tie into the River Trail, spanning over City property that is either part of the floodplain or the river itself. . . ." Mr. Rieske said, as proposed, the deck would use the same poles and foundation as the River Trail. The applicant is proposing this probably as a way to save money and to avoid some permitting requirements. He is exploring that right now. It seems like it would require looking into, beyond the scope of this review. Mr. Nischan said the other tie-in issue was use of that as an amenity, the patio area as a dining amenity. They are aware, if they were to do that, that they would have to have very controlled access, because Mr. Nischan thinks a liquor license is going to be applied for. Besides structural tie-in, there is also a circulation and use issue. It cannot be an open stairway going up. Mr. Frederick said his concern was that it not end up being over the River Trail boardwalk, so that bike riders would ride under it like under a bridge. Ms. Love said "I think what they are envisioning is that they may use the same pole in the water because . . . if it can sustain both structures, then maybe that would be the best way to go. . . . What we are to determine is whether we should give a license to this gentleman to facilitate the appropriate deck out onto that property." Mr. Frederick had no objections to that, as long as development doesn't encroach onto the River Trail. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried; Act-20-98, 1131 Race Street, Lease/License for Private Development with two conditions P as PROVED. above, was d. Act-22-98, NW Corner South Cedar and East Cavanaugh, Abandon Easement. This is a request by Velmeir Co., LLC, to reduce the Jessop Drain easement and to abandon a sanitary sewer easement to Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 13 facilitate the construction of the proposed Arbor Drugs located at the northwest corner of Cavanaugh and South Cedar Street. The issue is to abandon a sanitary sewer easement that is no longer used, and secondly, to reduce the easement for the storm drain from 100 ft to 30 ft. That will permit use of the area as a parking lot. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence on location, character and extent of the proposal, considered the abandonment of the sanitary sewer and reduction of the drain easement from 100 ft to 30 ft; abandonment of the sanitary sewer would be contingent upon written clarification from the Ingham County Drain Commissioner's office that they have no objection. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 3-0, that Act-22-98, Northwest Corner South Cedar Street.and East Cavanaugh Road, Abandon Easement, be recommended for approval. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Act-22-98, Northwest Corner South Cedar Street and East Cavanaugh Road, Abandon Easement. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby asked if the Drain Commissioner sent a response. Mr. Rieske said we have a letter dated July 27, 1998, from Eric Schertzing, Chief Deputy Drain Commissioner, stating that the Engineering Division of the Lansing Public Service Department has reviewed the plans for this, and it meets city standards. This office does not have a problem with the proposal. When a resolution from the Lansing City Council is received, the Drain Commissioner, which has jurisdiction for that easement, will sign the deeds. On a Voice vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-22-98, NW Corner of S. Cedar and Cavanaugh, Abandon Easement, was APPROVED. e. Amendments to Seven Block Plan & Ordinance #866. The Committee took up the wording of the portion of the Plan dealing with the intended use for an area. There were two versions. One narrowed the use specifically to office, and the other (staff) version eliminated direct neighborhood support. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 14 Version I says we want to be able to use the area for office uses that do not compete with downtown office space, and we do not want to have specified in the Plan that this area can be used for commercial services that support the neighborhood. Version II, the staff version, says we want to leave in allowance for specifically neighborhood service-oriented commercial uses as well as office-oriented uses. her wordingttee offers nmoeee choice. versions and thought the broad In Committee, it was moved, seconded the Seven Blockunanimously 3-0 to accept and adopt the9 for Amendments as proposed by staff. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to adopt the staffs proposed amendments to the Seven Block Plan. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby asked if the wording that the Committee adopted addressedexamplesthe lssue ase g oen, the types of professional offices? Mr. Nischan replied that specific but not an exhaustive list. Mr. Goolsby continued, gponss oting that ect uses would not compete ific kinds of offices which with downtown office uses but then the wording m P tend to be the same kind of offices found downtown. One version Mr. Goolsby saw indicates "these are excluded uses. I would be concerned to make sure clarified, that those were not excluded uses, but they were examples of uses that were acceptable." Ms. Keene agreed. "It looked as though this was an example of what you can't use." Mr. Ruff said the River Island Master Plan Amendmentspecified Seven Block areas giving to be expansion of office uses in the downtown area, and this the corner of what was studied, that it should be south of the Capitol and along 496. So there is not too much conflict in the idea of adding d wifffl the River ce here. Office uses in lsland Amendment location would be compatible with the downtown an Plan. The zoning is different, so there would be a significant difference in the type of development that could take place. Mr. Goolsby said it is easily solved by saying examples of cc ptablto amendes that last the area are such and such. That would be a friendly amendment, sentence that list them to say "Examples of acceptable uses within the Plan area are: and then list those that are already there." The amendment was acceptable to both Mr. Nischan and Mr. Smith. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 15 On a Voice vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Amendments to the Seven Block Plan and Ordinance 866 with wording changes as above were PPROVED. Next meeting August 25, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee The Executive Committee will meet at 6 p.m. on September 1 before regular Planning Board meeting. C. Report from the Planning Manager: 1. A new PRD on Forest Road, called the Hunt Club, for 166 units of rental housing, is coming. It is the old Smith Nursery on the north side of Forest Road at the northwest corner of the intersection of Forest Road and.US-127. . 2. We are going to begin.sign code enforcement in two pilot areas this fall. Jim has prepared a letter for the distributors, the people who deal in pop, beer, and wine, asking for their assistance in recommending displays of flags and banners inside of the buildings, not outside of the buildings. The letter will be mailed August 28. It will give people 60 days, until October 23. 1 am preparing the letter to go up to Council today so they are aware of it. Jim has also prepared pamphlets to go out. 3. Ms. Love directed members' attention to an article on procedural due process. 4. Two new rezoning cases are coming up next month; one is rezoning for the Ronald McDonald house on the corner of Michigan and Holmes Street; the second is rezoning and expansion of Neogen facilities on Lesher Place. 5. At a committee meeting this morning, City Council made a recommendation to ask the administration to initiate a housing study. So we will be doing the city-wide housing study in the next six to eight months. It will be a market analysis and trends study, looking at housing in the city and in the region. 6. Also, we are working with the Mayor's Office and the Transportation Office to finish the North Lansing Transportation Study; both on- and off-street parking will be included. 7. There will be a BTS resolution at City Council next week, reaffirming the City's position that we will in fact sell the Board of Education approximately ten acres of land for the relocation of their fields. It is a reaffirmation of the existing BTS Plan. Certain Board of Education Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 16 members who were not here when the plan was adapted were concerned that somehow the City has going to do a power coup and we were going to keep all the land. We wanted to assure them that this was not the case. We have had our first meetings regarding the Year 2000 Census. In 1990, the Census Bureau did such a terrible job counting that many communities across the country sued. For the first time ever, the Census Bureau is allowing communities to look at the master address file. When we get that information, we will be working with the Police, Fire, Board of Water and Light, and Ameritech to find all the residential addressees in the city. We going to do filters. We are going to take their master address list and compare it to the Assessor's records, Board of Water and Light records, etc. Every address that comes out as a match is fine. It's the last 10 or 15 per cent of our addresses, where it may be residential, residences over commercial structures, or bad addressing on a multiple family house, that we have to go and verify. Early in the process we must do all these address matching filters and come up with that 10-15 percent. -We have 90 days from the minute that we get this information to get it back to the Census Bureau. We will also use the Postal Service. The Postal Service and the Census Bureau have already combined their address files. We are in the process of doing this. Santa Barbara, California, did a 15 percent sample, and they found a five percent error rate. If you figure 130,000 people at a five per cent error rate, that's 6,500 people. It's very important in terms of determining the numbers of federal legislators, liquor licenses, and federal grants. It's important when you apply for state water grants and other things, so we need to make sure that the Census is very accurately counted. We received a whole book full of information on publicizing the census and making sure we get the right information. Mr. Nischan said a couple of years ago, GIS people in the Mason Building went through zip code and address mapping, digitizing the information. Mr. Miller said that process has been moved from the Department of Natural Resources to the Michigan Information Center in the Department of Management and Budget. They have undertaken what they call a conflation process of the Tiger census files with the old MIRIS files the DNR has. "They have cut the City of Lansing out for me to provide to our staff to assist in this." Mr. Miller has been working with them to have the results of all that analysis which the legislature uses for redistricting, and the Secretary of State uses, and so on. Ms. Love said the best system at this point seems to be the Ameritech system. Ameritech has the Enhanced 911 Centers data base. They type in Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 17 an address, and the computer responds immediately as to whether or not it is a valid address. The question is whether or not we can get Ameritech's cooperation. Mr. Miller said he is glad to hear we are workinconference as an with the Policeepampleeartment, because LPD was mentioned at a national GIS of a very advanced application of GIS. Ms. Love said LPD has offered to help us with field investigation when we get to the point of looking at those addresses we can't find. We have some field office verification between Fire, Police, and Code Compliance. We are getting good cooperation. The Steering Committee for the Downtown Master Plan recommended approval to the full board and is sending it back to the Planning Board with several conditions. In September, we can take that up in committee. D. Pending Items: 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. 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"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) "H" Light Industrial to"G-I" Business District C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial&"H" Light Industrial Districts to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street(Act -6-98); g. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street(Act-7-98); h. SLU-7-98,Washington Park, 2516 S.Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. clippert St. (Act-9-98); j. SLU-9-98, Fire Station#6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. (Act-10-98); k. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4B01 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); I. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. (Act-12-98); M. SLU-12-98, Fire Station#4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); n. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd.; o. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.; P. SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St.; q. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Tabled in committee of the Whole May 19, 1998) 3. Urban Development Committee a. MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. b. Act-21-98, Ingham Reg. Med. Center, S. Pennsylvania, Replacement sign in Pennsylvania Ave. ROW C. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved. The School District has withdrawn two high schools, Eastern and Everett, items o. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.; and p. Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 18 SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler Street. Mr. Ruff included copies of the letter in the packet. Mr. Goolsby had a question. The letter was signed by the financial officer who stated that the superintendent was going to recommend withdrawal to the School Board. Have they taken action? Mr. Ruff said he took it as a request for withdrawal for the two cases. 8. NEW BUSINESS: None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON: None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. Mr. Goolsby, following up on the letter from the Lansing School Board, said it is another indication of lack of leadership of the School District. We have a letter sent to us allegedly by educators, saying that the concern has been raised, therefore, we are going to withdraw. I would be the first to vote to not place a tower in any of these sites if we find out it's a danger to children, or in these two sites if there is some interference with the medical facilities close by. But we really don't know that yet. We had a public hearing in which the representatives from the hospital came forward and said this is the problem, we're concerned about it and they couldn't cite any data or anything like that to us. We followed up. Mr. Ruff and I have had a couple of conversations subsequent to that, and they still can't point to any problems. I think we should continue to investigate and determine, but for the school district to withdraw a request like this based on concerns that have not been proven yet I think is premature and is a total lack of leadership in the school district. We have already seen an article where they still want the money that is generated from this project, but they have withdrawn everything, except Sexton and Harry Hill sites, which to me is ludicrous. If the City gives them any money, I say shame on the administration. I can only hope that no high school student sees this letter from the administration, because if I saw it and they didn't like mathematics, I might write a letter to Dr. Halik, suggest to him that I'm concerned that study of mathematics can cause blindness and have him to withdraw that from the curriculum. I think that's how silly that situation is with them withdrawing. The way the School Board has approached this has been less than what I would expect from the School Board in this city. I think it's an embarrassment to them. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked when is the corner of Michigan and Grand going to be corrected? Mr. Ruff said he is working on a letter. Mr. Ruge then asked about the North Pennsylvania property which has a backhoe and a dump truck stored on it, and piles of junk. Mr. Ruff said the applicant has Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 19 requested withdrawal of his rezoning application. He would like to build a building but has not submitted plans yet. Mr. Goolsby asked about the letters of notification concerning appropriate displays. Ms. Love said we have designated two pilot areas, one at Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. south of Jolly to the freeway, the other on the north end along North East Street from Lake Lansing Road to the city limits. That does not take care of all issues. Certain intersections may have signs in the public right-of-way. These are the ones that create the greatest liability for the City. Mr. Ruge said regarding signs in the right-of-way, he understood that City codes say no signs in the right-of-way. Licensing signs in the right-of-way seems contradictory. Ms. Love said our code deals only with signs on private property. The only time we deal specifically with public property is when we have a gateway sign, such as the sign on Edgewood Blvd. in the median. There are neighborhood signs on public property. The right-of-way engineer and the transportation engineer have jurisdiction over signs in the public right-of-way. The transportation engineer generally follows the ITE rules which allow parking signs, stop signs, and traffic control signs to be located in the public right-of-way. Discussion ensued concerning signs in the rfor extra land to put the Acomplex on Mt. Hope. Ms. Love said the apartments want t buy opposed to sign out farther. Also, it was a private sign for a private entity as to the neighborhood association erecting a neighborhood identity sign. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn080498 a:\52 APPROVED February 2, 2000 Draft 02012000 Approved 02012000 To Clerk 02072000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, August 18, 1998 I. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Nischan, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith; seven members present; one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences: Mr. Greiner requested and was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Ms. Love, Planning Manager and Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. Mr. Ruge asked if the Zoning and Ordinance Committee referred several items to the Committee of the Whole? Mr. Frederick said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee referred nothing to the Committee of the Whole, but rather recommended that items proposed for business at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee be discharged and taken up by the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby said that the Committee of the Whole ought to be listed on the agenda for each session to give the Board the opportunity to resolve to it at any time. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan has been forwarded again. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION - Minutes for Approval: August 4, 1998. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve minutes for August 4, 1998;Voice vote, unanimous;carried;the minutes of August 4, 1998 were approved. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2 A. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair. Mr. Goolsby said the items listed under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee are still in Committee. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee be discharged of items A-H, and that they be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Because Mr. Frederick and Mr. Miller discussed these items last Wednesday at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, in the absence of Mr. Greiner tonight, "I would suggest that you appoint Mr. Miller Chair of the Committee of the Whole." Voice vote;Ayes: All, Nays: None; Mr. Miller was appointed Chair of the Committee of the Whole in the absence of Mr. Greiner. Next meeting of Zoning and Ordinance Committee Wednesday, September 9, 1998, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Planning Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Regarding the motion to discharge items A-H, Zoning and Ordinance Committee, and referral to the Committee of the Whole, on a Voice vote; Ayes: All, Nays: None; unanimous; carried; the items were discharged and referred to the Committee of the Whole. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair. Next meeting Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee Has not met but it will meet on September 1, 1998. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to resolve into the Committee of the Whole; Voice vote; unanimous; carried; the Board resolved into the Committee of the Whole. 4. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Miller, Chair. The Committee of the Whole will take up the items A-H, discharged from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Frederick presented the cases. a. Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan, rezoning to "DM-1" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3 This is an irregular-shaped piece of property of about two acres, near the end of Holmes Road on Grand River. The surrounding land use to the north, south and east is vacant. To the west is the Grand River. Regarding the surrounding zoning, it is surrounded by the Committee Unit Plan that has been in place for some time with the exception of the west, which is the Grand River. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area as residential with density of seven to fourteen dwelling units per acre. On December 17, 1971, this property was rezoned from "A" Residential District to Community Unit Plan for the development of 457 condominiums. The existing building on the property where the rezoning is requested was the community building for the complex. At that time, it included an apartment for staff. The building is currently vacant, and it has not been used for some time. The applicant proposes to convert the existing Community Center to two to three residential units. Also, an additional four-unit building is planned to be built on this parcel. This piece of land is part of a larger piece of land that was rezoned as Community Unit Plan. The development was subsequently suspended. Because the Community Unit Plan no longer exists, it has been replaced by the Planned Residential Development. The current proposal has three alternatives: 1. To develop land as the original zoning which was "A" Residential, since the Community Unit Plan was an overlay, or 2. To develop the land under the rules of Community Unit Plan which, even though it no longer exists in the zoning code, still exists because it was resumed at the time, or 3. To request a rezoning so that the development can continue. The first two options really serve no useful purpose and wouldn't allow the developer to go ahead and develop this community center into some apartments units that he can rent. In our discussion with the developer, the Community Center is currently boarded up, but the structure itself is still fundamentally sound, though it has been vandalized and needs much work. The owner showed plans at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting that would allow him to develop several good-sized apartment residences and would allow him to begin developing this piece of land, along with an additional building that will also include some three- bedroom apartments. Currently the land is used by fishermen and others. If this development were to proceed, it would go a long way to developing this piece of property, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 4 resolving a neighborhood issue, and hopefully adding to the ambiance of the surrounding area. The Committee discussed the developer's proposal, and believed that the rezoning should take place. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to recommend approval of Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP) to "DM-1" Residential District. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Keene asked if this building is part of this entire complex, Hunters Ridge, or is it separately owned. Mr. Frederick said that the building originally was the community center for the condominium development. The developer, after he put in some condominiums, also put in some apartment buildings and allowed the apartment residents to use the community center. The condominium residents didn't consider that appropriate under the terms of their agreement and suspended their dues payments. The developer simply boarded up the building and walked away. Ms. Keene asked if this building is still under the same ownership? Mr. Miller said this individual doesn't own the rest of the development. Ms. Love said one of the partners died, and the family members ended up with the piece of property that is between the existing apartments and condos and this piece. Mr. Thompson has an easement across the property to get to his property from the end of the public street. He had to get the easement before we would consider his request. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP) to "DM-1" Residential District, was recommended to be APPROVED. b. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street This is a request to allow the replacement of an existing communications tower with a monopole communications tower up to 200 ft, though most likely it will not exceed 180 ft, plus an addition to the lightning rod to protect the tower for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This is a narrow, deep lot that is located adjacent to service area of Groesbeck Golf Course. In discussion, the Committee found that this new tower to be constructed would replace an older city-owned tower. It would allow for the co-location of facilities including the existing antennae. There would be no net gain in the number of towers in the area. It would provide better communication services for the area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 5 The Committee discussed the practical hardship of this request. When the zoning code was developed, the need for this type communications equipment couldn't have been foreseen since this is a recent technological development. The Committee believed this represented a real practical difficulty. The surrounding land use is residential to the north of Groesbeck Golf Course, multifamily residential to the east, and single-family residential the west. Surrounding zoning is Professional Office and "A" Residential; south, east and west is "A" Residential. The North-EastArea Comprehensive Plan designates this property and the surrounding area for parks and open space. It is a quarter- acre site located on south side of David Street west of Wood Street and north of the Groesbeck Golf Course. It presently hosts an existing city-owned communications tower that is about 155 ft high. The new tower if approved would be erected in the approximate location of the existing tower near the south end of the site. Access to the tower location on the site is gained by the existing driveway from David Street. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; and 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to recommend that SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; and 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. Mr. Ruge asked if SLU-6-98 also included Act-7-98. The cases are not listed under the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nischan said the Urban Development Committee does not want to take this to its meeting separately from tonight; the Committee would PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 6 prefer to deal with it in Committee of the Whole. Ms. Love said the items would have to be discharged from Urban Development Committee separately. Mr. Goolsby asked if there is additional information with the Act file that is not with the SLU? Ms. Love said they were done together concurrently, together, the SLU, the Act and the BZA. The analysis was done together, so you have the analysis for the Act 285 and the analysis for the SLU. It is a single report for both actions. Mr. Goolsby said it would be necessary for the Committee of the Whole to rise; then Urban Development could move to discharge their items; refer them to the Committee of the Whole; then the Board could resolve into the Committee of the Whole and take everything at once. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE action on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street, with conditions as above, was recommended to be APPROVED. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick,that the Committee of the Whole rise; Voice vote; Ayes: All, unanimous; carried; approved. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to defer Mr. Frederick's report from the Committee of the Whole at this time. Voice vote; Ayes: All, unanimous; carried; approved to defer Mr. Frederick's report from the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for a recess to allow the Urban Development Committee to meet; Voice vote; Ayes: All, unanimous; carried; approved.; the Board was in recess. Subsequently, Chairman Ruge reconvened the Board. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair. The Urban Development Committee met, and in Committee, it was moved,seconded,carried,and unanimously approved to discharge Act- 7-98 (SLU-6-98), 1716 David Street; Act-9-98 (SLU-8-98), Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street; Act-10-98 (SLU-9- 98) Fire Station #6,3708 Pleasant Grove Road;Act-12-98(SLU-11-98),Vacant Property off the east end of Dadson Road. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to discharge Act-7-98 (SLU-6-98), 1716 David Street; Act-9-98 (SLU-8-98), Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street; Act-10-98(SLU-9-98)Fire Station#6,3708 Pleasant Grove Road;Act-12-98(SLU-11-98), Vacant Property off the east end of Dadson Road to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 7 On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Act-7-98 (SLU-6-98), 1716 David Street; Act-9-98 (SLU-8-98), Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street; Act-10-98 (SLU-9- 98) Fire Station#6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road;Act-12-98 (SLU-11-98), Vacant Property off the east end of Dadson Road were referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the Board resolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; the Board reconvened as the Committee of the Whole. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Miller, Chair. a. Act-7-98, 1716 David Street Mr. Nischan said the content of all the Act cases is the same as the content of the special land use cases, so in the interest of brevity, he would prefer only the one presentation, already made as SLU-6-98. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to approve Act-7-98, 1716 David Street. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE action on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0, Act-7-98, 1716 David Street was APPROVED. b. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street Mr. Frederick presented the Zoning and Ordinance Committee actions, saying this is a request to construct a monopole tower not to exceed 200 ft; more likely it will be 180 ft plus a lightning rod for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antenna. This property is in the floodplain of the Red Cedar River. The Special Land Use permit needs to include the authorization to erect it with its base in the floodplain and all equipment above the base flood elevation. The City of Lansing is requesting approval to lease a portion of the Red Cedar Golf Course property to construct a multi- tenant telecommunications tower up to 200 feet tall with necessary area lighting to service the public space at the golf course starting at the storage house near the parking lot along S. Clippert. Accessory area lighting may also be located on the tower to provide additional security to the course if there is need for it. In Committee, it was noted that Dr. Randy Johnson sent a letter PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 8 indicating that he was not oppe she is the owneed to a tower r i the Oaks he Red Cedar Golf Course, but sin Apartment House nearby, he didn't want it to be a visual nuisance to that property or a physical barrier in the area which would compromise the value of his property. It was also noted that there are other towers or poles in the area including those for lighting the ballfield and the highway interchange; therefore, it would not be an abnormality for the area and would probably merge into all the other towers and not be a visual mmittee nuisance bel believed approval Johnson's was property. Further, the C appropriate, and noted that the intrusion this tower would make on the floodplain was insignificant. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street for the erection of telecommunications monopole with the conditions that: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; 6. The tower have good accessibility; 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact; and 8. Permits be obtained from Michigan DNR/DEQ for development in the 100 year flood plain as appropriate. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan,to approve SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street,for the erection of telecommunications monopole with the conditions as above. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Lengthy discussion ensued concerning locating the monopole as a light pole on the possible balll stadium there, location of the pole in the floodplain, sight views, aesthetics, andnegative impacts on existing use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 9 On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, for the erection of a telecommunications monopAole with the PPROVED conditions as above, be The Committee of the Whole then took up Act-9-98. C. Act-9-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, approve S Uct 988, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, with all conditions listed COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Act-9-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 0; Nays:On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; y , S. Clippert Street, for the erection of a telecommunications monopole with AaPPROIVED as for SLU-8-98 above„ was d. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Frederick presented the Zoning and Ordinance Committee report. This is a request to allow the replacement of an existing tower approximately 106 feet tall, used as a public fire station and with a City communications tower at 3708 200 ft,Pleasant likely 180ofta plus a monopole tower of at most lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This parcel of land is adjacent to other lare lots on the west side of Pleasant Grove Road and the which have expressed their support. The surrounding land use is residential to the north and east and multi family residential to the south and west. It is currently zoned "A" Residential. In Committee, discussion centered on how the development of the tower on this site may affect the reuse e artment passed in the last property. The bond issue for the fir p election. Neighborhood fire stations have not been the easiest properties to sell or reuse, but if that should occur, the tower could provide additional income to make a sale more likely. This is already a public facility and has an tlng Further, but it the Committee be a little taller, approximately twice as tall believed approval of this special land use would be appropriate. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to recommend approval of SLU-9-98, Fire Station No. 6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road with conditions as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 181 1998 PAGE 10 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby asked about the property lease and about construction eln t rmsr. The lof ty would be leasing the property; a lessee would pay for the tower construction. the public facility property, if it were to be reused, it would have to another Abe 285o e. If the City were to sell the property, it would probably necessitate Discussion concerned safety issues related to the inability to locate a tower 200 ft from residences on the small lot, the possibility of accident in the event of a falling tower, and possible relocation of the fire station in the future. Fire Station No. 6, 3708 Pleasant; On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; carried Grove Road, erection of telecommunications monopole with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. APPROVED. was recommended to be C. Act-10-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to approve Act-10-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, with all conditions listed for SLU-9-98. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; carried; Act-10-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for the erection of telecommunications monopole with Aall PPROVED as for SLU-9-98 above was recommended to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 1811998 PAGE 11 d. SLU-11-98, Vacant Property Off the East End of Dadson Rd. This on of a monopole tower of at is a request to allow the construtli lightning rod, for the co- most 200 ft, more likely 180 ft, plus a 9 location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to a residential vacant 601 alcren to the west, parcel to the 1-96 expressway to the north, and a east. It was noted that the location of the tower may be restricted on the southern portion of the property since there is a small gap of land between the two pieces but that the southern easonable location for he towee ce was large enough to provide a without adversely affecting the existing development or future development of the adjacent vacant land. Also, it could be located away from a long view from nearby evidence, cos and the lncuray. The ed with committee, based upon testimony and the staff report and recommended approval Road, subject to the six property off the east end of Dadson conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to recommend approval of SLU-11-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road, with five conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote,there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-11-98,Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road with conditions as above, was reAcPoPmmende to be C. Act-12-98, Vacant Property Off the East End of Dadson Road Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to approve Act-12-98, Vacant Property Off the East End of Dadson Road, with all conditions listed for SLU-11-98; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 12 On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-12-98, Vacant Property Off the East End of Dadson Road, for the erection of telecommunications monopole with all conditions as for SLU-11-98 above, was APPROVED. e. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 518 Wise Road. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200 ft, more likely 180 ft, plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae on the site of Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended approval of SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road, with six conditions as follows: 1. The proposed monopole tower provide for co-location of antennas; 2. The proposed contract with the City include language helping to ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 3. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 4. The tower be appropriately fenced for security; 5. The tower have good accessibility; and 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road, with conditions as above was recommended to be APPROVED. The Committee of the Whole then took up the withdrawals of SLU-15-98 and SLU-16-98. f. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave. & SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler Street. The Lansing School District has requested the withdrawal of these two items. The Committee recommended reluctantly accepting withdrawal of the petitions. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to accept withdrawal of SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue and SLU-16-98, Everett PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 13 High School, 3900 Stabler Street, by Dr. Halik, Superintendent of the Lansing School District. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote,there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, and SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler Street, were recommended to be WITHDRAWN. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that the Committee of Whole rise, unanimous; carried; approved; Chairman Ruge resumed. 2. Committee Reports - Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Miller, Chair. a. Z-7-98,4000 Hunter Ridge, Community Unit Plan(CUP)to"DM-1" Residential. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, that Z-7-98, 4000 Hunter Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP)to "DM-1" Residential be recommended for approval. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follow: Frederick . .Aye Goolsby . .Ave Keene .Aye Miller .Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-7-98, 4000 Hunters Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP) to "DM-1" Residential District was APPROVED. b. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend that SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 14 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Goolsby . .Aye Keene •Ave Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Nischan . Ave Ruge . . Ave Smith • Ave Frederick . .Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street with conditions as above, was APPROVED. C. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend that SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; 6. The tower have good accessibility; 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact; and 8. Permits be obtained from Michigan DNR/DEQ for development in the 100 yearflood plain as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Miller . . Ave Nischan • Aye Ruge . Aye Smith •Aye Frederick . .Ave Goolsby •Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 15 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, (Act-9-98) with conditions as above was APPROVED. d. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend that SLU-9-98, Fire Station No. 6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Miller. .Aye Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . .Nay Smith . . . . . Nay Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby. .Aye Keene . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; carried; SLU-9-98, Fire Station No. 6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, (Act-10-98) with conditions as above was APPROVED. e. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east and of Dadson Rd. (Act-12-98) Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend that SLU-11-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 16 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: N_ischan . .Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . .Aye Frederick . Ave Goolsby .Aye Keene Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-11-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road with conditions as above, was APPROVED. f. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend that SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The proposed monopole tower provide for co-location of antennas; 2. The proposed contract with the City include language helping to ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 3. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 4. The tower be appropriately fenced for security; 5. The tower have good accessibility; and 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ruge . .Aye Smith . .Ave Frederick . .Aye Goolsby . .Ave Keene . Ave Miller •Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road with conditions as above was APPROVED. g. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave., & SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 17 Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to accept withdrawal the above applications by Lansing School District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; unanimous; carried, SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave., and SLU-16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St. were WITHDRAWN. Next Meeting Wednesday, September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. Act-7-98, 1716 David Street Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend that Act-7-98, 1716 David Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Goolsby . .Aye Keene .Ave Miller . Aye Nischan . Ave Ruge . Ave Smith • Ave Frederick On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; ACT-7-98, 1716 David Street with conditions as above, was APPROVED. C. Act-9-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 18 that Act-9-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. 5. The tower have good accessibility; 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact; and 7. Permits be obtained from Michigan DNR/DEQ for development in the 100 yearflood plain as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD ACTION On the motion was as follows: Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Nischan . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . Ave Frederick . .Aye Goolsby. . .Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-9-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, was APPROVED. d. Act-10-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend that Act-10-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert Street, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 19 Miller. .Aye Nischan . . . Aye Ruge . .Nav Smith . Nay Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . •Ave Keene . .Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; carried; Act-10-98, Fire Station No. 6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, with conditions as above was APPROVED. e. Act-12-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Rd. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof,to recommend that Act-12-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road, be approved with conditions as follows: 1. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Nischan . .Ave Ruge • Ave Smith . .Ave Frederick Ave Goolsby . .Aye Keene • Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-12-98, Vacant Property off the East End of Dadson Road with conditions as above was APPROVED. Next Meeting Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue 3. Executive Committee Next meeting September 1, 1998 C. Report from the Planning Manager: None d. Pending Items: Future action required PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 20 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. 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"G-1"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) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, F-1" Commercial & "H' Light Industrial Districts (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Referred to the Z&O Comm. August 4, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street(Act-6-98) h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98) I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98) j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station#4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98) K. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (items g-kwere referred to the Z& O Comm. July 21, 1998) 3. Urban Development Committee a. MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. b. Act-21-98, Ingham Reg. Med. Center, S. Pennsylvania, Replacement sign in Pennsylvania Ave. ROW C. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved. 8. New Business - None 9. Comments from Chairperson - None 10. Comments from Board Members- None 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS: Mr. Nischan mentioned the criteria for approving the Master Plan and asked members to please look at Plan Memo. Regarding the Master Plan, Mr. Goolsby requested that staff tabulate comments from the public hearings to make sure that the Committee considered all comments and addressed all issues. When the Committee referred the Plan to the Board, the Board likewise could view each comment made, and the manner in which it was addressed, to ensure that all concerns in the Plan were addressed. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10 p.m. Respectfu Submitted, i / James A. Ruff, Interim Planning Manager Secretary, Planning Board MN081898 a:\55 ACT-7-98 SLU-6-98 BZA 3483.98 1716 David Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 CONTACTS: Linda Sanchez, Mayor's Office 483-4147 Jim-Ruff, Planning Office 483-4085 David Kazmirzack, LPD 483-4840 APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: The City is requesting approvals necessary to permit construction of communication towers at several locations throughout the City in order to better plan their locations. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1. ACT The approvals subject to Act 285 Review is limited to approval of the option to use or lease City property; if the proposed use is approved, additional approvals necessary before erection of a communications tower include: 2. SLU: Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under Section 1248.04(e) of the Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of "a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility..."; 3. BZA Approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 of the Zoning Code, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to permit a structure over 35 feet in height, the maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential zoning district. EXISTING LAND USE: City communications tower site, 47.3 meters tall (approximately 155.2 feet) LOCATION: South of David Street and approximately 600 feet west of Wood Street EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential - PROPERTY SIZE: 10,890 square feet, 0.25 acres SURROUNDING LAND N: Residential USE: S: Groesbeck Golf Course E: Multi-family residential W: Single Family Residential ACT-7-98 SLU-6-98 BZA 3483.98 Page 2 1716 David Street SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Professional and "A" Residential (Lansing Township) S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and surrounding area for Parks and Open Space. DESCRIPTION of SITE The '/4 acre site is located on the south side of David Street, west of Wood Street, and north of the Groesbeck Golf Course. The site presently hosts an existing, City owned, communications tower that is approximately 155 feet in height. The new tower, if approved, would be erected in the approximate location of the existing tower near the south end of the site. Access to the tower location on the site is obtained by an existing driveway from David Street. ANALYSIS for ACT 285 REVIEW Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location David Street is located just north of Groesbeck Golf Course and west of Wood Street. The subject lot is located is on the south side of David Street approximately 600 feet west of Wood Street. The present antenna structure is located on the southern portion of-the lot approximately 200 feet south of the public roadway. Character The property is a vacant residential lot with an existing police/fire dispatch tower, approximately 155 feet tall. The lot is level and unlandscaped. Surrounding land uses include five single family homes on the south side of David Street, seven single family homes on the north side. There is a 48 unit apartment complex at the southwest corner of Wood Street and David, and an office building at the northwest corner. Groesbeck golf course is to the south, an apartment complex is located approximately 500 feet north of the site, and an abandon industrial site is located approximately 800 feet northwest of the subject property. The Groesbeck neighborhood is located east of Wood Street. ACT-7-98 SLU-6-98 BZA 3483.98 r Page 3 1716 David Street Extent The extent of the proposed tower use will not necessarily change. This request could possibly replace the 155 foot tower with a 200 foot tall tower. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT(SLU) Special Land Use Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows. 1. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE The.site is already used for a "public utility", the proposed characteristics of which will remain unchanged, except the potential height of the tower structure may increase by approximately twenty-five percent. 2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY The essential character of the surrounding area is sparsely developed residential and recreational uses. The proposed increase in tower height will have no greater impact on this than the present tower. 3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY Staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT The proposed new tower presents an opportunity to implement improvements to the site, such as landscaping, screening, and buffering, and pavement of the access driveway. 5. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE Again, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. ACT-7-98 SLU-6-98 BZA 3483.98 Page 4 1716 David Street 6. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE.PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER CONSIDERATION Again, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY Again, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 8. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Northeast Area Master Plan designates this area for open space and parks. The tower facility is not inconsistent with this designation, and it provides a location where the visual and aesthetic impact on residential neighborhoods will be minimized. 9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED The maximum height for a principle structure in the "A" Residential District is 35 feet. The proposed tower will require a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. ANALYSIS for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VARIANCE Section 1244.06 of the Zoning Code sets forth the criteria and standards which must be used to evaluate a Variance request.. For the sake of simplifying this evaluation, staff assumes the Special Land Use request has been approved. The criteria and evaluation relevant to this case are as follows.! 1. Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exist? Yes. The City's Zoning Code does not permit structures of 200 feet in height except in the G-1 Business zoning district, which is intended for the downtown business district. 2. The location, size. and character of the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding nel hborhood. As proposed, staff believes that the tower would not be inharmonious with the recreational and residential uses. The proposed placement of the tower as far away as possible from the single family residential neighborhood is appropriate. ACT-7-98 SLU-6-98 BZA 3483.98 Page 5 1716 David Street 3. The proposed use will be of a nature that will make vehicular and_pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than normal for the district involved.... Staff does not believe there would be any impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic due to this proposal. Access to the site will remain from the existing driveway constructed to David Street or it could be from existing golf course maintenance facilities which have access from Wood Street. The tower site should only require access periodically by maintenance and service vehicles. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an ACT-285 Review, a Special Land Use Permit, and a variance in the height of a structure to permit construction of a cellular telephone tower 200 feet in height. Since the site is publicly owned and may be leased for private use, the ACT-285 Review is required. The Special Land Use permit is required because there is a significant change proposed in an existing public utility. The Variance is required because the "A" zoning district only permits structures up to 35 feet in height. Staff believes that the proposed location of the tower on the site is appropriate. The proposed location is in an area of relative visual isolation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed monopole tower replace the existing tower; 2. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower; 3. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 6. The tower be appropriately fenced for security. Respectfully submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner SLU-6-98.FE tiORTH LU-&98 &.BZA 3483.98 1716 DAVID STREET O E i.948.500 - E i.S49.000 :)AVDD I C t 1 1882.8 VAN - ST,. .. N 4' 878.9 a . .2 /7 r // Pt ee ER 660 ❑ 0 X .4 x� l] 884.7 685.40000 88� PARKING - - 8.891 f X 20 N4 x 882.4 APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 5,1998. Draft 4/28I98 Approved 050598 To Clerk 051298 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium 2600 Hampden Dr. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of Appeals Chairman Home, 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 Home, 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, 5816 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 - 1 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 ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT i AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 3 3. Old Business J. Ruff requested that the committee also review certain of the pending tower cases based upon the progress that has been made with,the hospitals and the keen interest in certain of these sites by telecommunication companies. Besides the five sites below, telecommunication companies are pursuing the use of sites that either do not require special permits or are privately owned. These other sites include the BWL smoke stacks, the existing city_tower on Holmes at Washington, City Hall and the former WJIM tower on Saginaw by Frandor. J. Ruff further requested that the Board accept the withdrawal of the two school sites (Eastern and Everett) as requested by the Lansing School District. A. SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street (Act-7-98) J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the replacement of the existing tower with a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This narrow deep lot is located adjacent to the service area of Groesbeck Golf Course. E Mr. Frederick noted the following positive points to this proposal: There would be constructed a new tower replacing an older City owned tower; this would allow for the co-location of facilities including the existing antennae, there would be no net gain in the number of towers in this area of the city, and this would provide for better communication services for the area. Mr. Frederick also noted that these types of facilities and services may not have been envisioned with the current zoning code and this type of public utility, but believed this provided for the practical difficulty criteria for the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Committee, based.upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-6-98, 1716 David Street, Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. B. SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. Also, seeing that this property is in the flood plain of the Red Cedar River the Special Land Use permit needs to include the ti �. F. � s N�. �" _ .•L � '•',L,1 i.. — cif".. .. ^ 1 1 6 .. ,�- r. • - .. .i k' 'r' ):� .. Ali: '.}:. ,, _ $ T", I � �.. ,�. � ?;'- 1 X1 L rrr"-I r •�,` C ';t :Aim '+,� — . ! 5 r ire �•.b 7 'A r ' F 3 ACT 9 98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 125 S. Clippert Street- Red Cedar Golf Course GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 CONTACTS: Linda Sanchez, Mayor's Office 483-4147 Jim Ruff, Planning Office 483-4085 R. Eric Reickel, Parks Dept. 483-4297 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City of Lansing is requesting approvals necessary to permit them to lease a portion of the Red Cedar Golf Course property and construct a multi-tenant communications tower up to 200 feet tall with accessory area lighting to service the public space at the golf course starting at the storage house near the parking lot along S. Clippert. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1. ACT The approvals requested for the Act 285 Review is limited to approval of the option to lease the property; if the property lease is approved, ' additional approvals necessary before erection of the cellular communications tower include: 2. SLU: Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under Section 1248.04(e) of the ' Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of"a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility..."; 3. BZA Approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 of the Zoning Code, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to permit the proposed structure over 35 feet in is height, the maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential �k zoning districts; EXISTING LAND USE: Public Golf Course LOCATION: Southeast comer of E. Michigan Ave. and S. Clippert EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE: 61.27 acres y"y ACT-9-98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 Page 2 125 S. Clippert St. -Red Cedar Golf Course SURROUNDING LAND N: Commercial USE: S: Commercial E: Out of City (East Lansing-vacant land) W: Out of City (Lansing Twp.-residential) SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: Out of City (Lansing Twp. & East Lansing) E: Out of City (East Lansing) W: Out of City (Lansing Twp.) MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for use as parks/open space. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: (No response) Board of Water & Light: (No response) Building Safety: (No response) Code Compliance: (No response) r: Community Policing: (No response) I Consumers Energy: (No response) Development Office: No comment. Fire Marshal: (No response) Media One: (No response) Public Service: - (No response) Transportation Engineer: (No response) East Side Neighborhood Org: (No response) City of East Lansing: (No response) Lansing Twp.: (No response) i ACT-9-98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 Page 3 125 S. Clippert St. -Red Cedar Golf Course DESCRIPTION of SITE The 61 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Clippert Street and Michigan Avenue. The site presently has a nine hole golf course, frontage onto the Red Cedar River, a boat dock and a storage building. Residential development exists to the east and west. Commercial development exists to the north and south. The topography of the Red Cedar Golf Course is low and in the 100 year flood plain. Though no specific location for the unmanned cellular communications tower has been identified, possible locations to consider may include: ■ At a higher elevation near the storage house adjacent to the parking lot. The property is presently zoned "A" Residential; an application is pending to approve a Special Land Use permit necessary to permit the use of the site for a structure owned and operated by a public utility. The "A" District permits structures up to 35 feet in height: the tower and attachments requested, if approved, would be up to 200 feet in height. No specific plans currently exist for the tower. However, towers that have been approved in the past have included small (220 square feet) accessory support building with an accompanying propane tank. Access to the tower location on the site could be obtained from the parking lot near the storage structure. ANALYSIS for ACT 285 REVIEW REQUEST The approvals requested for the Act 285 Review is limited to approval of the option to lease the property; if the property lease is approved, additional approvals necessary before erection of the cellular communications tower include the BZA variance and the Special Land Use. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE REQUEST j Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under Section 1248.04(e) of the Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of"a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility may be permitted in an "A" Residential District." Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows. 1. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE ACT-9-98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 Page 4 125 S. Clippert St. -Red Cedar Golf Course CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE The site is developed as a public golf course. The character of the golf course will remain unchanged with the erection of a 200 foot tall communications tower. 2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY The essential character of the surrounding area is primarily residential to the east and west, and commercial to the north and south. The tower should not change the - essential character of the surrounding area if placed away from homes and screened with landscaping. 3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY Other than the potential aesthetic impact, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT The proposed new tower presents an opportunity to implement improvements to the site, such as landscaping, screening, and buffering. 5. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE Staff does not anticipate any significant change from existing conditions. 6. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER CONSIDERATION Staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. t 7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY Staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. ' ACT-9-98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 Page 5 125 S. Clippert St. -Red Cedar Golf Course 8. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Northeast Area Master Plan designates this area for use as parks/open space. The use of the golf course by a communication tower does not conflict with the intent of the Master Plan and the continued use as a park. 9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED The maximum height for a principal structure in the °A" Residential District is 35 feet. The proposed tower will require a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a tower up to 200 feet tall. ANALYSIS for BOARD of ZONING APPEALS REQUEST Section 1244.06 of the Zoning Code sets forth the criteria and standards which must be used to evaluate a Variance request. For the sake of simplifying.this evaluation, staff assumes the Special Land Use request has been approved. The criteria and evaluation relevant to this case are as follows. Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exist? Yes. The City's Zoning Code does not permit structures of 200 feet in height except in the G-1 Business zoning district, which is intended for the downtown business district. The location, size, and character of the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, staff believes that the tower would not be inharmonious with the existing golf course and surrounding development. Placement of the tower away from any single family residential neighborhood is preferable. The base of the tower and any mechanical building should be fenced and screened with landscaping. The proposed use will be of a nature that will make vehicular and pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than normal for the district involved.... Staff does not believe there would be any impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic due to this proposal. Access to the site could be from the parking lot near the storage house. The tower site should only require access periodically by maintenance and service vehicles. ACT-9-98 SLU-8-98 BZA 3485.98 Page 6 125 S. Clippert St. -Red Cedar Golf Course SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a cellular communications tower up to 200 feet in height. The "A" Residential Zoning District s permits structures up to 35 feet in height. In addition to the request for a variance, an application is pending for a Special Land Use Permit to allow a structure owned and operated by a public utility. Staff believes that the proposed location of the tower on the site is appropriate. Any proposed location should be visually isolated from any residential land uses in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this request be approved by the Planning Board and City Council on the Act 285 Review and the Special Land Use request. Staff also recommends.the height variance be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff reserves the right to more thoroughly review this proposal for landscape, screening and buffering during the site plan review process. i I I i� 6' k! .I I I i Act-9-98/SLU-8-98/BZA 3485.98 NORM - Communications Tower. 125 S. Clippert- Red Cedar Golf Course TL mom (R'� •F �>r'.'-.' {mot;• ,K-,_� _ .. 832 j- - J •• � � - •833.3 ' A - .7 �c v6 T1.6 30.4 8.34.8 re Q RED \ - - 6OLF n 830./ to x to is 834.8 k19 x i ED 829.8 � \ 827 8270 ar .l ' • i f ��<<Qf-e:� ..r _ �.���.►�_►ry,:...fry�7'_�'3~`� I Its Al '�` .:y�• � �.��'jy'..• —1 ". � Mpg' yA, � .}' - � jr , a•`L' - 'o\� w > 1. 'r. ���!^tee,�.'�"r / � ` .� ��y.. •.... .•'G• •4., p g� A �• O • .. � � �•..: - .� _ - •+tin !114 • f Draft 4128198 i Approved To Clerk i Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD Y M LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium 2600 Hampden Dr. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. s. . OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of Appeals Chairman Home, called the meeting to order at 7:07 y p.m. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed. f. 111. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS ! I` �, II A. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning Board present: Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby, Mr. l p I 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) r t IV. HEARINGS: Mr. Ruge states: tonight is a special meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Chaired j; by Mrs. Emly Home, 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 4. give a summary of each site; second the Board members 'can ask questions`of wn g f staff; third, we will take comments from the audience on each site one at a time as 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, 6816 Wise Rd., Hill Center(BZA-3490.98) -3491.98) SLU-15-98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School 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) r PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS,APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 3 BZA-3494.98, Aurelius Road Landfill BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset i 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. 4. Denise Chrysler, 416 Everett, Board of Education. She asked that staff summarizemat 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 - '2M which turned out to be approximately.2,000 letters and cards. We are surprised at then 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 atVV which time public comment will be received. The Board's recommendations will then go -023 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 01 1" rya a tt for rI T ' � J w} ACT-10-98 SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 CONTACTS: Linda Sanchez, Mayor's Office 483-4147 Jim Ruff, Planning Office 483-4085 David Kazmirzack, LPD 483-4840 APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: The City is requesting approvals necessary to permit construction of communication towers at several locations throughout the City in order to better plan their locations. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1. ACT The approval subject to Act 285 Review is limited to approval of the option to use or lease City property; if the proposed use is approved, additional approvals necessary before erection of a communications tower include: 2. SLU: Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under Section 1248.04(e) of the Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of "a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility..."; 3. BZA Approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 of the Zoning Code, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to permit a structure more than 35 feet in height, the maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential zoning district. EXISTING LAND USE: Public Fire Station and City communications tower site, 32.3 meters tall (approximately 106 feet) LOCATION: South west corner Pleasant Grove Road and Ferrol Street. EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE: 170 feet by 330 feet, approx. 1.3 acres SURROUNDING LAND N: Residential USE: S: Multi-family residential E: Single Family Residential W: Multi-family residential E r $I. 1 V - J Planning Board Minutes, August 18, 1998 Page 15 that would complicate matters there as pointed out earlier and if we are already saying that are other alternatives, why would we want to potentially hassle ourselves with a fire station that we may want to sell. It doesn't seem to me that location at this point one that is going to assure that it is going to stay there. d. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. (Act-12- 98)This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to a residential subdivision to the west, 1-96 expressway to the north and a vacant 60 acre parcel of the east. It was noted that the location of the tower may be restricted to the southern piece of the property since there is a small gap of land between the two pieces but that the southern piece was large enough to provide a reasonable location for the tower without adversely affecting the existing development or future development of the adjacent vacant land. Also, it could be located away from a long view from nearby streets and the highway. The committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd., Public/utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the six conditions as recommended in the staff report and the four general senses of C.O.W. for all sites. Motion to approve SLU-11-98, moved by Mr. Frederick, seconded by Mr. Goolsby with six conditions and fur general senses of C.O.W. On a roll call vote, there were, Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Motion carries; SLU-11-98 was been recommended for approval. Motion to approve Act-12-98, moved by Mr. Nischan, seconded by Mr. Goolsby with six conditions and four general senses of C.O.W. On a roll call vote, there were, Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Motion carries Act-12-98 was recommended for approval. e. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 518 Wise Rd. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae on the site of Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The Committee based upon testimony Planning Board Minutes, August 18, 1998 Page 16 and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Motion by Mr. Frederick, seconded by Mr. Goolsby to approve, SLU-14-98, with six conditions. On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Motion carries SLU-14-98 was recommended for approval. f. SLU-15-98, Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave. & SLU- 16-98, Everett High School, 3900 Stabler St. The Lansing School District has requested the withdrawal of the application for these two items. The Committee recommended referring SLU-15-98 and SLU- 16-98 to the Committee of the Whole to reluctantly accept the withdrawal of these petitions. Motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Nischan to accept withdrawal by Dr. Halik, Superintendent of the Lansing School District. On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Motion carries SLU-15-98 & SLU-16-98 was recommended for acceptance of withdrawal from Dr. Halik, Superintendent of the Lansing School District. Motion for Committee of Whole to arise, Motioned by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Frederick. Board Meeting, Mr. Miller is Chair, Mr. Frederick presents items: 2. Committee Reports - Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-7-98, 4000 Hunter Ridge, Community Unit Plan (CUP) to "DM-1" Residential. (See results from Committee of Whole) Moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Frederick. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follow: Frederick . .Ave Goolsby •Aye Keene . .Ave Miller .Ave Nischan.. . Ave Ruge Aye Smith . .Ave y�N S I �c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.CAPITOL AVENUE•LANSING,MI 48933-1236•(517)483-4066• FAX:(517)483-6036 �jcHIC �'� PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor August 25, 1998 Honorable Mayor David C. Hollister Ninth Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933-1694 Dear Mayor Hollister RE: SLU-16-98, BZA-3492.98, 3900 Stabler Street-Everett, Public Utility Tower The Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting on August 18, 1998, "reluctantly" accepted a letter, from the Lansing School District, requesting withdrawal of 3900 Stabler Street-Everett High School (SLU-16-98, BZA-3492.98), for consideration as a public utility tower site. Following your review of this matter,please refer it to the City Council for their consideration. Sincerely yours Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board EKL:SC a:slu-16-98.ltm cc:Dennis J.Sykes James D.Smierlka ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.CAPITOL AVENUE•L LASING,MI 48933-1236•(517)483-4066•FAX:(517)483-6036 rcHIG �' PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor August 25, 1998 Honorable Mayor David C. Hollister Ninth Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933-1694 Dear Mayor Hollister RE: SLU-15-98, BZA-3491.98, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave -Eastern, Public Utility Tower The Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting on August 18, 1998, "reluctantly" accepted a letter, from the Lansing School District, requesting withdrawal of 220 N. Pennsylvania-Eastern High School (SLU-15-98, BZA-3491.98), for consideration as a public utility tower site. Following your review of this matter, please refer it to the City Council for their consideration. Sincerely yours Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board EKL:SC a:slu-15-98.ltm oc:Dennis J.Sykes Janus D.Smiertka ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" 1 lima u111100llntlnl19 t' MR pill "' " ! ��fAlHiflttN(Hnlnn��lfifilthtl{NIIU(tnnflll�nll��ifs .� rr ` t - . „ i�it�, �.,�, �! R� r^. . . � � -.- r� {�l�u'��������111{I�i�IIIII��IUllir��{• 1'1 1 pil LL ))(} �,__rwq-flITH-0unnannan{u{nn00on9 fr-An PIO 0 1 " ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 5 and recommended referring SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. D. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to a residential subdivision to the west, 1-96 expressway to the north and a vacant 60 acre parcel to the east. It was noted that the location of the tower may be restricted to the southern piece of the property since there is a small gap of land between the two pieces but that the southern piece was large enough to provide a reasonable location for the tower without adversely affecting the existing development or future development of the adjacent vacant land. Also, it could be located away from a long view from nearby streets and the highway. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. E. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae on the site of Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 6,1998. Draft 4/28/98 Approved 050598 To Clerk 05 298 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium 2600 Hampden Dr. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of Appeals Chairman Home, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed. Ill. 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 Home, 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 ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 5 and recommended referring SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. D. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to a residential subdivision to the west, 1-96 expressway to the north and a vacant 60 acre parcel to the east. It was noted that the location of the tower may be restricted to the southern piece of the property since there is a small gap of land between the two pieces but that the southern piece was large enough to provide a reasonable location for the tower without adversely affecting the existing development or future development of the adjacent vacant land. Also, it could be located away from a long view from nearby streets and the highway. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. E. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 1.80' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae on the site of Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. SLU-14-98 BZA 3490.98 Page 3 6815 Wise Rd.Lansina 5. Environmental Impactstimpact on Public Services The Board of Water and Llght already has a line of steel framework, high tension electrical towers running east-west on the property directly north of the proposed site. Worker or public access to this tower should conform to the 1992 ANSI [5]or FCC[11] safety standards for public exposure. As a rule, the uncontrolled (public) exposure standard cannot be exceeded more than 20 feet from an antenna. 6. Impact on Utilities None anticipated. The development of a tower plan should Improve services available to the public without the construction of excessive towers. 7. Compliance with Master Plan The Master Plan designates this area for community facilities and parks/open space development. The maximum height of 200 feet for a proposed "monopole'digital tower would be inconsistent with the maximum allowable'of 35 feet In height in a"A" Residential District of the zoning code (1248.08). 8. Compliance with the Zoning District Regulations The property is zoned "A" Residential District as set forth in the Zoning Code which limits height restrictions of structures to 35 feet. BZA REVIEW: DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a communications tower to a maximum of 200'. The "A" Residential district zoned property allows a maximum height of 35' according to Section 1248.08 of the Zoning Code. This Is a requested variance of 165' in height. Analysis Section 1244.06 (c)(1-4) of the Zoning Code sets forth the criteria and standard which must be used to evaluate a variance request: - Does a Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship exist? -Are the Location, Size and Character in harmony with surrounding uses? -Will the request Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic? -Will a precedent regarding future land use patterns be set as a result of the request? Practical Difficulty or Hardship The practical difficulty or hardship exists because the code only allows heights up to 120' therefore, a request for anything over 35' requires consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Location. Size and Character The site is extremely large and the applicant is requesting a 200' tall tower. The purpose of the tower is 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 SLU-14-98 BZA 3490.98 Page 1 5815 Wise Road, Lansing GENERAL INFORMATION OWNERIAPPLICANT: Lansing School District 519 W. Kalamazoo Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: 1. SLU: Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under section 1248.04 (e) of the Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of a"structure which is owned and operated by a public utility...". 2. BZA: Approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 of the Zoning Code, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to permit the proposed structure over 35 feet In height, the maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential zoning district. LOCATION: North of Miller Road and south of Benjamin Davis Parts, between Wise and Pleasant Grove Roads. EXISTING LAND USE: High SchooVAcademic Center EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangle (2,432,338.16 sq. ft. approx. or 55.83 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential and Parking West: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "A" Residential South: "A" , "C'and "DM-1" Residential, "G-2"Wholesale East: "A" Residential and "J" Parking West: "A"and"C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan, Amendment 1990, designates this area for community facilities and open space development. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: The applicant requests a Special Land Use Permit and a height variance from the Lansing Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA 3490.98) for a structure at 5815 Wise Road. The applicant proposes to allow construction of a communication "monopole" type digital F. �_ ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 5 and recommended referring SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. D. SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to a residential subdivision to the west, 1-96 expressway to the north and a vacant 60 acre parcel to the east. It was noted that the location of the tower may be restricted to the southern piece of the property since there is a small gap of land between the two pieces but that the southern piece was large enough to provide a reasonable location for the tower without adversely affecting the existing development or future development of the adjacent vacant land. Also, it could be located away from a long view from nearby streets and the highway. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-11-98, Vacant property off the east end of Dadson Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. E. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the construction of a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 1.80' plus a lightning rod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae on the site of Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Rd., Public Utility use, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1995 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 - 1 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 PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 3 B7-A-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 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) APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 5,1998. Draft 4128198 Approved 050598 To Clerk 051298 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 8 LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium 2600 Hampden Dr. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of Appeals Chairman Home, 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 Home, 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 LNOILM SLU-11-98 & BZA 3488.98 VACANT PARCEL OFF EAST END OF DADSON DRIVE •.v Pat a I «�' Psi L _ C3 0 /r \ AO �a me TIM EIM 1..1 I IM r_ Iiu.i %I Uj 0 _ .�• .�. • �1 ( .,a• w� fijW kzj Ile vi ppd El �... U/jIle hdy o 500 ' ACT-12-98 SLU-11-98 BZA 3488.98 j Page 5 Vacant Property off East end of Dadson Street Y variance in the height of a structure to permit construction of a cellular telephone tower 200 feet in height. Since the site is publicly owned and may be leased for private use, the ACT-285 Review is required. The Special Land Use permit is required because there is a significant change proposed in an existing public utility. The Variance is required.because the "A" zoning district only permits structures up to 35 feet in height. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the key to this request is to properly locate the tower structure on the large site to minimize its impact on the existing residential neighborhood, the future development of adjacent property, and its visibility on the horizon to traffic on the interstate highway. A location that potentially meets these objectives is on the triangular shaped parcel approximately 250 feet east of the existing residential neighborhood. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Locate the tower structure on the large site to minimize its impact on the existing residential neighborhood, the future development of adjacent property, and its visibility on the horizon to traffic on the interstate highway. A location that potentially meets these objectives is on the triangular shaped parcel approximately 250 feet east of the existing residential neighborhood; 2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 4. The tower be appropriately fenced for security. Respectfully submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner SUL11-98.FE i ACT-12-98 SLU-11-98 BZA 3488.98 Page 4 Vacant Property off East end of Dadson Street 7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY Staff anticipates no significant impact on these parameters. 8. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Southeast Area Master Plan designates this area for open space and low density residential development. The tower facility may potentially be located where the visual and aesthetic impact on residential neighborhoods will be minimized. 9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED The maximum height for a principal structure in the "A" Residential District is 35 feet. The proposed tower will require a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. ANALYSIS for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VARIANCE Section 1244.06 of the Zoning Code sets forth the criteria and standards which must be used to evaluate a Variance request. For the sake of simplifying this evaluation, staff assumes the Special Land Use request has been approved. The criteria and evaluation relevant to this case are as follows. 1. Does,a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardshipexist? xist? Yes. The City's Zoning Code does not permit structures of 200 feet in height except in the G-1 Business zoning district, which is intended for the downtown business district. 2. The location size and character of the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, staff believes that the tower may potentially not be harmonious with the existing and planned future residential uses. Placement of the tower should be as far from the single family residential neighborhood as necessary to reduce its visual impact on neighborhood home values. In addition, the-tower should be placed outside of the line of sight of vehicles westbound on the adjacent interstate highway. 3. The rroopgsed use will be of a nature that will make vehicular and pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than normal for the district involved.... Staff does not believe there would be any impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic due to this proposal. Access to the site will remain from the dead-end of Dadson Street. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an ACT-285 Review, a Special Land Use Permit, and a ACT-12-98 SLIT-11-98 BZA 3488.98 Page 3 Vacant Property off East end of Dadson Street 1. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE Because the site is both large and vacant, the potential exists to locate the tower structure in a location where its visual impact can be minimized. Care should be taken to minimize the aesthetic impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood, the future development potential of the adjacent vacant land, and the view of the "horizon" when traveling on the adjacent interstate highway. 2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE.SURROUNDING PROPERTY The character of future development of the adjacent vacant property may be influenced by the location of an inappropriately placed tower structure. The adjacent property is currently zoned for single family residential development; care must be taken not to change its desirability for continuation of the single family development.pattern. 3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY Again, careful location of the structure is necessary so the view from the adjacent ti residential neighborhood is not negatively affected. t 4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT Staff anticipates no significant impact on these parameters. 5. - THE PROPOSED SPECIAL.LAND USE-WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE.HEALTH, SAFETY OR. WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE Staff anticipates no significant impact on these parameters. 6. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER CONSIDERATION Staff anticipates no significant impact on these parameters. ACT-12-98 SLU-11-98 BZA 3488.98 Page 2 Vacant Property off East end of Dadson Street SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial and "G-2" Wholesale across 1-96 S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential & "C.U.P" Community Unit Plan W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for Residential use at 0-7 units per acre and for use as parks and open space. DESCRIPTION of SITE The 11.7 acre site is located east of the dead-end of Dadson Drive, south of 1-96, and north of Willoughby Road. The site is presently vacant, undeveloped land. ANALYSIS for ACT 285 REVIEW Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location Dadson Street is located just north of Willoughby Road and south of Interstate 96 and west of the Oak Park apartment complex. One of the subject parcels is triangular in shape and lays adjacent to the south side of the 1-96 right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,800 feet. The other parcel is rectangular in shape and lays directly south of the above parcel and east of Dadson Street. Character The property is vacant and overgrown with vegetation. There is a well established neighborhood of single family residential homes to the west, another large parcel of undeveloped land to the south and east, and a large apartment complex farther to the east. The character of land use north of 1-96 near the subject property is the commercial and warehouse district adjacent Edgewood Boulevard. Extent The extent of the proposed tower use would occupy only a small portion of the entire site. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT(SLU) Special Land Use Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows. ACT-12-98 SLU-11-98 BZA 3488.98 Vacant Property off East end of Dadson Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 CONTACTS: Linda Sanchez, Mayor's Office 483-4147 Jim Ruff, Planning Office 483-4085 David Kazmirzack, LPD 483-4840 APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: The City is requesting approvals necessary to permit construction of communication towers at several locations throughout the City in order to better plan their locations. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1. ACT The approval subject to Act 285 Review is limited to approval of the option to use or lease City property; if the proposed use is approved, additional approvals necessary before erection of a communications tower include: 2. SLU: Approval of a Special Land Use Permit under Section 1248.04(e) of the �- Zoning Code, permitting construction and operation of "a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility..."; 3. BZA Approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 of the Zoning Code, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to permit a structure more than 35 feet in height, the-maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential zoning district. EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped LOCATION: East of the dead-end of Dadson Drive, south of 1-96, and north of Willoughby Road EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE: 11.7 acres SURROUNDING LAND N: Transportation (1-96) USE: S: Undeveloped E: Multi-family residential W: Single Family Residential ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 4 authorization to erect it with its base in the flood plain and all equipment above the base flood elevation. Location of the tower would be preferred near the starter's house which is elevated higher compared to the rest of the golf course, is adjacent to the service area of the golf course.and adjacent city ballfield, and away from the Michigan Avenue vista as much as possible. Accessory area lighting may also be located on the tower to provide additional security to the course if there is a need for it. Mr. Frederick noted that there are other towers or poles in the area including those for lighting the ballfleld and the highway interchange, therefore it would not be an abnormality for the area. Mr. Miller noted that the intrusion this tower would make on the flood plain was insignificant. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended referring SLU-8-98, Red Cedar Golf Course, 125 S. Clippert St., Public Utility use and construction in the flood plain, to the Committee of the Whole subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Miller so moved, supported by Mr. Frederick. C. SLU-9-98, Fire Station #6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. J. Ruff reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow the replacement of the existing tower with a monopole tower of at most 200', more likely 180' plus a lightning Tod, for the co-location of multiple telecommunication antennae. This larger parcel of land is adjacent to other large residential lots on the west side of Pleasant Grove Road and the townhouses that have expressed their support. Mr. Miller expressed concern with how the development of a tower on this site may affect its reuse or sale if this fire station is replaced as proposed by the recently approved bond issue. J. Ruff noted that neighborhood fire stations have not been the easiest properties to sell or reuse but the tower could provide the necessary income to make its maintenance or sale viable. Mr. Frederick noted that this would have similar positive points as the David Street tower proposal and this site is already a public facility. The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APKIL 14, 1nye rF►vt 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 - 1 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 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, IMS FAvt z 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) APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 5,1998. Draft 4128/98 Approved 050598 To Clerk 051298 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium 2600 Hampden Dr. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of Appeals Chairman Home, 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 Home, 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 1eo1� Act-10-98, S_LU-9-98 & BZA3486.98 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. Fire Station#6 a a 0� *�� w r a v 0/ a 2 ._) Is % O 3 R 'o U DO Eerie/ SJ. \ o �0 6 5 22 ,A /Xo• so• }�,,• TER ROL ST . l soi J704 401 - i7os 48 61 770y 370� 370o s7o7 T 77o9 1709 3709 62 ' C Y 3 711 4 9 60 7710 3711 J713 \ 1712 3711 h `� . STa 16N • � r 3717 0 371G j7�J 63 50 59 17.21 4— 7 7 3 0 = 3 7 2 r 64 17.11 374J 17.%J 3YJIf 51 58 37AW . 37.25 1 fool 3Boo 3901 65 3 of 39o2 3Qo! 380f 52 57 Jsoy '' Bog v� 0 \ 3d07 � 3800 3997 66 . 3601 s8oe foot 54 55 '�► 38i3 � I p �,� 0 9!t 0 f8isl 3913 0 6.7 ; \ 4 �A 3ars � ByJI� �� � S ti � m � � � 4 � o � 3�rs h 1 1 \ ` ^y h 38�9 _ 68 0• - 3013 BERNARD ST 3s2s 69 _ le.ti to 70 39 o r v q V , UO �a U 01 w 1 1 • V 3905 70 V 0 f 1.! ti 'r ► r, h 3184 390 7 1r.9 1108 1. 1909 err 1.Sr0 0 39ri 71 ? �,.:i�t.::+.11 •••`!� II [e}�.�Q r�rt• ,'� •i��t: �'+l�i��; �s''`��•,'. "`ty° 746. 11444 IL t^ ' ?.:. ..`�: ��� • . �'�•� +jr`•;�%try :4n. � � �'Y`��s+Ciyrw.t�..• •':�.•_ '� v�:�'� � •!'•c:•�.taa�••�,t:1,:.ia. I�-;tf ..^��' �. J .r'�' -''!' r�.�SL�:J•,. .n a:•s:..r '' -` •.t � .:=:��''•%• �r.� I'E� -, b+ !- - .•+• ..r;X -tlldf.XG'''''�T'T"''-+.mow.""' "'TT•TT^ \ :..5 1:•' `r'. wlw �� :Z •.f'.a •�,: as r i�•C:�Y_��-'�•'• �,� f���•�`:.r'?��' -,'.��• '••Y.�.• tiffs.:. .•��.•;�.,.. .. F;'` \ •{F. _,1�� _ • .` ice.;:�•` .. ..w�•. 1'. Aa • �, i.: ...I,Ls }_'t~i�. �t i •'♦`;�'�i Lj� i 4. 'f'�i:fet-._ } [-'•.: • �t.,>�,i:1 I.� ,i.v�.f 'i.t� -�,,t �y-.• ••:_,�-,' •� Ob ��. �••:r �v -of,_•`- mat FH' _'s •' 1� it ` ail XX � • • i� . ti. .� `":•,•-• .' . (-•mot lk ' , I• � �••r - �' '� ^�-✓ • '► .l� 'Z�,��' '��• �i~� `mac- q� � •�'• ••v'' rpj f •.i. ll, tr .,••:.•.,••tea?.•'•�I'c _,'ram' •'•1 } t �• • 4..• :�, tip J '� •r"a�.�.a•,% '`;�.�.�.:•:, ••{."...:�.; ] •.. ACT-10-98 SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 Page 6 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street l RECOMMENDATION There are other alternatives to placement of a 200 foot tall tower on this location: and because this fire station may be relocated in the near future, perhaps the new location can be assessed as a potential tower location. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed monopole tower replace the existing tower; 2. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto.the new tower; 3. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 6. The tower be appropriately fenced for security. Respectfully submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner SLU-9-98.FE ACT-10-98 SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 Page 5 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street ANALYSIS for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VARIANCE Section 1244.06 of the Zoning Code sets forth the criteria and standards which must be used to evaluate a Variance request. For the sake of simplifying this evaluation, staff assumes the Special Land Use request has been approved. The criteria and evaluation relevant to this case are as follows. 1. Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardshipe xist? Yes. The City's Zoning Code does not permit structures of 200 feet in height except in the G-1 Business zoning district, which is intended for the downtown business district. 2. The location size and character of the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood; As proposed, staff believes that a taller tower structure would not be harmonious with the current two-story nature of the residential neighborhood. The southwest area of the City is typically characterized with similar residential environs and thus larger properties west of Pleasant Grove make this a reasonable site. Also, the proposal would replace an existing tower. 3. The proposed use will be of a nature that will make vehicular and pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than normal for the district involved.... i Staff does not believe there would be any impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic due to this proposal. Access to the site will remain from the existing driveway constructed to Ferrol Street. The tower site should only require access periodically by maintenance and service vehicles. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an ACT-285 Review, a Special Land Use Permit, and a variance in the height of a structure to permit construction of a cellular telephone tower 200 feet in height. Since the site is publicly owned and may be leased for private use, the ACT-285 Review is required. The Special Land Use permit is required because there is a significant change proposed in an existing public utility. The Variance is required because the "A" zoning district only permits structures up to 35 feet in height. Staff believes that the proposed taller tower on the site in this residential neighborhood in not totally appropriate due to the two story residential nature of this area. A recently constructed tower structure within one-half mile of this location is located in a wooded area a significant distance off of the main road, which helps conceal its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In addition, the potential exists for this public facility to be relocated in the near future. ACT-10-98 SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 Page 4 • 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street 5. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE Again, other than the potential aesthetic impact staff, anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 6. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER CONSIDERATION Again, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON .PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY Again, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 8. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Southwest Area Master Plan designates this area for-public facilities with residential development at a density of 7-14 dwelling units per acre. While the present tower facility is consistent with this designation, a taller structure in this location would not minimize the visual and aesthetic impact on residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. 9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED The maximum height for a principal structure in the "A" Residential District is 35 feet. The proposed tower will require a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. ACT-10-98. SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 Page 3 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street Extent The extent of the proposed tower could significantly change. This request could replace the 106-foot tower with a 200-foot tall tower. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT(SLIM Special Land Use Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows. 1. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE The site is already used for a "public utility," the proposed characteristics of which will remain unchanged, except the potential height of the tower structure may increase by approximately ninety percent. 2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY The essential character of the surrounding area is primarily medium density residential. The proposed increase in tower height may potentially have an aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. The proposed monopole type structure would replace the existing free standing "erector-set" type tower. Additional landscaping around the base of the tower would help screen the base and any associated equipment. 3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY Other than the potential aesthetic impact, staff anticipates no significant change from existing conditions. 4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT The proposed new tower presents an opportunity to implement improvements to the site, such as landscaping, screening, and buffering. ACT-10-98 SLU-9-98 BZA 3486.98 Page 2 3708 Pleasant Grove Road @ Ferrol Street SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential & "C.U.P" Community Unit Plan S: "A" Residential & "C" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential & "C.U.P" Community Unit Plan MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for use as a community facility with residential uses in the surrounding area. CASE HISTORY This property was previously subject to a request for a cellular telephone antenna tower in 1995 (see ACT-13-95), but was withdrawn by the applicant (Travers Bay Land Company) when another nearby site ( Pleasant Grove,'just north or Holmes Road) was approved for construction of a tower facility. This tower structure is located in a wooded area a significant distance off of Pleasant Valley Road, which helps conceal its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The present fire station facility is one of two fire stations on the City's south side that has been proposed for replacement. The proposed location for the replacement fire station is at the corner of Pleasant Grove Road and Jolly Road, approximately three quarters of a mile south of the present facility. DESCRIPTION of SITE The 1.3 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Road and Ferrol Street. The site presently hosts a fire station and an associated communications tower. This tower is currently used for police and fire communications and dispatch service. ANALYSIS for ACT 285 REVIEW Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Road and Ferrol Street, approximately 1,100 feet south of Holmes Road. The existing tower is located adjacent the west side of the fire station building. Character Approximately one-half of the site is used for the fire station and existing antenna tower, .the west one-half of the site is.vacant lawn. The surrounding area is primarily single family detached residential structures and condominium dwelling units. There is no significant landscaping, screening, or buffering on the site. APPROVED AS PRINTED OCTOBER 6, 1998. Draft 092898 Approved 100698 To Clerk 100998 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD r 7 P.M., City Council Chambers ' -., Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, September 15, 1998 =} � CII 1. OPENING SESSION: ; Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge; Smith; eight members present. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter dated August 30, 1998 addressed to the Planning Board jointly from three neighborhood organizations, ENO, Prospect Prospectors and ABC Neighborhood Group, regarding Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "DM-4" Residential District, in support of Ronald McDonald House, indicating they would like to work with the developer to ensure that everything goes smoothly. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each): ROBERT HOLBERG, 1223 N. CAPITOL AVENUE. I am here for NCU-3-98, 1223 N. Capitol Avenue, Class A, Renovation of a Four-Unit in the "C" Residential District. The property at 1223 is a nonconforming 4-unit currently and I want it to go to a Class A. JIM HOUTHOOFD, NEOGEN CORPORATION, 620 LESHER PLACE. We think we have been a very good neighbor. Some of the associations and neighbors have sent letters in support. We are hoping you will approve our two requests this evening, Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District and SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory. I am also here to answer questions, if any. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 2 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION a. Minutes for Approval: Minutes for September 1, 1998 were not available. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chairman. a. Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District This request, by Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan, is to rezone property located at 121 S. Holmes St. from "F-1" Commercial and "H" Parking Districts to "DM-4" Residential District. The applicant wishes to construct a nine-unit lodging home, eight bedrooms with a manager's apartment that will provide for the temporary lodging of families seeking pediatric care. Concern about the playground location was expressed at the public hearing; however, apparently it is placed in the most appropriate spot. Neighborhood organizations have sent a letter in support. The proposed rezoning of the subject site would be consistent with the zoning of surrounding land uses. The North-East Area Comprehensive plan recognizes this area is changing, particularly with Sparrow Hospital's expansion. There will be a change in vehicular/pedestrian traffic with construction of this facility. There should not be any adverse impacts on the environment, public services or future patterns of development. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-V Commercial & "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District, is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and there will be no adverse impact to the environment, public services or future patterns of development. In committee, it was moved, seconded, to recommend approval of Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., from "F-V Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 3 Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., from "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . .Ave Greiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . Ave Miller . .Ave Nischan . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District was APPROVED. b. Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District and C. SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory Rezoning: This is a request by Neogen Corporation to rezone property located at 600 Lesher Place from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant wishes to convert the existing building for office and laboratory use, expanding their business that exists at 620 Lesher Place. The neighborhood groups support them; Neogen has been a good citizen in the area. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, is compatible with the mixed use and zoning pattern of the immediate area and will not adversely impact traffic patterns, the environment, available public services or the future pattern of development. Further, Mr. Greiner added that, even though he had voted in opposition to the rezoning of 921 Linden Grove previously, he recognized that the building was not suitable for typical residential development and that the neighborhood was fully in support of the expansion of Neogen Corporation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 4 In committee, it was moved, seconded and unanimously approved (4-0), to recommend approval of Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-Y Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Greiner said when the Board voted on 921 Linden Grove, he voted against the rezoning, because of his opposition to spot zoning. "I feel this is spot zoning also, although the spots are now equal." In addition, this building is not really suitable as residential, and the neighborhood is in full support. He is voting for it this time. Mr. Ruge said there are now two residential units on the Neogen campus just waiting to be swallowed up. He would like to see one house turned back to residential, to keep some residential on that street. He is concerned that the whole area is going to become Neogen. Goolsby . Aye Greiner. . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Miller . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District was APPROVED. SLU: This is a request by Neogen Corporation for a special land use permit to utilize the building at 600 Lesher Place for a research and development laboratory for food safety diagnostic test kits. Section 1260.04(H) of the Zoning Code allows the City Council to approve a special land use permit for this type of use in the "D-1" Professional Office District in accordance with the procedures and conditions described in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. This proposed use will be an extension of the 620 Lesher Place laboratory facilities. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory, satisfies the nine criteria PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 5 established for evaluating special land uses in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory contingent upon Council approval of Z-10-98, and with the following conditions- 1. That the parking lot is paved and striped to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces. 2. That Landscape, Screening and Buffering are installed as appropriate and in keeping with the Code. 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 SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory, contingent upon Council approval of Z-10-98 and with the following conditions: 1. That the parking lot is paved and striped to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces. 2. That Landscape, Screening and Buffering are installed as appropriate and in keeping with the Code. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked if additional screening and buffering between the parking lot and the adjacent residential house is going to be put in? Mr. Ruff was not sure. If any areas need to have additional landscaping, we will be seeking to have it done. Mr. Houthoofd said Neogen is planning to do something like that anyway. Greiner. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby. . Aye Ruge . Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory with conditions that the parking lot be paved and striped to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces and that Landscape, Screening and Buffering be installed as appropriate and in keeping with the Code was APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 6 d. Z-12-98, 3713 S. Pennsylvania Ave., "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts Technically, the address is now 3733 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. The developer proposes to rezone property at 3733 S. Pennsylvania from "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to allow vehicle sales in lieu of customer parking only for the Glenn Buege Buick Dealership located to the north of the subject property. The developer has submitted an approved plan to begin construction of the site, subject to any display vehicle space being identified outside of the "J" Parking District. A rezoning of this area will allow the Glenn Buege business to park its new/used vehicles in that space. The rezoning request will result in a more consistent zoning of the parcel for a new and used car dealership while retaining a buffer strip along the south property line adjacent to single family homes. This request will give better flexibility to the development of the subject site. In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the request is compatible with surrounding land uses, complies with the Master Plan, and will not adversely affect the traffic patterns, the environment, or future patterns of development. This property is the old Westphalia Lumber Yard that was torn down recently. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 4-0, to recommend approval of Z-12-98, 3733 S. Pennsylvania Ave., from "G-2" Wholesale, "J" Parking & "A" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale & "A" Residential Districts. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-12-98, 3733 S. Pennsylvania Ave., from "G-2" Wholesale, "J" Parking & "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale & "A" Residential Districts. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said there is a residential area, and right next to it is "G-2" Wholesale, with a little strip of land zoned "A" Residential. Was there committee discussion of down-zoning the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 7 property, or zoning it to a less intense use that would still allow auto sales? Mr. Goolsby said no, because the rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan for the area. Mr. Ruff said it is also consistent with the area. The bulk of the land is already "G-2", the smaller area of the site is "J", and it happens to be in part of the prime location for the use to display vehicles. They are only going to be developing the front portion of the site. The rear will be in lawn area, a more naturalized area, in the back. Keene. . . Ave Miller . . Ave Nischan . . Ave Smith. . Ave Frederick Ave Goolsby. Ave Greiner. . . Ave Ruge. . Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-12-98, 3713 S. Pennsylvania Ave., "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts was APPROVED. e. NCU-3-98, 1223 N. Capitol Avenue, Class A Nonconformity, Renovation of a Four-Unit in the "C" Residential District. The applicant is requesting a Class A nonconforming status for a structure at 1223 N. Capitol Avenue in order to retain and restore the structure as a four-unit dwelling under Section 1294.11(d) of the Zoning Code. The property is zoned "C" Residential District currently which allows for a two-unit structure on this size parcel. This is a nonconforming four-unit dwelling since only single and two-unit family homes are permitted in a "C" Residential District. A Class B nonconformity would restrict restoration work to 35 percent of the fair market value of the structure. This is not a matter of rezoning. J. Ruff provided some additional history of the use of the structure. According to city records, the house was built in 1887 as a single-family, was approved for two-family use in 1927, received a building permit in August of 1972 for a second means of egress to the second floor of the three-family dwelling, and in November 1972 when rental registration was required, the property was registered as a four-family dwelling. The property has maintained its four-family registration since that time. Therefore, it is the conclusion of the office that it is a nonconforming four-unit. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 8 The committee discussed the pros and cons of reducing this four-unit to a three-unit or a two-unit dwelling. The applicant, Mr. Holberg, stated that due to the internal size of the structure, a reduction in the number of units would result in one or more three-bedroom units that would be more difficult to manage and maintain. If the Class A is not approved, the structure would not be able to be significantly rehabilitated and would result in the deterioration of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods would like to see it downsized. The Board considered the rehabilitation of the building, weighing the use as a 4-unit against the potential continued deterioration, and felt that if the request is denied, the adverse impact on the neighborhood may be greater than the fact of continuing its current use as a 4-unit. Further, the committee noted that the nonconforming use chapter is also designed to prevent the expansion of nonconformities including nonresidential nonconformities. This request is not for an expansion but for rehabilitation of an existing residential use in a mixed residential area. In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the nonconformity is not proposed to be expanded, is consistent with the mixed residential uses of the surrounding neighborhood, can comply with the parking requirements, and is on a full platted lot (66 ft. x 165 ft.). The committee further encouraged the applicant to make the exterior rehabilitation improvements compatible with the historical nature of the building and the neighborhood. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0), to approve NCU-3-98, 1223 N. Capitol Avenue, Class A, Renovation of a Four-Unit in the "C" Residential District with the condition that the renovations preserve the historic value of the building. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of NCU-3-98, 1223 N. Capitol Avenue, Class A, Renovation of a Four-Unit in the "C" Residential District with the condition that the renovations preserve the historic value of the building. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Keene asked if neighbors had specific problems with the property other than density? Mr. Goolsby said density was the concern, rather than tenants in the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 9 Mr. Ruge asked how many square feet of usable floor area; answer, 2340 sq. ft. of usable floor area. He disagreed with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. This looks like a prime example of why we have this ordinance. We have a single-family house originally in an area of deteriorated houses. This is close to Old Town; now it is an up-coming part of town. "I had to disagree with the idea that if we don't allow this to happen, that this house is going to continue to deteriorate. There are a lot of old houses in this area that people are buying and fixing up." Twenty-three hundred square feet is not a huge house for a single family to live in. It is probably the minimum size house that they are building out in Okemos and out in the suburbs. To me, this is the kind of house that could attract an investor into Lansing, and we could get rid of what is to me a big problem. . . I don't see where investing for new mechanicals in the house is going to change it from being a problem. . . . I am going to be opposing this." Mr. Ruff noted that nonconformities are not sent to the City Council for further review. Mr. Greiner said the nonconforming section of the code has a number of different purposes; it is not necessarily designed to penalize the owner of a nonconformity. This case is a nonconformity of long-standing, registered as a 4-unit for many years, and recognized by the City. The owner is not asking to expand the nonconformity. Mr. Greiner wi I I vote yes. Mr. Nischan said that there is a direct correlation between the state of the infrastructure of the house and who it attracts. Given that the nonconformity will not be expanded and that it will be an improvement, he will vote for it. Miller . . Aye Nischan. . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Ave Frederick. . . Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Greiner . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge .Nay On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 1; carried; NCU-3-98, 1223 N. Capitol Avenue, Class A, Renovation of a Four-Unit in the "C" Residential District was APPROVED. f. NCU-4-98, 2207 Raymond St., Class A, Expansion of a Single Family Home The applicant has applied for a building permit to construct an addition to an existing single family residence. The structure is situated within the "I" Heavy Industrial District; the residential use is classified as a Type 3, Class B nonconforming use under Section 1294.02 of the Zoning Code. The cost of the proposed addition exceeds 35 percent of the value of the present structure; Class A status is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 10 requested in order to permit construction. The use of the property has always been residential; however, the current zoning is industrial. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the location of the home is in a mixed use area with single family homes both north and south of it and industrial uses nearby. Further, the expansion of the single family home will not adversely affect the surrounding area and meets the criteria established for Class A approval. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously, 4-0, to approve NCU-4-98, 2207 Raymond St., Class A, Expansion of a Single Family Home. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend approval of NCU-4-98, 2207 Raymond St., Class A, Expansion of a Single Family Home. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked why the applicant did not ask for rezoning. Mr. Ruff replied that the "I" Heavy Industrial was placed here in 1942, and probably previous to that. All properties adjacent to railroad line properties were given industrial designation. The other aspect is that even though it is single-family, they are requesting improvements that exceed what is allowed in the "A' District. The 30 ft. x 27 ft. addition is larger than allowed for a garage in the "A" District. There is an existing storage building on-site. The combinations of those things exceed the code requirements. They wish to have the whole area under the second story addition to be garage. Retaining it in the "I" Heavy Industrial District allows them to do that without also having to ask for a variance. Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby . Ave Greiner. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Miller . . Ave Ruge . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried; was NCU-4-98, 2207 Raymond St., Class A, Expansion of a Single Family Home, was APPROVED. Mr. Goolsby said the committee also discussed Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98. The items are held in committee because the developer is going to meet with the residents concerning the requests. The committee also had concerns about street alignment, public safety, and density. Mr. Ruge noted that the multiple family developments had been placed far back off the road behind the single family. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 11 The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 14, 1998 at 4 p.m. Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan. The committee met on Tuesday, September 8, 1998 and left everything on the table pending more information from staff concerning the Downtown Master Plan. Next Urban Development meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - Did not meet; however, the next meeting will be held on October 6, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. before the regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Goolsby volunteered to bring a light repast. 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. 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 "G-1" 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) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-V Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98), h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) I. Z-11-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., "A" Residential to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 12 "DM-1" Residential District (Tabled September 9, 1998) M. PRD-3-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd.,. Planned Residential District, (Tabled September 9, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Goolsby said officers should have been elected at the first meeting in September. Elections of officers should be on the agenda for October 6, 1998. Mr. Smith asked if Planning Board members were interested in a State Historic Preservation Office annual fall workshop September 25 and 26, 1998. At Friday's program on September 25, the subject is "The Cure for Common Sprawl - Preserving Historic Landscapes" featuring Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Hileton, author of "Save Our Land and Save Our Towns." Cost is $20 for the two days. Saturday is $8 and Friday is $12, including lunch. Ms. Love said several HDC members are going. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Ruff about the parking lot at Grand and Michigan. Mr. Ruff ®r, no response has been made as yet. Mr. Ruge also asked about the sign enforcement program and about a gas station in front of Weston's Apple Market on the northeast corner of Grand River and Foster--is that in the City of Lansing? Ms. Love said no. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully sppectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board =091598\46 Z-9-98 121 S. Holmes "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking District to "DM-4" Residential District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan Michigan State University - 541 Fee Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Leasee REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant lot EXISTING ZONING: "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking PROPOSED ZONING: "DM-4" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Average 297' x 132' = 39,204 ftz SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Sparrow Health Systems/Auto Center S: Parking lot E: Medical Offices W: Sparrow Hospital/Gas Station SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-4"Residential/"F-1"Commercial S: "J" Parking E: "F" Commercialf'J" Parking W: "DM-4" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area for commercial. BACKGROUND: As provided by the applicant: The Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan provides temporary lodging for families, far from their own communities, coping with a child with a serious illness. The Lansing region has been recognized as a center for health care treatment in mid-Michigan and pediatric care has remained a "priority." Since 1994, the number of children in treatment has increased significantly, with a growing number traveling far distances to receive high quality pediatric care. Many of those families need a place to lodge that is within close proximity to their child. Even though the City of Lansing has the McRee House at Ingham Regional Medical Center, a facility primarily for adults, not Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes,"F-1" Comm. & "J" Park. to "DM-4" Res. Page 2. children and families, there is still a need to fill the gap. The Ronald McDonald House resembles a family home. There is a common dining and living area which gives families a place to socialize, comfort and support each other. Also, there is a common play area for children. Upon registration, families will be assigned a section in the kitchen area for groceries and are responsible for their own cooking and laundering needs. A House manager coordinates all day-to- day activities and serves as a liaison between the hospitals, volunteers and residents. A nominal overnight fee is charged to families with the financial resources available to pay. The Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan will have eight bedrooms with a one- bedroom manager's apartment. Transportation to and from the treatment center will be provided. This house, like other Ronald McDonald houses, will be a community asset built with community support and maintained through a corps of community volunteers. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request by Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan to rezone property located at 121 S. Holmes Street from "F-V Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "DM-4" Residential District. The applicant wishes to construct a nine-unit lodging home (eight (8) bedrooms with a manager's apartment) that will provide for the temporary lodging of families seeking pediatric care. The property is more particularly described as.- LOTS: 7 through 16 of Assessor's Plat No. 17, except that portion deeded for the S. Holmes Street right-of-way realignment, City of Lansing, Michigan, Ingham Co., MI. (Part of PPN 3301-15-401-002). AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received as of yet. Assessor: 1). Proposed parcel dimensions must be wrong, unless part of Eureka Street is to be vacated. Whole block between Michigan Avenue and Eureka is only 377.5 ft. How can proposed site be 396.75; without a 19.25 foot encroachment into Eureka Street? 2). What is happening with the widening/relocation of S. Holmes Street adjacent to this parcel? BWL: No response received as of yet. Building Safety: Authorization must be obtained from the Building and Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes,"F-1" Comm. & "J" Park. to 11DM-4" Res. Page 3. Safety Office in the form of a building permit and site plan review approval. Contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 for further information. City Attorney: Holmes Street is to be relocated - in part across this parcel per Sparrow's request and an ACT review and approval earlier this year. Sparrow should soon be providing a deed to the City for the area of street relocation. The relocation should be considered and not included in the rezoning or that issue addressed. Consumers Power: No response received as of yet. Media One: No response received as of yet. Development: No comment. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received as of yet. Fire Marshal: No response received as of yet. Lansing Neighborhood Council: Talked with President of Eastside Neighborhood Organization. They are aware of this. Parks & Rec.: It does not impact park use. No comment. Public Service: No response received as of yet. Trans. Eng:. No response received as of yet. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land uses consist of Sparrow Hospital and/or medical facilities to the north, east and west of the subject site. A gas station is also to the west and a parking lot is south of the subject site. The proposed location of the Ronald McDonald House is owned by Sparrow Hospital and comparable to the existing Report Prepared by DMW 8198. Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes,"F-1" Comm. & "J" Park. to "DM-4" Res. Page 4 surrounding uses. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN Sparrow Hospital and associated facilities are zoned "DM-4" Residential. The Sparrow Expansion Plan and the East Michigan Revitalization Study have recognized the changes in this area. The rezoning of this site would be similar to the existing surrounding uses, particularly Sparrow Hospital. The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan recognizes that this area is changing. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The construction of the Ronald McDonald House should not pose any threat to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There will probably be a slight increase in traffic associated with the construction of this facility. Since the house is proposed to accommodate up to nine families, there will be an insignificant change in vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. Also, Section 1284.13(a)(5) of the Zoning Code requires the number of parking spaces for the lodging facility to be one for each boarder/lodger plus one for each employee. Based on the information provided, it appears that the minimum required number of parking spaces would be nine (9). There is at least five - six on-site parking spaces, one of which is available for the house manager. Sparrow Hospital has agreed to provide an area in the parking ramp to the west of the site for the families of the Ronald McDonald House. Therefore, parking will not be a problem. Proper landscape, screening and buffering should be implemented. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There will be some interruption such as noise, dust, etc. associated with any construction of this type. However, there should not be any adverse impact on the environment. The house will be oriented toward Holmes Street, away from the noise off of Michigan Avenue. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT There should be no significant impact on public services IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT The rezoning of this site for the construction of a Ronald McDonald House should not have any adverse impact on future patterns of development. Report Prepared by DMW 8/98. Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes,"F-1" Comm. & "J" Park. to "DM-4" Res. Page 5. OTHER Sparrow Hospital is the owner of the property and plans to lease it the Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan. With Sparrow's expansion and the proposed house, Hospital representatives have been working closely with the neighborhood to create a structure that fit into the area and create as few adverse impacts as possible. Also, the construction of this house will proceed through a site plan review process to assure that adequate parking, landscape, screening and buffering is provided as well as any other factors associated with the development are addressed. SUMMARY The proposed rezoning of the subject site would be consistent with the zoning of surrounding land uses. The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area is changing, particularly with Sparrow Hospital's expansion. There will be a change in vehicular/pedestrian traffic with construction of this facility. There should not be any adverse impacts on the environment, public service or future patterns of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the property at 121 S. Holmes Street from "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential for the construction of the Ronald McDonald House of Mid-Michigan. Report Prepared by DMW 8/98. rISI � C CITY OF LANSING Public Service Department Transportation Division Interoffice CommunicatiR E C ;z 9 SEP - 4 jq 8 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner PLANNING DI V16iON FROM: David A. Berridge,=gineer DATE: August 31, 199814"+ SUBJECT: Z-9-98: 121 S. Holmes Street — Ronald McDonald House The Transportation Division has reviewed the subject request and has the following comments. 1 ) The Transportation Division has been working with Sparrow Hospital on the realignment of Holmes Street. The hospital has donated the land required for the right-of-way. The balance of the land is scheduled to be used for development of the Ronald McDonald House. This is in accordance with our ongoing transportation planning efforts. 2) The property should be serviced from Holmes Street only, not Michigan Avenue. The Transportation Division reserves the opportunity to make additional comments during the site plan review process. 3) It appears that this project can proceed as planned with the proper rezoning approval. file: Holmes Street C:\Corel\Office7\WPWin7\DATA\PLANNING\Z-9-98.dw.wpd 08/27/1998 08:59 6168472003 PAGE 02 O F- .w's a�� IP M"Mp MYIr am..•�w ��GMMOIi s � j. �i 1 _ 1 "•a�' i I 08/26/1998 10:37 6168472003 PAGE . 05 o pm=!Pv NMI MM w"winM-- •••gyp NO{1IY 7T. AW "0`"'wx.r =-9 47rNOd�i 4N#VMM am�7NId1 ------QR•a v R HIM Will OO I i r PAGE 06 08/26/199B 10:37 6168472003 ..Wz w a �► @ ,now QMbOM Qhl1" I I 08/26/1998 10:37 6168472003 PAGE 04 rr�r-r 11111111111 11111111111 I Nil I tlllllllll O g a S <s 0 J �g 0 W �< � h L A IIT 111111111 p 11111111111 11111111111 p! �r Z I I 1 � Fi PAGE 02 08/26/1998 10:37 6168472003 wr�rr M PR Mall dl W3111''«.mows i1fl0M QfMq d'MIOIi ■ r L sa n= pQ V r I z it Y r 1 I V o ��11.Mvd a 12 ku 1 I I I 1 I I � I I t , A I 1 { = 1 I O t , qqO�� I I � 1 I I I a s *um mom {\ /•j '~` rwu 4MIOQ111 QtA1011 — '-�mlalr�+o wlwr H Y b x Ss I win III o e 0 - 1 1 I , 1 , 1 , I � 1 1 1 I L � I , I , ' I 1 , 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , I� 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------- -------;------------1 ' 1 1 ' I ' 1 -- ' N Z-10-98/SLU-20-98 600 Lesher Place GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Neogen Corporation 620 Lesher Place Lansing, MI 48912 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning/Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (previous use Women's Shelter) EXISTING ZONING: "DM-3" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 141.24' x 161.04' = 22,745 ft2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Oak Park SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-3" Res. & "D-1" Professional Offc. S: "DM-3" Residential E: "DM-3" Res. & "D-1" Professional Offc. W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential. SPECIFIC INFORMATION BACKGROUND: The Neogen Corporation is a biotechnology company which develops diagnostic tests to monitor food safety. They have an option of purchasing the building at 600 Lesher Place which is currently zoned "DM-3" Residential. Most recently, the building has been used as a Women's Shelter which has now found a suitable altemative facility that better serves its purposes. Currently, the Neogen Corporation occupies the large red brick building at 620 Lesher Place, which is approximately 70 feet north of the subject property. Neogen acquired this building from the Lansing School District approximately ten years ago and remodeled the Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 2. facility for its corporate headquarters. The business has grown extensively and has offices in other cities as well. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property at 600 Lesher Place from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office to expand this part their business for office and laboratory use. According to the applicant, the subject building is 5,358 ft2. There are currently twenty-two parking spaces with a potential of 10 additional spaces. Once approved, the applicant is requesting a Special Land Use in accordance with Section 1260.4(H) of the Zoning Code to allow for a research and development laboratory for food safety diagnostic test kits which is an extension of the use at the current facilities at 620 Lesher Place. Also, Neogen owns the building around the comer located at 921 Linden Grove. The Neogen Corporation has grown and expanded and reached the limits of their facility. They like the Lansing area and would bring employees from two other states to this facility. The proposed use of this facility, once the rezoning and SLU are approved, would be for additional lab and office space. DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Rezoning This is a request by Neogen Corporation to rezone property located at 600 Lesher Place from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant wishes to convert the existing building for office and laboratory use, expanding their business that exists at 620 Lesher Place. SLU: This is a request by Neogen Corporation for a Special Land Use Permit to utilize the building at 600 Lesher Place for a research and development laboratory for food safety diagnostic test kits. Section 1260.04(h) of the Zoning Code allows the City Council to approve a special land use permit for this type of use in the "D-1" Professional Office District in accordance with the procedures and conditions described in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. This proposed use will be an extension and/or relocation of what the applicant performs at 620 Lesher Place. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessors: No comments. BWL: No response received as of yet. Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 3. Building Safety: The conversion to office use will require a building permit. Contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 for further information. City Attorney: No response received as of yet. Consumers Energy: No response received as of yet. Development: Property was purchased for this purpose. City is working with CADA, former occupant of this site, to re-establish elsewhere. Neogen has operated in area for years with no adverse impact on residential development. Media One: No response received as of yet. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received as of yet. Lansing Neighborhood Council: Talked with President of Oak Park. They are aware of this. Oak Park Neighborhood Organization: See attached. Parks & Rec.: It is important to preserve the residential appearance of building of the neighborhood. Police Dept: No response received as of yet. Public Service: No response received as of yet. Trans. Engr.: No response received as of yet. REZONING ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land uses consist of residential use to the immediate north and east of the subject site. Neogen Corporation owns the facilities at 620 Lesher Place, their main headquarters and 921 Linden Grove. Both of these properties are Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 4. zoned "D-V Professional Office. This structure is more institutional in character contributing to the mixed use appearance of the area. See attached map. The rezoning of this property is compatible with surrounding land uses. Oak Park is just west of the subject site. Neighbors have testified that no noxious pollutants are associated with this company and have been a positive asset to the area. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential. However, this area has been changing over the past ten years. In 1985, the property at 620 Lesher Place was zoned from residential to professional office. Also, in 1995, the property at 921 Linden Grove was zoned from residential use to professional office. Therefore, the rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding mixed use zoning in the area and consolidation of Neogen facilities. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC There will be a slight increase in vehicular/pedestrian traffic. However, the traffic should not significantly impact the area since it is one block off Pennsylvania Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There should not be any type of environmental impact due to the rezoning of this property. The applicant is proposing to retain the residential character of the structure and maintain the interior and exterior of the facility. However, even with minor repairs, there should be no impact on the environment. Also, Neogen operations are considered "clean" as it relates to noxious pollutants. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT None anticipated. Utilities are in place. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT The rezoning of this property is not setting any type of precedent since several of the residential structures have already been rezoned for office use and the office uses are being consolidated adjacent to a major street (Saginaw) and a park. SUMMARY The rezoning of this property is compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning in the area. There will be a slight increase in vehicular/pedestrian Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 5. traffic due to additional staff, however, the traffic should not significantly impact the area since it is one block off Pennsylvania Avenue. There should not be any type of environmental impact and/or public service impact due to the rezoning of this property. Since some of the structures in this area have been rezoned from residential to professional office, this is clearly a mixed use area that will not significantly change. There is no precedent on future patterns of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the property at 600 Lesher Place from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. SPECIAL LAND USE ANALYSIS Evaluation Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows. 1. COMPATIBILITY WITH USE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES The adjacent properties consist of residential uses to the immediate north and east of the subject site. However, the Neogen Corporation's facilities at 620 Lesher Place, main headquarters and 921 Linden Grove are both zoned "D-1" Professional Office. The property would be compatible with the mixed use character of the adjacent properties. 2. CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The institutional/residential character of the structure will be maintained. Neogen Corporation has been in the area for more than ten years. They own two structures in the neighborhood: 620 Lesher Place and 921 Linden Grove. Several of the neighbors have signed petitions in support of the request for rezoning/SLU. Also, the Neogen Corporation has been a "good neighbor." Since the area contains a "mix" of land uses within the area, the conversion of the building to an office, maintaining the structure's appearance, will not impact the essential character of the area. Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 6. 3. INTERFERENCE WITH GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES There should not be any interference with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. In fact, the Oak Park Neighborhood supports Neogen request. They indicated that the Neogen Corporation is a "good" neighbor and maintains their existing properties at 620 Lesher Place and 921 Linden Grove. No significant change is proposed for the outside of the building that would adversely affect the area. 4. IMPROVEMENT TO PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA Neogen continues to maintain the upkeep of the existing "D-1" Professional Office properties. According to the applicant, they are concerned about the exterior appearance of the subject property and any eventual use. Neogen has made a commitment that once they purchase and rezone the property, they will insure that appropriate improvements and remodeling to the facility take place, and therefore stabilize and add to neighborhood values. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS None anticipated. 6. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES None anticipated. 7. IMPACT ON UTILITIES None anticipated. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN As indicated previously, the NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential. However, this area has been changing over the past ten years. In 1985, the property at 620 Lesher Place was zoned from residential to professional office. Also, in 1995, the property at 921 Linden Grove was zoned from residential use to professional office. Therefore, the rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding zoning in the area. Furthermore, Neogen Corporation is attempting to locate their facilities closer to the headquarters at 620 Lesher Place. Z-10-98/SL.-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Page 7. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS The property is currently zoned "DM-3" Residential. The applicant is proposing to expand their business for office and laboratory use and the property would need to be rezoned to D-1 Professional Office. Section 1260.04(h) of the Zoning Code allows the City Council to approve a special land use permit for this type of use in the "D-V Professional Office District in accordance with the procedures and conditions described in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. This proposed use will be an extension and/or relocation of what the applicant performs at 620 Lesher Place. Therefore, if the rezoning is approved, the request would be in compliance with the zoning district regulations. The "D-V Professional Office District, like the present residential zoning, prohibits parking in the front yard, therefore, the lawn areas around the front of the building will be maintained. SUMMARY The property would be compatible with adjacent properties. There is a "mix" of land uses in the area. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The property would be comparable and consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning in the area. Neogen has made a commitment that once they purchase and rezone the property, they will insure that appropriate improvements and remodeling to the facility take place, and therefore stabilize and add to neighborhood values. There should not be any interference with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. There are no adverse impacts anticipated on the environment, public services or utilities. If the rezoning is approved, the request would be in compliance with the zoning district regulations. There are no adverse impacts anticipated on the environment, public services or utilities. Since the proposed use will be an extension and/or relocation of what the applicant performs at 620 Lesher Place, the request would be in compliance with the zoning district regulations, once the rezoning has been approved. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a Special Land Use permit contingent upon the approval of the rezoning request (Z-10-98) and subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot is paved and striped to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces. 2. Landscape, Screening and Buffering are installed as appropriate and in keeping with the code. � 11 l. NEW2 MEN m VMS HillWAS ���IIJIIIIIIIIIIi.. 69 1=`IN lt✓►�Ifir MEOW fill 11 '�� ! �� ��� GLq�t��■■■ ■� �• �� - �����17�l� l:�i�:li'■i 111� A A 1111 ►■►.�■1 ■ ■■■■ �i■■■■all,ss" 1111 1I�'I'I�"1, � 7� ' �n■■■■■.■ ��■�961��1i�1111�11, _%� --i�7.���1�,�s1 Hill -r 1�.■■■■■��=�%ail ■■■\^�1 �11111llIllGf �.iil III I�1 996 • 11 96 LM: I 7 10 98 SLL1 20-98 600 Lesher Place NORTH Cb Y J A. a V Y Y In fI O� x I / WAIL. J i x /7 r' 2�. ❑ r t' d ( ❑ 18 Ce 25 :S C 864.5 x 3/ z7 �5 a ❑ zc ❑ 27 87�.0 ORCHARD 870.2 30 28 28 C 860.6 x M N 27 25 3O v p %7 8172 -A � GROVE y c 3 p5e&. 8634 x LINDEN ` 10 ~rnoc 8 }{-3'� 26 r, \ 26 25 33 27 4. 7 r z6 870.7 !r 27 /B = 2I 29 J 23 21 Z6 a ' 862.7 1 z6 w 0 B0ir-Dirt4 - `l2'9 roo' v Z r L ESHEK PLAeC 'v' .,f ::�•.�� ".�.] ::.:...�::.;:;���;,.ter..•::�'.% •1:.•..• •ti::r•.... ��.,` :�•'•i�lyi.::l:�.5.1�.!is''tt�,• 4t'o��Y�tiY`'=�3,� �:.i°"'r�J-��b:�'r`� •%-'F� y't1 �•?���� •.�..t�.",-f,I1 ri •�.iZ.,•.;+'y-S�•j Tnc f' 't'�. �.w-+Cf'�•Y:'M:7or, 3'if'�¢:^'1':i•a"'e L•:�r';, :�.:_ - i :'r..;q<.�•� ,,'r.:r�,•�'r•f►rC•C�-.5,,..•.:' ,Y.��' _� 7^' rY�:+�r,�--�`•:•. :Y.:•,;��;::j :{;r Y: ;���rnf_J.^h'+'r�:K•i Li�,:•1+�•!�.L� w•.t• �J•a%u.:, •1'1•::�;'j:.i.:. e•.._::: — _ Lei _ . . . ;' � - .•. •. r.•;; �- - _ fit- =1-ir:•,. i` .i :� - .•,..� _.��witi :..t r.��''...•, .':�.��i•..� _ - -_ •0`0 �='��'�-�%f� �:' � .:••`mac 1; .._ 1 •ice. _- -• - --_.m•I. FBI .. .' - _ - =•, , i - R-1;:{.. emu.•• "�'�:.,,;-r.�Y�' ..,,,^,..",' .:.. .. • � �- err • •' ��..••• �:"" ..: .. • �; . ;• r �� •` ••• • t•`r a•:•..'r•••cam:; r.r -:•'•arAF:�: _ -a:. ...' ... ••. Yt rY!'„J"�r:�VJ Ci :y.�y�):i%•.•,�{_•��. F •S� :.(w,Jiy fj.�T.rvr::-wyw .G���i'1.•.' - '�':+:a,''�jq'it f•%Z..:y����T�.•ttr+..!i'f��%t:A�'Y.T!Cils�1'Y"•':dicaw� i[I�";-:Y__j:sr�. j• '•":'•:e•a Its..,. ,�..1;:�''>�.•��i•�".•L,,:C,.`rs�•.\a.'tt:.Y+'-�►h., y'Jj+^j°y"�Jcjl:C�.•�•�•�.,�.ry'�•1• �T.."..SI+• f.__'ii�i�� �V' 2'.:�..I!,, ,r'1 w.�I_ •'",`•u�• •� t'� •S,yd•'V'r�:�`Klf�_ :•�+tJ�•��/!!A���,,,.•I.r.� r�r.`•P.rQ.�,Si�''-1 � A H.�;*�.i:, -/„n,,,� .6��j•,•'�i�;.•"":i; ��;f`,1�;2t��,.;�,��jl�S�•r. ,y .,•��. -}', .::;�f •�'/ 1i:•' _r+y :'r':'-'::ni.�'�� -�a ,Yf•,fGy.��H. N'M. � vJr.het ►"y;ll:y:�.. tcf''� •°.w'. •��•`� :.ti!�° r.+ �,,f�. n �i!4?rw�'q. it, '1 ..V ,}��,�'!�... wj •}'�/S,q: •••r•:':i.'. �il.'�.l) '9 V' J•. n_•-1!ftJF'i'"6,.•. .�� �� :1: t.!_:I. _!.�.�•.��y: .,l f '•••'mac. / 1 � 1 • 1 rram�•• r �. }•+.•,t.,,:•?:% a ,,AA �y`"-: :: bb 5A • ;•d!4�`. �w� "._.`•i:' p•.I'y-'r'r•Mr;• ;•.jam r •y `(' �9 � ••r11.i••.lr• � i, ..rj �ro•'7^• ..•*�t•y •� • ri.:. ���•qR;: • ��ci1'•�!y� •��, r � t�;# •..� by :�:T 1/:r. 1, .•;,. .'r. _i, tii-. �-r :•.:.Otl LtW �..SSSSSSLLLLLL'4, V. %.. t�' • n�.. . _t:,; •-..:•' •- ;a jj -,r as .. •, ��} yP.ef ter' '• .. - f • 1{ ;�::�.roe.. ..J • '::� _ '•�-'r r` �_'�.. ::• _....�t�'."' •'•►' r•+- ..•..,..0 _ •a;:�`� ..`••.-. r � �r vim• - ;;�,::..:..:::::•.^. `'�� `'P;�+t�"',i•��`'i.:i �.�:p;i�r.-� _:'.;n' �.._�_a���:7:`,ram':+"•�• .ate.: r'l;� rN 1 • 1 r✓ A 1.f...+ �• u `..`. , .. .•. Y, v !•12-1:.sf::JC''�'il1fC+TCi 627 N Pennsylvania a Lansing, MI 48912a" August 22, 1998 z� Dept of Planning & Neighborhood Development 1316 N Capitol Avenue tans�hg, Mh 48933 T236Ar ; 4.1. -': bear' 'City of Lans ngttPlanning, Office; ya r I'm writing in supp�ort'of requests Z-10-98 and •SLU-20-98 by Neogen f ...Corperation.. Appr0;va1 would benefit near-by residents and the area. �. I',ve 1 ived'at 627f6r nine years and` have never; had any problem with the `. neighbor that shares .my=back. fence,"Neogen. )'Others with properties .that abut the proposed expansion- are thrilled to fiave Neogen take over the h neglected 600 Lesher P1 `location. As .i.t i`s, we're Jong relied- upon Snow Angels from Neogen .to gain`-a,'foothold :around that large corner lot! v " Neogen has a proven record of ul.tilizing histor-ic..area buildings for successful ventures -without. changing.'-their basic structure. Al<thougR the � a, Oak Park School :closed in the .70. s, i-t 1oa , ittle 'different.-and former t 1 f z s students pan:.easily point o.ut their,. dis ,di aAg.�grounds to. offspring ng entertained in the park ` In fact; Gy nstall•ed a new "NO . Parking During School Hours" sign 3usta �►earago! 'And 'when they a. . . „ asked to use .a long abandoned hous :office use., the promise to keep it: residential in ippear„ Dua edt and the entire =; ..., neighborhood has .benefited by the atp a eLpgen has also been very conscientious: i n keep-i ng fihe, dpark�i ng; pr'obl ems. There is .every reason to beli.eve th ation of 600 .Lesher r 'will leave room for: nostalgic memor�e h only.:giving aboost to an already non-residential- corner property aantto the neighborhood �ri mage: We.are ;fortunate .in being able to oa�t'of..a good :co.rporate �ghbor that considers ..its. membership {an : #1"., mun�ty part.-of:their tom 1 ine' , -Neogen ..and the Oak, Park Neigh"borh-6d"" ssocia"tion have a long working:partnership.that will endure throughout our expansions. 3 va: of Z 10 "and �SLU 20 will benefit every interested party. S cerely Yours; ' ` B.eth Boyce; Board of Directors G. cc: Neogen} OPNA, City Counci 1 9 ' w yc r 1• .y S1• r pf. , ^'ty,. e. 'H tj f 7t ' t . t�stl r i:FA .ter' .. - � . F �i`q•, __ +�j� �'•• rT - r� Y�.ter _ '�', '' ._ 3 1"�i -- r _' r it -_�• .. ( r r �' Ji. Tt 14 Si l' Z-12-98 3713 S. Pennsylvania "J" Parking to "G-2" Wholesale GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Thatcher Construction 16429 S. Upton, Ste. 1 East Lansing, MI 48823 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents Owner: Glen Buege 3625 S. Pennsylvania Lansing, MI REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Property to be rezoned is the former site of the Westphalia Builders and Home Center Store EXISTING ZONING: "G-2" Wholesale, "J" Parking and "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: Rezone the "J" Parking portion to "G-2" Wholesale PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 300 feet along Pennsylvania, 726.3' deep along south property line. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Residential E: Conrail Railroad W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-2" Wholesale S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Development Plan designates this area as Light Industrial CASE HISTORY: Property was zoned to the "G-2" , "J" and "A" Districts in 1967 (Z-145-66, City Council Resolution #1211). The subject site was formerly the Westphalia Builders and Home Center Store. Z-12-98 3713 S. Pennsylvania SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Rezone property at 3713 S. Pennsylvania from "J" Parking to "G-2" Wholesale to allow vehicle sales in lieu of customer parking only for the Glen Buege Buick Dealership located to the north of the subject property. Note: The Developer has submitted an approved plan to begin construction of the site, subject to any display vehicle space being identified outside of the "J" Parking District. A rezoning of this area will allow the Glen Buege business to park its new/used vehicles in that space. The building permit was approved subject to landscape, screening and buffering to be installed within the "A" Residential District (see attached landscape plan). AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: (No response) Assessor: Building that was on this property was demolished. Confirmed by Jim Vlahakis of the Assessor's Office 8/21/98 Bd. of Water & Light: (No response) Building Safety: This Office has no objection to the proposed rezoning. Building and other permits required for any new construction. Consumers Energy: (No response) Media One: (No response) City Attorney: (No response) Z-12-98 3713 S. Pennsylvania Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: (No response) Lansing Neigh.Council: (No response) Parks & Rec: It fits well with the surrounding land use. Rezoning makes sense. Police Dept: (No response) Public Service Dept: Public Service Engineering has no objections to the proposed action. Traffic Eng: The Transportation Division has reviewed the subject requests and has the following comments. 1) The plan is consistent with the existing commercial development activity on Pennsylvania Avenue. 2) The Transportation Division has already reviewed and approved the site plan submitted to the Building Safety Office for this project. 3) It appears that this project can proceed as planned with the proper rezoning approval. ANALYSIS BACKGROUND The applicant wishes to rezone the portion of his site currently zoned "J" Parking to a district that will allow him to display vehicles for sale. A rezoning to the "G-2" Wholesale District would make the zoning pattern more consistent. The property was zoned to the "G-2" , "J" and "A" Districts in 1967 (Z-145-66, City Council Resolution #1211). The subject site was formerly the Westphalia Builders and Home Center Store. The store has recently been demolished to make way for the expansion of the Glen Buege Buick Dealership to the north onto the subject property. Z-12-98 3713 S. Pennsylvania COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Single family residential homes are located to the south and west (across Pennsylvania Avenue) Glen Buege Buick Dealership exists to the north and a Consumer Energy Right of Way and Con Rail tracks exist to the east. A change to the "G-2" Wholesale District from "J" Parking will not result in any significant change to the site in the immediate future. The applicant proposes to use the area for the display of vehicles for sale, as opposed to customer parking only. This rezoning request, with appropriate landscape, screening and buffering, will be compatible with surrounding land use. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Master Plan designates this area as Light Industrial. The "G-2" Wholesale District allows office, commercial, and warehouse development. Though the Master Plan designates the parcel as Light Industrial, the "G-2" Wholesale District does not allow light industrial land use. The request to rezone to the "G-2" Wholesale District is in compliance with the Master Plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC No significant impact will result from this rezoning request. The applicant has provided adequate customer parking elsewhere on site and has provided adequate aisle space for circulation throughout the site. A sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue will continue to provide good pedestrian access. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No significant impact on the environment will result from this rezoning request. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTENS OF DEVELOPMENT The use of the portion of the site currently zoned "J" Parking for the display of vehicles should not result in any negative impacts on future development patterns. The "A" Residential Zoning District, to be retained along the south property line, would provide Z-12-98 3713 S. Pennsylvania a good buffer zone to protect the single family homes to the south. The 20 foot strip will include additional landscape materials which will include 6 foot tall Colorado Spruces and some fencing along the property line. The applicant has been working with individual property owners on the installation of new fencing along the south property line on a parcel by parcel basis, depending on the desires of the property owners. SUMMARY The rezoning request will result in a more consistent zoning of the parcel for a new and used car dealership while retaining a buffer strip along the south property line adjacent to single family homes. This request will give better flexibility to the development of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request to rezone the portion of the site currently zoned "J" Parking to the "G-2" Wholesale District and recommends the "A" Residential portion of the site to remain to serve as a buffer strip between the car dealership and properties to the south. Oz-12-98.fe Z-12-98 NORTH 3713 S. Pennsylvania 1 © a .. VO , . NV 0 O , \ A i Applicant requests the"J"Parking District to be L rezoned to the"G-2"Wholesale District to allow for the sale of new and used vehicles. The"J"Parking o District allows customer parking only. The"A"Residential District,which serves as a o�. ` •` , ` { 0 0 "buffer strip"adjacent the neighborhood.to the o"' o� os °' a o�` o� , o,� °� 11� �� a south will remain the same. 1 2 3 4 5 ° 7 A ` 9 10 11 ` 12 \ 1 PEN NWAY DR, 13 .,. rI•. 'r' ,l • CON. Z-12-98 NORTH 3713 S. Pennsylvania FN ` tie' .•`•rx° 'y+ •Fr,4 ,;_.._ 'r"STING A < .i 1:1 iS1 +Y • t s{„ �E ) 'Z. F 1'itlf t- �«�} t DANCE K " E1N' I 6KY - STRutc (,r ♦c +14. ; X B500 EXISTI ; , (. ` x 0912 n �3 �EE� 07 ; ACE 3W 1MD �GREGA' t (� `MINA *FLOOR N r .tr �0 Vl.1w 7 .X— 9r 8�;�4.•` f 1 �M• '.r r �1 .5. �r W�Y'Y!1� i iP4c_. : ' S9i TO FA w '� SiW N 1 WAtl#tilrf faL h r ..849 9 X ID I X 50 2§ d7 X 850:1 W r. V+ w D N I r!, .� 1.� + A `14 N . ::-i 855.9 �� s• ( ! Y i, + 652 '. 7. MAtr ' x SCREEN WITHQRADO`SPRU .. , , 1. �, h .. ,. �. .� t.A j: .. !� + } •r "r -,4 y'��1,. 5 r Kt• w.�.r ( ��( i r+. 'i ^�' rC•1 F N9 rc t i�'•z. FENCE GREGATE ENTRA T , (r4 .•,.•�. �;:rx+ •l�',?ac- r �. 5�'. � �f �, � 1 � 5 i _ 1 i, ' s,. :1 . - - � �. -��. ,� _ � � 1�. 1 ' _ r_ _� ' �� .�J , �i � � � � - ,! - �, i �-. '' - _, • _ � ��: I _ 1 ' � ���' 1, 1. - � .' i, .T -v � � - �-. , ,^ .. ..7 FR -- � � ,.. .t_ "-t' - _ .e ,, � � :.�. it �� `' `i�� �., _ .. APPROVED AS PRINTED OCTOBER 6,1998. Draft 091198 Approved 100698 To Clerk 100998 Minutes of the Regular Meeting r— LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers —� Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, September 1, 1998 1. OPENING SESSION: r Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge, Smith, eight members present. a. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, and also Recording Secretary, introduced staff present, Donna J. Wynant, Senior Planner. 2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter to City of Lansing Planning Office dated August 22, 1998 regarding Z-10-98 and SLU-20-98, Neogen, from Beth Boyce, Board of Directors, Oak Park Neighborhood Assoc., in support, together with petitions. B. Letter to individual Planning Board members dated August 28, 1998 regarding Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98 , 3115 and 3205 Forest Road, from Thomas B. Mulder, in opposition. 4 HEARINGS: A. Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-1" Commercial & "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Ronald McDonald Board to rezone property at the southeast corner of Holmes St. and E. Michigan Ave. from "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "DM-4" for the purpose of establishing a Ronald McDonald House. The street will be realigned, and the change has been taken into account. There will be eight bedrooms for guest families, community living space, kitchen, and a live-in manager's office and one-bedroom private living area. To the south and east is parking for the Sparrow Professional Building located directly east. To the west is the parking ramp, a gas station and the new Sparrow office facility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 Farther to the south is a residential neighborhood. Elevation drawings have been included in your packet as well as floor plans for the building. The site is fenced. Because the property is narrow at the north end, it was difficult to meet setbacks and still get the house onto the site. Because of traffic noise, it seemed better to locate the house closer to the neighborhood and have the neighborhood orientation, as opposed to being at Michigan Avenue. Also, the playground is somewhat removed from the front property line, and completely fenced. It is located on the flattest part of the site, where a path for wheelchairs could be placed. Sparrow owns the property to the east, west and south. Mr. Ruge asked about the property on the west side of Holmes, next to the gas station. Ms. Love said when the actual road is realigned, the City will retain all of the existing right-of-way; it will not go to the gas station. Mr. Ruge was concerned about the asphalt area on both sides of the sidewalk. He hoped some trees and grass could put in here, rather than blacktop. Ms. Love said this excess right-of-way on the west side of the street, which would remain in City ownership, would have grass and trees planted. KEVIN KANE, ARCHITECT FOR RONALD McDONALD HOUSE. Also with me are Theda Rudd, chair of our board, and Gretchen Cochran, our director. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. You already have the site plan, elevation drawings and floor plans. Mr. Ruge mentioned his concern with having the playground right on Michigan Avenue. It would seem more appropriate to switch the playground to the back of the property where children could be farther away from the noise, dust and traffic of Michigan Avenue, and have the building closer to Michigan. The building will probably have air conditioning and non-opening windows. Mr. Kane said the original design did have the building closer to Michigan Avenue. The Design Committee, in addressing window issues, plans to have the windows operable and to use them to give a homey feel to the environment. Regarding acoustical issues, southwest of the property, Sparrow has allowed us to use it for parking. We are not looking for on-site parking other than the barrier free spot. We will be using spaces in the ramp. An orientation to the ramp was important. When the building was located closer to the street, it had a view out the front door of the service entry, loading dock and cooling tower. We thought it was a great location, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3 until we spent some time on-site and noticed the loading dock view. We felt the tie to the neighborhood was more important. We have worked closely with the landscape architect. We felt that the scale, building up from Michigan Avenue, to landscaping, low ornamental fence, and grass area, then to the one-story garage and up to the two-story house, worked well to set the tone as you approach the house. We wanted to pull it back from Michigan Avenue because the house is residential in scale with lap siding, and not a row house with straight brick walls. RICK KIBBEY, 300 SHEPARD ST., PRESIDENT, EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION, here speaking also on behalf of ENO, Prospect's Prospectors, and ABC. The project is actually in Prospect's Prospectors area, but it is right on the border with ABC, and ENO is the umbrella organization for that area. We three neighborhood groups are writing to offer our qualified support for construction of Ronald McDonald House. There has been considerable discussion among the neighborhoods and the sponsors of this house which has led to its proposed location on South Holmes, rather than on North Holmes. The location meets the general guidelines of not putting a Sparrow use south of Eureka Street, an important neighborhood boundary. The scale is also suitable for transition from Michigan Avenue to a residential neighborhood. While we agree with the general proposition, we have consistently found that the devil is in the details. and would like to propose an ongoing neighborhood liaison between the developers and the neighborhoods to review site plans, assist in scheduling, informing the neighborhood of construction traffic or street closures, and working with the management team of the House to iron out potential difficulties, especially during start-up. We would propose representatives from the two neighborhood groups, ABC and Prospect, and ENO as ex ofcio. The group would meet as needed during construction, and quarterly thereafter. It is our experience that usually one year later procedures have been worked out, and the mechanism is kept in place for handling future problems. The neighborhood groups are in agreement with this. We have notified the developers of Ronald McDonald House. They seem amenable, and they have been very forthcoming; however, neighborhoods look at things differently than developers. To incorporate that perspective into the review prior to presentation allows for problem- solving at the neighborhood level rather than at the Planning Board level. We offer our qualified support. We would like to see this mechanism put into place. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4 There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-9-98, 121 S. Holmes St., "F-1" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-4" Residential District, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, on September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District C. SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory Ms. Love presented the cases, requests by Neogen Corporation, 620 Lesher Place, located in the old Oak Park School north of this property. They already operate a research and development laboratory and office facility at that location and have an existing special land use for that property. They are requesting to rezone the property at Lesher Place from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. With that rezoning, they would then request a special land use permit which would allow research and development laboratories. The property has been used as a residential shelter. Surrounding land uses to the north are residential and office; to the south residential; to the east residential and one additional property that has been zoned to office and is also utilized by the Neogen Corporation. To the west is Oak Park. Surrounding zoning to the north is "DM-3" and "D-1" Professional Office; to the south "DM-3" and to the east "DM-3" and "D-1" Professional Office. The park is zoned "A" Residential. The Neogen Corporation has grown and expanded and reached the limits of their facility. They like Lansing and with this rezoning would be bringing employees from two other states to this facility. JIM HERBERT, PRESIDENT OF NEOGEN, REPRESENTING PETITIONER. This building was built in approximately 1925 by Ransom Olds for use by the City for a shelter for needy children. It was later deeded to the County. At one time the building was used as an annex to Sparrow Hospital. The structure of the building is good; however, because of its use over the years, it has fallen into some disrepair. It is the cornerstone of the turn to reach our headquarters. We are concerned about its general appearance and the neighborhood and the whole community, and the restoration of the almost-historic-era building. It fits in with our plans because its use would not be very easily converted to anything else. Most of the floors inside are stone, terrazzo floors. It is a cold building, if you PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 5 were trying to do anything with it of a residential nature. That has been a problem of the Council Against Domestic Assault. It was not very suitable for residential purposes. There is adequate parking, along with parking at the building we have. It is an opportunity for us so help save a worthwhile building that fits well into our overall plan. We would carry on the same activities there as at 620 Lesher Place. We think it fits well into our overall plans for use as laboratory space, and would allow us to do some expansion to keep our worldwide headquarters located here. Our company is one of the major producers of products used in food safety. We make diagnostic test kits to enable food processors and regulatory agencies to detect harmful organisms, such as E. coli in hamburger meat, and other toxic substances. This would be a continuation of the same kind of research development we are doing at present. We have a good relationship with the neighborhood association and have tried to participate in their activities. We would plan to continue to consult with them. We would not make any changes to the outside of the building other than to clean it up and re-landscape. We appreciate your consideration. Mr. Ruge asked about the rezoning granted several years ago on a house east of this site. Will Neogen continue to use the house? Mr. Herbert said they expect to continue to occupy the house for use for office staff unrelated to research and development activities taking place at 600 Lesher Place. It appears to be a residential property and is an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge asked about the presence of the dreaded bacteria organisms. Mr. Herbert said Neogen makes the antibodies that recognize the bacterial organisms or other natural toxins or pesticides present in food at very low levels. Mr. Ruge asked about the one house left between your two large and imposing buildings. Have you been talking to the owner of that house? Mr. Herbert said, about the two buildings, one has been there since 1916 and the other since 1925. The house has always had two large and imposing buildings beside it. We have been good neighbors to the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey. Their attitude has been that at some point they might want to sell their property, but in the meantime we have been less noisy than some possible neighbors, and we have coexisted very well. JUDY HACKETT, 625 N. PENNSYLVANIA. My property runs to the back of the Neogen Corporation. I am also here on behalf of Oak Park PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 6 Neighborhood as President. We support this zoning change. They have been good cooperative neighbors and have kept their property up and been an asset to the neighborhood. We have had problems with the current occupants keeping the sidewalks clear of snow and keeping the property up. They have had financial problems running their organization, but the property was an eyesore. DEB FREDERICK, 3728 STONELEIGH. At one time I was the state monitor for the Council Against Domestic Assault. My job required me to regularly visit the facility to oversee the program and to look at facility itself. A chronic problem with the building has been the inability of CADA to maintain the building. They were not able to keep the building looking good from the outside. Structurally it is in good shape. This development prospect has been a good impetus for CADA to find a better facility and to find funding for it. The neighborhood will be the better for a better- maintained facility. It is a lovely building. I would support the rezoning of the property. BETH BOYCE, 627 N. PENNSYLVANIA . My property abuts the back of Neogen. I have lived there for nine years. There has been a problem with upkeep of 600 Lesher Place, and snow removal. For the last year or two, Neogen has come over and cleared snow for the facility. They have been good neighbors and done things like that for everybody. Neighborhood children have Christmas presents because of Neogen. We are proud to have them in our corner of the City, and we want to keep them and encourage anything we can do to facilitate the zoning change. RICK KIBBEY, ENO. For historical perspective, questions asked by the Chairman are questions that we asked when Neogen first started in that area over a decade ago. We looked at ventilation, industrial process, disposal chemicals, and many other issues. There was a lot of fear because people didn't know what recombinant DNA research meant. None of our fears were ever realized. They run a clean operation, and they are growing as a twenty-first-century industry. They have gone to great lengths to be good neighbors, and we are pleased to share in their success. There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District and SLU-20- 98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory, to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTMOER 1, 1998 PAGE 7 Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, on September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-11-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District, and E. PRD-3-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development Ms. Wynant presented the cases, requests for rezoning and a planned residential development for apartments to be constructed at 3115 and 3205 Forest Road. The land, currently zoned "A" Residential for single-family development, is a site of approximately 13 acres. For the density they are seeking, the most appropriate zoning designation would be "DM-1" Residential to allow for development of 164 two-bedroom apartments. In the "DM-1" District, when you have a lot over six acres in size with more than one building proposed, the ordinance requires the Planned Residential Development process. The intent of the Planned Residential Development is to allow flexibility in the regulation of land development to permit the developer to take advantage of various amenities on the land, cluster development and things that would allow for wetlands on the northwest part of the site and a variety of housing types, single- and two-family dwellings, and townhouses and multiple dwellings. The approximately-13-acre site takes in two parcels which would be combined. The larger parcel is currently a nursery. It also includes a residential property, the residence of the Smith family. Surrounding uses include a cemetery to the west and north, Tammany Hills Apartments to the south and the expressway to the east. The zoning around the site is predominantly residential, with the exception of the University Club which is zoned commercial. The Southeast Area Master Plan designates the area for residential development, 8-14 units to the acre. Density level proposed would be 12.63 dwelling units per acre. Forest Road is designated as a scenic corridor. Concerning agency responses, Parks Dept. would like screening for the cemetery. The Transportation Engineer commented that the entry/exit should line up with the street into Tammany Hills, and that a traffic study, to be done by the developer, should be submitted and reviewed. Ms. Love said she received a voice mail message from the Police Department. At present, this is planned as a gated community, and Police and Fire want to ensure adequate provision for emergency access. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 8 Mr. Nischan commented on the letter from Mr. Mulder who said that the south side of Forest Road was restricted to seven units per acre and that the north side was being proposed for 11.5 to 19.8 du/acre. The question is why the restriction on the south side, and are there factors that might also apply on the north side. Ms. Wynant said in the Master Plan, it is residential, with a range of 8-14 du/acre. In the Planned Residential District, it would be more specific as to the number of units. It would be conditioned approval. Ms. Love said Tammany Hills was developed under the Community Unit Plan, a particular zoning classification which is no longer used. Typically, it is an overlay zone. The reason we don't use it any more is that it is a negotiated process in terms of the number of units per acre, setbacks and site plan development. The Planning Board was probably trying to hold the number of units per acre equal to the surrounding area, which is one- and two-family development and is primarily under seven units per acre. Tammany Hills No. 5 was developed probably before 1983, when the new code went into effect. The problem with that designation was that the units-per-acre figure was negotiated. Mr. Smith asked about Parks' comment concerning possible cemetery expansion. Ms. Love said she was not aware of possible expansion and that information would be available for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge asked about the traffic study. It is not yet available. RICHARD COOLEY, ON BEHALF OF EQUITY MAX, INC., 4921 W. ST. JOSEPH, the applicant. Mr. Economides, the project architect, is here. One exhibit is a rendering of the proposed building. I believe it to be a unique architectural approach to a rental community. It is not a typical apartment-type building. It is atypical and unique. Each of the dwelling units has an attached garage, so that a tenant can go directly from the garage into the dwelling unit. The overall effect is of an eight-unit building having garages on each end and architecturally very residential in character. The site layout creates a "quaint New England-type gaslight village appearance"where the orientation is to pedestrian traffic as opposed to vehicular circulation on-site dominating the entire environment. It is laid out to be a quaint and intimate environment. Of the 18 buildings, 5 buildings along the expressway are proposed as 12-unit buildings. We met PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 9 early on with the Forest View Citizens Association president. We met last week with the group, with Mr. Frederick and with Mr. Berridge, and some members of City Council. We presented our plan to them and they raised some excellent points. We made two separate applications, one for rezoning from "A" Residential to "DM-1". The rezoning will not create a nuisance or have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The proposed development encourages the use of this land in accordance with its character and adaptability. The project can be built as submitted and can be accessed safely to and from Forest Road. The traffic study mentioned previously was completed yesterday and was forwarded to Mr. Berridge. We did not bring copies for the Board this evening; we assumed Mr. Berridge would review it and make a last-minute communication to the Planning Board, or at least make a full report to be forwarded to the committee. Mr. William Savage, a transportation engineer, is here this evening. The proposal complies with the minimum setbacks for the "DM-1" Residential District. We are asking for no exceptions from the setbacks. This request would make reasonable consideration of both the character and intent of the "DM-1" Residential District. We feel this request does not threaten the health, safety and welfare, and further that the proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with both the residential use pattern and the Comprehensive Plan for this vicinity. On the issue of the Planned Residential Development, the proposal is for 164 units in 18 buildings with attached garage for each unit. We had objectives before we designed anything: (1) introduce a unique dwelling unit with attached garage and secured entry in a luxury rental community to a targeted market segment; (2) create a cost-effective and efficient land use plan for an adaptive new residential development on existing landscaped nursery property; (3) preserve to the greatest extent possible stands of indigenous vegetation or existing natural vegetation and transplant moveable stock on-site to new locations; (4) preserve to the greatest extent possible the Forest Road scenic corridor natural growth while providing an appropriate entry environment for the project; (5) provide a pedestrian- accessible residential living environment; (6) create useful open space areas within a quaint New England village living environment, and (7) provide on-site pedestrian-accessible recreation facilities to help meet some of the prospective residents' recreational needs on site. The target market for this project consists of affluent singles, young professional couples, and possibly retirees or the 55-plus market. Rents will probably start about $900/month and will average about $1,000/month. Some units have PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 10 fireplaces; second-floor units will feature the attached garage, cathedral ceilings and a separate front door. The applicant may in the future consider converting the rental units to for-sale condo units which would add home ownership in the area. The phasing would preserve the two houses at 3115 and 3205 Forest Road until the last phase of development. The first phase would consist of seven buildings with 56 units and all of the common facilities such as the community center. Phase two would be 60 units and would complete a road loop back out to Forest Road for a second means of ingress and egress. Phase three would comprise 48 units when the residential buildings would come down. We have met with the home owners association which is concerned with the scenic corridor treatment. In our plans, we have submitted a landscape concept plan which shows proposed and existing plant materials to be preserved and proposed plant materials comprised of shade trees, evergreen trees, flowering trees and large shrubs. It is a concept. We will provide detailed landscape plans both for new plantings and preserving plant materials in the scenic corridor. We are aware of citizens' concerns over the scenic corridor and its preservation. Equity Max is interested in cooperating fully with the City and the residents. We will meet with them periodically throughout the process. They have assigned a committee to work with us. We feel it will be a high- quality project. I would take issue with Mr. Mulder. Tammany Hills No. 4 ended up at about ten units per acre, according to Assessor's records. This project is proposed at 12.63 units per acre which we feel is consistent with both the Master Plan and is well within what is allowed in the "DM-1" District. Mr. Ruge asked about the statement that the site possesses unusual characteristics. Mr. Cooley said the site for many years has been a landscape nursery having many trees which can be transplanted and stock- piled for use in the finished project phases. Having the plant material to be used in the finished project is a real advantage. The second characteristic is the wetlands of about one-and-one-quarter acres in the northwest part of the property. Our consultant believes this is not a regulated wetland; however, we are not proposing alteration of the wetland except to cross it at one point with a pedestrian bridge to access an area for picnicking and a volley ball court. Also in the north end is a basketball court for various hard-surface games. There is a small building for maintenance equipment which would be separate from the community center. In the middle of the project is a community center with guest parking, outdoor swimming pool and a meeting room, locker rooms, etc. The third thing is the Forest Road PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 11 Corridor itself being a scenic corridor. It is a real asset to the neighborhood. I believe we will agree on a plan which will preserve the scenic corridor aspect of Forest Road. Mr. Ruge was concerned about the number of parking spaces on the project. For each apartment there is one parking space, in the garage, and a second parking space is in front of the garage. Where will guests park? Mr. Cooley said there is guest parking at the community center and other guest parking spaces scattered throughout the project and in turnaround/back-up areas, 24 or 25 of these. Mr. Cooley commented about what the project is, as well as what it is not. This project is proposed to be entirely privately financed. It is not a MSHDA project, no FHA funds, not a tax credit project and no government funds or subsidies or rent control or income discretion, no public monies involved. It will be privately financed and developed by a Lansing developer and designed by a Lansing design team. Mr. Ruge asked about the project objectives--preserve to the greatest extent possible stands of indigenous vegetation. Have you mapped out the trees on the property? Mr. Cooley said yes, those are shown on the existing site conditions map which is the first exhibit in the appendix. We do not have a detailed map of all the nursery stock nor have we done one yet. We did show where the major stands of trees are located currently on the existing site. If we can design around significant existing mature trees, we will do so. LEONARD N. STUTTMAN, 2331 FOREST ROAD. I was the first chairman of the Forest View Neighborhood Association. I have with me the paper trail on the Scenic Corridor, back to February 5, 1986. In 1983 there was an attempt to develop multiple housing units along and around Forest Road. We wanted to keep the Forest Road area as a single-family housing area. The scenic corridor was developed to assist the effort. The "DM-1" zoning may be in conflict with the scenic corridor concept. The City of Lansing is the only City in the entire State of Michigan that has a municipal scenic corridor. The corridor is unique. There was a concept of developing a bike path from the Scott Mansion all the way to Lake Lansing. It would be contiguous with the bike path along the river walk that goes along Aurelius Road. It was designated for Forest Road but never established. There was funding available and I don't know what happened. The Association is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 12 concerned about the current sewer system--will it cover the proposed development? Regarding road maintenance, will the City maintain the roads on the interior of the development? The association is concerned abut the gated community concept, and police and fire services to be provided to the area. Referring to Resolution #240, concerning maintenance, guidelines and procedures, we should have been consulted regarding lighting. Review should be conducted at five-year intervals. Money should be designated for preservation of the scenic corridor. The association wants a guarantee of Forest Road to be improved. Also we are concerned with the density of the development. CONNIE DELANEY, 882 AURELIUS ROAD. I own 20 acres in the area. I gave Dick Cooley a copy of State of Michigan and EPA standards for beautification. I want to have a panel established to work with the architects of the project. The main focus should be on Forest Road and the bike path. I urge approval. IRVIN S. SIRLOUIS, 2616 TAMMANY. I am a property owner. The density is too much for the area. Stay with the present density in the area. DEB FREDERICK, 3728 STONELEIGH. I live in Forest View. I like the diversity of the housing. I am not opposed to this development, but I do have three concerns, first, the bike path. The new housing will add traffic to the area, and the shoulders of the roads are already deteriorated. Someone should investigate why money was not spent on the road. Second, as a police commissioner, I am concerned about the gated community concept and police protection. Thirdly, the scenic corridor should be protected, and the criteria for maintaining the scenic corridor status should be adhered to. TED VANDEVENTER, 3840 ASHBROOK. I am the developer. In the development proposal, we considered police protection, trash pickup because there will be no dumpsters, lighting, and density of 8 to 14 units per acre. Property values, together with building costs, have gone up over the years. Smith's has the property listed with Stockwell at $950,000. Councilmember Sandy Allen said it is the nicest residential development since she has been on the City Council. To develop low profile housing PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 13 takes a lot of money. If the density is reduced, I would have to take out the gate and the fountain, and I would have to bring in government subsidies. P. ECONOMIDES, 605 BURCHAM, ARCHITECT. Please do not look just at the density, also look at the design. There being no one further wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-10-98, 600 Lesher Place, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, and SLU-20-98, 600 Lesher Place, Research and Development Laboratory, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, on September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. Z-12-98, 3713 S. Pennsylvania Ave., "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts Ms. Wynant presented the case, a request by Thatcher Construction, repesenting the owner, Glenn Buege, to rezone property located at 3713 S. Pennsylvania from "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to allow vehicle sales in lieu of customer parking only for the Glenn Buege Buick Dealership located to the north of the subject property. The developer has submitted an approved plan to begin construction subject to any display vehicle space being identified outside of the "J" Parking District. A rezoning of this area will allow the Glenn Buege Buick business to park its new/used vehicles in that space. The building permit was approved subject to landscape screening and buffering to be installed within the "A" Residential District. The petitioner was not present. There being no one wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-12-98, 3713 S. Pennsylvania Ave., "A" Residential, "G-2" Wholesale and "J" Parking Districts to "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts Room, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, on September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 14 7. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Minutes for Approval: July 21, 1998 and August 18, 1998 - not available for action. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Goolsby, Chair. Next Meeting Wednesday, September 9, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nischan, Vice Chair. a Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW Tabled. We do not believe a legal permit was ever issued for the existing sign. We see no evidence that there is any legal way for us to recommend replacement of the sign, and there is no evidence that what the City Attorney has done by way of licensing signs in the right-of-way has any legal basis at all. We would like to make sure that there is some legal grounds to do what they want us to do. b. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan. Tabled. As we begin reviewing the Plan, there are three important questions to place before the entire Board. Tonight we would like to find out if the Board would like to respond, and if so, what would be the best way to do that. The first question is about the purpose of the Plan, because that affects how we would review it. If it is going to be a reference document that we use periodically when we are looking for zoning consistency with the Master Plan and then reshelve it, that is one use. Another use is that, plus specific development ideas, which although not binding, would give us a direction to pursue to develop the downtown further. A third level includes at least those two things, but serves as a vision document that puts forth a vision which the Mayor, City Council, Boards, Departments, citizens and other stakeholders would support and work to implement, the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 15 "something-to-get-excited-about" version of the Plan. We meet the guidelines working with any one of those three levels, but we really need to know before we start reviewing it which level the Board would like to work at. Our second question has to do with what kind of criteria to use in reviewing the plan. The Goals and Objectives for the Twenty- First Century were developed by the Planning Board, and we all have copies for those, but do we consider it fair for the review to be using Dan Burden's concepts of walkable communities. Are there principles and concepts and visions that the Planning Board has that are important to use explicitly as criteria as we begin reviewing this Plan, because there are no givens in terms of what criteria you have to use. So we want to be clear about that. The third question has to do with how we choose to view central Lansing. What is our priority? Do we view it as central Lansing, a little island, and we are going to develop it as a little island, or Central Lansing as the center and performing a unique function for the whole City, so the whole City is the stakeholder, not just the downtown merchants. Or a Central Lansing that is of regional significance. Any one of those views of Central Lansing is a workable view, but they are three very distinct views with three very distinctive kinds of implications in terms of how we would review the plan and what we would regard as a good plan. If we see it as an island unto itself, that is one thing, but if we view it as Metropolitan Lansing's Central City and everybody, from Waverly over to the Little Rocket display in the street by Howard on the east side, and north and south, have a stake in the downtown, if that is what we want the downtown to be, then we need to look at that Plan really differently. If we think of it regionally, and we want people from Delta and Okemos and DeWitt and Dimondale to feel like they have a stake in the downtown of Lansing, then that again is a different kind of a look. Those were the issues as we begin talking about the Plan, and how to review it and specific elements in it and who was there and who was not. These three ideas precipitated out of the discussion over some period of time. We would like to get your ideas so that we don't bring a review to you which is inconsistent with your own view of these issues. The question tonight would be do PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 16 you want to make input, and secondly, what is the most efficient and the most useful way to do it--how would you like to do that? Mr. Goolsby said he thought the best way to do it is in writing because we may all have different viewpoints, and then it would be up to the committee to look at those and see how they fit in with the consensus of the committee. Mr. Miller said that there is a context in which this has been developed. This process has been going on a long time, and maybe we haven't had direct input, but the impetus for this plan had some of these considerations in it and some of these goals that were defined up front. A lot of money has been invested in this plan, and there has been a lot of input into the plan as it has been developed. It almost seems to me like the questions you are asking are backing us up quite a ways back from where we are right now. Maybe those questions back us up a year or two and I don't see how we go back that far. They seem to be more in-depth questions than how to review the plan. That is my comment. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Miller's comment, but our concern also is that this is a document that we all decide upon and upon the decision. We don't have to go to City Council for further decision. Given the fact that we have had the opportunity to hear Dan Burden, and the opportunity to read the various materials from APA, etc., we have an opportunity to infuse some of those things into this final document, and the question is how much latitude can we and should we take in putting anything further in this than is already there. We feel a little awkward doing that without input from the rest of you. Or are we essentially to assess it as it is, pass it on, and if it is approved, does it go on a shelf somewhere and sit there and become just one more reference document that occasionally gets pulled when somebody wants to refer to what was said in it but it really doesn't serve any purpose as providing impetus for development or encouraging people to get behind it and actually implement the things that are talked about. Our concern is we can pass it, but is it really going to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 17 encourage any real true implementation of the ideas in it if it gets parked somewhere. Mr. Ruge said he missed a meeting, and at the next meeting the door was locked and he could not gain entry, but his question is do we want to do a downtown similar to East Lansing's. They had a land use plan that included design elements. They are installing street furniture and brick. They designed the feeling of their entire downtown. That is part of the question that must have come up at the meeting, do we want to do a straight land use plan, or do we want to do something more than that? Mr. Nischan said the idea is not to pitch it out or go back and start over, the questions are how do we best work with the work that has been done. Do we treat it as an ending point which we are going to review and comment on, or do we treat it as a springboard for other things that the Board has talked about? It is not pitching it out, it is saying should we not be doing more with it? Obviously there were those on the committee who felt we should, myself included. This will be the last time in my lifetime we probably have a chance to have some say on the Master Plan for Downtown. In the past we have talked about how we can get people to come downtown. We need to make sure the Plan adequately looks at that. If we are going to make Lansing a world-class city, doing something with the downtown is part of making it a world-class city. It is the linchpin or the focal point for it. When I read the plan, I did not see a world-class city emerging, I saw a revision of the Master Plan accommodating transportation and other kinds of issues. 1 am not putting it down. That work needed seriously to be done, but I think more work needs to be done, but only if everybody else also feels like we ought to be leveraging more off of the work that has been done already than just a plan we are going to refer for land use blocks and put back on the shelf. Can this be the big-vision book for the slogan of a world-class city? My thought was that if other people want to do something like that to get lots of folks excited and get commitments and support from the mayor and council and everybody else, then this is the time to know that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 18 We need to be aware that because if we say it is going to be a land use category reference plan, that is what the plan for downtown Lansing will be for the next 10 or 20 years. If we want it to be more than that, we need to make it more. There is nobody but the people here tonight who can make it more. Mr. Greiner agreed that more needs to be done with it than just to be used as a land use document. "I don't know that I agree that we are the ones to do that. Certainly, as far as a land use document is concerned, we ought to be using that and doing what we can, if we adopt this, to follow it. I don't know that is the Planning Board's job to develop the excitement in the plan and to promote activities that may help in the implementation of it." This has been going on for a long time. It is the product of a lot of attempts to get other involvement from neighborhoods and other concerned citizens. Whether it has been successful, I do not know. You can advertise and ask for comment, but you don't get it until you come out with a draft and everyone says I never had a chance to comment on it. If we wanted something more into this, we should have been talking about it when they were still in the drafting stages of it. We have been sort of a part of it from the beginning. I think the opportunity for involvement has been there and we have condoned what they have done in that regard up to this point. Maybe we should look at the document and see if it suits the needs that we will have as far as our role in this is concerned. I agree that this is not a world-class city at this time, but I feel that we have a role in promoting that if it is going to get promoted, but I don't think it is our charge. And I don't know that this document is necessarily where those goals and objectives should show up. Mr. Smith said part of the frustrating aspect, and he discussed this with Councilmember Bauer, is that you have things like Mr. Burden coming in, and the steering committee developing a comprehensive plan, but very often these things are happening separate from each other. What is frustrating for Ms. Bauer as a councilmember, and this is her expression, is that there are different sets of priorities in different PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 19 departments, for example, Parks and Recreation, but we don't have an opportunity where we all can come together. She is suggesting a mass retreat, maybe at Lansing Center, where representatives from Council, and the Planning Board, and Parks and Rec, sit down and hammer out what are our priorities, and what do we really want to see happen in the City, and what can we all agree to work on. The frustration. here is that we have a document that is going to go forward. Yes, we have had a lot of input from a lot of different people, an lot of different, good ideas, but are they going to be the kind of priorities that other parts of the city will coalesce around and get behind, or will they just say that is your land use document, and they go on with their own agendas. What Jarl is driving at is could we use this or should we use this as an armature on which to build something bigger and involve more people--say here it is, it is a start, how do you fit in the picture, do you want to join in, what are your priorities. We had a lot of input, but I don't think we had all the input we needed, and I don't think there is a consensus of all parts of the City that this is where we want to go or the directions that we necessarily want to take. It is the frustration of how do you do that. How do you bring all those disparate elements together and say these are the priorities, and this is the vision we have for the City, and here is the plan for how to get there. Ms. Love said everybody has been a little bit right. I don't see going backwards. It is not fair to go backwards in terms of reconfiguring the basis under which the Plan was initially set forth. It had three components: It had a marketing component, a land use component and a design component. It has all three of those pieces. It is disappointing that the more people who stood up and said I was never involved and you should do this, the more times the Steering Committee and the consultant tried to be accommodating, and the more diluted the Plan became. At this point, one of the things would look to the Planning Board for would be some assistance in saying we don't want to go for a diluted plan, we do want to create a more clear vision. We do have specific ideas in mind regarding how we want to see downtown PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 20 develop. Like you, this will probably be my only opportunity to have anything to say about downtown Lansing, about master planning in general, and how it will look. I think the biggest problem with the present Master Plan is that we didn't revisit it enough, that we haven't spent the time necessary to continue to evaluate the strategies for implementation. We need to evaluate more than those eight questions that are in the Board's evaluation every year. We need to seriously use that tool as a plan evaluation. That may mean that we spend a day looking seriously at what the Planning Board has done and what activities we are planning for the next year, how the Master Plan should be updated, and what kinds of things should we be looking at in that next year to make the Plan more of a living dynamic document. I think the present Master Plan that we have city-wide utilized a lot of citizen participation. But I think it is important that we do more frequent assessments of the Plan and make a concerted effort for it to be a living document. The Board and citizens should know that if it passed tomorrow, there will be refinements. Then each year we would work on particular goals or objectives, assess those, dump some, pull in some more and look at the mix again the following year. We need to revisit the Plan, to find those things that are inconsistent, illogical, or, by virtue of change in other surrounding areas, may need to be addressed. Mr. Frederick asked to have some process that would be forthcoming that would allow us to change the plan if we were remiss or put wrong things in it or saw things six months from now that we thought it needed that we didn't think of tonight. He further said that if such a process were established, then he would feel very enthusiastic about it. "If that were part of the plan, I would feel comfortable with that because I have looked at a lot of the Master Plans that are in existence now. I looked at the one for my area and could see things had been accomplished." But it is old, and things that were accomplished need to be taken out of the Plan. They don't need to be there anymore. "I haven't seen that happening. That might take us one step further in doing what planning is, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 21 incorporating ideas that people who live here want in the Plan. If we don't, they are going to do it anyway." Ms. Love said I think it is important to learn from some of the things that happened when we did the central area plan, make sure that as we do the rest of it, that we get it closer to being perfect. Secondly, it is never going to be perfect, that is why you have to revise it. That is why it is a dynamic document; that is why I would like to work with the Executive Committee to develop that process so that we can work into our schedule the whole idea of evaluating these things. There are communities that do this on an annual basis and involve the community through surveys. Mr. Nischan said everybody is going to write? Chairman Ruge said it was a suggestion by Mr. Goolsby. Mr. Frederick said when we adopt the plan, I think the Mayor would appreciate hearing from us directly with some positive input about where we think the City should be going. I would encourage us to do that. Ms. Love said I have given a presentation to the administrative cabinet, which is all of the department heads. They were really excited. Mr. Nischan said the next meeting is Tuesday, September 8, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. It would be nice to have your comments on these three questions, not necessarily your review of the plan, but your comments on these three questions before then. If you want to make comments on the plan, that is welcome, too. What we need most right now is guidance on what is the best way of going about review of a document like this. That concludes the report of the Urban Development Committee meeting. 3. Executive Committee - has not met, but they are going to meet at 5:30 before the next Board meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 22 C. Report from Planning Manager - No report. 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.; 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 "G-1" 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) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) BY COUNCILMEMBERS WORTHINGTON AND SCHMIDT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANSING WHEREAS, the residents of ForestCorridor as permitted by ave requested at their Chapter road be designated as a Scenic 1032 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted as required, and the Council finds sufficient reason to so designate Forest Road; and WHEREAS, residents have further requested that tast arfo of the g Scenic Corridor designation, the Council approve development and preservation guidelines: 1. .More aesthetic street lighting. 2 . Street to remain two lanes . 3 . No installation of curb and gutter. 4 . Paved bicycle lanes at the edge of the roadway. 5 . Restoration of the tree canopy. 6. Underground utilities . 7 . Vigorous enforcement of the posted speed limit and the prohibition of truck traffic. 8 . Keep City property._ (Fenner..Arboretuni)_ clear.: underbrush at edge--of-=vadway -s�-Forest--Road- traffic can see the Arboretum' s buffalo: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lansing City Council hereby designates Forest Road from Aurelius Road to the eastern City limit as a Scenic Corridor; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council. approves the above-mentioned development and preservation guidelines for Forest Road. Motion by Councilmember Worthington to accept substitute resolution_ Carried unanimously; Councilmember Adado ab �. � Motion by Councilmember Worthington to adopt resolution: Carried unanimously; Councilmember Adado absent SrF�*Tr CORRIDOR R 0 W. MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES & PROCEDURES Scenic Corridors consist of many situations which in total make the roadway area aesthetically desireable. Following are nine (9) factors which combine to form guidelines and procedures for the maintenance of Scenic Corridors. 1. Road Surface Management a. Road surfaces shall be maintained in acceptable condition as determined by the Public Service Department including the minimal use of deicing agents. b. Ingress and egress flares shall be installed as per Public Service Department Specifications, (typically curb and gutter.) c. New curb and gutter installation is acceptable when it replaces existing curb and gutter and at roadway intersections as per City of Lansing standards. 2. Non Asphalt Shoulders Management a. Non-asphalt shoulders shall not be expanded in width from that present at the time of Scenic Corridor designation. b. Shoulders shall not be paved unless for use as a designated bicycle route. - C. Road shoulders can be lantslowed to such as,rbutrnotoexclusi o exclusively grass. groundcover, typeP d. The need for dust control actions and the implementation of those actions shall be the responsibility of the Public Service Department. These actions may include the use of a dust pallia- tive, the use of which will be kept at a minimum. 3. Hard Surface Shoulders Management ` a. Hard surface shoulders (typically asphalt) shall be maintained in acceptable condition as determined by the Public Service Department. 4. Drainage Ditch Management a. Drainage ditches shall be maintained to ensure acceptable water movement as determined by the Public Service Department. b. Before a major drainage ditch renovation is initiated the Public Service Department shall hold a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be published at least once in a newspape iiof demaddion, circulation at least ten (10) days before the hearing. notice of the hearing shall be mailed by first class mail to each adjacent property owner of record in the assessor's dffice at least ten (10) days.before the hearing. J. _ ;�,� � r _ _ , ,,,o- _ - � ;: _ ' .. _ - �.. - �- � � ,� - ,, ,� - ,.. - - .,_ -. � r _ 5, Formal La^da ane Management a. A formal landscape typically trees�nsists shrubs�fflowers and lawn or more of these elements: furniture & lights- b. Formal landscapes will be allowed on the right-of-way if existing at the time of "Scenic Corridor" designation if their existence does not create a hazard for roadway use by vehicles and pedes- trians and if current Lansing City ordinances are not violated. C. Trees located on city owned right-of-way will be maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Depart- ment may plant trees on appropriate sites as determined by the Department. e rigt-of-way except d. All facets of shall belmaintainedsbyn lthe proper -tree ty owner adjacent to. maintenance the "Scenic Corridor" right-of-way. e. Limbs of ornamental trees shall b kept clear to ea distance et f height eight (8) horizontal feet and a o from the edge of the road. 6. Semi Natural Area Management a. Semi-natural areas are .all areas on city owned right-of-way which are not formal landscapes. b. All vegetation on city owned right-of-way shall be maintained at a height of no greater than twenty-four '(24) inches by the Public Service Department, to a distance of eight (8) horizontal feet from the edge of the road or to the limit of the city owned right-of- way whichever is less, except trees over six (6) inches in caliper. Trees may be planted within the eight (8) foot zone if a planting plan has been approved and permits have been issued. C. Dead, diseased, dying or defective trees and trees which pose a hazard to the roadway and right-of-way, shall be removed from .the city owned right-of-right or pruned to make safe by the Parks and Recreation Department. 7. Public Utilities a. Public utilities aintenance,allowed repair,tor control replacementvegetation pu liccuti on utility with the m facilities. •�� - .. .. —r 3 a _,—_, , _ ., .� — ,� S L' _ii I � "1 t �.L' � � — } s � -.,; _ . � - � .. ,' - + � � � .� e �' � ^9^ ., g, Development Review a. All planned development on land adjacent to a "Scenic Corridor" shall be reviewed by the administration to determine the proposed developments impact on the "Scenic Corridor". The administration may require that development plans be altered to protect the "Scenic Corridor". 9. The maintenance guidelines shall be reviewed at five (5) year intervals. r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 23 f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) 4. Urban Development Committee 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge was glad to see that the Department is moving to educate the public regarding the sign ordinance and its enforcement. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick echoed Chairman Ruge's support of sign enforcement. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board Attachment: Resolution #240 mn090198 a:\46 a:\46 mn09198 '1 � 1 .i r r . . _�� ,. ti '.S. , ' � � . r _ .�, - - rh �.r^� ' _ � - 1 � - �= . ., .,