Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 Planning Board Apr-June Minutes FINAL Draft to Clerk 04262000 Approved 05022000 To Clerk 05122000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers c-D Tenth Floor Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 4, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: Vice Chairman Keene called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. `n A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Smith. Four members present, one tardy, one requested excused absence, two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Nischan, requested and granted an excused absence, out of town. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Acting Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - A. Letter dated March 13, 2000, from Ben Hall, District Supervisor, Storage Tank Division, Dept. of Environmental Quality, to Romel Casab, RE: Corrective Actions, Underground Storage Tank System, Drakes Market Plus, 3125 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Fox to rezone the property at 220 North Sycamore Street from "DM-4" Residential, a high- density residential district, to "D-2" Residential Office District, a mixed- use district which by right allows up to 50 percent of the building to be used for office space while requiring retention of residential land uses in the building and other associated regulations. The applicant proposes to have an office on the ground floor and a residential apartment on the upper floors. The property, approximately 9,000 sq ft in size, 60 ft x 165 ft., contains six off-street parking spaces and a three-car garage. The Master Plan, the River Island Amendment Plan completed in 1986 and amended in 1988, designates the area for mixed residential-office use. The original River Island Amendment Plan of 1986 proposed a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 2 mixed-use district. Before the end of 1988, the "D-2" District had been created. The Plan was amended to set specific boundaries for that district and also specific boundaries for residential and office land uses. It was to become an edge for residential and office use in the downtown area northwest of the Capitol. So this is a request to rezone the lot to "D-2" to permit the conversion of a two-family, or duplex dwelling unit, into a mixed-use structure. You have maps, comments, and an extra sheet which is a revised page 2. The added item is a response from the Genesee Neighborhood Association. Chairman Keene requested the record show the arrival of Ms. Patrick. JOHN FOX, 1259 BLANCHETTE, EAST LANSING. I have owned the house for nearly 20 years. It has always been used as a two-family house. The Master Plan has changed. Sometime in the eighties, most of the surrounding houses were changed to the "D-2" zoning. I don't have any immediate plans to convert the house to mixed use. I am at a point where I must make some investments in the house. The entire house has a single heating system now in need of repair or replacement. With the new zoning, I would install new heating and air conditioning systems for each level of the house. VICTORIA S. EARHART, 301 N. SYCAMORE, LANSING. I am a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. I live on the corner of Ionia and Sycamore, across the street. I have some difficulties with more nonresidential zoning going into this area; however, I am also aware that this whole block is almost all mixed. If you decide to change the zoning, would like you to consider whatever strict measures can be placed on this kind of zoning, especially parking. We already have lots of parking problems because of the state buildings within a block and a half, but parking, excessive noise, and possibly weekend operations are all kept to a minimum, so that my neighbors and I can continue to have a nice residential situation without the constant intrusion on weekends and evenings of what's allowed in this zone. The state closes down on the weekends, and we have the neighborhood to ourselves. My neighbors and I would appreciate the continuation of that enjoyment of our property. Mr. Ruge asked if parking is allowed as a principal use in the "D-2" District, or in the "D-4" District; Mr. Ruff said no, and as a special land use, respectively. Actually the "D-2" District, with the exception of the added office element, is more restrictive than the "DM-4" District. The high-density "DM-4" District would allow this property at about 9,000 sq ft to have as many as eight or ten or more residential units on it. The "D-2" PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 3 District is a modified office-residential district; it does not allow all the uses that the Office District allows, and it requires retention of setbacks and residential character of structures. It allows at most 50 percent of the structure to be used for office use unless a special land use permit is also granted that would allow up to 75 percent of the structure to be used for office. Many more restrictions are placed in this district from a design standpoint to help ensure maintenance of residential character. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, meeting Wednesday, April 12, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Charlie Pruitt for Class A Nonconforming Status for a single-family residence on the property at 3017 W. Miller Road to help satisfy the financial institution remortgaging the house that if the house were destroyed, the house could be rebuilt. The property is zoned "G-2" Wholesale District. Residential is not a principal use in that district. This house previously was associated with the property that has Gordon Food Service on it. It served as a home and office. As Gordon Food Service expanded, it was used for office; then the house was sold. The property is approximately 1.3 acres, rectangular. The land use reflects the zoning in the area. The property was annexed in 1964; the house was built then. It seems to fit the basic criteria for a nonconforming use. Ms. Patrick said recently we talked about this area not being appropriate for residential development. What is the staff's thinking? Mr. Ruff said it is an existing home; the owner wants to keep it to support the existing land use. It is not promoting additional residential development. When we look at the area south of Miller Road and Edgewood, we don't see a problem with maintaining a single residence there. Primarily, this helps them satisfy the financial institution and refinancing. Mr. Ruge asked if the applicant is the pastor of the church next door? Mr. Ruff said yes. The properties could not be combined because they are separated by the drive aisle leading to Gordon Food Service. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 4 Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday, April 12, 2000, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 7, 2000. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of March 7, 2000. On a voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of March 7, 2000, were APPROVED. March 21, 2000. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of March 21, 2000. On a voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of March 21, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Has not met. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Frederick, Chair. Next meeting Wednesday, April 12, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. a. Act-22-99, 2113 Seventh Street, Vacate ROW. TABLED. b. Act-23-99, 301 S. Clippert Street (PPN 3301-14-426-001), Relocate Utility Easement The Parks and Recreation Department needed to relocate a Consumers Energy utility line east of Kircher Ballfield, 301 S. Clippert, north of Kalamazoo Street, along the west bank of the Red Cedar River. A correction to the easement is now needed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 5 The relocation of the utility easement is necessary to accommodate the River Trail bridge and pathway. Michigan State University, which is located on the east bank, would not allow the trail to be located on their land, thereby restricting where the pathway would be placed. The new easement location does not impact the Kircher Ballfield use. A 13 ft 6 in overhead clearance must be maintained per Section 902 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Based on a review of the location, character and extent of this proposal, staff recommends approval of Act-23-99. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of the proposal, that relocating the utility easement is reasonable and appropriate. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-23-99, the relocation of the utility easement at 301 S. Clippert Street (PPN 3301-14-426-001), by easement, license, or any other legal mechanism recommended by the City Attorney, provided that a 13 ft 6 in overhead clearance is maintained per Section 902 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve Act-23-99, the relocation of the utility easement at 301 S. Clippert Street (PPN 3301-14-426-001), by easement, license, or any other legal mechanism recommended by the City Attorney, provided that a 13 ft 6 in overhead clearance is maintained per Section 902 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . Ave Patrick . Ave Ruge . Ave Smith .Ave Keene . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-23-99, the relocation of the utility easement at 301 S. Clippert Street (PPN 3301-14-426-001) with conditions as above was APPROVED. C. Act-3-2000, 427-429 Dorrance Place (PPN 3301-15-103- 101), Acceptance of Donation for Parks PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. David R. Penix wants to donate 427-429 Dorrance Place for the eastward expansion of the Oak Park Field Office Complex. The Parks Board recommended acceptance. The Oak Park Field Office is hemmed in on the south by Shiawassee Street, on the west by vacant industrial land too expensive for acquisition, on the north by a sledding hill, and on the east by the residential block facing Dorrance Place. The block face, zoned "H" Light Industrial, consists of nonconforming one- and two-family residences and the vacant eight-unit apartment structure at 427-429 Dorrance Place. The Housing Market Study classifies housing conditions as "poor." Neighborhood organizations, Oak Park and Eastside, are concerned about truck and equipment traffic in the neighborhood, impact of nonresidential uses, and buffering to protect the remaining residences. The area is also proposed for a Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) project. Oak Park and Sparrow Estates are working with Ferris Development. The City's cost to accept the donation would include any back taxes, title work, demolition costs, and costs to redevelop the property. Staff recommended denial, suggesting that if Mr. Penix wishes to donate the property, he should contact Ferris Development, the nonprofit housing organization. The Committee found, based on location, character, and extent of the proposal, that: • expansion of the field office to the east would have a significant negative impact on the residential character of the neighborhood, neighborhood organizations and Ferris development are working on a revitalization proposal through the Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP), • the neighborhood could be an attractive residential location due to its proximity to downtown, the park, and the Eastern and Pattengill School complex, and • expansion to the north could be done by regrading the site and relocating the hill. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 7 In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend denial of Act-3-2000, 427-429 Dorrance Place (PPN 3301-15-103-101), Acceptance of Donation for Parks. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Act-3-2000, 427-429 Dorrance Place (PPN 3301-15-103-101), Acceptance of Donation for Parks. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said he was concerned about the fourth condition, regrading the site and relocating the hill. He would like to omit that condition. As a friendly amendment, the change was acceptable to Mr. Smith. The consensus was that the fourth point was not a finding or a condition, but rather more of a suggestion or discussion point and would not be included as a finding. Mr. Ruff said a yes vote is a vote to recommend denial of the acceptance of the donation of the property to the Parks Department. Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-3-2000, 427-429 Dorrance Place (PPN 3301-15-103-101), Acceptance of Donation for Parks with three findings as follows: • expansion of the field office to the east would have a significant negative impact on the residential character of the neighborhood, • neighborhood organizations and Ferris development are working on a revitalization proposal through the Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP), • the neighborhood could be an attractive residential location due to its proximity to downtown, the park, and the Eastern and Pattengill School complex was DENIED. Next meeting Tuesday, April 25, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Grand Avenue, Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 8 C. Report from Planning Manager - Next month, the agenda has five cases scheduled for hearing. The Departmental budget hearing will be held before the Committee of the Whole on April 13 at 3:45 p.m. The mayor has presented his budget to Council. The Department will be wrapping up the hiring process for the Planning Manager's position within the next few weeks. Any other hiring would have to follow that. D. Pending items: Future action required 1. 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-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-15-99, Portions of 6820 S. Cedar St., from "F" Commercial District to "J" Parking District and from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District, Also 915, 927 & 1000 Just A Mere Ave., 6931, 6937 & 7001 Georgia Ave. from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District, Also 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 & 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District (Tabled January 11, 2000) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW (Tabled February 16, 1999) b. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of- way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) C. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled October 26, 1999) d. Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park Field Office (Re-referred to Committee November 2, 1999). e. Act-21-99, 1000 Block of Just A Mere Ave., Pedestrian Overpass (Tabled January 18, 2000) Mr. Ruge said Item d has been withdrawn. Items a and b should also be withdrawn and removed from pending. Mr. Frederick asked about Item a., Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997). Mr. Ruff said the applicant phoned and said he PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 9 would send a letter; however, it has not as yet been received. We will make one more call prior to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. If the letter is not received by then, the Committee can take up the issue and recommend denial. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith asked about the letter concerning the underground tanks at the Drakes station. Will this lead to the demolition of the station? Mr. Ruff said he did not know. There is a meeting scheduled of business people and residents in the area with Councilmember Meyer. We supplied zoning information for their last meeting, and we will continue to provide information. This is a sore point we would like to get straightened up. One point that should be made, and it could be a recommendation of this Board, is that there be a commercial demolition ordinance put in place for abandoned or neglected property, similar to that for houses. We are trying to turn the tide on that so that, instead of pushing for make safe or demolition, that we try to enlist more cooperation. Maybe we need a legal lever to remove blighted commercial buildings without having to purchase them and go through a redevelopment plan. That might be an appropriate response from this Board to help move things along. The Action Auto on Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania has been occupied by a Marathon station, and they are open for business. Mr. Smith asked about Discount Dave's on South Washington Street close to Mt. Hope, three or four storefronts. Can these things be reused or taken down? They are getting to be an eyesore. Mr. Ruff said they are restrictive sites because of lack of access and parking; however, there is some parking behind the buildings. He will get more information. Mr. Frederick said he would support a recommendation that a zoning ordinance be passed by City Council that would allow demolition or razing of blighted business properties. Mr. Ruff said if there is a safety issue--glass, for example, or falling building parts hitting pedestrians--probably a vacant lot would be better. We need leverage to get owners moving. Buildings have to be made safe for occupancy, even if not occupied. Mr. Frederick said several hundred buildings in the City are red-tagged, so there is some interest there. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 10 Mr. Smith asked the procedure for proposing and adopting a blight ordinance? Mr. Ruff said probably by requesting staff to communicate with appropriate City bodies to determine what can be done. The Board could make a recommendation to the mayor together with a sample ordinance of another community. It may not be appropriate for the zoning ordinance; but rather more appropriate for a different part of the code. Ms. Keene said that in New York, the philosophy is that if you leave one window broken, the whole neighborhood will decline, and crime will increase because people start disrespecting the area. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to request staff to investigate a blighting ordinance dealing with blighting conditions of both commercial and residential properties that aren't made safe and unblighted in appearance. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Patrick asked if it would be possible for staff to research instances in which commercial properties may not be blighted but has been vacant for extended periods of time and the property is deeper into a residential neighborhood because of some prior zoning than the normal commercial strip. Maybe it would be possible to rezone a portion of the property back to its original zoning. "I have seen that in a lot of instances in Lansing where you have one big complex that has cut out part of the neighborhood to supply the parking, and it has been vacant for years, and it doesn't appear that it is going to filled. Can we then rezone that and take back part of that property for residential?" Mr. Ruff said the Council could file a rezoning in the interest of the City. If it would be a down zoning, then it would probably fall under takings. Ms. Patrick asked that commercial properties be included in the research. The friendly amendment was accepted. Mr. Smith said in terms of urban blight, it is also important to research how owners of vacant commercial properties can be compelled to maintain them during the period of vacancy. Mr. Ruff said strategies could tie together regarding maintenance of vacant buildings, for example, the tall grass and weeds ordinance. Recommend staff research issues regarding blight, abandoned commercial buildings encroaching in residential neighborhoods. Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous. Mr. Ruge, asking about Urban Development Committee Item c, Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled October 26, 1999), said he thought it was denied by the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruff said Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 11 Ruge missed a meeting. The Committee retained the item. We are looking further at that. We have been getting clarification on the item; we did get a letter from Mr. Ramont with an unspecific proposal, but we are going to talk with the State of Michigan about how we can swap land in a situation like this. The City owns property in between the property that he owns. We are talking about swapping land that he has closer to the river, so that we can adjoin a bigger area abutting the Elm Street bridge. Yet the property is received by the City of Lansing because of back taxes, so if the property is sold, then those moneys have to be distributed to those agencies, but in a swap situation, we don't know how that works. Mr. Rieske is checking with the state on that issue, and we are going to see how that can work. We have issues that are undecided because of the needs of Elm Street bridge. Right now, Mr. Ramont has some poorly maintained vehicles on the back side. Other things need to be straightened out with Mr. Ramont before we can deal with the whole issue. "I don't want this to get to Council in an unfinished manner." Mr. Ruge also mentioned a newspaper article in the March 12 issue of the State Journal about Delta Township. They have just passed a new ordinance that requires cellular phone companies to remove their towers if they are not being used. They are concerned that satellite technology or new PCSs might make towers obsolete. Then towers will be all over the place. It might be a good idea to put something like that in our ordinance. Mr. Ruff said we put that into the contracts for towers on City property. We also had a first right of refusal so that if the company decided to give up its rights to the tower on that site, that before removing the tower, they would ask if the City wanted to continue the tower there. If not, it would be removed within a certain time, and improvements done. But this does not include towers on private property. Mr. Ruge asked how many towers in the City; Mr. Ruff did not have a count. Mr. Frederick said the legislature has a bill pending to assign control of all cellular towers to the Public Service Commission. They would have authority to set rents for land owners having cellular towers on their property. The complaint is that the only controls there now are local zoning ordinances. That make this issue moot for us. Mr. Smith asked if the City zoning maps are available online on the GIS system; Mr. Ruff said no. We are trying to get a good digital zoning map. We don't have staff dedicated to this issue, so we haven't made a lot of progress. We are trying to have the parcel map have proper projection in time and space to go with other maps like the flood zone map and aerial photographs so we can show multiple layers. They are all based on projection and location so that right now we can't lay the parcel map on top and adjust it because they are not based on the same information. We are working on doing that. In the budget for the next PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 12 fiscal year, Computer and Communication Services Department has a request for a GIS coordinator to help set standards and order things City-wide. They will also look at how we need to build the information base. We want to do this; absent the funds, we are doing it as we can. Our Department is also supporting this person to coordinate activities. We have met with Fire, Police, Public Service, Clerk's office and others to put this together. One concern is that C&CS is looking at every dollar, every person, and every item that is dedicated to computer service and trying to regain control. We want to have a person dedicated to the WEB and GIS technology. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruff said Friday he is meeting on site with a representative of Martin Properties on the Tiffany property. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully ubmitted James A. Ruff, Acting Planning Manager Planning Board =04042000 aA56 Act-23-99, 301 Clippert, Relocation of Utility Easement GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department 318 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review EXISTING LAND USE: Parkland/Red Cedar River EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 27,360 square feet SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Red Cedar Golf Course S: Red Cedar River E: Michigan State University W: Lansing Township SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: Michigan State University W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Plan designates this area for parkland/open space. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant, City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department is proposing to relocate an overhead utility easement at 301 Clippert Street (See attached), east of Kircher Ballfield, north of Kalamazoo Street along the west bank at of the Red Cedar River. The proposed overhead utility easement is requested due to the River Trail construction along the north side of Kalamazoo Street. A new pole was located north and west of the previous location, requiring this utility easement for Consumers Energy. The proposed easement will be located on City parkland, PPN 3301 14 426 001. The easement to be legally described as: ACT-23-99, 301 Clippert Street, Relocation of Utility Easement, Pg. 2. That part of the East'/z of the Southeast %of Section 14, Township 4 North, Range 2 West, lying Northerly of the Red Cedar River, excepting therefrom the Westerly 288.75 feet thereof. Said line of towers, pole structures or poles is to be located in, over and across said land on a center line described as: Beginning in the center line of Consumers Energy Company's existing electric transmission line at a point approximately 306 feet East of the East Ma line of said Section 14 at a point approximately 215 feet Southwesterly (measured at right angles)from the centerline of Kalamazoo Street; running thence Northeasterly to a point approximately 53 feet Westerly of the Red Cedar River at a point approximately 64 feet North of the centerline of Kalamazoo Street; running thence Northeasterly to the centerline of Consumers Energy Company's existing electric transmission line at a point approximately 317 feet West of the East line of said Section 14 at a point approximately 1260 feet South of the East and West Y4 line of said Section 14. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH- No response received yet. Assessor: Land and "easement" are both owned by the City, are tax exempt and will remain. No descriptions will change due to the relocation. The eastern edge of this appears to be outside the City. BWL: No response received yet. Building Safety: No objection. City Attorney: No response received yet. Code Compliance: No impact on code compliance. Activities anticipated. Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: No objection as long as 13 feet 6 inches of overhead clearance is maintained per Section 902 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. ACT-23-99, 301 Clippert Street, Relocation of Utility Easement, Pg. 3. Media One: No response received yet. MDEQ: No response received yet. Parks and Rec.: The relocation of the easement and pole was necessitated to accommodate the River Trail bridge and pathway. MSU (on the east bank) would not allow the trail to be located on their land, therefore restricting where the pathway would be placed. The new easement location does not impact the Kircher Ballfield use. Police: Thanks for the chance to review. The Police Department has no requirement or recommendations relative to this request. The proposed easement should have no impact on the police department. Public Service: No objection to the proposed relocation. Trans. Engr.: No objection. 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). BACKGROUND The City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department is doing construction to the River Trail along the north side of Kalamazoo Street and one Consumer's Power pole was relocated to accomodate the pathway routing. A new pole was located north and west of the existing one thus requiring a new utility easement. Relocating the utility easement will allow the river trail to be established as-well as move it farther away from the river corridor. According to the applicant, several trees will need to be removed. ACT-23-99, 301 Clippert Street, Relocation of Utility Easement, Pg. 4. LOCATION: The proposed utility easement is located east of Kircher Ballfield, north of Kalamazoo Street along the west bank of the Red Cedar River. The surrounding land uses consist of the Red Cedar Golf Course/River, Michigan State University and Lansing Township. The utility easement needs to be relocated due to the River Trail construction. CHARACTER: The character of the area is basically park land/open space. The relocation of the utility easement will have no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. EXTENT: Since there is construction on the River Trail, the relocation of the easement and pole was necessitated to accommodate the River Trail bridge and pathway. OTHER: According to the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, the relocation of the utility easement is to accommodate the River Trail bridge and pathway. Also, Michigan State University which is located on the east bank, would not allow the trail to be located on their land, therefore restricting where the pathway would be placed. The new easement location does not impact the Kircher Ballfield use. SUMMARY The proposed utility easement is located east of Kircher Ballfield, north of Kalamazoo Street along the west bank of the Red Cedar River. The surrounding land uses consist of park land/open space, Michigan State University and Lansing township. The relocation of the utility easement will have no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. Since there is construction on the River Trail, the relocation of the easement and pole was necessary to accommodate the River Trail bridge and pathway. The new easement location does not impact the Kircher Ballfield use. The location, character and extent seem reasonable. ACT-23-99, 301 Clippert Street, Relocation of Utility Easement, Pg. 5. RECOMMENDATION Based on a review of the location, character and extent of this proposal, staff recommends approval of Act-23-99, relocation of utility easement. Report Prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,Senior Planner,3/00. r..r Ind mmmmmmm� ACT-23-99 _ _ 301 CLIPPERT�UTILITY EASEMEN NORTH k k k �s 827 827.0 9 8 77 1 \ PARKING I B3 . 826.2 I X X 8�6 \ MUNICIPAL PARK I9273 826.0 H cn 825.4 I � x 8270 830\ X 827.3 k _ 824.2 830 Wit_ _ o 8256 t C9 B30.6 w \ U � X 827.5 824.9 825.0 0 ACT-3-2000 427-429 Dorrance Place Acceptance of Donation for Parks GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Department of Parks & Recreation 318 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48933 REQUESTED ACTION: ACT 285 Review PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: 49.5' wide x 145.2' deep = 7,187 sq. ft. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing to accept the donation of the property at 427-429 Dorrance Place, in order to expand and upgrade the Parks and Recreation Field Office Complex. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant 8-unit nonconforming apartment building EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No Change SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: Oak Park S: Two Family Residential E: Single Family Residential W: City of Lansing - Field Office SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "H" Light Industrial E: "DM-3" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential. ACT-3-2000, Donation of 427-429 Dorrance Place Page 2 AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: No response received yet. Assessor: If purchased by the "city", please have a copy of the deed sent to our office for appropriate changes to the tax rolls. Building: No objection. BWL: See attached. Code Compliance: No response received yet. Development: Information required: (1) Cost to city to accept donation including any back taxes, demolition costs, costs to utilize for Parks and Recreation (2) Title work to determine status of title (3) Any Historic issue? (4) Property is in neighborhood proposed for neighborhood preservation program. Oak Park and Sparrow Estates Neighborhoods should be contacted to determine how proposal fits in with their Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) plan. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: Telephone message received 3/28/00. Concerns about the expansion (i.e. introducing a parking lot/office into a residential area). Not familiar with P&R plans for the area. Concerns with an increase in traffic in the area. Fire Marshal: No response received yet. Oak Park Neighborhood Association: Judy Hackett, President OPNA, left a verbal message indicating that there are concerns regarding the proposal. She stated that initially, the Parks and Recreation Department proposed the purchase of.property west of their building near the railroad tracks. It was agreed that if that space was received, P&R Would not use Dorrance Place or Genesee Street as a traffic pattern. Prefer to see traffic out or the residential neighborhood because currently, P&R use Genesee, Lesher Place and Dorrance Place for traffic. The ACT-3-2000, Donation of 427-429 Dorrance Place Page 3 OPNA is working with Ferris Development on a Neighborhood Preservation Plan for the area. We looked at the possibility of demolishing and using for new housing. However, if P&R took over the property, would want to see the traffic patterns redirected instead of as it currently exist. Parks and Recreation: Our department recommends the acceptance of this property donation for the expansion of the Oak Park Field Office complex. The Park Board recommended acceptance of this property at their December 15, 1999 meeting. Police: No response received yet. Public Service: No objection to the ACT 285. Transportation: No response received yet. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The property is located on 427-429 Dorrance Place east of the Oak Park Field Office. The surrounding land uses are primarily parkland and residential. The lot measures 49.5' wide X 145.2' deep and is a nonconforming eight-unit structure. The property is located in a deteriorating area where the housing conditions are classified as "poor". This location is also proposed for a Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) project. The NPP is a planning program for neighborhood groups to carry out variety of neighborhood improvement projects. Neighborhood-based nonprofits develop a Neighborhood Partnership Plan to improve a specific target area know as an Effectively Treatable Area (ETA). Results in priority targeting of Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) loan and grant programs in area. CHARACTER: The entire property measures 7,187 sq. ft. and is basically surrounded by residential uses. The housing conditions in this area are poor and deteriorating. The proposed expansion of the Oak Park Field Office may be out of character with the surrounding residential uses. ACT-3-2000, Donation of 427-429 Dorrance Place Page 4 EXTENT: The property owner, Mr. David R. Penix, has offered the property to the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department for the proposed expansion to upgrade the Parks and Recreation Field Office Complex. It is the desire of the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to accept the property donation from Mr. Penix for this expansion. OTHER Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner has indicated that the structure is not architecturally significant and there is no indication of significance associated with the individuals who have lived in the structure. SUMMARY The donation of the property 427-429 Dorrance Place by Mr. Penix to the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, would allow expansion for the Parks and Recreation Field Office Complex. The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential, although its zoning designation is "H" Light Industrial. Dorrance Place is a short street with few residential structures. The surrounding land uses are primarily parkland and residential uses. Even though the houses in the area are in poor condition and deteriorating, there is a proposed NPP project to improve the area, and eliminate the deterioration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request by the Parks and Recreation Department to accept this donation for the expansion of the Oak Park Office Complex. Staff would further recommend that if the property owner is interested in donating the property that he may want to consider contacting Ferris Development, the nonprofit housing organization. The development of housing would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. a r a WAT13RW GHT BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO March 24, 2000 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development FROM; Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 371-6034 RE: 427-429 Dorrance Place Request by the City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation to expand and upgrade the Parks and Recreation Field Office Complex. This acquisition would provide additional land for this expansion. SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric No objections to the acquisition of the property. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water No objection to project. See no request for revised or additional water service. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Steam No steam. Contact Person: John Hundt 371-6497 034000-20.00o TOTAL P.01 PARK BOARD MINUTES December 15, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary James, Robert Brockwell, Wilbur Howard, Judith Mohay Filice, Ron Lott, Kris Nicholofl; John Pollard MEMBERS ABSENT: Ruth Leyrer (unexcused) OTHERS PRESENT: R. Eric Reickel, Director; Tanya Moore, Landscape Architect CALL TO ORDER: 7:10 P.M., Foster Community Center, 200 N. Foster MINUTES MOTION: . Brockwell moved the Park Board minutes of October 27, 1999, be approved as presented and the other department board minutes be placed on file; seconded Filice. Motion carried. Filice noted the Park Board minutes should be sent to the various department boards. Filice wondered why a special project to honor educators was not supported by the Friends of Turner- Dodge. Pollard commented on Zoological Society minutes where Brady noted that parking and admission revenues are down from 1998 to 1999 and also that the L &L Zoo Days has a negative impact on the zoo. Also it was noted under strategic planning that Eaton and Ingham counties are not interested in any tri-county planning regarding Potter Park Zoo. Reickel noted that L & L Days is one of the best marketing tools. This event is held Tuesday and Wednesday after the July 4`h week which is one of our slowest weeks. The money does not go to the Society, it goes to the department. James noted the Wonderland of Lights is absolutely wonderful. SENIOR GOLF GOLD CARD - REQUEST OF DOUGLAS MCGIVERON Douglas McGiveron had discussed senior golf cards at the October meeting and requested that seniors who reach 75 in 2000 and those older pay a flat fee for the Gold Golf Card. The current card is $300 plus a flat fee of$1.75 every time 9 holes are played at Groesbeck. The Board received an economic impact report on the effect of such a change and opted to leave the fee schedule as it is. (Kris Nicholoff arrived.) DISPOSAL OF GENESEE PARCEL Brockwell explained the neighborhood had asked this site be used for additional greenspace. This was after Genesee Center was torn down and until the neighborhood could come up with a suitable use. Brockwell built the planter there, does the maintenance, mows the grass and snowblows the sidewalk. He picks up needles, wine bottles, etc. Normally there is nothing kids leave. The Genesee Neighborhood Association (GNA) decided that this would be a good parcel for housing. The GNA chose to have the playground equipment at the Black Child and Family Institute. It is not dedicated park land. The park is used as a cut through for access to a drug house. Also, the City now has ownership of the additional space at Ferris Park. Park Board Minutes - December 15, 1999 Page 2 MOTION: Brockwell moved the Genesee Parcel be disposed of, seconded by Nicholoff. Filice clarified that if this is not a dedicated park then it does not need a vote of the people prior to sale. James explained the neighborhood had asked for the unused parcel to be used for a park but has since realized it is being used as a conduit to the drug house. Pollard objected to the parcel being sold without a vote even if it is not dedicated park land. This circumvents the spirit of the park land disposal policy. Filice agreed with Pollard's point on the disposal of park land. Brockwell commented that this is truly a neighborhood park. Frances and Grand River Parks are community parks. People from other areas do not come to the Genesee area to play at this site. The neighborhood wanted it to be a park but the activity at the park is the undesirable activity. The BCFI has become a partner with the neighborhood. Howard noted in New York City they use community gardens. James spent 8 years as the Lansing Neighborhood Council President. Neighborhoods get very frustrated because there can be a small piece of land no one wants that is neglected. The neighborhood has caused it to be a park. We cannot hamstring neighborhood desires. Filice feels the size of a park is immaterial and neighborhoods can wait a brief time while an issue is explored. Tanya Moore, Landscape Architect, noted the list of parkland has not been updated since 1981 and the department is in the process of doing that. Also those who work in Parks and Recreation have the same feelings as the park board members, but we deal with the park issues on a day-to- day basis. It is not philosophy—it is reality. We see the trash and the lack of use. The staff does know the parks. Also, the park land has not decreased over the last five years, but has increased. We are sensitive to not disposing of greenspace but rather in disposing of nonproductive parcels. Moore deals with the Adopt-A-Park Program and there are associations and individuals who care a lot about those parks. What seems to happen with garden areas is there is a group or person who is interested for a couple of years, and then it is neglected. After discussion the motion was withdrawn. MOTION: Brockwell moved to table the item; seconded by Nicholoff. Motion carried. Reickel will come back with clarification of how Genesee became a park site. 427-429 DORRANCE PLACE - DONATION OF PROPERTY David Penix has offered to donate property he owns that is located adjacent to our Oak Park maintenance facility. The department is encouraging the acceptance of this donation. MOTION: Brockwell moved to recommend acceptance of this property as dedicated park land and that it be used as an integral part in the expansion of the Oak Park Field Office; seconded by Howard. Motion carried. RIVER TRAIL TO TECUMSEH PARK - WITHDRAW GRANT REQUEST A 1999 grant application was submitted to acquire a railroad right of way to expand the river trail ACT-3-00 427- 429 DORRANCE PLACE NORTH 'y (� P Q I << I U01� A I �P b�ec� M GENESEE ST. tif.es I JI q erg 81,1L OZY #to ijo �� felt.t' \ � /�' 49.r� 44.rl »' a �. 33' 1 y ? 0 47 \�3 0 J p 48 46 CL e y U 5 8 t 0Z1 M 0 ` 42 4 I 39 4; 0 ', I �v..' ms' a j 10 � g 6 ^ 40 ` ha as 0`050 v. 9o.t' LLJ It 0 ? \GE M Z � v I �� o,f Q , 53 \�52 44 43 40 " 37 F\E'�,O I 6 5 � w I cr 5. 54 far' 0�\ 0U` © OV` ` U OA 01 9t.st' Y7' t..7' yt,r' G5.8' ells' vf.r' dt•S 703 71 1 737 — — — eol 807 bit 017 z Qt -- - _ E _ - SH I AWASSEE _ Al 7C 8 71YL got jo6 ro Bit siy 8i� ro- zt OEM *it. 41.s .i 14, vt.s fs' 3i.2s' si.H' 32" 35' st.s' Y7' Vt.s � I �5hrn t7 Au I 0 ..�1���1) � J.M-��hry Y.t P`SSN•f..-b!1.�•�v;.*- .vf x��,T _ C..;- .w.,.f Y .d)'� r- Li _ c '77 • _.;'�• .. _ _ , .sa .J ....._ .. -. .,K o-.-.• .lea- �4 '',.r,...�.•.+•. � _. i .. > :� 1 w .Y a .., • � ,i .. /' •;�� - �Ti.�.a♦ -+� '�'1st.��♦`'�i` 'l�s '• .����iR��'•.ft•'`r��^'��aa*r-.��� '�.'��' ;•h� to w ,.M• �_�Z sr+ate E�\ � 'DIY l � 1.�: -1 t . .=-»w �+ 1:+ ._4 •; .- ` a.�^1 'r�`e ��jl.-"1\, `- 1 ..�r rl .r= yl i+" 1�L-.��.y: • y ,�,,!J i .A.1 �o: •��+�.�+,1.a1��.�Wit•+e.::Ris�;� �� 1 f .<, �i.+ �+► 'r+y � ...Z,` .,V moo•.�. �y .♦�O w� .+w"• � ' _-i •�♦ �r�! �� �•iw .�5��3~���j'd-fit �,�"�"�r-- s J.i �.,s_si•� rA •�� .. 't►.� ', -�i'7Y�' '�` �# �,� t �: �-1'l�/..��' '�a`rl�'�'4'�+`s'�>t'1"r'�.. _��. �K :.+x:•�'`�Sn�.Ew•"'��'�*s ,��f� ��. f, J 'tea"'• _ � �.� .tea r�••�" ! � � 1 � .�� � �t: . .. s ,rt-r .,c- ~-•+. ate. C' r.r� oA jr ol w: .A .� w+t a ,� � r t:�• .�• ����7�+. {•,-sue �,+�� f i"�-r�T a�+F r 3tk+fC' �c �y ti. .. - r ,yp..�.+9�"""�,, 1 �E cic-,pa w < �, r ✓rF a.r L �11`'�-•` ,�.. ^ _ .�'^ yr Y: fir,.ir:` Ckr „rt f-cF: � -' �.,r .+� G -.-`.� w , _ N l4 •°z::.. .,,fie -+:a:;; r `"vie- r .� ^rt.t•a`�9:nt ca.T`......�'X r . r c ti'"•p'7 tl'+K'*`t$ �'t RMe�� ;;FFy'' S � t ti ,�• o� rt 't tr Je'• �% • � 1, ,e�trvyrV�tNrla,.•an,'ev�l�pt•'t�,f.•�Y,j'tij"�� c,�; � ti �, �• ... Tye r•�.�f .•' _ - - _+_ _ r ! _�sr � ^ate'` '•� � - -'1.► - + �y }t.. ., . 'ice-.,'�� u��j;e��' •, � x s '+�•:L.i �'� �ti � ._ UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MAY 16, 2000 Draft to Clerk 04292000 Approved 05162000 To Clerk 05262000 ._ _ -�• 11_ Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: At 7:07 p.m., in the absence of Chairman Nischan and Vice Chairman Keene, Mr. Frederick assumed the chair. He remarked that a quorum of four members is needed to conduct business. According to the Rules of Administrative Procedure, the three members present may meet as a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of accepting public comment on matters on the agenda this evening. We will move to the Committee of the Whole, and thence to Comments from the Audience since there are no hearings this evening. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee is scheduled to meet. Three members are present, enough for a quorum. If a sufficient number of members is not present by the end of that meeting, the committee items will have to go on the agenda of the May 2 meeting. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole; unanimous; carried; the Board resolved to the Committee of the Whole. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Patrick; Smith; three members present. Absent: Nischan; Ruge. Excused Absence- Keene. Two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Keene. Ms. Keene, at the meeting of March 21, 2000, requested and was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Acting Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda could not be approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - Letter dated April 6, 2000 addressed to Mr. Jim Ruff from Ken Stockwell, Stockwell Real Estate Group, Inc., RE: Forest Nursery - Staff Report and Attachments of Kolp and Stockhill Letters, pertaining to PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 2 KEN STOCKWELL, STOCKWELL REAL ESTATE GROUP, 4277 OKEMOS, OKEMOS, MI. We are the representatives of the sellers. The Smiths, who actually operate Forest Nursery, have resided on the property their entire lives, Frank Smith and his wife Beverly, and his brother Bob. Bob is not able to be here tonight because of health problems. I met with the Smiths two years ago. want only the best for the Smiths, and I have no relationship whatsoever to the developer. My concern is the sale of the property and to accomplish the objectives of the Smiths. I learned from the Planning Office that the land was approved for multi family housing through the Master Plan. We marketed it accordingly. We got the property under contract in a short time with a local developer, Ted Vandeventer, who called it the Hunt Club. (The new developers decided to adopt the "Hunt Club.") He had four months to get the property rezoned and approved as the Hunt Club. That happened on time, in November. We were supposed to close at the end of November. Mr. Vandeventer never showed up at the closing. He failed to return calls. This left the Smiths in a precarious situation and with poor health conditions. We could only sell the existing site plan, because it was approved under a PRD. Any modifications to the site plan would require starting all over again. First we tried selling the existing site plan, which was fully assumable, to another developer. We canvassed the entire market locally. Simultaneously we pursued other buyers to market it nationally; we did a national search. We couldn't find anybody to purchase the existing site plan. Over the next three months, I figured out the project developed under the first phase was probably too rich for the market, and I couldn't find anybody else to assume that because of the way it was constructed, etc. The Smiths had to go back to work the following summer. Out of a national search, we had student housing apartment developers. It was my job to market the property for the Smiths, to make sure we selected the best candidate, so we could assure that this would close. I did a very careful selection. The CED group is one of the best outfits across the country. They have a phenomenal project. They are not student housing. They made a presentation in October to the neighborhood association, which appeared to be in favor of it. We want to take the previous approved plan, make it better, and make it market-condition. Then we think we are moving to a closing in March. The Smiths were so confident it was going to close, and they had to be out of their houses, that they bought two new houses to retire in, and sold their landscaping business. Currently, they have two mortgages, no business, and they are in ill health. It was a shock to ourselves, and the developer as to why this thing got turned around so much. Perhaps it is from a market study; perhaps things have changed, but the bottom line is, that property from a marketing position is not suitable for home ownership, by the highway and other attributes. I think the present developer is phenomenal. It's nicer than anything else we have in the Greater Lansing area. It would be for all practical purposes an upscale gated community, and something we should want in the City of Lansing. The Housing Report says we need population growth. If this does not occur, then we have to decide what do we do with this property. One of the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 3 objectives we have is to make sure the Smiths can retire. They can't afford to sell the property at a price that suggests some other use. If they can't retire, I guess they will just have to stay on the property for the rest of their lives. It is a complicated issue. It is not fair for the developer or the Smiths to get mixed signals when all along we were simply going with what we projected should be here. I also carefully selected this developer as the best for the Greater Lansing market and the community, and they got a superior product. We should embrace and welcome them in all phases. If we don't approve this, what are we to do to sell the property. A residential subdivision won't accomplish the Smiths' objectives, so I don't foresee a sale, so I don't see any new housing for the City of Lansing. I feel it is important that you understand and recognize from a real estate position that every local developer in town has been approached on the Forest Nursery property. They all believe it should be multi family housing, if you take the neighborhood into consideration, what's across the street, the homes that are in the neighborhood. Everybody feels it should be an upscale project. The reason the first plan was not approved was because the developer tried to build Disney World in Lansing, Michigan and in the process found out he couldn't afford to build it. There were things fundamentally wrong with the plan, with infrastructure, cost-prohibitive things. We tried to sell that plan. We can't go back to that plan; we have already tried it. CED Group has projects in the state of Michigan; you can visit and see them. They have never sold any of their apartment complexes. From a marketing position, we have done everything properly and in the right channels to accomplish what Planning wants. I don't feel it is fair at this point to change gears and do something entirely opposite. I am on the Blue Ribbon Committee with Mayor Hollister, and everything we are trying to do is to get more housing downtown. We are focusing in the downtown area, but I disagree why this area should be singled out for something other than what it is best suited for, which is multi family housing. Let's get the best housing complex, the most upscale complex that we can for this area, for Lansing, and this is the group. The Smiths deserve better than this. They should not be caught up in a reversal of what we are going to do with their land in the City of Lansing. We need a good common sense judgment at this time. FRANK SMITH, 3115 FOREST ROAD, CO-OWNER OF FOREST NURSERY. I have lived there for 70 years. We have lived there all our lives, raised three children. My wife and I would like to retire, enjoy a few years, and relax. I hope this thing works out in some form. Thank you. SANDY ALLEN, SECOND WARD CITY COUNCILMEMBER. I find myself in the unenviable position of trying to represent my ward to the best of my ability, to represent my constituents fairly and to do what I feel is best for the area. Mr. Stockwell has given you some of the background. The original proposal, the Hunt Club, met with the Forest View Association last October. We were presented with a Cadillac. Under that proposal there was a rezoning with that development in mind. Then apparently the financing did not go through. Next PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 4 we were presented with the second proposal, the second Hunt Club. Although a presentation was made to the Forest View in October, the association was very pleased that the developer came and made the presentation. They also called me and discussed it with me. They were eager to do whatever they could to make their development amenable to the area. At that time no action was taken by the Association. Going back to the original Hunt Club, a resolution was passed by the Forest View Association recommending rezoning and the proposal. In March, the Association met again and discussed the second proposal; no vote was taken and no resolution passed. While I am deeply sympathetic to the Smiths, and I understand their situation and I am very troubled by it. I am in an unenviable position. The second proposal being considered now, I compare it to an Oldsmobile, rather than the Cadillac we were originally offered. Ideally, I would like to see this property be either single-family owner-occupied homes, which is what the Housing Study, that we spent a lot of money on, recommended that we try to achieve in the Lansing area, or ten new condominiums. The suggestion has been made that this would not be appropriate for single-family homes because of the traffic noise level from US-127. I don't see that as a problem. The people living in the area have never expressed concern about noise level. If there is such a concern, why would apartment dwellers be any less concerned with noise than single-family home- owners? This is a difficult decision. At the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting several weeks ago, I saw the members struggle with a decision. Although I understand the Department has made a recommendation to turn down the proposal, and I think that is appropriate, if you take all the elements out of it and just look at the proposal itself, that is appropriate. There are people in the Forest View area who are also constituents who are in favor. I find myself trying to represent my constituents fairly, and that is difficult sometimes. With the PRD, perhaps we can put some caveats on it. You can't act on this tonight so we might be able to meet with the developers and come to some kind of agreement. I feel the Department's recommendation is a good and appropriate one. BRETT STOCKHILL, 3821 STONELEIGH, PRESIDENT, FOREST VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. The original Hunt Club was proposed as a high density development; subsequently it was changed to a slightly lower density and a more home-oriented condo development, with closed garages, which met with the approval of the Forest View Association. That deal fell through. We got the proposal for this development as high-density with an apartment orientation, open carports and open plan. We thought this was not what was represented when the zoning was passed with the original Hunt Club. At the end of our meeting, we left it that these people were going to go back, review their complex, make changes, return to us and see if it was more to our liking. We wanted something more like the original Hunt Club previously approved by the Forest View Association. We never got any response back on that. We learned that this was going to be reviewed with no warning that it PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 5 had changed in only one or two minor ways. We had a second meeting in March and discussed the proposal on this development. It had not changed. We took a vote at the meeting, and everyone at the meeting did not want the high density with no garages. They wanted more home-oriented, home-owned condo association, enclosed garages, a very tight development. Subsequently I wrote a letter to Mr. Ruff. There were other concerns such as high density, traffic, Housing Study. That is background of the Forest View experience in this situation. The constituents voted that they did not want this development in this way. They are not against development, just not this type of development. Mr. Frederick asked about the FVCA requesting that the bus shelter be removed from the plan and why that request was made. It appeared to be an amenity that would add to the development. Mr. Stockhill said it was not necessarily elimination of the bus shelter, but rather a better situation for it so students would not mill around on Forest Road for pick up. Mr. Frederick asked if FVCA members suggested where students could wait? Mr. Stockhill said that was not established. It wasn't that we didn't want the bus stop there, it was just suggestions that problems might occur and to come up with a best solution. JAN KOLP, 2828 FOREST ROAD. One of my main concerns is that this complex was to have three- and four-bedroom units, and that this would end up student housing because of proximity to the University. Another thing is there are no garages, as in the original Hunt Club, only carports for 25 percent of the units. The rest would be on-street parking. This is higher density than Tammany, across the street. Having three- and four-bedroom units, people are going to be on top of each other. I understand the Smiths' position. I hope they will understand our point of view. They are moving to Traverse City. As the people left here, we will live and deal with what goes in that property. According to the City Housing Study, this is one of the few large parcels left in the City, a prime location, on a scenic corridor. We take pride in the area and think it deserves a special development and not just another apartment development as in the Jolly Road-Dunckel area. MARK GAUTHIER, 1551 SANDSPUR ROAD, SANDSPUR HOUSING PARTNERS, DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. CED Partners is the owner of a family of companies that builds, owns and manages multi family housing throughout the country. We have been in Michigan a long time; our principal, who is from Lansing, owns the whole group of companies. Sandspur Housing, my employer, is the developer. We design, permit and plan the communities; then CED Construction Partners, general contractor, actually builds the project, using local trades and subs. But we control all aspects of the community. We own every community we have ever built, unlike a lot of multi-family developers who immediately turn it over for a profit. Our job is to build up a portfolio for our owners. In Michigan alone we have 23 rental communities. There is also concern about the communities being managed by an uncaring out-of-town PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 6 management company. Another of our companies, Concord Management, is based in Livonia, Michigan, for this region. They manage all the Michigan communities. They are local people. The president of Concord Management is a Michigan State alumnus. We are dedicated to this area and to Michigan as a whole. We build high-quality rental communities throughout the eastern U.S. and provide many amenities not usually found in a typical multi family community. I don't see these things in many Lansing communities at present. There is a clubhouse including a fully-equipped exercise room, a business center with computers, printers and faxes for all the residents to use any time at no charge; privacy gated entrances; on-site management, and the Monster Club for children. It is an after-school program set up to help single and dual income parents have someplace for their children to go after school, offering on-site activities to keep children busy and out of trouble. Last summer, we began work on the Hunt Club apartments. Tad Krear, our planner, and I met with staff and discussed ways to improve the plan. We were told we needed to get the Forest View Citizens Association and the second ward councilmember on our side. Councilmember Allen set up a meeting with the FVCA in October where we presented our plans. My recollection of the meeting is somewhat different. One concern was the bus shelter—we were requested that it just go away. The other things were more questions than concerns. One was about the rent structure. Current projections are that the one-bedroom units will rent for $541, two- bedroom $649, up to $833 for four-bedroom units. These are not low rents; they are higher rents than Tammany Hills. Another issue was having adequate area for snow removal. The value of the property was mentioned. We expect the project will cost $11.1 million for 144 units. That is $77,000 for each apartment unit, which is higher than what many single-family homes sell for in the area. There was a request that we keep the natural appearance of Forest Road, the scenic corridor. We have left a very large buffer along the corridor. After the meeting, a surveyor located all the trees on the site, and we shifted buildings and the entrances so as to miss key trees on the site and to keep as many trees along Forest Road as possible. Another concern was the community eventually turning into student housing. We have a policy of not renting to full-time students. We have a strict background, credit, and employment check that every resident must pass. One includes having employment that can support payment of the rent. Full-time students do not make money; they are not employed; they cannot afford the rent so they cannot move in. Concerning the density issue, we are at the same density as the approved Hunt Club density. We used that approved PRD as the basis for our design. Mr. Smith asked a question about student housing, and not renting to full-time students. Does this apply to graduate students? What about a situation of a married couple, one of whom is returning to school, the other who may well have income to pay the rent. They may have children. Mr. Gauthier did not know the answer, but will find out and send the information to the Board. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 7 Mr. Frederick noted that since the Board cannot conduct official business, you have more time. Have you reviewed your plan to see if there are changes you can make that will be more acceptable to the Housing Study and zoning ordinances? Mr. Gauthier said he could not find anything in the Housing Study that would give him any direction other than what they have done. One portion indicates there is a shortage of high-end single-family homes, just one portion of a large study. The study also indicated the City should encourage high-quality planned residential developments which this is. Certainly, we are open to adjusting our site. In a PRD process, any controls can be put on the site that the City wishes. We did make changes, complete in November, for the FVCA. We were not able to get another meeting with the FVCA. In January we had to submit; we could not wait until an undefined date. We sent a copy to the councilwoman of the entire application package and one to the FVCA at the same time it was going to the City. We have had no input from anybody at the Association of any specific items they would like us to address, other than going back to the original Hunt Club plan, which we don't feel we can do because we don't think it is an economically viable plan. TAD KREAR, LAND DESIGN STUDIO, ROYAL OAK, MI. I am the land planner and landscape architect on the project. I wanted to reiterate and highlight a few specifically, some of the changes we made from the original meeting with the homeowners association, and reiterate the quality of the amenities in this development. I work with a lot of apartment developers throughout southeastern Michigan, and very few of them provide the amenity package in this program. One concern voiced was the scenic corridor easement. Councilmember Allen suggested providing masonry structures and treatments along the road. We never had a chance to formally present this to her. This prospective sketch (displayed board) integrates stone monuments and columns with the white picket fencing that is rural and in character with the area, stone signage, and removal of the bus structure. They thought it was going to be a gathering place for vandals. We sent a forester and surveying crew to locate trees at the entry. We shifted buildings and drives and other entry-way features. We moved a detention area from the front to the back of the site. At their suggestion, we came up with a better planning solution for the development; we went out of our way to do that. There is a wealth of amenities. I went out to photograph five or six Sandspur developments to get an idea of their design approach. The grounds were immaculate. This is accomplished because Concord Management manages and maintains their properties. These pictures show many of the features you will find throughout the Sandspur Housing Communities, clubhouse, pool, mail kiosk, bus stop shelter, tot lots for young children, barbecue pits, benches, gated communities, integrated sign system, etc. It is a high-end product. Reference was made to the development at Jolly and Dunckel. There is no comparison. This is 144 units, those are significantly larger. Dick Cooley was the original architect; we received a copy of his plan. In PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 8 improving the site layout, we ended up with 10 percent more usable green space. The one thing we did not provide was the garages. The prior project was not condominiums, it was also an apartment community. We worked hard at addressing their concerns. JERRY T. PUCA, 2918 MANLEY, RESIDENT, FOREST VIEW AREA, MEMBER, FVCA. I am in opposition to their opposition to this plan. It would be great to have single-family homes on Forest Road, but it's not going to happen. Nearby, we have a problem complex across the road, the University convention center and hotel, an industrial park, a cemetery behind the property, and City property all the way to Manley Drive. If the City wants to develop this into homes, the City should buy this property and turn all their property into a single- family home development, similar to the way we take care of Oldsmobile. There are duplexes on Stoneleigh that have garages. If you try to walk down that road, you can't, because the cars are parked over the sidewalks. A property doesn't go or not go because it has a garage or shelter. It's who maintains it. Mr. Mulder has a development across the street that is well-maintained and well kept. I was surprised to hear Sandy Allen say when she introduced this to the group, I have a plan you are going to like. Many of us at the October meeting liked it. We didn't go to the meeting where the vote was taken. I would like to go on record as saying we are not opposed to this plan. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Puca's opinion concerning the bus shelter or lack thereof. Mr. Puca said if you are going to have school children, you are going to have a bus shelter in one place or another. I would hope it is not on Forest Road, but rather moved into the complex. BARY DARLING, 2529 WABASH, MEMBER FVCA. I am in favor of this project; it is a good mix. At the October meeting, I heard no one respond to the project negatively. We did have an approval of the plans at the October meeting. I was unable to attend the March meeting. At the March meeting, we voted that we did not like the plan as it was. In October, we left it open, that changes were to come back to us. Regarding traffic flow, that is not a big problem. With screening, and being set back from the road, those points can be ironed out. There will be a background check of potential renters. There will be limited entry. Only 25 percent will be carport parking with the rest on the street, not visible from Forest Road. I am in complete agreement with the project. MARK LATTERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR CED. Historically, when I propose a project to Planning and meet with staff, the two things I am most concerned about are surrounding land use, and consistency or inconsistency with the Master Plan. In this situation, quoting the staff report, to the north is a cemetery, to the south is Tammany Hills apartments, to the east is US-127, and to the west is a cemetery. This project is not inconsistent with the use. The second thing PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 9 we look at is consistency or inconsistency with the Master Plan. In this situation, again quoting the staff report, "this proposal is not inconsistent with the Southeast Area Plan." Usually at that point, you think you are in good shape, but in this case there is another plus. A similar project has already been before the Board, rezoned and in terms of density, another key area of concern, this project is requesting the exact density as the other project. Now you think you are in pretty good shape, but for some reason, we are not. Looking at the staff report, where is the problem? They pulled one paragraph from the Housing Study from the summary. Item 4, promote upscale planned residential development, which is exactly what we are talking about. I don't see any problem with the Housing Study. Everybody who has worked on this project has done everything possible to work this out. If there is anything we can do, we will be happy to meet. I hope you will recommend approval of the PRD. BEN WILLIAMS, 2903 MANLEY DRIVE, FVCA. I was impressed at first but now have second thoughts. We are concerned that this project be developed with all parties participating, but for the last several months, this has not happened. Speaking to the historical environment, the Forest View area, this is not the first rezoning we have been involved with. If you build quality, it will have continuity. If radical changes take place because of a change in management, it becomes a liability for the City. A question: Does Concord Management still manage every single project built in Michigan? One concern is that this be a long-term investment for everybody. I wish the Smiths the best. Mr. Gauthier said we own Concord Management, and they manage every apartment that we own or have built. We have been building communities since the mid-eighties; Concord Management manages everything, and we intend to keep it that way. Same thing in Florida. An audience member asked next steps since no action can be taken tonight because of the lack of a quorum. Mr. Frederick said comments will go into the record and be available to all Planning Board members. Our Administrative Rules allow us to gather information for that purpose. Councilmember Allen said time before the next meeting will allow FVCA members and Mr. Gauthier to meet to take people to one of their other complexes. "We would like to at least try to provide some healing in the neighborhood." Mr. Frederick said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has address the issue and voted to deny but also granted a postponement. "We could address the issue tonight, or we could continue the postponement." There is time before the May 2 meeting, the earliest date for making an official decision. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 10 STEPHANIE WHITBECK, 620 W. IONIA. On Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office, here as a property owner within 300 ft; also as a member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. We did not make Planning Board meeting April 4, but we did attend the Zoning and Ordinance meeting where I provided a letter from my husband and myself and from the DNA. I understand the staff report only had the zoning map changed and does not reflect the unanimous vote of the DNA in opposition. Mr. Ruff said the letters are in the packet. Ms. Whitbeck said "I understand the staff report did not get changed, only the map. If someone could update that, or that all Planning Board members be aware of that." Ms. Whitbeck resumed. I am sympathetic with FVCA. Cadillacs, Oldsmobile, upscale, residential, Gove Housing Study, housing, housing, housing, single- family homes, and Mr. Stockwell made reference to the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission wanting housing downtown. What a wonderful bunch of choices! From downtown's perspective, that is a great set of choices. Downtown, we have choices of parking lots, mud lots, offices, empty central business districts and our neighborhood of houses that have been there for a hundred years, constantly under threat for residential purposes. Before the Board is 220 N. Sycamore. Only one office, Booth Newspapers, is located on North Sycamore. Even with all demolitions and conversions in the CBD, there is only one office. The River Island Master Plan years ago contemplated conversions; however, many conversions never happened. The staff report compares "DM-4" multiple housing and "D-2", but that was when people thought there would be a lot of apartment building. Only two really big apartment buildings have been built downtown. In the interim things have changed. We are having the houses built in the 1800s as single family, converted into multis around the time of WWII, now being converted and restored as single-family owner-occupied residences. That is true in the vicinity of this property. Two important things are the Master Plan and how the property meets it. I take exception to the staff report on surrounding land use concerning an office to the east. That "east" is a full block away on Pine Street. Sycamore is a residential two-way street. The subject property to the north was rezoned to "D-2" as speculation a number of years ago, but it is residential. Many surrounding properties have remained residential. The square block this property is on has Michigan Retailers properties on it, some "D-2", some "D-1". The closest one that was Michigan Retailers is a single-family residence and has sold. The important thing is that on the 500 and 600 blocks of Ionia and the 200 block of Pine, where the nine Retailers properties are, only two of them in nearly three years have sold, which says there isn't a market there. Michigan Retailers was buying properties to build a big office building. That didn't work, and they have relocated to the 500 Block of South Washington. These properties are languishing. They have been listed as residential. They haven't sold. That is significant considering The PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 11 Goals and Objectives of the Twenty-First Century, there really ought not be zoning residential properties to commercial use until commercial use is bursting. It is not bursting in the CBD, or in that block. The Gove Housing Report says we should not be rezoning properties from commercial to residential. We need to be looking for more residential. We need more single-family owner-occupied homes; and the school district desperately needs that. It doesn't make sense to lose yet another one. The River Island Master Plan map which was amended as a result of a lawsuit would allow this area to go to "D-2" but significant language in the River Island Master Plan must always be reviewed, "As always, these designations are for general land use, and each rezoning proposal will have to be considered on the merits of the site, the intensity of the proposal as well as the context of the site. You have in the staff report discussions about parking. If you do the math, I don't think they can meet the parking for a two-bedroom apartment upstairs and the amount of square footage on the first floor. You can't place conditions on this. They have to meet it going in. You have the comments from Building Safety talking about things they would have to meet as a commercial property, fire, handicapper, etc. Sometimes staff will say this doesn't happen until later on until the building permit is pulled. I note that the applicant's proposal is to permit the conversion of a two-family or duplex dwelling, not talking about zoning the land. It only matters if this very specific property can meet all of the requirements, the land use map, the commercial criteria of load, fire, and parking. Since you can't place conditions on this, and they haven't given you any information if they can meet it, I don't know in good conscience how you could vote yes. I, the neighbors, and DNA would like you to vote no. SHARON KELLOGG, 421 W. IONIA STREET. I have lived for 20 years in a house that was built in 1876. 1 have never lived in a neighborhood where I have had to spend so much time at City Hall defending the ability of my area to remain the way it is. I am opposed. I don't know if the owner has a tenant to go into the office portion. Properties are not renting. What happens is that they rezone it and then try to sell it for more money if it is zoned "D-1" or "D-2". It would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The DNA on April 8 voted unanimously to oppose this rezoning. I hope you will seriously consider this. CAROL WOOD, 1018 W. LAPEER, GENESEE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OFFICER. Genesee Neighborhood Association is bounded by Martin Luther King to Saginaw, Saginaw to Pine, Pine to Ottawa, and Ottawa to Martin Luther King. GNA would like to say that within those boundaries all we would like to have is single-family owner-occupied dwellings. It's not going to happen. We are cognizant of the fact that this is a diverse community area. GNA has been working diligently at housing matters in the area, has made a stand on this, and we do not object to the change in the zoning. Along with that, GNA has managed through MSHDA to come up with $550,000 to put into the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 12 neighborhood. We were well aware of some of the requests that were being talked about when we made the request, and so was MSHDA. MARK LATTERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR MR. FOX. We have discussed this matter before in committee. The site plan is dealing with all the relevant issues here. This is an appropriate use of the use of the property. It is what is called for with regard to the Master Plan. The request is unusual; it is to reduce the density, "DM-4" to "D-2". If it is never rented for office, it will continue to be used for residential. Mr. Fox wants to invest a substantial amount of money into the structure, and for that reason wants the flexibility of the "D-2" which is an appropriate use for the area pursuant to the Plan; therefore, we request that you so move with that direction. CHARLES PRUITT, 3017 W. MILLER ROAD, LANSING. I bought my house in 1995. If it were destroyed by fire, I could not rebuild it. I am paying for a house that I could not rebuild if there were a fire. I am requesting that it be changed so that I can rebuild if there were a fire. Mr. Frederick said we will address this right after the recess. We won't be able to make an official decision to report out to the Board this evening, but we will be able to discuss it in Committee. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Frederick declared the Comments section closed. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the Committee of the Whole rise; unanimous; carried. 6. RECESS - Chairman Frederick declared a short recess, following which the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: April 4, 2000 - Not available. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - None. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Chairman Frederick said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has not met officially; we will convene tonight and address the items on the agenda. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to convene the Zoning and Ordinance Committee; carried; unanimous. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 13 Chairman Frederick, as Chair, assigned Mr. Smith and Ms. Patrick to the Committee. a. PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development Councilmember Allen and the FVCA in attendance tonight think some agreement can be arrived at. Currently, there is a postponement at the request of the developer. The Committee would be willing to continue the postponement until Mr. Latterman's client can return with a different proposal to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. This was agreeable to Mr. Latterman. The postponement of PRD-1- 2000 is continued until May 2, 2000; the developer can request the termination of the postponement. b. Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Fox, owner of the property at 220 N. Sycamore, to rezone property located at 220 N. Sycamore Street from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. The applicant proposes to use the ground floor of the house for an office and maintain the upper floors of the house for residential use. The applicant is requesting rezoning to "D-2" Residential/Office District to permit conversion of a two- family dwelling unit into a mixed use structure with an office on the ground floor and a residential apartment on the upper floors. The "D-2" Residential/Office District is in many ways more restricting than the property's current zoning of "DM-4" Residential District. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the River Island Amendment Plan. At present, it is a duplex, or two-family dwelling unit. The proposal is to rezone the property to allow it to have a mixed use, office on the first floor, and residential on the upper floors. The property is approximately 60 ft x 165 ft. The rezoning request would allow up to 50 percent of the structure to be used for office, as well as place further restriction on the property, helping to control the residential appearance of the property and structure, and reducing the density of the property. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 14 A number of properties in the area have been converted from one- or two-family homes to office or mixed use, including one of the properties across the street, as well as others in the block. There would be no change in the pattern of vehicular traffic. There is parking on site, both surface parking and garage, six to seven parking spaces. The existing parking would help dictate the amount of usable square footage within the office area of the building as well as the unit. While not all surface parking and garage could be used simultaneously for parking, both could be used. Since there is no significant change to the site, significant modifications are not necessary other than possibly the necessity to screen parking from adjacent residential property. This would be required to be completed within ninety days of the rezoning action. The property conforms with the River Island Amendment Plan for land use. One of the reasons that there haven't been a number of rezoning changes in the residential area is that the Planning Board and Council did draw a line that designated particular uses and designated a particular area when the Master Plan was developed and a new zoning district created for the "D-2" Mixed Use District. It helped create a line for the "D-2" Mixed Use District. The rezoning does not mean that the house would be required to be converted to office; in fact, some structures, even though zoned, are not used for office. There are benefits to the "D-2" District that are important in preserving the residential character and look of the area. Setbacks would be made conforming. Staff has recommended approval. Mr. Frederick asked about the zoning map possibly being incorrect; was that corrected? Mr. Ruff said yes, it has been updated. The property at the southwest corner of Ionia and Pine was listed on the map as "D-1". It was proposed to "D-1 however, Council did not approve it; it is "D-2". It has been changed on the map. Mr. Frederick asked about other comments concerning modifications and the "D-2" zoning is more restrictive regarding modifications. How would that be controlled? What if the building was knocked down? What could be put in its place in "D-2" as opposed to "DM4"? Mr. Ruff said if the building were removed from the site, the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 15 potential in the "D-2" District would be a structure of similar quality and character of the neighborhood would have to be its replacement. Keeping it in the "DM-4" District, either the existing structure could be converted to additional multiple family units, or a rooming house, or if the structure were destroyed in the "DM-4" District, as long as they built something that was conforming to the "DM-4" requirements, which does not have the same character, quality components built into the ordinance could be built. So you have the highest density residential district for this property. The potential is that something could be constructed for apartments that would be higher density than the existing two-family and it would not have to adhere to the character and design issues that are in the "D-2" District. Mr. Frederick asked about available parking and screening for surrounding properties. Mr. Ruff said four or five spaces could be designated to the office square footage. Professional office requires one parking space for every 200 sq ft of usable floor area—office, conference room, waiting area, not storage, bathroom or hallway space. With four parking spaces for office use, that gives you 800 usable sq ft area footage. Ms. Patrick asked does either zoning restrict the residential portion from being owner- occupied? Or rental? Mr. Ruff said no. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District; unanimous; carried, 3-0. C. NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District The applicant, Mr. Charlie L. Pruitt, is requesting Class A Nonconforming status for his single-family residence in the "G-2" Wholesale District to ensure reconstruction of the single family residence in the event of fire destruction. This property was part of the Gordon Food Service property located behind this house on West Miller Road. The applicant purchased it. Mr. Pruitt is affiliated with the church that was built. A lot split was approved when the church was approved in the "G-2" Wholesale District. The house could be used as a home as accessory to the development of the church at that time. It serves as Mr. Pruitt's parsonage, but it is his home. Mr. Pruitt's concern is being able to rebuild it if it were damaged by fire or destroyed. If the home is accessory to something in the "G-2" District, it could continue to be used as such; otherwise, if the home PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 16 were a separate use, Class A would provide more assurance that it is not an adverse use to the area even though the Master Plan calls for nonresidential development to take place south of Miller Road. If it were destroyed by fire, Mr. Pruitt or the owner at the time could change their mind and not want to rebuild the house, and have another decision to make. They could build something that was conforming to the zoning, and Mr. Pruitt could decide to live in another location. He is not asking to rebuild the structure at this time. If you grant Class A, and the house is completely destroyed, he would still have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to rebuild. There are checks and balances in the nonconforming use section of the ordinance. Class A would give the applicant more assurance of its potential to be rebuilt; it also would provide financial institutions more assurance if the property were remortgaged. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Patrick said she was reminded of the small house surrounded by the K-Mart parking lot for many years. She wondered about the need to ensure that this is a residence for the long term when the surrounding area has a completely different character. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Pruitt is not asking for it to be rezoned back to residential. Class A provides another option allowing the house to remain here, but yes, it could end up being surrounded by nonresidential development. Mr. Smith asked if the valuation of the house is affected relative to insurance premium rates. Does having Class A status make recovery any greater? What is gained by changing it? Mr. Ruff was not sure, from a financial standpoint. Mr. Frederick said the BZA has considered cases by applicants for variances to repair structures damaged by fire or wind, etc. With Class B, it doesn't take much to damage 35 percent of a house. We see the petitions after the damage is done. What happens is the building is slightly damaged but can't be repaired because cost is more than 35 percent, and the owners abandon the building and leave it to deteriorate. "I am glad for the opportunity to address this, to bring it up to Class A Nonconformity at this point before the fact." If it is damaged totally, or 51 percent, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 17 he would still have to appeal to BZA for a variance. At that time, the issue of whether it is appropriate to have a residence in that zoning district could be addressed. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District; carried, unanimous, 3-0. Chairman Frederick informed Mr. Pruitt that his request would be reported to the full Board at their meeting of May 2, 2000. Next meeting Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. Ms. Patrick made a motion, supported by Mr. Smith, to adjourn the Zoning and Ordinance Committee; unanimous; carried, 3-0. Chairman Frederick said Z-5-2000 and NCU-2-2000 will be taken up at the May 2, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. Next meeting Tuesday, April 25, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Grand Avenue, Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager - Mr. Ruff has three dates for Lugnuts tickets for the City suite, for all three boards, May 15, May 29, which is Memorial Day, and June 29. Those dates have been approved for us. Thirty-two tickets are available for Board members, guests, and staff. Game times are: Monday, May 15 at 6:05 p.m.; Monday, May 29 at 2:10 p.m., and Thursday, June 29 at 7:05 p.m. D. Pending items: Future action required 1. 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) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 PAGE 18 C. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-15-99, Portions of 6820 S. Cedar St., from "F" Commercial District to "J" Parking District and from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District, Also 915, 927 & 1000 Just A Mere Ave., 6931, 6937 & 7001 Georgia Ave. from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District, Also 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 & 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District (Tabled January 11, 2000) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW (Tabled February 16, 1999) b. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of- way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) C. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled October 26, 1999) d. Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park Field Office (Re-referred to Committee November 2, 1999). e. Act-21-99, 1000 Block of Just A Mere Ave., Pedestrian Overpass (Tabled January 18, 2000) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick said Auto Truck at Aurelius at the intersection of Luwanna Drive is putting all their equipment in front again. Mr. Smith said at the corner of Glasgow and Waverly, there are frequently three or four vehicles parked on the grass, offered for sale. It looks like a parking lot for auto sales. Mr. Ruff said state licensing requires that if you sell five vehicles in a year's time, you are required to get a vehicle dealer's license. Mr. Ruff will have the code compliance officer check into it. Commercial use is not permitted. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:30 p.m. Respect Ily subm' to James A. Ruff, Planning Manager Planning Board mn04182000 a:\56 APPROVED MAY 16, 2000, WITH CORRECTION AS FOLLOWS P 22 Ln 3.47" Pos 4.5" Draft to Clerk 04292000 Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .f11syAYE Approved 05152000 To Clerk 05262000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD = 7 p.m., City Council Chambers - Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue �" I Tuesday, May 2, 2000 c.r! 1. OPENING SESSION: Vice Chairman Keene called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith; five members present. Absent: Nischan. Two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved with one correction. The correct address for Z-6-2000 is 1144-1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, for rezoning from "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District, and the correct address for NCU-3-2000 is 1146-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue for Class A Restoration. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of withdrawal dated April 20, 2000 addressed to Susan Cantlon from Ronald E. Roush, Director, Operational Services, Lansing Community College RE: SLU-6-2000, 532 N. Seymour Avenue; 223 W. Lapeer St., Parking Lot in "DM-3" Residential District B. Speed Letter record of phone call from Emly Horne to Sam Quon regarding Z-7-2000, Act-4-2000 and MPA-2-2000 dated May 2, 2000, in opposition. 4. HEARINGS A. NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Randy Brown for a Class A Nonconforming status for restoration of property located at 815-817 E. Grand River. Currently, both properties at 815 and 817 E. Grand River Avenue are used for single family residences but are zoned "F" Commercial District which makes their use nonconforming with the Zoning Code. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use at 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The requested Class A nonconformity designation would permit the owner to make necessary repairs and improvements to the property. The PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 2 structures were built in 1905 on very small lots. Space is limited for off- street parking, but there appears to be sufficient room for the two spaces required for a single family residence. Mr. Ruge asked when the rezoning took place; Mr. Ruff said in 1942. Mr. Ruge asked why not rezone them residential instead of applying for nonconforming status. Mr. Ruff replied that the owner only has an interest in these two houses. The nonconforming status was suggested to the applicant because of the location, with commercial zoning around it. The applicant, Randy Brown, was not present. LORENZO L. LOPEZ, 1145 BALLARD, REPRESENTING HIS MOTHER, EDELMIRA LOPEZ who received a postcard. It is across the street from our property. We have concerns about that whole side of the street. They are asking for permission to rehabilitate the structures in the Commercial zoning. The home to the left of the two structures is in worse shape than these two. It looks bleak. It does not make Lansing look like a world-class city. Chairman Keene explained that this process is concerned only with these two addresses. The Planning Board cannot require owners to rehab their property; however, staff may be able to bring this house to the attention of the appropriate City department. The applicant arrived at this point. RANDY BROWN, 1146 N. PENNSYLVANIA. The reason behind this application is for financial reasons. I cannot get a loan unless the property is a Class A nonconforming use. I want to get it rented out. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Brown had any objection to rezoning this property residential instead of commercial. "I don't know how it got zoned commercial," but indicated he would be agreeable to rezoning. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 3 Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Paul Wegman for Class A Nonconforming status for a nonconforming storefront building located at 1100 Lake Lansing Road. The property, 50 ft x 62 ft, is zoned "B" Residential District. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the area for residential use at an overall density of 0-7 units per acre. The building is used for a plumbing business, but the "B" Residential zoning makes the use nonconforming. The applicant wants to make repairs and improvements that would exceed the limits permitted for Class B Nonconforming use. The requested Class A nonconformity designation would permit the owner to make necessary repairs and improvements to the property. Mr. Ruge noted that the report states it is an office for a plumbing business—there are no trucks or plumbing business on site? Mr. Ruff said it is a plumbing business and not an office. Mr. Ruge said buffering needs to be placed between this business and the house on New York. Also, are they allowed to store pipe outside; Mr. Ruff said no. Mr. Ruge asked about parking trucks and front yard parking. Mr. Ruff said it is nonconforming, business-related parking would be allowed; unrelated parking would not. PAUL WEGMAN, 3220 STABLER STREET, OWNER OF J & J PLUMBING. When we bought the building, we were advised that it was commercial nonconforming, but the City said we could do business there. There is no sidewalk in front and we have lost part of the driveway because of work on the sewer project and gas mains. We have a shed to store pipes. There is no selling on premises. We use the office to run the business by telephone and leave there in the morning and come back at night. We want to put vinyl siding on the building, and improve its looks for the neighborhood. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Dawn Flynn representing Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation for Class A Nonconforming status to make approximately $85,000 of repairs and renovations to the exterior and the interior of an eleven-unit apartment PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 4 building built in the 1960s. At present, the property is designated as a Group 3 Class B nonconformity for use. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1986 designates this area to promote lower density residential development, equivalent to "C" or "DM-1" Residential Districts. West Saginaw Street is a major arterial. The zoning, "DM-3" Residential and "J" Parking Districts, is correct. The building is nonconforming due to lot area, setbacks and parking and is limited to 35 percent of the value of the structure for repairs. DAWN FLYNN, 313 E GRAND RIVER AVENUE, REPRESENTING FRANKLIN STREET HOUSING CORPORATION. We have applied to the Development Office for the project; we will use Development moneys. In order to do it, we have to get Class A. We are looking at $85,000, and most of it will be used for exterior improvements, but some will be for the interior, for air conditioning, windows, security doors, brick exterior, porches and for sealing the driveway. We can't use federal funds unless we get Class A. There are four vacant apartments at present. We restrict parking to one car per apartment. The church across the street is willing to allow people to park there in the evenings for special occasions; also Quality Dairy will let people park in their lot with notice of a day or two. MARC VAN WORMER, 711 NORTH CHESTNUT. I live north of the apartment. I would welcome renovations to the building. The fence is made of wood particles that fall into my yard. About two weeks ago, a sign (a star of David and a devil) was painted on the fence; I would like to see the sign removed. I would welcome the renovations. CAROL WOOD, 1018 W. LAPEER, REPRESENTING GENESEE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. This is located across the street from the boundaries of the GNA, we are very much in favor. Working with the Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation, we have dealt with problem properties, and we see this as a wonderful solution. We encourage the Board to view this favorably and urge you to vote yes. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Laura Nash and Rick Bellinger, 1020 E. Saginaw Street, for a Special Land Use permit to relocate an existing hair clinic at 1020 E. Saginaw Street to 1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a barber/beauty shop in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Section 1260.04(I) of the Zoning Code allows a barber/beauty shop with City Council approval of a special land use permit. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for continued professional office use. LAURA NASH, 1020 EAST SAGINAW. I own another hair institute with my father, Rick Bellingar; we also have another hair replacement clinic, but because we sell products associated with the hair replacement clinic, it is considered as a barber/beauty shop according to the code. We have been looking for five years and found this, a dentist's office. We have plans to remodel the interior and landscape the exterior. It looks like a professional building. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Bryan and Sandra Wade for a Special Land Use permit to locate a church at 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. in a tenant space, formerly a mattress store. They have taken half of the building, with four-store-fronts, for the church. It is located to the north of the former Drakes Refinery gas station. The Word of Life Family Outreach Center Church is currently operating at the location without a special land use permit. Their intent is to obtain the special land use permit to allow them to provide religious instruction and counseling. They are proposing to build-out 3,000 square feet of commercial space for office space, classrooms, and a sanctuary seating 60 persons. Mr. Ruge asked about parking availability and requirements. Spill-over would go onto Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Loa Street into the neighborhood. Mr. Ruff said with the other two tenants, they may not PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 6 meet the parking requirements. The shopping center has a particular parking code requirement that is not dependent upon the tenant, one parking space for every 110 ft of usable floor space. It depends on the floor space. It is classified as a shopping center, and parking requirements apply no matter who is the tenant. Mr. Ruge said if there is not enough parking on site, overflow parkers will go into the neighborhood onto Loa Street, a small street with no curbs. The parking situation should be evaluated carefully. MARY SWANSON, 831 NORTH WASHINGTON. I helped the Wades do a drawing of the site. There are 34 parking spaces on site. They need 14 spaces. There are 49 chairs, so that would require 16 parking spaces. When people are in the services, the stores are not open. The church is located on a major street. They fulfill most requirements. BRYAN WADE, 2173 ROLLINGBROOK, REPRESENTING THE WORD OF LIFE FAMILY OUTREACH CENTER CHURCH. We have been trying for two years to find a church; we have been at several locations. One was too far to the west, the other, on the second floor of the Black Child and Family Institute, was not handicapper accessible. We do not have 60 members as yet. At present we have 32 members, 15 children and 17 adults. The building and finances are reasonable. There are two other tenants. Air Page/Omni Point is open M-Th from 10:30-7, Friday 10:30-8, Saturday 10:30-6; and closed Sunday. Mailboxes Etc. is open M-F 8-6:30 p.m., Saturday 9-5 p.m. and closed Sunday. The Word of Life Church holds services on Tuesday, 7-8 p.m., Friday 12-1 p.m., Saturday 9 -10 a.m., and open on Sundays. There is no conflict regarding parking or open hours. Traffic has not been a problem. This location will be temporary until we find a building location. We believe we can have a positive influence on the area. Our goal is to find a location to buy to build or get an existing building that is comfortable. The location has been convenient for us. There are two churches nearby. We intend to improve the building inside and out. We have been there since March, 2000. Ms. Keene asked what is the length of the lease; Mr. Wade said until March of 2001, with an option for another year. ROBIN LOTT, P. O. BOX 11005, MEMBER, WORD OF LIFE CHURCH. I want to show my support to give you an idea that this could be a positive benefit to the neighborhood and community. The church has grown to 32 members. We are committed to further Christian values and to help those PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 7 less fortunate. We are working with youth to help them identify religious values and professional values to help them be successful in life. It would be beneficial if the request is approved. MASHENDE NIXON, 1717 SHIAWASSEE, MEMBER, WORD OF LIFE CHURCH. I have been a member of the church for several years. This location is better because it is handicapper accessible, and on a major street. It is easy to find. Regarding hours of operation, there has been no problem regarding parking. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. Z-6-2000, 1144-1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District G. NCU-3-2000,1146-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A - Restoration Mr. Ruff presented the cases, requests by Randy Brown to rezone the property located at 1144, 1146, and11461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District so the zoning will be consistent with the current use of the properties for one-family and two-family residential structures. The structure at 1144 is a single-family residence, while 1146 is a two-family (duplex) dwelling unit. No change is proposed in the current residential land use. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan indicates the property is borderline between the areas designated for commercial use and residential use at 8-14 dwelling units per acre. The structure at 1144 North Pennsylvania Avenue is currently a single- family residential structure but is zoned "F" Commercial District. The structure at 1146 and 1146'/2 North Pennsylvania Avenue is a two-family residential structure, which is also zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting rezoning of these properties to "C" Residential District, which is more consistent with the use of the properties. Because the lot size of 1146 and 1146'/2 North Pennsylvania is smaller than required for a duplex dwelling unit in the "C" Residential District, this structure will also require designation as a Class A Nonconformity by the Planning Board. This request is being considered as NCU-3-2000. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 8 Regarding the two-family building at 1146 and 1146'/z North Pennsylvania, even though it could be rezoned for residential, it would not meet code requirements for lot area. It would be nonconforming for lot area but conforming if rezoned for land use. Therefore, Mr. Brown is also requesting Class A Nonconforming status for 1146 and 1146'/2 North Pennsylvania in order to rehabilitate the structure and get financing. Mr. Ruge asked how many parking spaces are required, and how many are on-site? Mr. Ruff said two spaces are required for each unit for a total of four required spaces. There is a concrete drive which provides access to the four spaces, located behind the building. Ms. Patrick asked what is the applicant's interest in the property. Mr. Brown said his parents own the property next door. Mark is the owner right now (has an option to buy). Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearings closed for Z-6-2000, 1144-1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District and NCU-3-2000,1146-1146'/ N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A - Restoration and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. H. Z-7-2000, 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 & 2726 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District I. ACT-4-2000, Vacate ROW - W. Willard Ave., West of S. Washington Avenue J. MPA-2-2000, Master Plan Amendment to the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan Mr. Ruff presented the cases, Z-7-2000, a rezoning request associated with Act-4-2000 and MPA-2-2000. Mr. George Abraham, 431 S. Capitol Avenue, is requesting the property to be rezoned from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office. In this connection, he is requesting both the vacation of Willard Avenue right-of-way west of the 2700 Block along South Washington Avenue and the amendment of the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes in land use from Residential 0-7 du/acre to Office. The property is approximately 1.6 acres, a irregular-shaped parcel that is zoned "A" Residential and used for single-family residential. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 9 In 1963, a petition to rezone the property from "A" Residential to "DM" Multiple Dwelling (Z-114-63) was denied by City Council because the density was too high. In 1995, this property was included in a request (Z-18-95) to rezone 2.4 acres from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office for the construction of a medical office building and parking. This case has been pending and no action was taken. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the property from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office to allow for a proposed office development consisting of 16,800 -19,650 sq ft of building area with 112-151 parking spaces on approximately 1.6 acres. Second, the applicant is proposing the vacation of Willard Avenue right-of-way located along the northwest side of the 2700 block of South Washington Avenue. Mr. Abraham intends to combine this property with property he owns to the north and south for his proposed office development. Finally, Mr. Abraham is requesting the amendment of the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes in land use from Residential 0-7 du/acre to Office located east of Washington Park from 2708 through 2726 S. Washington Avenue on the northwest side of the street. Mr. Ruge said this proposal looks like the proposal we denied in 1995, and it does not appear conditions have changed. Why are we being asked to act on this again? The concern of the Board then was that this was an office use in a residential area, and we did not want to see more uses like this on Washington Avenue. Mr. Ruff said the previous case included properties that went farther south. GEORGE ABRAHAM, 222 STRATHMORE, just around the corner. We applied for the zoning there four or five years ago. At that time we were worried about losing housing. To compensate for the lost housing, I built a new home for my tenant on Victor Street; I will do the same thing for my other tenants. I am putting homes on lots that have never been built on before. One of my tenants had his home broken into by three masked bandits. It backs up to Washington Park. This area cannot be referred to as a residential district. The lots are small and narrow and people have problems with parking—they have to back out onto Washington Avenue. The park users use bad language that people can hear in their homes; there is drunkenness and lewd and lascivious acts. In the last ten years there have been 100 changes in the Master Plan. We are not looking to destroy homes; we are replacing people in new homes. The existing homes are old and need a lot of care. We are trying to put up a facility like the McCree House. To the north is the armory and Quality Dairy and commercial uses, a few homes to the south, an apartment house and PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 10 shopping center. It is not a true residential district. I am replacing homes for tenants. We are not carving this out of an old district. I am replacing homes for tenants. Chairman Keene read a Speed Letter record of a phone call from Emly Horne regarding Z-7-2000, Act-4-2000 and MPA-2-2000 dated May 2, 2000, in opposition. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for Z-7-2000, 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 & 2726 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District; and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. ACT-4-2000, Vacate ROW - W. Willard Ave., West of S. Washington Avenue; and MPA-2-2000, Master Plan Amendment to the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 2000, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - CAROL WOOD, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMEMBER SANDY ALLEN REGARDING PRD-1-2000. Her position has not changed from before; she is not taking a position pro or against; she is taking no position. There was one thing that has happened. She and neighbors went to a site being operated by the Sandspur Corporation. She felt they were candid and informative, and she was pleased with the information. They answered the questions of the neighbors. If you approve this, she would like to see an association of neighborhood members and residents from outside the development to sit on the neighborhood association to advise through the course of the development and handle complaints. The developers are amenable. CAROL WOOD, SPEAKING ON HER OWN BEHALF. Regarding the rezoning for Mr. Fox's property, it falls within the GVA boundaries. We would all like to see residential use. We realize that won't happen. We are supporting this rezoning. It goes along with what goes on in that block. JERRY T. PUCA, 2918 MANLEY, RESIDENT, FOREST VIEW AREA, MEMBER, FVCA. I understand that the neighborhood Association took a position against; however, I am in favor. I went on the trip to Detroit with Sandy Allen and neighbors. I have a brochure about the Concord development PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 21 2000 PAGE 11 (submitted brochure). It was opened within the last year and is the same size as the development proposed on Forest Road. They answered all our questions; they were very responsive. The development was small, and it fit the property. There are seventy school-age children residing there. The bus comes in, picks up the students and leaves the development. The first Hunt Club had garages; this proposal has carports. The Detroit development we visited had neither; the residents parked on-street. The lack of garages makes no difference. It would be a good addition to the neighborhood. BRETT STOCKHILL, 3821 STONELEIGH, PRESIDENT, FOREST VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I was not able to go on the field trip to the Canton site. Several people, including Jan Kolp, who went had their questions resolved about the management corporation and the apartment complex and amenities. We have some questions about traffic and an apartment complex v. single family homes. A concern of mine is that this is an apartment complex. It comes down to the Planning Office as to whether or not the complex is in the best interest of the City and community. FRANK SMITH, 3115 FOREST ROAD, CO-OWNER OF FOREST NURSERY. What I want to say is that this property is a good block from the vice president's house and less than that from a couple other neighbors. US-127 is on the east, cemeteries on the north and west and apartments on the south. I don't know what neighbors this is going to bother. It is true that there will be more traffic; but traffic has increased annually for many years. I would like to see this pass. KEN STOCKWELL, STOCKWELL REAL ESTATE GROUP, 4277 OKEMOS, OKEMOS, MI. I represent the Smiths. We tried to find the best solution for Lansing. One of my goals as a realtor dealing in commercial real estate is to help the Smiths meet their objectives, to sell their property and retire. We are here tonight because perhaps people thought there was more opposition in the neighborhood; however, it seems the neighborhood is in favor. The Lansing Housing Study says we need more residents in the City of Lansing. Looking at it as a single-family development, it might be worth $400,000, but that won't meet the Smith's objectives to retire. It won't be sold as single-family housing. If we are to meet the objectives, it needs to go multi-family. If you want a multi family developer, they are here. BEN WILLIAMS, 2903 MANLEY DRIVE, MEMBER OF FOREST VIEW CITIZENS ASSOCIATION since it began. I spoke last time of the need for a quality development. We had a presentation from the developer in October of 1999, and we had another meeting in March. We visited Canton. We found a development that was substantial and well built and developed, and they answered my questions. This management company will be around for the long PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 12 term, and it will provide continuity. The development will not be sold for a profit with subsequent owners letting it run down. I was encouraged by what I saw. I believe this would be a worthwhile addition to the area. It would be well if our association could be accessible in building and managing with the developer. MARK GAUTHIER, 1551 SANDSPUR ROAD, SANDSPUR HOUSING PARTNERS, DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. Mr. Smith asked a question regarding the leasing of an apartment to a husband-wife couple if one of the two was working and one was a graduate student, or in school full time. I learned we would lease to the couple, as long as one of the two was working. Also, we now have nationwide over 23,000 apartment homes that we built, own and manage. We have never sold one of our complexes, and it is not our intention to sell them. I want to thank Forest View residents and Councilmember Allen for giving us the opportunity to show off our Canton project. I enjoyed it. Our management company, based in Livonia, manages all of our Michigan property. The only other thing was the bus stop--it is still somewhat up in the air. We can put it in or leave it out. We are open either way. I think the best way to handle this would be during the final engineering review to meet with staff and decide the best way for children to be picked up. If the School Board wishes to come into the property to pick them up, that would be fine with us. Tad Krear is also here tonight to answer questions. MARK LATTERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEVELOPER. I appreciate your patience in all these presentations. I am not going to repeat anything already said. I want to comment on the one item Councilmember Allen wanted clarified, the issue with regard to the group we want to set up that could meet monthly to deal with various issues concerning the project. My client said they thought that was an excellent idea. We are more than willing to set monthly meetings to get input from the neighbors, residents, association and management group. Briefly, with regard to the Fox property, I want to reiterate that we support the staff position for reducing the density. It is an appropriate use of the property, and we ask you to approve that tonight. BARY DARLING, 2529 WABASH, MEMBER FVCA. I live on Wabash Road, approximately half a mile from the development. I was unable to make the bus trip, but I talked with neighbors who are impressed. My main concern is the bus stop. It is being worked out. There was concern about carports versus garages. In our neighborhood, the garages in the duplexes and quads aren't being used anyway; they are usually full, and the cars are on the driveway. There was concern about a gated entry, which is a positive feature. One of the brochures stated that lot coverage is 44 percent of the area, versus total open space at 56 percent. That is a good feature. It allows for recreation. Another concern is the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 13 traffic situation on Forest Road. When I moved in, in 1963, it was a gravel road, and I had to wash my truck every third or fourth day. Nobody is going to change our scenic corridor. The community is working together and doing a good job. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the comments from the audience closed. 6. RECESS - Chairman Keene declared a five-minute recess. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: April 4, 2000. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve the minutes of April 4, 2000, without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All, Nays; None, carried unanimous; the minutes of April 4, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - None. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Frederick, Chair. a. PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to remove PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development from the table; carried; unanimous; PRD-1-2000 was removed from the table. PRD-1-2000 is a request by W. Scott Culp representing Sandspur Housing Partners for a Planned Residential Development located at 3115, 3205 Forest Road to develop 144 Multiple Family Dwelling Units in ten buildings on a 13.67 acre site. The development plan results in a density of 11.07 dwelling units per acre. The property is zoned "C" Residential District and allows a planned residential development if approved by City Council. This development is proposed to replace a previously approved development known as the Hunt Club. In Committee, discussion took place over several meetings centering around the defining point between a planned residential development in an "A" versus "C" Residential PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 14 District versus a PRD in the multiple family district. Staff provided the information that a PRD apartment complex of multiple buildings, the alternative for a single apartment building in multi-family district, the PRD in the "A" or "C" District may best need to look more like a conventional subdivision with attached single- or two-family units. Representatives from the applicant testified that they believed that the proposed development is consistent with the recommendations of the City of Lansing's recent Housing Study and that they are proposing a high-quality development costing $76,000 per unit ranging in size from 800 to 1,400 sq ft with the market rental rate of$1,200 to $1,800 per month. Since this is a MSHDA-supported development, the quality of the housing is required to meet a standard higher than local building codes. It is the type of development that is being constructed outside the City of Lansing that people are moving into. Also noted is the fact that the PRD preserves 50 percent of the land as open space. It also preserves the scenic corridor view and the wetland. The Committee received testimony that the applicants' interpretation of the Housing Study is probably incorrect and that the individual testifying believed that the study recommends high-end low-density development. This is one of the few areas of town with vacant land, and the City needs to guard against traffic impacts on Forest Road and preserve the scenic corridor. The Committee, after testimony and evidence, recommended denial of PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development on a unanimous vote. Mr. Frederick 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 denial of PRD-1-2000, 3115-3205 Forest Road Planned Residential Development. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick said since the Committee originally moved in support of denial of this, the applicant recommended postponement of reporting this out to the Planning Board and has had the opportunity to meet with the Forest View Neighborhood Association and present more information about the development. Mr. Frederick has changed his mind PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 15 about voting for denial. Mr. Frederick said he believes that the development is in character with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the location doesn't lend itself well to low-density high-cost housing that the Housing Plan recommends. He thinks that this is a high-quality development, the developer intends to utilize as much open space as possible and to preserve the rustic nature of the scenic corridor. He believes that this is probably the best development for this area, and it is in keeping with the Master Plan. Mr. Ruge said he was confused. At the time the Zoning and Ordinance Committee took action on this, were both the neighborhood organization and Councilmember Allen opposed to the development? Ms. Keene said tonight Councilmember Wood stated Councilmember Allen's position would be not to take a position at this time. Mr. Frederick said to his knowledge, the FVCA has not met to change their position to one of support. We heard from the President of the FVCA tonight. He didn't sound as opposed as he was when he originally testified. Ms. Keene said she would be voting in favor of the motion to deny. She mentioned the market study discussed the limited area of large parcels for development of single- family homes, and to put another apartment complex on this site would preclude expansion of single-family residences. The developers indicate they will continue to own and manage the apartments, but that is not a guarantee. "I have concerns about management changing and the nature of apartment complexes changing as time goes by. For that reason, I am going to vote in favor of denial." Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Ruge Nay Smith. .Nay Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 1; Nays: 4; carried; the motion to deny PRD-1- 2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development, the motion to deny was NOT APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development with the restriction that the developer work closely with the Forestry Department of the City and pay special attention to the ordinance that preserves scenic routes as this is so designated and also that the construction traffic, if construction actually begins on this project, be directed east on Forest Road from the development area, that basically they go by the University Club where that construction is going on now so as to disrupt the neighborhood as little as possible. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 16 Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Nay On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; PRD-1-2000, 3115, 3205 Forest Road, Planned Residential Development, with the above restriction was APPROVED. Mr. Ruff noted that four aye votes for a PRD is sufficient for a recommendation of approval to the City Council. It is not a rezoning, which requires a minimum of six aye votes for a recommendation of approval. b. Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District This is a request by Mr. Fox, owner of the property at 220 N. Sycamore, to rezone property located at 220 N. Sycamore Street from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. The applicant proposes to use the ground floor of the house for an office and maintain the upper floors of the house for residential use. At present, it is a duplex, or two-family dwelling unit. The proposal is to rezone the property to allow it to have a mixed use, office on the first floor, and residential on the upper floors. The property is approximately 60 ft x 165 ft. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence, that the property is approximately 60 ft x 165 ft. The rezoning request would allow up to 50 percent of the structure to be used for office, as well as place further restriction on the property, helping to control the residential appearance of the property and structure, and reducing the density of the property. Further, the Committee found that the "D-2" Residential/Office District is in many ways more restricting than the property's current zoning of"DM-4" Residential District. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the River Island Amendment Plan. Staff felt that the "D-2" Residential Office District, if approved, would preserve the character and design and appearance of the property more than if it continued in its "DM-4" Residential zoning. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 17 Six to seven parking spaces currently are available on site, both surface parking and garage parking. The existing parking would help dictate the amount of usable square footage in the office area of the building as well as the unit. There is no significant change to the site, so significant modifications are not necessary, other than possibly the necessity to screen parking from adjacent residential property. This would be required to be completed within ninety days of the rezoning action. The Committee further found that this action would control the residential appearance of the property and structure, and reduce the density of the property. In Committee, it was moved, second and carried unanimously, 3-0, to recommend approval of Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District with the restriction that appropriate landscaping, screening and buffer for the parking area be completed within ninety days of the rezoning action. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District with the understanding that appropriate landscaping, screening and buffer for the parking area be completed within ninety days of the rezoning action. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Patrick said she sat in on this Committee meeting, and although there was neighborhood opposition, she is supporting the rezoning tonight because it seemed the better of the two options. It comes closer to preserving the residential character of the neighborhood and is consistent with the Master Plan. "I will support it." Mr. Smith said he concurred with Ms. Patrick's remarks. Ruqe . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . Ave Keene. . .Aye PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 18 On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-5-2000, 220 North Sycamore Street, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District was APPROVED. Approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six Aye votes, so this will be referred to the Mayor and City Council with no recommendation, but with an explanation of the vote. C. NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District The applicant, Mr. Charlie L. Pruitt, is requesting Class A Nonconforming status for his single-family residence in the "G-2" Wholesale District to ensure reconstruction of the single-family residence in the event of fire or other destruction. If the house were damaged beyond 35 percent of its value, it could not be repaired without a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. With a Class A nonconforming status, if the home were damaged more than 50 percent, then approval of a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals only would be required. Regarding making improvements, the applicant can make repairs up to 35 percent of the value. If the structure is damaged beyond 35 percent, he has to get a Class A. If a Class A is granted tonight, the percentage increases to 50 percent if it is damaged. Over 50 percent, then the Board of Zoning Appeals considers it. The owner has other options, which is how this house was permitted to be used as a house. It is accessory to the church which is in the district. The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report that the house could be used as a home as accessory to the development of the church, and it could continue to be used as such; otherwise, if the home were a separate use, Class A would provide more assurance that it is not an adverse use to the area even though the Master Plan calls for nonresidential development to take place south of Miller Road. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 19 In Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend approval of NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District; carried, unanimous, 3-0. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruff said, as a reminder, this does not go beyond the Planning Board. It is a final action at the Board level. Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . Ave Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-2-2000, 3017 W. Miller Rd., Class A Nonconforming Status Request for a Single-Family Dwelling in the "G-2" Wholesale District was APPROVED. Next meeting Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. a. Act-22-99, 2113 Seventh Street, Vacate Right-of-way The Urban Development Committee met twice on this case. At the March 28, 2000 meeting, Bill Rieske presented the case. The Committee tabled the item, and requested further information for consideration. At the April 25, 1000 meeting, Jim Sturdevant presented the case. Ms. Vera Watts, the applicant, spoke in favor of the project at both meetings. Ms. Watts is purchasing the property at 2113 Seventh on a land contact. She requests the vacation of the southernmost 40 feet of the Seventh Street ROW, which runs in a N-S direction and ends in front of her property. The ROW is 50 ft wide and if vacated, 25 ft would be added to Ms. Watts' front yard. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 20 Ms. Watts, an artist, proposes to locate storage-studio space in an accessory building in front of the house, within the ROW (if vacated). She said that her art work is a hobby and a secondary source of income. She noted that the parcel is small, and space within the house is very limited. She added that visitors to her house have been ticketed for parking within the ROW due to space constraints on her lot. The proposed ROW vacation would not provide sufficient property for the applicant to construct an accessory structure. The Public Service Department has stated that it needs the ROW for maintenance of an existing sewer line. According to the staff report, the applicant's most reasonable course of action would be to seek setback variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the placement of an accessory structure near the NW corner of the existing lot. Staff cannot recommend approval of the street vacation. On March 28, 2000 the Committee postponed action on the case, and requested clarification on: • exact location of the utilities within the ROW, • the possibility and necessity of parking relief (such as on-street parking), • the regulation of the structure under the home occupation regulations, • the designated front yard area if the street were vacated. At its April 25, 2000 meeting, the Committee made its finding and recommendation on the case. The Committee found, based on location, character, and extent of the proposal, that all of the ROW is required by Public Service for access to the 36-in sewer located in the center of the street, that the vacation of the ROW is not a practical solution to the applicant's proposal, and that the possibility does exist to accommodate more space on the current parcel. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 21 In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend denial of Act-22-99, 2113 Seventh Street, Vacate Right of Way. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Act-22-99, 2113 Seventh Street, Vacate Right of Way. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said for him this was a tough decision; he wanted to help Ms. Watts if possible. She has a tiny lot with a small house and could use some extra space, but it was not practical with that big a sewer line in the street, 17 or 18 feet down. It would take a lot of space to get to the pipe. It seemed we were helping her as much as the Public Service Department by denying this. Mr. Ruff said from a zoning standpoint, artwork might be a source of income for her. Since it abuts a large site to the south that is light industrial, Bannasch Welding, maybe the Board or staff should communicate with her that she should contact Bannasch Welding to see if she could relocate the fence and lease a small portion of their site adjacent to her home, which does not seem to be used a lot, and build a storage structure on an industrial property that she could use for art and could sell out of if she wanted to. Potentially, it would be an ideal situation. Not many people in a residential setting are confronted with that opportunity. That is another option for her. Mrs. Bannasch, who owns Bannasch Welding, is a neighborhood person. She deals with the Eastside Neighborhood, and she is approachable from that standpoint. "Whether or not she would accommodate that type of thing, I don't know. It is always a possibility." Mr. Smith said it was a difficult case. One stumbling block was that there was never a clear understanding of exactly how she intended to use the accessory structure, whether in fact it was going to be primarily storage or if it was going to be a full-fledged studio. There was some question as to whether or not she would have been able to have a true studio constructed, whether she had the wherewithal to do it. With the sewer located where it was and where she was proposing to put the structure, we didn't really have much of an alternative. Hopefully, she can find some resolution. Ms. Patrick agreed it was a difficult case. Ms. Watts is on disability. Like many members of the public who don't often deal with government, except on an as-needed basis, she didn't understand what the Committee and staff were telling her about the restrictions we had on this situation. She also seems to have some internal plumbing/sewer overflow problems which it was hard for us to determine whether or not they originated from the City's drain or her own. It seemed to us that she needed some PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 22 guidance to City offices to get a situation improved. She appears to be in an unhealthful situation, at least at times when she has this overflow problem. "I would simply ask Mr. Ruff to make the appropriate referrals to see if any assistance can be provided to her to get her home in good shape." Mr. Frederick said it was unfortunate the applicant was not able to get what she wanted, but the decision was well considered and took her needs into account as well as possible. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . Aye Smith. . .NMAYE Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, Act-22-99, 2113 Seventh Street, Vacate Right of Way was DENIED. Mr. Smith asked if any movement had taken place on Mr. Long's project, and on the Amendment to the Southeast Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Long and the architect met with Donna Wynant this past week regarding these issues. They have been acquiring properties to deal with parking. They may be going to amend their application for the zoning because they are going to be incorporating more land in the rezoning. The Master Plan area is still the same, Just A Mere south to Willoughby and east of the apartment complex. Mr. Smith asked about Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999. Mr. Rieske said the item was tabled by the UDC pending a site plan. Originally it was a proposal forwarded by Tim Wiemer who is no longer with the School District. They have had personnel turnover in positions from which the project was advocated. We have asked school board staff to learn if they are still serious about this. They have not responded as yet. Mr. Smith asked about Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW (Tabled February 16, 1999). Mr. Rieske has asked Sam Quon to write the applicant a letter requesting a withdrawal. Mr. Rieske hopes to have both Act-7-99 and Act-24-98 on the next UDC agenda for consideration. Next meeting Tuesday, May 23, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Grand Avenue, Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager - PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 23 We have the City's suite for three Lugnuts games, 32 tickets for each night. All three Boards will be receiving a memo. One date is a holiday, Memorial Day. All three Boards can pick and choose which game they want to see. That way, we might get a little interaction among boards. Dates are Monday, May 15, 2000, at 6.05 p.m.; Monday, May 29, 2000, at 2:10 p.m., Memorial Day; or Thursday, June 29, 2000, at 7:05 p.m. You are limited to two tickets per member, but if you need to have special accommodation, let Mr. Ruff know and he will try to accommodate you. Another point of interest, as positions become official, is that Mr. Ruff has been awarded the position of Planning Manager. Next is hiring a Zoning Administrator. We expect to receive responses both from within the City and outside by mid-June. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. 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-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-15-99, Portions of 6820 S. Cedar St., from"F" Commercial District to"J" Parking District and from "J" Parking District to"F" Commercial District, Also 915, 927 & 1000 Just A Mere Ave., 6931, 6937 &7001 Georgia Ave. from"A" Residential District to"J" Parking District, Also 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 & 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from "A" Residential District to"F" Commercial District(Tabled January 11, 2000) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property C. MPA-1-99, Master Plan Amendment to the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge said if you want to try one out, speed humps are located on Massachusetts and New York, near NCU-5-2000. You have to speed well over 35 mph for the humps to cause problems. Also, concerning NCU-5-2000 and front yard parking, is it illegal for their use and at their location? Mr. Ruff said they should not be parking adjacent to the building on either street side. They should be behind the building, the only place for parking there. There is paving in front of the building between the building and the sidewalk. The Code does PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 24 not allow that, but it is a preexisting condition, so that part is also nonconforming, but it is still illegal to park over a sidewalk. You can restrict those activities by imposing conditions. Mr. Ruge said there is a six ft high fence around the back yard made of chipboard. It is unsightly. Ms. Patrick asked about filling Board positions. Has the Department advertised on City TV? Mr. Ruff has discussed vacancies with the appropriate person on the Mayor's staff. They are preparing the list for cable TV and for the newspaper seeking board appointments. Mr. Smith asked about conveying the information to neighborhood groups, watch groups and associations. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Planning Manager Planning Board =05022000 a:156 PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road Planned Residential Development - 144 dwellings units GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: CED, Inc. (also referred to as Sandspur Housing Partners, Ltd.) Contact: W. Scott Culp 1551 Sandspur Road Maitland, Florida 32751 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy OWNER: Frank Smith 3205 Forest Lansing, MI 48910 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Develop a Planned Residential Development comprised of 144 Multiple Family Dwelling Units, at a net density of 11.07 dwelling units per acre. LOCATION: The two parcels combined, 3115-3205 Forest Road, total approximately 13 acres, along the north side of A-. Forest Road, west of US-127. EXISTING LAND USE: Nursery and Two Single Family Residences EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential i PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 13 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE- N: Cemetery S: Apartments (Tammany Hills) E: US-127 Expressway W: Cemetery SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District S: "CUP" District E: Unzoned public Right of Way, Land east of the expressway is zoned "F" Commercial District W: "A" Residential District PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road page 2 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Plan designates the subject property for residential development (8-14 units per acre). Forest Road is classified as a collector street and is designated as a Scenic Corridor. CASE HISTORY: A previous request to rezone this site from "A" Residential to "C" Residential was approved 11/16/98 (Z-11-98) for a Planned Residential Development (PRD-3-98) referred to as the "Hunt.Club" to develop 144 dwelling units in 16 buildings by Ted VanDeventer of Equity Max. His proposal originally was for 164 units within 18 buildings. Based on input from City Staff and neighborhood residents, the proposal was reduced to 144 units in 16 buildings at 12.63 dwelling units per acre. The rezoning request was revised to the "C" Residential District (which allows up to 13.6 units per acre) as opposed to the "DM-1" Residential District which allows up to 19.8 units pre acre. The original Hunt Club was proposed as a luxury rental project with 8 or 12 units per building and included attached garages. Staff felt the revised site plan had made better use of the land by reducing the number of units resulting in a reduction in density from 12.63 units per acre to 11.09 units per acre. Changes were also made in the amount of internal roads that circled buildings, which previously . appeared excessive. t PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road page 3 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sandspur Housing Partners, Ltd. proposes to construct an apartment complex containing 144 apartments with a net density of 11.07 dwelling units per acre. (See attached summary of project at the end of the staff report.) The proposal includes 40 one-bedroom units, 64 two-bedroom units, 32 three-bedroom units, and 8 four-bedroom units. A community building is located in the central area of the site. The retention pond located on the previous plans will be moved from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the property where a nonregulated wetland is located. The proposed bus shelter was also removed at the request of the Forest View Citizens Association. AGENCY RESPONSES: t AMERITECH TELEPHONE: (No response received.) ASSESSOR: See attached comments from John Grannell questioning the ownership of the subject site. ATTORNEY: (No response received.) F BD.OF WATER AND LIGHT: Electrical Utility- Electric Planning and Systems Studies: No objections to the proposed project. Full set of plans are necessary to develop electric distribution design for this project. A lead time of eight weeks will be required. Contact person: Bob Strobel 371-6082. Water Utility: No objection to issuance of permit. BWL Water Customer Projects needs to see owner site utilities plan to approve. Flow model will be run by BWL to identify fire flow conflict. Conflict Person: Terry Robison, 371-6494. BUILDING SAFETY: This project is subject to the departments site plan and building plan review process. Contact the Building Safety Office for specific requirements. - PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road page 4 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL- (No response received.) CODE COMPLIANCE: Similar in design and density to previous proposal. Meets minimum requirements. Will not impact Code Compliance office. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY: (No response received.) MEDIA ONE: (No response received.) DEVELOPMENT: No comment. ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: No comment. FIRE MARSHALL: Water supply must meet 1997 Uniform Fire Code fire flow requirements per table A-111-A-1. Number and location of fire hydrants to be approved per Fire Code. INGHAM CO DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) INGHAM CO. HEALTH DEPT: (No response received.) MICH. DEQ (No response received.) MICH. DNR-. (No response received.) MDOT: (No response received.) PARKS AND RECREATION: There is a concern for the amount of traffic this development will produce along Forest Road which is supposed to be a "Scenic Corridor"- This will take away from that. We would like to see a larger buffer zone along the park properties, some additional plantings and privacy fence along both common property lines. POLICE: (No response received.) PUBLIC SERVICE: The Public Service Department has no objection to .PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road . page 5 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling the proposed PRD. TRANSPORTATION: The Transportation and Parking Office has reviewed the subject request and has the following comments: 1.) A traffic impact study has been performed previously for a similar development at this location and the findings would be applicable to this development. 2.) The proposed site plan takes most of the previous comments from our office into consideration and generally looks to meet most of our requirements. 3.) Consideration should be given to accommodate buses in the design of the circle driveway for both school age children and possible future public transportation. 4.) It appears that this request can be approved with the proper planning and site design considerations. FOREST VIEW NGHB. ASSN: (No response received.) BACKGROUND: According to Chapter 1250.04(i) a Planned Residential Development may be permitted in the "C" Residential District if all the conditions described in Chapter 1280 are met. An application is required for any proposal in the "C" Residential District for development having more than one building where the land is developed as an integral unit in a single development operation. Uses permitted in a PRD according to Section 1280.04 include: a one-family dwelling; z a two-family dwelling' a townhouse; a multiple dwelling; an accessory building; a public park or playground and recreational facility; and off-street parking. _ PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road_ page 6 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling The permitted density of residential units shall be the density permitted by right in the district in which it is located. Since the property is zoned "C" Residential, the development density may go up to 18.2 dwelling units per acre. (This would be the maximum figure if all units were efficiency units.) The intent of the Planned Residential Development according to Chapter 1280.01 of the Zoning Code is "to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to encourage innovation in land use, design and type of structures constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in public services and utilities; to encourage useful open space; and to provide better housing developments which are particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the City." The PRD regulations allow a developer to construct a variety of housing units at a dwelling unit density greater than the density allowed in the zoning district if specific design standards are met and it is approved by Council. These requirements address design issues ranging from building heights and setbacks to open space and energy conservation techniques. Bonus density is not being requested for this development. Principally permitted uses in the "C" Residential District include: one family dwellings, two family dwellings, family day care, and public parks and playgrounds. Uses subject to special conditions include: Educational facilities, group day care homes, golf courses, publicly owned swimming pools, libraries, museums. Special Land Uses permitted include: churches, private clubs, governmental structures, public utilities, residential care facilities for more than six persons, cemetery, trailer camp, _ commercial greenhouse or nursery, planned residential development which meets all the conditions described in Chapter 1280 may be permitted in the "C" Residential Zoning District. .PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road . page 7 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Surrounding development consists of a Cemetery to the north and west, apartments to the south (Tammany Hills), and US-127 Expressway to the east. Further to the east, beyond the expressway, lies the University Club with the new Executive Development Center soon to be developed. The request to develop a planned residential development is generally not incompatible with the surrounding area. Densities in the area, however, are lower than the 11.07 units per acre as proposed for the Hunt Club. A low density planned residential development could serve as a logical buffer zone between the Evergreen Cemetery to the north and west and the apartment development of Tammany Hills to the south if well designed and if it is compatible with other low density planned residential developments and single and two family homes along Forest Road. Careful site design for this proposed residential development is important in ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area, making the Planned Residential Development review process important in ensuring that compatibility. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: Land use and environmental policies in the Plan stress the importance of developing in a way that is sensitive to the natural features of a site and in consideration of aesthetic quality and compatibility of the surrounding area. The site plan takes some of these environmental concerns into consideration, particularly that relate to the retention and enhancement of natural vegetation along Forest Road which is designated as a scenic corridor. The Southeast Area Plan in the Land Use and Environment Chapter on page 65 states: Policy #6: "Encourage developers to be more sensitive to natural features which might enhance new residential areas. This can be done through the site plan review process." Policy#9: "Encourage, in the appropriate locations, continued diversity in the use of land with consideration of aesthetic quality and compatibility." Staff believes the plan does demonstrates some sensitivity to natural features and to the natural vegetation along Forest Road that makes up the scenic corridor but does not meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development section of Chapter 1280.01 of the Zoning Code which is to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to _ PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road_ page 8 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling encourage innovation in land use, design and type of structures constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in public services and utilities; to encourage useful open space; and to provide better housing developments which are particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the City. While the development as proposed is consistent with the Southeast Area Plan, which designates the subject property for residential land use at a density level of 8-14 dwelling units, it does not meet the intent of Planned Residential developments and is strictly designed as a multiple family development, that offers no diversity or uniqueness in design given the amenities of the site. The property is zoned "C" Residential which would allow the proposed density. Multiple family development however is not a principally permitted use in the "C" Residential Zoning District. Several options that are currently available for the development of the subject 13 acre parcel includes: • Development of single or two family homes, with a limited number of splits in the overall parcel. • Development of a subdivision plat with single and two family residential homes. • Development of condominiums • Development of a mix of housing types that results in lower density and better use of the site that is more compatible to the area. RELATIONSHIP TO HOUSING MARKET STUDY: The Housing Market Study, recently funded and approved by City Council makes the following statements and recommendations regarding housing that would pertain to this site: • ... a substantial gap in the City's supply of upper scale homes compared to the number of households in the Tri-County area that could potentially afford such ' homes. (P. V-2) • Provide a mechanism to make infill development more acceptable to the community. Recommendation: ... require developers of larger land holdings to produce a development impact study. Such a study would identify the economic (including cost/benefit analysis), social and physical impacts upon the surrounding area and be considered by City officials as the primary basis for their decision. (p. VI-14). • Promote upscale planned residential developments (PRD). The City should restrict or highly encourage only high-end development plans for their limited acreage of available vacant parcels. Such plans can and should consider mixed- PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road_ page 9 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling income housing opportunities;however, the key element should be the construction of a high quality residential environment that rivals that found outside the City in the Tri-County area. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The generation of traffic from a low density multi-family residential development should not significantly impact traffic on Forest Road which is considered a collector street, according to the Southeast Comprehensive Plan. The site plan has designed its entrance drive to be in alignment with Staten Avenue across Forest Road. The number of parking spaces at 302 spaces as shown on the plan meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Several carport structures were located throughout the site to avoid obstructing significant views. The developer proposes a gated entry into the development to enhance a feeling of security that will be closed at night but will be accessible for emergency vehicles. The City Traffic Engineer has stated that the proposed site plan takes most of the previous comments made on the previous Hunt Club plan (by former developer). He has stated that consideration should be given to accommodating buses in the design of the circle driveway for both school age children and possible future public transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project summary gives the tabulation of building, street and other impervious coverage as follows: Total Building coverage: 1.87 acres (14.38%) Total of All Imprevious Surfaces 3.85 acres (29.62 %) Total Lot Coverage: 5.72 acres (44.00 %) Total Open Space: 7.28 acres (56.00 %) Wetland: As determined by the first Hunt Club proposal, the wetland located at the north end of the property is 1.2 acres in size. A Wetland Delineation Report by the firm, Vital ; Resources Consulting, found that the entire wetland system is estimated to be approximately four acres in size. In addition, the nearest pond, lake or stream is greater than 500 feet from the wetland feature (the nearest pond is approximately 600 feet to the south). They, therefore, concluded that it is not a regulated wetland..The site plan identifies the wetland as a part of their open space and offers some relief from developed space. PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road page 10 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling Design of Units and Overall Development: The development's architecture is a townhome style with each unit having its own individual entry. There will be a boulevard entry into the site, aligned with Staten Avenue across the street. No curb is proposed along the shoulder of Forest Road. It will be a gated community, to give a sense of privacy. Gates will be closed at night; however, emergency vehicles will be provided access. A clubhouse is central to the development, with a pool, exercise room, media room, and meeting rooms having fax machines and computers. Programming for the development includes a "Monster Club", for youngsters, with facilities for after-school activities. Forest Road is designated as a Scenic Corridor. Such streets have, according to the Ordinance, "unusual or outstanding beauty within or associated with the right of way for the use and enjoyment of local residents and public in general." A sign exists at the east end, by Collins Road, and the west end, by Aurelius Road. The Scenic Corridor ordinance, per section 1032.04 states "A Public Hearing shall be held before an act is permitted which would result in substantial damage to native vegetation in the scenic corridor's right of way." The intent of this designation is to ensure the rural, less developed character of the drive and to retain and enhance the tree canopy effect along this two lane road which has no curb and gutter. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT Opportunities exist to do a quality development on the subject 13 acres of land. Staff t believes this to be a multiple family development. The property is zoned "C" Residential for low density development that allows for single and two family homes by right, not apartment buildings. This development as proposed may lead to speculation towards more assemblage of land along Forest Road for multiple family development and this would further detract from Forest Road as a Scenic Corridor. SUMMARY The property was zoned to the "C" Residential District to accommodate the original Hunt Club proposal at 144 two-bedroom units. Staff was concerned that If the PRD was not developed, the potential would exist that a future developer could develop up to 19.8 units per acre allowed by the "DM-1" Residential Development or could develop one large apartment building by right. Options that exist with this 13 acre parcel include: • Development of single or two family homes, with a limited number of splits in the overall parcel. • Development of a subdivision plat with single and two family residential homes. • Development of condominiums • Development of a mix of housing types that results in lower density and better use PRD-1-00 3115, 3205 Forest Road page 11 Planned Residential Development- 144 Dwelling of the site that is more compatible to the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request to develop the property at 3115-3205 Forest Road for 144 units as proposed on their site plan dated 12/13/99, be denied for the reasons stated throughout this report. Respectfully submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner • Entry geometrics have been revised to provide for better circulation and preservation of large mature trees. 1 ;(D) Quantita .vq data:; . . ... ........ .... I Net Site Development Area Computation • Total Property Area by Metes and Bounds description 13.69 Acres +/- • . Less public Right of Way along Forest Road 0.58 Acres +/- • Less 60' x 80' Cellular Tower Site— northwest corner 0.11 Acres NET SITE DEVELOPMENT AREA 33.00 Acres +/- I ::::.. . ....: ................. .. ............ •, Current Zoning District for Subject Property C-Res • Net Site Development Area in Square feet 566,280 I • Proposed number of units (see mix below) 144 Units • Proposed Gross Density expressed in Units /Acre 10.52 d.u. /acre • Proposed Net Density expressed in Units /Acre 11.07 d.u. /acre I . ::..................:.::: ....A.......:....s..:. pvear.: : eered hype of crn.rt One Bedroom units 40 2,800 s.f. 112,000 s.f. Two Bedroom units 64 3,200 s.f. 204,800 s.f. I Three Bedroom units 32 4,000 s.f. 128,000 s.f. Four Bedroom units 8 4,000 s.f. 32,000 s.f. Total Units 144 Total s.f. 476,800 s.f. Irequired P�'upoe,r F.R.p� Pr 1ecax • Proposed Number of Parking Spaces 320 spaces • Proposed Structure Heights 25' Land'tfse Tabulattvn Acres % TSA • Total BUILDING Coverage 1.87 14.38 % • Total DRIVE AISLE Paved Area Coverage 1.39 10.70 % • Total PARKING AREA Coverage 1.32 10.15 % • Total — OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Coverage 1 .14 8.77 % • Total COMMON OPEN SPACE for Recreational Uses 1.45 11 .15% • Total OPEN AREAS (grass or un-paved ground plane) 5.83 44.84 % • NET SITE DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 13.00 100.00 02/08/00 Hunt Club Apartments—Lansing,MI 4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING D VISION File No. Date Submitted Check One: ❑ Pre-Application ® Development Plan To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: ❑ Plan Amendment The undersigned do hereby petition for approval of the Planned Residential Development on the following described property: Address or location of the property: 13.67 acres including 3115 Forest Road and 3205 Forest Road. P e`�se epp ttac�p�ay Lion----- i . � t.: vc� ..••� i�r «!. dr.` !f7(n'rt 'i*,f 1 .i' `,..f,`,��. 1�4�:y ti �'• Y1.4 I s, Applicant Address Phone.Number Interest in Property ame o .Mer tltlre§s (! -fM._ ,a�• .. atSt '' ` ' * tiFti Ps��1.,t3�•4- Q, Forest-Nurser�+(ff tLfferentOfi applicarit) 2U F_rest (Y51 88Z 58 Leasee ` Lansing; MI 48910 Represent Owner 3115 or ad-: :517 393=4:744 ther, specify Lansing, ' MI 4t3910 - --- . If.more space is-needed.for:the rtems fisted boi attace4�xyrar Sheets x ow, - �;� Rem den 4i tl 1 Statement descnbmg ttie proposed development an�q�ect,ves to be achieved Zy!'.3 � �tc�� -�' ..'t.!`.�r .+. _�;. t�a. ,..'.r� Development comprised of Multiple 'ataily Dwelaing` Units which has, a goa'1 ' s ----- �. .. � , S : ..-.},tir+,rt, _`.. -..ter -.:-: :'. 1,: ,.";'-:✓_, �"'r.wr'\is�• to provide upscale multple" family living. with strong integration to the surroun ing neighborhood and communi y. _ 2.:Zoning on property _^ ; Site Size (acre 13.6 7 2 0. 5 5 ' ( T, �, Street Frontage Ln'Ft. Proposed Density 1-0— 53 Units per Acre; Height of tallest Structure 25 Ft. 3. Check the following responses: _ Structure Types: Single Family❑, Two Family❑, Townhouse❑, Multiple 61 Are Residential units to be: Rental®, Condominium❑, Market rate Sales❑ Bonus Density requested Yes❑ No® Number of Bedrooms:. Bedroom No. of units Total Bedrooms Number-ot8onus Units" ,p ,� ,r'f .Eff�crergYi M� r_� Total number of PRD units QQ_ One Bedroom `40 —�l0 Number of accessible onsite parking Two Bedroom 64 12 RThree Bedroom a 6 spaces Four Bedroom 8 32 ❑ Check here If Nonresidential uses proposed Describe Number of accessible onsite parking spaces ❑ Check here if Accessory Struturesprropose_ d ---- Describe Clubho nr s;,dents ' ,„sP _ -- _ PRD- 'D Form 7-83 M VJ CD CD N 7 O (D Q 2. 7 p _0 `, 0 (D . Z m n M -1 r 00 Z Z o Z ��' '� F` r R• Y � ` _.}r. r l '4,r Y`t.\ *..:f. 1. s .-..Hc1 S`1 r "rt �' 1' f CN, 1 t •�` '�,��"`..' '�+��. +�%�r}}�V �y'7iJJrr 4 �^'Et 7 r t � •' T - 1 cY tip .: • �..,.s.�; rt, f W t`Frt1' �'Tr=fi �T'C K F� v y._ Y� t�,-. r��,� { s � ' :. Y' - I ` '# �;5. r 1 6. Was a Pre-Application Conference held with the Planning Division? Yes ® No❑ 0. ' ..b=:Are s t�etwieen . �..: ;:.,• r there b ange he Pre application and the Development Plan es ' < Please see attached description Descnbe the� anges , r K R. Yj r kC;s t -.l.Y'. < y Y _ r .� t•F�.�by'ti �F � n" 'J� s + r")' 110 s;. :i?i'y z.N si-"�-K{;41Y•2,ttx.}[iut�l e*.y"fa,d '...�jiT+7 f. ��>fi�F rz Srr t.:i Yid � �:,t�f-„s ` ?�:'Y.... 7 a ubtliGfsiOn plat Bing proposed � .{• V w�*,11 ,y 'v'.�►;t"S• :,ty: 'f�,{.,� Check'if s�fre;eta are_ptwat fl, dedicated Q.' " 'r '`"` �' is Check If`park sand is to be dedicated 0. 'C6mments ori'circumstanoes which )UStify this amendment' 9. Items to be Submitted: -Quantitative Data IAW Section 36.16.2 -Site Plan-Reproducible IAW Section 36.16.2 n.Landscape,Screening and Buffering Plan.IAW Section 36146 y ��Energy�Cohsery tion an IAW Section 36:16:4 (11);,; NO -Flood Plain Information when applicable including copies of permits. Please have this petition reviewed by the Planning Division prior to filing it with the City Clerk. .. f1l"', - nature of Applicant) For assistance, please contact the Planning Division, Phone,(517) 48$-4066 • ' fit, 71, ti' '+fib ��`;r;' .:1.�':, ` L• +'- •,j >~•til'•44t�y �''r•. .Vr.`y ., '.,•. ka)`i�.cr ri}•h .►,•tr::,�Li w i i�� '',���4 •a� • '� ' � ��M ��,(Y.. �,�, �Z4 a�t L' lad\Y�'yML'.iT�a ,�'`,', � L..�_ .f • `° 4^ii+,� .' !i ��. •�, r-45 o-"C'C:.�ti7 1� { ,I f :�J ;a'ti �rr..vai• �� "i '- p'1 �O�T:.! f�3'� a `�•A ybf. � ' S ,�i " 4ti='k:n.�.v'~:�••* T \ �t�„�J r:.;t'.f�.�! t e� .:E•1T.. 1,?l:'i3•• f . _ - af.. . i. ��•7 as. _ - • ~ tr• C'`,r':.i,.� vn\f 0 .,y:'ys f• y �•yv, + •`•Ln'S.Y �i�r n'''��" �+ .. •, L •r aA� :_r,gib �u.r -..;_�` '�...�,�'. `.� .1 r �..�� a:'Y� 1✓° �y;. - IC "•� �a reps� � h�f..+..1. 7,,. .i icv _:• ry-•. M.•.�j;.'04'A Yy� � tr. g •{j-.'.,,•• a r �Q.... � �'... tq"{ t�z, la:,.�,r 4 �; 4.. -'� ,i•' y. qb 4g'L•~\1.• t rF ...e �Jr �Y4 � _ '^�r_. "•' S'� �i 'a s. .:��`» .�%. ••. .. i .4 � .ram. l E I i t•� - - Er fv"n Comet" Building Unit>Schedule ---1- ' -1.1.1 LaM PWWng ,. _� ^�^+ ".��� ^Wr*r w• �.....•.ter.r� Sd-Daflgn f w r.Mrprrrr,-9, WY • Ir"�AM� •r..�•�r rr Rop.0 Yd Sgnitiurr,PMYr"Iw S,b4 M.rrMnr„of 1 iTM1 ri Cm C~ Twr n1Y C r..-.��....v.rr '•�(l.q]=Fabf rArr�rw ena, C• Tww —_ _ l J� ./I�.//��//�� rr�R•rw r....��.r.i.rr I♦ /mom \�.A!�I�M \ C.POR(I/p10 • rrr�r••rr n��r..a rr I AmU 1^1NNNYVY�� R 11"��trr r.�r.r•a r rKwtr.cr. =lornrr•4 i ------ o.,.r,arn I Q � ....r,,.. n.--.�...r..r 2 SITE ` General Site Data Viclnity I �r � rr�s.wr cwrrr,r Rrr, __d{! /�� ,' s'rrr � n•r�+ram arm. •rrrrr.,rr � w.r�.rn•r=rrrwr c T.LM u!w(•rr r rry Jl1f� G � � "Y,r�rr•rr• �T�1•W � w - Preliminary •r+"r•R..tir....... ,r.,,�.,,� Site Plan _�.-..•.,... •Parking Lot Shoebox rrr,«wr.r..rr•r� yrnM,fM: ~ Hunt Club Apartments - - as.P.,r.,. "^r.M1�•,.aer� Laming,MIchlgnr — 1 �.��� prP•rM/ -�cnbn Plant Legend - ..w".1,r«ED "" (YT)1r1�l0= E G� " •ro l�~r r Decorative Acorn Fixture t NTi1M Fwv Rwa.•a n.we.- - - --- — -Forest Road — —°��'� — _ Ap.er�m H,I i F-4•E F►kp , - S Mr.w1.serrc cdn�rlua d•=o E—. Pa—o•m,,,,,,LVA Mr) � —I— F�,,., Conceptual Sign Detail Bkr Lrw E b Er a...a. Pbaa••4 9lgfrq, _ . DMwR4rrE bl P-_ larrbup•/1ICMefI b FI•N �L�� '•� ®® L Multiple Family Houslno 0 25 so ,00 200 300 Nerth SF Z-5-2000 "DM-4" Residential District to "D-2" Residential/Office District 220 N. Sycamore Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER: John F. Fox 1259 Blanchette Drive E. Lansing, MI 48823 EXISTING ZONING: "DM-4" Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: "D-2" Residential/Office District EXISTING LAND USE: Two-family (duplex) dwelling unit PROPOSED LAND USE: Mixed: office on first floor and residential apartment on upper floors PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 60 feet by 165 feet (8926 square feet actual size) see Figure 2, Site Plan SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residence, Residential Group Home, Residential/Office mixed use structure S: Parking lot E: Office W: Single family residence, Residential/Office mixed use structure ' SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "D-2" Residential/Office District S: "J" Parking District E: "D-1" Professional Office District W: "DM-3" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Amendment Plan, Future Land Use Map, indicates the subject property designated for mixed residential/office uses. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This request is to rezone the lot "D-2" Residential/Office District to permit conversion of a two- family, or duplex dwelling unit into a mixed use structure with an office on the ground floor and a residential apartment on the upper floors. The subject property contains,approximately six off-street parking spaces in addition to a three car garage. AGENCY RESPONSES: ASSESSOR: No comment. Z-5-2000 220 N. Sycamore Street page 2 "DM-4" Residential District to "113-2" Residential/Office District BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: Electric No objections to rezoning property. Water No comment. Steam No comment. BUILDING SAFETY: The purpose of this E-mail is to address your multi-agency referral sheet pertaining to Z-5-2000. The office has no objection to the request. The request is however subject to the City's site plan and plan review processes. There are several issues which arise when this conversion is contemplated, they are as follows: A one-hour occupancy separation is required between the residential and the business. If there are more than 2 units a certain percentage of units have to be accessible to the handicapped. A barrier free design rule exception is necessary for construction should your project not comply j with this requirement. The exiting systems must be separated, that is to say the residential exit may not go through the commercial unit. The occupant load will determine the number of exits from the second floor. I would suggest that the owner request that his design professional contact the Building Safety Office for consultation. DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: No comment. EDC/TIFA: EDC has no objection to the rezoning as proposed. FIRE MARSHALL: Applicant has smoke detection. GENESEE NEIGHBORHOOD: G.N.A. does not oppose this rezoning. We do believe the "highest and best" use of the property is residential. The other properties on this block have a mixed use, this € rezoning would be consistent with the current use of the other properties. Signed Antonia Miernik, President G.N.A. LANSING NGHBHD COUNCIL: No response received. LANSING POLICE DEPT.: No response received. PUBLIC SERVICES : No response received. Z-5-2000 220 N. Sycamore Street page 3 "DM-4" Residential District to "D-2" Residential/Office District PRINCIPAL SHOPPING DISTRICT: No response received. TRANSPORTATION: No response received. Description of Site The subject property is currently used as a two-family residential structure. The subject property was constructed around 1900, and has a carriage house (converted to a three car garage) in addition to six off-street parking spaces (see Figure 2, Site Plan). Adjacent to and north of the subject property are three structures (see Figure 1, Area Map): a single family structure that is used as a residential care facility (zoned "D-2"), a single family home (zoned "D-4"), and a residential conversion used as an office on the ground floor and an apartment on the upper floor (zoned "D-2"). South of the subject property is a parking lot (zoned "J"), and a high rise apartment building (zoned Community Unit Plan). East of the subject property are several residential structures which have been converted to office uses (zoned D-1). West across Sycamore Street is another residential care facility (zoned "DM-3") and a converted office/residential structure (zoned "D-2") Approximately one-half of the block which contains the subject property has been rezoned from residential zoning to office zoning or mixed residential/office zoning. Comparison of "DM-4" and "D-2" Districts Although there are many similarities in the uses permitted in the "DM-4" and "D-2" districts, 3 there are some significant differences. The intent of the DM-4 Residential District is to permit the construction or conversion of structures for high-rise dwellings which may be developed at a net density ranging from 31 .1 dwelling units per acre to 87.1 dwelling units per acre. The intent of the D-2 Residential/Office District is to permit the construction or conversion of structures for combined office and residential use, primarily in the central area, provided that the residential character of the structure and the parcel is retained. For example; both districts permit single family and multiple family structures, however, the "DM-4" district allows an overall residential density up to 87 units per acre, while the "D-2" District only permits an overall residential density up to 19 units per acre. In addition, the "DM- 4" district permits lodging houses, nursing homes, hospitals, schools, and churches. The "D-2" district essentially permits office use of up to 50% of a residential structure and residential use of the balance of the structure. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The majority of properties in the subject block have been converted from one or two family homes into either offices or mixed office/residential use. The proposed rezoning is consistent Z-5-2000 220 N. Sycamore Street page 4 "DM-4" Residential District to "D-2" Residential/Office District with this trend. In addition, the site already possesses adequate off-street parking to accommodate any office use that would fit into the first floor of the house. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic, as the off-street parking lot and its driveway onto Sycamore Street already exist. While the driveway access onto Sycamore Street is currently one-way exiting onto Sycamore Street, converting the driveway to permit a two-way entrance is reasonable with the proper design improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The building and parking area are already developed, and the plans do not indicate that expansion is anticipated. Currently, the actual building coverage ration of the site is 22% (40% is permitted), and the overall lot coverage ratio is 541/2% (60% is permitted). If the applicant should require expansion of the parking area in the future, it would be subject to site plan review to insure any work met lot coverage and storm water requirements. In addition, the proposed "D-2" zoning district is more restrictive regarding the modifications that can be made to the exterior appearance of the structure: the "D-2" district requires Planning Department review of any modifications to the exterior building facade; the "DM-4" district does not have this restriction. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This development has little impact on future patterns of development because the River Island Amendment Plan has already addressed the future patterns of development for the neighborhood, and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting rezoning to "D-2" Residential/Office District to permit conversion of a two-family dwelling unit into a mixed use structure with an office on the ground floor and a residential apartment on the upper floors. The "D-2" Residential/Office District is in many ways more restrictive than the property's current zoning of "DM-4" Residential District. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the River Island Amendment Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner April 7, 2000 Z-5-2000.FE.wpd r � I ■ l PARKING film I I I i . F16v��2 For: SITS VZ.,� Survey Address: Hager Fox Electric - 220 N. Sycamore 1137 Hoco Drive L's 2D0 d Lansing, Ml Lansing, MI 48912 Legal Description (as provided): The North 1/2 of Lot 10, and the South 12 feet of the East 70 feet of Lot 11, and the West 95 feet of the South 27.8 feet of Lot 11, Block 91, Original Plat of the City of Lansing, according to the recorded plat thereof, as contained in Liber 2 of Plats, Pages 36. 37, and 38, Ingham County Records. Subject to easements and rectrictions of record. E SHED CURB STONE WALL R12'I GARAGE 20' x 30' I i. ::ct:: .'.. ... :. .:.::.:. : : 1 = 30 s .... .... .........c: :....E. :::.,: : :JOINT:: ................................. DRIVE:: R15.8 (:. L,., ...........LOT II o LOT ` 10 J in 27.6 ao 5' in ..... ............. ...... .............. LOTSURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXACT LOCATION OF FENCE, 'n .4 ASPHALT, AND PROPERTY LINES. HOUSE � L N 20't 32' R27.8 R33� CURB SYCAMORE STREET This report Is Intended solely for mortgage purposes and no property lines were monumented. No dimensions hereon .. ►.� ..__a . _.. ��� .____�.. --- -- APPROVED JUNE 6, 2000 WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Draft to Clerk 05312000 Approved 06062000 To Clerk 06302000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: Vice Chairman Keene called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith; five members present. Absent: Nischan. Two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Nischan requested and was granted an exc(Aed absence. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA -Mr. Ruff noted Item 7.B.2.D. should read NCU-6- 2000. Regarding item 4.A. LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest, a lot split on for hearing tonight, the packet contains a complete report so that it could be considered by the Committee of the Whole or reported by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee tonight. With those amendments, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum dated May 4, 2000 to Planning Board from William C. Rieske RE: Committee of the Whole Item -Act-14-99, 100 Blk. W. Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled February 16, 1999) 4. HEARINGS A. LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request for a lot split at 1708 Hillcrest Street. Mr. James Bowden, the owner, is requesting a variance from a design requirement of the Subdivision Regulation to divide property at 1708 Hillcrest Street and combine a portion with the lot at 1702 Hillcrest Street. The majority of properties fronting along Hillcrest Street between Christiansen Road and Marland Drive have lots that are 306 ft deep. This lot split will adjust the dimensions of two existing parcels. Parcel A will be 66 ft x 306 ft with a width-of-depth ratio of 1 A.64. Parcel B will be approximately 66 ft wide in front, 132 ft wide in back and 280 ft deep with a width-to-depth ratio of 1:4.64. Both parcels exceed the width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5 as in Section 1236.08(d). The physical character of this area along Hillcrest Street will not change as a result of this lot split. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 2 Approximately 82 percent of properties on this block face have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width-to-depth ratio. The 20,529 sq ft of property to be added to Parcel B, located at 1702 Hillcrest Street, will create a flag lot 66 ft wide in front, 132 ft wide in back, and 306 ft deep. MARTHA BOWDEN, 2726 W. HOLT RD., MASON. We purchased the property. There is a flag portion. We plan on selling the flag portion to the people in front. That will make the portion more in compliance with the other lots. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest and referred to the Committee of the Whole to be taken up this evening. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) GENE MELLEN, 609 WEST STREET, LANSING, REPRESENTING FRANKLIN STREET COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION REGARDING NCU-6-2000.. We hope to purchase this property. We could restore it in case of fire. It is a new venture with us. We are working with the Police Dept. to promote a sense of security. I am the secretary of the organization, and past president (last year). Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the Comments section closed. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: April 18, 2000 - distributed at meeting of May 2, 2000. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of April 18, 2000, without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of April 18, 2000, were APPROVED. May 2, 2000. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve the minutes of May 2, 2000 with the following correction: Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N yAYE. With that correction, on a voice vote, there were: Ayes: AII; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of May 2, 2000 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 3 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole to consider Act-14-99, 100 Block W. Elm Street, Sale of Property. Mr. Ruge assumed the gavel. 1. Act-14-99, 100 Block W. Elm Street, Sale of Property. Mr. Ruff said since this is a tax-reverted parcel, we could exchange it and not have to pay off the tax liability on the property. It would preserve more river frontage. It was the preferred method, and it would consolidate Mr. Ramont's land and also give the City some staging land when the Elm Street Bridge is rebuilt. Mr. Ruge asked about the current public use restrictions that would apply to this property. Mr. Ruff explained that the requirements that are on the property we would get from the state (the 33 ft that we acquired) would transfer. We would not trade them to Mr. Ramont. If the City wanted to sell the property, they would have to repay the state. Ms. Patrick said this was just the kind of solution that the City and the Board was looking for. "I compliment Mr. Ruff and the staff on finding another alternative. It is good for the community and the neighborhood." Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to adopt the staff recommendation for approval of Act-14-99, 100 Block W. Elm Street, Sale of Property, for trading the parcels as outlined and in accord with the staff recommendations and all of the conditions and use restrictions that will go into the deed. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-14-99, 100 Block W. Elm Street, Sale of Property was recommended to be APPROVED. 2. LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest Mr. Ruff presented the request, an application by Mr. James Bowden III for a lot split of the north 156 ft and east 132 ft (20,593 sq ft) from Parcel A located at 1708 Hillcrest Street. This will reduce the size of the lot to approximately 66 ft x 306 ft. The 20,529 sq ft of property will be added to Parcel B, located at 1702 Hillcrest Street, creating a flag lot that is 66 ft wide in front, 132 ft wide in back, and 306 ft deep. The lot split will adjust the dimensions of the two existing parcels. Parcel A will be 66 ft x 306 ft with a width-to-depth ratio of 1.4.64. Parcel B will be approximately 66 ft wide in front, 132 ft wide in back, and 280 ft deep PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 4 with a width-to-depth ratio of 1.4.64. Both parcels exceed the width-to- depth ratio of 1:2.5 ft in Section 1236.08(d). The physical character of this area along Hillcrest Street will not change as a result of this lot split. Approximately 82 percent of properties on this block face have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width-to-depth ratio. This lot split will not impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation. No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. Staff recommends approval of this variance request to exceed the maximum width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, that LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest be approved. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest was recommended to be APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, that the Committee of the Whole arise; on a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; the Committee of the Whole arose. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee of the Whole met this evening and considered the following items. a. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property This matter was tabled by the Planning Board on February 15, 2000. The Urban Development Committee had recommended approval of the Parks and Recreation Department's proposal to sell property in the 100 Block of W. Elm to Shaye Ramont, owner of Grand Auto, on the corner of South Washington and W. Elm, in the River Point neighborhood. The subject property is a tax-reverted parcel acquired from the State of Michigan. Grand Auto is located to the east, and to the west are two parcels owned by Mr. Ramont and the City of Lansing, respectively. The Board tabled the item to allow Jim Ruff to receive a letter from Mr. Ramont and to discuss options for retaining PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 5 the use of the property (if sold) during the Elm Street Bridge reconstruction. Discussions with Mr. Ramont and the State of Michigan opened the possibility of trading properties, which was previously ruled out due to restrictions on tax-reverted property. We learned that the subject parcel can be traded, on a front foot basis, with the west 33 ft of Mr. Ramont's parcel to the west, and both Ramont and the State of Michigan are agreeable to such a transaction. In this manner, both properties could consolidate their properties more efficiently, resulting in a win-win situation. The City would wind up with a parcel with over 85 ft of river frontage, and 60 ft of contiguous frontage on Elm Street. Staff recommends that a trade of the City parcel (PPN 3301- 21-178-021) for the west 33 ft of the Ramont parcel (PPN 3301-21-178-011) be approved. Use restrictions which prohibit billboards, outdoor storage, and junk vehicles, and requiring landscaping and site plan review should be applied to the City's current property prior to the trade. After the trade, the current public use restrictions would apply to the City's newly acquired property. Mr. Ruge 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-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . Aye Smith. . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property was APPROVED. b. LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest This is a request for a lot split by Mr. James Bowden III to divide property at 1708 Hillcrest Street and combine a portion with the lot at 1702 Hillcrest Street. Section 1236.07(d) of the Subdivision Regulations allows a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 6 maximum lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. The two proposed lots will have a lot width-to-depth ratio of 1 A.64. Therefore, a variance to the Subdivision Regulations is required in accordance with Section 1236.11 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the proposed lot split would be compatible with the existing residential uses and comparable in size with the surrounding residential lots. The Southwest Area Comprehensive plan designates this area for residential use and therefore is consistent with the Master Plan. This lot division will not change the residential character of the area. The location, size and character are reasonable and comparable to other lots in the area. The proposed split would be harmonious with the neighborhood. A new single-family home is being completed on the property at 1708 Hillcrest Street. Mr. Ruge 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 LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest Street. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Patrick . . Ave Ruge . . Aye Smith. .Aye Frederick Aye Keene. Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; LS-10-2000, 1708 Hillcrest Street was APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The following item was tabled October 15, 1997 and subsequently removed from the table and addressed on May 10, 2000. a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District This is a request by Jeffrey E. Poorman, representing E.F. Solomon, to rezone property at the northwest corner of Cavanaugh and Aurelius Road from "F" Commercial District to "G-2" Wholesale District. The applicant is proposing to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 7 construct 30,000 to 40,000 sq ft of self-storage warehouse space. The proposed change from "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District is not consistent with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, which calls for commercial development on the northwest corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee on October 15, 1997, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report. The Committee moved to deny; however, Mr. Poorman requested the Committee to consider modifying the Code to allow self-storage warehouses as a special land use in the "F" District by adding restrictive conditions. Subsequently, some additional discussions took place between the applicant and the Planning Office; however, in general the applicant has been unresponsive. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, recommended denial of the request to rezone the vacant property from T" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to deny Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ruge . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District was recommended to be DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 8 b. NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration Currently, both properties are used for single-family residential purposes, but are zoned "F" Commercial District, which makes their use nonconforming with the Zoning Code. The applicant proposes to refinance the mortgage on the properties and possibly make repairs and improvements that would exceed the limits permitted for a Class B Nonconforming use as specified by Chapter 1294 of the Zoning Code. The requested Class A Nonconformity designation would permit the owner to make necessary repairs and improvements to the property. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and further added a time limit to the necessary improvements. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration with the condition that the property be brought into compliance with all City codes and ordinances within one year of the date of approval. Some additional information was provided just before the meeting that the siding on the first floor front of one of the units is unsightly and should be replaced with something other than the present T-111. That should be accomplished within one year of date of approval. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration with two conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge was concerned for a couple reasons, first, he does not think nonconforming uses should be given to properties if they are inappropriately zoned. In this case, we have two properties that the Master Plan indicates should remain residential. It is inappropriate that these properties are zoned "F" Commercial. The properties should be zoned with a residential zoning. Second, he is concerned because this entire corner was zoned commercial, so if somebody wanted to purchase these houses and put in a commercial use, the City could not stop it even though that would be counter to the Master Plan. "I strongly believe that these should be rezoned to a residential use instead of being given a nonconforming use." Mr. Ruge has no objection to the owner PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 9 rehabilitating the properties or using them as residential, but he believes they should be zoned residentially. Mr. Frederick asked what would be the appropriate zoning? Mr. Ruff said something similar to what exists north of the sites, either "C" or "B" Residential, something that would be consistent with the rest of the block north of the Commercial district. The zoning line changes back to residential at the dashed line north of the sites. South of the line is "F" Commercial. Lot sizes would pretty much prohibit conversion to two- family if it were zoned "C". Mr. Frederick asked, as a matter of procedure, if the Board could deny the motion on the floor and entertain a motion to rezone the property appropriately? Mr. Ruff said, since the Board is not opposed to the owner restoring the property, merely relay the information to the owner. The Class A could be approved with the recommendation that the property be rezoned. Staff gave him that recommendation because the site is surrounded by commercially-zoned property; that is why the NCU was proposed over the rezoning, because it did not abut residentially-zoned land. This owner does not own all the commercially zoned land, so we could not consolidate the zoning. It would look more like a spot zoning if that was our recommendation at this time. "My recommendation would be to approve the Class A with the recommendation that the owner apply for rezoning." Mr. Ruge did not want to delay the owner from making his improvements. If we just make a recommendation for the owner to seek a rezoning, "I don't see it happening." Ms. Patrick asked if the Board could request the rezoning. Mr. Ruff said City Council would have to do that. Practically, unless a large area is involved, we prefer not to do that because it removes the initiative from the owner, and also because of the expense involved. "We spend about $2,300 in hard costs" on a rezoning. The fee is nominal compared to that. A future rezoning could be made a requirement of the Class A. Mr. Ruge said he would be amenable to allowing the owner to go forward with his plans as long as one of the conditions is that he file for a rezoning within 90 days. Mr. Frederick accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene said the owner has followed through on recommendations. He has worked diligently with staff. "I don't feel comfortable asking him to do more than what he has already done. I would be inclined to go with the NCU which staff has recommended." Mr. Smith agreed with Ms. Keene. Ms. Patrick said she would vote in favor of the NCU rather than rezoning it to residential. We have an applicant willing to bring the property up to code and make it habitable. Mr. Frederick's motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, was to approve NCU-4-2000 with two conditions: (1) that the structure be brought into compliance with all city codes and ordinances within one year of the date of approval and (2) that T-111 siding be replaced on the first floor of the structure having it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 10 Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick . . Aye Ruge . . Nay Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; NCU-4-2000, 815-817 E. Grand River, Class A - Restoration with two conditions as follows: (1). That the structure be brought into compliance with all city codes and ordinances within one year of the date of approval, and (2). That T-111 siding be replaced with siding similar to the rest of the house on the first floor of the structure having it was APPROVED. C. NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building The subject property/building is classified as a Group 3, Class B Nonconformity. The building was originally constructed as a commercial structure, but is located in the "B" Residential District. In the rear of the site is a gravel parking area large enough for two or three vehicles. The requested Class A Nonconformity designation would permit the owner to make repairs and improvements to the property. Staff recommends approval of the request for Class A status subject to the following conditions: (1). No outdoor storage of materials, equipment or vehicles be permitted on the site. (2). Hours of operation within the structure be limited. (3). That all front yard parking be eliminated and that the front yard be appropriately sodded and/or landscaped. (4). The fencing around the parking lot area be replaced with a solid wood fence of a design approved by the Planning Department. (5). That the parking area in the rear of the building be hard-surfaced and all storm water drainage be directed away from adjacent properties. The Committee discussed the need to make physical improvements to the property, to prevent front yard parking, and to clean up the site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 11 It was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building; carried, unanimous, 3-0; with the following six conditions. (1). No outdoor storage of materials, equipment or vehicles be permitted on the site. (2). Hours of operation within the structure be limited (7 a.m.-7 p.m. Monday through Saturday). (3). That all front yard parking be eliminated and that the front yard be appropriately sodded and/or landscaped. (4). The fencing around the parking lot area be replaced with a solid wood fence of a design approved by the Planning Department. (5). That the parking area in the rear of the building be hard-surfaced and all storm water drainage be directed away from adjacent properties. (6). That the building only be used for office use and minor parts storage (this does not allow activities such as machining, metalworking, or repairing of materials or equipment). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked about elimination of all front yard parking. On a corner lot like this, would parking be eliminated on two sides adjacent to the street? Mr. Ruff said here it would be between the building and the street on the two yards. The proposal is to get the parking behind the building, fence the yard area appropriately, and eliminate the parking from between the building and the sidewalk. It is dug up right now anyway, with the sewer work. Mr. Ruge asked if, to enforce the no front yard parking, could the curb cuts be eliminated? Mr. Frederick and Ms. Patrick accepted the request as a friendly amendment, (7). Elimination of curb cuts to prevent parking in the front yard. Mr. Ruge asked who would bear the cost of eliminating the curb cuts. Mr. Ruff said if Public Service is replacing curb and gutter near this property, they could do it at that time. If it is not being replaced, then the owner would bear the responsibility. There is a curb cut on the Lake Lansing side. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 12 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Aye Smith. . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; NCU-5-2000, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, Class A, Improvements to Commercial Building with seven conditions as follows: (1). No outdoor storage of materials, equipment or vehicles be permitted on the site. (2). Hours of operation within the structure be limited; (3). That all front yard parking be eliminated and that the front yard be appropriately sodded and/or landscaped; (4). The fencing around the parking lot area be replaced with a solid wood fence of a design approved by the Planning Department; (5). That the parking area in the rear of the building be hard-surfaced and all storm water drainage be directed away from adjacent properties; (6). That the building only be used for office use and minor parts storage (this does not allow activities such as machining, metalworking, or repairing of materials or equipment); and (7). Elimination of curb cuts to prevent parking in the front yard was APPROVED. d. NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration The applicant requests Class A Nonconforming status for a structure at 512 W. Saginaw Street to provide substantial renovation to an eleven-unit apartment building in a "DM-3" Residential District. The property is nonconforming due to lot area, setbacks and parking and therefore is limited to 35 percent of the value of the structure for repairs. The Committee members discussed parking. It could be a problem even with a limitation on each apartment lease for one vehicle per unit. Further, members expressed concern regarding the lack of safe play space on the property. The rear parking area is very compact with no place to play, and the front yard abutting Saginaw Street does not appear to be an appropriate location for children. The applicant has been looking to expand the site if possible to provide play space but so far has not been successful. Apparently, there is some other parking available at Quality Dairy, but it is an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 13 informal agreement and there is nothing in writing allowing the tenants or visitors to park there. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended approval with conditions. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration, with the following conditions: 1. Leases for apartment rental shall limit the number of vehicles per apartment to one. 2. The exterior landscape and buffering, including the fence, shall be repaired and/or replaced in accordance with plans approved by the Department. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration with conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked if there was a reason why the additional parking that the church and Quality Dairy said they would allow the apartment to use was not required to be in writing. Ms. Keene said it was just an informal agreement. They had no real commitment from either Quality Dairy or from the church. It was not made a condition because there was not a formal arrangement for that to happen. Mr. Ruff noted that the applicant stated at the meeting that there was one tenant who had two vehicles, but a number of the tenants have no vehicles, so it balanced out well for them on-site under present conditions. The condition would make sure that the balance was maintained even though there was no formal agreement with the church or Quality Dairy. The church is across Saginaw Street, not right there where it would be easy to use. For an agreement to be binding, it would have to have some remuneration. Ms. Keene added that liability issues could arise. Because many tenants take the bus and have no vehicles, parking has not been a problem. Mr. Ruge said his concern was about visitor parking. One tenant having a party could have visitors blocking everybody else's parking space. If the applicant had approached the church and the church replied they could not provide the parking, "I would be a little more sympathetic, but just to assume that they could not get permission in writing, I just don't agree with that." Mr. Ruge said in some instances the Board has required legally binding agreements. Just a letter from the church saying if you have a problem with parking, people can park in our parking lot here would be sufficient. The applicant said the organization would be happy to pursue the letter of intent if that is a condition of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 14 approval. Mr. Ruge said given their willingness to pursue a letter of intent, he would ask that it be a requirement. Mr. Frederick and Mr. Smith accepted the friendly amendment that the applicant get in writing from the church an indication of their willingness to allow parking for tenants. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Ruge . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; NCU-6-2000, 512 W. Saginaw Street, Class A for Restoration with three conditions as follows: 1. Leases for apartment rental shall limit the number of vehicles per apartment to one. 2. The exterior landscape and buffering, including the fence, shall be repaired and/or replaced in accordance with plans approved by the Department. 3. The applicant shall get in writing from the church an indication of their willingness to allow parking for tenants was APPROVED e. SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Laura Nash and Rick Bellingar for a Special Land Use permit to relocate an existing hair clinic at 1020 E. Saginaw to 1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a barber/beauty shop in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Section 1260.04(I) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a barber/beauty shop with City Council approval of a Special Land Use permit. The proposed special land use permit is compatible with adjacent properties. The proposed special land use should not change the character of the area. The use of the building for a barber/beauty shop should not have an adverse impact or interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. The property is in the floodway, and any proposed improvements may require flood proofing. There are no adverse impacts on public services and utilities. The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District regulations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 15 In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District with the following conditions: 1. All improvements meet flood plain regulations which may require flood proofing. 2. A landscape screening and buffering plan be submitted to improve the appearance and buffering of the site. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; SLU-4-2000,1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in "D-1" Professional Office District with two conditions as follows: (1). All improvements meet flood plain regulations which may require flood proofing; (2). A landscape screening and buffering plan be submitted to improve the appearance and buffering of the site was recommended for APPROVAL. f. SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts The applicant is proposing to build-out 3,000 sq ft of commercial space located at 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The church consists of office space, classrooms, and sanctuary seating for 60 persons. Staff recommended tabling the Special Land Use permit until the site plan is reviewed by Transportation and the parking issue is resolved, but the Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report except that it desired to not table the item pending traffic PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 16 review and added a condition to compensate for whatever number of parking spaces were permitted on site. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0), to approve SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts, with the following four conditions. a. The peak hours of operation of the church do not overlap with the peak hours of any of the other uses in the shopping center. b. The parking lot be reconfigured and striped to meet City standards. C. The existing sign be removed and the applicant apply for a permit to erect a new sign that will meet the sign code. d. The usable floor area of the building, including the church, shall not exceed the approved parking. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts with the above four conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge noted that these strip malls have parking requirements, and churches have a different parking requirement--one parking space is required for every six linear feet of pew or three seats in the main hall of worship. Mr. Ruff said the parking requirement is for the shopping center requirement. It is still a shopping center. If there is x amount of square footage for, say 20 parking spaces, times the 110 (square feet required for one parking space), that is the total usable square footage in the center that is allowed. The other two uses have small public areas that would be counted for usable square footage. That has to be evaluated once we know how many parking spaces are allowed. According to the original site plan, it was 19 spaces, so 19 x 110 sq ft would be the amount of square footage that would be allowed. The fourth condition is a standard zoning requirement. It is added here for clarification. Mr. Ruge asked if the property owner would be required to reconfigure the parking lot according to the Transportation Engineer's standards? Mr. Ruff said striping could be required regardless of the special land use. Ms. Keene said this possibility was discussed at the meeting. Thus far the owner has been very supportive and had been willing to make a number of changes. This was the request of the tenant and not necessarily that of the owner. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 17 RuQe . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-7-2000, 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts with four conditions as follows: (1). The peak hours of operation of the church do not overlap with the peak hours of any of the other uses in the shopping center. (2). The parking lot be reconfigured and striped to meet City standards. (3). The existing sign be removed and the applicant apply for a permit to erect a new sign that will meet the sign code. (4). The usable floor area of the building, including the church, shall not exceed the approved parking was recommended for APPROVAL. g. Z-6-2000, 1144-11461/ N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District The structure at 1144 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is currently a single-family residential structure, but is zoned "F" Commercial District. The structure at 1146 and 1146'/ is a two-family residential structure, which is also zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting rezoning of these properties to "C" Residential District, which is more consistent with the use of the properties. The structure at 1144 N. Pennsylvania was constructed in 1870; 1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania was constructed in 1922. Both are on very small lots with limited space available for off-street parking. The subject property is currently two separate lots of record. In addition, because the lot size of the property at 1146 and 1146'/z N. Pennsylvania is smaller than required for a duplex dwelling unit in the "C" Residential District, this structure will also require designation as a Class A Nonconformity by the Planning Board. The case number for the request for Class A status is NCU-3-2000. The Committee members discussed the location of this property in relation to the zoning patterns and other uses. Further, they discussed the need to improve the parking PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 18 situation, yet refrain from using too much asphalt and making the property more impervious to water absorption. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and recommended that the parking area be improved with an approved granular material such as crushed limestone to allow water absorption. The driveway may need improvement with asphalt or concrete as well. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve Z-6-2000, 1144-1146'/ N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-6-2000, 1144-1146% N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-6-2000, 1144-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District was recommended for APPROVAL h. NCU-3-2000,1146-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A Restoration The structure at 1146 and 11461/2 is a two-family residential structure which is also zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting rezoning of this property to "C" Residential District. Because of the lot size of the property at 1146 and 1146% N. Pennsylvania is smaller than required for a duplex dwelling unit in the "C" Residential District, this structure will also require designation as a Class A Nonconformity by the Planning Board. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve NCU-3-2000, 1146-1146'/ N. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 19 Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A - Restoration with the following conditions: a. Approval of the Class A Nonconforming status be conditional upon adoption of Z-6-2000 by City Council. b. The off-street parking area be surfaced with material that not only provides a dust-free surface, but also is permeable to rainwater. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve NCU-3-2000, 1146-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A - Restoration. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; NCU-3-2000, 1146-1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Class A - Restoration with conditions as follows: (1). Approval of the Class A Nonconforming status be conditional upon adoption of Z-6-2000 by City Council. (2). The off-street parking area be surfaced with material that not only provides a dust-free surface, but also is permeable to rainwater was APPROVED. i. Z-7-2000, 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 and 2726 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District In Committee, in order to allow the Urban Development Committee to review the Master Plan Amendment and Act 285 request, this item was TABLED. Next meeting Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 3. Urban Development Committee Next meeting Tuesday, June 26, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol, Department Conference Room 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff has tickets for Lugnuts games. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 20 The City Cable Channel TV person is asking, since the Planning Board is the most important Board other than City Council, to televise Board meetings. The meetings would not necessarily be played live; rather they would be taped for later broadcast. The Board has a lot of business to transact, and has always acted in an upright manner, but Mr. Ruff was concerned that taping would change the dynamics of the Board from doing its job from the way it has been done. Mr. Ruge said he would be in favor if more people came to the meetings and could be involved in planning decisions. Mr. Smith said he would not be opposed, but it would be important to set time limits and adhere to them consistently. It would provide an opportunity to establish the procedures and meeting patterns; it could be educational. Mr. Frederick said the general public does not understand the importance of planning and the work that goes into it. He would be in favor. Ms. Patrick would be favorable to moving in that direction. She would be opposed to doing it before we have our full complement of members. Often we are not able to do business in the way the Planning Board was meant to. Also, there is the potential that it lays the Planning Board members open to inappropriate contacts individually. We might want to talk about what this additional exposure might bring. We rarely use our opportunities to make remarks that would be educational to the public. It might be an opportunity in Committee sessions to educate the public about the planning process in general. Mr. Smith said if the public had an opportunity to see we are short-handed, it might be an opportunity for them to become involved. Ms. Keene was concerned we might be opening up a Pandora's box. "I don't want to see it become a circus atmosphere, so we don't attract the group of regulars that City Council has." Mr. Ruff said he was concerned about the Board being able to perform its function. Mr. Smith said we are neither paid nor elected, so our voice on the Board is nuanced differently from the Council's, which represents a constituency. Our voice is more representative of the public itself, as being members of the public, rather than elected officials. Mr. Frederick said people do not understand that our authority is limited by the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in what we can address. That should be made clear to prevent people coming to be an audience. It would be good for people to learn that Planning isn't something we do to satisfy a constituency. We must adhere to rules that limit our authority. Mr. Smith advised a brief introduction be read before each meeting to explain the role of the Planning Board. Mr. Ruge agreed with Ms. Keene on a trial period. Mr. Ruff said there may be budgetary issues. It may be appropriate for the Executive Committee to meet and discuss implementation. Ms. Patrick said once you open the door to televised meetings, it would be difficult to reverse that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 21 Ms. Keene said the sense of the Board seems to be to go forward with televising, but some discussion of parameters is needed. Mr. Ruff said he could have Karen Schmidt come to the June 6 meeting and talk about it prior to the meeting, at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Ruff said at the next meeting, there may be five hearings. D. Pending Items: Future action required b. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-15-99, Portions of 6820 S. Cedar St., from"F" Commercial District to"J" Parking District and from"J" Parking District to"F" Commercial District, Also 915, 927 & 1000 Just A Mere Ave., 6931, 6937&7001 Georgia Ave. from"A" Residential District to"J" Parking District, Also 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227& 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from"A" Residential District to"F" Commercial District(Tabled January 11, 2000) e. Z-7-2000. 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 and 2716 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to"D-1" Professional Office District 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris Ave., Vacate Everett Lane ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) b. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) C. Act-21-99, 1000 Block Just A Mere Ave., Pedestrian Overpass (Tabled January 18, 2000) d. MPA-1-99, Master Plan Amendment to the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan (Tabled January 18, 2000) 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Keene asked about new board members. Mr. Ruff had discussions with the Mayor's staff member in charge of appointments. He has sent a list of present members who are going to be reappointed July 1, 2000. He will be recruiting new appointments. Mr. Smith suggested a potential new member. Mr. Ruff is following up. Mr. Ruff will bring a summary to the next meeting showing which wards need appointments. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith called members' attention to the impressive changes taking place in the Seven Block Development Area. Mr. Ruge asked about the status of the building proposed by Joel Ferguson at Capitol and Reutter Park. Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. Ferguson told the Mayor last week he would be removing the Days Inn as soon as possible. The City has PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 22 committed to putting on a cap of asphalt and using it as parking in the interim. It is still a redevelopment site. Mr. Ruge asked, regarding SLU-4-2000, one of the conditions was buffering and plant material. "When I was there, the entire lot was asphalt." Mr. Ruff said Mr. Ballengar likes a good-looking site. He will have three chairs and may need only six to eight parking spaces. In their public hearing comments, they said they wanted to improve the appearance of the site. "We will require that they submit a site plan." Mr. Ruge asked about the traffic flow through Frandor. It is terrible. Mr. Ruff said traffic issues are still being worked out. Mr. Smith asked, regarding the parking issue and determining amounts of parking by the pew size, how would you determine parking for a Zen meditation center where people do not sit in pews but rather sit on cushions. Mr. Ruff said it is an assembly area, one for every three persons allowed in the assembly area, people rather than physical structure. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge said the trucks parked across from Jack's Automotive on N. Cedar or N. Larch aren't there anymore, they are parked on the street that runs between the two. Mr. Frederick asked about the Dorcas Outreach Center on Cedar. They have a permanent sign now. "I don't recall any special land uses for them." 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 9.25 p.m. Respectfu y submitted James A. Ruff, Planning anager Planning Board mn05162000 a:\57 �N Si �'�� i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING .AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ' 316 N. CAPITOL A\'E\, E • SUITE D-1 • L.ANSI\G.MI 48933-1236 r C�IG (517)483-4066 • FAX: (517)483-6036 David C. Hollister, Mayor PLANNING OFFICE Memorandum TO: Planning Board FROM: William C. Rieske, Principal Planner DATE: May 4, 2000 RE: Committee of the Whole Item -Act-14-99, 100 Blk. W. Elm Street, Sale of Property This matter was tabled by the Planning Board on February 15, 2000, The Urban Development Committee had recommended approval of the Parks and Recreation Department's proposal to sell property in the 100 Block of W. Elm to Shaye Ramont, owner of Grand Auto on the corner of South Washington and W. Elm, in the Riverpoint neighborhood. The subject property is a tax-reverted parcel acquired from the State of Michigan. Grand Auto is located to the east, and to the west are two parcels owned by Mr. Ramont and the City of Lansing, respectively. The Board tabled the item to allow Jim Ruff to receive a letter from Mr. Ramont and to discuss options for retaining the use of the property (if sold) during the Elm Street Bridge reconstruction. Current Status/Proposal Discussions with Mr. Ramont and the State of Michigan opened the possibility of trading properties, which was previously ruled out due to restrictions on tax-reverted property. We learned that the subject parcel can be traded, on a front foot basis, with the west 33' of Mr. Ramont's parcel to the west, and both Ramont and the State of Michigan are agreeable to such a transaction. In this manner, both parties could consolidate their properties more efficiently, resulting in a win-win situation. The City would end up with a parcel with over 85 feet of river frontage, and 69' of contiguous frontage on Elm Street. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a trade of the City parcel (PPN 3301-21-178-021) for the west 33' of the Ramont parcel (PPN 3301-21-178-011) be approved. Use restrictions which prohibit billboards, outdoor storage, and junk vehicles, and require landscaping and site plan review should be applied to the City's current property prior to the-trade. After the trade, the current public use restrictions would apply to the City's newly acquired property. CC. Parks and Recreation Department Shaye Ramont ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer' C O � 79' 4 3 �j '2 177 vNP ' L L _ 3 � 19 5 ` D� \} T- p T - 1 ^ h 7/ ' 2 so It W. ELM S T W. E QD Sold 4c G.M.I pe, Covncl/ V-30-73 ,Y 0 q0 M 3 ! / 4 3 1 � 2o'Esr•r 0 5 0 h I l ro C:"y 0. 9 W /B-/7ys0 . y CL L,. S33 p S'92 �r,l p,� l/ 00� 08� "0 5 0U0 �j- \ .3 NI �� r/LO Ir//G — — — — v N l � v 0 cil i� 00/ v O,� 6 03 >I I it, e7.n = \ I /80•c I I C�Yy P4rK%n 9 7 I '005 So - M - - - - - I _ e ee" — I/L5 /t! •114 •l/t �l// 1 ry /oB' 00 IL 14 NI I Z !L 0 r' w 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 I a l 15 I 1`� ?Y- LS-10-2000 Request for Lot Split at 1708 Hillcrest Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: James Bowden III STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split - a variance from a design requirement of the Subdivision Regulation is requested. EXISTING LAND USE: Residential EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 1708 Hillcrest Street (Parcel "A") is 40,788 sqft. - flag lot 1702 Hillcrest Street (Parcel "B") is 9,900 sgft.(66'xl50') - rectangular LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel "A" (PPN:3301-32-127-092): Lot 33 Except S 150 FT of E ''/i, Also the W % of Lot 34 Except S 150 FT, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI Parcel "B" (PPN:3301-32-127-101): E 66 FT of S 150 FT of Lot 33, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel "A": W %2 of Lot 33, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI Parcel "B": E %2 of Lot 33, Also the W % of Lot 34 Except the S 150 FT, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential LS-10-2000 Request for Lot Split at 1708 Hillcrest Street SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, designates the land use as residential 0-7 dwelling units per acre. SPECIFIC INFORMATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION Mr. Bowden, is requesting a lot split of the north 156' and east 132' (20,592 sgft.) from parcel "A" (3301-32-127-092) located at 1708 Hillcrest Street (see Existing Lot Pattern). This will reduce the size of the lot to approximately 66' x 306' (see Proposed Lot Pattern). The 20,529 sqft. of property will be added to parcel "B" (3301-32-127-101) located at 1702 Hillcrest Street creating a flag lot that is 66' wide in front, 132' wide in back, and 306' deep. ANALYSIS Section 1236.08(d) of Lansing's Subdivision Design Standards allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. Currently, the lot at 1702 Hillcrest Street meets the width to depth ratio. The applicant is requesting a lot split that will create two lots that exceed the maximum width to depth ratio. Therefore, this is a variance request to exceed the 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio. Location, Size, and Character Properties for this petition are located along the 1700 block of Hillcrest Street. This lot split will not change the number of parcels. Existing parcel "A" is a flag shaped lot and is 40,788 square feet. Existing parcel "B" is 9,900 square feet and rectangular in shape. The proposed lot split will create lots that exceed Section 1236.08(d) of the Subdivision Design Standards that allows a maximum 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio. The existing and- proposed width to depth ratio are shown in Table 1. Page 2 LS-10-2000 Request for Lot Split at 1708 Hillcrest Street Table 1 - Width to Depth Ratio Existing Proposed Width Depth Ratio Width Depth Ratio Parcel "A" 66' 306' 1 to 4.64 66' 306' 1 to 4.64 Parcel "B" 66' 150' 1 to 2.27 66' 306' 1 to 4.64 The majority of properties fronting along Hillcrest Street between Christiansen Road and Marland Drive have lots that are 306' deep (see parcel map). Currently, parcel "A" is having a home constructed on it. The proposed lot split will bring the lot into conformance with other lots in this neighborhood. A single family house is on Parcel "B". This proposed lot split will create a lot that is not in conformance with the Subdivision Regulation, but similar with the lot depth of other properties in this neighborhood. If this lot split is approved, the northeast portion of proposed parcel "B" could be split off in the future and added onto the property at 1700 Hillcrest Street. This will make all three properties similar with other lots in this neighborhood. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation There is no anticipated impact to vehicular and pedestrian circulation from this lot split. Impact on Future Patterns of Development No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. The majority of lots are already developed with single family houses. Summary Properties in this petition are located on Hillcrest Street. This lot split will adjust the dimensions of two existing parcels. Parcel "A" will be 66' x 306' with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.64. Parcel "B" will be approximately 66' wide in front, 132' wide in back, and 280' deep with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.64. Both parcels exceed the width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 in Section 1236.08(d). The physical character of this area along Hillcrest Street will not change as a result of this lot split. Approximately 82% of properties on this block face have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width to depth ratio. This lot split will not impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation. No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. Page 3 LS-10-2000 Request for Lot Split at 1708 Hillcrest Street RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this variance request to exceed the maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 4 g}' l7t l LS-10-2000 t 77 Existing Lot Pattern EYKTI QCI LOT ti m 1lo2 1�\ HILLGRL'I HK�G( 21' Y 1712 17GS 17°' 1700 1 1 6lz (L1f 3T sTf-rsUT I115 1ek9 IS�I'1 Ill GL' 64, 13X 44' 2 1 20 I 1 8 V 0 M Existing Descriptions: 1702 Hillcrest Street - PPN 3301-32-127-101-6 E 66 FT of S 150 FT of Lot 33, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI 1708 Hillcrest Street - PPN 3301-32-127-092-3 Lot 33 Except S 150 FT of E 1/2, Also the W '/z of Lot 34 Except S 150 FT, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI LS-10-2000 Fr-o ova LLYT Proposed Lot Pattern (7A-7TVZ4J OL� ti 3 0 I708 M I �' {4 ILL Me%T / A N 1702- 3 1712 1705 170" 170o Ice �61, LG ' 66' GG' 2 1 20 1 8 h\ , V 0 m Proposed Descriptions: 1702 Hillcrest Street - PPN 3301-32-127-XXX-X (To be assigned) E '/2 of Lot 33, Also the W '/2 of Lot 34 Except the S 150 FT, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI 1708 Hillcrest Street - PPN 3301-32-127-XXX-X (To be assigned) W '/2 of Lot 33, Supervisor's Plat of Hillcrest Farms, City of Lansing, Ingham Co., MI 4-95 0\\ 1 9 PI) EL w in WARWICx NI A 7 '10•0 DR. )AI 0 Ov 109 '10 G _0:7, ki R 70 ))L�+ I I 1 1" a: 101 0 SUP PLAI OF HILLCRIST FARmS w LA p- 01 0 0 37 1 40 j\ cc 27 LL 47 4 1 1 28 29 SO 37 38 W I H IL L C R E S T ST. —7. AL11 'be. T22' 2 2 3 11 �bl Ikq; 2 20 7 C. r 13 1 1 4 — cr 1 0,13 . I'a I A-1 ...s C) 0 4 9 ----------- )% 12 1 0 q $UP PLAI o 5 19 2 0 Y g 0 0 10 11 Iff $cc It % 'g. AR'•.' AVE. -�7 L' 71' 20 25 Oil 04, .0 1, 3 0 , Oil "41 .11 1 "' I I LS-10-00 NORTH 1708 Hillcrest Street Vicinity Map_ LOGAN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER R . m z c� SIMKEN DR. x ~ Site WARWICK DR. a FERROL ST. POMPTON CIRCLE LeGRAND PLEASANT VIEW AVE. z 0 o � o: a HILLCREST ST. z w r N N 'd EATON CT. CARVEL a g CT. v a MARY AVE. NARY AVE. �Cy PIERCE RD. LS-10-00 NORTH 1708 Hillcrest Street Zoning „B„ „F Res '\,\--_SIMKEN DR. Site WARWI K DR. C �_ FERROL ST. '/'1 " Re POMPTON CIRCLE PLEASANT VIEW AVE. U) 'A " Res Z o 0 Q HILLCREST ST. Z 'A " Res w Z EATO N CARVEL Z � g CT. c) Q MARY AVE. MARY AVE. SLU-4-2000 1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue Barber/Beauty Shop Relocation GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Laura Nash and Rick Bellingar 1020 E. Saginaw Street Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owners REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office PROPOSED ZONING: Same PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 11,421 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Irving Park S: Apartment building E: Sycamore Park W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District S. "D-1" Commercial District E: "A" Residential District W: "C" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for continued Professional office use. The Master Plan is also in support of continued operation, modernization, and expansion of existing businesses. DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request by Laura Nash and Rick Bellingar for a Special Land Use permit to relocate an existing hair clinic at 1020 E. Saginaw to 1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a barber/beauty shop in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Section 1260.04(i) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a barber/beauty shop with City Council approval of a Special Land Use permit. SLU-4-2000, 1414 S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE., BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP IN "D-1" PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT, PAGE 2. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessors: 3301-22-308-191. BWL: Electric No objections to the special land use. Contact person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water No comments. Contact person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Building Safety: A building permit is required for the relocation of this facility. Contact the Building Safety Office for information pertaining to permit issuance. City Attorney: No response received yet. Code Compliance: Please notify this office if conditions are placed on this project if approved. Consumers Energy: No response received yet. Development: No comment. Media One: No response received yet. PotteNWalsh Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objection. Forestry: No response received yet. Parks $ Rec.: It does not impact parks and rec operation and use. Police Dept.: No response received yet. Public Service: No objection to the proposed SLU. Trans. Engr.: No comments or requirements. SLU-4-2000, 1414 S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE., BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP IN "D-1" PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT, PAGE 3. BACKGROUND The applicants are proposing to relocate their current facility, hair replacement clinic, located at 1020 E. Saginaw to 1414 S. Pennsylvania Ave. The clinic would be a full hair replacement center selling retail products associated with the business. The operation of the business is Monday - Friday, 8;30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. There are three chairs proposed for the business; one office manager and two stylist. ANALYSIS Evaluation 1. COMPATIBILITY WITH USE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES The surrounding land uses consist primarily of residential and park areas. There is primarily a mix of residential and professional office and commercial zoning in the area. In that blockface, there is a park to the north, Sycamore Park and Potter Park is basically located to the east and an apartment complex to the south; there is a auto sales business located south of the apartments. Barber/beauty shops, which may include the sale of products associated with the principal use, are a use permitted in the"D-1"Professional Office District with a special land use permit. The proposed special land use is compatible with adjacent properties. 2. CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The use of the building as a barber/beauty shop is not an intense use and will not change the essential character of the area. Access to the business is off of Pennsylvania Avenue, a principal arterial, constructed to handle a large number of vehicles. 3. INTERFERENCE WITH GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES The use of this building for a barber/beauty shop should not have an adverse impact or interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. IMPROVEMENT TO PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA The applicant is proposing interior and exterior improvements to the building which may, depending on the type(s) of improvements, require a building permit. The SLU-4-2000, 1414 S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE., BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP IN "D-1" PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT PAGE 4. property is located in the flood way of the Red Cedar River. Therefore, staff recommends no new construction (i.e. addition) onto the structure. Staff recommends the blacktop parking area be striped for parking spaces. There is a fence along the western portion of the property serving as a buffering between the office and residential uses. A landscape, screening and buffering plan should be submitted addressing all buffering requirements. The applicant is proposing improvements to the exterior area. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The property is located in the flood way of the Red Cedar River. The base flood elevation in this area is approximately 835' and the subject property is at approximately 830'. Environmental impacts would involve any improvements impacting the floodway. There are no other anticipated environmental impacts. 6. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES None anticipated. 7. IMPACT ON UTILITIES None anticipated 8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for professional office use which is in compliance with the Master Plan. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Floodplain regulations limit the amount of improvements on the building without flood proofing. The building can be remodeled extensively if flood proofed. According to Section 1260.04(i) of the Zoning Ordinance, a barber/beauty shop, which may include the sale of products associated with the principal use, is a use permitted in the "D-1" Professional Office District with a Special Land Use permit. SUMMARY The proposed special land use permit is compatible with adjacent properties. The proposed special land use should not change the character of the area. The use of this building for a barber/beauty shop should not have an adverse impact or interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. The property is in the SLU-4-2000, 1414 S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE., BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP IN "D-1" PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT, PAGE 5. floodway and any proposed improvements may require flood proofing. There are no adverse impact on public services and utilities. The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the conditions that: 1. All improvements meet flood plain regulations which may require flood proofing. 2. A landscape, screening and buffering plan be submitted to improve the appearance and buffering of the site. 03/20/2000 12: 27 6169724545 RETRACTABLE SCREENS PAGE 02 I '3'S 0�8 tat '3'S 86St X97 x ,SE t32Is �)ffIQ'IlIZS '22's ZZ-71 Tt x (a2m=3) •9'0-8 :32IS I07 ► -,,I cBTVOS V?zv amRag�t x�te -3.9 TZ47&rt ',rr-;V .M Vi ,a•s� '3's 86SI 3oca a 8T3 )pTaq ZO t 3Ad �'IN'JA'I�St1�L�d KIlnS NYIA Imcl INvimaj IIIV2I N a I I IETI r vn SLU-4-2000, 1414 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Barber/Beauty Shop in NORTH "D-1" Professional Office District lb � I _ ti �� 'tta� 29.9 16 32 f�� 35 3 828-82 828 8 FA`/CTTt ST 827.3 ,e 828.E \ A � j-�I eobol �E ❑ ❑ U p 32 M 2 82930 4 den�(�� F^ I / 26 30 ❑ it m 631 i -. L/NBBER, p4 16 30 i5co -- ----_ M / 24 M 12B - - - \ CD2 > \ 2e U 30 8 2 830 829 821.3 1 cn I Lo 2s Mo 30 833 / 3i coQ 833 n �cc O 834 I l j 30 834 EMI ❑ 9 835 8 30 a F 0 37 837 837 835 , 4 i B 26 337 25 ; i �5 22 EII• ��ANr�r�� '. i !'� SYCAMORE ❑ ❑ 834 834 83a ----f L - -- ST— Q 8s4K�� ow SLU-4-2000 1414 S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP IN"D-1" PROF. OFFICE DISTRICT NORTH -TE ST a 828.6 — 830 ❑ li 827..0 32 0 I ! \ 26 - zz 30 ❑ \6 _ - ` _ I /e L/NDe ERGH NG 821.3 — f 25 30 I- /O 34 822_ a 22 30 I 32 29 WALL - a• 20 - 3i 3/ 8 28 / 25 25 ?2 E ARKING --_----.-- ---_-- _- __ / SYCAMORE PARK z 83 -o S7 834.9 i _..- 829.3 i SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Byran and Sandra Wade STATUS OF APPLICANT: Lessee PROPERTY OWNER: Steve Pasichnyk 505 Woodhaven Drive Lansing, MI 48917 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU) to locate a church at 3107-3109 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial and "J" Parking PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 95' x 122' = 11,590 sqft. - Rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Residential (Bunnell Mobile Home) and Commercial (Drake's Refinery Gas Station) E: Residential W: Commercial and Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale E: "A" Residential W: "H" Light Industrial and "I" Heavy Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, - designates the land use as commercial. Background: Word of Life Family Outreach Center Church is currently operating at 3107 and 3109 South Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard without a Special Land Use permit. Their intent is obtain a SLU to provide religious instruction and counseling at this location. Page 1 SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to build-out 3,000 square feet of commercial space located at 3107-3109 South Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The church consists of office space, class rooms, and a sanctuary seating for 60 persons. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessor: No Response Received Building Safety: This project is subject to the city site plan and building code plan review process. Contact the plan review section of the Building Safety Office for further information. Fire Marshal: No objections Lansing Neighborhood Council: No Response Received Lansing Police Dept.: No Response Received Public Services: No objection to the proposed special land use. Transportation: Adequate off-street parking must be provided. There must be a review of access and egrees operations prior to approval of the SLU. Please Provide a scaled site plan showing parking, access, egress, and pickup/drop off areas for review. APPLICANTS PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to use 3,300 square feet of existing commercial space at 3107-3109 S. Martin Luther King Boulevard. The applicant anticipates seating for 60 parishioners. This location will provide enough space for the church to grow. ANALYSIS Section 1282.03(f)(1-9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a request Page 2 SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church for a Special Land Use Permit. The criteria and evaluation are as follows: 1. Is the proposed special land use designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area? Properties surrounding the proposed church are zoned residential, commercial and industrial. Vehicles can access and leave the site from M.L. King Jr. Boulevard and Loa Street. Parking is a concern that will be discussed in the dimensional requirement section of this report. A fence screens the site and residential uses to the east. Transportation needs to review the site plan submitted at the hearing. If the property can meet all general code requirements then the church could use should not result in adversely affecting the more sensitive residential use to the east. Additional review is necessary at this time. An existing sign for the church was erected without a permit and does not comply with the Sign Code. This sign will need to be removed and a sign permit for a new sign that meets code will need to be filed with the City. 2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the surrounding area? The proposed church will not change the physical character of the shopping center. Improvements proposed by the church will be inside the existing building. 3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property? Noise generated by vehicles and people at this site is a concern because of the residential use to the east. However, the general enjoyment on adjacent properties should not be impacted by the church since the hours of operation are- reasonable and should not impact residents to the east. The hours of operation are 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, noon -1:00 p.m. on Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Saturday, and at 11 :30 a.m. Sunday. 4. Will the proposed special land use represent an improvement to the use or character of property under consideration and the surrounding area in general, and will the use be in keeping with the natural environment of the lot? Page 3 SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church The proposed church does not adversely impact the shopping center generally and as a tenant could balance the use of the existing parking. 5. Will the proposed special land use be hazardous to adjacent property, 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? The proposed church does not pose any hazards to adjacent properties. Hours of operation do not overlap with the other businesses for the most part. The use will not generate any excessive traffic, additional noise, smoke, odor, fumes, or glare that will impact businesses or residents in the area. 6. Will the proposed special land use be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or is it 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? Public services and utilities are adequately provided at the site. 7. Will the proposed special land use place demand on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity? The proposed SLU will not place an increase demand on public services. 8. Is the proposed special land use consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code and the objectives of any currently adopted Comprehensive Plan? The property is zoned "F" Commercial. A church is permitted in the "F" Commercial District with a Special Land Use permit. Section 1268.04(b) of the Zoning Code states that a church may be permitted in an "F" Commercial District if the lot abuts a collector, principal arterial, or minor arterial. The subject property is located adjacent to M.L. King, a major arterial. An existing sign for the church was erected without a permit and does not comply with the Sign Code. This sign will need to be removed and a sign permit for a new sign that meets code will need to be filed with the City. Page 4 SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 classifies churches under community facilities. Land used for community facilities should be dispersed in and around residential areas and are considered "good neighbors". Their presence should provide a landmark or focal point for the community. 9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located? The proposed church is in an existing shopping center that does not meet all dimensional requirements of the "F" Commercial District. Corner properties have two front yards. Front yard setback requirement is 20-feet in the "F" Commercial District. The north side of the building is 3-feet from the property line. Therefore, the existing building does not meet all dimensional requirements and is nonconforming. A nonconformity can continue to exist. However, there is a cap of 35% of the structural value that can be used for restoration or substitution. This proposed use will not be expanding the nonconforming status of the building. The site plan that was shown at the public hearing does not meet code requirements. Parking spaces and aisle width did not meet the minimum City standard. This site plan showed a total of 34 parking spaces. In actuality, the original site plan submitted with the application is what is permitted. Therefore, there are a total of 19 parking spaces available on site. The site plan shows the usable floor area to be 2,847 square feet. Parking calculation for a shopping center is based on one parking space for every 110 sgft. of useable floor area. Therefore, 26 parking spaces are required for the church. A reduction in the useable floor area by 757 sgft. will reduce the required parking to19 parking spaces. The parking requirement can be meet as long as the hours of operation do not overlap with any other uses on site. Other available options such as leasing parking from adjacent properties or a variance might be considered as well. Additionally, the parking layout of the site will be required to be reconfigured- to meet City standards. SUMMARY Based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, it does not meet all nine criteria. However, the with certain modifications to the proposal the all nine criteria can be meet. The proposed Special Land Use parking layout is not harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. Page 5 SLU-7-2000 3107- 3109 S. M.L. King Special Land Use for a Church The proposed Special Land Use will not change the essential character of the surrounding properties. The proposed Special Land Use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. The proposed Special Land Use represents an improvement to the use and character of the property. The proposed Special Land Use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties. The proposed Special Land Use will be adequately served by public services and utilities. The proposed Special Land Use will not place any demand 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 objective of the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Land Use does not meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the Special Land Use permit until the site plan is reviewed by transportation and parking issue is resolved. Once resolved, staff would recommend approval for this request with the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation does not overlap any other uses in the shopping center. 2. The parking lot will be reconfigured and striped to meet City standards. 3. The existing sign be removed and apply for a permit to erect a new sign that will meet the sign code. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 6 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 2 27 28 �29 30 15 cI ly.u, QI fja m I LQ. VILcr 01(i L CU L 15 I II 14 2 3 n 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .-i3 863 EXISDN(; 0 EXISTING POWERLCI 106 LOGAN CREST LOT 107 LOGAN CREST LOT 108 LOGAN CREST POWER FIVLE 3301- 29-4716-001,8 3301-29-476-0017 330 1 -29--4 76-0015 POLE MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE ALL IWORMArICH IS FRAOM SITE '-BS1PVA1I0'1 "I ;)I'Aqwjr.� t r1p [)IN(, f,FFJ1,I:T7(148,'. I'll.ir r; :1, �i PI y ,�i yr. � �♦ �.jr — _ :.�i� f pp t' �� - t.- - 11' �. .� rl _ ��..• ;•• NI ±�_ � 3ti�d3 Lai :�. hol .I SAy t�eW _ r.. , _ �. 11Y , IVAoS ol4 Slu1�W7 -- r: 1 bps�.-.•• ",•3 �'f��• L�''f. .w �t` .,� � rtlM)1��STS= � � f � e j fir SLU -7-00 NORTH 3107-3109 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Vicinity Map AY HEMLOCK r PLp i //// ��� RDSADELL a L_J m OUNLAP 5T. < . ' DULAP ST. 9 x FDA A T R AVE. Na N NDDGE AVE. �a SOUTHLAMD AVE. OPEN DITCH i BERRY AVE. Q_. LOGAN PLAZA BERRY F Ga SHOPPING CENTER r W H HDLHES R0. Q � m U N N .IKEN DR. = o J 3 I S 6 WARVACK DR. ROL ST. N SE POMPTON CIRCLE L.GRAND DR. !T NEW AVE t� N O EVE 57 S7, N HIGH HASUN EGER b - C MITEL �_ O FATON Ci. O 3 C7. u (y Y AVE. WRY AVE. C o SLU -7-00 NORTH 3107-3109 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Zoning HOLLY CT. o w m DUNLAP ST. Q gz / Py Y a It w LOA ST. ��A I►/II T- OR J 'A /� II Z /`'1 F- LO IlH fr m 'A " Res ►►G-2►► SOUTHLAND AVE. LOGAN PLAZA O� BERRY SHOPPING CENTER 3� Z-6-2000 1144 - 1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Randy Brown 1146 N. Pennsylvania Lansing, MI 48906 OWNER: Mark Zausmer 31700 Middlebelt Road Farmington Hills, 48334 LOCATION: 1144 - 1146 N. Pennsylvania Ave. (see Figure 1, Area Map) EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial District REQUESTED ZONING: "C" Residential District EXISTING LAND USE: 1144: Single family residence 1146: Two-family (duplex) dwelling unit PROPOSED LAND USE: Currently residential, no change proposed PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 34 feet by 86 feet each, see Figure 2, Site Plan SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant Commercial Lot S: Single Family Residence E: Single Family Residence W: Single family residence, Residential/Commercial mixed use structure SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial District S: "C" Residential District E: "F" Commercial District W: "C" Residential District & "F" Commercial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, indicates the subject property is borderline between the areas designated for commercial use and residential use at 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. AGENCY RESPONSES: ASSESSOR: No response received. BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: No objections. Z-6-2000 1144 - 1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue page 2 "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. CITIZEN GROUPS: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: Please make sure this office is notified if there are any conditions placed on the approval of this project. CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received. FIRE MARSHALL: No response received. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: No response received. LANSING POLICE DEPT.: No response received. TRANSPORTATION: As long as there are no changes in use, we have no comments or requirements. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The structure at 1144 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is currently a single family residential structure, but is zoned "F" Commercial District. The structure at 1146 & 1146'h N. Pennsylvania Avenue is a two family residential structure, which is also zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting rezoning of these properties to "C" Residential District, which is more consistent with the use of the properties. The structure at 1144 N. Pennsylvania was constructed in 1870; 1146 N. Pennsylvania was constructed in 1922. Both are on very small lots with limited space available for off-street parking ( see Figure 2, Site Plan). The subject property is currently two separate lots of record. In addition, because of the lot size of the property at 1146 & 1146'h N. Pennsylvania is smaller than required for a duplex dwelling unit in the "C" Residential District, this structure will also require designation as a "Class A" non-conformity by the Planning Board. The case number for the request for "Class A" Status is NCU-3-2000. Adjacent to and north of a portion of the subject property is a vacant lot. Other properties to the north, south, and east are one-family or two-family residential uses. West across N. Pennsylvania Avenue are both residential and commercial properties. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The majority of properties in the subject block are one-family or two-family residential. Even though the subject block's entire frontage on E. Grand River Avenue is zoned commercial, there are no existing commercial business establishments: the entire block is used for residential purposes or is vacant. Z-6-2000 1144 - 1146 N. Pennsylvania Avenue page 3 "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic as the existing land use will not change as a result of the rezoning request. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The building and parking area are already developed, and the plans do not indicate that expansion is anticipated. The "C" Residential District currently permits a "lot coverage ratio" of 60% for all buildings and other impervious surfaces. The lot at 1146 N. Pennsylvania currently has a total lot coverage of 83%; the lot at 1144 N. Pennsylvania currently has a total lot coverage of only 51 percent. The non-conforming lot coverage issue for 1146 N. Pennsylvania can be addressed as part of the review for "Class A" status (see NCU-3-2000). IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This development may impact future patterns of development because it may set a precedent for rezoning much of the E. Grand River Avenue corridor back to residential zoning, which would be consistent with the actual land use that is established along much of the corridor. SUMMARY The structure at 1144 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is currently a single family residential structure, and the structure at 1146 & 1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is a two family residential structure. The applicant is requesting rezoning of these properties to "C" Residential District, which is consistent with the use of the properties. The proposed rezoning may set a precedent for rezoning much of the E. Grand River Avenue corridor back to residential zoning, which would be consistent with the actual land use that is established along much of the corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner - May 4, 2000 Z-6-2000.F E.wpd i \ Z-6-2000 NORTH 1144-1146 Pennsylvania Avenue SOUTH 25.5' SOUTH 33' x x x tn in n °' SOUTH oNc- I 'AEASEMENT: 8.5' c ByE� I W I UBER 265. cRp � I I PAGE 269, I � 1 i l Ea 1 10, PORCH t°PORCH I I I IB ip II I co W — 24' Ito to W a W I�v~i I I W Q > 3 Z II3 w I 2ST. z o: 2 ST. FR w o _ FR. I 13' "°j� REST � z � R£5. I I o u.i w II I R I #1144 w co #1146 ZI 10 Ln 19 di 24' I � I � 18' FRAME P.O.B. h FRAME I 1 �° PORCHI ti i- � PORCH SO TH 73' 'n NORTH 34' ti; I I NORTH 33'. 0 in d iu 6'CONC. WALK ] CONC. ��BACK �OFCURB PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE (82.5' WIDE) We hereby certify that we have surveyed the property herein described; that the buildings and improvements as shown are entirely within the property lines; and that there are no visible encroachments upon the above described property, except as shown hereon. Note: This document was performed for mortgage purposes only. Dimensions from boundaries . ry lines to improvements are approximate and should not be used to establish property Fences, (if any) plotted on property lines are intended to indicate that these fences are on or near the boundary lines of this parcel . A certified boundary survey is needed tr accurately define the limits of this parcel . FRED WHITE ENGINEERING COMPANY II12039 2300 North Grand River Avenue F L White, P.S. , Lansing, Michigan 48906 Survey No: 002996 Phone (517) 321-7111 Date: February 29, 2000 /\ Z-6-2000 NORTH \ 1144-1146 Pennsylvania Avenue -= LLJ EE _ 27 lommop ' WALLS 0 B 0 3 „ ID I w z RIVER AVE SKYµ -MEMO ❑ C1 1 0 ❑ o 0 ElDD � Q `z--r' PERSONS CT a El C� a 855.3 ❑ Clo T- ED B50 B n B50 PORTER ST NCU-3-2000 1146 - 1 1 461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Request for "CLASS A" Nonconforming Status GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Randy Brown 1146 N. Pennsylvania Lansing, MI 48906 OWNER: Mark Zausmer 31700 Middlebelt Road Farmington Hills, 48334 LOCATION: 1146 - 1 1 461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue (see Figure 1, Area Map) ZONING: "F" Commercial District - Pending rezoning to "C" Residential District (see Case No. Z-6 2000) EXISTING LAND USE: Two-family (duplex) dwelling unit PROPOSED LAND USE: Currently residential, no change proposed PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 34 feet by 86 feet, see Figure 2, Site Plan SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant Commercial Lot S: Single Family Residence E: Single Family Residence W: Single family residence, Residential/Commercial mixed use structure SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial District S: Pending "C" Residential District E: "F" Commercial District W: "C" Residential District & "F" Commercial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, indicates the subject property is borderline between the areas designated for commercial use and residential use at 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: NCU-3-2000 1146 - 11461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue pie 2 "CLASS A" Nonconforming Use The structure at 1146 & 11461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is a two family residential structure, which is also zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting rezoning of this property to "C" Residential District. Because of the lot size of the property at 1146 & 1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania is smaller than required for a duplex dwelling unit in the "C" Residential District, this structure will also require designation as a "Class A" non-conformity by the Planning Board. AGENCY RESPONSES: CITIZEN GROUPS: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: Please make sure this office is notified if there are any conditions placed on the approval of this project. Description of Site The lot at 1146 is used for a two-family residential structure. The structure was constructed in 1922. The City's records indicate that each dwelling unit contains two bedrooms. The lot is very small but space is available for the minimum required number of four (4) off-street parking spaces (see Figure 2, Site Plan). Section 1284.13(a) of the Zoning Code requires two off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit. Based on the site plan provided by the applicant, the subject property has a building coverage ratio of 39 percent. The overall impervious surface coverage ratio is difficult to determine because much of the driveway and parking area has deteriorated to the extent that the "paved surfaces" are no longer impervious. Section 1250.11 of the Zoning Code permits up to 40% of a lot to be covered by buildings, and up to 60% of a lot to be covered by all impervious surfaces. ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CLASS A STATUS The criteria specified for "Class a Status" in Section 1294.04 of the Zoning Code include the following exceptions: 1 . The request involves a nonresidential use located on a local street and the Transportation Engineer reports a negative impact. 2. The activities associated with the nonconformity generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise which is more than the level associated with the uses permitted by right in the district in which the nonconformity is located. The Planning Division may require the applicant to provide reliable technical evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise which exists on the lot for which Class A status is being sought. NCU-3-2000 1146 - 11461/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue page 3 "CLASS A" Nonconforming Use 3. The nonconformity does not meet one or more of the parking requirements designated in Chapter 1284. However, if an applicant provides reliable data to the Planning Division which indicates that peak hour parking demand for the use shall not exceed the number of parking spaces available during the highest intensity of use, then Class A status may be granted. The highest intensity of use shall be determined by the Division. The subject proposal does not violate any of the above criteria: 1 . N. Pennsylvania Avenue is classified as a "principle arterial" street by the Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City's Transportation Engineer has responded that there is no negative impact unless the existing land use is proposed to change. 2. While the impervious surface ratio of this site would exceed the limits established by the Zoning Code if the parking areas were hard surfaced as required, an alternative surface material could be used to achieve a durable parking surface and some level of permeability for storm water. 3. Although the area available for,off-street parking is limited, sufficient space is available to meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. SUMMARY The structure at 1146 & 1146'/2 N. Pennsylvania Avenue is a two family residential structure.. The property is currently pending rezoning from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District (see case number Z-6-2000). The applicant is requesting designation as a "Class A" nonconforming use RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 . Approval of the "Class A" nonconforming status be conditional upon adoption of the rezoning petition Z-6-2000. 2. The off-street parking area be surfaced with material that not only provides a dust free surface, but also is permeable to rainwater. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner May 5, 2000 NCU-3-2000.FE.wpd i il� � i ... /jj ��Lvc� . I NORTH 1144-1146 Pennsylvania Avenue i =201 SOUTH 25.5' SOUTH 33' x x x N S mac. I x EASEMENT: SOUTH c I w l UBER 265, 8.5' I RPVEu I PAGE 269. G �Ma� I PORCN �OPORCH I I i IB Go r 10 24'LJ CO coI Ld In Q W I ll~Nn I 3 2 ST. FR Uj o _ FR. I3e°.� RE& ire CC Z RES. I I z(D Cr tn o ui a I� I #I144 U m w #1146 Ili I m w N 18 24' U u l IB' FRAME P.O.B. h FRAME I I I �O PORCH ti 1p PORCH LSO TH 73' o NORTH 34' ;,; I 1 NORTH 33' jq d m 6'CONC. WALK CANC. BACK OF CURB PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE (82.5' WIDE) We hereby certify that we have surveyed the property herein described; that the buildings and improvements as shown are entirely within the property lines; and that there are no visible encroachments upon the above described property, except as shown hereon. Note: This document was performed for mortgage purposes only. Dimensions from boundary lines to improvements are approximate and should not be used to establish property lines . Fences, (if any) plotted on property lines are intended to indicate that these fences are on or near the boundary lines of this parcel . A certified boundary survey is needed to accurately define the limits cf this parcel . FRED WHITE ENGINEERING COMPANY F d N. White, P.S. , #12034 2300 North Grand River Avenue Survey No: 002996 Lansing, Michigan 48906 Date: February 29, 2000 Phone (517) 321-7111 APPROVED JUNE 20, 2000 with one correction as follows: P 14 Ln 4.61 Pos 5.51: Draft to Clerk 06192000 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mille f SMITH, Approved 06202000 To Clerk 06262000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD s- r, 7 p.m., City Council Chambers < Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall i 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, June 6, 2000 J 1. OPENING SESSION: -- Vice Chairman Keene called the meeting to order at 7.05 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Smith; four members present. Absent: Nischan and Ruge. Two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Nischan and Mr. Ruge both requested and were granted excused absences. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. Mr. Ruff welcomed audience members and reviewed the Board's focus and scope. He also explained the progression of cases through the Planning Board, subcommittees, and thence to the City Council. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum dated May 23, 2000, to the Planning Board from Bill Rieske, Principal Planner RE: Wellhead Protection Program B. Memorandum dated May 30, 2000, to the Planning Board from Bill Rieske, Principal Planner RE: Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report 4. HEARINGS A. Act-7-2000, American Road, Vacate and Rededication Mr. Rieske introduced the case, a request by Thomas O'Neil, representing Menard, Inc., of Eau Claire, Wisconsin to relocate American Road to allow for combination of the lots on the north and south sides of the road to create a larger building site for a proposed Menard's retail outlet. Menard's owns all of the properties surrounding American Road. Their proposal is for the City to vacate the existing roadway and for them to construct at their own expense a more southerly route so as to create a larger building area. It has been referred to various agencies for comment. Board of Water and Light has water and electric utilities in the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 2 right-of-way that would need to be relocated. Public Service Department has no objections to the proposal, but they would like to review the site plan. The Fire Marshal stipulates that fire hydrants must be removed and replaced. The Assessor states that clear title work must be provided so the City can take possession of the alternate proposed right-of-way location. The site is located in the "F" Commercial District. PATRIC PARKER, 5206 GATEWAY, FLINT, MICHIGAN. I represent the present owners of the property who are selling to Menard's. Mr. O'Neil, the applicant for Menard's, is unable to be here tonight. Menard's has been working with the City to plan the building of their home center. This afternoon when we received copies of comments from agencies, we saw that we forgot to talk with Board of Water and Light. We want to reassure everyone that any easements or utilities needing to be moved will be done at Menard's expense; likewise, any easements needing to be granted will be given by Menard's. We will be doing the construction prior to the time that the utilities are moved with no interruption in service. Menard's faxed a letter this afternoon confirming that they will be relocating utilities and obtaining the necessary easements (submitted letter). Mr. Smith inquired about payment of back taxes and commitment of title. Mr. Parker said Menard's has title commitments, and taxes are current. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Act-7-2000, American Road, Vacate and Rededication and referral to the Urban Development Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728 Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by owners Richard Peterson and Kenneth Reeder of D & K Real Estate, to split a flag lot. It is vacant property, zoned "A" Residential, about an acre in size. The applicant is proposing to divide the property to construct two single-family homes. Planning staff, working with the applicant, has proposed alternatives but is awaiting public comment tonight, together with agency responses, and so as yet has not made a recommendation. The lot split would require lot width-to-depth ratio variances. Subdivision Regulations allow a lot width- to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. Narrow frontages exist here. To achieve as much conformance with the code as possible, the property was laid out with some angles in order to increase conformity and to incorporate some adjacent properties. The next-door property is 1205 Ferley, and 1121 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 3 Ferley is in the back. To improve the split, a variance to the lot width-to- depth ratio is necessary. Parcel A would have a lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:5.5, and Parcel B would have a width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.36. Mr. Smith asked if there would be a problem with the sewer easement on Parcel A having a driveway over it. Mr. Ruff said parking on sewer easements is not generally a problem though building a structure over the sewer easement would cause a problem. Part of the driveway for 1207 Ferley may go over the easement. Ms. Patrick asked about getting emergency vehicles in. Mr. Ruff said the Fire Marshal made no comment regarding access. KENNETH REEDER, 2920 CHERITHBROOK DRIVE, MASON, MICHIGAN. My partner and I have owned this property about two years. We want to do something with it besides pay taxes and mow grass. Planning staff advised splitting the lot to make it more like other lots in the subdivision. We understand we will have to blacktop the driveways. We had a call from Sam Quon mentioning nearby property owners, Mrs. Dollarhite and Mr. Kratz, concerned about the driveway. Mr. Kratz does not have much of a driveway, and it appears he could be using some of our property. A survey will determine that. We visited with them and suggested to Mr. Kratz that if it would not interfere with what we want to do with the property, we would be willing to deed some property to him to help him with his driveway. We want to keep the peace with the neighbors while making some use of property we are paying taxes on. Ms. Patrick asked Mr. Reeder what size house he intends to build. Mr. Reeder said 1,200-1,400 sq ft, nice homes that would fit in with the neighborhood. BEVERLY DOLLARHITE, 1205 FERLEY. I have a petition (submitted petition). I have several concerns, one, that the shape of the lot is nonconforming with the neighborhood. It used to be that you could not build a house behind an existing house. I don't know if that is still the case or not. Another thing, it would destroy a lot of trees and wildlife. The driveways--another driveway plus the existing ones--would make five driveways within 160 feet. It would be a safety and traffic hazard. JIM WALTERS, 10545 FRIENDLY, EATON RAPIDS. Mrs. Dollarhite is my mother. She has lived there for 60 years and has seen lots of development take place. We understand that Mr. Reeder owns the property and has a right to develop it and get a return on it. We don't object to that, but the property configuration suggested doesn't fit; it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 4 violates common sense. They knew that it was nonconforming when they bought it. This would mean five driveways within 160 feet, which creates a safety problem. It may not be that you can't build a home behind somebody else's back yard unless there is a public street for access. It makes more sense to put in just one house. It is a more reasonable compromise and it doesn't upset the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. Ms. Keene asked where Ms. Dollarhite lived in relation to LS-13-2000. Mr. Walters said she lives just to the east of the property, Lot 23 and half of Lot 24. (Editor's note: 1205 Ferley is west of subject parcel and parts of Lots 22 and 23.) The easement for the storm drain goes through the center of that piece. The current driveway is ten to twenty ft away from the storm drain. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728 and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-8-2000, 216 W. Lapeer Street, Off-Street Surface Parking Lot in "DM-4" District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Foster of 615 N. Capitol Avenue, on behalf of Mourer-Foster, Inc. for a Special Land Use permit to construct off-street surface parking at 216 W. Lapeer Street in the "DM-4" Residential District. The existing structure on the property is a residential structure vacant at present. The property size is 41.25 x 132 ft, or 5,445 sq ft approximately. The River Island Comprehensive Plan, Amendment 1986, designates this area for office use. The request, originally to remove the house, was amended to make clear that they were not removing the structure. The property would have eight parking spaces behind the house. Because it is zoned residentially and the parking is being used by the office, a special land use or a rezoning must be done. The applicant has chosen to request the special land use permit parking use of part of the "DM-4" zoned property. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Foster owns this property; answer: yes. JOHN FOSTER, 615 N. CAPITOL AVE., LANSING, MICHIGAN. I am the owner of the building; we are asking for off-street parking. We own a business at 615 Capitol Avenue adjacent to the structure. The building is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 5 about 12,000 sq ft, and we ran out of parking. We have been at the location for approximately 22 years. The business has grown. We took a building that was slated for demolition and spent a lot of money rehabilitating it. We would like to stay at that location, but we don't have enough parking for the people that work here. We bought the structure behind us on Lapeer Street with the intent of using the backyard for parking for the building. We recognize that the building, as well as our building, is located in a historic district that was proposed three years ago. It was supposed to take 60 days. We are here for you to consider the special land use. We don't want to relocate. We could use the structure. We have had requests from the law firm next door to lease part of that for storage of documents. We are consuming about 2,000 sq ft of our building right now for document storage. We believe we can move that function to that structure. We can accommodate maintaining the structure. It used to be in serious disrepair. We need some help economically for maintaining the structure so it won't fall in. That's where it was headed before we bought it. We use eight spaces now and have been told we need a special land use permit. Ms. Patrick asked how many employees are at the site, what is the nature of their job and what about customer parking? Mr. Foster said we have a law firm, and Mid-Michigan Guardianship Services in the lower level. There are approximately 50-55 people there 8-5, clerical, insurance, and administrative functions, also sales people who travel some. Customers park on the street sometimes and also on a semicircle drive in front. Ms. Patrick asked how many parking spaces do you have exclusive of the eight you are applying for? Mr. Foster said about 46 spaces. DEBORAH MULCAHEY, 1209 S. GENESEE. I own the property at 608 Seymour, immediately adjacent to part of the west side of 216 W. Lapeer. I have lived and worked in the downtown area for 20 years. I have always heard we don't have enough parking. Mourer-Foster suggests in a letter To Whom It May Concern dated May 30, 2000, that they are only requesting permission to use the space behind their building for parking. It reminds me of the young girl who elopes and then comes back and asks her parents' permission. They are using this parking area to park. They have made it a parking area. They have made changes to the property. They removed a brick wall that was between their property and 216 W. Lapeer. They removed an attached garage. I don't disagree with Mr. Foster regarding the condition of the property. It was in need of repair; how much repair has been exacerbated by the fact that they have failed to do it in time. The plan that was originally submitted did show that they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 6 were going to raze the property. It has been a couple years. The property used to have the most wonderful garden in the City. I have owned my property for about twenty years and am very familiar with the property and building. Why am I concerned with this plan? What plan? The wall is gone; the parking is there. Ingress and egress. I understand that they are looking at using Lapeer Street as ingress and egress. There is a driveway about 14 ft wide between the two properties. There are setbacks for properties, requiring you to set back 5 or 6 ft from residential. (Mr. Ruff said the landscape screening and buffering ordinance stipulates a minimum buffer of approximately 5 ft.) So 5 ft from 14 ft doesn't give them much room for ingress and egress and providing areas to place snow when they remove the snow. Water drainage--where will surface water drain? Parking needs will continue to grow for this property, but there are alternatives we forget about. Bicycles. City of Lansing parking ramps. There is a mass transit credit that you can give your employees, $65 on a monthly basis similar to our medical and child care funded programs. They could use the housing for employees. This is the first time tonight that I have heard they are going to use it for storage. I don't know that this is consistent with the zoning. If they are going to proceed with this, I would request at minimum a significant vegetative buffer between my property, the residential properties, and this parking area. That would include at minimum 6 ft cedars, arbor vitaes, hemlocks, something that will take up the water that at present is going through the gravel. In lieu of placing gravel materials at the base of vegetation, would request some kind of mulch material less likely to be used as missiles against window glass. Also appropriate fencing. I request the Planning Board have Code Enforcement do the following: Fix up the house. It is there; they have had it for a long time, and they have not maintained it. Let them show some good faith here. Discontinue the nonconforming parking that has gone on for a considerable period of time. If they are allowed to continue to park there as they have, there is no impetus for them to resolve this. In all likelihood, they will not have eight parking spaces when they are done with this plan as required by ordinance. It is costly to them. How many parking spaces will they gain; how costly is a parking space to date; I would like them to show good faith for residential neighbors, and they have not. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for SLU-8-2000, 216 W. Lapeer Street, Off- Street Surface Parking Lot in the "DM-4" District. and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 7 D. Z-15-99 (Revised and Expanded) Portions of 6820 S. Cedar Street, "F" Commercial to "J" Parking District and "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District; Also 915, 920, 926, 927, 1000 Just A Mere Avenue, 6900, 6931, 6937, 7001, 7007, 7015 Georgia Avenue and the north 110 ft of the properties at 1015, 1027, 1101 and 1109 E. Willoughby Road from "A" Residential to "J" Parking District; also 7025 Georgia Avenue, 1009 E. Willoughby Rd., the south 178 ft of 1015, 1027, 1101 and 1109 E. Willoughby Rd., 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 and 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Gordon Long who has revised and expanded Z-15-99 to include additional properties and change the development pattern. It has been readvertised to include those properties. Mr. Ruff read the expanded description. This is a revised and expanded request by Gordon Long, representing himself and Lansing Clarion Limited Partnership, to rezone several properties in order to expand the existing hotel and convention facilities at 6820 S. Cedar Street, construct additional parking facilities, construct an extended stay hotel with 150 suites along E. Willoughby Road and a 16,800 sq ft single-story office building along E. Willoughby Road. As a reminder, the other cases to be considered, as before, include the Act 285 Review for the pedestrian overpass (Act-21-99), the Master Plan Amendment (MPA-1-99), and the request for height and setback variances (BZA 3574.99). The applicant is Gordon Long, 6820 S. Cedar Street, Lansing. Existing use is hotel, parking lots, vacant land and single family residential land use with "A" Residential, "F" Commercial, and "J" Parking zoning at present with zoning proposed as "F" Commercial and "J" Parking District. The property is irregularly shaped, located behind the commercial strip in the 6800-7000 blocks of S. Cedar Street. The existing Holiday Inn and Convention Center has 368 ft of frontage along S. Cedar and the proposed new hotel and office will have approximately 1,000 ft of frontage along Willoughby Road. The Southeast Area Plan generally designates properties in this area for commercial use, recognizing this area for office land use and the east side of Cedar as warehouse/research park. Commercial land use is proposed closer to the 1-96 expressway. Commercial development and open space is proposed closer to Willoughby Road. The Plan identifies continued residential use behind the commercial-office strip. The Southeast Area Plan identifies S. Cedar Street as a principal arterial and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 8 Willoughby Road as a collector street. Just A Mere and Georgia Avenues are identified as local streets. The City of Lansing annexed this general area in 1960. The original proposal included a four-level parking garage to the south side of Just A Mere south of the proposed hotel/convention facilities that would be connected to the hotel and convention facilities with a pedway extending over Just A Mere Avenue. The proposal for the Staybridge Suites Hotel has not significantly changed. The original proposal was for an approximately 13,000 sq ft office space; now it is proposed to be 16,000 sq ft, oriented more east-west, parallel with Willoughby. The parking ramp is proposed to be three levels, one at grade, and two above grade. Surface parking is proposed to be expanded. The plan shows an overall total of 2,322 spaces on-site, broken down for the Holiday Inn South, the Staybridge Suites and the office building. Chairman Keene asked Mr. Long, in view of his comprehensive presentation of Z-15-99 previously, to focus tonight on changes from then. GORDON LONG, 6910 S. CEDAR ST., LANSING, MICHIGAN. With me is our architect and president of Keystone Design Group, Russell Hinckle. This is an expansion of an existing business which has been at the Cedar Street and 1-96 interchange location for approximately 35 years, with the convention center 14 years, with the hotel and office facilities in the area. The hotel has 300 rooms, the convention center with meeting rooms, restaurants. We want to expand the 300 rooms by an additional tower having another 161 rooms. The exhibition space will have an additional 36,000 sq ft for exhibition and meeting space with the corresponding lobby area and restaurants expected in a full service hotel, a group- oriented facility. In addition we propose a 150-unit extended stay facility fronting on Willoughby road, a four-story structure. We also propose a 16,000 sq ft office building on Willoughby Road. There is also a covered parking ramp proposed, reduced in size from 4 stories to 3 stories with 2 above ground, and reduced in number of spaces from 2,400 to 915 spaces. The structure is smaller, turned in a north-south direction. Accommodating total parking, and ingress-egress and view involved procurement of additional property, a significant number of parcels from Willoughby Road to Just A Mere that would be connected by a curved boulevard across from the Cedar Park Boulevard. Five lots of extra surface parking are located around the site. The main thrust is that the parking ramp has been reduced; surface parking expanded, and visual and roadway areas from Willoughby to Just A Mere better oriented to the entire complex. At present, the existing facility contains approximately PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 9 12.5 acres; the expanded facility will contain approximately 27.5 acres, excepting three parcels. The connection from the parking ramp to the new tower stays as it was previously. (Mr. Long displayed maps showing existing zoning and proposed zoning.) Mr. Frederick asked about the reduction of the parking structure size and expansion of surface parking, and signage directions to the site. Mr. Long said the goal was to achieve the right amount of parking spaces. We didn't need that much covered parking. With reduction in size of the ramp, it could be turned north-south. Changing the orientation and expanding surface parking opened the view. The surface parking is closer. It makes a better plan, better view and better circulation. We will provide signage direction from 1-96 to Willoughby. Mr. Smith asked about changing the four-story structure to three stories, and expansion of surface parking with increase in impervious surface area. What about water run-off and storm water retention systems. Mr. Long said we have established a significant retention area. Mr. Smith said another concern was the residents' view being impeded by a ramp. What was the reasoning for eliminating a fourth story on the ramp and increasing surface parking. Mr. Long mentioned reasons given previously, and also cost considerations. A ramp space costs $7,000- $10,000; a surface space is not that costly. There are still four private owners in the area. The rest of the people who have been concerned are not concerned at this point. Mr. Smith asked who is going to absorb the costs of storm drainage. Mr. Long said the developer is required to provide engineered storm systems to handle run-off equal to what it is now. FRANCIS SUTTON, 908 JUST A MERE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I am going to have to look at that parking ramp. My wife, Dian, and I have lived there for 34 years. We were here two and a half months ago looking at the plans then. The plans now only show more blacktop. The extended stay hotel is only an apartment building. What are you going to do with the children? They have moved the driveway from the east to the middle of the property. The traffic will go out Georgia Avenue. Area residents don't go out on Cedar Street from Just A Mere. There is too much traffic. Willoughby Road is getting just as busy. I am going to have a parking lot beside my house; one woman will have a parking lot by her bedroom window, another all the way around her. It isn't right. The inter- PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 10 change is already saturated with hotels. There is not much change here. I am not interested in selling my property on a four percent land contract. JOE GARZA, 7021 GEORGIA AVENUE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I agree with Mr. Sutton. All the traffic from Willoughby and from S. Cedar uses Georgia Avenue as a short cut. If we could have some speed humps, it might help. There is a lot of speeding and few police patrols. We are suffering with the fumes and traffic. We would appreciate help from the Planning Board. DIAN SUTTON, 908 JUST A MERE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. The parking lot will be within two feet of our house. They bank the snow up to the other house that is as close to the parking lot as we are. We still put up with the water coming from Oak Park Village, and all the lights and pollution. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-15-99 (Revised and Expanded) and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Mr. Ruff noted, as a point of information, that Z-15-99 (Revised and Expanded) may not be an active item on the agenda of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee since we are still working to resolve issues related to MPA-1-99. The Urban Development Committee is the first committee to look at this prior to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee's actions, however, the committee probably will have comment regarding it. It may be that there will be no action at the Z&O Committee on June 14. Mr. Ruff read a communication from Rosemarie Davisson, owner of 7011 Georgia Avenue, concerning Z-15-99 (Revised and Expanded). E. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F" Commercial to "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Shaheen Chevrolet, 3901 S. Martin Luther Jr. Blvd., owner of the used car dealership together with some vehicle rehabilitation services and other Shaheen businesses. The owner wishes to make the property available to an automotive supplier which would involve assembly or light manufacturing uses. The L-shaped property contains PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 11 approximately 8.6 acres, with three buildings on it. Mr. Ruff summarized the surrounding land uses and property zoning. RALPH SHAHEEN, 3901 S. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD., LANSING, MICHIGAN. I own the property along with my two brothers. With General Motors coming into the area, we want to market the property to the highest and best use which, we think, being located 2.5 miles from the new Catera plant, would be a second-tier automotive supplier. It is too small for a tier-one supplier. We were advised by the Chamber of Commerce and Car Team to have the property rezoned light industrial. I do not have a buyer at this time but want to have it ready in case. TAMMY STENSON, 3921 WALTON DRIVE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I am the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator for the block directly behind Shaheen. It is all residential back there. GM may be coming to Lansing in a big way, but who owns Lansing—do the residents own Lansing, or does GM own Lansing? When we first learned of this, we got 22 signatures out of 25 residents against this (two are not at home). There are locations in the City zoned for Industrial. We do not want a factory in our back yard. We are adamantly opposed. It will adversely affect the character of our neighborhood, a safe, quiet residential area. If you put a factory in our backyard, there will be increased noise, traffic, hazardous waste production, and things that come with a factory. Another concern is that we are getting conflicting stories from the Planning Committee. I have asked what is going to become of this property. We do not want a factory with three shifts and noise that will adversely affect the character of our neighborhood. We have children in this residential neighborhood. There are other places correctly zoned. CARL L. KING, 3912 WALTON DRIVE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I am directly behind Shaheen's. My backyard is his backyard. Between 7 and 8 every morning I am awakened by Granger emptying the dumpster at his business. I live with that. His business is 8-5, not like a 24-hour factory. I live near his paint shop. When the wind blows from that direction, you can't breathe. The surveyors were in what I thought was my backyard, and 18 ft of my backyard belongs to Mr. Shaheen. When he sells that property, he is going to move the fence 18 feet into my backyard. The factory literally is going to be in my west side bedroom. There are apartments to the east, but to the north is nice property. My PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 12 place is assessed every year and the assessment raised. Property in a three-block radius of us is falling down—the drop forge is closed, half of Logan Center, Burger King. Now they want to put in a factory. These houses would be $150,000 in East Lansing or Okemos, but we can't get $70,000 for them if this keeps up. MELVIN SHAW, 3902 WALTON DRIVE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I concur, plus the fact that they want to rezone this land to industrial. I just put $45,000 in my house. Why? To put a factory in there? I am going to be the loser. Nobody wants to buy property adjacent to a factory of any kind. Other people have improved their properties, too. I can't imagine a well-kept neighborhood, and then they put a factory in? They wonder why people leave Lansing. I live behind the paint shop. I put up with it. I also put up with paper in my yard from Shaheen's and weeds up against the fence. We want to get a fair market price for our properties. J. FRANK CLARK, 3829 WALTON DRIVE, LANSING, MICHIGAN. He can't build too big a factory there, he ain't got the property. The storm sewer goes right through the north side of his building. I can't build anything on half of my property. Why do you want business in town. I worked in the drop forges for 35 years; I know how much noise factories can make. There is all kinds of land around the outskirts of Lansing where it won't bother anybody. I know you can't answer. JAMES L. GANT, 1112 EATON COURT, LANSING, MICHIGAN. I live on the west side of Martin Luther King in the first house behind the party store, for 31 years. I don't want a factory in my front door. I started out an hour early to come here tonight, and arrived about 10 minutes before time, trying to get out of the traffic. There were three serious accidents in the past three weeks. About noise levels, for the last six years, I haven't been able to sleep at night for the noise. People slam their car doors and trunks. Now we are talking about additional noise across the street. There are other places in town more suitable. It is congested enough; we don't need a factory. SHAWN O'BRIEN, 6277 W. REYNOLDS, HASLETT, MICHIGAN. I am a real estate agent with CB Richard Ellis/Martin in process of marketing Mr. Shaheen's property along with several properties including the Metro Ford facility and Logan Square Shopping Center. I would encourage the Council to consider creative PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 13 solutions for properties that are in transition. Some changes have taken place with the prime commercial properties that used to reside along Martin Luther King Boulevard and Holmes Road. The properties suffer from functional and economic obsolescence. We contacted the Wal-Marts, the Meijers, the Menards, but the sites don't generate the interest it takes to create a transitional venture for this kind of property. I understand the residents' concerns. The modern light industrial facility is far different from the Lindell Drop Forges of the past. For a tier-two supplier, we are talking relatively no noise, no stamping, no heavy manufacturing. It would be more of a distribution and a service supply type facility. If there is a way within the zoning ordinance to control those types of things, I implore you to consider that. We are looking for the highest and best use, and we need to consider creative uses to keep good- paying jobs in the City. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F" Commercial to "H" Light Industrial District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) STEVE MILLER, 6233 BERNER CT., GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN. I am here as Chief of the Wellhead Protection Unit in the Department of Environmental Quality. I am pleased to request your support of the wellhead protection program, which is on your agenda for consideration. I was privileged to be involved with the planning effort on this program. Our staff has reviewed the program and finds it acceptable. We are awaiting formal approval, and we will then formally approve the program. The Wellhead Protection Program will initiate and bring forward a continued effort to protect our drinking water, which is of exceptional quality and quantity, and a real asset to the City and to the region. We have taken a regional approach to wellhead protection. All the communities are involved in an excellent cooperative approach to protect our drinking water. If it is approved, we will move forward with implementation. Then we can begin to integrate the results into the Master Plan and into the ordinances and other means to have this protection effort take place. As you move forward, our group will be supportive in terms of GIS support. We have provided some of the mapping, and the Planning staff has capability to utilize that. I would particularly like to mention Eleanor Love, who initiated and supported this proposal, and Jim Ruff and Bill Rieske. The plans are to apply for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 14 additional grants that are available. We will look at potential sources of contamination, prioritize them, and look at means to implement the programs. Thank you for your consideration. SHANE SILSBY, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING OFFICE, here to talk about the Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report. Area 28 is bounded by Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard on the east, Jolly Road on the south, Pleasant Grove on the west, and Holmes Road on the north. (Presented board showing all the traffic calming areas in the City). Mr. Silsby presented a brief overview of the report. 6. RECESS - Chairman Keene declared a short recess. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: May 16, 2000. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Muter SMITH, to approve the minutes of May 16, 2000, without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of May 16, 2000, were APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole to consider the Wellhead Protection Program and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report. Ms. Keene passed the gavel to Mr. Frederick, who called the Committee of the Whole into session. 1. Wellhead Protection Program Mr. Rieske called members' attention to his memo accompanying the copy of the Wellhead Protection Program final draft. Also included is an errata sheet summing up the changes to date on the report that will be made in the final document. The report contains tables in the back giving a contaminant source inventory. Mr. Miller has augmented that data base today with more tables. This has been a City Council and Planning Board priority. It is an action planning document more than a master planning document, although it can be used in the master planning process. The report contains recommendations for ordinance changes for implementation. Mr. Rieske summarized: an environmental check list in the site plan review process; completion of a well abandonment program; closure of all unused wells; registration of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 15 all wells remaining in service when public water supply is provided; inter-agency coordination on inspections and permitting procedures; ongoing education program; involvement of Board of Water and Light staff in the City of Lansing Emergency Response and Hazardous Materials Team; and continuing data collection efforts. Mr. Miller also mentioned the map indicating continued wellhead protection of the area closest to the water supplies. Those are the highest priority proposals for the wells, and various sources of potential contamination. This is an excellent program. Mr. Frederick asked about a discrepancy in total capacity of Lansing wells, given on P. 22 as in excess of 63 million gallons per day; however, a table in attachment 4 lists the capacity as in excess of 53 million gallons/day. Mr. Rieske will check the figures. Ms. Patrick asked, regarding the table of preliminary contaminant source inventory, if people want to suggest other contamination sources, who is the appropriate person to receive the information? Mr. Rieske said he would accept it. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the Planning Board recommend the City Council approve the Wellhead Protection Program for official submission to the MDEQ and subsequent implementation with the acknowledgment that this is not a Master Plan document. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous; carried; the Wellhead Protection Program was recommended to be APPROVED 2. Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report Mr. Rieske presented the report. Members received the final report together with a memo dated May 30, 2000 and heard a presentation by Shane Silsby. A statement of concurrence and a recommendation of approval is requested. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend that the City Council approve the Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 16 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous; carried; Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report was recommended to be APPROVED. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith that the Committee of the Whole arise; unanimous, carried; the Committee of the Whole arose. Mr. Frederick passed the gavel to Ms. Keene. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Committee of the Whole met this evening and considered two items. a. Wellhead Protection Program In Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the Wellhead Protection Program. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend that the Wellhead Protection Program be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. By unanimous proclamation, the Chairman declared that the Wellhead Protection Program was APPROVED. b. Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report In Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of the Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous; carried, the Neighborhood Traffic Study and Traffic Calming Area 28 Final Report was APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 17 Next meeting Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. a. Act-5-2000, 521 E. Hazel, Building Encroachment into Beech St. Right-of-Way (1 ft x 68 ft) The Lansing Printing Company's building at 521 E. Hazel Street is located at the NW corner of Hazel and Beech Streets. The building encroaches one foot into the Beech Street ROW, and the Lansing printing Company requests the vacation of a 1' x 68' area of the Beech Street ROW to eliminate building encroachment. The property is in an "H" Light Industrial District just south of 1-496, with residences (also zoned "H" Light Industrial) to the north, south and west. A Lansing Printing Company facility is located across Beech Street to the east. The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial use. Staff recommends that the existing 1' x 68' encroachment be permitted in the Beech Street ROW by easement or license, for a term no greater than the life of the building. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence regarding the location, character and extent of the proposal, that the proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses, but that a license or easement would accommodate the encroachment and preserve the ROW width under City ownership. In Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend that the existing 1' x 68' encroachment be permitted in the Beech Street ROW by easement or license for a term no greater than the life of the building, using either legal mechanism as deemed appropriate by the City Attorney. Mr. Smith 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 recommend that Act-5-2000, 521 E. Hazel, Building Encroachment, Beech St. ROW (1 ft x 68 ft) be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 18 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, Act-5-2000, 521 E. Hazel, Building Encroachment, Beech St. ROW (1 ft x 68 ft) was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol, Department Conference Room 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff said a letter would be received requesting withdrawal of Z-4-98 from the petitioner, who, having sold the property, no longer has an interest in the case. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-15-99, Portions of 6820 S. Cedar St., from"F" Commercial District to"J" Parking District and from"J" Parking District to"F" Commercial District, Also 915, 927 & 1000 Just A Mere Ave., 6931, 6937 &7001 Georgia Ave. from"A" Residential District to"J" Parking District, Also 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 & 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from"A" Residential District to"F" Commercial District(Tabled January 11, 2000) e. Z-7-2000. 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 and 2716 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to"D-1" Professional Office District 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris Ave., Vacate Everett Lane ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) b. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) C. Act-21-99, 1000 Block Just A Mere Ave., Pedestrian Overpass(Tabled January 18, 2000) d. MPA-1-99, Master Plan Amendment to the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan (Tabled January 18, 2000) 9. NEW BUSINESS Regarding televising Planning Board meetings, Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, requesting that the Planning Board meetings be televised. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 19 Mr. Smith suggested assessing and evaluating the televising, possibly at the December Board evaluation. Mr. Frederick accepted the friendly amendment. To save meeting time, Channel 28 can at intervals scroll through the Board Chairman's introduction and explanation of the role of the Board. Mr. Frederick would like to see remarks stating that the Board's authority is limited by the Zoning Ordinance and other state acts. Also that Board recommendations are made to the City Council. Ms. Patrick said she will be voting against this motion because of remarks made to her from people in her ward. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Opposed: 1. Five (5) members, or a majority of the persons seated on the Planning Board (six at this time), shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the taking of official actions; therefore, the motion did not pass. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Keene asked when Mr. Nischan plans to be back, Mr. Ruff said in September. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene requested an excused absence for Wednesday, July 5, 2000; Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to grant an excused absence for Ms. Keene for Wednesday, July 5, 2000. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick said A-One Rental at Cedar and Cloverland has a car with no license parked in the yard; also equipment displayed on Cloverland. The Board approved a rezoning so they could store the equipment inside the building. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted es A. Ruff, Planning Manager Planning Board mn06O62000 aA57 ACT 5 2000, 521E Hazel St Building Encroachment Page 1 ACT-5-2000 521 E. Hazel Street Building Encroachment GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bill Christofferson Lansing Printing Company 619 E. Hazel Street Lansing, MI 48912 REQUESTED ACTION: Partial vacation of Beech Street ROW PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: 2,010± sq. ft. (Rectangular Shape) APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Lansing Printing Company is proposing a vacation of 68 sq. ft. of Beech Street Right-of-Way to eliminate an existing building encroachment in the ROW. EXISTING LAND USE: Printing Company EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No Change SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: Residential, Interstate 496 S: Residential E: Lansing Printing Company W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "H" Light Industrial W: "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Industrial. AGENCY RESPONSES: ACT-5-2000, 521 E. Hazel St Building Encroachment Page 2 Assessor: See attached. Building: No objection. BWL: No response received yet. Code Compliance: No comment. Development: Recommend an easement be given as an alternative to vacation. Vacation would be partial only. Easement would be for life of building. If building is removed, ROW remains with the City. Note: Partial vacation is what City did with Jim Tiffany. See results as we seek to get it back now. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No response received yet. Parks & Rec.: No response received yet. Police: No response received yet. Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Public Service: No response received yet. Transportation: No comments or requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The proposed vacation is located at 521 E. Hazel Street, at the northwest corner of Hazel and Beech Streets. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial. The lot measures 30.0' wide x 67.0'± deep. The portion of the property requested to be vacated is 68.00', north and south and 1.00', east and west. The legal description and proposed street vacation are described as follows: ACT 5 2000, 521E Hazel St Building Encroachment Page 3. Legal Description: That part of Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan being described as: Lot 4, except the West 47.25 feet, and Lot 5, except the West 37 feet of Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Proposed Street Vacation Description: That part of the Beech Street right-of-way lying East of Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, being described as: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan; thence North 68.00 feet along the East line of Block 223, and the West line of Beech Street; thence East, 1.00 feet; thence South, 68.00 feet; thence East, 1.00 feet to the point of beginning. CHARACTER: The entire property measures 2,010 sq. ft. and is mainly surrounded by industrial and residential uses. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. EXTENT: The requested action is to vacate 68 sq. ft. of right-of-way off of Beech Street to eliminate the building encroachment into the Beech Street ROW. OTHER Based on the information provided by the Assessors and Development Office regarding past cases with the City of Lansing's experience with vacating encroached street right- of-way, staff would concur with those department's suggestions. The Development Office recommended that an easement be given as an alternative to vacation since a vacation is partial only and an easement is for the life of the building and once the building is removed the ROW remains with the City. The Assessors Office cited two specific cases where the vacated ROW was deeded back to the city due to a vacation of the ROW. According to the Assessor, it is advised to have a permit, easement or license granted to the property owner and have the use of the ROW, as occupied by the present building, allowed to the property owner(s) to terminate at the time of demolition of the building (a.k.a. "Use for the life of the building"). Further, the Assessors Office states that the owner may use the occupied area for as long as the building is in existence, with full permission of the City. ACT-5-2000, 521 E. Hazel St. Building Encroachment Page 4. SUMMARY The proposed vacation is located at the northwest corner of Hazel and Beech Streets. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial. The portion of the property requested to be vacated is 68.00', north and south and 1.00', east and west. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The requested action is to vacate 68 sq. ft. of right-of-way off of Beech Street to eliminate the building encroachment into the ROW. A permit, easement or license should be granted to the property, terminated at the time of demolition of the building, as opposed to a vacation of the ROW. Due to the past experiences that the City encountered with previous vacations of ROW, it would be advisable to issue a permit, easement or license to the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the 1' x 68' existing encroachment be permitted in the Beech Street ROW by easement or license, a term no greater than the life of the building. Doris Witherspoon Senior Planner RE: ACT 5-00, Vacation of part of Beech Street Doris: I would NOT recommend any sort of permanent actions in vacating this encroached street right-of--way. has not worked, because rights-of--way and the land From our experiences in the past, this exist forever, and any building has a life-span of a much shorter period of time. Two examples come to mind: In 1980, a part of South Capitol Avenue was vacated for a proposed restaurant, which o was going to locate outside sitting in the right-of-way. Cit The restaurant was ey Council vacated ver opensmall edrip the f Capitol Ave., but the developer backed out of the deal. State of Michigan bought the Building(the former Olds Plaza Hotel), and the State legislature had to deed the vacated right-of-way back to the City. as In 1978, a portion of East Michigan Avenue, in front of"Jim'ove. The restaurant eTiffany lout off buisnes Restaurant" w the vacated, for the same reasons own. Just in the past example weeks or months, that vacated street parcel whole building was torn was deeded back to the City. to property My advice would be to have a Permit , Easement �the nresgnt building,ding,eallowed to the owner; and have the use of the right-of-way, as occupiedY p property owner(s): to terminate at the time of demolition of the building. This is generally known as "use for the life of the building". d area for as long as the building Much less fuss that way. The Owner may use thethe City hasthe Street when the building is in existence; with the full permission of the City; and tY goes. After all, it's not the fault of the City that this building was built with an encroachment onto the right-of-way. the entirety As far as the descriptions are concerned: We how are smuch of it may be f on the str deet g� as though is all sits on parcel#3301-21-231-060, no ma EXHIBIT MAP R=140.25' 47.25' FIT I '1 �I LOT 4 v � J � II m I � � O J II IEAST 1.00" cu 3 _ 47.25' W Q Lu cn VAN I9' 1 STORY o o BLOCK qj W �o 18.5 O BUILDING `D I m if 1 STORY II f TYP FF=829.61 ESIDENC � LOT 5 0 o I I z � I 37' 30.0" R=140.25' CONCRETE SIDEWALK P.0.B. PROPOSED-1/ S�EET VACATION TION � WEST 1.00' HAZEL STREET (82.5" PUBLIC R.O. W.) PARKING DATA PARKING REQUIREI'1ENTS: PARKING STALL SIZE 9' x l8.5' CAL CULA TIO/V I SPACE FOR EVERY 200 SOFT OF OFFICE AREA I HANDICAP SPACE FOR EVERY 25 SPACES PARKING CALCULA TION: OFFICE (I497 SQ. FT / 200J: 8 SPACES HANDICAP: I SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED: 8 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED: REGULAR: 8 SPACES HANDICAP: I SPACES EXHIBIT MAP Legal Description: That part of Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan being described as: Lot 4, except the West 47.25 feet, and Lot 5, except the West 37 feet of Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. tll Proposed Street Vacation Description: That port of the Beech Street right—of—way lying East of Block 223 of the Original J Plot, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, being described as: Beginning at the v Southeast Corner of said Block 223 of the Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham U) County, Michigan; thence North, 68.00 feet along the East line of Block 223, and the West line of Beech Street; thence East, 1.00 feet; thence South, 68.00 feet,• thence East, 1.00 feet to the point of beginning; R=140.25' 47.25' O U LOT 4 m � I 0 Y � � 0 3 I ire EAST 1.00' a N 47.25' 30.0' W 37' o U � 1 STORY o a BLOCK LLJ oo Cd LOT 5 o BUILDING . to to 1 STORY FF=829.61 ESIDENC ct:1,T-A�A Z JaCa-b 37' 30.0' �— R=140.25' 1 L CONCRETE SIDEWALK P.O.B. PROPOSED STREET VACATION / WEST 1.00' HAZEL STREET (82.5' PUBLIC R.O. W.) �, t 1 APPROVED AS PRINTED JULY 5, 2000 Draft to Clerk 07032000 Approved 07052000 To Clerk 07072000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall _r 124 West Michigan Avenue rn Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: Vice Chairman Keene called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present- Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith; five members present. Absent: Nischan. Two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Nischan was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Susan Cantlon, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter dated May 25, 2000 from Mr. Mark Kerrins addressed to Mr. Jim Sturdevant confirming withdrawal of Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) B. Letter dated June 20, 2000 from Ron Whitmore, Renaissance Neighborhood Assoc., addressed to Planning Office Re: Act-8-2000. In favor of a traffic study, walking paths and green space. 4. HEARINGS C. Act-8-2000, Eliminate Public Access on State-owned Sections of Sycamore and Washtenaw Streets Ms. Cantlon presented the case, a request by the Department of Management and Budget, Real Estate Division, on behalf of the State of Michigan, to eliminate 24-hour seven day-a-week access and use of state-owned sections of Sycamore Street between Kalamazoo and Allegan and Washtenaw Street between Pine and Butler. These streets were vacated. The streets would be demolished and integrated into a state-owned parking lot. A new state-owned drive would be created from Kalamazoo Street leading to the traffic circle in front of the Library of Michigan. The applicant has supplied a revised site plan (Mr. Forester displayed the revised site plan). The Master Plan for this area calls for government offices. Kalamazoo is currently a two-way collector street; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 2 Allegan is a one-way minor arterial; and Pine Street is a one-way minor arterial. Currently the state has 1,329 parking spaces; the new proposal would enable an increase to 1,695, a net gain of 366 parking spaces. Ms. Cantlon reviewed comments of responding agencies. Ms. Patrick asked if the increased need for parking was to serve existing buildings? Or for new buildings? TOM WILSON, DIRECTOR OF TENANT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. Yes, to both. Parking is at a premium. This will allow us to accommodate our tenants and the new building. Mr. Ruge said that Mr. Whitmore's letter mentions green space and a big expanse of asphalt. Mr. Wilson said the space shown as hard surface now is gravel. It will be surfaced. Today there is limited green space around the perimeter. Our plan will add to and increase green space and trees. We are concerned about the environment and the beautification of the area. Mr. Frederick asked about control of pollution runoff from vehicles, leaks of oil, transmission and other fluids. Will there be grease traps? Mr. Wilson said runoff as now will go into the sanitary sewer. There is no provision for mechanical means or retention basins to trap these substances. Mr. Frederick said this is a big lot. The Planning Board has expected other surface lots to have controls. He would like to see something like that. Mr. Smith asked if the perimeter would have a berm. Mr. Wilson said there might be a slight berm with grass; we anticipate putting trees in, American linden, sugar maples, white ash, native Michigan trees. Mr. Ruge would like to see this huge parking lot broken up more, with a sidewalk with trees by it going through the center, so people can walk without dodging cars. "It will cost you some parking spaces, but overall, it will look much nicer." It would be a better project. Ms. Patrick asked about the two buildings under construction—is there underground parking? Mr. Wilson said in the Hall of Justice there is underground parking, 560 spaces. There is no underground parking in the other building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 3 MARY ELLEN PERKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, REAL ESTATE DIVISION FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. Most of what I was going to say has been addressed. In addition to the enhanced landscaping that we are proposing, we are planning to hard-surface the gravel sections of the parking lot. We also propose to upgrade the lighting. It would be down lighting that would not spill into the adjacent neighborhood areas. I respectfully request your ultimate approval. RON WHITMORE, 416 S. BUTLER, REPRESENTING THE RENAISSANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND HIMSELF. You received a letter from me this afternoon. Our two concerns are traffic, and walking paths and green space. There is much traffic through our neighborhood, on Butler and Kalamazoo and Allegan. We propose that a traffic study be done. The current parking lots are a blight in the neighborhood. Nobody here tonight would want to live next to the parking lots. The neighborhood would like to integrate the green space with walking paths to the Capitol, the mall, and the Hall of Justice. Dan Burden has done much work on walking paths in the state of Michigan. We want native Michigan plants in the landscaping as a historical and educational feature. I would recommend looking into ecopaving and e-capture as alternatives to traditional paving to handle runoff better. It is such a large lot that it will have significant environmental impact. MONICA ZUCHOWSKI, 320 N. WALNUT, PRESIDENT OF THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. DNA is a large group with big boundaries, including a lot of other neighborhood groups. One of them is the Renaissance Neighborhood Association. As a courtesy, the DNA honors positions taken by these groups. Ron also sits on the DNA Board. We asked him for input from the RNA. At the March 11 DNA meeting, we voted on the previous proposal; however, I have revised our letter. We split on our recommendations. The DNA supports the closure of Sycamore between Kalamazoo and Allegan, but we oppose the closure of Washtenaw between Pine and Butler. The State of Michigan has established a pattern of building new buildings with insufficient parking. This request follows the pattern of street closures to provide parking for the public. The consensus was that the establishment of new state offices should also include adequate parking arrangements for the employees and general public. We were also concerned about the impact of street closures on the RNA and farther north, which includes the DNA (submitted copy of letter). Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Act-8-2000, Eliminate Public Access on State-owned Sections of Sycamore and Washtenaw Streets and referral to the Urban Development Committee, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 4 meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: May 6, 2000. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of May 6, 2000, with one correction as follows: P 14, Ln 481, Pos 5.51: Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller SMITH,. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of May 6, 2000, were APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. a. LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728 The applicant is proposing to divide the property in order to construct two single-family homes on the existing flag- shaped lot. Due to the lot shape, Parcel A exceeds the maximum lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5, Section 1236.07(d) of the Subdivision Regulations. The proposed lot width-to-depth ratio for Parcel A is 1:5.5, and for Parcel B, it is 1.2.36. Staff recommends denying this variance request for a lot split to exceed the 1:2.5 width-to-depth ratio because of the precedent that would be set for other irregular-shaped lots in this area. A petition with seven signatures objecting to the proposal has been received. The Committee noted that it is a stable neighborhood with an interesting mix of houses. The Committee found that with the lot configuration and the sewer easement, a single-family structure could be built on the existing property. Further, the Committee did not want to set a precedent for future splits of these narrow deep lots. The Committee recommended adopting staff's PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20) 2000 PAGE 5 recommendation to deny LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 3-0 to adopt staff's recommendation to deny LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276- 0728 for the reasons cited. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . .Aye Smith. . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, LS-13-2000, 1200 Block Ferley Street, PPN 3305-05-276-0728 was DENIED. Other items on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee were tabled. Next meeting Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. Next meeting Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol, Department Conference Room 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff has sent a letter and an application to a person interested in the Planning Board. Mr. Ruff attended a press conference on the 100 Block of N. Washington Mall in connection with the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Housing Committee, and spoke on design issues. Part of the impetus was through the recently- completed Master Plan to open the 100 Block first and then going through at least the 300 Block to Shiawassee Street. The Principal Shopping District, headed by Leanne Stites, has been working with a design PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 6 committee. L.C.C. will also be doing a Master Plan; Mr. Ruff has been invited to participate. We should begin interviews for Zoning Administrator soon. We are readying reports for the Urban Development Committee for MPA-2-2000 for South Washington and MPA-1-1999 Holiday Inn. Mr. Ruff met with representatives of Lowe's which will be locating on the south side of 1-96 off Cedar Street, across from Long Blvd. Rezoning will not be needed. Ms. Patrick asked if her understanding is correct that if a case has no action in a year, it dies, and if the applicant then wants further action, the application has to be resubmitted. Mr. Ruff said we have been handling these in several ways, trying to get letters from the applicant requesting withdrawal, however, in some cases, the Committee has moved it along (Z-19-99). Regarding some other pending cases in Old Town, Mr. Sturdevant is working with the City Attorney for review of an overlay zone. D. Pending Items: Future action required. 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-7-2000, 2710, 2712, 2716, 2718 and 2726 S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential to"D-1" Professional Office District(Tabled May 10, 2000) d. Z-15-99 (Revised and Expanded) Portions of 6820 S. Cedar Street, "F" Commercial to"J" Parking District and"J" Parking to"F" Commercial District; Also 915, 920, 926, 927, 1000 Just A Mere Avenue, 6900, 6931, 6937, 7001, 7007, 7015 Georgia Avenue and the north 110 ft of the properties at 1015, 1027, 1101 and 1109 E. Willoughby Road from"A" Residential to"J" Parking District; also 7025 Georgia Avenue, 1009 E. Willoughby Rd., the south 178 ft of 1015, 1027, 1101 and 1109 E. Willoughby Rd., 1115, 1121, 1201, 1209, 1215, 1227 and 1301 E. Willoughby Rd. from"A" Residential District to"F" Commercial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) e. SLU-8-2000, 216 W. Lapeer Street, Off-Street Surface Parking Lot in TM- 4" District (Tabled June 14, 2000) f. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F" Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris Ave., Vacate Everett Lane ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) b. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) C. Act-21-99, 1000 Block Just-A-Mere Ave., Pedestrian Overpass (Tabled January 18, 2000) d. MPA-1-99, Master Plan Amendment to the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan (Tabled January 18, 2000) e. Act-7-2000, American Road, Vacate and Rededication PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 7 9. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Keene said Mr. Ruge was absent last time when we considered the matter of Planning Board meetings being taped for delayed broadcast. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to televise Planning Board meetings on an experimental basis and review of the matter at the Annual Board evaluation meeting. The motion did not pass. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to reconsider the matter of televising Board meetings on an experimental basis and to evaluate the practice at the Annual Board Evaluation. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge thought it would be valuable to have the meetings televised. People are interested, but they are not going to come down here. Mr. Frederick was in agreement. We should educate the citizens, and he would encourage televising meetings. Ms. Keene did not want to attract people who would come just to see themselves on TV. Ultimately, it could be a time saver for the staff and the Board. People in the community are less likely to do things if they know there is a procedure for actions. Ms. Keene supports televising, with reservations. Some of the people who attend City Council meetings also are at the School Board meetings. Mr. Frederick believes it is the subject of discussion that attracts regulars, rather than the televising. The Board of Zoning Appeals has citizens come when a specific issue is on the agenda. Mr. Smith stressed the need to consider procedures and set guidelines to structure the meetings such as imposing time limits on speakers. These points need to be clear at the first to head off complaints of people's rights being trampled. Mr. Ruff distributed revised Board Chairman's comments to be scrolled over prior to the start of meetings. Mr. Ruge asked who is going to bear the expense; Mr. Ruff said the Council Office and the cable access. There would be no expense to the Department. Karen Schmidt said other metropolitan areas in the state tape their planning boards for broadcast on their public channel. She thought the issues of the Planning Board attract more attention than the City Council's. Ms. Patrick said Ms. Schmidt, when asked what initiated this request, indicated there was long-standing Council interest in televising this Board. "I don't want to speak for Ms. Sandy Allen," but she indicated she knew of no such interest. She was not personally supportive. We might want to check on this. Mr. Frederick asked why Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 8 Allen was not in support; Ms. Patrick said basically that we are a volunteer Board, and as citizens we would have unexpected exposure. "I don't want to speak for her. If you want Council input, they should be asked directly." Mr. Smith asked if Ms. Allen indicated if she had discussed that with any other Council members to learn if they in fact did not know about it, or did she make the supposition? Ms. Patrick said it was presented as discussion with the Council as a group. She recollected that there had been no discussion when Council met together. Mr. Smith said the discussion could have been conducted when she was not present. Mr. Frederick said he was concerned about Ms. Allen's lack of support for several reasons. This Board has more an executive than a legislative function. "I am disturbed that my council representative would not want to see more information about the function of City government being made more accessible. We are a public body, subject to the Open Meetings act. Any citizen has the opportunity to come down and watch us. I don't see the difference between being watched in person by somebody sitting out in the audience and being watched by somebody from their home." The intent is the same. He would still be in favor. Mr. Smith said we would be more visible by being televised and therefore more exposed to contact outside board meetings. People might recognize us in the grocery; there is a potential problem there—undue influence on Board matters. We are not elected officials. Council members are elected. We are not Board members all the time; we have other jobs. Mr. Frederick said as a Board member, he felt obligated to become knowledgeable about city planning and therefore obligated to listen. "People want to tell me their opinions." Mr. Smith said Planning Board members might not like the harassment should one of the City Council regulars decide to pursue us. There is an obligation with this position; on the other hand, we accepted this position with the understanding that there are also some limits. It has to be balanced. Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Ruff to look into an ethics issue of discussing pending zoning matters with people outside of meetings. "It is my recollection that this is not appropriate." That would be a way of deflecting questions outside of meetings. Mr. Frederick said this was discussed as ex parte contact. Mr. Ruff said he would get information and suggested delaying the decision until the next meeting. We mentioned starting the second meeting in July. There may be a possibility of beginning with the first meeting in August, starting with the public hearing. He could have the answers from the Attorney's office by that time or even have the attorney attend the next meeting. Ms. Keene was not in favor of more delay. Mr. Ruff said it would be better to start in August; starting at the second meeting in July might not make a lot of sense to people. It may be better to start with a public hearing and then follow the progression. Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 9 Keene said she will not be here for the first meeting in July. Mr. Ruff said in the meantime hopefully he could have answers for the Board on the questions. On Voice vote; there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; motion carried. Mr. Ruff said the Board could review the matter at the annual Board evaluation, and if something unpleasant has happened in the meantime, the decision can be reversed. Mr. Ruge said we may want to develop a contingency plan--have the procedure set up to deal with various scenarios. 9. NEW BUSINESS - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith said this morning in the State Journal there was an article from East Lansing which addressed the issue of getting volunteers to serve on boards, and the importance of it. Maybe Lansing should do something similar. Mr. Smith also asked about putting the Planning Board minutes on the web. Is it being done yet? Mr. Ruff said Sam Quon is attending a web meeting this week. The City does not have personnel assigned to web development. The Clerk's office has hired a consultant to do a revised web page and set up parameters for a standard web page for the City. Then each department could modify it. "Our department does not have staff dedicated to web development and update." We are, however, making dramatic advancements in Geographic Information Systems and getting the information out. Mr. Smith also asked about taking out trees on Washington Mall. Mr. Ruff said it was a balance, considering economic development, housing development and merchants' issues. Downtown residents in loft spaces would take away parking spaces that merchants wanted available for their customers. Also, trees and shrubbery atop berms obscured street views of merchants' signage. There was no regular berm pattern in the south Mall. By rearranging the placement of some berms and plantings, some additional parking spaces were created for residential use. Five berms are being removed in the first three blocks and a consistent curb line is being developed. Mr. Ruge commented that he was pleased with what the PSD is doing downtown. He was concerned that our master plan when completed would languish, and that doesn't seem to be happening. About the berms, removing the evergreens makes everything more open. It puts the emphasis on the storefronts. Mr. Ruff said in community after community, movement has been away from pedestrian PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2000 PAGE 10 malls for the retail environment. Mr. Frederick said the City of Pontiac has a downtown committee that has been very successful at sponsoring party events and entertainment. Their downtown has become more of an entertainment center than a shopping center, and it is clearly successful. Downtown districts cannot compete with malls for parking. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick reported a fence in violation at 4523 S. Pennsylvania. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 8.55 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Planning Manager Planning Board mn06202000 a:\57 LS-13-2000 1200 Bilk. Ferley Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard Peterson & Kenneth Reader D & K Real Estate 2920 Cherithbrook Dr. Mason, MI 48854 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: Same PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: See Plan, 43,560 ftz (1 acre), Flag Shape SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial (Bowling Alley) S: Plumbers & Pipefitters Hall E: Single Family W: Single Family SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial & "J" Parking S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The South West Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to divide the property in order to construct two single family homes on the existing "flag shaped" lot. Due to the lot shape, Parcel "A" exceeds the maximum lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5, Section 1236.07(d) of the Subdivision Regulations.The proposed lot width-to-depth ratio for Parcel"A"is 1:5.5 and Parcel "B" is 1:2.36. Therefore, a variance is requested to allow the proposed lot division which needs to be approved by City Council. LS-13-2000, 1200 Blk. Ferley Street Page 2. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessors: If this split is granted there are about 12 other parcels on Ferley Street that could qualify for a lot split with 30 feet frontage. Does the City want this type of planning? There already is a house at 1207 Ferley Street that really has no frontage on any street. It appears to have been there since the 1950's. Does that house use the west 20 feet of the subject property for access? If so, would that then become a shared (joint) driveway if this split is approved? BWL: Electric: No objection to the lot split. If approved, the owner needs to get in touch with BWL. The BWL will have to do some work to get electric service to the two units and maybe have to obtain easements. Water: No objection to property split. Consumers Energy: No comments received Development: No comments received Media One: No comments received Fire Marshal: No comments received Forestry: No comment regarding the division however, removal of the City owned tree for a future driveway will require compensation to the City for loss of that asset. Public Service: No objection to the proposed lot split. The applicant needs to be made aware that: 1.) No permanent structure will be permitted within the existing sewer easement; 2.) The easement provides to the City the "rights of access" across the property to access the manholes at the southern end of the property. Therefore, no structure, landscaping, etc. will be permitted within the easement which will impede access to LS-13-2000, 1200 Blk Ferley Street Page 3. the manholes; and 3.) If the eastern property is proposed to receive sanitary service via the 8- inch sanitary within the easement a private easement between the two properties will be required. A copy of the private easement will be required to obtain a sewer permit. Trans. Engr.: No comments received Information It is the policy of the Planning Board to have a public hearing for lot split variances. Notification is by first class mail to all property owners of property within 120'. The property has only 60' of street frontage but quickly flags out to 168' wide. The situation allows for the construction of one home presently. The division would allow the construction of two homes each having approximately'/z acre of land. The lot width is based upon the building line, which is to be parallel with the street and is at least to be 60'wide. Therefore, the proposed lot width at the building line is 60' for Parcel "A" and 140' for Parcel "B". Situation The parent property is one and one-half lots as platted. Each platted lot is a little over 3/4 of an acre. Two homes exist on divided lots on the frontage of Ferley which are approximately 55' wide by 110' deep and are addressed as 1109 and 1121 Ferley. There is also a house (1207 Ferley) on a lot that was split off the south end of the lot to the west (1205 Ferley). There exists a 20' wide sewer easement along the west lot line. ANALYSIS Section 1236.08(d) of Lansing's Subdivision Design Standards allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. Currently, the property south of the 1200 block of Ferley Street is a flag lot. The applicant is requesting a lot split that will create a lot that exceeds the maximum width to depth ratio. Therefore, this is a variance request to exceed the 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio. Location, Size, and Character The property is located along the south side of the 1200 block of Ferley Street and is approximately one acre in size. This property is a flag lot as the result of a number of lot splits and combinations. Properties to the east and west range in size from 6,050 sqft. to 33,990 (see illustration of lot split in public hearing letter). Property division and development in this area were done in piecemeal fashion. Additionally, 1207 Ferley does not have any frontage along Ferley. A shared driveway provides access to this property. LS-13-2000, 1200 Blk. Ferley Street Page 4 If this lot split is approved, each of the new lots would be approximately .5 acre and when averaged with the two other lots taken out of this parcel (1 '/2 platted lots)then the lot average is 13,915 sqft. (3/10 acre). This is considerably smaller than the intended lot size of the plat (3/4 acre). Single family homes exist on adjacent properties. This proposed lot split will create two flag lots, which would increase the number of irregular lots in this area. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Vehicular ingress and egress from 1201 and 1205 Ferley presents an issue because their driveway is partially on the applicants property. Mr. Reader is willing to workout a solution with the adjacent property owners. There is no anticipated impact to pedestrian circulation from this lot split. Impact on Future Patterns of Development The majority of lots are already developed with single family houses on the south side of Ferley. However, the Assessor's Office is concerned that if this proposed lot split is approved that a precedent would be established that would encourage other property owners to pursue similar lot splits. Summary The property is a flag lot located along the south side of the 1200 block of Ferley Street and is approximately one acre in size. Property division and development were done in a piecemeal fashion. This proposed lot split will create two flag lots, which would increase the number of irregular lots in the area. Vehicular access is a problem for neighboring property owners because their driveway is partially on the applicant's property. Mr. Reader is.willing to workout a solution to this problem. There is no anticipated impact to pedestrian circulation from this lot split. There is a concern that if this proposed lot split is approved, a precedent would be established that would encourage other property owners to pursue similar lot splits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denying this variance request for a lot split to exceed the 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio because of the precedent this could lead to other irregular shaped lots in this area. Options available to the applicants are to develop the lot for a single family residence, which is a use by right, or to develop the property as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). A PRD provides more flexibility in the regulation of land development to encourage innovative land use, design and types of structures built and the PRD process would require additional review and council approval. This small of a site does not encourage PRD development. LS-13-2000, 1200 Blk. Ferley Street Page 5. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner