Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 Planning Board Oct-Dec Minutes FINAL APPROVED AS PRINTED OCTOBER 17, 2000. Draft to Clerk DATE UNKNOWN Approved 10172000 To Clerk 02092001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, October 3, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7.05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Smith, Patrick; Nischan,:Foster, Ruge. Seven present, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - C. Introductions. Bill Rieske, Principal Planner, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA -Approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo to Doris Witherspoon from Tracy Carney-Miller, Economic Development Corporation, in support of Act-18-2000. B. Correspondence from Pastor Jeff Turner, Teen Challenge, requesting to use a current site plan submitted by Dimensions of Life in February, 1997 (SLU-14-2000). C. Leann Stites, Executive Director, Principal Shopping District, with respect to Act-18-2000. She indicates the PSD supports the application with some concerns and recommendations. 4. HEARINGS - A. SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. The applicant is Life Care Choices. The property, in the 3100 blk. of W. Mt. Hope, contains approximately 11 acres. The lot is zoned "A" Residential and "DM-1" Residential. The request is to build an Adult Residential Care Facility which is a use permitted by Special Land Use permit. The project is proposed to be completed in two phases. The first phase would include a 20-unit specialized care building and a 20-unit supportive care building. Phase II would include an additional 20-unit specialized care building and an additional 20-unit supportive care building for a total of 80 units. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 2 TAD BOSCH, ATTORNEY, REINDERS, INC., REPRESENTING LIFE CARE CHOICES, INC. Life Care Choices is actually the petitioner in this matter. Life Care is simply the development LLC arm of Reinders, Inc. Reinders, Inc. is a third-generation family-owned general contracting and real estate development firm based in Grand Haven. I work for them as General Coordinator and also as an attorney. We are proposing to bring to the W. Mt. Hope neighborhood an 80-unit senior campus. The entire campus would consist of assisted living services, but ultimately four individual buildings would be constructed. The supportive care buildings would be attached to one another as would the specialized care. Supportive care is essentially assisted living, as most of you are familiar. Our residents are the frail elderly that typically range in age from the low- to mid-80's. These are people who largely live completely independent lives but have reached a stage where their health and emotional security require some assistance with activities of daily living, and they prefer the mental comfort available in being in a community and having staff available for assistance, if needed. These people are independent residents, they are not patients. This is not a nursing home, it is not a subacute care facility; these are independent individuals generally from the neighborhood. The specialized care is for residents who are also seniors, but they are residents with some form of memory loss, dementia or Alzheimers Disease. They are grouped together in a separate facility to better deliver the kinds of support systems that they need. Everything we do is directed to give the residents and the community a residential flavor. The buildings we would construct would be single-story, pitched roofs, as opposed to flat roofs. (Showed drawings to the Planning Board.) The buildings look like large houses, each one approximately 13,000- 16,000 square feet; in total, just under 60,000 sq. ft. If you are familiar with the site, it essentially points in a north/south direction. Three roads dead end into the property. All of the traffic would go through Grand Haven Manor. We would use their road, hook into their utilities, and enter from Mt. Hope Road from their drive. We think that, given the single-story and the residential characters, there is a really nice buffer between the larger building (Grand Haven Manor) and the school and the residential neighborhoods to the south and east. We were fortunate to have a community meeting last month with Councilmembers Wood and Benavides and Attorney Mark Latterman. About 15-20 residents showed up, and we took a number of questions and concerns. We do have a number of residents here that would like me to give comment. I do not want to misspeak, but I got the general sense that no one was generally adverse to the proposal. There were some PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 3 concerns about storm water and fencing and especially our specialized care residents as to whether they would be out wandering around. Ms. Keene asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to see the drawings. Mr. Bosch explained the plans to the audience. Mr. Bosch stated that Reinders has developed assisted living facilities for a number of years in West Michigan and Northern Indiana. With this proposal, we would be bringing in a partner from the Grand Rapids area called Leisure Living. They also are a very experienced assisted-living provider with a great reputation all throughout Michigan. This is our second project together. Mr. Smith asked if the property butts up against the Lewton Elementary School property. I was over there looking at that today. There is a great deal of growth there, nice trees and so on. It is an attractive area with a very nice buffer. In looking at your plan, it doesn't seem to leave many of those trees intact. I am wondering just how much you are proposing to leave on the east side. Mr. Bosch said we would certainly leave as much of the vegetation as we can, especially mature vegetation. My architect is not here, and I apologize for that. He could answer specific questions about the proposed landscape planting. We have already filed a request for site plan approval with the City because we have some short time constraints in our purchase agreement with the seller. We had to do this simultaneously. The City is working with the engineers and the architect to reach accord on engineering, parking, and landscaping issues. Our intent is to make it as attractive and park-like as we can. Obviously we have to make it financially feasible, so we can not go to extremes, but we would like to keep as much mature vegetation as we can. Ms. Patrick said that you mentioned that your other properties. What is the typical or average length of time that you hold these properties? Mr. Bosch said we have never sold an assisted living development. All of them are built and owned and operated by us for the long haul. The longest one we have had in operation must be 20 years in Kalamazoo. We have them opening right now in Elkhart and Mishawauka, Indiana. The same experience has been had by Leisure Living. They have not sold a single facility. These are family run-companies and the intention is to hold these for the long haul and operate them as an owner would. Ms. Foster said that you show a fence up against the residential area. What are you looking at. Mr. Bosch said that this is another issue I really don't have the answer to. In other developments we have used vinyl, white, three- or four-foot-high substitute for a picket fence. In other developments, I have actually seen them higher to shield a particular land PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 4 owner who is very close and requested a higher fence. We would do whatever we need to do to satisfy the City and the residents. IRIS DENNING, 2900 S. CAMBRIDGE RD. I am from the subdivision across from this proposed unit. I am quite concerned in many areas on putting this unit in. When you consider the corner of Boston Blvd. down to Moores River Drive, which is approximately 6 blocks, we have two churches. We now have two schools, we have two retirement units, we have an apartment unit, we have a mobile home facility, and it looks like the old Elks will go to an office unit. At the meeting the other night that Mr. Bosch spoke of, they said that in the event that this unit was built, they would like to put in a preschool unit as well between the Grand Haven Manor and this unit. They want to house preschoolers during the day so they can interchange with the adults and the senior citizens. I think we are compacting this area too heavily, which is basically a residential area. I think we are asking too much to give up and the traffic situation will be extremely heavy. At the present time we have a hard time getting out of our neighborhood as it is and to have more units with more traffic and more people working in that area I think is asking too much for a residential area. Also, he tells us tonight, which I did not know before, that they are going to enter in from the Grand Haven Manor driveway. Do you realize that there are a hundred and thirty-some units in the Grand Haven Manor and there is only one egress out of the whole unit? This only goes to Mt. Hope Avenue. This means we are going to have more people coming out of that one driveway and no other way to get out in case of a fire or in case of a disaster of some kind. I think that was very poor planning on the City's part not to make another egress out of an area that takes 130 some units. A lot of the units have two people, and some of them have more than one car. I really think you need to spend some real thought before putting in one more unit in that six-block area. Thank you very much. JUNE KNOSTMAN, 1521 CAMBRIDGE. I have lived in this neighborhood on Cambridge and even closer to the property that is under question tonight since 1963, which is 37 years. I have seen many changes in the neighborhood. Actually, this neighborhood is the prime residential neighborhood left in Lansing, and when we have a mayor who says we need more homes and when we want to retain kids in our school system, then we have to look at the kind of housing that we are providing if these young families are to have a place to live. So here we are with the prime space left in Lansing. There are other isolated areas, yes, but not of the prime area that we are talking about tonight. What makes this prime? One, it's Francis Park; two; it's the scenic beauty all along Moores River Drive where your Parks Department has just made this more family- oriented by building the parking area out into the river so that kids drive out and look. I recognize that as a Planning Department that you cannot PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 5 know every nook and cranny in the City, and you do the very best you can in the quick time that you are allowed. I do not disagree with the plan developers either, because if I were in their place, I would try to find something as desirable as possible for what I was doing, but these are all older people. I am going to need one of those places shortly and so are you eventually, but I don't have to be located next to a grade school. They have that whole length of that 11 acres, and they plan to place a wire fence between them and Lewton Street School. That prime property around Lewton Street School should go for lovely private homes, regardless of the price range of the homes. When you have kids, didn't you want to be near a school? We have Lewton School, we have Elmhurst in walking distance, we have Dwight Rich Junior High. These three schools are all within walking distance of this prime property. True, this property has been lain there, it has not been developed. It has been a sleeper, but the City is awakening now, and we need homes for people and the people that are going to be housed in a unit like this. They tell us they don't even need a driveway out onto Mt. Hope. They will borrow the driveway from-the space next door. These people then, if they are not driving, why do they have to be next to a school, why do they have to be in the prime location left for private homes on the west side of Lansing. When I am in there, I want green space too, but I don't have to be right downtown in number one space next to the park. No, this is not the practical thing when we are trying to upgrade the housing in the City of Lansing. Please don't change our zoning out there. It was changed for the 132 units that are going in now, that kind of got snuck in on the neighborhood. We knew nothing about it, even after they started digging the foundations, we couldn't find out any information. Please keep us "A" Residential. VERNON MCGEE, 2304 BEDFORD RD. Is this project is connected with Grand Haven Manor? Ms. Stachowiak said she did not think there was any connection at all. I wonder since they were using their entrance to get into the place. Also, how far south of Mt. Hope will these buildings be? Ms. Keene said that from the site plan, it looks like they are located toward the southern part of the property. Ms. Stachowiak said actually they are sitting right in the middle of the parcel. They are a fair distance from Mt. Hope and a very fair distance going from south to north. Ms. Keene said that at this portion of the meeting we are not answering questions. If you have comments, you can give us those. If you want specific questions answered, there is going to be a committee meeting that this will be referred to which will meet on Wednesday of next week, so if you want to raise some of those questions, they can be raised at this meeting. Mr. McGee asked where this meeting is at. Ms. Keene said that it is at the Planning Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, next Wednesday, October 11 at 4 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 6 TAD BOSCH, LIFE CARE CHOICES. I would like to clarify a couple of points. I want to indicate first that the property is 9 acres, not 11 acres. There are two zoning districts on the parcel; it is sort of an odd configuration. Two-thirds of it to the north is actually "DM-1" Multi-Family District, so I do not think that single-family would be the only permitted use if we were not to use this property for the assisted living campus. The portion to the south is "A" Single Family use. That is obviously everyone's favorite. When you place an assisted living campus within a neighborhood that is existing, you will find that a large percentage of your residents come from the immediately surrounding area. They will vacate homes to move into the assisted living community, and that has almost the same effect as new construction, because it opens those homes up for ownership that otherwise would not be available. It is not clearly the equivalent of a brand new home being constructed, but it does allow turnover and revitalization of neighborhoods, an important consideration. Then there was also a comment that we had proposed to place some kind of preschool on that property. We really don't. That comment came from a question that neighbors had at the meeting we sponsored, which is, is it appropriate to have elementary school children in close proximity to senior development. We said absolutely, the seniors love the activity from cars, from people, from children and in a number of our developments we actually have programs, like our program in Holland, Michigan, that is exactly adjacent to an elementary school, and there are a number of programs where these children will come over during the school day to interact with the residents. This works out beautifully for the children, teachers, and the residents and staff. Our experience has been very positive, but we don't intend to put any kind of formal school or day care center in connection with our proposals. The other aspect that was raised as a concern was the traffic issue and the use of a single drive. As you know, planning is a balancing act, and it is tough to please everybody all the time. We thought it best for most of the residents in the neighborhood to try to utilize the already-existing drive so that you don't have multiple curb cuts on W. Mt. Hope, which only adds to confusion and potential traffic problems. Secondly, if the City or Fire Marshal, for example, asked us to access Deerfield, or one of the two roads coming in from the east, we would be happy to do so. We thought it was the most sensitive thing for the community that we not approach the planning in that way. We tried to do our best for the most residents. The traffic issue was laid to rest by City staff. There was a gentleman from the Traffic Department that attended that meeting, and he had done a study based on the number of residents and our staffing projections, figuring out the heaviest possible use of that facility and Mt. Hope Road. He found excess demand on Mt. Hope Road. The capacity of W. Mt. Hope far exceeds what is currently there and what we could expect to place on that road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 7 Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility. This matter is referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue at 4 p.m. Wednesday, October 11, 2000. b. SLU-14-2000, 510 W. Willow Street, Adult Residential Care Facility Susan Stachowiak presented the case, a request for a Special Land Use permit for an adult residential care facility for property located at 510 W. Willow Street. It is currently zoned "C" Residential. The residential care facility is a use permitted by special land use permit in that district. The applicants are proposing to utilize the existing structure for a 40-unit adult care facility They are not proposing to construct any new structures on the property. There will be approximately five to six employees located on the premises on a 24-hour basis, so they will occupy some of those 40 units. The property is on W. Willow Street near the intersection of Willow and Chestnut Streets. The applicants are proposing to do some site improvements, including some additional parking and landscape improvements to the property. This site plan was provided by a previous applicant who proposed to do the same thing to this property, but it never came to fruition. Mr. Frederick said that there was mention of a letter from the Land Use Chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association but it is missing from the report. Ms. Stachowiak said that the entire paragraph should be stricken from the report. That was part of the submittal for SLU-3-2000, which was just recently withdrawn; it was not stricken and should have been. The other change to the staff report would be to the top of page 7 where it says 4 people. That should be changed to 5 to 6. JEFF TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LANSING TEEN CHALLENGE. We are a one-year live-in program for adults with life- controlling problems. We have a long track record all over the United States and the world. We have been in operation since 1958, and 1986 in Lansing. We have had no police reports for anything that has happened while we are living there. We have a lot of letters from our neighbors, we are in the North Town Neighborhood right now. We make good neighbors. Part of our program is that our men work half a day, and when I say work, I mean we volunteer in the community. We do a lot of neighborhood cleanups, and we work for the Red Cross, churches, we cut grass, whatever people would ask us to do. Actually we are very quiet. Our structure is such that there is staff with the men at all times. We are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 8 out of the building until noon every day, we go to a church where we have a service and two classes, and in the afternoon our men do work and in the evenings they are there for dinner. We have prayer, study hall, and the lights go out at 10:30 p.m. We are very quiet. Our students are not allowed to drive, so we would only have 4 or 5 vehicles there. There would not be a lot of traffic in and out, and we would have monitoring 24/7. We have an alarm system in place right now. It would be a great place for us. We have a lot of commendation letters, one from the former Mayor (Paul Duis), one from President Reagan for our program. Our graduates have shown, through government studies, that there is better than an 86 percent success rate of getting off drugs and alcohol, and that was five years later. I am also a graduate of the program. I went through the program in Muskegon. We have five centers in the State of Michigan. I went through the program in 1990, and it has just been a miraculous change in my own life. I am now a family man. We live in Okemos. People gave us a house to live in when we came to take over this ministry. I am just amazed at what God has done. We have a local teacher who is a graduate of our program in Lansing. We have a lot of men and women who are from our program who are doing really well in the City. Mr. Nischan asked if this is male and female, what are the ages, and what are the defining characteristics of the students who will be there. Mr. Turner said we do have a women's program here, but after we considered this, we decided that we would only put men there. They have to be 18 years old and older. Generally speaking, they come to us with a problem, either drugs or alcohol, but they come on a volunteer basis. Most of them have reached their limit and are ready to be helped. We are not funded by the government, we are a non-profit organization funded by donations. Mr. Nischan asked if they take court referrals. Mr. Turner said that if someone is put on probation, and part of the probation would be to finish our program, we could take them like that, but it is all percentage, and generally nonviolent crimes, no CSC (Criminal Sexual Conduct). Our bylaws won't allow that because we have always been in neighborhoods. Generally drug and alcohol problems. Ms. Keene asked where is their facility right now. Mr. Tuner said currently 1017 Grand River, which is the north end of Pennsylvania. It is a big house. Ms. Keene asked how many residents or students do they have. Mr. Turner said we have up to 12 students right now. We are borderline. We get a lot of phone calls, I do refer men to Detroit, Muskegon, Flint, Saginaw programs. Ms. Keene asked if the largest number they have had is about 12. Mr. Turner said we have had more than that, but what we would usually do is take someone in to get them off the street and then we will get them ready, get a TB test, and get them to another Teen PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 9 Challenge Program. There are times when we have gone over that, but we generally try to move them out as quickly as possible. CECIL RIALS, 500 W. WILLOW ST. My wife and I are very concerned about what we live next door to. We moved there 23 years ago. She has been upset each time this sort of thing comes up. We do not want to move out, but we don't want to live next door to someone who has been in trouble. We are very uncomfortable. We would like to have someone there, the old ladies home like it was before. The point I am trying to make is, if my wife is very unhappy, I am very unhappy too. We don't want to stop progress, we have even thought of selling our place, and we did not want to do this. We are taxpayers and we would like to be respected and have our request respected. We cannot continue to fight. When Dimensions of Life came in, every promise they made, never kept one. They never shoveled their driveway, they were supposed to put up a new fence for us because their people kept backing into it, I kept repairing it. They decided they would put up a new fence and agreed to that with the Planning Department. One day she came over and asked when I wanted my fence up. I replied we need to decide on what type and size first, because I can't get my ladders in between it. She said when you really get ready you let us know. Well when I got around to letting them know they were already moved. So, we don't have a fence. I called the Planning Department and left a number and no one called back about the fence. The Planning Department did not know they were moving out. We know we will not live comfortably as we planned. If anybody has any good ideas, I would like to hear them. DAVID MCCARDEL, 2801 BRYANT CIRCLE. Life-long resident of Lansing and a developer. I have had years of experience with the group called Teen Challenge. The program is a Christian-based program and is all volunteer. The men that are in the house are excellent workers. They are very polite. The thing I have noticed about the men more than anything else is that they are respectful to each other. I have never seen an argument between the men, and I have had as many as nine men at one time together. I have never heard a complaint out of any of them regarding their living conditions. Our company even hired one of their members after he graduated from their program and had him on our staff full time for at least five years. He has subsequently gone on to bigger and better things. I can tell the gentleman before me that this is a great program. They are and will be a positive influence on his neighborhood. He would like to have some older men living there; well, if you allow it, they will have a group of younger men living there. They are a great influence to the City and I am glad they are in our City. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed for SLU-14-2000, 510 W. Willow Street, Adult Residential Care Facility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 10 This matter is referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue at 4 p.m. Wednesday, October 11, 2000. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None Mr. Nischan said that before we recess, I wanted to note that one member needs to be recused from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, so we need to appoint additional members for SLU-9-2000. Ms. Keene asked for volunteers to sit in for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Smith volunteered. 6. RECESS - The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet regarding SLU-9- 2000 and SLU-14-2000. The Urban Development Committee will meet regarding Act-16-2000. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 19, 2000 Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of September 19, 2000. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; Carried unanimous; the minutes of September 19, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Has not met. No report. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met during the Recess. a. SLU-9-2000, 532 N. Seymour, 223 W. Lapeer St., to Construct a Parking Lot in a "DM-3" Residential District This has been on and off the table several times. It is a proposal by Lansing Community College to raze an old, potentially historic home that has been vacant for 1'/ years to construct a parking lot for offices that they have next door to the lot. The building itself has undergone numerous alterations since its original construction. The owner, according to a 1874 atlas, was a Mrs. Lansing. It has been stabilized. It had been divided into a four-unit apartment, but it has not had any tenants for I years. LCC proposed to expand its surface parking to gain an increase of 20 spaces for a total of 53 spaces for Lansing Community College faculty and staff that are in the office buildings in the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 11 area next to the site. The proposed plan would have created a contiguous parking lot at 532 N. Seymour and 223 W. Lapeer St. as shown on the landscape plan and report. This was done in response to several parking studies that LCC has conducted, and it does indicate that they have a shortage of parking in the area. There was a lot of input regarding the parking, which was the main reason that this issue was on the table. One other point that I wanted to make is that as part of their Parking Study, LCC has determined that they will not be expanding west beyond this particular property to gain any more parking were this to be approved. Staff report recommended approval. A couple of the members of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee did tour the building and found that it is in pretty rough shape, but potentially salvageable. In Committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried 2-1 to recommend denial of SLU-9-2000, 532 N. Seymour, 223 W. Lapeer St., to construct a parking lot in a "DM-3" Residential District. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to deny SLU-9-2000, 532 N. Seymour, 223 W. Lapeer St., to construct a parking lot in a "DM-3" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Nischan said that before discussion begins, I would like to let everyone know that do contract work for Lansing Community College, and although I do not stand to benefit in any way from this, I would like to avoid any appearance of impropriety and be recused from the discussion and vote. Mr. Frederick made a motion; seconded by Ms. Foster, to recuse Mr. Nischan from the discussion and vote; unanimous; carried. Ms. Keene said that she would like to remind the Board that she also asked to be recused from this item because she has taught at the Community College for several years. I would not personally benefit, but just to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I would also like to be recused from a vote on this issue. Mr. Frederick made a motion; seconded by Mr. Smith, to recuse Ms. Keene from the vote; unanimous; carried. Mr. Frederick asked if Ms. Keene has been recused, is he the chair of the Committee, since he is the Vice Chair. Ms. Keene said she would appoint Mr. Ruge to the chair for SLU-9-2000. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 12 Mr. Frederick asked if we have enough for a quorum with the recusals. Mr. Rieske said yes, we have five members. Mr. Frederick said that he rarely disagrees with the findings of the Committee, but on this one, he expressed his disapproval in recommending denial. I believe that LCC is genuine when they say they are not going to expand their parking beyond this, but they do have some parking issues that are beyond their control that were brought out in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, and I do believe that from what I heard about the condition of the building that there are accommodations made for saving what is historically important on the building, but that the building itself is probably not going to be salvageable. LCC has tried to get somebody to move it, and they have been told it is not in good enough condition to move. So I am really at odds with what will happen with this particular property if it isn't razed, it strikes me that it will just end up deteriorating and becoming an eyesore in the neighborhood. I think the staff report has some good things included in it that would have improved this corner. At least improved it better than if you have a parking lot. At this point I am not in favor of recommending denial of this case. Ms. Patrick said she listened to the subcommittee discussion and has also listened closely to this case because she thinks it is a difficult one. You have a City and a Community College who are trying to accommodate each other's needs. I think on the first serious attempt when you were asked to table this case to see if there could be some work done, significant progress was made. One hundred parking spaces were identified for LCC's use, and while this is not permanent, both parties have motivation to find solutions to the parking problem. On the other hand, I have looked at the site a number of times, and it appears to me, although I am not an architect or expert in this area, that the house, or some residential-like structure does anchor that intersection. To remove it for the purpose of parking would be a loss to that neighborhood and to that intersection. I think there are other solutions that can be found. I am very positive about the working relationship between the City and LCC, and I would urge the City Planning Department to continue advocating on behalf of finding alternative solutions, but I will be voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Smith said that I would like to give my reasoning for my vote to deny. It is twofold; 1) parking is going to continue to be a problem if LCC is successful in expanding their activities, which they hope to do. They will continue to face that problem, and I think by piecemeal getting 20 spaces here and 20 spaces there, it is not the solution to the problem. I think there is an incentive to explore alternatives. They are always looking for new parking spaces, they can encourage ride groups, or they could do some other things to encourage others to rely less on parking in the downtown area. I also remember this past year when we looked at the Adado Park possibilities and it seemed to be beneficial to both the City and to LCC and for whatever reasons, they have decided not to go forward with that, but it did seem at the time to be a good solution. This evening, Mr. Roush, who is from LCC, pointed out several of the advantages that would have come along with that had they approved the parking proposal. That essentially is why I am voting to deny. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 13 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Patrick . •Ave Smith. . .Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; motion carried; SLU-9-2000, 532 N. Seymour, 223 W. Lapeer St., to construct a parking lot in a "DM-3" Residential District was DENIED. Mr. Ruge left the meeting. b. SLU-14-2000, 510 W. Willow Street, Adult Residential Care Facility Mr. Frederick presented the case. This is a request for a special land use permit for the property located at 510 W. Willow for a Residential Care Facility to house up to 40 residents. This piece of property was originally an elderly female residence licensed by the State of Michigan, which housed a maximum of 42 women. The building was constructed in 1930, and additions were made in 1940 and 1965. In the past the Board has approved, in 1997, a special land use for the Dimensions of Life, which proposed to house up to 45 women with a small portion of the facility in the assessment and outpatient treatment of families, single parents and men. This was proposed to be a type of transitional housing, compared to being a shelter or permanent housing. The project was not carried out. Subsequent application submitted by Dan Garcia under special land use SLU-3-2000 has been withdrawn effective September 11, 2000, and thus we have the request from Lansing Teen Challenge to put in their Residential Care Facility. This will be a residential counseling Christian-based program, monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week for men 18-50+ years old who have a variety of substance abuse problems. If you have had an opportunity to read the applicant's proposal, then you will have an idea of what the program is all about. Staff report showed that the land would meet the special land use requirements. There were a couple of corrections made to the staff report. On the top of page 7, the second sentence, "a minimum of 4 people" should be changed to 5-6 people; the final sentence in that paragraph, "Mr. and Mrs. Garcia will be living at the facility. . . ." should be struck. This statement is factual, but the names are different. Farther down on the page at "Other," that entire paragraph should be struck. Staff recommended that the special land use be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 14 approved subject to compliance with an approved site plan for landscape, buffering and other site improvements required by the City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Office also reserves the right to require fencing and/or landscape materials that would best screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors or to inhibit trespassing. Approval of this special land use is conditioned upon corrections made to the facility based on the inspections made by the City of Lansing. The Committee also put conditions on the approval, to include all conditions mentioned in staff report, and the parking lot along Willow should be adequately screened and buffered and that Teen Life Challenge utilize the site plan that was originally adopted from Dimensions of Life. There is a proposed parking lot that is included in that plan that had a large tree in it. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee felt that the tree should not be cut down and put a condition on the approval that the tree should continue to stand for so long as it naturally remains. Mr. Frederick made the motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve SLU-14-2000, 510 W. Willow Street, Adult Residential Care Facility with the conditions outlined above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Nischan said there is enough evidence to conclude that they pass the criteria we have to assess a special land use. On the other hand, particularly because it is a non- licensed facility, there is not enough evidence here regarding programmatic safeguards, coverage, staffing, etc. to leave me without anxieties, and the specific anxieties are around the criteria in number three, interference with general enjoyment of the adjacent properties and potentially number two, change in the essential character of the area. How that land use is carried out matters just as much as what the land use is. My intention would be to vote for it, but on the other hand, I would like to be on record as saying how conformity to those two criteria in particular needs to be watched very carefully because that is an awful lot of people to have in an unlicensed facility, particularly with those types of problems. Ms. Patrick said that I have not been on the Board long, but I have not been in this type of meeting where the public hearing and the vote have been held on the same night. Many of the points of discussion in the subcommittee were of interest to me personally to check out. I only read about this proposal on Sunday night when I got my packet. So I wonder if I can ask the staff why this particular request has been fast-tracked. Ms. Stachowiak said because of the applicant's request. Ms. Patrick asked if that is normal for the staff to support that type of fast-track. Mr. Rieske said we felt that if as many bases as possible could be covered, that this was a proposal that could be at least addressed in Committee, and if they wanted to table it that was fine, but give the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 15 applicant a quicker turn around on this because of the need to get into the facility. It is not routine, but it is not unheard of either. Mr. Smith said that this kind of thing has come up before, and I think that sometimes as Committees we get involved in examining how an applicant may conduct business when really the question at hand is whether or not it is appropriate zoning or special land use that we are talking about. Maybe it sometimes sidetracks the discussion because we really have no say on whether or not a license is given or needed. That is beyond our scope here, and so sometimes we can spend a lot of time discussing issues that we really don't have much to say about. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick . .Aye Smith. . .Aye Keene. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aye Foster. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-14-2000, 510 W. Willow Street, Adult Residential Facility, with conditions was APPROVED. The conditions are as follows: 1. That the special land use be approved subject to compliance with an approved site plan for landscape, screening, buffering and other site improvements required by the Zoning ordinance; 2. That the Planning Office reserve the right to require fencing and/or landscape materials that would best screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors or to inhibit trespassing; 3. That the special land use approval also be subject to the corrections made to the facility based on the inspections made by the City of Lansing; 4. That the parking lot along Willow be adequately screened and buffered; 5. That Teen Life Challenge utilize the site plan originally adopted from Dimensions of Life; and 6. That the large tree in the proposed parking lot that is included in that plan not be cut down and that it continue to stand for so long as it naturally remains. Next meeting is Wednesday, October 11, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair, reported on the Urban Development Committee meeting of September 26, 2000. 1. Act-1 5-2000, River Street Triangle Property, Grand Avenue - Grand River - Kalamazoo St., Market for Sale Mr. Smith presented the case. The City of Lansing, Planning and Neighborhood Development Department, is requesting to market the River Street Triangle Property, Grand Avenue, Grand River, and Kalamazoo St. City Parking Lot #6 for public sale for private PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 16 development including the vacant section of Kalamazoo, River Street. In summary, the proposal provides for mixed use residential use of the prime downtown property retaining river frontage for river trail development in conformity with the Waterfront Development Plan, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan and the City Council Resolution #387. Any final development plans will be subject to the City site plan review and building permit process. Initially staff recommended approval as proposed, and the Committee found, based on testimony and evidence regarding location, character and extent of the proposal that the property description retains City ownership of frontage along Grand River in a depth of 50 feet to develop the river trail in conformity with the Waterfront Development Plan, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan and the City Council Resolution #387. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 4-0 to recommend approval of Act-15-2000, River Street Triangle Property, Grand Avenue - Grand River - Kalamazoo St., Market for Sale for office, residential, commercial or mixed use in accordance to the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan reserving or relocating easements as necessary at the developers expense. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve Act-15-2000, River Street Triangle Property, Grand Avenue - Grand River - Kalamazoo St., Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick said that I am glad to see this kind of thing moving along. It is further implementation with the plan for the downtown area that the Committee worked so hard on and so long on. I am glad to be able to vote for something concrete. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick . .Ave Smith. . .Aye Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; Act-15-2000, River Street Triangle Property, Grand Avenue - Grand River - Kalamazoo St., Market for Sale was APPROVED. 2. Act-16-2000, SW Corner Roth & S. Cedar, Relocate sewer easements and Cul-de-sac Mr. Smith presented the case. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 17 Initially this was tabled pending further information, and we received that and subsequently met this evening and took this up again. The applicant, John Schaefer, Lowe's Home Centers, proposes to abandon the sanitary sewer easement located across the proposed Lowe's building and to relocate an existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Roth Drive. This property is located along the east side of the 6700-6900 block of S. Cedar St., south of Roth Drive. The development will wrap around the gas station at 6923 S. Cedar St. The current property is 14.8 acres in size and is zoned "F" Commercial, "G-2" Wholesale, and "J" Parking. In summary, the applicant is requesting that the City vacate and relocate the sanitary easements and reconfigure the existing cul-de-sac on the east end of Roth Drive. The proposed relocation would make the site buildable, and the relocation of the cul-de-sac would continue to give access to adjacent properties and convenient ingress and egress into the development. The geometrics and traffic movement requirement should be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. I should add that we subsequently did receive correspondence from Dave Berridge in regard to the questions we had regarding possible readjustment of Roth Drive. The staff recommended approval of the abandonment of the sanitary easements with the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide a title commitment and a certified survey indicating the exact location of any proposed sanitary sewer facilities on the subject property; 2. A site plan, public utility relocation plan be approved by all applicable agencies; and 3. All agency requirements be met, and that there be no significant impact on services. Another condition was put on by the Committee this evening which is: 4. To soften the visual effect of the fencing with landscaping and preferably not a chain link fence. The Committee voted to recommend approval of Act-16-2000. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 18 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve Act-16-2000, SW Corner Roth and S. Cedar, Relocate sewer easements and Cul-de-sac with conditions outlined above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Frederick said that he has not had a lot of time to study this in detail, but I am not quite sure I understand Mr. Berridge's report that he provided to us tonight. In particular, in the second paragraph where the access between Lowe's and the gas station was addressed, I have noticed something in this part of the state, that for some reason when there are commercial developments along side each other that people just don't want to connect the parking lots forcing people who want to go from business to business to drive out into the street. I can't tell from looking in this plan if that is the situation with this one, but if it is and you go to Lowe's and you want to get gas or vice versa, if you have to dodge around Cedar, I don't think that is a good idea, and I don't see how that can be considered to be a safe situation. I guess I can't vote against because of that, but at least I have the impression that this is done, and would encourage it be reconsidered and allow all of these parking lots in the future to be connected so people don't have to go out in the street to go from business to business. Mr. Nischan said I just want to say hear, hear for that because we run into that in so many developments. The artificial separations result in drives coming out of lawns and if people are having to loop around them, it makes for more traffic mess. Mr. Smith said it was mentioned in the meeting that part of Mr. Berridge's reason was apparently he is familiar with these properties and at that gas station there are other things that are sold, like mulch and things of that sort, and the way it is configured it also has parking that accommodates people who come to buy that type of thing and it might be a little more problematic. However, he leaves it open here for the owners of Lowe's and the gas station to decide between themselves if they want to open that up. Mr. Frederick said since you raised that last sentence, it seems contrary to intelligent planning to let the owners of the property configure stuff, when it is beyond addressing how they conduct their commercial side of their business. Planning to me addresses the safety of everyone who uses the property, and that was my concern here that we create unsafe conditions by isolating these little islands at businesses for what would seem to be a large contiguous piece of property and people that come in don't care if they buy mulch from the gas station or a ladder from Lowe's; when they want mulch and a ladder they ought to be able to make it easy to get to them both. Mr. Frederick said I am not sure I am comfortable enough to make an amendment here, just a suggestion that this kind of thing be looked at in the future. Ms. Foster said I think if they do plan it together, because of the existing developments they would not have to spend a lot on asphalt, and they would not need as many driveways because they could connect those. There would be fewer curb cuts to make it a little safer. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 19 Mr. Smith said I wanted to respond to what Mr. Frederick said. I actually concur, I think it would be better if these things were planned. But I think two things have to be kept in mind, 1) we asked Mr. Berridge to get an expert opinion on the safety considerations and traffic considerations, which he did, and 2) 1 believe the gas station is a Speedway Station. I am sure it is part of a national chain so there would be corporate considerations there, and they pre-existed this development. So in a sense they're being surrounded. To ask them to willingly open up to the competitor, so to speak, it may be beneficial to them, but we have to be sensitive to their feelings too. Mr. Frederick said that the reason that I was not feeling comfortable about making an amendment because I do know that Mr. Berridge is the expert here. Without taking a good long hard look at it, I do not feel comfortable contradicting his recommendation. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . .Aye Smith. . .Aye Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-16-2000, SW Corner Roth & S. Cedar, Relocate sewer easements and Cul-de-sac with conditions was APPROVED The conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant provide a title commitment and a certified survey indicating the exact location of any proposed sanitary sewer facilities on the subject property; 2. A site plan, public utility relocation plan be approved by all applicable agencies; 3. All agency requirements be met, and that there be no significant impact on services; and 4. To soften the visual effect of the fencing with landscaping and preferably not a chain link fence. 3. Act-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Use of Air Rights for Balcony over Washington Avenue Mr. Smith presented the case. The applicant, Ny-Mac Enterprises, requests to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk over 210 S. Washington Square. The request is for permission to erect two (2) 6 ft x 9 ft wrought iron balconies on the second floor of the building at 210 S. Washington Square which, according to the applicant, will be 16 feet above grade from the sidewalk. They are proposing a "New Orleans" style look on this building. The residents in the loft apartments will be able to sit on their balconies, giving an appearance of activities during all hours of the day. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 20 This site is where Linn's Camera formerly was. It is a primary area of the retail district in the downtown. Staff recommended denial of this request. The Committee found that based on testimony and evidence regarding the location, character and extent of the proposal that: 1. The balcony proposal is thus far unique, and may set a favorable precedent for other balconies in the downtown area, 2. The proposal moves toward the goal of a more lively downtown and adds to the vitality of the downtown; 3. The proposal promotes residences in the downtown area; 4. The balconies could enhance public safety with an "eye on the street" neighborhood watch effect, 5. The balconies can be designed in a manner which is compatible with the historic character of the downtown buildings, with solid decking so as to protect pedestrians below; 6. The balconies as proposed meet and exceed the minimum requirements for height above the sidewalk; and 7. No street-level supports are proposed, so the balconies will not interfere with pedestrian movement. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 4-0 to approve Act-18-2000 with the following conditions: 1. That the balconies be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building, and 2. That original historic character of the building be retained during the building rehabilitation and installation of the balconies, in accordance with the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. The features which define the historic character include: a. Fenestration - preservation of the original window and door openings; b. Retaining the arched brick detail above the window openings, the center brick waterfall element and the square, limestone detail on the upper right pier, C. Retaining the multiple overlapping brick rows at the lower edge of the cornice; d. Retaining the roof line and parapet height; e. Retaining original materials. Deteriorated materials should be repaired rather than replaced where possible. New material should be compatible with the original. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 21 Mr. Smith made a motion; seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve with conditions as above Act-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Use of Air rights for balcony over Washington Avenue. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Nischan said it is really nice to see that people are attending to the Central Lansing Downtown Plan and are attempting to bring in that kind of character and real live human presence, including the adoption of so many of the Central Lansing Downtown Plan factors in the Blue Ribbon Report. Seeing that coming together is heartening. I applaud the Urban Development Committee for taking a look at this thing here. Mr. Rieske noted a memo to Doris Witherspoon from the EDC staff regarding this project. This memo was in favor of the project, saying that it is vital to create an after- hours crowd. It basically discusses the liveliness of the City that could result from this project. A second correspondence was from the Principal Shopping District. They issued some cautions and a recommendation. Balconies should have standards of appearance. Balconies should not store bicycles, laundry, charcoal grills or trash. They should be maintained with similar appearance, with plantings, et cetera. Another caution concerned spilling of liquids or dropping of items. The recommendation was to limit the use of the balcony to seating only, no tables, grills, trash cans, storage or multiple small potted plants. The balcony should add to the aesthetic appearance to the Downtown Commercial District and protect the pedestrian traffic below. These were not available during the Urban Development Committee meeting so I wanted to forward these for the Planning Board's consideration. Mr. Smith said he thought the comments from the PSD are well taken. He is still in favor of balconies; they do add character. Mr. Rieske mentioned the Standards of the Secretary of The Interior with regards to historic places, and that would be a consideration for Old Town. Although the standards are not enforced by the National Register regulations in that area, they are enforced by financial incentives instead. What I am suggesting is that if, in the consideration of all this, everyone has in their paradigm the South Washington District of downtown, that may be that is where the emphasis should be, until this is tried and we find out if it works. Mr. Nischan said I did want to comment on Mr. Rieske's suggestion, but I did want to follow up on the question of what goes on the balcony. I agree with Mr. Frederick that it is going to be very tough to enforce. On the hand, I was just visualizing Chicago and how some of the back balconies, alley side balconies look, with the silver garbage cans and the plastic storage racks and some of that, so I think it is pretty tough to figure out how to word some language to protect against that. But I would like to have some hedge in there. Maybe the price of the rental is going to be the hedge. Ms. Keene said this is really a matter of air rights, so can we put conditions on this? Mr. Rieske said that this is use of the air rights. Mr. Nischan said that we could condition the use, I think. Mr. Rieske said I think that the City Attorney is likely to want to permit this in a license format rather than vacating air rights. Ms. Keene said use of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 22 air rights. She was unsure how far we could go in terms of imposing conditions that would be enforceable. Mr. Nischan said can I add, instead of as a condition, a suggestion that administratively the City look at what safeguards for aesthetics it could reasonably include if it uses Iicensure or some other thing. Ms. Foster said that I think that it is going to be a wonderful amenity for the space because it is a people type of space. I understand that the worries are there, but it is going to be a place where people will be, and I don't believe it is going to turn into a trash dump. I know that it is harder to regulate afterwards, but I encourage the use of it. Even if it is different-colored flowerpots, even if it is different-colored laundry, it brings character to the place. Mr. Smith said you are looking at air rights, and I am not sure how many conditions we can really impose on it; however, if this is the impetus for further requests for balconies, I think it is time for staff to draft language that I agree should not be as restricted as what we see here from PSD. But then again, we have to accept that these are not the back alley balconies, these are the street-facing balconies, and so maybe there has to be tighter language about what is permissible and not permissible, given that you are balancing not only the rights of the people who are living there, but also to accept that this is something put in the face of the public, and is using the public space. I clearly would not like to see black trash bags tied up out there or trash cans with stinky trash that has not been emptied. That may have some character-building to it, but not the kind that I think we want. Ms. Keene asked did you want to amend your motion or to capture that language that Mr. Nischan mentioned? Mr. Smith said that I think that we either approve or don't approve this tonight, and I am assuming that this is going to be based on some sort of Iicensure and that terms of agreement might be drawn as part of that, but in anticipation that there will be more requests for this sort of thing, I think we ought to be thinking about drafting language that covers them uniformly before we have another one come before us and go through this same discussion. I do not want to impede the progress on this particular case this evening, but I think we have to address the issues that will come following. Ms. Patrick suggest that we make a separate recommendation to the staff to enter into discussions with the City Attorney about what kinds of current code ordinances that apply to residential front yards could be reasonably attached to these balconies, such as in trash in the front yard, and that the staff come back with some recommendations to us after a certain period of time. Mr. Smith said it would be interesting too, if staff could locate it, if, in other cities where they do permit balconies, they do have ordinances, and what those ordinances would look like. So we have some comparisons. Ms. Keene said, to address Mr. Rieske's comment, I guess I don't see tying Old Town into this equation at this point. That seems to be what you were driving at, at least that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 23 is my understanding, in terms of dealing with this particular issue, to make a statement about Old Town as well. Mr. Rieske said that the Committee Report says we view this as a favorable precedent. It sets a precedent everywhere, unless you say it sets a precedent along Washington Avenue. Do you want it to set a precedent everywhere without seeing if this works? This is a fairly dramatic departure from what is gone on so far. Ms. Keene said that I think that the way the report essentially talked about Washington Avenue, so my thinking was that we were discussing something that would be taking place along Washington Avenue and certainly not Old Town, or apartment buildings anywhere else. Mr. Rieske said that my concern is when we get the next application and it is from Old Town, or from East Michigan, or Moriarty's, or someplace. Mr. Smith said that the language here and the conditions that are already set in this particular motion, number 1, is that it be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building, and number two, the original historic character of the building be retained. You already have some language here that gives you some wiggle room, so that if someone comes from another area and says we want to put this up, you can say that it does not meet historical character. Now, arguably, Sue Cantlon does not feel that this meets the historical character, but I think you could look at those same buildings of those same periods in other cities, which in fact did have balconies, even though historically that particular building did not, but I am saying that we are only looking at this one specifically with these conditions and if another one came forward, you could say you have to look at these same conditions and do they apply? Mr. Frederick said if we did have, as Old Town has a historically designated area, then don't we have other things we have to consider as we are addressing a balcony or some other out-of-character request, don't we have to accept that this is already declared a historic area and we would be bound to consider those issues and do our best to adhere to them? Ms. Keene said I think that is how it would play out. That is essentially what Mr. Rieske said earlier. Mr. Rieske said, yes, I just thought we should raise the concern so we were aware of it and were using the entire City as the focus, rather than just one area, not realizing that it could happen in other areas. Ms. Keene said I am still not too clear on what you are trying to accomplish. Are you saying that we should say this is confined to the S. Washington area, so that there is not an assumption that we would okay balconies all over the City? Mr. Rieske said you may want to focus it on a certain area such as S. Washington first, to see how it works, acknowledging the amount of safeguards that are built in the conditions of those recommendations. Mr. Nischan said that my only hesitation is, going back to the discussions about having a corridor that goes from Capitol Station (River Point) all the way up to the north and having visual continuity. That is from River Point all the way up to Old Town, so if we are going for a visual theme there, then we would want to allow not just S. Washington, and if the character of the building is in Old Town such that their historical presence—does it sound persuasive enough to dissuade any inclusion of balconies, then that should be sufficient to dissuade any inclusion of balconies. I would hate to limit it. I would not mind seeing it on East Michigan Avenue, for example, 2000 block. I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 24 think it would be just great. And even around Moriarty's, except on dart night or something. So to me, if it's used in many places, that is great, just because it brings activity, people and presence to the street, so that in the evenings the street doesn't belong just to people who don't get out of bed until 4 p.m. because they are working the night shift. Ms. Keene said you heard the motion. This is in favor of Act-1 8-2000 with their conditions. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick •Ave Smith. . .Aye Keene . Ave Foster. . . Aye Nischan •Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; Act-1 8-2000, 210 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air rights for balcony over Washington Avenue with conditions was APPROVED. Approval was conditioned upon the following: 1. That the balconies be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building; and 2. That original historic character of the building be retained during the building rehabilitation and installation of the balconies, in accordance with the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. The features which define the historic character include: a. Fenestration - preservation of the original window and door openings, b. Retaining the arched brick detail above the window openings, the center brick waterfall element and the square, limestone detail on the upper right pier; C. Retaining the multiple overlapping brick rows at the lower edge of the cornice; d. Retaining the roof line and parapet height; e. Retaining original materials. Deteriorated materials should be repaired rather than replaced where possible. New material should be compatible with the original. 4. Election of Officers: Mr. Smith, Chair; Ms. Patrick, Vice-Chair Next meeting is Tuesday, October 24, 2000 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske said that the socio-economic data that Mr. Ruff mentioned at the last meeting that we have been compiling for Tri-County Regional PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 25 Mr. Rieske said that the socio-economic data that Mr. Ruff mentioned at the last meeting that we have been compiling for Tri-County Regional Planning Commission has been compiled, and is going to Tri-County Planning tomorrow morning. 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-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. 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-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Permission or Conveyance of City parcel for private use. (Tabled August 22, 2000) Mr. Frederick said that just to call your attention that item "B" is coming off as of tonight. 9. NEW BUSINESS - Mr. Smith requested an excused absence from the next Planning Board meeting on October 17, 2000. 1 need a vacation. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to excuse Mr. Smith from the next Planning Board meeting on October 17, 2000. On a Voice vote, motion carried unanimously. Ms. Patrick requested an excused absence from the next Planning Board meeting on October 17, 2000. 1 have to be away for work. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to excuse Ms. Patrick from the next Planning Board meeting on October 17, 2000. On a Voice vote; motion carried unanimously. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Keene said that I am really glad to have an index in the packet. It makes it much easier. Ms. Foster has a conflict with both committees, only through this semester, because in next semester's teaching schedule, my classes are in the morning so it does not interfere. Mr. Ruge will switch to Zoning and Ordinance for the balance of the year to have enough people for the Committee. Ms. Foster will be excused from all committees for the remainder of the year. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000, Page 26 good idea, at the end of the year, when we normally do some planning with staff, to get together as a Board with the Board of Zoning Appeals and talk about this issue and give them some of our input, as far as air rights. Mr. Frederick believed it would be a good thing. I try to give the Board of Zoning Appeals members a flavor of how we are able to address issues and the flexibility we have that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn't have, because they are held by the authority of the Zoning Code only. I do think that all of us knowing their perspective and they knowing our perspective would help us make more coordinated decisions. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Stachowiak said that at the last Planning Board meeting, a concern was raised regarding the property on Jolly Street east of Cedar on the south side of the road, 12 to 13 cars in the yard. That is being followed up on the Code Compliance Offices. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted s A. Ruff, ecretary Planning Board =10032000 a:\59 Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page 1 Residential Care Facility GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Pastor Jeff Turner or Bruce Swiderski Lansing Teen Challenge 1017 E. Grand River Ave., Lansing, MI 48906 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Request for a Special Land Use permit for property located at 510 West Willow Street, for a residential care facility to house up to 40 residents. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (institutional) building EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Irregularly shaped 330' deep with 173' frontage: 47,625 square feet (1.09 acre) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residence to the NE, Consumers Power to the northwest S: Consumers Professional Credit Union E: Single Family Residence W: Office Building and Apartments SURROUNDING ZONING: N "B" Residential, "I" Heavy Industrial to the northwest S: (across street) "D-1" Professional Office E: "A" Residential W: "D-1" Professional Office MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Plan and its Willow-Pine amendment indicates this area as low density residential for future land use. CASE HISTORY: Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page 2 Residential Care Facility The subject property, commonly known as Willow Manor, was used as an elderly female residential facility licensed by the State of Michigan to house a maximum of 42 women. The building was constructed in 1930 with additions in 1940 and 1965. A Special Land Use Permit (SLU-10-96)was approved in 1997 for the Dimensions of Life, which proposed to house up to 45 women with a small portion of the facility in the assessment and outpatient treatment of families, single parents, and men. This was proposed to be a type of transitional housing (compared to being a shelter or permanent housing) with the average stay of the women being five weeks. This project was not carried out. An application, submitted by Deb Garcia under SLU-3-00 for an Adult Residential Facility, has been withdrawn in writing effective September 11, 2000. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to establish a residential care facility to house residents (up to the maximum allowed under the ordinance). The majority of residents will be 18-50+years old. The residents,who will be undergoing counseling for substance abuse, will be monitored 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week for 12 months, including off premises (accompanied by a staffer). No medications will be dispensed. A Christian discipline-based program, which includes a lower and upper growth curriculum and academic lessons will be provided to . (The applicant's proposal is attached.) AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH TELEPHONE: (No response received at this time). ASSESSOR: No comments (for SLU-3-00). ATTORNEY: (No response received at this time). BD. OF WATER AND LIGHT: Electrical Utility- Electric Planning and Systems Studies: No conflicts (for SLU-3-00). Water Utility: No comment on land use permit. BUILDING SAFETY: Building Code review will be required for this project. Please contact Chris Segerlind for specific requirements (for SLU-3-00). CODE COMPLIANCE: No anticipated impact on Code Compliance Office (for SLU-3-00). Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Paae_3 Residential Care Facility HISTORIC PRES. PLANNER: Property located in the North Lansing Northeast Neighborhood potential historic district. LANSING NGHD. COUNCIL: (No response received at this time). CODE COMPLIANCE: (No response received at this time). CONSUMERS ENERGY CO: (No response received at this time). MEDIA ONE: (No response received at this time). DEVELOPMENT: No comment (for SLU-3-00). ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: No comment (for SLU-3-00). FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. Will need to meet current code requirements for occupancy (for SLU-3-00). PARKS AND RECREATION: Does not impact park operation- no comment. (for SLU-3-00). POLICE: (No response received at this time). PUBLIC SERVICE: The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed SLU (SLU-3-00). The Public Service Department reserves the right to comment on the proposed development as part of the site plan review process. TRANSPORTATION: (No response received at this time). DOWNTOWN NGHB. ASSN: (No response received at this time). N. L.ANSING NGHD. ASSN: (No response received at this time). OLD FOREST NGHD. ASSN.: (No response received at this time). WALNUT NGHD. ASSN.: (No response received at this time). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page 4 Residential Care Facility The property at 510 W. Willow is zoned"C" Residential which allows for single and two family homes. Reasonable uses of this property are limited since the existing layout of the structure with its 40 bedrooms does not lend itself to a single or two family home. Other uses, permitted by Special Land Use, are limited also given the lot size and layout of the building. The structure, for example, could not be used as a church since the lot does not meet the minimum two acre parcel size. Other uses permitted by SLU, which may be questionable given the floor plan, include: a child care facility - if it meets the four conditions of the ordinance, a private club, fraternal organization or lodge hall, a recreational facility not owned or operated by a governmental entity. Residential care facilities are permitted by Special Land Use permit in the "C" Residential Zoning District subject to the three conditions discussed in this report. A Residential Care Facility, as defined in Section 1240.03 (123) is defined accordingly: "Residential care facility" means a governmental or nongovernmental establishment having as its principal function foster care for more than six persons. "Foster care"means the provision of supervision,personal care and protection, in addition to room and board, for twenty-four hours a day, five or more days a week and for two or more consecutive weeks, with or without compensation. "Residential care facility" includes, but is not limited to, facilities for persons who are homeless, parolees, ex-offenders, aged, emotionally disturbed, developmentally disabled or physically handicapped who require supervision on an on-going basis but do not require continuous nursing care. A residential care facility does not include any of the following. A. A nursing home licensed under Article 17 of Public Act 368 of 1978... B. A hospital licensed under Article 17 of Public Act 368; or C. A hospital for the mentally ill or a facility for the developmentally disabled operated by the Department of Mental Health under Public Act 258 of 1974, as amended. The applicants, Pastor Jeff Turner and Bruce Swiderski, representing Lansing Teen Challenge, indicated that Teen Challenge is a non-profit Christian, para-church ministry of the Assembles of God Churches (Springfield, MO) which has operated since 1987 . They are associated with Sister's Maternity Center also. They propose operating a Residential Care Facility for approximately 40 persons, ages 18 to 50+ years old undergoing counseling for substance abuse. Five or six of the residential rooms will be occupied by live-in 24 hour staff. The facility will be monitored by a night-watchman and alarm system -with lights out at 10:30 p.m. Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Paue_5 Residential Care Facility Executive Director, Pastor Jeff Turner, will not reside at the 510 W. Willow property; however, Bruce Swiderski will reside on site. He has received a certification for an Associates Degree (from Springfield MO) for completion of eleven counseling related curriculum courses. He recently received a certificate also for completion of the Ingham County Chaplain program. ANALYSIS Evaluation Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows. 1. Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties The proposed facility is surrounded by a variety of development. An office building is located immediately to the west and south (Consumers Professional Credit Union). To the north and west lies the Consumers Power Facility, zoned "I" Heavy Industrial. Single family homes exist to the north and immediately to the east. The actual physical structure will not change with this proposal. It has been used as a residential care facility for 42 elderly women in the past. This special land use will result primarily in a change in the type of residents. 2. Change in the Essential Character of the Area The change in use of the existing structure, should not change the essential character of the overall area which includes a variety of land uses in the area. The zoning of the property will not be changed to accommodate this proposal, thereby not increasing real estate speculation along Willow Street and other nearby areas. 3. Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent Properties Staff believes these concerns can be addressed with additional parking, landscape screening and buffering, and good management of the residential care facility and should therefore not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area The applicants have submitted their site plan that shows proposed landscape, screening and buffering of the site. Additional hard surfaced parking spaces are Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page 6 Residential Care Facility shown on site along the rear (north side) of the building. The facility will have to comply with structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical code requirements for the proposed use. The applicant also indicated they will put up an 8 foot tall wood privacy fence between the facility and the house to the east (500 W. Willow). The Fence and Hedge Ordinance stipulates a maximum height of six feet behind the front face of the house, and therefore would have to adjusted. These proposed changes should represent substantial improvements to the property and surrounding area. 5. Environmental Impacts No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this proposal. Impact on Public Services No negative impact on public services is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 6. Impact on Utilities No negative impact on utilities is anticipated as a result of this proposal. Sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the 40 residents as proposed. 7. Compliance with the Master Plan The River Island Plan and its amendment, the Willow-Pine Plan, identify this area as low density residential land use. Residential care facilities are permitted in residential zoning districts subject to a Special Land Use permit 8. Compliance with Zoning District Regulations Section 1248.04 of the Zoning Ordinance permits residential care facilities by Special Land Use Permit in the residential districts if it meets all the following conditions and if it meets the nine standards listed in Chapter 1282: "Special Land Use Permits": 1. The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area of not less than 1,000 square feet per resident. This requirement is met since the site is 47,625 square feet in size and the applicant proposes to license the facility for up to 40 people. 2. Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a sponsoring agency. Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page-7 Residential Care Facilat The applicants will supervise this facility on a 24 hour basis. A minimum of four people will provide direct care for the facility which is based on licensing rules that require one staff per 15 clients. Mr. and Mrs. Garcia will be living at the facility most of time to monitor its activities. A home manager will also be one of the four staff people at the facility. 3. The proposed residential care facility is located more than 1,500 feet from an existing residential care facility which provides care for more than six persons. This requirement is met since no other similar licensed facility is found within 1,500 feet of the proposed site. The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify parking requirements for residential care facilities. However, staff believes the minimum number of parking spaces on site should at least accommodate staff and visitors. Staff: 4 spaces Visitors- unknown (but usually very few) Total Required: 4 spaces + visitor spaces The parking lot to the east of the building has 9 parking spaces. An additional nine spaces may be provided on the north side of the facility, if the need arises. This proposal will easily provide the minimum number of parking spaces required for the amount of staff as projected above. OTHER A letter from the Land Use Chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association raised several concerns regarding the proposed Special Land Use. Said letter is attached. The President of the Old Forest Neighborhood also raised concerns about the proposal at the Public Hearing. His concerns primarily related to the impact of the area on the facility (namely Willow Vista apartments and the drug traffic that takes place there). He also had questions regarding how many people would be aged and how many would be mentally incompetent or mentally retarded. SUMMARY Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. Planning Board SLU-14-00 510 W. Willow Page 8 Residential Care Facmiet+ The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. The change in the type and number of residents should not significantly effect adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding property, once appropriate landscape, screening and buffering is in place. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the special land use permit be approved subject to compliance with an approved site plan for landscape, screening, buffering and other site improvements required by the City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Office reserves the right to require fencing and/or landscape materials that would best screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors or to inhibit trespassing. Approval of this Special Land Use Permit is also subject to the corrections made to the facility based on the inspections made by the City of Lansing. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Cantlon Senior Preservation Planner - 5 i -- - �, .�..__.._..._:._....__._.._. mow_,......._..... ... _......._,._.�._�:::._._:a;._......,.w_.�,:_._ ,...:,.. .._ .. TEEN CHALLENGE INTERNATIONAL The Proven Cure For The Drug Epidemic LANSING, MICHIGAN Lansing Teen Challenge 1017 E. Grand River Ave PO Box 80435 Lansing, MI 48917-0435 August 8, 2000 (517) 484-6050 THE PROPOSAL Lansing Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center is a non-profit, Christian, para-church ministry of the Assemblies of God Churches, Springfield, MO with a district office located in Farmington Hills, MI. Teen Challenge is a Christian growth and development program for men and women with life- controlling issues in their lives. We at Lansing Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center are desirous of housing 40 students in the facility located at 510 W. Willow St. Lansing, MI 48917 Five or six of these men or ladies will be live-in 24 hour Staff. This facility will be used for the residential discipleship of our students. HOW WOULD TEEN CHALLENGE EFFECT THE BUSINESSES IN THIS AREA? The Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center Program would virtually have little or no on the current business's located in the neighborhood. Our students would be available to help clean business parking lots and also to assist in other projects with-in the neighborhood, as well. Pg 1 P.O. Box 80435•Lansing, MI 48908•517-484-6050•Fax: 517-484-2662 WHAT KIND OF TRACK RECORD HAS TEEN CHALLENGE HAD? Since the beginning of the program of Lansing Teen Challenge in 7987, there have been no criminal incidents that have been reported to the Lansing Police Dept involving any neighbor of the ministry of the Program. If there were any staff or student in our program involved in any criminal activity, they would be dismissed from our program and Teen Challenge would endorse any prosecution for their crime. They are monitored 24 hrs. a day, 7 days a week, with lights out at 10:30pm. A night-watchmen, along with an alarm system, with ADT on doors and windows will be in effect. The program of Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center is a very unique concept. We are a very disciplined program, we accept only those in our that are truly seeking help and Christian Discipleship to be manifest in their life. This current philosophy has benefitted many that have been associated with our program in the past. HOW WELL DOES TEEN CHALLENGE KEEP UP THEIR FACILITIES? Presently we have kept our residencies in tip top shape inside and outside. We have no problems doing that since all students are assigned a dailyjob of making sure that the facility and its grounds are cleaned daily. We have letters from our neighbors verifying this. (See attached) WHAT IS THE SCREENING PROCESS FOR ADMISSION TO THE TEEN CHALLENGE? The student first sees their need for help, when they realize their own way won't work. Each person seeking help must contact us themselves. Students in our program are here upon their own decision, this is not a lock down facility. They are interviewed by our intake Staff and they must fill basic criteria: • 1. Be wiling to submit and obey the rules and Staff of the Program. • 2. Be willing to attend church services and Bible studies Pg2 3. Be willing to participate in our community and in work programs. • 4. Not to be on any type of mind or emotional altering medications. • 5. Have no outstanding warrants or summons. 6. Be at least 18 years of age. The violation of any rule of Lansing Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center may lead to dismissal. Students cannot use drugs or drink or smoke while in the program, no one can. WHAT IS THE SUCCESS RATE OF THE TEEN CHALLENGE PROGRAM? A Health, Education & Welfare Dept. study of the largest Teen Challenge center in America indicates a 806 cure rate (based on those interviewed 5 years after completing the program). This study conducted by Dr. Catherine Hess states, " The Teen Challenge Program is the best I know of to get a person off drugs". Dr. John A. Howard, former member, National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, who echos her sentiments, states, "Of all the drug programs reported to the Commission, the most successful is the religiously based program conducted by Teen Challenge!! See the enclosed message from former President Ronald Reagan There are dozens of local men and women who our now assets to the community of Lansing. HOW HAS TEEN CHALLENGE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY? Lansing Teen Challenge has been involved in neighborhood clean-ups, painting several houses for the Lansing Neighborhood Council sponsored Paint Blitz. We have also helped elderly people with cleaning their yards and have been involved weekly with the American Red Cross. We try to go and help were the need is most urgent. We have helped the North Town Neighborhood Association with a number of projects, that improve life for all. We also help a large number of local churches in any way we can. Lansing Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center is committed to helping the Lansing Community in any way it can. We also have teamed up with Mt. Hope Church in the City to sponsor a free daily lunch and a Wednesday and Friday night dinner open to all whom should care to come. We reach out to the local neighborhoods in order to help those in need. Pg 3 WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE LANSING TEEN CHALLENGE PROGRAM? Pastor Jeff R. Turner, a family man, has been the Executive Director of Lansing Teen Challenge for over 2 years now. Pastor Jeff has been involved with Ministry for ten years now. Being a Teen Challenge graduate himself, he knows first hand what it takes to run a center that helps others. Pastor Jeff is a Certified Minister with the Michigan District of the Assemblies of God, located in Farmington Hills, MI. His area's of expertise lie in-ministry, teaching, pastoral care, counseling, and fund raising. Pastor Jeff and his wife Shannon have 4 children and reside in Okemos. Lansing Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center are governed by a Board of Directors, made up of local Pastor's and lay people that are committed to the ministry and its mission as well as the good of the City of Lansing. He employes a very stringent staff that assists him with the daily operations of the center's. HOW IS TEEN CHALLENGE FUNDED? Teen Challenge/Sister's Maternity Center is funded by churches, private individuals, grants, United Way pledges, and other various fund raising activities. Teen Challenge receives no local, state, or federal monies. Teen Challenge also does church services with the Teen Challenge Inspirational Choir, special music, testimonies, and preaching. WHAT WILL THE RESIDENTS IN THE HOME BE DOING? The day begins at 6:1Oam for wake up-call. From 6:30am to 8:30am we have breakfast, prayer and clean up. All the students participate in the morning chapel at 8:30am, at ML Hope Church in the City where we also have our "Group Studies for New Christians", were they learn how to be responsible men and women of society, as well as our Bible study classes were they learn the truth and way to carry a new life out this is to 12:00pm. From 12:00 to 1:00 we have lunch. From 1:00pm to 5:00pm is work assignments called work duties. We have a hearty dinner at 5:30pm, then prayer and study hall until 9:00pm. Showers and letter writing until 10:30pm, then its light out. References Paul N. DeWeese-State Representative City of Lansing Proclamation Teen Challenge USA Compliance Certificate Pg4 Submitted by Pastor,Je f f Turner and the Board of Directors of Lansing Teen Challenge and Sister's Maternity Center. Sincerely, Pas or Jeff Turner Executive Director Pg 5 Fi ati-r -- 40,75 TiT n'7. P777 AW1[A L. UJMHC coMMOI.I IJAMr-- I--- -- . A. 5 CDNJUb. A.'61151F44A SL�bD1+roG' 41ZE I3lL+Gla'tiOOp'SIFSGWN./Glx;Wcop jp° P> ..-15 FoFbhYHN XI, LYW(yyppl�oLD LfiJ bOD 4d.D FoR4yTHIA 'So" G II LDlJILERJ V.ICLAV?-Y' e-ZAV" IS bWAW NdJPE(64� 24" D 7 T14UJA O. ITEGHwy H1541OWJ �01�h; I, LJSE `yfRIrPED ToP So1L Tn FILL NEW PLAWT BED ALOIJ4 EUrrLY DR VEA APTM FF1"1A 06, PAVfiHGWT AA.17 &A6F MATEJ4A,L,r-- L_-, I L.PRovIDE b"OP SHREPPED Ed.RX MULCH w PI-Aw-r bEbS, 1 S F-LITUP-E PAR141,16 LOT,gpplN6, Fop- A TOTAL oI- I L - _ -J 16 IW Y•HPbprU A ,IF P-roU1R6D, E I r -- � -- 1 GXI9TINln FENLk.TO S 9-4s.56PA 2 �EMPLOYEE� I. I 12 x 20 LrMLfETE pUMPSTER PADI d / L THlc*- W/ 6,x[, AMP5��Llb WOoD SGILEFJ.1 _ � 6,Io �wmv FeucE�/brluq a F- 1lhs A_ 1` PLAGFL EY•I(n;J6 PEI," WITH NEk/.4 OleAH GHA04WV-FIMW CE yl 2' / S.�t)P AT WOOD F7=j LP-, cl AREA J I RXIhTI W[n '� 1 SIWGUT sND Fr!!-IOIIE y-1 I ISUILbI WGl 1 Arrr-A,A'OF PRIV6 PAfT, I'A Rk1WJ C.f= y 17 PPoroSSp SPAc,E•5 3 :i F&LOCATED '5HKm 5 of 8 L°RH4VJ sIo1J SPALE✓`i 3 PFOPIEF-TT LINI<IAWD!W 7-'1�SP'ALE.S I UNE WITH 64 OF 6,AaA a. 1-b.F,SrALG. ID UAF/4E LK In ADD APPFrn[.41 5 wIDE MIN1W-tUM aF PAVEMENT '1 �{ rLAWTIWb.INED BETWEEWJ LOT'LINE AWD DRI�JI. LE(aAL Dk4cRIPTIoN S HgJSE LaTi 45,4L,.4-I�Ab AUD !iL OF ASSEh50RIS PLAT NO. 15, A RFPLAer OF oR16dNAL CLooK ZS op CITE{ar OF �� V G•I I ON ww�4 S SCC.q� T4WJ�R2W�IWGHAM LOUNTY,NIU-IldhlJ, W r EXI9TIWG TREE} ��I�EP'lAe3 EXISTING WIaE FGl[.E _ Q Fr-W 6 NEW 4'Vllai-141AIWu1J� �: _ c FtWJLE. I13.25 WALK W WILLOW S-r, 1^=3oI 1 1111� � 2 0 FL SLU -14-00 NORTH 510 W. Willow Residential Care Facility 3 J.1�9 EDMORE 56 vie �O I 5 o, \ Q * 00 1 16 2 tS — — — � q ` Ott 17 S� a 53 0 ae GOr 3s.xs' i79' \ M Ott ~18 I !i gohs :: re3.S- 52 9 r 19 0 h- 20 ie 5� I` m 07o3. 21 = PLEASANT 49 U BSI von 67 0 66 .;`\ ; ; oO 32 16 — " m " �Fr'�t:, iz�:s 31 69 65 rq \ 48 +; 00 33 Mc I ,� � o° \ \ a p 2� 34 A OP 0 V s 68 + �/ 46 45 44 43 42 41 X 65 a'Q�o4 Z o�,` o 01 90.75' :i .-J-73.,: - �:_.. y,% S/o' 3 5' 35' Gob Sao spa 510 Soo yz4 yzo yie S T. 82.5' 82. 5' ���,� � SEE 3� I� L I SLU -14-00 NORTH 510 W. Willow Residential Care Facility —� 627 X825..f.EDMORE PARKING 61 /6 24 B30 4 23 / �ff9 2B /9 24 8 827 WALL /8 1 8 827 30 34.1 /6 1 20 3/ \ 842-T--) PLEASANT 9403 R�3 z I 37- 28 839.3 ~ 9 W F 32 3/ WALL = U 7 29 I /9 E ; WAL 842.3 24 q�7 2B 28 29 30 32 115 835 f I 843.8 77-2 842.2 WILLOWtill 836.7 843.61 H (n 27 27 34 29 29 27 24 25 33 U �n� 2B r�B3. ti' �,— — m ,,, � ,. "ti e '�C, � e �:,zt,.. — � i Act-15-2000 Market for Sale for Private Development - 300 Block S. Grand Ave, River Street Triangle Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Dept. of Planning & Neighborhood Development 316 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents the City of Lansing REQUESTED ACTION: Market the River Street Triangle (Grand Avenue, River Street, Kalamazoo Street , City Parking Lot # 6) for Public Sale for Private Development EXISTING LAND USE: City Parking 414 Space Surface Parking Lot EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business District and ROW PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Triangular, approximately 3.975 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial, Offices and Parking S: Parking, Davenport and Center for the Arts E: The Grand River W: CATA Bus Terminal and Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District S: "G-1" Business District and "A" Residential District E: Grand River W: "G-1" Business MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The "Plan for the Development of Lansing's Waterfront" (1974) established a policy that the City would acquire riverfront access for a "Continuous Waterfront Circulation System". The subject parcel has substantial river frontage that will be retained for this purpose. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan (1978, 1986) designates this general area for Central Business District for future Land use. The Circulation Map (1978) designates Kalamazoo Street as a minor arterial street and Grand Avenue as a major arterial. 00 Market for Sale for Private Development - 300 Block S. Grand Ave River Street Trian0 le Page 2 The project is located inside the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan (1999) study area. The future land use map designates this property for"General Commerce", and the redevelopment of the site is specifically discussed in the third paragraph of Page 4-33 (attached). The Central Lansing Plan further recommends: • expansion of the River Trail the full length (of Central Lansing) on both sides of the river to encourage a stronger linkage between Old Town and the Commerce Center, by facilitating modes of transportation other than by car; • carefully planned development along the waterfront to prevent damage by flooding (see attached map); • buildings should be sited to face the both the river and the street, and be designed to draw attention and activity to the waterfront. SPECIFIC INFORMATION APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to market the River Street Triangle (Grand Avenue, River Street', Kalamazoo Street, City Parking Lot # 6) for sale for private development including the vacated sections of Kalamazoo River Street. The proposed sections comprise approximately 3.975 acres. Proposals have been requested, but non have yet been submitted, therefore no specific development proposals are being considered at this time. Specifically, the RFP reads: The City is seeking a developer to construct a multi-story mixed use building on the site to include as a priority residential units on the upper levels with possibly office and commercial development on the first and/or second levels. A proposal for residential development only would also be acceptable. Developers are strongly urged to include home ownership as apart of the residential development. The developer is also required to provide or incorporate the development of a parking facility to support the new development and provide the public parking being displaced. The proposal may include the city as a partner in development the parking facility. The City is seeking innovative development within these general parameters. Background: The subject site contained warehouses and marginal commercial uses along River Street, which in the early 1990's, were purchased and demolished for redevelopment. River Street was vacated by City Council Resolution #387on July 5, 1994, reserving necessary easements, and reserving an easement 50 feet in width for the Rivertrail. This resolution was approved to assemble land for surface parking and as an eventual economic development site. The resolution also directed staff to Act-15-2000 Market for Sale for Private Development - 300 Block S. Grand Ave, River Street Triangle Page 3 begin to vacate the platted section of Kalamazoo Street (Act-15-96), which juts northeasterly east of Grand Avenue toward the Grand River. Council action on this proposal is currently in process. The east end of the triangle is located in Zone A, within the 100-year flood plain. The middle section of the site isolated in Zone B, 500 year flood plain (see attached map). AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: (No comments received at this time). Assessor: See attached comments from John C. Grannell, Assessor's Office. Attorney: (No comments received at this time). Board of Water& Light: Electric: Object until easements are provided to BWL's satisfaction regarding the existing distribution facilities that are on the property. Contact Bob Strobel 371-6082 In 1994 vacations of River Street included or should have included easement rights, ingress and egress to electric duct line facilities still active in the former River Street from Kalamazoo to Washtenaw and Grand. Contact Alan Carroll 371-6091 Water: No objection to the sale of the property. Water service availability on positive flow model. Steam: 10-15 PSI steam is available at this location for use of any development. Street Lighting: BWL has existing street lighting facilities in the parking lot and in the street right-of- way. Building Safety Office: This project is subject to the City's Site Plan Review and Building Code Plan Review Process. Contact Chris Segerlind in the Building Safety Office for further information pertaining to the process. CATA: (No comments received at this time). Market for Sale for Private Development - 300 Block S. Grand Ave River Street Triangle Page 4 Code Compliance Office: This office would request that any conditions placed on the development of this property would be transmitted to this office upon approval. Consumers Energy: (No comments received at this time). Cherry Hill Neighborhood (No comments received at this time). Association: Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA): (No comments received at this time). EDC: The EDC is in support of the proposed sale for residential/mixed use development. Fire Marshal: (No comments received at this time). Lansing Neighbor. Council: (No comments received at this time). Media One: (No comments received at this time). Parks & Recreation: See attached. Police: (No comments received at this time). Public Service Dept. (No comments received at this time). Transportation Engineer: (No comments received at this time). ANALYSIS Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the vacation of a public right-of-way be evaluated. Location The River Island Comprehensive Plan, as amended 1986, and the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan recommends this site for commercial/mixed use (P. 5-34). The site is an ideal one, located just of the Washington Avenue commercial area, and linked to other districts by the Rivertrail. Act-15-2000 Market for Sale for Private Development - 300 Block S. Grand Ave. River Street Triangle Page 5 Character A multi-story mixed use or residential structure at this location as proposed, facing the street and the riverfront as recommended in the Central Lansing Plan, will likely reinforce the urban character of central Lansing. It will provide additional residents needed to support increased commercial development and after 5:00 p.m. pedestrian activity. Extent The proposal retains public ownership of the riverfront, to a depth of approximately 50 feet. It also includes the vacated River and Kalamazoo Street ROWs, which contain public utilities. The necessity and extent of utility relocations will not be known until a specific development plan is finalized. Summary The proposal provides for mixed use/residential use of a prime downtown property, retaining river frontage for RiverTrail development, in conformity with the Waterfront Development Plan, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan and City Council Resolution #387. Final development plans will be subject to the City's site plan review and building permit processes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-15-2000 as proposed. %%P�285 aeview�CTSM2QtMW15M-Wpa Sep(am r 22,2000 N S 1 �G CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 3rd Floor,City Hall 124 W.Michigan Ave. V Lansing,MI 4 933-1687 r a (517)483-4020 SE P 0 7 2000 MI/ PLANNING DIVISIp CH1G � N David C. Hollister, Mayor Sue Cantlon Preservation Planner RE: Act 15-00, River Street Triangle That part of Kalamazoo Street, which angles North Easterly towards the Grand River has never been Vacated, and is still an active Street Right-of-Way, regardless it's use as a parking area. It was Platted, and Dedicated to the Public as a Street in the Original Plat of 1847. A copy of that portion of the Original Plat is attached. The Platted width is 1.25 Chains, or 82.5 feet. Because it goes to the River, City Council may not have the authority to vacate it. It is my understanding that streets within 82.5 feet of the River can only be vacated through Court Action( Circuit Court???). IF this "triangle" were to be sold before the vacation of Kalamazoo Street: 1) it would have to be described in two pieces on the Deed; one parcel to the North of, and one parcel to the South of, this Street. 2) the Assessor's Office would certainly have to "split" the tax parcel to separate any Privately-Owned parts from the Publicly-Owned Kalamazoo Street right-of-way. I have indicated the location of those parcels on the accompanying sketch. IF this "triangle" were to be sold after the Vacation of Kalamazoo Street, then the Vacated Street could be sold along with Vacated River Street and the rest of the Lots and Blocks. You will notice that the current tax description also includes this Right-of-Way, with the rest of the lots (etc.) and vacated River Street, in parcel 3301-01-16406-002. This was done merely as a convenience to the Assessor's Office on the tax rolls. As a City-Owned parcel, all the Lots, Vacated River Street, and Kalamazoo Street, is/are a Tax-Exempt entity. John C. Grannell Cadastral Specialist 4028 9-1-2000 "Equal Opportunity Employer" CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: SUSAN CANTLON, PLANNING 19 0 FROM: MURDOCK JEMERSON, PARKS AND RECREATION RE: ACT-15-00 RIVER STREET TRIANGLE The waterfront policy as established by the Waterfront Development Board in February, 1974 which states in more definitive terms"The City of Lansing will acquire adjacent waterfront property or access across such property, on both sides of the river, to enable development of a Continuous Waterfront Circulation System". This policy was adopted by the City Council on July 16, 1973. The Park's Department long range plan includes developing a pathway on both sides of the river in which this area is located. We support the concept of improving the River Street Triangle for private development so long as it preserves the river frontage for public purposes and more specifically for river trail use. Maintaining the trail in its present location would accomplish this purpose. cc: Dick Schaefer City Market This site has great potential for many different uses that would contribute to the Commerce Center due to its visibility, central location on the river, and proximity to the stadium and Lansing �- v - Center. The site design should respond directly to the river and surrounding attractions. The site could be renovated and expanded as a full service farmers market with cafes and seasonal retail. Hours of operation should be adjusted to improve the market's availability to the shopping public. A sophisticated pedestrian promenade and plaza should be created in association with this expansion and should be developed in coordination with other riverfront improvements. Board of Water and Light Building a (Ottawa Street Power Station) f The Board of Water and Light building is a landmark situated on a prime centrally located site. This historic building should be preserved through adaptive reuse. Reuse considerations vary from an entertainment facility to residential and office loft spaces. Any redevelopment scenario considered for this site should include improvements for the riverfront that capitalize on creating a Y significant people place on the river between Michigan Avenue and Shiawassee Street. Riverfront City Parking Lot Site 4 (South Grand Avenue between Washtenaw and Kalamazoo Streets) The Ottawa Street Power The site, near the Washington Avenue retail area and the CATA Station should be preserved Transportation Center, is pivotal to providing an adequate parking through adaptive reuse. supply on the south side of downtown. However, it has potential to be much more than a surface parking lot on riverfront property. Due to its central location, this site has potential for redevelopment as a mixed use, housing or a civic building with a strong orientation to the river. However, parking will be a necessary component of the land use on this site, and should accommodate existing and future parking demands. Any future development of this site should _ be designed to provide riverfront amenities and the potential for a pedestrian bridge across the river. �1- : . South Grand Parking Structure (on Grand Avenue between Washtenaw Street and Michigan Avenue) _ This structure is located at the intersection of Grand Avenue and tF: Allegan Street. The site has a good location. It is on the western Orient buildings toward the bank of the river, one block east of the Washington Avenue retail waterfront. area, one block south of Michigan Avenue, and two blocks from the CATA Transportation Center. This site has longterm potential for redevelopment as housing or as a mixed use office building with a 4-33 August 1999 /0 1'1'7 br- sly z ri � i/ q /� •� '� fl L �� t to41 9 Yr 1Z •• •0 it to to G J' J .9 f' F . ;. 10, y 7 rf q ilk 't J S"th 4 m e sect is" 61 zT 4-7 t q S r d4 /.1-4,1/CL, A N e; nA. •L OA v Pr it ar 7r 7 r 7 It s • �� • • �� • y �L�~.S ,w N:'++...,.;iv.'f; AS,F' F'r, �qS— ra la Wit:��..�;.�;�;t... � ., is ��•�•�!'.C;Yb i=. i��`ep +u Lw ov�} .��.f��'� ,■t,a ..ti..`'.ram;.:r.«•�-�r�.:r:is+•t:}` �;• ,.i' •,d. M�, •GX;,.c�. �1•f Z \��1� �♦ ) t'.:.���,•'f'i�aet."l.`....�'. i.; �E•� •.. � ..ti'•.t'��tr.. F}♦)�,-r�.•itia�t?'a�.�'•f.Y'. !s�lti;itl.r.•v,:�vw!:'�.,..••'•t►:''�'•'T_. ��.��' .'.f'ti.�.�S�i7f.�lli'.......�iT.'!ay:J♦ !t�.Y��:i�'�i#`+:• '°�'•t yc:.i�`ef'rw •' Yi �s:•h 1s�: M:!tJ' .Y1�j •'t�• i{''^; .:.'-4� :'i '•I � :: :IVY{`�•�.1_�� Q,�.' '•� �'►�1Ji!�•:, '.'�_'r��..:` :•a+w-.. ,r :4�L��'11111�� •'i ! Ste, .b.^,..�, ::;:'•��'�':. � •.fir:. �r ., ,,.;. ..-. � �. '.., ,! ' .a;_,t�Syr•��.d. �.:;x, � ;w�'•' +•�Y..tinf�>.`...T`;:r:C.ittr!^�a 3�:•Ki!..� �I.-♦ �, At • ,I' YN. jr �t•":•:�.•�•,;•a••.Y.�=tiA'S,�iZw�i ••-.r. 'fir{•:•`^�r''Y.r..:r.;�••�.'?;'•...•�'•a ' y a ix�.l�^�:.•::i�;r�isv�y�:Tl.a ir��tc:l_ '. . • ' i , =� :,S Mi S,+'f•).:`.a. �if':�tt.!:•�.•. .:r�:r�:v!:: .i� , ` � Aa �•' "''tea'' Yrl'y.', ; :�•.;•,.>�: ::��� � r• wA '+: :'�• _.fir���'�'%�'-��.:•::.: ,.. 'd y` t •r .I +� t�' •t iL:.S:^ar:''r-.,.. :�•i a.i.:''il l:�.y. • • Me. y of l04'• s:.t�",M{ r.Y+.�,:��•tL:' ''S`.`."'e. t L _ ACT 15-00 River Street Trianqle Grand Avenue Kalamazoo Streets, MORT}+ Marketing for Sale for Private Development E . WASHTENAW 0��" i cJ LLJ • a EMvsE�M s cn M r � i2z • j r 0 0 V /I W 2 Q I s- 13 . 5 BRIDGE E . KALAMAZ00 \ PL I ID �ISiNE.3S �/ST�2�cT µ NORTHACT-15-00 River Street Trian le Grand Avenue Kalamazoo Streets. Marketing for Sale for Private Development O N Z O m Z m co W MICHIGAN KEY TO MAP 500-Year Flood Boundary ALLEGAry ST ' 100-Year Flood Boundary- Zone Designations*With Date of Identification e.g.,12/2/74 D Z 100-Year Flood Boundary 500-Year Flood Boundary Z � Base Flood Elevation Line 513 WAS qI^ ST With Elevation In Feet** Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone** Elevation Reference Mark RM7X 1 ' River Mile M 1.5 M ZOO "Referenced n e ced to the Nat- ional Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 N *EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS O M Z ZONE EXPLANATION n m A Areas of 100-year flood; base Flood elevations and flood ha zard W and factors not determined. AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths N W are between one„(1) and three(3) feet;average depths of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors are determined. AH Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths COMMUNITY PANEL #260090 0006 B are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors March 2, 1981 are determined. A1-A30 Areas of 100-year Flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. A99 Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood Protection system under construction; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500- year flood;or certain areas subject to 100-year flood- ing with average depths less than one(1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flood. (Medium shading) C Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading) D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards. V Areas of JOG-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. V1-V30 Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. ' \ 'l.t�Il:'(••' '�1; �- _ � � 't BL.ck 13J. E+t.c� 13t, DCfween 1iIJCk T River Stre, �— - - _I 1 and 132, ono o BUILDING \ �onsing, Inchcrr County, Michigan m 2C' ' ,rner o/ So id Block 1 coNC.�, the East I:ne 30. being ® :ON;, 1...... . or Grand Avenue: fl N 89'50'00 E �: Avenue to th.. South line of ' 0 276.3� r' y ©LW( 33uth lineecrto,ohetnew Street: u earth line of K North line of olomozoo Street t( BITUMINOUS a or less. (PARKING) c'° m uBITUM/N0,(/$ ``� BLOCK h P1 0dRKING) \ 131 / G Cn GG r� Z BITUM NNORTHINOUS m 3 m \ (PARKI'NG) m 3.681 ACRESls BLOCK c � 130 I ¢ BITUMINOUS \�\ N U CI \ BITUMINOUS \ G� (PARKING) (PARKING) '\ 104 Par.'! .fir m� 89'S0'00' W =._.-•', BET:rNN�NG A m m / wAI /\rx"'c e KALAMAZ0 m m m ° 5 •A9 a Lois I O STREET m (82.5' WIDE) o BRIDGE 1 �_ SIOFhHLJC li �F' ACT-15-00 River Street Trian le Grand Avenue Kalamazoo Streets. Marketing for sale for Private Development i � � • ; . r ,. � ' - �. � l � i � _ �. � r. I .� .I � �� J ' , � -' •_ 1 .. Act-16-00: Abandon Sanitary Sewer Easements and Relocate Cul-de-Sac 6741, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar, and 1241 and 1250 Roth Dr. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: John Schaefer Lowe's Home Centers 1952 McDowell Road, Suite B03 Naperville, IL 60563 PROPERTY OWNER: Lowe's Home Centers PO Box 1111 North Wilkesboro, NC 28656 LOCATION: 14.8 acres generally located at the SE corner of S. Cedar Street and Roth Drive, more specifically identified as 6741, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar, and 1241 and 1250 Roth Dr. EXISTING ZONING: Lowe's development site is zoned "F" Commercial, "G-2" Wholesale, and "A" Residential Public ROW is unzoned. REQUESTED ACTION: Abandon sanitary sewer easements located across the proposed Lowe's building and to relocate an existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Roth Drive. EXISTING LAND USE: A variety of commercial development currently exists on the 14.8 acre parcel. Properties to be demolished include: Ramada Inn, Frank's Press Box, and Gypsum Supply. PROPERTY SIZE: Total land area is 14.8 acres (see site plan) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Commercial E: Residential (Mill Pond Village Mobile Home Park) W: Commercial (Holiday Inn Hotel/Convention Center) SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: "F" Commercial E: "DM-1" Residential W: "E-2" Local Shopping and "F" Commercial Abandon Sanitary Sewer Easements and Relocate Cul-de Sac 6741 6801 6841 6911 S. Cedar, and 1241 and 1250 Roth Dr. a n e2 MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial and warehouse development. The proposed expansion of the Holiday Inn Hotel and Convention along the west side of Cedar Street resulted in a request for a Master Plan Amendment (MPA-1-99) which was recommended for approval by the Planning Board. DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: To abandon and relocate sanitary sewer easements located across the proposed Lowe's building and to relocate an existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Roth Drive (see site plan). AGENCY REFERRALS: AMERITECH: (No comments received) ASSESSOR: (No comments received) BUILDING SAFETY: No objection BWL (No comments received) CITY ATTORNEY: (No comments received) CODE COMPLIANCE: Please forward any site requirements to this office upon final approval. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No comments received) DNR/DEQ: (No comments received) DEVELOPMENT: No comment on sewer easements. Action on cul-de- sac may require property disposition, acquisition considerations, or vacation action. ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: (No comments received) FIRE MARSHALL (No comments received) Abandon Sanitary Sewer Easements and Relocate Cul-de-Sac 6741, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar, and 1241 and 1250 Roth Dr. page 3 INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: (No comments received) LANSING NGBD COUNCIL: (No comments received) MDOT: No comment. MEDIA ONE: (No comments received) PARKS & RECREATION: POLICE DEPT. (No comments received) PUBLIC SERVICE: The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed sanitary sewer work. The applicant is currently working with us to relocate the existing sewers. The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed reconfiguration of the Roth Drive Cul- de-Sac. The geometrics and traffic movement requirements should be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. TRANSPORTATION ENG.: (No comments received) Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location The property is located along the east side of the 6700-6900 block of S. Cedar Street., south of Roth Drive. The development will wrap around the gas station at 6923 S. Cedar Street. The property is currently 14.8 acres in size and is zoned "F" Commercial, "G-2" Wholesale, and "J" Parking. Character The subject property consists of several commercial parcels. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site, by combining the lots, demolishing the buildings, and relocating the sanitary easements that would otherwise make the placement of the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Center very difficult. The newly relocated easement would be placed to where it would serve the remaining gas station at 6923 S. Cedar Street and the Lowe's Home Improvement Center. Abandon Sanitary Sewer Easements and Relocate Cul-de Sac 6741 6801 6841 6911 S. Cedar, and 1241 and 1250 Roth Dr. a e4 The store will have a western orientation to face the Cedar Street with 620 parking spaces in front of the building. Extent The sanitary easement to be relocated measures 40 feet wide and approximately 1,431.34 feet long. The applicant is currently working with the Public Service Department to relocate the existing sewers. The Public Service Department has also in that they have no objection to the proposed reconfiguration of the Roth Drive Cul-de-Sac. A traffic study submitted for the Holiday Inn/Convention Center recommended a traffic light at Just-A-Mere in addition to the existing traffic light at Long Blvd. that will give two convenient new entries into the overall site. These will be in addition to the proposed reconfigured cul-de-sac at the east end of Roth Drive. OTHER The Board of Zoning Appeals at its September 14, 2000 meeting considered variances for a second ground pole sign and variances on the number and amount of wall signage proposed. The final review of the development will be subject to the Site Plan Review process that will involve further detail in the layout of the development and construction of the Home Improvement Center. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the City vacate and relocate sanitary easements and reconfigure the existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Roth Drive. The proposed relocation will make the overall site buildable and the relocation of the cul-de-sac will continue to give access to adjacent properties and convenient ingress/egress into the development. The geometrics and traffic movement requirements should be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of sanitary easements subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide a title commitment and a certified survey indicating the exact location of any proposed sanitary sewer facilities on the subject property; 2. A site plan, public utility relocation plans be approved by all applicable agencies; and 3. All agency requirements be met, and that there be no significant impact on services. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner AUL 400 ncvIcw C�atP• � 66 Application PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY ,e�7`er�s Name Of Applicant: 110hr1hae Gawcs D/he ,gyp 1.� cant Status: /�52 /0G' y�l/P.// /�a�, �U/�� c��� Owner Complete Address: +Representative Number _ :Optionee E'l� /& :Other C4 staa zg code Day Phone:R' 55/ 75�5 Fax: v�Z7 If Applicant is not the Owner, orif there is more than one owner, provide the following Information: (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Name of all Owner(s): LDu�es JyQ/YJ� �e/)fiir5 Complete Address(es): 115;,1), 04X A Number Street / 6r 11,7 IWIlkq�aheiokle � sete z*code Day Phone: (7-a ? Fax: l� �27 Subject Property General Information: �v74-1 6ed , /Z�1 /O , /Z50/Pofli p - Re uested Action Address: (If Any) �4/�� �• ��GU� ���� S. Public Acquisition suet Public Sale Location Description- Private Use / i/ Vacation Closure Significant.Change of Use Other Permanent Parcel- it �-32�-D/ DZZ i- a1� 0, 7, 0lP3 (PW77 Legal Description: (See Note on Page 2) Sew GLGLG�! 1 Applicant's Proposal o4n ✓ �j Ge o -1 row Prop Gou��s 6�i/���y. Ex,' �y c QSe&)eA S re-a)r�I sauf� 55-I&C ROM 41-1'114t- .ba-� art ��Gy l cQ7"r7oy, (Attach additional sheets if necessary) NOTE: If the action applied for will result in transfer of legal title from the City to the applicant or another or if the City otherwise requires, the applicant agrees to provide at the applicant's expense a certified legal description and title Insurance for the property or to pay for same at closing, whichever the City determines. What ositive impacts if any) will occur as a result of,a proving thi propos I? ra/�f What negative impacts (if any) will occur if this pr pos�l is not approved? s GZ/J e / d� D e- LZ U e Provo .5 to as /h �4�;r5,a ass alc� canes Xe� n �o d ca o s &X1 4 GU/ Sit c, Wl o rfar eui �- o n G or; s Please fill out this application COMPLETELY and make sure that the following items are included: 1. Maps describing proposal. Maps should be readable and drawn to a specified scale. 2. Any other materials, brochures, pictures etc., which will further explain the proposal. Signature of Applicant: Si atu o er ) Date IV Date Date Date SUBMIT THE FULLY COMPLETED APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING OFFICE, 316 N. CAPITOL AVE., SUITE D-1, LANSING, MI 48933-1236. FOR INFORMATION AND/OR ASSISTANCE, CONTACT THE PLANNING OFFICE (517) 483-4066. PAY.Frml4ach 23,100E C:%0FFICEW/PIMM-0-SVLTAP'P-FR 2 -T- 44'K,w C IV[U.f-2 1154' 12'sa W3 74' we ft tk,u UT'- 3• k&1 6'r ny • w ml.97, • Cot ,/'y+■r.r.:,r \ off+ w s i-- ILL ca. tL&- rrweus pa, 4r2.7t' 112 J, 09 qw7f, rtI c njvkqSF MI 91, nLv- 4'-A E ON.- AIRS." •UZ,," -%C 1p &T,KWCAJS 2. Ck3snw- I.r DA.C"C : ---XtO(klJS I f "t—Ax's f JI. 7 \J, Opt L Wrl \x 0--lW \ It p 11-4 (0 it OEM --Wr -tl v Clow cmc\f .2. tAxts r.o,lr Car- 44. 0,4, 9 L Z.- zr c 0- y L L L L: 32 --4 I.T11 sm X,, 14 ACREOI.- 2a 31, IV 6N WPLE 01 J: ftL'. cr, sc ev PLW I.4a' % It U!ZI 130L PAtZ , l A/C SrA r ftV VX�473.13- 1 W W 971 2:W W 97143- srz-,.- 7 Si 471.0 r ELAd;-• A Sue E: ---------- - A art-94.3 c Q,'my It"..&7&jr Ketft auku LOT 93 Ce", ARMS 1\ to LOT LOY rt or PWW > I Wto el --Ot fed -MR 59, Af 14'AM -e�o-070 le Ik C) I I' R.Y.ELCV- 74- IL 4' , � 571 wz to!A WEMDr Mtn 23.FAZE M W. scc Im Nu�c EL"-Atsw Ir 4-I.Cr raw"O'-'s 12';W�-J 41' I �CEN' wd I I m /® Iee®ntw.iu I _ a 60 T ':I T I i. d aa°'om�""�,a a nac v aaa m ucc I I III I: I I i �I i g 1 +e+oort anaaa ns Ya7 a oe>®mn.av '•"�•I I I I I I I I I I?I i I�I I I rl I Fes,I, .. i i i � 1 a aaa¢.0 t.er.um m Qaunc M Fwc we _ i J•• I I. , I I I I I ' s �mean F7ML eOFX a r. .w anus w¢ ,I II'Igyllll I I woc ants ul r nx Fom u �C'anlo Rte aMLMT , • II ■ L. 1F1 ■ II��11 f'hI�L 1�I� I �\ LOWE'S \ "' I I I I `• YNN VIM"T' 1J9I00 S.F. I GADB C NFFA ]J,E07 S.F. / F.F.-372A0 I I �\ '•• I��.. .�t�; +� ; APPROXIMATE NO OF PARKING' coarcc c I .��•,V III I� � 1 . I �� .I. •. _ 11 11 V i•.. .. ' .......... t I f 11 11 I II II II YOU DIDIOC U I1111\ n�� II I ''• \/ li i W CALL 1 BEFOREMI55 I-eaD-4ET-7171 � GGFiVV/. (` / t✓ ` I I NOTICE o�•mrt low.nRLL-laoq NC � SMC I�, F11[II 111aiIiM mv501i 0!•iM[LL-MCkS,aS. \ � ,\ DATE: -- .. L.D FA[NO.5576CP1 C-] a � Y n SWW 41 W �+g PLACE OF 13ECR'J4M 14.02' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT UeER 29R PACE UST P4T N88'28'41'E 1y692984E ass- b'� 41.65' 7'4l'W 005 005 2i19' d 1�013i180ptP Q� S00'32'30-E 0\-pSpW^�`�EW,ENj R0� 1N\O 1.54' S89'41'26'E o J' J, 50.02' r �.. f u a \ I 10 PARCEL 4 I o Z TO BE ABVIDONM� �or k QWW#c g. PARCEL 2 J J .� J J v X6 PARCEL 1 j J v i b Plallw J W. q��k0 PR. 40' SANITARY SEWER \\ I '3I} •-mom' a4 ��\Ri �A,L.51�1�^A/4.84ACRES EASEMENT , \ �Ii ~la n wl.-.rorsz- p1-1130'I5'll r SE-M E/SEUENT \ 11K.�}xil SEE Od)EK En I In z O Yp ((I BEC6�a..r+1Ea M1011Q(ro eE ooran) I I^ - 9^' ng TO aE rawoaan ` I , , n a 8 Sa9'30b5Y "��� L�. _—�——— Lso.cr g� ----�----�-----rN88'JJ�035Yf'n PARCEL 3\ \ I I LOT'A LaT M \\ Ear ca \ IT To I m Ear I LOT TO \ / le or / of /�\ �LBER f l�Ir�4 !\ \ I LOT G b\ LOT@ LOT•n .11 /LaT VO w kgl LOT O LOWE'S ATWELL-HICKS, INC. SKETCH OF "'" lp Nd,Y ■yM.L Y irniglr TT,� PROPOSED SANITARY 734 w4 400o 610 m 6000 SIO M"00 EASEMENT DAM s 2s 00 7 CAO 7 1 T1ON 10 TOWN 3 NOR`rKRANGE 2 , �8 CITY OF LANSING -- _ INGHAM COUNTY M 0 50 100 INCH — 100 FEET ® __ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the North 9 comer of Section 10, City of Lansing, UN, R2W, Ingham County, Michigan; thence SOO'32'30'E 3246.36 feet along the North-South X line to the PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing SOO'32'30"E 828.34 feet along the North-South S4 line of said Section 10; thence N89'52'0814 209.59 feet along a line 40 feet North of and parallel with the North line of Brookdale Street (vacated) in the plat of Just-A-Mere Forms No 1, as recorded in Liber 8, Page 22. Ingham County Records; thence S51'23'13'W 349.08 feet along a line 55 feet Northwest of and parallel to the Northwest line of said Brookdale Street; thence N37'19'22 W 417.26 feet along the East line of Cedar Street (variable width); thence S89'39'05"E 104.28 feet along the North line of said Just-A-Mere Farms No 1; thence N60'21'12"E 51.45 feet; thence S30'37'33'E 30.00 feet; thence S89'39'05'E 15.08 feet along the North line of said Just-A-Mere Farms No. 1; thence N30'37'33'W 241.98 feet; thence S59'32'11'W 162.28 feet; thence along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Cedar Street the following two courses: 265.65 feet along the arc of a 3750.00 foot radius circular curve to the right, with a chord bearing of N30'15'11'W 265.59 feet, and N28'12'39'W 64.40 feet; thence along the Southerly line of Roth Drive the following two courses: N59'32'1 1"E 200.00 feet, and N68'28'41"E 341.46 feet; thence S30'27'19'E 120.00 feet; thence N68'28'19"E 120.02 feet; thence N30'27'41"W 117.00 feet; thence N68'28'19"E 300.84 feet; thence S29'53'31"E 85.21 feet; thence SOO'32'30'E 1.54 feet; thence S89'41'26'E 50.02 feet to the Place of Beginning, being part of the Southwest 34 of said Section 10. containing 14.84 acres of land, more or less, and being subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any_ 40' SANITARY SFWFR F SFMFNT A strip of land, for the Installation and Maintenance of Sanitary Sewer, located in the North l4 of Section 10. T3N, R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County. Michigan, further described as: Commencing at the North 9 Corner of Section 10. T3N, R2E; thence SOO'32'30'E 3246.36 feet along the North-South 34 line of said Section; thence N89'41'261N 50.02 feet; thence NOO'32'30'W 1.54 feet; thence N29'53'31'W 85.21 feet; thence S68'28'19'W 300.84 feet; thence N30'27'41'W 2.99 feet; thence S68'28'41-W 14.02 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence S67'14'25"E 367.26 feet; thence SOO'32'30'E 493.37 feet; thence S88'37'03'E 20.99 feet; thence S01*22'57 W 40.00 feet; thence N88'37'031N 59.67 feet; thence N00'32'301N 505.72 feet; thence N67'14'25W 326.27 feet; thence S07'24'26'W 361.39 feet; thence S59'28'23W 237.96 feet; thence N30'37'33W 40.00 feet; thence N59'28'23E 218.49 feet; thence N07'24'26'E 364.16 feet; thence N6828'41"E 41.65 feet to the Place of Beginning containing 1.38 acres of land more or less. CLIENT LOWE'S ATWELL-HICK& INC. SKETCH OF PROPOSED SANITARY 734 1114 7000 010 025 0000 610 7M Moo EASEMENT °"E 0128100 > > 1 SECTION 10 TOWN 3 NORTKRANGE 2 , in 00 CITY OF LANSING INGKW COUNTY -- ^o 0 S30'2r41'E "g MIDWAY TRUST PUT PLACE OF BEViwt&4G LIBER 29 PAGE 47 FAS /EGRESS Hbs 1854 NT j0,31gcom, 0� 5001.54' E 00 ot- 3�/ M�GOµP� l6p •00 J� j S8 50 1'26*E 0 .�� 50.00•(R) oz �t oo 5 9. " yLL. R O PROPOSED Y e\ *CRESS/EGRESS $ _ EASEMENT R o J�v I PARCEL 4 0 1°� $ z 1 J PLACE 0f BECx N(; '$ PARCEL 2 PARCEL t 4,2 �J :r. a. ldlal n 1p6 •la1 PARCEL 1 s yti 1oa� N. R-37 1�9ti° yt� 14.84 ACRES Rg og )WA-4'O.Y32' lal rp fi S'il 11003s15- 6't1R �o cl = tp �d Tp- tea• —�---�---- ---- -----T---7- \ �\ \ PARCEL 3\ \ I \ oe• \ \ LOT O \ /LOT IM LOT I Los m I LOT W LOT cc \ I I LOT:t / \\��cn N4"21c;u \ \ LOT to \ \ 12 \ I LOT \ \ -- --L-- � LOT en// y y/ 11 "LOT lop, \� LOT 01QL� LOWE's ATWELL-HICKS, INC. SKETCH OF Mbr,Y OtyMerL Y .yiytr,tT Y INGRESS AND EGRESS 734 ns 4000 OfO m 0000 810 7aa WOO EASEMENT a 2e 00 Boa 57 uo 7 1 ON 10 TOWN 3 NORTH,RANCE 2 , JZ8 CITY OF LANSING *CRAM COUNTY E' 0 50 100 CH — 100 FEET ® -- LEGAL DESCR Commencing at the North X corner of Section 10. City of Lansing, T3N, R2W, Ingham County, Michigan; thence SOO'32'30'E 3246.36 feet along the North-South u fine to the PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S00'32'30"E 828.34 feet along the North-South 54 line of said Section 10; thence N89'52'08'W 209.59 feet along a line 40 feet North of and parallel with the North line of Brookdole Street (vacated) in the plat of Just-A-Mere Farms No 1, as recorded in Liber 8. Page 22. Ingham County Records. thence S51'23'13'W 349.08 feet along a line 55 feet Northwest of and parallel to the Northwest line of said Brookdole Street; thence N37'19'22 W 417.26 feet along the East line of Cedar Street (variable width); thence S89'39'05"E 104.28 feet along the North line of said Just-A-Mere Farms No 1; thence N60'21'12'E 51.45 feet; thence S30'37'33'E 30.00 feet; thence S89'39'05'E 15.08 feet along the North line of said Just-A-Mere Farms No. 1; thence N30'37'33W 241.98 feet; thence S59'32'11'W 162.28 feet; thence along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Cedar Street the following two courses_ 265.65 feet along the arc of a 3750.00 foot radius circular curve to the right, with a chord bearing of N30'15'11'W 265.59 feet, and N28'12'39"W 64.40 feet; thence along the Southerly line of Roth Drive the following two courses: N59'32'11'E 200.00 feet, and N6828'41"E 341.46 feet; thence S30'27'19'E 120.00 feet; thence N68'28'19'E 120.02 feet; thence N30'27'41"W 117.00 feet; thence N68'28'19"E 300.84 feet; thence S29'53'31'E 85.21 feet; thence S00'32'30'E 1.54 feet; thence S89'41'26'E 50.02 feet to the Place of Beginning, being part of the Southwest 9 of said Section 10, containing 14.84 acres of land, more or less, and being subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any. ISR SS AND RESS F aEMF.ii A strip of land, for the purpose of Ingress. and Egress, located in the North 34 of Section 10. T3N, R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, further described as: Commencing at the North 34 Comer of Section 10, T3N, R2E; thence S00'32'30"E 3246.36 feet along the North-South 34 line of said Section; thence N89'41'26 W 50.02 feet; thence N00'32'30-W 1.54 feet; thence N29'53'31'W 8521 feet; thence S68'28'19'W 300.84 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence S30'27'41-E 57.01 feet; thence S68'28'42'W'180.00 feet; thence N30'27'51'W 60.00 feet; thence N68'28'41'E 180.00 feet; thence S30'27'41'E 2.99 feet to the Place of Beginning containing 0.24 acres of land more or less. CUENT LOWE'S ATWELL-HICKS, INC. I SKETCH OF �°�« - INGRESS AND EGRESS �- "w xir ro4.t000 eio m eaoo eioiee a o. EASEMENT °"E 0 28 00 .ae: 7 CID 7 1 SECTION 10 TOWN 3 NOUKRANGE 2 , Jza CITY OF LANSING 1NGH&M COUNTY - - Act-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square Air Rights for Balcony GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ny-Mac Enterprises 3310 Bardaville Drive, Suite #1 Lansing, MI 48906 REQUESTED ACTION: Use of Air Rights EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 25' x 135' = 3,375 ft2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Famous Taco S: Vacant E: Commercial/Office W: Commercial/Office SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District S: "G-1" Business District E: "G-1" Business District W: "G-1" Business District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Plan designates this area for commercial/business.The plan does not speak to the use of air rights over the sidewalks. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by Ny-Mac Enterprises to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 210 S. Washington Square. The request will permit the applicant to erect two (2) 6' x9' wrought iron balconies on the second floor of the building at 210 S. Washington Square. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received yet. AT&T: No response received yet. Assessor: No comments. (Application made for NEZ) BWL: No response received yet. ACT-1 8-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, Pg. 2. Building Safety: See attached. City Attorney: No response received yet. Code Compliance: No code compliance issues identified. Development: Consider lease, license or sale of air rights. Need to establish value. Contact Assessor's Office. Need City Council approval of agreement to lease, license or sell. Follow Charter requirements for disposition of City owned property (property heights). Downtown Neighborhood Association: No response received yet. Economic Development Corporation: Comments expected by October 3, 2000. Fire Marshal: No objections. Parks and Rec.: No response received yet. Police: No response received yet. Principal Shopping District: Comments expected by October 3, 2000. Public Service: No response received yet. Senior Preservation Planner: See attached. Trans. Engr.: The TPO recommends that the bottom of the balconies be no less than 10' from the sidewalk, preferably 12'. Further, the decking should be solid so as to protect pedestrians below. ANALYSIS An Act 285 Review is conducted when the City purchases, sells or substantially changes the use of property. According to Section 125.36 of Act 285, PA 1931, as amended, the character, location and extent of the proposal must be evaluated. The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). ACT-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, Pg. 3. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to utilize the first floor of the building at 210 S. Washington Square for retail space and the second floor is proposed for residential use. In doing so, the applicant wishes to erect a 6' x 20' (actually, (1) 6' x 9', (2) 6'x 9') wrought iron railing balcony on the second floor of the building at 210 S. Washington Square which, according to the applicant, will be 16' above grade from the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a "New Orleans"style look on this building and the residents in the loft apartments will be able to sit on their balconies, giving an appearance of activities during all hours of the day. LOCATION: To examine the element of location, the proposal must be evaluated as to whether the use is in an appropriate location and if it is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed location of the balconies would be in the 200 block of S. Washington Square, the primary retail district in the downtown area. The property is located in the "G-1" Business District and regulated by Section 1270 of the Zoning Ordinance. The balcony will be located 16' above grade and the Transportation Office has indicated that the minimum should be 10'preferably 12'from the sidewalk.Therefore,the minimum requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plans for the area support retail use on the lower level and residential (lofts) on the upper level in the downtown area. Section 1270.03(c) of the Zoning Code allows residential use if the residential use meets the lot area requirement of the "DM-4" Residential District. This building is the location of the old Linn's Camera. According to the Preservation Planner, the removal of the facade has exposed the original late nineteenth century brick facade of this vernacular Victorian commercial building. In terms of the proposed use of the building, it would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. However, the installation of the balcony is not compatible with other uses along S. Washington Square. CHARACTER: The character of the proposal is assessed by evaluating the physical impact on the function of the surrounding area and the quality of development created by its design and scale. The applicant has indicated that the balcony will be constructed of iron wrought. The Transportation Office has indicated that the decking should be solid so as to protect pedestrians below. The Preservation Planner has indicated that there is no evidence that this building or other buildings along S. Washington Square ever had exterior balconies. Since there are no other balconies along this strip of the mall, the installation of this balcony would be out of character with surrounding uses along S. Washington Square. EXTENT: ACT-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, Pg. 4. To analyze the extent of the proposal, it is necessary to evaluate the impacts on future development and whether or not the proposal sets precedent for long range development. This proposal would utilize the air space over the public right-of-way for private development. The balconies would be for private use of the residences of the proposed loft apartments. The installation of the balconies would set a precedent in the area since there are no other balconies along Washington Square. OTHER: The Building Code limits overhead encroachments into the right of way to 48 inches. The Building Safety Office may be open to issuing an administrative modification if Act-18-00 is approved and engineering documents are submitted which substantiates that the balcony can achieve code loading requirements of 60 psf. The Transportation Engineer recommends that the decking should be solid so as to protect pedestrians below. In terms of land use and environment, the River Island Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation and enhancement of the historical and cultural heritage of the River Island area by: - Identifying and preserving historically significant buildings and places of interest Limiting the demolition or alteration of buildings of historical or cultural significance. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan identifies Washington Avenue area as the traditional retail center. The area provides support for employees, visitors and patrons of the Capitol District. Competition from malls mandates special attention be given to the physical appearance and convenience of the Washington Square Retail District. Uninterrupted high-quality street level retail in a attractive setting is essential. Further, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan states that the Washington Square Commercial is the primary retail district located near the State Capitol, this area serves as a common element between the entertainment and business/retail uses. Development must be promoted which will utilize existing structures and encourage workers and visitors to inhabit the area. Ground floor uses should be retail with window displays and cafe seating, upper floors should be retail with window displays and cafe seating, upper floors should accommodate residential and or office uses. According to the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown. The streetscape on these streets should represent the highest quality public environment the ACT-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, Pg. 5. City has to offer, they should be maintained to the highest standard of the entire city to reflect the importance and level of pride in downtown. Attached is excerpts from the National Trust for Historical Preservation pertaining to Architectural Tradition and Facades. SUMMARY In terms of the proposed use of the building, it would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. However, the installation of the balcony is not compatible with other uses along S.Washington Square.Since there are no other balconies along this strip of the mall, the installation of this balcony would be out of character with surrounding uses along S. Washington Square. The installation of the balconies would set a precedent in the area. There is another option (such as replacement of double hung windows in the original openings) available for the residents of the proposed loft to interact with mall activity as oppose to the construction of a balcony. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request by Ny-Mac Enterprises to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 210 S. Washington Square. Report Prepared by DMW and WCR, 9/29/00. FF WASHINGTON STREET FACADE 1/4' = 1'-0" Copyright© 2000 by RICHARD BENEDICT DESIGN CROUP :o i i MEZZANINE FLOOR APARTMENT PLAN J SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8 1'-0 (MAM FLOOR APARTMENT PLAN) ;I• 4� �I r1 �•�1'l .' :�— _ >� y�,�r�•�'F Taw ��`�''�,•� �f - .� Sry .rlr.r Jam• [ti• r f<tl�'4 -.`,..��_� —— ..Via't. •.� � ��,;{''`Si!°•\a g l7 p,l>'''k�t1e�`b'"i l'4;' ! •rR•''a..p i..•��.. Ci,,:ti .i>-0 ..L is ���_iKtN r"iy�T`J,y- y '.J�Jh ���� y•J . 1J' �_r���I Y } , so lip -17 r£ `• r�c �I.R. � �1' 'Ik � '• ,•;. /1f p R• 1•,_ng+!;. `ryw r `'• i..Z: f , Y � f/ _ I• � / j rT I.,.. � i r .r�r'ti"'• � .�'7 � !� �..+��•�r 4�t. R i. 5:�3 • i 11 1 • • Jr- ; Y..d 1.. .. .t ��>,eP!' 'r�s'A�Y �� '�`y_-y�. 's��•r :� rr,� �<_, ' r' �_ /�•a�^zi¢� 1 'v.ril�� '•mow ."r' ds'`is. c�M�k t . l u\ ' ►n I Iui l 4 I Ll "���a. %k w sr�=k,K ~' ..r r y-'i'IGI%!�* ^_. .saw rt 1 o� ��1 '.:�s Q • ,��.:f' r f'4rsyn• '+'a,,,i '•.+r��e.-�;�r.r���' ,''i v.'1, �+ i. 'Z,� x`�.: _ 'a' '\� sy:l-+SFy��j� - f• �•� �:; 1 ' �-`; ^ '�,a w' • F. YJ _ i . 111 111 �� •r � o t � +1 1 a' It lit I M` I ' 1111 i t �l nv�• a .� hd •.�"e . ., 1 kill t, 5 ' ,� - •• i Ilkl �.�1,1 1111 tip •! :�.. 1 19 1 1111 tt �j t � , •1 it..��1. 1•, �a Jack Nelson L 09/20/2000 08:03 AM To: Doris Witherspoon/CodeCom@CodeCom cc: Subject: Act-18-2000 The building code does allow balconies which encroach into the public right-of-way, provided the clearance above grade is not less than 8'. Over 8' the balcony may encroach 1"for each additional inch of clearance, provided that the balcony does not encroach more than 48 inches. The proposal as written does not comply with Chapter 32 of the City Of Lansing Uniform Building Code. The Building Safety Office may be open to issuing an Administrative Modification for the encroachment if the proposal is approved by the Planning Board and engineering is submitted which substantiates that the balcony can achieve the code loading requirement of 60psf. The design professional for the project should be directed to contact me to discuss the proposal and the possibility for relief inck ' S c { r y i .��- _ - - "rev •c � ,rw Fig 4. 200 Block S. Washington Mall (looking SE,opposite side of street from 210 S. Washington Sq.) The removal of the 1950's Linn's Camera facade has exposed the original late nineteenth century brick face of this vernacular Victorian commercial building. It is desirable when economically and technically feasible, to retain as many of the historic character defining features and spaces of a building as possible during rehabilitation projects. In this case, it would include: • fenestration -preservation of original window and door openings; • retaining the arched brick detail above the window openings, the center brick waterfall element and the square, limestone detail on the upper right pier(fig. 1); • retaining the multiple overlapping brick rows at the lower edge of the cornice; • retaining the roof line and parapet height; • retaining original materials -deteriorated materials should be repaired rather than replaced where possible. New materials should be compatible with the original. There is no evidence that this building or any of the late nineteenth century buildings along the mall, south of Michigan Avenue, ever had exterior balconies. The proposed balcony additions are therefore inappropriate for this building. Their addition would create a "false" sense of history. Replacement of double-hung windows (in the original openings) would allow loft residents to sit in comfortable chairs by the open window(s) and still actively interact with mall activity below. Fig. 2 shows a rear view of the building off the alley, which in this case is used primarily for deliveries and trash pick up. Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner THE RAIN STREET " � ARCHITECTURAL �.✓ ,VV DT buIL01ri& TRADITION _.. ]Hill This is the basic building blockv Q of Main Street—the traditional rom? * t7 ST �1 streetfront commercial facade. Although built in many sizes, 5T0tkr--ff90NTS LINE shapes and styles,it was always THE•PC-D65Tft1M essentially the same facade. '�T Facades of this type lined ORIGINAL FACADES Main Street on both sides. 4 I One next to another, they formed strong, solid A Mote of Emphasis blocks,marked by the rhythm of repeating parts. G The idea of visual relatedness is crucial to the Because it was composed of similar facades, the goal of an integrated Main Street. Historically, block had a consistent, organized and coordinated Main Street facades complemented and rein- appearance. Facades were related to each other forced one another. through compatibility in height,width,setback,pro- Compare these drawings. Notice how the portions of openings,composition and rhythm. Thus, the appearance of Main Street today is remodeling of old facades has destroyed their With these blocks facing each other, the street largely a result of a strong architectural tradition, continuity. They are no longer visually tied to- took on a distinct character. Compared with the Beginning with the early buildings of the 1800s and gether because their rhythms and proportions typical residential street,Main Street created a feel- continuing through the 1930s, this tradition con- have been altered. Each facade is now unre- ing of containment The street became an outdoor trolled how Main Street looked. lated to the next,and the character of the build- room,filled with activity. The consistency of this building tradition brought ing group suffers. The sidewalk (or the "pedestrian street") was•a about a unity that strengthened Main Street as a window-shopper's delight. One after another, the whole. If traditional business districts today are to _ store windows formed a continuous display case of benefit from this unity, changes to buildings must Main Street merchandise. respect this tradition. 0 � 0 oQn ooc Nit © 0 %99 REMODELED FACADES �pieal Building Cornices and Yppel I� THE TRADITIONAL Facades In the mid 1880s to early 1900% Typical building cornices and upper typical storefronts were character FACADE 7*—*7* facades in the mid to late 1800s !zed by boldly decorated cornices, were characterized by boldly deco- cast-iron columns and large display rated cornice and window hoods windows. and narrow window openings. Q r�We have looked at the facade as the building block of Main Street. Now let us consider the individual From the early to mid 1900s typi- building facade itself.Aside from consistency,` hat In the late 1800s to early 1900s, At ul storefronts had simplified coM1these areas ig the facade werenices,transom windows over dis- were the typical characteristics of the traditional fa- . � mostly highlighted by corbeled Cade? Essentially,it had three parts. play windows and meal window ■ � brick cornices and large, arched frames. Cornice window openings. Upper facade By the early to mid 1900s,typical d upper facades were marked by cor- Another Note Of Emphasis r-- -' --Storefront viax beled brick cornices and large win- / dow openings with multiple win- Sensitive storefront change is essential to � � dow units. improving the appearance of,Main Street 1. Building cornice. The traditional building cor- ---——— The following qualities should be remem- nice, made of brick,wood, metal or other materi- bered as important to the traditional store- als, served to visually cap the building, completing 3. Storefront.The traditional chracteristics of the front storefront contrast markedly with the more sub- its appearance. The storefront was usually slightly stantial upper facade and building cornice.The store- • recessed behind the enframing storefront 2. Upper facade. The upper facade,constructed front was rather delicate in appearance and was com- cornice and piers. of brick,stone,wood,stucco or pressed metal,al- posed primarily of large display windows surrounded most always contained regularly spaced window by enframing piers and a storefront cornice. n�'e� Nor openings surrounded by decorative details. ----` ►f,rT. r++ To tt rRorlr ° �. p�[.ofWTIVE GoltNice — — ——— � �' • The storefront was almost all glass. I I �AcaoG 41C-N two WlNOOW HonDS I I uv++r _ ~� viEw teo�r( MPE�S'il'�'( WAU. i I -�es�SOM stoRs wlt•+�orty f��'� Gof-fIIG� . SPA • The storefront emphasized the display W t NDo` �� �r �Tof t Pf o►�T windows. WIpDGVlY = µ�a I TNE: 5To1�RaCtr �N�p,p to txrh II Il LTiT1R`{ooDf— �.�r.ram !�L 4�1 one I Tr.�S-F -COY t kte I and+tl r.n 9+s N�Jond Mew Sv++t E+�NS 4�4 Not(vr WWW4 P S. More Storefront Change 6.Another Storefront 7. Drastic Facade Change - The 8.The Future - What Direction Remodeling Original Facade Is Gone. Will Future Change Take? —t ON&IN,&L, WINGtTNs �/' DBTr::P40frATF� PLS , TO L U^ Of- r�1A1NTEi tP NGfi. �\ 5OL-t0 P"BL FPS F"T n 0 C.OV-R 0NC4NA1, coJERs UPPER wINC�vs.�� F�-ADE. FL�aME5 NE" L^F&Efl H�Nt� SIGN+:--- _ � ' •' I ---T I NEW - li it ___ NEW I I ST Ff�NT 19 V15Lk%LL IY{ SOL{.TL-S / TGO C�ePt`( Some Observations on the Facade An Example of Sensitive Change Change The facade drawing at right shows the same build- Note how changes to the facade happen gradually ing facade as in the sequence above. In both, the and have a cumulative effect on its appearance.While existing facade has been remodeled. But here, un- some are hardly noticeable on their own, change like the others,change has complemented the quali- upon change over the years has completely trans- ties of the old facade. formed the original facade. The upper facade retains its traditional character Note the changes in signs and the effect on the and window openings. Signs are subtle and well facade.As they get bigger and more numerous,signs placed.The new storefront fits within the original begin to dominate the facade. Eventually the whole storefront opening and is enframed by the store L= - facade becomes a sign, obscuring the familiar build- front cornice and piers.It is also similar in design to ing pattern. the original storefront, retaining a recessed entry, Throughout the series of facade evolution draw- large display windows and a kickplate. (See "Store- ings,note how the qualities of the original facade— front Design.") its rhythms, proportions, materials and composi- tion—have been ignored. Various new storefronts, extending beyond the enframing piers and storefront cornice,and signs have been applied without respect- ing the original resource. ' ACT-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony NORTH MICHIGAN E-- MICHIGAN n 11DUCH.AVE.VAC.CP 2-13-78 v T, _ n1 wtc tit I 00 r I 3 M 110all I 10 �« 50%% I Q 1 N .i �I o w Otis ` �jtiY I I I Ld Cv o t�// ti ^5 az Ot M pH 601% 7 8 9 0 6 p 1 7 8 3\ 9 I 10 Z Of� \�l' 0 _ .n — 041 - U4-la4 I ]o � -!ry � Io7-o1=11 111 11S 11 ,cl-ILS E. ALLEGAN (II I Iz1 115 _ _ _ Ito 76 57' 13 45, v 001 It. to) 12 0� \ 14 " V Q \a \� - - -\ - - =Tt a OIL 12 y I u STATE Is \b\ „{ II J a 17 1Ls' 00 STATE ° -I 319N 0 40 1 . 0 20 \ ty /{ �+ 0� ti �� SS n 21 1�� I n LLJ Ins' 114 �J IS�1'+C�h 4� Z 9 115 22 h Q M t 55 a Q t c{' 23 0 �9 s 0 f7 �'. 24 pgt , n CY "� 04126 Os\2s oGz27 05� b13 01l 28 ' 0`i 1 {", ty le1•r ILf•I) E . WASHTENAW _ IL1•�o f' io �L. u 1�5, — —— — —M H log 00\ .. J .L 6d17, G-� us,��ss �� 1 „xs s � `�I siftct I 1 v Sf(LCq 2� v r _. . .�, i -� � .. � � - - - t r_� � � - ' � - _ 4 - -. � � � i� APPROVED AS PRINTED NOVEMBER 7, 2000. Draft to Clerk DATE UNKNOWN Approved 11072000 To Clerk 02022001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Nischan, Foster, Ruge. Five present, two absent, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Ms. Patrick and Mr. Smith requested excused absences. C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager; Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. Mr. Ruge made a motion; seconded by Mr. Nischan, to excuse Ms. Patrick and Mr. Smith from the Planning Board meeting. On a Voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. HEARINGS - None 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) JAMES MCDANIELS, 1732 SHADY OAK LANE, SHADY OAK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I would like to briefly summarize what is happening in our neighborhood. We have a very wooded neighborhood, it is kind of a nice tucked-away residential neighborhood in the City of Lansing. This neighborhood is what we consider to be a world class neighborhood in a world class city. We have on the north side of us a set of railroad tracks; we get a lot of heavy trains that utilize that track. On the north side of that, we have Capitol City Airport. Only 5 acres of this vacant seven-acre piece of property would be useful in any development. Actually it would be less than that because Reynolds drain runs on one side of it and any development would cause the developer to build a draining pond. So technically, four acres of property that could be built. Westwood Avenue dead ends; however, there is woods there. On the north side of that is a track. In the spring several of the neighbors received a letter from the new owner, Bob Bower, of the Giving Tree Farm, which currently owns the deed to that property. They bought the property for $1 from PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 2 Neller Company. Their intent is, basically, to the best of my knowledge from conversations with Bob Bower, to utilize that property in our neighborhood, to help offset costs on their organization on Turner Road, so they have funds to pay for everyday expenses. We got this letter in the spring that Mr. Bower was going to come knock on our doors, some of the adjacent neighbors, and explain his intent. Of course, we are all up in arms. This property has been vacant forever. It is our natural buffer to the train tracks and to the airport. I have 16 full grown oak trees in my yard, and every one of my neighbors has very close if not more. It is a very densely populated area. This acreage on the north side of my property and several other neighbors is really essential to the quality of our neighborhood. We do not have sidewalks either. We never got that knock on our door that we were expecting. We did not know who had bought it, we just knew that someone was going to come and knock on our doors, it never happened. In August, we had a very disturbing sight. Two big bulldozers pulled up and started bulldozing down an extension of Westwood, knocking trees down, disturbing the soil, without any type of barrier to protect our neighborhood children, without appropriately filing for City permits for soil erosion. At that point, we contacted Mr. Michael Murphy and immediately we had somebody out there to talk to him and tell him that needed to be filed. They submitted an application to him and told him he needed to fill it out. He never did that. I do not have the exact date, but I had a meeting with Mr. Ruff, and several other individuals from the City and the City Attorney's office. We had expressed our deep concern as to his intent. He was not being ethical with us, at least keeping his word. We had a meeting to express our concerns. However, one important immediate concern that had to be addressed was the fact that he at a very bare minimum had to abide by the City of Lansing's rules, like each other citizen of the City. If I were going to attach a garage to my house, there is a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to catch me if I do not have a permit and probably will pay a fine. Well, as a result of that meeting, the letter I passed out to you was what was prepared by the Public Service Department and given to him as a deadline to produce and fill out the required soil erosion permit and also submit a sediment program and any related fees. Bear in mind, he has already destroyed what we consider to be a buffer in our neighborhood. Basically what I want to present to you is a pattern of behavior that leads us to believe that this is not an individual that is going to keep his word. Eventually he will be bringing a plat to you with a lot of houses that far exceed our anticipated expectation of what should be happening back there. I do not believe this has been brought to you. What we are going to do as a neighborhood is to try to keep you informed so that when that plat hits you, it is not a total surprise. This has been turned over to the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Bower was called into a meeting and told that he did not fill his requirement. I would like to make sure that you are aware of this as you consider possible alternatives to this property. 6. RECESS - none taken. Mr. Frederick suggested that we move items to the Committee of the Whole. That way we will not have to have a Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and then report it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 3 out again to the Planning Board. If we all sat in the Committee of the Whole, we would all hear the issues that are being considered in these three items. If this is possible under the rules of procedure, I would like to suggest that. Mr. Frederick made a motion; seconded by Mr. Nischan, to consider the items on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee agenda, SLU-13-2000, SLU-11-2000 and NCU-9- 2000, during the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice vote, motion carried unanimously. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: October 3, 2000 Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of September 19, 2000. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; Carried unanimous; the minutes of October 3, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports la. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Frederick assumed the chair. a. SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility Mr. Frederick presented the case. Life Care Choices, LLC, requests a Special Land Use (SLU) to operate a residential care facility along the 3100 block of W. Mt. Hope. The applicant is proposing to build a residential care facility that consists of two buildings totaling 59,066 sq ft in two phases. There will be a total of 80 units on site. Although we did not have a quorum at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, we did discuss this matter in detail and, based on the analysis of the Special Land Use Permit, it does meet all of the nine criteria spelled out for approval for a Special Land Use. Also, we discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee the proposed density of the Special Land Use as well as the approved density of the zoning. The number of units in the adult residential care facility would be equivalent to the same number of residential units that could be constructed by right. We also PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 4 discussed some concerns regarding construction traffic on a residential street. The applicant committed to ensure that no construction traffic would be allowed on the residential streets. One of the ways of accomplishing that would be to direct construction traffic by temporary signage during the construction phase. The applicant also committed to keeping the streets swept, cleaned and dust-free, and to control dust. Also there were five other conditions that were brought forth in the meeting. The applicant would: a. Retain as many of the existing trees on site as possible. b. Provide a temporary fence at the Lewton Place street stub to prevent children from the school from accessing the site during construction. C. Provide landscaping, screening, and buffering along areas adjacent to residential use. d. Maintain 24-hour supervision of residents on site. e. Limit access to Mt. Hope instead of through any other residential streets during construction, unless access through Grand Haven Manor can be obtained. The Committee then felt that approval of SLU-13-2000 would be appropriate with the conditions as stated above. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility with conditions. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said that he is a little concerned about them using this other property to gain access to Mt. Hope. Do they have an agreement with Grand Haven Manor? Mr. Frederick said that they do not have approval, or at least they did not have approval the afternoon that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee met, but the applicant indicated that he was seeking approval or would seek approval from Grand Haven Manor, and if he could not obtain that then he committed to limiting construction traffic to the parcel only from Mt. Hope. Mr. Ruge said he is also concerned about access for vehicles when the place is up and running. Are you saying that he does not have permission for workers, visitors, and people who will live there to drive in there? Mr. Frederick said that at this time I do not believe he does. Mr. Frederick asked if the applicant was here. The applicant stated that the owners of Life Care are the Reinders family who are also involved in the ownership of Grand Haven Manor. There are other two or three other partners involved, but we are very closely related to those groups and individuals, so I do not see any problems in getting permission from the Grand Haven Manor Ownership Entity for easement rights for both hooking to the utilities that are on their site and also to use their road for access for our guests and residents and workers. There should not be a problem, but we are still PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 5 working in the process. What is holding it up is the ownership of Grand Haven Manor want to be appropriately compensated for the easement rights they are granting us and that is a function of the dollar savings by not being required to build our own utilities from Mt. Hope Road as well as an access road, so we are still working with our engineers to come up with an accurate quote so we can agree on a price. In theory we have discussed it and there has been no objection, it is just a matter of getting down to the dollars and cents which we should be able to do in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Foster said that in the plan it shows access from Lewton Place and Deerfield Drive. Is that just from the old existing plan? The applicant said that there are two roads that dead-end into that property. We were not proposing to extend those into the property. We would have access only to Mt. Hope through the shared drive with Grand Haven Manor Facility. If that could not work out for some reason, we would come directly off Mt. Hope Road. We will not connect for construction or permanent access with any of the three roads. Ms. Foster said so these plans will change? The applicant said that it probably shows that it dead-ends there, but I do not think it shows that they go through. Ms. Foster said, about the parking lot design, at this point it is a very large expanse of asphalt, and it looks like you have enough frontage on one of the buildings to break it up so you would be able to shade some of this. You are going to get a lot of heat coming from that asphalt surface. The applicant said that if it is acceptable to the City Planning Staff, I am sure we could accommodate that. I know there is some room along the front and side of the proposed Specialty Care Buildings, which are the two buildings to the south. We could probably do that. It is really a function of how our engineers and architects work with the City's Planning Staff and various departments. We could do it if it is important. Mr. Ruge asked that two additional conditions be added: 1. That they receive an easement from Grand Haven Manor to access Mt. Hope through their drive; and 2. That the parking lot be broken up so that it is smaller and less intrusive. Mr. Ruff asked if it would be better to restate condition #5 to "Access is limited to Mt. Hope through the Grand Haven Manor"? Mr. Ruge said no, I want to have an actual requirement that there be an easement. I do not care if they use Grand Haven Manor as long as they access Mt. Hope only. But if they are going to use Grand Haven Manor, I would like an easement to do that to avoid problems in the future. Mr. Frederick asked, about the condition of the parking lot, how would you like it to be worded? I am willing to accept both of those as amendments. Mr. Ruff said it could be stated, "add additional landscaping to the interior of the parking lot." Ms. Foster said you could have an interior island in the middle. You could start planting trees in there because you need to shade that. Ms. Foster had a concern about the wording regarding protecting the trees. I know in construction it is so easy to drive the bulldozers around, and before you know it you have killed all the roots of the existing trees, although you have them tagged to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 6 saved. You have compressed the soil and roots, and those trees will die in five years. I would like to add something that would really protect these trees, like a tree protection fence to the edge of the drip line of the trees to be saved so that the construction vehicles will not damage these trees that you really want to save for the future. Mr. Ruff said a statement on the end of number one where it says retain as much of the existing trees on site as possible and protect those trees during construction. Ms. Foster said with a tree protection fence line that goes to the drip line of those trees. Mr. Nischan said that is a great idea. I am just wondering if we need to address it or leave it to common sense. What caliper are we talking about. Do you have a concern for more than just one-inchers or two-inchers? Ms. Foster said that the larger trees that are 20-30 feet tall will have their drip line more than 6-8 feet where the tree protection fence has to surround the tree. But the drip line of the tree can extend to 10-12 feet. Mr. Frederick said leave it to the judgment of the person out there? Ms. Foster said ideally it would be good to get an arborist out there to tell you where things need to be protected in order to save the trees. Mr. Nischan asked Mr. Ruff if the City Parks and Recreation Department or Forestry Department has somebody who would have the knowledge that would be able to advise the applicants on how they would be best able to protect the trees. Mr. Ruff said that it would probably be best, when we get in the review phase, and we figure out what trees are going to be saved and then they can identify on the site plan where that protection would be. They will need to have construction limits, both temporary and permanent, to help ensure that, and then our Forester can review that. Mr. Frederick said is there a way we can word that so we ensure that it be reviewed at the site plan review. Mr. Ruff said that as part of this condition, it would be part of that review. "Retain as much of the existing trees on site as possible and protect those trees during construction out to the drip line." On a Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously to recommend that SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility, be APPROVED, with the following conditions: 1. Retain as much of the existing trees on site as possible and protect those trees during construction out to the drip line. 2. Provide a temporary fence at the Lewton Place street stub to prevent children from the school from accessing the site during construction. 3. Provide landscaping, screening, and buffering along areas adjacent to residential use. 4. Maintain 24-hour supervision of residents on site. 5. Limit access to Mt. Hope (including construction vehicles) instead of any other residential streets, unless access through Grand Haven Manor cannot be obtained. 6. That they receive an easement from Grand Haven Manor to access Mt. Hope through their drive. 7. Break up the parking lot with additional landscaping for shade. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 7 b. SLU-11-2000, 2111 DeSoto Drive, Child Care Facility Mr. Frederick presented the case. Oscar and Robin Slaton are requesting a Special Land Use (SLU) to operate a child care facility at 2111 DeSoto Drive. Currently, the applicants operate a 24-hour group day care for up to 12 children at their residence located at 2111 DeSoto Drive. They are requesting a SLU to change the group day care to a child care facility for up to 30 children. If approved, the residential use would be discontinued. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee was able to discuss this at great length and determined that, based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, the application does not meet all nine criteria. 1. The proposed Special Land Use is not harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. 2. The proposed Special Land Use would change the essential character of the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed Special Land Use could interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. The proposed Special Land Use does not represent an improvement to the use and character of the property. 5. The proposed Special Land Use does present a potential increase in traffic and noise to adjacent properties. 6. The proposed Special Land Use will be adequately served by public services and utilities. 7. The proposed Special Land Use will not place any demand on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. 8. The proposed Special Land Use is not consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and objective of the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, adequate vehicular and pedestrian access needs to be available to assure the safety and convenience of users and surrounding residents. This proposal does not meet the criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The proposed Special Land Use does meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 8 One of the items we did discuss as well that was not in the Special Land Use permit was that this request looks a lot like spot zoning. Even though it is not, the effects are the same because this is essentially a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Because the Special Land Use does not meet the criteria, and because it is a commercial business in a residential neighborhood, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee concurred to recommend this be denied. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to recommend denial of SLU-11-2000, Desoto Drive, Child Care Facility. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE ACTION Mr. Nischan said that he wanted to observe that the applicant, Ms. Slaton, was willing to think about the larger concerns of the plans in the area and it was nice to work with her. She was very responsive to the needs of the neighbors, and it is great when we have the opportunity to work with someone on that basis. Ms. Foster said that I have a little concern. This is a home residential area. Facilities like this are needed, especially by a neighborhood like this, which reduces the transportation of the children and the use of cars. I know that spot zoning seems to be not a good thing, but sometimes I think that to make a neighborhood viable some of it can actually help a neighborhood. It is just a concern that I think that too much of one language may not be the best thing. Mr. Ruff said just as a note, the reason this is before us for a special land use is because of the conversion to what I would consider the third level of child care. What is allowed by right is a family day care home which would allow up to six children to be cared for in a home as an accessory type use. At present, the Slatons are using the home for up to 12 children as a group day care. That is a second level. They do meet those criteria, and they can continue to do that at that location. So the child care facility is that third level which is more commercial in nature, and there are avenues for having that but not necessarily at this location and on this size of lot on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Frederick added that the parking and traffic problem was something that was of concern to Mr. Nischan and me because this is on a cul-de-sac. The Zoning Ordinance requires that there be parking on the property itself and an approach on the property to allow drop-off and pick-up of the children. The way this is configured, it was not capable of doing that. This is another thing that was considered going against this special land use. Ms. Foster said if the location could be moved, it would work better. On a Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; SLU-11-2000, 2111 Desoto Drive, Child Care Facility, was recommended to be DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 9 C. NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming Use for Setbacks and Parking This has been on the table for some time to resolve several issues, and it was put on our agenda because apparently the issues were resolved by that meeting. However, the applicant and his representative had not had time to review the recommendations and the traffic report, so we agreed not to take up this item at that time in order to give the applicant time to address the information that the Planning Staff provided. We agreed to bring it up this evening at the request of the applicant, only if the applicant felt that he had time to adequately review the information that was presented to us. I would like to ask the applicant if he is ready to have the Board take this issue up and expedite it as requested. The applicant said yes, that they have had time to do so. Sue Stachowiak presented the case. Lawrence Moore requests a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A nonconforming status to make substantial improvements to the subject building. There are really three issues. The first issue was whether or not the percentage of usable floor area exceeded the maximum 35 percent to be considered an adult business. The applicant provided a revised site plan. He provided some calculations on the floor area. I did some calculations, and we pretty much agree on the figures that are on the addendum I passed out tonight, which was that the usable floor area that is dedicated to the adult use is below the 35 percent; therefore, the building is not considered an adult business. The other two issues dealt with parking and transportation issues. One of them had to do with the applicant proposing to lease 20 parking spaces a block north on East Street. The requirement for this use is 13 parking spaces, so by doing that they would be well within their need. The concern by the Planning Staff has been what is the likelihood that someone is going to park in this lot a block down the street and walk down to this store, or are they going to park in the residential neighborhood. There is no parking allowed on Gier Street, which runs along the south edge of this property. The Transportation Engineer's concern is that they will park on 7" Avenue that runs parallel PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 10 to North East Street. The other concern has been the handicap parking space that is right in front of the building because the curb cuts that would be used to access this are so close to the intersection. Both the applicant and I spoke to the Transportation Engineer late this afternoon, after he got back from looking at this property. His comments were that he felt that the proposal from the applicant, regarding the handicap parking space, would work with some improvements. There is still some concern about the parking in the neighborhood, so I asked the Transportation Engineer if he was he willing to rescind the earlier recommendation, which is that it has a negative impact on the neighborhood. His concern was that it was not a positive impact on the neighborhood. The first item has been addressed and is satisfied regarding the use. The two issues of parking are still an issue. Mr. Ruge said in the report, the Transportation Engineer reported a negative impact, and when you asked him directly, he just said that it was not a positive impact. Ms. Stachowiak said the opposite of positive is negative. Mr. Ruge said that it was opposite of positive. It could be a neutral impact. That conversation was at about 5 minutes to five this afternoon. Mr. Ruge said what does that mean, that he wanted to go home. Ms. Stachowiak said no, I am not saying that, I am saying that he did not rescind his earlier comment. I did ask him after we were done on the phone if he would call Mr. Cross who is representing the applicant and discuss this issue with him. Mr. Cross is here tonight. Ms. Keene said I realize the nature of the business is likely to change, but it has been there for quite some time. Was there some indication from neighborhood groups of where the patrons parked before, since parking is an issue here in terms of the impact it will have. Was there any kind of discussion about that, whether they had been parking previously in the surrounding neighborhood on Gier or on any of those streets? Ms. Stachowiak said I would assume that they would have had to. I am not familiar with what has gone on with this property in the past. No information has been provided that indicates where people parked. I would assume that they would park on the street because parking in the past has not been leased from any other owner in the area, and there is no real parking on the site to speak of. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 11 Mr. Frederick said earlier, in the public hearing, we also heard testimony from the neighbors who own the hardware store that they had problems with that business when it was previously used for the same type of thing or perhaps it even was an adult business, but they ended up having their gate knocked over because people were still in that parking lot after business hours, and other difficulties with parking there. I call that to your attention too. Ms. Keene said I do recall that, but I am hearing more now how it is going to impact the residential area surrounding the business. I did not recall any problem in terms of the residences. I do recall the couple from the hardware store. Mr. Frederick recalled hearing concerns from the residents, but did not remember hearing any testimony that there were problems. Mr. Nischan observed that his tendency is to vote for approval. He is very concerned about adherence to our ordinances and doesn't think that "not a positive impact" is the same thing as a "negative impact," because nobody has an obligation to have a positive impact, they only have an obligation to avoid a negative impact. If the statue says parking within 300 feet, I would feel really uncomfortable second-guessing the patrons, saying those patrons are not going to park that far away. I know that those things are pointed out in the staff analysis, and I am not sure that is appropriate analysis. We need to either stick with the ordinance or be clearer than we are about why we are recommending what we are recommending. I did not think that the analysis was very supportive of the recommendation that was given. Mr. Ruge said that I would have to agree with Mr. Nischan. This business is not going to be a large building, and I can not imagine it is going to be all that busy. It just does not seem that, even if everybody parked on the street, there is not going to be that many cars. I really cannot see where it is going to be much of a negative impact. This is not like Spiral in Northtown where the place is packed and the people are parking all over in the streets and making noise at two o'clock in the morning. There is going to be five people in there maybe. You drove past the previous use, and it was a sleazy place that nobody likes; but the use is going to change. It has to change by the rules. Mr. Frederick asked staff, with the lease that the applicant has been able to obtain, what happens to his business if that lease is not continued after it expires, or what would PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 12 happen if the lease were somehow canceled. Mr. Ruff said the applicant will need to maintain parking, whether it be with this property or some other property. The lease provides also for some time that would allow the applicant or subsequent applicants or owners of the property to resolve the parking issue in another way. There are other possible avenues. This is the least expensive way to do it at this time. It also puts a restriction on the property that they are leasing from, so that if that other business property would want to change its use, it would have to deal with the commitment of parking to this applicant. So whether they continue leasing with the same person, or whether they provide some other avenue of parking that meets code requirements, it does not matter as far as the code, but that it is maintained in some way, shape or form. Mr. Frederick asked how this is enforced. How does somebody know when the lease no longer exists? Suppose the applicant or subsequent applicants fails to pay the lease, and the lessor terminated the lease for appropriate reasons. Mr. Ruff said, "I would like to say that we would know that, but the only way we would know that typically is if there were visible problems or complaints regarding this." Mr. Ruge asked how many parking spaces are required for a building this size. Ms. Stachowiak said 13. They are proposing to lease 20, so they would be well over the limit. Ms. Foster asked how long the lease was for. Ms. Stachowiak said 5 years. Ms. Keene asked if the 13 includes the handicap spots. Ms. Stachowiak said 13 total for the usable floor area, one needs to be handicap. Ms. Keene asked how many are in front of the building. Ms. Stachowiak said one, plus 20 down the street. Mr. Ruge said in your report that there is no parking allowed in Gier Street? Ms. Stachowiak said that is according to the Transportation Engineer, there is no on-street parking allowed on Gier Street. Mr. Ruge said all the way down to 7" Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak said yes. Mr. Ruge said that for people to park, they are going to park on 7th or farther down Gier, and that is just as close as the parking lot where they are proposing to lease parking. That is even closer than going down to 71h Avenue. If they don't park in the hardware store parking lot, they will park where they are supposed to. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 13 Mr. Frederick said if the applicant would like to make a brief statement, I think we should allow him to. We usually allow that in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, but we were not able to because we did not have a quorum. LARRY CROSS, ARCHITECT. Basically you have covered most of the items. If they were to have to park on 7th Street, it is farther away than the leased parking, and it is not just the first block of Gier that has no parking, it is all the way over to High Street. This leased lot was the closest parking available at this time. The applicant said that there is some parking across the street, but that belongs to a restaurant that is closed now and is for sale and will be reopened and they would use that parking again. If it were to become available, we would certainly look into that, but this is the closest accessible parking we could get. We did make sure we had enough to meet the requirements. We feel we have met the requirements of the ordinance by providing the parking. Due to the age of the building and the size of the lot, we could not provide on-site parking, which we would prefer. We think we are improving it this way by tying down where it is. The plan is to redo the exterior with a much better appearance than it is now. The interior has been completely gutted and will be rebuilt new. Mr. Ruff asked what is the area out in front of the building that has a block wall built? Mr. Cross said that was somebody's mistake. The low wall across the front and on the south side will be coming out. Mr. Ruff said that is where the parking will be. Mr. Cross said the paving that was put in we can leave for the parking. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming Use for Setbacks and Parking. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruff suggested that the parking issue be reinforced with a condition. By making a condition, if there is a problem, it opens the opportunity for the Board to look at the approval of the Class A again at a later date. Let's say if they lose the lease and don't try to deal with the parking issue again, then we would have another mechanism to deal with the parking issue. Mr. Nischan said can we word this: With the condition that should the parking availability decrease below the requirement, that the burden of notification is on the property owner to let the Planning Department know. Mr. Ruff said I would rather state that if you do recommend approval that they would meet the parking requirement for the use because if for some reason they would come in later with another plan for, let's say, if they need to reduce the usable square footage, they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 14 might reduce some of their parking requirement as well. Make it maintain code required parking. Mr. Ruge said I see here that the staff indicated that a five year lease would be the minimum that we should require. Does anybody have any thoughts on that. Mr. Ruff said the City Attorney's office recommended that be the minimum length of time for meeting this type of criteria so that it is not only length of time, but there is some remuneration to make it a valid contract. We have been using that as a base. Mr. Cross said there is also a renewal clause in the lease to allow to renew again. We do have a five year lease. Ms. Foster said that it seems that from the view from Gier Street, you see the whole face of the building, and you have a sidewalk and little bit of green space there. Is it possible to plant some street trees there? Mr. Cross said from the building to the sidewalk, there is approximately 8 feet. I doubt that trees are going to grow there and live very well. We do plan to plant shrubs and a rock garden on the east half of it. The west half is a ramp to get up. Ms. Foster asked about a strip on Gier Street after the sidewalk. Mr. Cross said between the sidewalk and the street, that is about 3 feet wide at the maximum and there is a bus stop there. You can try if you wish, but I do not think there is enough room. We could keep one that is out on the City property where there is a little grassy area. Ms. Foster said that Lansing is the tree city, so the 8 feet would suffice to grow a tree in it. They can grow in a space of 2 x 2, but having a green strip that is long enough would allow a tree to grow. Mr. Nischan asked what kind of signage are you anticipating for the building? Mr. Cross said no free standing sign at present. We are planning a roof-top sign. We have not really narrowed that down yet. Mr. Nischan asked what the limitations would be. My concern is that the building sort of bulges out of the spot and so the effect of signage is magnified and if it is up there pretty high it would mean a little bit of artistic attention to avoid being obtrusive. Mr. Ruff said roof signs are not allowed in the city so anything mounted above the roof line would be not approved. Wall signage would be allowed based upon the front of the structure. They could have a combination of one to two wall signs. It would be based on the length of the building. Since their door would be on the south side, it would be based on that side. The number would be 2.25 times the length of the building and no greater than a cap limit of 100 to 150 square feet depending on the length. Mr. Nischan said that is a little obtrusive, is there a legal way to monitor the length? Mr. Ruff said that is what is allowed by code. Mr. Nischan said we are left with the plea to the developer to be tasteful in that regard since there is a residential neighborhood there. Mr. Ruff said that they cannot have the sign facing residences, so the only way the sign could face is non-residential properties. Mr. Ruge said I would ask to make a friendly amendment to Mr. Nischan's motion, #1, require a minimum five-year lease, and #2, put some buffering on the south side of the building. It sounds like at least one tree could be put in. Mr. Nischan accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Frederick said that the motion was recommended for approval with conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 15 1. That the owner of the business be required to meet the parking requirements of the City code; 2. That the lease term for the leased parking should be a minimum of 5 years; and 3. That the south side of the building be buffered including at least one tree. On a Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming Use for Setbacks and Parking with the above three conditions was recommended to be APPROVED. That concluded the items on the Committee of the Whole agenda. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, that the Committee of the Whole do rise. 1 b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair Mr. Frederick presented the report of the Committee of the Whole. a. SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility The Committee found the special land use permit that the request does meet all nine criteria. The Committee recommended approval with seven conditions: 1. Retain as much of the existing trees on site as possible and protect those trees during construction out to the drip line. 2. Provide a temporary fence at the Lewton Place street stub to prevent children from the school from accessing the site during construction. 3. Provide landscaping, screening, and buffering along areas adjacent to residential use. 4. Maintain 24-hour supervision of residents on site. 5. Access is limited to Mt. Hope (including construction vehicles) instead of any other residential streets, unless access through Grand Haven Manor cannot be obtained. 6. That they receive an easement from Grand Haven Manor to access Mt. Hope through their drive. 7. Break up parking lot with additional landscaping for shade. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility with the above seven conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 16 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; SLU-13-2000, 3100 Blk. W. Mt. Hope, Adult Residential Care Facility with the above seven conditions was APPROVED. b. SLU-11-2000, 2111 DeSoto Drive, Child Care Facility The Committee found that the proposal did not meet the special land use criteria. It looked like a spot zoning because it looked like a commercial business in a residential neighborhood, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian access would not be available because of the placement at the end of a cul-de-sac. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend that SLU-11-2000 be denied. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to deny SLU-11-2000, 2111 DeSoto Drive, Child Care Facility. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; SLU-11-2000, 2111 DeSoto Drive, Child Care Facility was DENIED. C. NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming Use for Setbacks and Parking The Committee found some items that had not been resolved up to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee last week. The applicant was able to obtain a parking lease to fulfill the parking lease requirement. The report from the traffic engineer was not a negative impact on the neighborhood, and the total square foot usable floor area did not meet the definition of an adult business. The Committee supported a recommendation of approval for NCU-9-2000, with conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 17 1. That the owner of the business be required to meet the parking requirements of the Zoning code; 2. That the parking lease term should be a minimum of five years; and 3. That the south side of the building be buffered including a tree. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming Use for Setbacks and Parking. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Ruff said, just as a note, in the Class A recommendation of the Committee to the Board, the Board's action is final in this matter. This is not referred to the City Council. Mr. Ruge said that unless there is some signage, no one is going to know where the parking is, so as another condition, he asked that we require signage on the outside, someplace that is visible to let everyone know where the leased parking is. The amendment was accepted as a fourth condition. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Nischan. . . Ave Foster. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried; NCU-9-2000, 2400 N. East Street, Class A and Substitution, Nonconforming for Setbacks and Parking with the following four conditions: 1. That the owner of the business be required to meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Code; 2. That the parking lease term should be a minimum of five years; and 3. That the south side of the building be buffered including a tree; and 4. That signage be required on the outside of the building to advertise the location of leased parking was APPROVED. 2. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. Mr. Frederick said when we last met, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee did not have a quorum. We addressed all the items in the Committee of the Whole. Next meeting is Wednesday, November 15, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. Neither Mr. Smith, Chair; nor Ms. Patrick was present; however, Chairman Keene announced that the next meeting is Tuesday, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 18 October 24, 2000 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager wanted to call your attention to the dividers in your report. We are trying different things. Ms. Keene said she appreciates it and they are very helpful, better this time than they were last time. Mr. Ruff said that we are still trying different things depending on cost and staff time to apply them. We do not apply them to all reports. Mr. Ruff said that Louise wants to tell you all hello. I spoke with her today and she is recovering. Regarding Act-18-2000, 210 S. Washington, the balcony proposal for S. Washington Square, which was acted upon by the Board the last meeting, we have been able to review the conditions of the Board with the applicant and work through some of the issues. Some of the conditions that were attached with it have not been practical to meet. I wanted to make you aware of this, because as it goes to Council, we have to resolve some of those issues and come to some conclusion. They are trying to maintain as much of the fenestration or the design elements of the building as possible, but just simply the addition of the balconies is not historic in nature to the building itself. I wanted to make you aware of that. Those are some of the things that have been discussed to this point, and we will be resolving these issues as it approaches the Council committee. Many times when staff provides a recommendation to the Board, sometimes we forget to look at the opposite with what the Board's actions are, so that we can consider the appropriate conditions for those types of things. As a reminder tonight, even with NCU-9-2000, I want to make sure we think through the conditions that are attached because I don't want to be contradicting what the Board does as part of your staff. They are trying to put back in arches to the windows that are proposed. They can not lower the windows because of Building Code issues with the lofts, the residential units on the second floor. They are having to raise the window, which means removing the existing arch that is above the window and trying to replace it higher up. Those were some of the things that we have been trying to discover since that time. Now part of the problem was that the applicant did not come to the meetings. So that had been discussed with them as well. I am a little concerned that you did not have all the information at that time. I think we have been able to meet the intent of what the Board's actions were, and I wanted to pass that along to you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 19 Mr. Ruge said so the size of the windows as they were built does not meet the current housing codes? Mr. Ruff said the existing window openings were not high enough to meet the loft use. The problem is that the architectural designs that you had did not show the existing versus the proposed and how the two related one to one another. Then where the floor lines were inside the building. They are proposing a loft residential unit, and in that high-ceilinged second floor, they are actually installing a bedroom loft in the loft so there is a sleeping area that is higher up. So what ends up happening from the building code standpoint is they have to have an egressible window. The egressible window then has to be of a certain size. There it places some restriction on what can be done on the facade. Some of those issues you did not know about, and I just wanted to pass those along to you that we are trying to resolve it with the intent of your recommendation. Further, the Urban Development Committee will be looking partly at an outline of what we believe to be the Master Plan process so that you can get a look at that and start reviewing that, and we are going to be meeting to pass that process along through administration as well. We would like your input into that process, at least in the draft part of it. Then we can continue to formalize that. That will be part of what is going on at the Urban Development Committee. Also, there has been a house bill introduced in the State Legislature by Representative Jamnick to modify the City and Village Zoning Act that is Public Act 207, 1921, which affects some of the language within the Act. It does not diminish the Act, at least on my review of it, but I have called the representative to find out what the intent of the Act was and will report that back to you. The City of Lansing, along with the State of Michigan, is going to be applying for grants, ISTEA or enhancement grants, for the Capitol Loop, which is defined as those roadways that go from Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. to Allegan/Ottawa to Michigan Avenue and Grand Avenue, Michigan Ave, Cedar/Larch back down to 496, so it is that loop from 496 around to the Capitol. When Martin Luther King Blvd. was improved more recently, they added street trees, so with the enhancement grants, there is a proposal to change some of the lane widths of Allegan and Ottawa to increase the pedestrian environment of those approaches as well as a complete plan for what is going on with the improvements on the Capitol and state grounds for pedestrian safety movement, helping with the pedestrian environment as well as what happens with the adjoining city streets and so on. We are going to be taking that through the administration, and I wanted to make you aware of that. The Capitol Loop plan was done years ago under a previous administration and now we are getting around to implementing that in the process so we would expect PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 20 and hope that the applications will be going in this fall and the 2003 construction season will be making those improvements. Mr. Frederick asked if there will be consideration to changing Ottawa and Allegan to two-way streets at that time? Mr. Ruff said that consideration is going on presently in the traffic study. The design of the roadway would accommodate either one-way or two-way traffic. We have discussed the geometrics of the street. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Ruff had any idea when the traffic study would be done. Mr. Ruff said the studies (parking and two-way street studies) are supposed to be done this fall. Lastly, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee wanted to make sure that we can arrange for membership on the Committee at that time or if we need to switch times, I believe that Mr. Ruge has worked out something for this term and so the Committee is presently Mr. Ruge, Mr. Frederick and Mr. Nischan. Ms. Keene said when I asked Mr. Ruge if he would sit in, I told him that after the first of the year, if he would like to switch back to UDC, he would be welcome. 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-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-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Permission or Conveyance of City parcel for private use. (Tabled August 22, 2000) Mr. Ruff said he expects to have some Code Amendment drafts for you next month for Old Town, and also for other areas that are similar in nature. Ms. Keene asked about Item A under Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruff said I will have to ask Mr. Rieske about that. We had requested a letter of withdrawal, but we are dealing with the school district and a Parent/Teacher Association so we are trying to figure out who it comes from, and changes have been made there over the last month. I will talk with Mr. Rieske and see if we can get that resolved. 9. NEW BUSINESS - None 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 21 Mr. Ruge had a question about the sign enforcement guy. He is still on the job, and he is currently focusing on the south end? Mr. Ruff said that he is not sure what the concentration is. We are trying to get an amendment passed to the code which would allow another type of enforcement action to take place, where if there is a disabled or illegal sign, we can have a contractor remove it as well as use the fine system. So, yes, they are working on things. Do you have anything particular I can pass along? Mr. Ruge said I have been on the south end more and have noticed the Bad Habits Store. They have cleaned up the front of it, but it is definitely still in violation. Mr. Ruff said he can check. Mr. Ruge also wanted to say that these tabs are a great idea. Mr. Ruff said they are expensive. The odd thing is that you get about 100 of them on a sheet. The software comes with them. To run them through your printer, they have to be specially set up so they print, but you only get one report out of one package of the labels. We are experimenting with other things. Don't be surprised if you see something different on the next packet. Mr. Ruge said my third item was, is there any rule in the City on garbage—how early it can be, and how noisy it can be? We have a rule that construction can't start before 7 a.m. without a special rule. Is there a rule that you cannot have a garbage truck roaring in somebody's window before a certain time. Mr. Ruff said he did not know, but he will check it out. Mr. Ruge asked what the decibel level can exceed? Mr. Frederick did say there was a nuisance ordinance. We checked that out because we had a bunch of motorcycles going around our gravel pit behind our house a couple of years ago. The police could enforce it even though they were not able to find it. Mr. Ruff said that there is a noise ordinance as well as a nuisance ordinance, and there is also another part of the code that deals with trash pick-up, but I don't know if that deals with that particular issue. We can ask the Attorney's Office to help with that. Mr. Nischan said that Mr. Ruge caused me to wonder about how Mr. Frederick can be both Vice Chair on the Planning Board and Chair on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. I am happy to have him in both positions, but for being legal, do we have to do anything? Mr. Ruge said I think that is in the rules. Ms. Keene said that was the rules. I remember last time that I could not be a Committee Chairperson because I was Vice Chair, so I guess that Z&O will have to have an election. Mr. Frederick said that it can only be one of two people. Mr. Frederick said since one person may only last until January, I wonder who the next chair will be. Ms. Keene said you brought that up, didn't you, Mr. Nischan? Mr. Frederick said that he has a question to staff about Proposal 2. Would that would have any general affect on us? Could the legislature affect our authority to do anything as a Planning Commission if that proposal did not pass, since it is essentially a home rule proposal? I am curious to know what kind of power we could lose to the legislature. Mr. Ruff said that there have been other attempts at that issue of taking authority away from local government. I think what this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 22 general proposal is trying to do is to put a fence around the way law is looked at as it affects local government. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Ruff has heard anything from the owner of the parking lot on the corner of Grand and Michigan Avenue? Mr. Ruff said not lately. Mr. Ruge asked if they are going to do any screening and buffering there. Mr. Ruff said will get them involved in the Capitol Loop. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick asked if there have been any findings on the wrecker service in the flood plain down off Cavanaugh, between Pennsylvania and Aurelius. Mr. Ruff said, yes, that is in a temporary situation. They moved out from their neighborhood situation and expect to move into a new permanent location in the Midway Industrial Park within months. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:37 p.m. Re7;4p— JamesA. Ruff, Secretary Planning Board mn10172000 aA60 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Life Care Choices L.L.C. STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy PROPERTY OWNER: Robert Prawdzik 3131 W. Mt. Hope Lansing, MI REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU) to operate a residential care facility along the 3100 block of W. Mt. Hope. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential and "DM-1" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: -r1515' x 240' = 396,300 sqft. (-9.1 acres) - irregular in size SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential and school W: Senior housing complex SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "DM-1" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the proposed land use designation of this property as residential 0-7 du/ac. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to build a residential care facility that consists of two building totaling 59,066 sgft. in two phases. There will Page 1 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility be a total of 80 units on site. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessor: This parcel has frontage off Cooley Dr., but apparently it will be accessed from an adjacent parcel. One of two things is required: 1. Copies of easement for exiting; or 2. Require lots 021 and 042 to be under same owner and combined. Building Safety: This project is subject to the City's Site Plan and Building Code review process. Plans sealed by a licensed architect or engineer are required for submission to the Building Safety Office. Board of Water and Light: Electric- No objection to the SLU. If the customer is serious about starting the project this year, the customer definitely needs to contact BWL. Needed are drawings and electric load information. Water- No objection to issuance of a building permit. Water service and required looping is not identified as of this date. A positive flow model run by BWL will be required before agreement can be completed. City Attorney: No Response Received Code Compliance: All site requirements should be forwarded to this office upon final approval of this development. Consumers Energy: No Response Received Fire Marshal: No objection to project. Must be able to meet all Fire Codes including required fire flows from hydrants, and Fire Department access issues. Page 2 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility Lansing Police Dept.: No Response Received MDOT: No comment Public Services: No objection Transportation: No Response Received APPLICANTS PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to build a residential care facility on approximately 11 acres. Development of this proposed project will be completed in two phases. Phase one consists of a 13,811 sqft. supportive care building with 20 units and a 14,624 sqft. specialized care building with 20 units. Phase two will add 16,000 sqft. to the supportive care building (20 units) and 14,624 sqft. to the specialized care building (20 units). (See attachments) ANALYSIS Section 1282.03(f)(1-9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a request 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? The proposed design of this residential care facility would occupy approximately 30% of the 9.1 acres site. Seventy percent would remain as open space. Construction and operation of this facility would be harmonious with surrounding uses (see attachments). The architectural character of the buildings would be similar to many of the residential houses surrounding the property. 2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the surrounding area? Currently, the property is on an undeveloped lot adjacent to residential uses and a school. Surrounding properties have already been developed. This proposed project would have a setback of approximately 280' from Mt. Hope and 25' from residential properties to the east. Existing trees next to the school and on the southern part of the property will be preserved. Access to the site will be by a shared entrance from Grand Haven Manor located west of the subject property. Page 3 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility 3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property? There is no anticipated impact on the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 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? This proposal represents an improvement to the property, which is currently vacant. Retention of existing old growth trees on the east and south sides of the property will help retain much of the natural features on the site. This proposal will only develop 30% of the property. The remaining 70% will remain as open space. 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 residential care facility does not pose any hazards to adjacent properties. The use will not generate any excessive traffic, additional noise, smoke, odor, fumes, or glare that will impact the school 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 Page 4 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility this Zoning Code and the objectives of any currently adopted Comprehensive Plan? The property is zoned "A" Residential and "DM-1" Residential. A residential care facility is permitted in the both zoning districts with a Special Land Use permit approved by City Council. Section 1248.04 and 1252.04 of the Zoning Code states that a residential care facility shall be permitted if it meets the following conditions: (1) The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area of not less than 1,000 square feet per resident. (2) Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a sponsoring agency. The proposed project will require a minimum area of 80,000 sqft (80 residents x 1,000 sgft.= 80,000 sqft). Currently, there is approximately 396,600 sqft. of total lot area which meets the above condition. Twenty-four hour supervision will be a condition of approval. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the future land use as residential with a density of 0-7 dwelling per acre. The Plan also states that there should be a diversity of housing type to accommodate any shifts in housing demand. This project would provide a form of housing for a segment of the population that will be increasing. Locating adjacent to Grand Haven Manor provides a logical progression from senior housing to assisted living. Additionally, locating next to a school provides the opportunity for cross generational interaction between residents and children. 9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located? The proposed residential care facility meets all dimensional requirements in the "A" and "DM-1" Residential Districts. SUMMARY Based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, it does meet all nine criteria. The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. Page 5 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility 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 meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SLU-13-2000 a request to operate a residential care facility along the 3100 block of W. Mt. Hope with the following conditions: 1. Retain as much of the existing trees on site as possible. 2. Provide a temporary fence at the Lewton Place street stub to prevent children from the school from accessing the site during construction. 3. Provide landscaping, screening, and buffering along areas adjacent to residential use. 4. Maintain 24-hour supervision of residents on site. 5. Access to the site will only be from Mt. Hope and not from any of the residential streets surrounding the project site. 6. Construction traffic will not use residential streets to access the site. 7. Construction traffic will be directed with signs to enter the site from Mt. Hope. 8. Keep access area clean and clear. 9. Provide dust control on site to help prevent the amount of dust going into adjacent properties. Page 6 SLU-13-2000 3100 Block W. Mt. Hope Special Land Use for a Residential Care Facility Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 7 y M LEISURE LIVING "Quality Senior Lifestyle Services" Licensed Assisted Living Facilities Throughout Michigan Fountain View A Leisure Living Home Health A Genesis Home Care Retirement Villages of. (616)897-HOME 4555 Wilson Ave.S.E.,Suite 1 A Grand Rapids A Buchanan A Sunshine Helpers Grand Rapids 3962 Whispering Way Dr. 809 Carroll St. 25 Jefferson S.G. (616)538-3700 Grand Rapids Buchanan Grand Rapids A Liberty Court (616) 949-9500 (616) 695-6655 (616)456-6200 479 Solon Rd. A Grant A Coopersville A Leisure Living Medical DeWitt Equipment (517)484-G980 50 S.Maple 620 W. Randall Equipment 7U Grant Coopersville A Prestige Way (616) $34-8202 (616) 837-9253 A Aspen Ridge 4300 Keller Rd. (Opening Spring 2000) Holt A Fremont A Holland Gaylord,MI 49735 (616)694-2020 102 Hillerest 340 W.40th St. (616)291-6322 A Timberstone,Inc. Fremont Holland(616) 924-5050 (616)394-0302 5257 Coldwater Rd. A Crystal Manor y 7 1171 68th St.S.E. Remus A Portage Grand Rapids (517)561-5009 7818 Kenmure Dr. (616)281-8054 A The Villas(Senior Condominiums) I'ortabc (G1G) 327-9595 A Cumberland Retirement 340 W.40th Village of Lowell Holland 11535 E.Fulton (616)394-0302 Alzheimer's Centers of Western Michigan Lowell A Windsor Estates Locations throughout Western Michigan: (616) 897-8413 1831 South llth St. •Grand Rapids •Grant(Fountain View) A East Grandville Manor Kalamazoo 7 H. (Fountain View) •Buchanan(Fountain View) 3000 Porter S.W. (616)372-6797 (Crystal Manor) •Holland(Fountain View) Grandville • Kalamazoo(Windsor Estates) •Lowell(Cumberland) (616)534-0718 • Remus(Timberstone) Please visit our Website at: A LEISURE LIVING COMPANY Tt't wwwdeisure-living.com 11571 E. Fulton • Lowell, MI 49331 • (616) 897-0200 26 Senior Connections of West Michigan, Ltd. Senior Connections of Wrsr Mi,hi— T t,T „ % / J .. , .. 0 SITE PLAN '3AV 3dOH'J n'M � I I 1 I ( .. I it 1\ , 1 I V ,A , 9 13 I }.� Ii tt C 11`11 0 1 I LU J Ln w IC 1 1CD LU DES z 1 ' I CL I P . � J I J I 6 I pM .'. _ i'�'F � .��.r` �•.�il�.�-'?• +_5 .....�tT:- t,... ..i G..l.. �1�r I I i LANDSCAPE PLAN 1A. .. bQ [1 , k 20 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING - (SUPPORTIVE CARE) PHASE - I JOHNSON NEWHOF ASSOCIATES INC. 3223 KRAFT AVE.SE GRAND RAPIDS,MI 49512 12/20/99 PHASE I SUPPORTIVE CARE FACILITY LEISURE LIVING COMPANIES BUILDING FEATURES A The external residential design conveys an important message to staff and visitors about the approach to care. (see attached description of assisted living) B. Visitor/Resident enters a volume space containing a grand fathers clock wall allowing for seasonal display, furniture grouping around piano, and an elegant dining room. C. Beauty shop large enough to accommodate 6-8 residents. Located next to library area allowing for overflow at peak time when all phases of the village are complete. D. Kitchen area is planned for expansion allowing added storage and refrigeration capacity when additional phases are complete. Basement storage below allows access to mechanical as well as needed storage for seasonal items. E. A separate staff entrance and lounge area provides privacy for staff at break time. An additional lounge area is planned in phase II. F. Administration office area allows staff to meet privately with family members. When Phase II is completed administrator is located next to the main activity space and covered entrance. After hours traffic will be directed to one of the designated secondary entrances. G. Nurse/Med area attached to the hub allows interaction with residents, staff and visiting physicians. H. Bathing area provides a warm and friendly deco at the whirlpool tub area. (Heated towel bar) I. The Activity/Dining area allows for the following: • Provides spatial variety through ceiling changes, lighting patterns and furniture arrangements. • Flexibility in this area provides space for exercise, music arts /crafts and dining. • The library, piano and aquarium are located to provide landmarks and a point of reference for residents. J. The Laundry area is designed to permit meaningful exchange, and encourage caregiver/family participation. K. Sitting areas located at the front allows residents to face the parking lot and building entrance. Residents will sit here watching the activities of the parking lot, entry, beauty shop and admin. office. L. Private apartments and studios provide a comfortable residential feeling. The bay window allows for personal effects to be displayed with the window position so the resident has a view while seated. M. Provided in all resident rooms are 17" high water closets, barrier free accessible bathrooms, showers with grab bars, lever handles, single arm toilet paper holders, large cabinet knobs, large numbered thermostats, ceiling lights at bedrooms. Apartments may have additional baseboard heat with thermostat. pp I, mop— it ' I I 1 ,+ G'Jr� �� lia' rti: riTl it ri l l I�_'; Irk Yir - - - � r?t•I'r• ri, r-r; ..yr .f. �"� ��1 t ��._ tr N#il - — 1._��r,T:li� Iar•r ri, f hJfi71 .Pl 20 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING — (SUPPORTIVE CARE) Pl-iA E — II JOHNSON NEWHOF ASSOCIATES INC. 3223 KRAFT AVE. SE GRAND RAPIDS,MI 49512 12/20/99 PHASE II SUPPORTIVE CARE FACILITY LEISURE LIVING COMPANIES BUILDING FEATURES Building features are similar to Phase I with the addition or modification of the following. A. Main feature of Phase II will be the drop off canopy allowing less mobile residents/visitors to pass through an automatic door and be welcomed by a large multi-purpose room looking over the wellness gardens with its pathways and flower beds. Outdoor garden room is planned for use as a potting area and storage for seasonal items associated with the outdoor area. B. Visitor/Resident enters a volume space containing a waterfall, wall allowing for seasonal display, furniture grouping at front door viewing parking lot, aviary and an elegant dining room. C. In lieu of the beauty shop a private dining room allowing for private dining with family and an additional activity room. D. Country kitchen is designed to be residential and provide for a set area for meal time. Residents will find beverages set up in this area 24 hours a day. E. A larger staff lounge with private bathroom provides privacy for staff at break time. F. Reception/security at the hub allows interaction with residents and staff. G. Bathing area provides a warm and friendly deco at the whirlpool tub area. (Heated towel bar) H. The Activity/Dining area allows for the following: Provides spatial variety through ceiling changes, lighting patterns and furniture arrangements. Flexibility in this area provides space for exercise, music arts /crafts and dining. • The aviary and waterfall are located to provide landmarks and a point of reference for residents. 1. The larger laundry area is designed to permit meaningful exchange, and encourage caregiver/family participation. J. Sitting areas located at the front allows residents to face the parking lot and building entrance. Residents will sit here watching the activities of the parking lot, entry, beauty shop and admin. office. K. The activity director is located in this building away from the Nurse/medical area suggesting that the more active residents be located in this phase. This also allows for access to the country kitchen and multi-purpose rooms. r: 20 UNIT SPECIALIZED CARE JOHNSON NEWHOF ASSOCIATES INC. 3223 KRAFf AVE.SE GRAND RAPIDS,MI 4951,' 12/20/99 SPECIALIZED CARE FACILTY FOR LEISURE LIVING COMPANIES COMMON AREA FEATURES A. The external residential design conveys an important message to staff and visitors about the approach to care. (see attached description of assisted living) B. Changing seasonal displays provides a homelike atmosphere to visiting family members. C. Beauty Shop. D. A discrete staff entrance and lounge area limits resident agitation at shift changes, minimizing confusion during sundowning. E. Administration office area allows staff to meet privately with family members. By attaching the Nurse/Med area to the admin. office this allows for efficient flow of information. F. Bathing area allows for a relaxed flow from the decorated lobby into a warm and friendly deco at the tub area. ( Heated towel bar) G. The great room wandering pathway which clusters 21 units into 3 smaller houses of 7 units allows for the following: • Provides spatial variety through ceiling changes, lighting patterns, and clerestory windows. (sundowning) • Flexibility in this area provides space for exercise, music and TV entertainment. • The Aviary, shadow boxes, piano and aquarium are located to provide landmarks and a point of reference for wayfinding. H. The Laundry area is designed to permit meaningful exchange, and encourage caregiver/family participation. I. Events and activities along the corridors give purpose and interest to wandering. J. Trunks and baskets filled with clothes, pillows and fabrics channel rummaging activities. K. Views to the outside not only enhance orientation but provide experiences to the changing cycle of the day and the corresponding rhythms of night and day. .•tip f P•," \ '",ii'�,1:�_ f ^S Sy,`ti�j'f�i .r•�:�••�n .6 i of i /J>ja�• , ' � tiro -�r •{L.. �,� ,a / •-. •..,,;s� ,t -i',I✓. s ti s _ ♦ •1 •� ';=' ;,.r. ,�pit',.,,, : �•'' 'i y'4yic-iK?c',F c-�+K•' .v.�::::�S. ..:. >:•c.::. Zd•-Siri'n ji1•!.`"t�fa?�t::��?�:s y^.'.:v�.�ii�.Y"`-" .F:�_ 'a^:".tyCi'i(.A•'a: �t,4''�#tt�:r '•Sr�:��Fy;'°+fi '�-.,�.r,�3.�1-,c,_•�'' ;i1�fi"tii4-, �i_y'%: .. ��•ti�ia's.•"Y..TFF�. °'.�;�;r ?. iFr:•�'•`}.:.•t�Slr.,t•s 146. KO r rCr' •C'• 1 J• 174 •t ti' f. � 3 i A�{F, :!,vr` � ,,,,• .rya `Y• �r ; L 3� , r. t r A ! f. hhN• - -a t r:' r•;. 5 '� r� 3 i c a.�r3C!^i�•>,.1'�li.�f'�P�S131•i ;F?•-'';•r'' ,1 ''. 3- j t IA 1 � •t i-�:•�`>'ti'{ r SJ,1 )S _ " ti �t t t Ir• ,• _ t" 1 a_ r I, t�lrc �,'i > �tj: • 's+ AI l� lG F Fp r1 ✓y� -�( � i�«w I ;° :,.; I�f� t t�ll j ;}—�a((��+ ''' '-'!�I),;,.. ram` � �- t T i�; ,~•_t_,;.?i��•I� % ':; r J� /i'- 1' f�% I�•�� '` .#•• ��!71.1 ( �. 111�.. • �i"�['r"J'°LF � 4j r t°ti�'7 _ ., •yt 1 t4 I 1 r -r t1 j, # '4i 43 t! r/�r •••,•t r , i� 1y}��r3i•:if3 �� l •' s '� it�'� i•Tr_%Y_'�v �t ii r r �:i' i5 ,1, ,.�•, ' !'"'1141, AK 'S\ • ..L ,, '1 l�, '},. Za•3.� .:3��ty ,, 'r �Itly. -.•r?s. e%;�r.: „ r ice.�• 3 1 ,`J ,, , 1. .. �trr?..•.�� .s• n r�:it k• c Yr_,� ,.1. \, .,�7y,�. :� i J r•. i a ,J fi^f•+��!.�Li.l r_ 6. r, _' r i � 'rs �.]rsr• •o}: - 3 ^•n+w- n � o- ti� a �'a� E r ,r � � 'r7 C{ w_ ( rlf;>et: r-kr r9{ I•".i.>, x..sr/' , j Y s t ..r. ...:r � .-a�=a.: .�''fj9., :L•�jyt?, rc4 ��;•��.A 9.r:1� iy+.k '.4,:}��,��y:f�.•a.•��� .3 J a r s A t'\. rir, f••r a• `\r „c i k ?.. -l• •q� ;,,,J,.�y 'l 4.1 �' {Z,.4aV.r3.q• .\y I ";•''.a:. , !• lJ� 3 �r t,��,,'yFfy >„r_3rK,::-:K' t e� -ir,;•tr,.,,.a;_� I f � y`TM �['J^�;Lj,,� atwr'�,••'•+G�ij'y,�r'•a.��kr-yr'73_r['at r/.�+w,.A�t; L'� ,f. r�t ♦C i .r ' 1 r t _ /.NrSI.:.�JT�-uY�•T•Y" M„�JY. )t,^..�J' Ai. t, ♦ \ .•f S.' •Ii':iy. .�i T,�•r>' t tt'x- .t v3-i„>�.`.�'^+'•�,•C J ' r,. 3.J, A r t a t::•,� 0 12/20/99 SPECIALIZED CARE FACILTY FOR LEISURE LIVING COMPANIES RESIDENT HOUSE FEATURES L. Each 7 unit house is cued by color and an icon figure (trees, houses, stars) which differentiate spaces and reinforces orientation. M. Living/Dining rooms for small groups allow residents to enjoy a less stressful residential style experience while permitting staff to monitor health and nutritional intake. N. Small group settings permit residents to identify with staff on a more individual basis. By varying this space with its furniture arrangements staff can alter its use (music, television, crafts) to minimize agitation and unwanted stimulation. Low built-ins housing storage and a TV are used to anchor this area. O. Windows into secured courtyards allow residents to be unobtrusively observed by staff and maintain safe experiences. A raised planter forms a wandering area and controls plant material. P. Shadow boxes with personal items at each resident room provides a visual cue to ones personal living area. Allowing a resident to have personal possessions in their room enhances a persons self image. Q. Wide sliding pocket doors at the bathroom eliminates the problem of dealing with an inconvenient door swing and facilitates the use of a larger width opening that can accommodate transfers more easily. R. A night light is located in the bathroom to illuminate the path from the bedroom to the bathroom. S. The bay window provides a view of the outdoors while seated and also provides a shelf for personal effects. T. Provided in all resident rooms are 17" high water closets, lever handles, single arm toilet paper holders, large cabinet knobs, barrier free accessible bathrooms and lights at ceilings in bedrooms. As nursing home costs continue to escalate and public opinion of the nursing home as an acceptable alternative continues to wane, assisted living housing that increases control, choice, privacy, autonomy, and dignity will flourish. The option now exists for seniors to live in a highly supportive group-housing environment that preserves independence and enhances well-being. The Nursing Home Assisted Living Nursing homes and assisted living Assisted living, on the other hand, are physically very different from one has grown out of the desire to keep another. Assisted living has older people independent in a emerged as a type of housing rather comfortable residential setting for as than an institution. The nursing long as possible. home is modeled physically and operationally around the hospital. Residential assisted living models recognize through their design that The behavior of nursing home staff is the size, scale, and configuration of also highly influenced by acute a building creates the feeling of a health care settings. Nurses and homelike environment. In these aides are trained to care for patients models, residential housing forms based on a medical model. This the precedent rather than a hospital. means that autonomy, mobility, and In fact, many sponsors concerned self-care are tolerated rather than with overly cautious regulatory encouraged. The patient's freedom agencies design their structures to and dignity are inferior to efficiency meet institutional occupancy and safety. standards, but then go to great effort specifying window, floor, and wall In summary, the nursing home is a materials as well as finishes and transformation of the acute-care casework details that have strong hospital, which has never been residential associations. carefully inspected as a solution to the long-term care needs of a In summary, the character, majority of the frail elderly. organization, and management philosophy of assisted living must reinforce its identity as a housing type and not an institutional building type. When assisted living is no more than a decorated nursing home, it loses its promise as a viable alternative to institutionalization. Under these conditions, management's desire to control efficiency and maximize convenience threatens the residents' need for privacy, autonomy and independence. Basic Qualities and Characteristics of the Assisted Living Housing The basic idea behind assisted living is to provide professionally based personal and limited health care to vulnerable frail people within a residential rather than institutional environment. Appropriate targets for the development of highly supportive, humane residential housing for the mentally and physically frail should- 1. Appear Residential in Character: The form and character of assisted living should be derived from the house and not the hospital. 2. Be Perceived as Small in Size: The setting should be as small as it can be without sacrificing monthly cost stability and the capability to provide twenty- four hour assistance. 3. Provide Residential Privacy and Completeness: The housing unit should be complete, with a full bathroom. (Kitchenette) 4. Recognize the Uniqueness of Each Resident: Assessment and treatment plans should be customized to a resident's abilities, disabilities, and interests. 5. Foster Independence, Interdependence, and Individuality: The focus of care should be on self-maintenance with assistance. Residents should help themselves and one another. 6. Focus on Health Maintenance, Physical Movement, and Mental Stimulation: Services should be aimed at stabilizing decline, improving competency, and building reserve capacity. 7. Support Family Involvement: A caregiving partnership between the facility and the family should be forged that shares responsibility for resident well-being. 8. Maintain Connections with the Surrounding Community: The setting should integrate rather than isolate residents from community resources and contacts. 9. Serve the Frail: Residents should be older people in danger of institutionalization because of their needs for assistance and support W, 2 IT IN 'Y' i�g P,V, g oks ir! Kt, 'Vi :J V,kj IT it lei ii iN i"t i!11.iA 1!t'. 'h if *j. v viN 'gay 4A ig,I, ;i4w -x"i It at_t: jo 14. " R yLc tt I htr �il' LIM; k1V u KI T" UL N,III A 'je TV. r "uh" Mj .�• ,r fir.. ,�•./.��4 %'. I. ';r •'f'•f•fS rf' - j, - • i.."iti�.' v �•�r�a...`r..,fit� r • :q:. A we .+;'H• :i, _ y.: . . rr' a� ate: � r _ a���.•�• ,�•.e•_•ice.• �.:s�. '• .•.• '•;:•.r• ��t•_.�-..• '�c-n A - ••j_ • +f i�-.i'wv�.�i ��- �Ai�� Hi.'���''~9•v��.ty•+•.+.:a+: Jy. .� �, rFta�.• �AJ„• � � j rx-iq �- s.�xk .� is,.r•';'_ "vFs "'�,.•61"Y'ili�h �-5 fiay.. i 't r •+T +.'4 K r + .�av".�•Y.n•:1'� a ,v»• tk''•�•yar _„ s'T-r.s._ � �� ��5' r y a a��� i•- waniwY!i - � SLU-13-2000 NORTH 3100 Blk W. Mt Hope Zoning O 3 z 4% O SOUTH CAMBRIDGE RD.z 'A " Ref MT. HOPE RO "DM- 1 " 'A " es BELAIRE DR. Res J Site Qv Z �y N HANOVER DR. �o oa 0 J W w m ICOOLEY DR. � GOO�EI pR• � � o WOODVIEW DR. Y 'A " Res } � Y O N r GLASGOW DR. I A " Res w z a a m J CHRIST.NE DR. O w w w o VICTOR AVE. iWERARY DR. SLU-13-2000 3100 Blk W. Mt Hope NORTH Vicinit Map o Z $' SOUTH BRIDGE RO.0. 1R. HOPE ROAD BEWRE DR. CL Slte O� D Q- J HANOVER DR. 0 KWPSHIRE RD• o. 8 m COOLEY DR. OR' WOOONEW DR. 0 CIASGOW DR CHRISRNE DR. o MARIL PLAZA o VICTOR AYE INVERARY DR. BRISBANE rq SLU-13-2000 NORTH 3100 Blk W. Mt Hope Zoning 00� 3 z O SOUTH CAMBRIDGE RD.Z 'A " Rey MT. HOPE ROA TM- I " 'A " es BELAIRE DR. Res Q J Site Qv d 3: O� a riPN HANOVER DR. g o� o HAMPSHIRE R � J W � m W COOLEY DR. �R' w � COOLS 3 r- o WOODVIEW DR. Y 'A " Res Y O N } GLASGOW DR. 'A " Res w z a o m J CHRISTINE DR. o w Lu W w o VICTOR AVE. INVERARY DR. SLU-13-2000 NORTH 3100 Blk W. Mt Hope Vicinity Map RD z L 3 SOUTH BRIDGE RD.= WT. HOPE ROAD BELAIRE R. O� o D � � J Site °a a a HANOVER DR. RD' LO JI,PSHIRE 8 ICOOLEY DR. � DR. G00� Ci WOODVIEW DR. Y � K � O Q � b GLASGOW DR. w a CHRISTINE DR. 0 9 MARIL �f PLAZA VICTOR AVE INVERARY DR. BRISBANE w APPROVED NOVEMBER 21, 2000 AS PRINTED. Draft to Clerk Unknown Approved 11212000 To Clerk 01292001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, November 7, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Smith, Patrick. One vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Ruge, Foster, Nischan C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager, Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - a. Darius B. Moon Historic District Preliminary Report b. Capitol Historic District Preliminary Report (2 Parts) C. Tentative Meeting dates for 2001 d. Letter from Haven House with respect to the Community Development Resource & CIP Needs e. Letter from All Nation's Christian Church Ministries with regard to SLU-15- 2000 4. HEARINGS - a. Community Development Resources and CIP Needs This is a time for public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to express preferences for the use of federal funds to address housing and priority non-housing community development needs in the city in preparation of the city's consolidated strategy and plan for fiscal year 2002. The city expects to receive funding through the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Grant programs in the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2001 and ending on June 30, 2002. It is also appropriate at this time for citizens to comment on their needs and priorities in regards to projects that should be funded under the cities Capitol Improvements Program for fiscal years 2001 to 2006. Any person that wishes to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and address and provide us with your comments. Written proposals and requests will also PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 2 be accepted for consideration. It is required that all verbal proposals made at this time also be submitted in writing to the Planning Department prior to November 19, 2000. PATTY JONGKIND, CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, ST. VINCENT HOME, DIRECTOR OF VALENTINE STEPPING STONE, a transitional housing program for homeless single mothers and children. On behalf of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network, I would like to encourage you to continue to support emergency shelter grants for the variety of shelters and transitional programs here in Lansing. They are well needed. We still have homeless in our community and I believe as a community our programs all work well together to serve our clients. We have appreciated the support of this City to provide funding to us to make the difference in our services. DENISE PAQUETTE, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. I am here to speak in support of the Community Block Development Grants. For the last three years we have received money and with the grants we received we have built 8 houses. This year's grant has been $50,000 which helped us leverage $30,000 from MSHDA, $40,000 in "in-kind" contributions, $12,000 from the Federal Home Loan Bank, and $65,000 in corporate sponsorships. This year we are building 3 houses. These three houses are each two parent families with 4 children, all on the southwest side of town. We just would like to give our support and our appreciation to you on your efforts to provide development for community organizations such as ours. AMY SALISBURY, PROGRAM OFFICER, LOCAL INITIATIVE SUPPORT CORPORATION (LISC). I want to begin by saying how much LISC appreciates the support the city has given us as well as the Lansing Community Development Corporations. This support has been critical to all the progress that we have witnessed in our inter-city communities and neighborhoods. LISC is a national non-profit organization based in New York City. What we do is work with Community Development Corporations (CDC's) by providing them with grants, loans, technical assistance and one-on-one training. We have had a local office here in Lansing since 1989. In addition to the unique role we play in the community, all of our local fund raising is matched dollar for dollar out of our national organization. In addition to the match dollars we are also able to access other national LISC programs which again leverage funds for our community. Since 1996, LISC has loaned over $1.9 million, granted out $900,000 and spent endless hours in training and technical assistance with our Lansing Area CDC's. Since then the result has been the creation of over 350 quality affordable homes for Lansing residents. In addition, LISC has also been active in commercial quarter revitalization. The Neighborhood Main street Initiative is actually a LISC PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 3 program that was brought to the Old Town area in 1995. The City support is vital to our existence here in Lansing, so I ask for your support so we may continue to leverage funds from outside the community and bring them here to Lansing. During the past few years there has been a big increase in community development and neighborhood revitalization here in Lansing. In the past year, two of our Community Development Corporations, the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition and Ferris Development, have received the Neighborhood Preservation Program through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. This designation brings over $1 million to each of these neighborhoods over the next two years to revitalize them. In 2000, we are anticipating to complete over 75 homes in our inter-city neighborhoods. This could not be accomplished without the Community Development Block Grant Program. Without the support of the CDBG program, affordable housing rehabilitation would drastically be impaired. Quality housing brings quality neighborhoods. Being part of a national organization I get to see how other Community Development Block Grant programs work in other cities throughout the country. I can tell you that Lansing does a great job. I am very proud to see that our Community Development Block Grant program is pro-active and successful and is definitely the backbone of the community development movement here in Lansing. Again I want to thank you for your past support, ask for your continued support and I will provide a written report to you within the next week. JOAN NELSON, EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMIT PROJECT AND ALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. I am not hear with a specific request but to make sure that the Planning Board is aware of some neighborhood improvement planning process going on in neighborhoods in Lansing as a result of the Community Voices Neighborhood Summits, several of which have been held over the last several months. On the east side in March, about 250 east siders came together to assess the current state of the neighborhood and establish priorities for the neighborhood in the next several years. Since that March summit, the East Side Steering Committee has been in the process of developing an action plan reflecting the eleven priorities that emerged from that March Summit. The initial draft of that east side action plan (30 pages) was completed just a couple of weeks ago and is currently being shopped around to neighborhood leaders on the east side, soliciting for their recommendations. There are several recommendations already in the plan that are pertinent or relevant to your planning process. Despite the fact that our finished plan is not anticipated until January, I wanted to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 4 make sure that you were aware of some of the recommendations, or at least give you an idea on what some of these might involve. We are recommending for instance creation of a neighborhood improvement agency for the east side with a focus on communication, financing and regulatory problems of business' operating under joint neighborhood and business leadership. We are interested in conjunction with the City and other entities in developing corridor studies and plans for Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Saginaw, Oakland, Pennsylvania and Main. We are hopeful about identifying business sectors consistent with neighborhood identity on the east side and then assisting with rezoning, financing and marketing consistent with neighborhood and corridor studies. We are hoping to develop a non-motorized transportation plan for the east side in order to increase the walkability and bikeability of the neighborhood. There are many, many recommendations and strategies in this east side action plan, that again, are along these lines and may be of interest to this group in your planning process. I have memos for you and we also have the draft of the plan available upon request and when the finished plan is available I will be eager to share that with you. RON WHITMORE, 416 S. BUTLER, COORDINATOR OF THE NW LANSING HEALTHY COMMUNITY INITIATIVE. This is an outgrowth of the Community Voices project that Joan Nelson was talking about. In the same way that Joan is facilitating the post summit process on the east side, I am playing this role in NW Lansing. Our summit was on May 6, 2000. In that summit, eleven action strategy recommendations for strengthening and sustaining healthy communities in NW Lansing were developed. Since then, the NW Lansing Healthy Community Initiative has been translating those recommendations into an action plan, which is a set of program proposals and policy recommendations. As on the east side, that action plan is in draft form, though we are getting close to finalizing it. I am hear to encourage you to take into consideration the action plans that are emerging out of each part of the city. There is also a southside summit process. The summit for the south side was on October 21, 2000. 1 think they are on their way to developing an action plan based on the recommendations during that summit as well. Most of these recommendations are directly related to funds that CDBG funds could be used for. Some are bricks and mortar recommendations, others focus more on the human dimension of community development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 5 Some specific examples of ideas that are emerging out of the NW include: • Community Building Staff to support neighborhood organizing and development • The development of a Neighborhood Organizing handbook and resource library • Leadership development programs • Community resource navigators program • Having a NW Neighborhood Youth Summit, just like we had for the general citizens • Development of an environment service for core for young people • Making more landscaping materials available for low income people • Making more subsidized housing and vouchers available • Working hard to improve neighborhood landlord relationships by developing neighborhood landlord partnerships. As I mentioned, that action plan in the NW is continuing to evolve and should be finalized in the next month or so and when that happens I would be happy to provide copies to the Planning Board and the Planning Department. Our major recommendation this evening is that the Planning Board and Planning Department take into consideration the policy recommendations and program proposals that are emerging out of these summit processes as they move forward to developing the CSPS (Consolidated Strategy Plan Submission). JEROME FRANK, CAPITOL AREA SALVATION ARMY and the HOUSING PLACEMENT PROGRAM through the Salvation Army. Our program is designed to assist people who are currently homeless and find themselves homeless in Lansing at any given time for any given reason. This is to help them develop the skills to be self sufficient in permanent housing. We have been doing this for a year now and we have been pretty successful. We would not be able to be as successful as we are without the continued support of the Planning Commission, especially with the ESG and CDBG funds that are provided to us. We are also a part of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network in which we try to provide services to people of lower socioeconomic status and homeless people also, for them to be able to succeed and stay successful and retain them in housing and in Lansing to better our community. We want to thank you from the Salvation Army and ask for your continued support. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 6 HAVEN HOUSE COMMUNICATION, LETTER SUBMITTED. From Beverly Wiener, writing: I am sorry that I am unable to attend your hearing. I am submitting these comments in writing because the situation regarding the homeless has been slowly changing and you should be aware of some of the changes. I write as Executive Director of Haven House, a shelter for Lansing area homeless families, and as Chair of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network, an organized group of shelter providers, transitional housing providers and other programs that serve the homeless. Need for emergency shelter: The need for shelter beds for homeless families has been increasing each year, especially during the period July through September. There are limited shelter beds for families, not enough to accommodate the numbers during the summer. Volunteers of America can take women with children but will only accept sons under the age of five. The Rescue Mission has a family shelter which can accommodate three families, mothers and children only, and they also have an age limit for boys. Haven House can take seven families. Because we have separate bedrooms for each family we can keep a two parent family together and can accept families with older boys. This summer as in the past several summers the numbers of homeless families has been much higher than the shelters could handle. The American Red Cross has acted as an emergency back-up, placing families in motels until space opens up at a shelter. This motel program has been funded by the Michigan Family Independence Agency. The state funds are distributed by the state office of Salvation Army. This past summer not enough funds were available to meet the needs for motel space. At this point there is a question of whether there will be enough funds to get through next September. (The state's fiscal year starts in October, when new funding may be available.) This is a potential concern for the City of Lansing, since there may be homeless families who have no place to go. Shortage of affordable housing: The number of housing units available to low-income renters has been shrinking over the years. It is taking longer for families in shelters to find and move into permanent housing. (The problem also exists for single adults but I do not have personal experience with this group.) In addition, landlords are becoming more selective and more careful in screening potential tenants. Many landlords require an application fee and are checking credit reports as well as contacting former landlords. As PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 7 a result, families or individuals who have ever been evicted or who have a poor credit history have an especially difficult time finding a landlord willing to rent to them. The combination of less housing available and more selectivity by landlords has resulted in longer shelter stays that send more families to seek help from the Red Cross for a motel room. Need for more transitional housing opportunities and more outreach services for the formerly homeless. While for some families and individuals homelessness is a once-in-a-lifetime event, for others it is not. For those who have been homeless more than once there are a variety of possible causes, including poor money management, inability to keep a job, limited problem-solving skills, substance abuse, and family conflicts. Unless some of these underlying issues are dealt with, there will be repeated homelessness. There are already a number of programs that help families after they leave the shelters. Long term help, ranging from several months to several years, are necessary to provide the goal setting and support to enable people to change long-standing behavior patterns. Some programs, like our Partners in Progress Program, the Red Cross Coordinated Extended Services and the Salvation Army Housing Placement Program, offer meetings with individuals and families after they have left the shelters and moved into rental housing. Some programs have their own apartments, such as Ballentine Stepping Stones and Advent House. These programs provide counseling and goal setting over time and are helpful to those whose personal credit histories make it hard for them to find acceptable housing. We need to be looking at more of these long term programs to help the homeless become stable in housing and prevent future homelessness. In summary, we have more homeless in our community. We need more opportunities for low cost rental housing and more transitional programs to help change behaviors and prevent repeated homelessness. b. Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. Doris Witherspoon presented the case. This is a request by Matthew K. Elliott to rezone the property at 605 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. The property size is 22 feet by 100 feet, 2,200 square feet in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 8 area. The surrounding land uses consist of"H" Light Industrial District to the North, South and East and "G-1" Business District to the West. The purpose of the rezoning is so the applicant can use the first floor for retail use and the second floor for loft residence which we are seeing a lot of in the city. To give you some background, over the past few years we have had several other properties in the 600 block in East Michigan Avenue rezone from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Such as, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Avenue rezoned in 1997 (Z-1-97); 615 and 617 E. Michigan Avenue rezoned in 1997 (Z-11-97) and 601 E. Michigan Avenue in 1995 (Z-19-95); 603 and 603 '/ E. Michigan Avenue (Z-13-94) and 619 E. Michigan Avenue (Z-4-93). Also the property at 113 Pere Marquette was rezoned from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District in 1997, so the majority of those structures in the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue have already gone through this rezoning process. The applicant is not here this evening. He apologizes, he had a conflict. Ms. Keene asked if there is some business operating at a lower level right now? Ms. Witherspoon said, no. Ms. Keene asked if it is known what his parking situation would be like with the tenants that would be in the loft? Ms. Witherspoon said we had discussed the parking with him because I know he was doing some other work in the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue and I think he has some parking in the back of the structure, 2 or 3 parking spaces. I think he is required to have two parking spaces. But in the "G-1" Business District there are no parking requirements. Ms. Keene said that is what she thought, but did not know if he had made any arrangements for a tenant he is going to put up over the business. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Keene announced the close of the hearing for Z-13-2000 and announced the next hearing. C. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District Doris Witherspoon presented the case. All Nations Christian Ministries has the option to purchase the old American Cancer Society building at 1205 E. Saginaw Street. A church is a use that is allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District with the special land use permit. The church is proposing to utilize 1,785 square feet for the main sanctuary with an anticipated occupancy of 119 persons. Basically the area consists of multiple zoning districts. I provided some background information for you regarding the hours of operation. They are looking at having their worship service and hours of operation Sunday PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 9 morning from 10:30am to 1:00pm; Tuesday night language classes from 6:00pm to 7:00pm; Wednesday night Bible Study from 6:30-7:30pm; and Monday - Friday Office hours from 8:30am - 5:00pm. They have been working with the Neighborhood Organizations and are willing to sponsor some of their organization meetings and events. RON SCOTT, BOARD CHAIR FOR ALL NATIONS CHRISTIAN CHURCH. As you can see it is a diverse ethnic church, which is why we are called All Nations Christian Church, we are for all people. We know that in the City of Lansing there are all kinds of people and that is the type ministry, even according to our mission statement that we are looking to reach and not only reach from a spiritual sense, although anything a church does is a spiritual sense, but I also mean for programs for the neighborhood and city. We do not want to step on anybody's toes on programs that are not needed, but churches can minister in many different ways in the inner city and that is what we are here for. The church was established a little over two years ago and was meeting at the Riverview Place in the old Elks Lodge up over Moores River Drive. That building was sold so the church had to vacate that. Great Lakes Christian College out on Creyts and Willow is a sister organization to the church, and they graciously allowed us to move out there temporarily for our worship services and although the college is very gracious and very accepting we know that is not our target area out in Delta Township. Our target area for doing programs is the inner city of Lansing. When this building came available, the board went through the building, right away we saw that this is something that could be used for a church building with minimal arrangements of some inner walls and things. We were really excited that there is adequate parking. Usually in the downtown business type buildings there is not adequate parking for churches. This is something that is going to benefit the City of Lansing for the All Nations Christian Church to take possession of that building at 1205 E. Saginaw. We thank you for your time and we thank you that we are able to come and express this. Art Foster the pastor of this church is here this evening, Tiko Burrillo is here this evening, the rest of us are connected to this church in many ways. To re-emphasize the name, that is what we represent, All Nations. We just love each other and love the City of Lansing. DEBORAH ROBERTSON, ALL NATIONS CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Tonight as I listened to the different speakers before us from the Salvation Army and LISC and the various neighborhood associations and communications from the Haven House as they alluded to the problems of homelessness that we face in our city. We realize that in this day and age where the philosophy of the generation is that of having a third place, first place being home, second place being a place of employment and a third place being a place to call your own. Like they said on "Cheers" a place where everybody knows my name. At All Nations Christian Church PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 10 we endeavor to be that third place. Realizing that some of our people come into our church won't even be fortunate to have a second place let alone a first place. During our recent tour of the facility, one of our supporters commented that if we moved here we would be known as the Warehouse Church. Oddly enough this appropriately characterizes how we feel about our ministry. All Nations Christian Church reaches out to the unchurched, or rather those who have not been or who are not used to worshiping in the traditional stained glass, crystal chandelier settings. We welcome them to come as they are, but most importantly, we accept them as they are. This facility lends itself to multiple uses as a current multiple zoning district indicates. In addition to the worship services, All Nations Christian Church proposed to utilize the facility in conjunction with the various neighborhood associations for youth programs and possibly authorize office space for the operation of a non-profit incubator as well. All without overburdening or altering the flow of traffic or existing character of the neighborhood. All Nations Christian Church has already gotten support from new churches of Christ Evangelism, New Church of Christ, South Lansing Church of Christ, Meridian Church of Christ, DeWitt Church of Christ, West Lansing Church of Christ, Northview Church of Christ in Coldwater, Michigan, Church Development Fund of Anaheim, California and various other groups and individuals. At this time we are present here tonight to respectfully request that you consider granting our special use program with the mission and the vision of the people at All Nations Christian Church. We believe that what we have to offer this community, the east side of Lansing, to the Associations on behalf of the Youth as well as our christian ministry that we can help to do our part to keep Lansing a World Class City. GEORGE SCHEMNEL, MARSHALL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. I am here to advance a couple concerns that we have. First of all, Ms. Witherspoon has indicated that the folks are interfacing with Neighborhood groups. I was at a meeting last week with the East Side Neighborhood Organization which is without question the pinnacle, top of the pyramid when it comes to Neighborhood groups on the east side. One of many concerns that was advanced at that meeting was that we are not seeing people coming forward from this group to meet and discuss with us many different issues that we have concerns about. Ironically one of the biggest concerns happens to be parking. Parking was an issue when the American Cancer Society was there and it was a spill over to the neighborhood. So the streets bordering that, which are: Cleveland and Clark, and to the west is Johnson Street. The residents there have concerns. I walk this neighborhood daily, I live at 1318 May Street. I have walked through that corridor, every inch of it, and know it as well or better than the police do. The neighborhood group has some serious and grave concerns. We have nothing against advancing a ministry, we have some wonderful churches in the area right now, that is a wonderful PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 11 pursuit, but we do have concerns that boarder along the commercial interests. You heard earlier from people speaking about the east side neighborhood, the movement we have to try to marry the commercial interests because the vitality of the area is carried by the commercial interests. A taxable base. One of our concerns, this is a tax generating property right now, if we retire it to a church status we will withdraw it from the tax roles which will increase the tax burden on the residents on Marshall Park. We have some very, very serious concerns along those areas. So, before any granting of permits is considered, we would like to see a little more interaction between the group advancing the request and primarily the Marshall Park Neighborhood Watch because we are the closest ones to it. Second, the East Side Neighborhood Organization which has a sincere and concerted interest because the commercial corridor along Saginaw, which is small for us, starts with the Golf House and proceeds down with Maloney Carpet and American Cancer Society are wonderful commercial sites. It is one of our hopes and dreams that perhaps this would become a proper commercial residence. Following along the lines of religious or non-secular pursuit and interesting question comes up. They mention a use of youth programs. We have those in the area, we could always use more. The kids need things to do. A non- profit incubator. With the ballot proposal tonight regarding vouchers, schools that are being voted on at large, one of our concerns are that this develops into an interest regarding education, not that this is bad, but the question is it properly placed. Because this has come on kind of fast and we have been slow to be brought to the table about it, we need time to come up to speed so people on our committees can bring the proper questions and the property venue. Explore this before we grant any special land use permits. JOHN MALONEY, MALONEY CARPET, 1201 E. SAGINAW. This is the adjoining property. I just became aware of this meeting today, so I am not very prepared. I just came to listen, but the only thing I can think of right off the bat is the parking issue. Our parking lots will adjoin and I am just not sure if we would have a problem with that. I am not sure how many cars the other parking lot holds and whether that would hold the number of people they would have. We just need to think about that. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - none. 6. RECESS - none taken. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: October 17, 2000 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve the minutes of October 17, 2000. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 12 On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; Carried unanimous; the minutes of October 17, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - No Report. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. Next meeting is Wednesday, November 15, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair, reported a. Act-17-2000, Walnut St., 200' South of Main (PPN 3301- 01-21-129-001 and 3301-01-21-106-072), Pedestrian Overpass at General Motors Mr. Smith presented the case. This is a request by Dale Griffith, representing General Motors Corporation, to construct a pedestrian overpass across Walnut Street, approximately 200' south of Main Street. This overpass will provide safe access to the General Motors Facility for employees and visitors by connecting the surface parking lot on the east side of the street with the General Assembly Plant on the west side of the street. The applicant, therefore, wishes to utilize the air rights over the 82.5 foot wide Walnut Street ROW. The height from the street to the bottom of the pedestrian walkway will be 19'6", and have an overall height of 51.5 feet and width of 15 feet. The length of the bridge, including the stair towers, will extend from one side of the street to the other pedestrian canopy (covered sidewalk walkway), approximately 159'9". The design and building materials will be similar to those of the plant itself. Staff recommended approval of the pedestrian overpass as proposed provided: (1) All utility companies be consulted and satisfied with any relocation of said utilities as necessary. (2) All direct and incidental cost of relocating utilities will be at applicant's sole expense. The Committee found that the project would have minimal visual impact because: • it will be surrounded by General Motors' property and located in the site's interior. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 13 • The proposed pedestrian overpass has a clearance above the roadway which exceeds the minimum requirements of the City. Moved by Ms. Keene, seconded by Ms. Patrick to recommend approval of Act-1 7-2000, the granting of air rights for the pedestrian overpass with the condition that the applicant bear the cost of any utility relocations licenses or easements. The motion carried unanimously 3-0. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve Act-1 7-2000, Walnut Street, 200' South of Main (PPN-3301-01-21-129-001 and 3301-01-21-106-072), Pedestrian Overpass at General Motors. Mr. Ruff said we do have some people in the audience representing this, Dave Andrusily, of the Smith Group is hear to answer any questions we have asked them and since received a description of the location so that it can be incorporated into the appropriate resolution documents. They have figured the exact location to be 136 feet south of the Main Street ROW, so as we have talked about it generally as 200 feet south, it comes up at 136 feet south and so we have that legal description at hand. It does not change the intent. We have checked it against the utility issues and they do not see any problems with that. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Ave Smith. . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion carried; Act-17-2000, Walnut Street, 136' South of Main (PPN-3301-01-21-129-001 and 3301-01-21-106-072), Pedestrian Overpass at General Motors was Approved w/ Conditions. Next meeting is Tuesday, November 28, 2000 at 4:00pm, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff said that we have another in a series of report dividers for you. We are going to try to plan to have a Planning Meeting for the Planning Board, our annual sit down time where we can discuss the goals and objectives for the coming year and those types of things. We will be sending out some dates for that and we would like to get your PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 14 participation in that. We would also like to open up the opportunity for agenda items as well, so that we can also help develop the agenda for that time. It has also been requested that our meeting be completed by 9:OOpm so they can set up for the coverage of the election results. The code amendment program I hope to get to the board at the next meeting so we can summarize some of those code amendments and talk about those as discussed. 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-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-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Permission or Conveyance of City parcel for private use. (Tabled August 22, 2000) Ms. Keene asked if we are going to see anything on that overlay in Old Town. Mr. Ruff said that is what I have been focusing on a summary for the next meeting. We had a meeting with North Lansing Old Town Business Association president as well as Amy Collette the Main Street Planner in that area. As soon as I get it drafted up I will get copies out to the Planning Board, plus I want to get their input on how it potentially affects them as well. We are trying to summarize what it means to not only North Lansing Old Town, but how it would affect those similar commercial areas on East Michigan Avenue, West Saginaw as well as South Washington. I will submit copies to those neighborhood organizations as well for their input. 9. NEW BUSINESS - None 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick said that I asked in September about a property on Jolly Road that had quite a number of cars in the back. I have not seen any significant removal. Mr. Ruff said I did report it and received a response, I don't recall the exact date when compliance was required, but I will get you that information and find out what follow-up is necessary. Also, Mr. Frederick referred to that as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Frederick made the motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to excuse Mr. Ruge, Ms. Foster and Mr. Nischan from the Planning Board Meeting. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Secretary Planning Board mn10172000 a:\60 Page 2 Act-17-2000 Pedestrian Overpass at GM Plant, Walnut Street the street. The applicant therefore wishes to utilize the air rights over the 82.5 foot wide Walnut Street ROW. The height from the street to the bottom of the pedestrian walkway will be 19'6" feet, and have an overall height of 51.5 feet and width of 15 feet. The length of the bridge, including the stair towers, will extend from one side of the street to the other pedestrian canopy (covered sidewalk walkway), approximately 159'9" feet. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: (No response received.) Assessor: (No response received.) AT & T Cable Services (No response received.) Bd. of Water & Light: Electric BWL has temporary 3-phase overhead pole line feeding GM facilities that is in direct conflict with the construction of the elevated walkway over "Walnut Street. Temporary 13,200 volt overhead primary cables must be removed before walkway is constructed (East side of Walnut Street). Water See comments form Alan Carroll. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Stea m No objections. Contact Person: John Hundt 371-6497 Street Lighting No objections concerning the overhead walkway. There could be some conflicts with the existing street lighting poles and with the existing underground street lighting facilities. Contact Person: Roger Adsit 371-6085 Cell Phone 242-5175 Page 1 Act-17-2000 Pedestrian Overpass at GM Plant, Walnut Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Dale Griffith General Motors Corporation 920 Townsend Lansing, MI STATUS OF APPLICANT: Representing General Motors Corporation REQUESTED ACTION: Air rights for overhead pedestrian walkway EXISTING LAND USE: Heavy Industrial EXISTING ZONING: "I" Heavy Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Somewhat irregular in shape, approx. 82 acres in size SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Oldsmobile auto plant and 496 Expressway Right-of-Way S: General Motors auto plant E: General Motors auto plant W: General Motors auto plant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "I" Heavy Industrial S: "I" Heavy Industrial E: "I" Heavy Industrial W: "I" Heavy Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Plan designates this area for industrial development. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: This is a request by Dale Griffith representing the General Motors Corporation, to construct a pedestrian overpass across Walnut Street, approximately 200 feet south of Main Street. The overpass will provide safe access to the General Motors Facility for employees and visitors by connecting the surface parking lot on the east side of the street with the General Assembly Plant on the west side of Page 3 Act-17-2000 Pedestrian Overpass at GM Plant, Walnut Street Building Safety: No objection. Construction documents are currently under review. Code Compliance: Code Compliance Office requests that any site plan improvements approved be forwarded to this office upon City Council action. Consumers (No response received.) Energy: City Attorney: (No response received.) Development Office: Easement or license likely required. Contact City Attorney office for opinion regarding air rights. Check Sparrow overpass example. Fire Marshal: No objections. Minimum clearance of 13'6" must be provided. (Drawings are currently showing 19'.) Ingham Co. Drain Commission: Our office has no objections to the proposal by General Motors Corporation to construct an elevated walkway. The site falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Lansing for drainage and soil and sedimentation control. Lansing Neighborhood (No response received.) Council: MI Dept. of Transportation: (No response received.) Parks & Rec: No comment, doesn't impact park operations. Public Service Dept.: Attached are sewer main locations in Walnut. Sewer leads are the responsibility of GM in this location. Minimum clearance of 17 feet required. Responsibility to maintain and operate this walkway will be GM's. (See attached Traffic Engineer: Visibility of the traffic signals must be maintained at the proper approach distance or low level signals must be installed. ANALYSIS Page 4 Act-17-2000 Pedestrian Overpass at GM Plant, Walnut Street COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The pedestrian overpass will be located within an overall industrial area, and will connect an employee/visitor parking lot with the main assembly plant. No negative impacts are anticipated in terms blocking any significant views. Materials to be used include steel and glass, and will be heated and air-conditioned. The overpass is therefore compatible with the surrounding industrial development. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for industrial development. The pedestrian overpass would therefore be in compliance with the plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The pedestrian overpass would connect the surface parking lot with the General Assembly Plant and is designed to provide safe access to General Motors Facility for employees and visitors. The height from the street to the bottom of the pedestrian walkway would be 19'6" feet and will extend from the east side of the right of way 133'9" to the west stair tower (see attached elevations). This easily meets the Fire Marshall requirement for a minimum clearance of 13'6" for emergency vehicles. City sidewalks will remain within the Walnut Street public right-of-way to provide pedestrian access alongside the street. Therefore, staff believes no negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic will result from the pedestrian overpass. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The pedestrian overpass connecting the parking lot and the General Assembly Plant would not result in any negative environmental impacts, involving air, water, noise, glare, aesthetics, etc. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT No negative impacts on future patterns of development is anticipated from the pedestrian overpass. OTHER Page 5 Act-17-2000 Pedestrian Overpass at GM Plant, Walnut Street The Board of Water and Light has indicated that they have a temporary 3-phase overhead pole line feeding GM facilities, along the east side of Walnut Street, that is in direct conflict with the construction of the elevated walkway over Walnut Street. The Board stipulates that the cables must be removed before the walkway is constructed. The Board has also indicated that there could be some conflicts with the existing street lighting poles and with the existing underground street lighting facilities. SUMMARY The pedestrian overpass is designed to give employees and visitors safe and convenient access from the parking lot and the General Assembly Plant, across Walnut Street. No negative impacts are anticipated from the proposed overpass. Public utilities will have to be consulted regarding any relocation or possible disruption in service to result from the construction of the pedestrian overpass. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the pedestrian overpass as proposed, provided all utility companies be consulted and satisfied with any relocation of said utilities as necessary. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner • ''—aCC JJ.I-Ib-' � . - z W. -ST .')SEPH ST. W ST. JOSEPH ST 1 e © I-- 9 4 , + "• � -F -rV % V iT� u _ o� Ui __— I W. MAIN ST W. MAIN ST ED ° ,\N. \l�e SCOTT PnRN '- 4 caau r sIS _ I N ppl - 1 PUB- I`7sp P" 3 za D PI w IL xs .L o _ _� T, fill y z� GARDENS" _ no 4 S i :e pp oz a to .E. WILLIAM - ST a x d/ C. c.P, I -Ives �/ % • G. Lavy> p Tvl o II � - I 0 O•i I - I I aE I I Mr G _ _sbi,•8 L Z.; - - - - - _- I i� _ •ivy 1 Op .I- LDS I V .c.cP a- vC cou,I•"oeoc j HAZEL b 'i9 la p a ;f ' r19J It �� a t 1j -y 1510 OS Y sG 81 0 5I- a r — `� 15J ry b F ! "L w \ o\ti o s ML -A o, --,...,.— wI C. cull c eT E.-M -io-un I vc. ST. cou oaocns• iz`i_nzo I:-z Ivn c. -lase W. ELM -•,ST '— ___...___ W. ELM w v. ce w.v xe GM" j I r a -I apt r• ell. . I VRTU 151-/0,+ 0 Oy II .. u cni rTu c 4'- w SfIIITH v LANSING GRAND RIVER ASSEMBLY SITE � Jl le 1 ! i• Z TS�vr El '*• OAJ TS I �l^I�� SIN •:.�..� � _ _ ,� i I Ji I any+ 1 � I.: �.� � i✓• 1 • — i9e. �:" �. I i�z3e ��E�•' ilEr:fir 3.'g':x'"'1:�.. '�;:' :./•.: : s S• BODY SHOP �u SECURITY GATE#2 .s SECURITY GATE#3 GENERAL ASSEMBLY - k ► ly EMS MEETING POINT �� 11 I t€ `7€ €if €�II� �j(I ;�I 1 OJ FIRE EVACUATION RALLY POINTS TORNADO SHELTERS LOCATED IN �\ BASEMENT AREAS & PARKING GARAGES OF BUILDINGS. Jr f DATE : 05/30/00 / J EWERCEHCT—CATS—A CE33.0 C EMERGENCY NUMBER (517 ) 377 2536 Li6er 2804 Pit@ 620 ,-attachment l Form 1012 Rev. 9-98) North America Car Group - Warren Lansing Car Assembly Plant No. 1 Citv of Lansing, Michiean THE FACILITY WILL BE LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE . CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN DESCRIBED lafORE PARTICULARLY AS: "Beginning at the Now corner of Bloch 179,of tIx Original Plat of the T?wn of Michigan, now City of Lansing, recorded in Liber 2 of Plats, page 36, 37 and 38, Ingham County Records, hereinafter referred to as the Original Plat of the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan; thence along the West right of way line of Walnut Street, as platted in said Original Plat S00°12'42"E 761.1 1 feet to the Southeast comer of Block 186 of said Plat; thence along the North right of way line of Olds Avenue N89°23'42"E 412.50 feet to the Southeast comer of Block 187 of said Plat; thence along the West right of way line of Townsend Street S00°41'15"E 560.18 feet to the South naht of way line of Elm Street, said line also being the North line of Block 2, Ann Bames Addition to the City of Lansing, recorded in Liber 3 of Plats, Page 10, Ingham County Records; thence N89052'46"E 87.78 feet to the Northeast corner of said Block 2; thence S00°41'20"E 41.25 feet along the East line of said Block; thence continuing along the South line of Elm Street N89°52'46"E 323.75 feet; thence along the Westerly bank of the Grand River the following three courses, S09°03'5I"W 358.42 feet; thence S05°15'11"E 281.82 feet; thence SO1°06'21"E 203.92 feet to the Northerly right of way line of the Grand Trunk Western Rail Road; thence along said Right of Way line S89°14'12"W 1039.08 feet; thence along the East face of the East wall line of Building 52 and its Southerly projection NOO°23'45"W 236.54 feet; thence along the North face of the North wall line of Building 52 S89°35'10"W 308.43 feet; thence along the East face of the East wall line of Building 56 N00°32'37W 173.99 feet; thence along the North face of the North wall line of Building 56 S89°31'08"W 247.87 feet; thence along the East face of the East wall line of Building 34 and its Northerly projection N00032122"W 576.59 feet to the Easterly projection of the South lire of Block 192 of said Original Plat of the City of Lansing; thence along said South line and the South line of Block 193 and its Westerly projection S89°37'25"W 647.26 feet to the Southerly projection of the East line of Blocks 1 and 2 of Morrison's Subdivision, recorded in Liber 35 of Plats, Page 582, Ingham County Records; thence along said East line N00°31'23"W 808.50 feet to the Northeast corner of Block 2 of Morrison's Subdivision; thence along the North line of said Block 2 being the South right of way line of Williams Street and the South right of way line of Williams Street as platted in Assessor' Plat No. 3 of the City of Lansing, recorded in Liber 10 of Plats, Page 11, Ingham County Records, S89°08'40"W 699.10 feet; thence N00035'33"W 412.50 feet to the South right of way line of Main Street as platted in said Assessor's Plat No. 3; thence along said South right of way line and the South right of way line of Main Street as platted in said Mom'son's Subdivision N89008'40"E 765.60 feet to the Northwest comer of Block 182 of said Original Plat of the City of Lansing; thence continuing along the South right of way line of Main Street N89°37'25"E 1389.09 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3,596.509 square feet of land, more or less, being 82.5645 acres, more or less." -- ------------- - IVMM. To C 004 (REQ IRD41NiS NISI Ut MRLI'4U1 Z)Inccl WEST RI(.7iT-OF-WAY LINE 12 S, v I I 3 r-------• I I i 1 I I I 1 I I HAZARDC ' I i �1' SHEET a9 T}{ROUIG35 f10R — I 1 FLAIMAB I N 1 I g •I I c� ;SRETAJHEET G WAIF PIAN DETAILS 20'W 3061 - ---- Itt��� I CAUTION - CRI 1CA1 Q _ B L I 008 UNDERGROUND J L I I [y-17 - ----E --------- --- m i I4+',--r^ BIT.OVER CONCRETE - --- y t Ir�l +) i ° 201 }uN v �L� jyI CI �sL FM ---81--- O� ------ - T LriT ~ 21 �I . - ----- `'�`--�--- T - C--F----- -- IC �- --$.C� -- ---- I ST ------ ------ L _ T __ U• r I It I . --14 mTS111 . m \`. i 003 jENCFI 1002 i J '1=004 I SIDE _1 I I i i CAUTIONUNDERGROUI ' ---- i t . — tYST. 001 RCN - I E11ENT5 CC) ' i 1 ij1 I r I; 20� WAI INSIDE 12' WM DO TRENCH SEE SHEET 10 REMOVE ERISTING VALVE VAULT. TO BE O Ln INSTALL 12 EACH REPLACED BY BW&L FORCES TO BE PAID AS f 66" RADIUS PIPE ROACIVING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. l J A L (( W 605 E \ I �ImI� tI a I VI OF INI '-I N 1 O y V (14 i 25 5 D 3 ; C3 4 36 STREFT xx-xx- NORTH SIDE MATERIAL TR,,"--FIC ONE WAY ONLY -------------------- oll IG06 WHEELS/TIRES G08 3G07 WIN G09 ............ - ------- -------------- �T T A,. ��B.2:) LLJ I .. ....... 15'AISLE LLJ L I FIR EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE IS*AISLE ----------- -------- -------------------- ------ AS < FASCIA 0 HEAD�LAMP Lo 0259 . ......... 33 33.7 33.9 35 36 36.4 36.7 2 3 GA-A4 2.6 GA-A,4-2.6 - - I I I BRIDGE LEVEL FIN - _ EL 872'-6' II I I I I FIN. IST. FL - - EL. 853'-0" - - FIN. IST. FL. EL. 850'-0' ty 33 33.7 33.9 35 36 36.4 36.7 PEDE TRIAN BRIDGE i R.5 RA CA-A4-1.9 R /ROOF MOUNTED ELE:,R)cv.CALBLE 1 SIM. TRA" GA-A4-1.1 'OP OF CURB EL — 901'-6 1/4- i MANUFACTURED WALL PANELS •� WNUFAC RED WU PAIELS 3 I 3 CA-A4-4.4 GA-A4-4. OPP.HAN 1'IN.UL GLASS 6A-A4-4.4 IN ALI IM.FRAME `i GA- -4.4 1 1/2'DA.PIPE 1 1/2-DIA PIPE T CONVEYOR ENCLOSURE NANDRNL '.o HANDRAIL FIN.FL. EL.884'-5' 12 ;GA-A6-2.2 DOOR 14 --CARRYING TRUSS EYOND GA-A�.2 ALONG COLD LINE 115 I I � MEZZ. FK FL EL 875'-0' — — — — — 4,­ ftl�;A�-2 — i UFACTURED w LL PANELS o c i C.W.B.CEILING SYSTEM G.W.B.WALL PARTNION j m 1 CA FA4-4.3 T. 1ST.FL 850'-0' RECESSED FLOOR MAT LL 1 1 36 36.4 36.7 33.7 33.9 35 PEDE TRIAN BRIDGE -A5-,.1 GA-A5-1. BRIDGE LEVEL FIN FL EL 872' 6' si GA`,-8.1 3'-6" (D.C.)WIDE GLASS(MG-I) IN ALUMINUM FRAMES I FIN. 1ST. FL EL 85,3'-0' _ - - - - - FIN. 1ST. FL EL S50'-0' SOUTH ELEVATION (NORTH ELEVATION OPP. HAND) GA-A2 1.0 - APPROVED AS PRINTED DECEMBER 5, 2000 Draft to Clerk Unknown Approved 12052000 To Clerk 01292001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Smith, Patrick, Foster. One vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - approved. Mr. Frederick said that on the Agenda for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee I would like to add as the first item of business, election of a new chair for that Committee since I am Vice Chair I cannot also hold Chair of a Committee so we need to elect someone new. Ms. Keene said we would not be able to do that this evening unless the other two Committee members are here. Mr. Frederick said they are not here so we should meet in the Committee of the Whole because there would not be any Zoning and Ordinance Committee to meet other than myself. We are in the same situation we were in last week. Ms. Keene said that maybe the other two will be here before the recess. I do not think it would be appropriate for the other people who are not on the Committee to elect the Committee Chairperson. We can take care of the business in the Committee of the Whole, but not the election. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - a. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Evaluating Significance within Registered Historic Districts. Ms. Stachowiak said that the reason this was incorporated into the packet is that Susan Cantlon, the Preservation Planner, asked that it be included in there because it was distributed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee last week during her presentation on the two historic districts. She thought it would be interesting for the Planning Board to have. 4. HEARINGS - None PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 2 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) ART FOSTER, SENIOR MINISTER, ALL NATIONS CHURCH. At our last meeting, November 15, 2000, we talked about converting the American Cancer Society into a church facility. That church would be All Nations Christian Church. Since then, there were several members of All Nations Church and myself that met with the Marshall Park Neighborhood Watch. Several members from that organization, Doris Witherspoon as well as Councilmen Leeman were there. That meeting went well, the Neighborhood Watch welcomed us into that neighborhood with a very warm welcome. We want to thank them for that and pleased that it went so well. We are very pleased with the Neighborhood Watch. 6. RECESS - none taken. Mr. Ruff suggested that they meet in the Committee of the Whole since there is not a Zoning and Ordinance Committee here. Ms. Keene said that is a good idea. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 7, 2000 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of November 7, 2000. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; Carried unanimous; the minutes of November 7, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 a. Committee of the Whole Mr. Frederick moved; Seconded by Mr. Smith to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried. a. Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G- 1" Business District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District to allow retail use on the first floor and loft residence on the second floor. This is consistent with proposals of this nature in the past. They are listed on page 4 of the Staff Report. Five (5) other Zoning Cases on the same block have been approved. It is consistent with the city's Master Plan and is being recommended for approval. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 3 COMMITTEE of the WHOLE ACTION Mr. Frederick said that when we met in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, Mr. Ruge and I discussed this and it was our opinion to concur with the staff recommendation to recommend approval of this request to rezone the property at 605 E. Michigan from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. Mr. Frederick moved; Seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. b. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request from All Nations Christian Ministries. The parcel in question is currently being used for the American Cancer Society. It is a special land use request to permit a church. The parcel is primarily zoned "D- 1" Professional Office, churches are permitted for that use in this district. It is also being recommended for approval. Staff feels that it complies with the nine criteria listed for evaluating a special land use permits. A couple things that were brought up in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. One had to do with the fire exists that are on the south side of the building. Ms. Witherspoon, the planner who did this report, met with the applicant and one of the city's building inspectors, reviewed the fire exists and as they are proposing they seem to be in compliance with the Building Code. The concern that was brought up in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee mostly had to do with the door not being kept open during the services because there are some residential areas around the property and with the services going on that they did not disturb the neighbors. The church does intend on keeping those doors closed. The other thing that came up had to do with using the entrance on to May Street. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee felt that access to that should be prohibited and that is being included in the staff recommendation. In fact, there are three conditions: (1) They prohibit the use of May Street; (2) That additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site; and (3) Visibility to and from the site is not obstructed by plantings or any other amenities. With those conditions it is being recommended for approval. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 4 Ms. Foster asked if they are planning to do any landscaping on the parking lot. It is fairly large area of asphalt. Ms. Stachowiak said that the church would submit a landscape plan. We have not received that yet. Mr. Frederick said that could be made a condition tonight too. Landscaping would also come under the site plan review process. Ms. Stachowiak said that it would fall under the condition (Item #2 - Additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site) could just include a statement about parking lot landscaping. Ms. Foster said it is so there is large shade trees to keep the heat down in the asphalt. If you could amend it to add that shade trees will be planted to shade the parking lot area. Mr. Frederick asked to amend condition number 2 to include additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site including shade tree planting around the perimeter of the parking lot. Mr. Frederick said also that one of the things that Mr. Ruge addressed was the emergency exit on the east side of the pews in the church. There were two emergency exits and there was not any real fencing, rather landscaping around the east side of the building. He felt that it might represent a hazard for emergency egress and he expressed a concern that the church develop that on that side of the building. Do you remember him talking about that? Ms. Stachowiak said yes because there is only a three foot distance between the east side of the church and the property line and Mr. Ruge was concerned that (those doors would only be used in case of an emergency) if there was one that people would go on the neighbor's property rather than staying confined to this one. I am sure that the church would be happy to put something, even plantings or some type of ornamental fencing along the property line to show where the separation is. Mr. Frederick said that since Mr. Ruge is not here I would like to include something in one of the conditions but I am not exactly sure if that is the way to word it. Are there some suggestions to add a condition. Ms. Stachowiak said that even stating that there be plantings or ornamental fencing, some type of property line demarcation would be appropriate. Mr. Ruff said the other option may be, I know Mr. Foster has been looking at with the Building Safety Office, is whether there is an alternative to that door. He is working through that issue from an architectural stand point. They are required to have a certain number of exits for an assembly area. There is a formula to it. Where one door is has an affect on where the other doors can be. We are trying to sort that out. Mr. Foster has been PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 5 working with Mr. Bennett from the Building Safety Office on trying to eliminate that as a potential problem. Mr. Frederick said that he is trying to figure out how to word it. Mr. Ruff suggested, that emergency exit be eliminated if possible, and if not fencing or other device be used to direct emergency exiting from the building and away from adjacent properties. Mr. Frederick said, that the east side emergency exits be eliminated, if possible, but if not fencing or other devices be used to direct emergency egress away from the adjoining properties. This is a fourth condition. Mr. Ruff said just for the record, please note that it was reviewed in accordance with the 1282 of the Zoning Code for special land uses and nine criteria were evaluated and those are included in your report. Ms. Foster asked if there is lighting on this site on the parking area. Mr. Ruff said that he is not aware of it, but Mr. Foster is here and a gentleman is here from the American Cancer Society if there is other questions that need to be answered. Mr. Foster said that he is concerned that there is proper lighting. I think that George from the American Cancer Society will be better than myself in that area, however, I have made observation of the exterior of the building on this west side and I have noticed that there are a couple of lighting that are on the building itself. I also think, if I remember right, there are lights which stand on the utility pole. GEORGE CONTOMPASIS, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY. We have timed mercury lamps, both the front and rear, the entire parking lot to the rear and also in the front there is also timed lights, more decorative casting lights straight down in the front of the building. The door that you talked about on the east side has lighting all the way down. It is very well lit, it is a secure well lit area. We also have two of the Board of Water and Light high intensity lamps on the light poles, which we share with Maloney Carpet and the former Snell Environmental. The building behind us, which is Williams Communications has state of the art Communications equipment in it and they have flood lights. So it is actually bright back there. Mr. Foster said in light of condition number 4 that was spoken about, the emergency exists on the east side of the building, I just want you to know that myself and others from my staff have met with those from the American Cancer Society, George is one of those individuals, and decided we would try to work out some way of setting up some kind of boundary lines. We realize that this is a problem on the east side of the building. That will be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 6 taken care of. Also, we would like you to know that I met with one of the gentleman in the Planning Department, Mr. Bennett. He decided that he would help us in light of that problem, to eliminate the door that comes out into the neighborhood, that would be the very north east door. Mr. Bennett has approved that door does not need to be there. However, on the other hand, we are putting in an exit entrance door on the west side with a handicap ramp. Mr. Bennett said that would be sufficient enough. I just wanted to assure you that we will have an exit on the west side of the building, which is in the architectural drawing. Also, we are going to, for future safety, establish a boundary line down on the east side of the building. We know we will have to go down the east side of the building and it has the exterior of the building. Some kind of vine can be put there to make it attractive to the neighbors when they look out their back door. It has already been taken care of. Mr. Frederick said that one other thing came to mind that we discussed last week. The first condition that mentions prohibiting the use of May Street, there was discussion of actually closing off parking lot through to the North so that the people using the building would not be encouraged at all from going out into May Street. Has that been discussed. Ms. Stachowiak said yes and that is included in item #1 and has been changed to include prohibiting May Street from being used as an access. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE ACTIONS Mr. Frederick moved to recommend approval of SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District, the 9 criteria of the Zoning Code have been evaluated and this request meets all nine. I would also include the following conditions: (1) The driveway approach to the west be improved to accommodate incoming and outgoing traffic and encourage parishioners to use Saginaw Street, prohibiting the use of May Street; (2) Additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site including shade tree planting around the perimeter of the parking lot; (3) Visibility to and from the site is not obstructed by plantings or any other amenities; and (4) The east emergency exits be eliminated, if possible, if not fencing or other devices be used to direct emergency egress away from the adjoining property. Mr. Frederick moved; Seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District with the four (4) conditions. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 7 C. NCU-10-2000, 314/316 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a six unit apartment building. It is vacant right now. The applicant, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, who is working on this project in partnership with the City of Lansing Development Office would like to renovate this building and convert it into a 4 unit. It is nonconforming for lot coverage, setbacks and parking. The change going from 6 units to 4 units, will bring it into much more compliance with the ordinance requirement. It will greatly reduce the nonconformity. For one thing the parking requirement will be met under their proposal. They require 8 parking spaces and they will be able to provide those in the parking lot off of Kingsley Court. This is being recommended for approval. One of the things that came up at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee had to do with the driveway that is on Martin Luther King Blvd. right now. I have the Transportation Office Comment on that and I think I left a copy of their comments in front of you this evening. The Transportation Office does not really feel that the driveway presents a significant impact. He does not think that closing it off is necessarily a bad idea because it would relieve any pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk along Martin Luther King Blvd., on the other hand, that is one way on that side of the street and would only allow right hand turns. He does not see that it is a major issue. The recommendation has been changed to include the Zoning and Ordinance Committee's recommendations that it be closed off. Mr. Ruff said, Almus Thorpe, the Executive Director of Greater Lansing Housing Coalition was planning on coming tonight, but he had a family situation. I did want to share something a little more about the driveways. Really the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition is more concerned about the driveways because they do not want to have any cut through traffic going through the parking lot themselves. They have been looking at that for security of site and how to deal with that. The complications are that Kingsley Court is a one way street and so is Martin Luther King Blvd. They are trying to work through those issues and trying to reduce the lot coverage for both of those things. I hesitate to put too much of a restriction on that because there is going to be a need for balance in there someway to try to protect the property from cut through traffic as well as provide their parking requirement. I am concerned about the driveways. They may be able to do something where they would not have them PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 8 connect so there would not be a cut through. That is my only concern about that issue. Mr. Frederick asked if he would be comfortable is we eliminated that condition. It could be in particular importance to the traffic department. They did discuss reserving judgement until we did get an opinion from the traffic people and they do not seem to be overly concerned with it. It sounds to me like the applicants are willing to deal with that issue any way. I would feel comfortable just eliminating that in the recommendation. Mr. Ruff said that this will be part of the site plan review process. The site plan review may be limited because it is going to take a rearrangement of the area more than adding asphalt, but also some will be taken away and try to clean it up. To keep as much greenspace as possible to help reduce lot coverage issues. Mr. Frederick said that this covered everything that Mr. Ruge and I discussed. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE Mr. Frederick moved for recommendation of approval of NCU-10-2000, 314/316 E. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Status subject to the approval by staff of the layout of the required 8 on-site parking spaces and the completion of the building and site improvement and alterations within one year of the Board's Approval. Mr. Frederick moved; Supported by Ms. Keene to recommend for approval NCU-10-2000, 314/316 E. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Status. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. d. NCU-11-2000, 1033 Hickory Street, Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a church at 1033 Hickory Street and it was recently damaged by a fire. We received, Monday, an appraisal on the property and it was valued at $105,000 and the contractor that I spoke to estimated the damage at right around $100,000, so even though the damage is not very visible to the outside it was damaged quit severely inside the building. They are asking for Class A Nonconforming Status so they can rebuild. It is nonconforming for lot size, parking and setbacks. They would like to be able to repair the damage. One of the things that came up at Zoning and Ordinance Committee was parking. The pastor from the church and his wife were at that meeting and they counted the number of cars that usually were there for their services on Sunday morning. Usually around 11. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 9 This is a small church. It has 19 pews, 2 of which are used for the choir. It is in a residential neighborhood, so a lot of the parishioners live in the neighborhood and walk to the church and a lot of them come as a family and ride in the same vehicle. They do not have a great deal of vehicles using the on-street parking in that neighborhood. They have been in existence since 1901, to my knowledge it has not been used as anything but a church. There is really no way for them to expand. They are built out on the lot. There are properties on all sides of them that are built out. There is really no way for them to do anything but repair the damage and use what they have right now. The Transportation Department also commented that they have no objection to this request. They do not see that it presents any negative impact on the neighborhood. It is being recommended for approval with the condition that the completion of the building and site improvements/alterations be within one year of the Board's approval. I will point out that back in the rear of the property they do have room for at least 4 parking spaces that is accessed off of the alley. Mr. Ruff said that if there were going to be any other types of improvements to the property, such as an addition, or lets say an adjoining property was destroyed by a catastrophe and they wanted to expand and make a parking lot, that would come back to you. Basically, right now, this activity for Class A is to allow it to continue to be used as it was being used previously to the fire in September. It is not asking for an expansion, if there was an expansion being portrayed or being requested, that would come back to this Board, whether it be for an addition to the building or the parking. That would be beyond their property. The only improvements that will be made at this time will be barrier free improvements besides the interior being renovated. They would have a barrier free ramp on the back to gain access to the building and the toilet rooms in the church would be modified. Ms. Keene asked if it was known how long the applicants have operated this church. Were they the owners when the fire occurred. Mr. Ruff said that they were the owners when the fire occurred. They have not been there very long, it is a matter of months. It was a wiring or some sort of electrical fire that went through some of the walls and damaged the structure. They have not been there very long. These types of facilities, because of their nature and in compact shape in location and neighborhood, tend to become starter churches. So groups that are very small, and grow possibly and then move on to another larger nonconforming facility or they may build another facility in a conforming situation. That is typical. When I reviewed the history in the city directories, it kind of looked like a house, I was looking to see how long it was used as a church. Going back through directories, I was seeing multiple names of churches that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 10 have occupied it. I just looked at every ten years about and it seemed to be another church every so many years. Ms. Keene also asked that with these nonconforming use applications, do the post cards go out to the neighbors like they do with the rezoning matters, so that they know about the fact that this is coming along. If they did, did any neighbors ask about or comment about parking difficulties by previous churches? Ms. Stachowiak said we are not aware of any complaints that have ever been made about this property. Also, we did not send out post cards to the neighbors, we did however, notify all the neighborhood organizations and there were three. Two of them, this property was not specifically in their districts, but they were close enough that we notified them anyway. I also met with one Shawn Bouterse and discussed it with him and he had no concerns whatsoever. He was going to write a letter and I was hoping to have it this evening. As far as we know, there has never been any problems where the neighborhood is concerned. It has been a church of 99 years and I know of no complaints. Ms. Keene said that she was concerned, given the fact that it is a fairly new church and we do not know what was going on before they were there. I just wanted to be assured that the neighbors knew what was going on and that they had an opportunity to give some input, especially since it is all on street parking. Mr. Ruff said that it is public parking on the street and typically it is a limited facility as it is they are pretty much Sunday and the pastor parks in the back during the week when he is there. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE ACTION Mr. Frederick made the motion; Seconded by Mr. Smith to recommend approval of NCU-11-2000, 1033 Hickory Street, Class A Nonconforming Status with the condition that the completion of the building and site improvements/alterations be within one year of the Board's approval. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. Mr. Frederick said that he hopes that they can get the alterations done in time to celebrate the centennial of the building even if the church is young. Mr. Ruff said that they have been progressing to get an architect to do the drawings necessary for renovation and we have tried to help them through the process so that it does not set for very long. We are concerned about vacant buildings in neighborhoods like this too and what kind of affect that has as well. That is one of our purposes for trying to keep it moving. Ms. Foster made the motion; Seconded by Mr. Smith to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Vote, motion carried. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 11 1 b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair. Mr. Frederick said that since we all know everything that was discussed, I would like to go down each item on the agenda and reiterate our decisions and move that the Board recommend approval. a. Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G- 1" Business District. Mr. Frederick presented the case referring to the Committee of the Whole action and recommended this rezoning be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District as discussed in our Committee of the Whole meeting. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Aye Smith. . . Ave Patrick. . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried; Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District was recommended for Approval. b. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Mr. Frederick presented the case. In light that the nine criteria in the zoning code for special land use have been met, I recommend this for approval with the conditions as we previously discussed in the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District with the following conditions: (1) The driveway approach to the west be improved to accommodate incoming and outgoing traffic and encourage parishioners to use Saginaw Street, prohibiting the use of May Street; (2) Additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site including shade tree plantings around the perimeter of the parking lot; (3) Visibility to and from the site is not obstructed by plantings or any other amenities; and (4) The east emergency exits be eliminated, if possible, if not fencing or other devices be used to direct emergency egress away from the adjoining property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 12 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Aye Smith. . . Aye Patrick. . . Aye Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried; SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw, Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District was recommended to be Approved w/ Conditions. C. NCU-10-2000, 314/316 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Frederick presented the case. We discussed the item and the Committee recommended that NCU-10-2000 be approved with the condition as mentioned in our previous discussion referring to the Committee of the Whole action. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-10-2000, 314/316 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status subject to the approval by staff of the layout of the required 8 on-site parking spaces and the completion of the building and site improvement and alterations within one year of the Board's Approval. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Aye Smith. . . Aye Patrick. . . Aye Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried; NCU-10-2000 314/316 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status subject to the approval by staff of the layout of the required 8 on-site parking spaces and the completion of the building and site improvement and alterations within one year of the Boards Approval was Approved w/ One Condition d. NCU-11-2000, 1033 Hickory Street, Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Frederick presented the case. As we discussed and recommended for approval in the Committee of the Whole meeting I also move that we recommend NCU-11-2000 for approval subject to the condition as mentioned in the Committee meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 13 PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-11-2000, 1033 Hickory Street, Class A Nonconforming Status subject to completion of the building and site improvements/alterations within one year of the Board's approval. Frederick . . Aye Keene . .Ave Smith. . . Ave Patrick. . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried; NCU-11-2000, 1033 Hickory Street, Class A Nonconforming Status was Approved w/ One Condition 2. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. As you know we met without quorum, the Commttee tonight referred our items to the Committee of the Whole and we dispensed with them. Next meeting is Wednesday, December 13, 2000, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair, reported Next meeting is Tuesday, November 28, 2000 at 4:00pm, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff reviewed a document handed out that contains a narrative and possible code amendments for the "F-1" Commercial District. Ms. Keene said so I understand, this is a completely new category then? Mr. Ruff said, well actually, we have a "F-1" District now. Ms. Keene said yes, but this title, traditional neighborhood. Mr. Ruff said I just titled it that so we could give it some identification. We may have to include a definition. The "F-V Commercial District is not used much except in these old areas and I think it has a good purpose. I think with what is happening with traditional neighborhoods around the country. The city has them, why not play them up and try to improve them and encourage walking or the bikes or the mass transit use of the facilities and reduce their parking requirement and try to maintain that 2 story look. Ms. Keene said I was not questioning that, I just thought it was a good idea to give it a name and identify it so that people know what they are getting into. Mr. Ruff said that he was not thinking of separating it from the "F" District, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 14 right now they are both in the same chapter and the only real difference is the front setback allowance. Ms. Keene said so it is not going to be a new category. Mr. Ruff said that he did not think that it would be a new category, but a way to refer to it, the "F-1" District. We could change it to the "F-1" Traditional Neighborhood Commercial District or TNCD. Ms. Keene said so you get the idea that it is a mixed residential/commercial kind of situation. The four areas that you have mapped out, are all of those primarily "F-1"? Mr. Ruff said not everything, but I believe the important commercial areas are mapped. Mr. Smith said reading on page 9 where you talk about the architectural of the character of the traditional neighborhood, I guess I am wondering what specifically or to flesh out what we mean by architectural character. Because it strikes me that if we are going to make a judgement on what currently exists in a given neighborhood, one may be able to go down a block and identify 3 or 4 buildings that are a particular style, like neo- classical or Greek revival or whatever it may be and then a person who wanted to build new, would they be told that their facade has to be Greek revival or would they just simply be told that it can't be more than two stories high. We talk about architectural character and get into architectural style. Mr. Ruff said I think that I envisioned applying it would be as the property is part of this area, look at the area and choose from those styles how you want to fit within it. You don't want to necessarily replicate and make it an old building, but just want it to reasonably fit and not be a sore thumb so to speak. So compatible window openings, glass store front if you are in the block of a number of glass store fronts. If the buildings typically have linear windows in the second floors, look for that type of a situation. Not that it would have to be a specific gender of architecture but more that it would fit with its surrounding. Mr. Smith said that he has one other comment and this is not in the part that is revised. I did note and it might be something to think of, on page 7, it refers to any lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential districts, which I find not objectionable, but it may be worth while some sort of language that says that the lighting is directed downward that does not allow it to escape upward. Mr. Ruff said that is a good point. That one has to do with an automotive drive in theater. The last drive in theater is down on S. Cedar before the county building went in just south of Jolly Road. I have not had any requests for that, but we do have a lighting standard in the parking section and that is a good point. When we look more at the parking lot standards/landscape standards that would be appropriate. I am going to request Sissi Foster for some landscape standards and regulations that she specialized in. Mr. Smith said in following up on that one, right below it, it says a trailer camp may be permitted. I wondered about the language there. Camp suggests impermanence. Mr. Smith asked if that meant a mobile home park? Mr. Ruff said that is specifically commercial camp like the KOA. Mr. Smith PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 15 said last time we were presented with this information about the historic districts and some standards here and I am wondering if in looking at those potential historic districts if they are also considering historic and cultural landscapes. The reason I bring that up is a couple of years ago, I did attend one of the meetings that I was kind enough to be sent to, which was held at the State Historical Museum, and they dealt with, and I have here, the Secretary of Interior Standards for Guidelines of treatments for cultural landscapes. It strikes me that often when we talk about historic districts we are talking about that which is turn of the century, that which is architectural and that which primarily the history of the white settlers of this region. It does occur to me that we do have an American Heritage here and we might want to look at, for example, what you are saying a mobile home camp, in that area, has a historic area, maybe that needs to be preserved as part of the historic district as well. Mr. Ruff said that he knows that such as Riverpoint Neighborhood, they are considering a request for a historic district. We did our Phase 3 architectural review of that Riverpoint area, so it was an intensive level survey, but that is a good point, and I will pass that along so when we do, what is likely, after we conclude these other historic district studies we will likely be getting into that Riverpoint Neighborhood and that might be a good element to include. Mr. Smith said that the standards also look at historic gardens, for example. Where things are historically landscaped and keeping in character with that as well as the view from historic structures, so you are not looking out at the aluminum siding of some thing that did not exist. The other issue I would like to bring your attention to and request your indulgence on is we need to get together and do a year-end Board evaluation. Plus talk about next year and talk about what has been accomplished this year. I need to be evaluated by you folks and get some feedback from you for what we are doing, where we are going and what we want to do. I am suggesting, we did this last year, the second meeting in December, which I think is the 16th, instead of having a regular meeting, we have a Dinner meeting that week and discuss things and have our flip charts and talk about goals and those issues. If that is good for you, I will try to make those arrangements, I figure you set that night aside. We have two hearings set for the beginning of December, one is a lot split which we should have the whole report will be completed for you if you want to take action if you would like to. Ms. Keene said that the other one is Mr. Long's. Mr. Ruff said, yes it is Mr. Long's so we have already talked about it, so if you want to take action on those on December 5 that would be very easy to do and would not cause a lot of debate. That would be very easy to accommodate and set aside the December 16 meeting for evaluation and a get together. The meeting is actually the 19t" of December. We could do it early evening, like 6:OOpm, have dinner and also then do some work. Ms. Keene said that sounds fine. Mr. Ruff said we will see what we can get, possibly the Parthenon. Mr. Ruff asked PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 16 if Cooley is out then? Ms. Keene said they should be out then and Mr. Ruff said there should not be a parking issue. I do want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and hope that it is blessed time for you and your family. 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-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-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Permission or Conveyance of City parcel for private use. (Tabled August 22, 2000) 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Adoption of Planning Board Meeting Dates for 2001 Mr. Frederick made the motion; Seconded by Mr. Smith to adopt the Planning Board Meeting Dates for 2001. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON I would ask that Mr. Ruge and Mr. Nischan be contacted to find out what the deal is here. We would like to hear from them. We miss those guys. They keep the discussion going. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith said that last time we were on short order for time and I wanted to thank Mr. Ruff and the city for sending me to the Arts & Cultural Affairs conference and if you look at the date it has been so long ago, October 13. This is a second year that I have gone there, it is the Michigan Association of Arts and Culture of the Michigan Community and Arts and Cultural Affairs. One of the things that was most interesting this year is they talked a lot about public art and not to belabor the point, but we had a rather interesting panel made up of various artists, art professors, practicing artists. One woman who won an Emmy award for her documentary of a project in Detroit, Geuten is the artists name. Suffice to say there is not consensus on what is public art, what should be tolerated as public art, it is rather widely discussed and could have gone on a lot longer than it did. He did say he had some material on it if anyone would like to look at it and wanted to just thank you for letting me go to that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 17 Mr. Frederick said I do have a couple questions about the report. Refresh my memory on the parking that you showed on the map on S. Washington. Did we take some action on that to allow it to be sold? Mr. Ruff said he is not sure if there was a final action on that. I would have to check to see if final action was taken on that. Mr. Frederick said that the other questions he has is on the new language you have regarding existing structures setback. I am not quite sure the new principle structures, page 8, where you have "The principal use structure shall have the front or the street face building wall setback no more than 10 feet from the front property line. This applies to both street facing walls for new principal use structures located on corner lots." Mr. Ruff said it should say it also applies. Mr. Frederick said good point he did not see that. If for instance a building had to be taken down in the middle of the block, a new building that went in there could be 10 feet from there. Mr. Ruff said at the most. If you look at some of the situations, E. Michigan is probably the most difficult one to think about because there is such a variety there. There is only a couple of blocks that have no setback on each side of the street. The rest of them there is a real variety among them. If you have a corner property it might be good to have it setback a little bit and have a pedestrian area on the corner. I would not want it set back so much that you would create parking in the front yard. So that was the idea. When you think about it. Architecturally, a lot of times the doors are recessed, not every building is going to be built with a full flat face on it. You might have a building that is indented, so you might have some recess in some areas of a building and my concern is if I said that it has to be on the property line how it would be construed, or it might present some problems at that intersection, or if you wanted to do some variation to the facade. Mr. Frederick said that I was thinking of Old Town, one of the those buildings in one of those blocks, which are essentially flush, if one of those buildings had to be taken down because of some structural problems, there could be a building put in that is not flush any more. Mr. Ruff said we could make that different, but the other part of it is that you have the design guidelines that can potentially pick up real odd things. Mr. Frederick said I may be wrong with this and I am going to check it on the way home, I think I saw a sign, where they are filling in one of the old gravel pits, over on Cavanaugh just west of Aurelius and it seems like that is essentially an open lot and there is nothing there and I think I saw a sign that it was zoned "F" Commercial. Mr. Ruff said that is on the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh. Mr. Frederick said J J's is on the corner. There is a little house on the corner and people said that J J lives here. Mr. Ruff said I am talking about the opposite corner where we looked at for "G-2". Mr. Frederick said yes. Mr. Ruff said the south side is mostly zoned Industrial. There is a proposal for a trucking operator to build a small office/maintenance building. They have a small trucking company with a federal contract to haul mail back and forth between multiple posts. It is going right on one of those pieces of property on the south side, kind of opposite that church area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 18 Ms. Keene asked how Ms. Christian is. Mr. Ruff said I talked to Louise over a week ago. She gave me the scoop that they have scheduled her to complete her therapy December 7, 2000. Ms. Keene said you have her therapy on your calendar. Mr. Ruff said her therapy is Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. She will be back in the office December 11, 2000. She did tell everyone hello. Ms. Patrick said four quick things. Is there a record where we can see council action on our recommended actions. Mr. Ruff said we are trying to provide that more. We tried to put the log on our network. The key is updating it. The council minutes come more regular than in the past. Ms. Patrick said also, that with the last Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Susan had called me to ask if I could sub for you and then she found out that you would be here. I could have in fact come and subbed for whoever was not there and I wonder if there was a procedure that we are suppose to notify development staff if we are not coming. Especially when something comes up 24 hours before. When you get your packet you should know if you can come or not. Mr. Ruff said that there is voice mail on 24 hours and you can call and leave a message for me or Susan. Ms. Patrick said she laughed when you did not have a quorum, because I could have been there. Mr. Frederick said that is where we had all the people too. Ms. Patrick said maybe we can take this up in our meeting in December and get some consensus among the members on how to handle that as a procedure. It was interesting, as much as I like the taping of this group on TV, that I turned on the station on Saturday that was the city station was showing a meeting you missed back in September. I just wondered what happened. Mr. Ruff said maybe they get bored showing the same ones so they go back and show reruns. Tonight we are not recorded. We had no videotape staff available. Ms. Patrick said it was the meeting where we were talking about the balconies and it was a very extended discussion. The last thing is I just wondered, since these were not affected by zoning or changes what is going on Jolly Road between Dunkle and Collins Road, all of that development. There is a lot of commercial development going on out there. They have had roads closed off. Mr. Ruff said, some of that is in the Township. It is called Five Oaks Office Park. Most of that is in the Township. A lot of develop is occurring there. It is pretty much filling in. We do have on Jolly Road on the north side there is that apartment complex that was approved by council, for that PRD, right by Trappers Cove. But I don't know if that is being constructed right now or not. Mr. Smith said that it is. Ms. Patrick said my last question was on Cedar Street the Builders Square property. Mr. Ruff said that Farmer Jack is going in there. They have taken down the house that was in front, the trophy store. It is going to be a larger landscape area there for Farmer Jack. They are actually rebuilding the parking lot, adding landscaping, and such. Ms. Patrick said, pouring cement in this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 19 weather. Did they have to go through the plan process. Mr. Ruff said, the site plan review, so it is administratively done. Donna Wynant reviewed that case. They are trying to wrap it up. I am sure that this weather is reeking havoc. The potential is there may end up being a traffic light in front of their entrance at some point. Ms. Keene asked if that was just a grocery store. Mr. Ruff said that it is a larger grocery store. It is probably going to be the size of a brand new Kroger or something to that nature. Sixty to seventy thousand square feet. So it is significant. But they are going to still have about 25,000 sq. ft. of leasable space on the north end of that building. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Smith asked I have noted that on Pennsylvania and Saginaw on the northwest side there is a building there that once upon a time was a restaurant of some kind. It is in really sad, dilapidated shape there and looks almost as if the roof is about to cave. I am wondering, it has been sitting there vacant like this in rather poor appearance for quite some time, interesting enough right across the street is where there was an old fire house that has been completely redone. Mr. Ruff said Penn and Oakland. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Ruff said the old gas station on the corner. Mr. Smith said it was a restaurant last. Mr. Ruff said that is one of the sore spots like Drake's Refinery. Mr. Smith said that was my other question, it is still there. Mr. Ruff said on Drake's, the Building Office did an inspection of the building. We got an administrative search warrant to check to see how the structure of the building is. The roof has been failing in on some of it. It is deteriorated. We are moving that through the demolition process. We have had it boarded, we hope that we can get it through the demolition process, I don't know the time frame, the inspection was done probably two weeks ago. Mr. Frederick said is it the Double A or Triple A Pick up truck company on South Cedar. They have a dangerous sign out front and I swear it is looking like it is going to fall any day. It is pulling up and has concrete buckling up. It is leaning towards Cedar. Mr. Ruff said the sign ordinance is being amended. There was a hearing on Monday night a week ago to put back in the sign ordinance a way for us to contract to have dangerous signs removed. When civil infractions were instated they took out a number of other enforcement options and sometimes those other options were better. So they are reinstating some of those. I will check and see if we can do it through the Building Department. Mr. Frederick said while you are at it you can make him clean that place up. But that is just wishful thinking. Mr. Frederick said the other thing I had was the Burger King Restaurant that we deliberated on a few months ago, maybe more than that on MILK just north of Holmes. I think we had a discussion about traffic control getting in and out of that restaurant and how good it was going to be. Well, it either did not come out like we thought it was going to be or they did not do what we said, because it is a nightmare. I tried to figure out how to get in and out of that place. Mr. Ruff said I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Page 20 think that was the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Frederick said well in that case. I would still like to pass it along that the traffic you can either getting caught in a circle that you do nothing but go around and around the drive-thru. Mr. Ruff said that is on their site. Mr. Frederick said you put in an escape route that you are not suppose to go through, but if you are not suppose to go through it why is it there because last time I tried to get in there I was going in on the wrong side of the dividing street and some lady was coming out of there like she shouldn't and we both met each other. Mr. Ruff said you were using the wrong escape route. That was an escape in. The out is on the back side and the in is on the front side. Mr. Frederick said it was not clear. Mr. Ruff said directional signage may need to be addressed. Ms. Patrick said that I don't recall if I raised this or not. A couple of months ago some people caught me at the south precinct neighborhood watch meeting, when they heard if I was on the Planning Board and asked if I would find out if it is legal to have these trailers behind the old Hall of Fame Pool Hall. Their concern is that they are full of fire works. Mr. Ruff said that property is not zoned for a storage yard and as far as I am concerned we can take care of that. Ms. Patrick said there was three or four at least. Mr. Ruff said if a person has a business and they bring in a product, they may drop a trailer for a while. The trailer itself is not the illegality, it is how the property is being used. In this case, if the property is being used as a storage yard, that is illegal for that zoning district. That is what it sounds like it is being used for. 13. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Secretary Planning Board mn11212000 a:\60 Z-13-2000 605 E. M Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Matthew K. Elliott 2461 Emerald Lake Drive East Lansing, MI 48823 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 22' X 100' = 2,200 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial/Office/Warehouse S: Commercial/Service E: City Rescue Mission/Commercial W: Commercial/Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial District S. "H" Light Industrial District E: "H" Light Industrial District W: "G-1" Business District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Cedar/Larch Development Plan designates this area for general business. Specifically, the frontage along Michigan Avenue is recommended for "G-1" Business District. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone property at 605 E. Michigan Ave. from "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District. The applicant wishes to use the first floor for retail use and the second floor for a loft residence. Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Light Indus. to "G-1" Business District, Page 2. BACKGROUND.- AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received yet. Assessor: No response received yet. AT&T: No response received yet. BWL: See attached. Building Safety: No objection to proposal - The action will require the applicant to acquire all permits pertaining to building construction. City Attorney: No response received yet. Code Compliance: Please notify this office of any site requirements which are approved by City Council. Development: No comment. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objections. Change of occupancies must meet all exiting requirements for new use. All current fire codes will apply. Parks & Rec.: No comment. Doesn't impact park operations. Police: No response received yet. Principal Shopping District: No response received yet. Public Service: See attached. Trans. Eng.: No comments or requirements. This has been done successfully with other properties in this block. Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Light Indus. to "G-1" Business District, Page 3. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The Michigan Avenue corridor is characterized by office, commercial uses and residential uses. The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 605 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District and intends to use the first floor for retail and convert the second floor to a two-unit loft apartment. The building is one of several storefronts along the 600 block of East Michigan. The rezoning will allow the uses as proposed to be located within this building. Also, this request would support the City's efforts to revitalize this area while being compatible with surrounding land uses. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. The Cedar/Larch Development Plan designated the property for general business. Specifically, the frontage along Michigan Avenue is recommended for "G-1" Business District. The proposed rezoning and use for the property conforms with the development plan recommendations. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC With the continued development of the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette Street,the demand on existing parking will escalate. The"G-1"Business District does not require parking and relies upon available public parking in the downtown area. The applicant has indicated that there are 3-4 parking spaces on site. The proposed rezoning and improvements do not adversely affect the vehicular and pedestrian circulation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT None anticipated. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT None anticipated. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT The rezoning and proposed improvements to the subject property is similar to other request in the past. Those properties have successfully been rezoned to the"G-1" Business District. Oldsmobile baseball stadium, which is located to the west, has generated much interest for the start-up of new business as well as increase in the Z-13-2000, 605 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Light Indus. to "G-1" Business District, Page 4. request to rezone within the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue. The rezoning request should not have a negative impact on future patterns of development. OTHER Over the past few years, there have been several other properties in the 600 Block of E. Michigan zoned from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Case # Property Address CC Approval Ordinance # Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan 5/19/97 2410 Z-11-97 615 & 617 E. Michigan 8/18/97 2415 Z-19-95 601 E. Michigan 4/1/96 2394 Z-13-94 603 & 603'/2 E. Michigan 3/13/95 2377 Z-4-93 619 E. Michigan 8/2/93 2361 Also, the property at 113 Pere Marquette, which is located just north of the subject property, was rezoned from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District in 1997. This area is expanding in terms of commercial and residential development. As you know, there is a 16-unit apartment complex(SLU-11-99)proposed for development just east of the 600 block. This complex is zoned "H" Light Industrial and has parking requirements, which will be on-site. SUMMARY The rezoning request would support the City's efforts to revitalize this area while being compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed rezoning complies with the NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan and the Cedar/Larch Deve'opment Plari. The proposed rezoning and improvements do not adversely affect the vehicular and pedestrian circulation. There are no environmental or public service impacts anticipated. The rezoning request should not have a negative impact on future patterns of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone property at 605 E. Michigan Ave. from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District to allow retail use on the first floor and loft residence on the second floor. h1R 7 Z-13-2000 603 E. Michigan Ave NORTH "H" Light Industrial to"G-1" Business District zo :we 1G i I r . ' OT T14 WA ' ST I' I 648.2 /° I ' I 646.9 I 1 P6 /7 (PARKING . /9"� \ qT I 1 l i •' 1 I v \ I 20 33 25 C( �r P7 WALLS 36 I RKING 849./ o 1 25 27 I k1 r W, -t� _ � N °S 3/ :3/ 32 3 2/ I I - - GJa Gl9 i fS ��� ' M 1(;H I(tyA N /(/P7l16� 3!t� A 2 16 S , 7 e45.4 24 e4e.e r ' � I �t I j o 645.1 �l \ ,B 45.7 /3 I i5 15 850.6 ,. �� 111 •1 •. ' Rr"' as jw� is ate''�s3 f.�'7 3 ::�� ;,'''''1, {� •. ,�,•,f,,,,..��e.n2pY.�w.' luw vs `•w.., w.Yv�;'. 'r _ aW'Y.�,. � ..�"' 3 B.`"^`�:�•�i ,^k�: t - _ � +s. '•} ,A{+_Tr.X,� '. ��pw�a! f,�•� a r�•�,t �ti��>Lii it �5c�-. ;;r �3. ,w+.� FOA �""�"y.• Z.Zl�..eba.�w..4+�_�:^t.'�Gy.w -�.a....ssle»_ ..._ �«.+.-.....v..�.a:+ww�:+r... ....�_..... �e i..F w.�+ s � ..- �"eT( � �.�rr.�wwn�. .�.re.rr..awrw.n;: —•��.ti' r }:r � � a 11•"Va 9.._- i s. Lam, sa:r � �T-',s..._—+•'... Sth' .«N..r .Mtr. y -+k• N•' .+--..�+��`'.. t '> +s•.1-r +u� .r.+ 4, N,S �-�t .L y,t s -t �cyy ����#5��•,�-r°� �l''^ca""i T3`��'`.� .R'n ^ 's"v'�a'M+"{'"tY` F's .�`x fi�+:...r,'� '--s .°`i y' y4't,. -r t-'r'-Y. •,• 4'.• 'W ,.,, f �+ a ...-�" �.�,r T.+ „h«•f.�..,t .�e.3��. +,7•m P [ ,y +�JAy^yf 1"'s,�r. AC�. a,'�.ba�+s^,� ,r ,..i.._<�.».. •.;..r H: ' .""%:"w'1ww.a.-=...-<•n,L 4"�1i+t-�,oaf.?-:'.J'b�3'"� r.s'�'.�..,�'fiv,:Ya�#Y:«.."'?x" 1K .'++i-�ok{%s::1 .a.Rx��3> I",Zk110rffV;[- . . WAT92SU GH T BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO October 16, 2000 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development ti FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 371-6034 RE: 605 East Michigan Avenue Request by Matthew K. Elliott, 2461 Emerald Lake Drive, East Lansing, Michigan, to rezone the property from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. The applicant proposes to convert the structure's first floor to accommodate a tenant for retail space such as an office, restaurant and/or gallery. The applicant also proposes to convert the second floor to a loft apartment. SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric No objections to the rezoning. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water No objection to request. Owner or owner's consultants should review existing water service to confirm if existing service is adequate for new use. If fire service will be required, a positive flow model will be required. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Steam BWL steam service exists at this location. Contact Person: John Hundt 371-6497 STREET LIGHTING No conflicts with rezoning. Existing historic lighting is in the street right-of- way. Contact Person: Roger Adsit 371-6085 Cell Phone 242-5175 10-2000-11.doc TOTAL P.01 vP sIN *INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE* CITY OF LANSING PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT -higon 1\venue • Lansing, X'' -'_' • -1 48 -445 • F\X.(5 =^' = CHIGP David C. Hollister, Mayor TO: Doris Witherspoon D r=D FROM: Daniel E. Danke, Public service DATE: October 9 , 2000 RE : Z-13-2000 ,he Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed re- zoning request . The applicant should also made aware of the =ollowing: 1 . If a restaurant is to be constructed in the building, a - need to be installed. The Public Service grease trap will site plan be submitted Department will require that a providing the sizing calculations and location of the grease trap. 2 . The applicant should consider addressing any separation of the buildings internal storm and sanitary piping into two systems . The Lansing cS0 program has sewer separation in Michigan Avenue scheduled to begin in 2004 . SLU-15-2000 1205 East Saginaw Church in the "D-1" Professional Office District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: All Nations Christian Ministries P.O. Box 16335 Lansing, MI 48901-6335 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: American Cancer Society EXISTING ZONING: Mixed Zoning PROPOSED ZONING: No Change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Irregular shaped z18,000 ft' SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential/Industrial S: Residential/Office E: Office W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "B" Res.P'H" Light Industrial S: "D-1" Professional Offc./"C" Res. E: "G-1" Business District/"J" Parking W: "G-1" Business District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential/commercial. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant, All Nations Christian Ministries is requesting a Special Land Use permit to allow a church to occupy the American Cancer Society building at 1205 E. Saginaw. The church is proposed to utilize 1,785 square feet for the main sanctuary with an anticipated occupancy of 119 persons. The property consists of multiple zoning districts but primarily in the "D-1" SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw Church in "D-1" Professional Office District Pam Professional Office District. A church is allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District with an SLU permit if granted by City Council. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: No response received yet. Assessors: The ministry does not have any ownership interest in these parcels at present. They have an option to purchase. If a request for exemption for the year 2001 is to be approved, must be owned and occupied for church purposes before 12/31/00. AT&T: No response received yet. BWL: See attached. Building Safety: This change of occupancy requires a new certificate of occupancy for a change in use group. The applicant must file for a building permit to authorize alterations in the building and to accommodate the new use. City Attorney: No response received yet. Code Compliance: Please notify this office of any site requirements which are approved by City Council. Consumers Power: No response received yet. Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: Must meet current codes for change of occupancy. Eastside Neighborhood Org.: No response received yet. North Lansing Community Assn.: No response received yet. Oak Park Neighborhood Assn.: No response received yet. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw Church in "D-1" Professional Office District Page 3 Northtown Neighborhood Assn.: No response received yet. Parks&Rec: Does not impact park operations. No comments. Police Dept: No response received yet. Public Service: No objection to the proposed SLU-15-2000. Trans. Engr.: No response received yet. BACKGROUND All Nations Christian Ministries (ANCC) and all of its ancillary functions plan to convert the American Cancer Society building at 1205 E. Saginaw to operate a church. ANCC is a multi-ethnic/multi-economic ministry reaching out to persons of every race and economic status. The proposed main sanctuary would be approximately 1,785 square feet. The worship services and office hours will be: Sunday morning 10:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Worship Service Tuesday night 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Language classes Wednesday night 6.30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Bible study Monday-Friday 8:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office hours Also, ANCC plans to share their facility with a non-profit new church planting organization, New Churches of Christ Evangelism. The operating hours will parallel with those of ANCC. The church plans to perform all services within the sanctuary. There are no plans to conduct activities outside of the building. It is our understanding that the all doors will be kept closed during church operations to avoid any noise conflicts. Also, ANCC intends to make the facility available to neighborhood watches/ organizations and non-profits for their events. (See attachment). The primary zoning of the property is "D-1" Professional Office District. A church is a use allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District with a Special Land Use permit. ANALYSIS: Evaluation Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows. SLU-15-2000 1205 E. Saginaw Church in "D-1" Professional Office District Page 4 1. COMPATIBILITY WITH USE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES The adjacent properties are essentially a mix of residential, commercial and industrial. There are residential and industrial land uses to the north; residential and office to the south; office is located to the east and commercial to the west of the subject property. The proposed church would be compatible with the surrounding mixed uses. Churches are a use permitted in the "D-1" Professional Office District with a special land use permit. 2. CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The area consists of a mix of land uses and zoning. The character of the area is primarily a mixed with residential, office commercial and industrial. The proposed church use will not change the mixed use character of the area. 3. INTERFERENCE WITH GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES The proposed church should not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. IMPROVEMENT TO PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA The site of the proposed church will have no negative impact on the surrounding area in general. The use of the building for a church will be an improvement to the surrounding area. Generally, churches in residential neighborhoods add stability to a neighborhood. S. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no adverse environmental impacts anticipated with All Nations Christian Ministries locating at this site. 6. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES The potential impact on utilities may be minor, if any. Therefore, no adverse impacts associated with public services is anticipated. 7. IMPACT ON UTILITIES There should be no excessive impact on utilities since there are existing or proposed public services and facilities. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw Church in "D-1" Professional Office District Page 5 8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential/commercial use. A church is a use permitted with a special land use permit. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 1260.04(b) of the Zoning Code allows churches in the "D-1" Professional Office District to be located on a lot which abuts a collector, principal arterial or minor arterial. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. OTHER There are two driveway approaches onto the site. The most easterly driveway approach on this site leads to a small parking area only. Therefore, this is the entrance and exit. The most westerly driveway has a 40' wide approach off of Saginaw Street, a principal arterial street handling several thousand vehicles a day; it is approximately 850' east of the Pennsylvania/Saginaw intersection. There is a 22' wide driveway in the rear exiting onto a residential area, May Street. It is suggested that the 40' wide westerly driveway approach be improved to accommodate cars entering and exiting the site as opposed to entering or exiting from May Street. Also, additional landscaping around the perimeter of the site should be provided. There were concerns expressed regarding emergency exits for the church. All emergency exit issues will be addressed by the City of Lansing Building and Safety Department. Section 1284.13(b)(1)of the Zoning Code requires churches to provide one on-site parking space for each three seats or six linear feet of pew space. Based on the number of seats, the church is required to have approximately 40 parking spaces. According to the site plan submitted, there are fifty-eight (58) parking spaces on site. It should be noted that the American Cancer Society is also a non-profit organization exempted from the tax roll. See attached letter from the American Cancer Society. SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw Church in "D-1" Professional Office District Page 6 SUMMARY The proposed special land use is designed to be constructed, and operated in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property. The proposed special land should not have any negative impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons or property through excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. The proposed special land use can be adequately served by public services and facilities. The proposed special land use should not place any additional demands on public services and facilities. The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Northeast Comprehensive Plan. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit with the following conditions- 1. The driveway approach to the west be improved to accommodate incoming and outgoing traffic and encourage parishioners to use Saginaw Street, prohibiting the use of May Street. 2. Additional landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the site. 3. Visibility to and from the site is not obstructed by plantings or any other amenities. 111 1 .• . +w- 4 ;v,,,�Yi`I'f�'f.fj+'i�•'•�'sL••1��r��k�:7�.,ti+ �..��tr�:4���t�'� �•'7L�.li����Y:3 r Ht� 'Ot l!.' tj!'_ .. C 1 ! .3'jl y 1$� r�� •'���FaJ� 1} �x� al 14 i 4.. K Y�1>Z.wF •.^'v- •-ham:.� �^�. '_k.: -�.:�j�,C...��.�v.s�...f�,y..�,:'�. �'�s',-•kc •.K.7. .�s^' ..�.. - 111 1 .• . F � � a ..` •a t`� �� w i.` ,+� • `N 111 ' ..s u r...�.��� ��. � '.'1 'r,n,.,,� < s�L Ft J�-r��j � a•:ss^�ie""ffby:���� •��� ^ 11 .. . �saaA�, r 1 •t'1'i�y.. ,. 'u � •Mw „i`.€ �..�M q^s_a h aioli�.Ya. q' _`a� f E '•b*•'r�.a..h=1O1�•�! n4 Y '.' �t� N'•"Ri � �. ,�4 .•tom .' f ji' �'. ' aYR.LzfiRaF�it>.?�i.."-�J:r�Z^1�cYr.••k�'}aP�� ♦1 :11 �a �i�7{ �aJ�' RiR, �"ri •�3 •�7�""j�i.A��jv •fir •a+ ���a'4• � f. 7• .at . r r•zc� - t3, '. ��""r�- �'�•` .,?Zal �•},�'�'-•E' r`Sc3c• •' ;c Y rtj, "J � � Ny�".r d. w; e4y�L�t7YJ9iJ"��: ,f ' - - ter?•.; yJ ;x-'$t fib.✓ -,�'� ?.t •h. r� i�a'S�`�y, � ^L'iy,%�en�e��#}� :_ f`Y�' .Y r�s�y?�.� ,.,�,Fy '�.a`�$.P,+►3�~ X. �',,;t` rt'.r}:^s 'a'-`r .`•�'Z�"i'.s,<:. #�.,w,rc-w'"' r','3..w.4;i. `�1 SLU-15-2000, 1205 E. Saginaw Church in the "D-1" Pi-of. Ofic. Dist NORTH v cn 0 I a o Ao Q 49 4 E1 4.7\ 4 6w I � � I //a. J! 1.I.73 97Z zz' /131 N 130 s /07 //o!L i//7 J11 MAY 377- 90/ ST. � • " ftcfb ti ., Iso4 iios O.Y 1104, II O Z. la7.t i 7 Z137- lee t' 11 211 " 6 V 1 ` ti j\Jv . ry Ik 12 13 g 1 14 1 5 n -- 4fi- 43 44 45 271 M n\i . I2 Q 13 m, 1 TAT ►. /3�! I 1p 132.6 Ail 4 10 1 I +� ^ _ 01 13 7 01 ? \ 031 V. In o v 1 6 13.7' L�,Y� r 'r e 6 2Z -- * ^ a 0 Il 5 W 35 ^ W 35 EI 2 32 33 34 3�k� ♦ ° n\ Q\ `�• Go 31. /rr.vd' /C/9 1301 I1'ol �10 1J�1 SAGINAW qo1 51 . oz /o/I. //oc—T /I/o�q/a /N 1:4 // 0 //1V /Jre �- .- - , M pr C r3S I I 10 9 I �6 7 6 5 4 I 3 2 I I ! TJ _ 1 x11 8 10 I1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 czarzricAT[ or suRVEy For, Airerican Gincer Society 1205 F. Saginav Lansintj, flichigAn Legal Description& The West 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, r.C. Taylor's Replat of Della Subdivision; also commencing at the SE corner of Lot 151 James Seynour'a Subdivision, thence Wes: 150 feet, thence North 130 feet, thence East 27.7 feet; thence North 51.28 feet: thence Fast 122.3 feet; thence South 161.07 feet to beginning; ALSO coff..wcing 112.25 feet South of the interaection of the Eaat line of Lot 15 and the South line of May Street: thence Saith 133.63 feet; thence neat 122.3 feet; thence South 24.34 feet; thence Nest 22 feet; thence North 270 feet; thence East 22 feet; thence South 112.25 feet; thence Fast 122.3 feet to beginning, James Seymour's Subdivision, of a part of Section 10, T4N, RN, City of La1L41T, Ingham County, Michigan. MAY STREET STREET LINE 4EAA I SOUTH LWF MAY ST. TO CLEVCLAH GO- d n o� W C ° V V uI "0 ■I[AST 1[2.3' aaS� —roe o . � �.n r r4iOJ5 0 ^ . }� Q I „5 IE VV4CI I 'l m m fro n � J o a �e WEST 122.3' ddi .. ah V I t7aST 12[.31 KS ra 2L0' zn \�i EAST V C O 33'_ l,,n y o `lJ(n try \ � LOT Al BLOCK MI n F.C.TAYLORS REPLAY OF DELLS SUE n J 0 io SE aY COR. I � STREET LE -WEST IS0.0'LOT[IS tS' TO CLEVELAND STREET tTs• a round Property Corner SAGINAW STREET o sat Property corner A SET Px KM We hereby certify that we have ■urveyed the property herein describedy that the i buildings and isproverests ara located on the property as shown and are entirely within the property lines; and that there are no visible anoroaehmtnta 'upon the above described property, except as shown hereon. 2300 North Grand River Avenue Ad N. white, P.E. i R.L.S. Lansing, Michigan 48906 Survey No. 918755 Phone: 517 AC 321-7111 Data& July 31, 1991 ji . zu ieeL; tnence East 122 . 3 feet; thence South 181 . 07yfeet tot:--beginning; Also commencing 112 , 25 feet South of the intersection of the East line of Lot 15 and the South line of May Street; thence South 133 . 63 feet; thence West 122 . 3 feet; thence SUULh 24 . 34 feet; thence West 22 feet; Lhence Nor. Lh 270 feel. ; I hFnwe fast 72 foe(. ; 111011Cr Seulh 112 . 25 LeeL; Lhence EasL 122 . 3 feet Lo beginning, James Seymour' s Subdivision of a part of Section 10, T4N, R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. EAST i1iIA Y S rIZE F T MAY STREET LINE 22' N BV,Lp1NG N I (V N Z S J h _J O �O CD Io EAST 122.3 49.3' P.0.8. N x - - �- I 0 o z 0 oy '� Z o o 00 o j JI ~ � N I b I"=6 0' N O • � ti N /Lz.3' 22' WESco 26.94' CD EAST z 10 S 1 27.7' °v5 3.7's 0n 0% P 3,300, p aJ 25 O 7'WA = N STORY a IL�coe,e i ! 9.3 0 40' p'SR1CK SLOG Z Z h 5'WALK O15 H/T a) J F� N PARK/NG I I RET. STREET LINE WA$EST a 150.00' 25' c `ON` SAGINAW STf?EET 5�ALK hereby certify that we have surveyed the WALK improvements as shown are entirely within rthe rproperty nlines; and�that tthere the bare dnogs Lble encroachments upon the above described property, except as shown hereon. This document was performed for mortgage purposes only. Dimensions from boundary !s to improvements are approximate and should not be used to establish property lines. :es, (if any) plotted on property lines are intended to indicate that these fences are Ir near the boundary lines of this parcel. A certified boundar.v giiri.n., a.., ratelv dp.fino Ftio i ... -- E.A T 32,0O' EAST 132-30' I I I I I � I I �O I I I I 13.Od w3T "'•` SITE PLAN ALL NATIONS CHR.ISTIAN CHURCH E.asY NORTH ST.T C 4. 99.00 TOTS-SPACES 50 fa ADA1 $ I OEM I I $ I I � I I [X16TN6 „,� BR1GK dl{DMb 4�� I � I I I I I rL"dr t90JPd SA6,IN^1^i STREET C,.� I � REFER TO AI DRESSING DRESSING ROOM ROOM WARMING KITCHEN BAPTISTRY RAMP PLATFORM SEATING IZO O W 1 NDOI-I TABLE/ NURSERY CHAIR FOYER STG RR GLSRM/ OFF ICE GLSRM/ OFFICE RR E EL CLASSROOM/ CLASSROOM/ OFFICE OFFICE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ALL NATION5 6HRI5TIAN CHURCH REFER TO AI NORTH 2 PAESEr�f ww^^'^�' Wr1Pl lgG4`nT1Q. G✓.59.:a�0'V Glw5b10QV On'�GC cLw�6fiDdV OIFK! OLF�C.L cuvytoory OFF+GC w.iwreruwce .+ni�rEniwGe c�.ssaaov On•�GE K�TLMEu 6M.YST GLw}ygxV �FFICZ KCY orny��y Glw'fiQoO�'�/ - cE dY1C! IIwTPRk+1 GL3!}Iadv O'­E 'JfJ�YY.S Ib.Od1 l4T' TABLFJ Gws foYEN STO clSRrV GFFIGE C G�w3flt0 0 .Y U..w...G.i• pqy OF1'Y.0 a��G! GL,9�SROd✓ I''[CT�Md efTAY Pad+ TRAY 'm c4-.6 adV MAIN LE%/EL FLOORL PAN GInSGROP'./ oT c! ALL NATIONS GHRISTIAN GHURGH Norzr„ bc.�e afF�K.!�v Eart0.Y O�n -7 f � as �GT6 ASeoGlatee. Inc. Ar•wl�w.,a F5/v.e.� LIPS LEVEL Al Petition for Special Land Use Attachment for#3 Specific Background Information: This Petition for Special Land Use is requested for property located at 1205 East Saginaw Street, Lansing, Michigan. Upon approval of this proposal we intend to convert the usage of what is now known as the American Cancer Society to operate our Church, All Nations Christian Ministries and all of its ancillary functions. The existing Saginaw Street facility consists of 18,000 square feet, with approximately 8,000 square feet of warehouse space of which some has been converted into office space. Upon approval, the area that currently exists as office space will be converted to a worship area and used as our main sanctuary. The area we intend to use for the main sanctuary is now approximately 1,224 square feet. If the Petition is approved, we intend to expand the area to approximately 1,785 square feet. (an architectural drawing is available.) By expanding the square footage of the area designated as a main sanctuary, the seating capacity would then seat approximately 119 people, allowing one person per fifteen square feet. As the number of people exceed the proposed seating capacity, we visualize either expanding or adding a second worship service. Currently, our membership averages from 45 to 40 adult and teen worshipers per Sunday along with 10-15 children who attend either the nursery, first to six grade classes or junior high classes. Adequate parking facilities exist to facilitate this change in compliance with parking ordinances. Parking areas are located both on the front of the building facing Saginaw Street, (approximately 15 - 18 spaces)and on the west side of the building, (approximately 40-50 spaces). ANCC's worship services and office hours are as follows: Sunday Morning 10:30 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m Worship Service Tuesday Night 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Language Classes Wednesday Night 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Bible Study Office Hours 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday In addition to the above referenced services, the building will be in use for other special events as need or circumstances arise, such as Annual Celebration Sundays, funeral services, Christmas programs, New Year's Eve services, Good Friday service, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Community Thanksgiving banquets, Fall Festivals, Church picnics, Annual Youth Programs, Monthly Business Meetings and bi-yearly Musical events. All Nations Christian Ministries sees itself as a multi-ethnic/multi-economic ministry reaching out to persons of every race and economic status. We endeavor to and look forward to working with the existing neighborhood associations, i.e. North Lansing Community Association, Northtown Association, Eastside Neighborhood Organization and any others in the area. We intend to make the facilities available to non-profit organizations for events they may want to host, if time and space allow. Ideally, we would like to co-host some neighborhood events, such as Thanksgiving and/or Christmas banquets for less fortunate members of the community ANCC will also share the facility with a non-profit new church planting organization,New Churches of Christ Evangelism. Their operating hours will parallel those of ANCC. All Nations Christian Ministries respectfully submits this Petition for Special Land Use to operate our worship facility. We also appreciate and respect the needs of our existing neighbors and endeavor to pursue our vision with the least amount of distraction to their current everyday way of life. We are respectful of the various noise,parking and sign ordinances that may exist. We endeavor to become as asset to the surrounding community and a valuable resource to its residents. Copies of Permits (Attached, if any) Approvals (Attached, if any) Program Information (See Background Information above) AMERI� CANCER S0C1E1Y0 Hr-p-e.?rorss. -►lsw s. O.LAT LAKW...O 1310M.- November 8, 2000 Ms. Doris Witherspoon Department of Planning&Zoning City of Lansing VIA FACSIMILE Dear Ms. Witherspoon: It has been communicated to me that the Planning&Zoning Board has requested information regarding the staffing in our Headquarters facility at 1205 E. Saginaw Street; Lansing and the hours worked. There are about 67 regular Headquarters staff, plus another fifteen to twenty temporary staff. Because of the support function of our Headquarters staff, our staff travel to other elements of the Division and to communities, and there are probably 45 to 50 regular staff and 5 to 6 temporary staff present during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday). From 5 p.m, until 11 p-m. on most weeknights, 10 to 12 of our employees are working in the facility with a like amount working on Saturday mornings and Sunday mornings and/or afternoons. In addition to our employees, the Great Lakes Division Headquarters is a place for our staff throughout Michigan and Indiana to meet, plus our partners in cancer control (volunteers and other health agencies) use our facility. An average of one to two meetings par week are held in this building. Attendance can be as large as 40 persons, usually averaging 5 to 10 non-Headquarters personnel. We also have volunteers and community-service referrals who work for the Division. An average of 1 volunteer and/or community service referrals is working every weekday. I hope this satisfies the Board's need for information. If you require additional data, please contact me. a y, Contompas" director of Adminis on Cc: Douglas Dancer, CI3 Richard Ellis-Martin Cliftine Bunkley, Liberty Real Estate SerAm the people of Mkhlgan and Indiana 1,2nr rna Cnrwnnw t nn-lna.Mkhloan 4e906 (517)371.2920 (517)371.260S(W[ TOTAL P.01 0 WATHREU GHT BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO November 1 ,2000 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary 0- (517) 371-6034 RE: 1205 East Saginaw Request by All National Christian Ministries for a Special Land Use permit to allow a church to occupy the American Cancer Society Building. The church is proposed to utilize 1,785 square feet for the main sanctuary with an anticipated occupancy of 119 persons. The property consists of multiple zoning districts but primarily in the "D-1" Professional Office District. A church is allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District with a S.LU permit if granted by City Council. SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric No objections to the use of the former American Cancer Society Building ' as a church. Bob Strobel 371-6082 Contact Person: Water No comment on land use permit. 371_6494 Contact Person: Terry Robison 11•2000-02doe TOTAL P.01 APPROVED AS PRINTED JANUARY 9, 2001. Draft to Clerk 01052000 Approved 01092001 To Clerk 01122001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers r Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, December 5, 2000 u' 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7.-03 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Smith, Patrick, Ruge, Foster. One vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Nischan C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager; Sue Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator; Bill Rieske, Principal Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A. LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road, Lots 161, 162, 163 Pleasant Grove Subdivision Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request by Phillip and Phyllis Landon who currently own a lot that is 120 feet wide, rectangular in shape, with 25,440 sq ft area. They would like to split it to create two parcels, one 75.3 feet wide and the other 44.7 feet wide. Both would be 212 ft deep. This lot division does not conform to the standards of the ordinance in two respects. One, neither of the created parcels would meet the required 1-2.5 width-to-depth ratio. The parcel that is shown in the report as parcel "B", the one that is 44.7 feet, its width does not comply with the required 60-ft minimum width for lots. There is a recommendation in the staff report; we are prepared to give that tonight. Mr. Ruff said this property is made up of three platted lots, combined at a later date for the applicant. He now wants to split off one of the lots, plus a few extra feet to make a buildable lot and maintain his existing structure PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 2 and garage on the remainder of the lot. They would like the lot to be a buildable lot. The staff report notes that 53 percent of the lots on the street in the same block are approximately 40 ft wide, so this is not out of character with the surrounding area. The three lots that Mr. Ruff referred to are platted at 40 feet wide. PHILLIP LANDON, OWNER, 4707 HUGHES ROAD. We are just trying to see if you are going to approve this. A friend of mine would like to buy the lot and put a small house on it. He would like to live in that area. He was a builder here in Lansing for many years who still has his license although he is retired and in Arizona right now. He would like to make a permanent small home beside us. He would be a credit to the neighborhood. Mr. Ruff said that both of these hearings are relatively simple so that we should be able to deal with them this evening, either at the recess in Committee or in the Committee of the Whole. Ms. Keene said we would take this matter up at the recess and make a determination shortly. A. Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a rezoning request by Gordon Long, which is part of the overall Holiday Inn Complex. A diagram in the packet illustrates the exact parcel that is the subject of this request. The request is to rezone from "A" Residential to "J" Parking District. The rezoning would provide 82 parking spaces needed for the development which as proposed is deficient in parking. There were also two previous rezoning requests for additional parking on this same project. This proposed rezoning would consume the last residential lot on that street. Currently there is a vacant single family home on this parcel. Therefore, this would literally consume the entire Just-A-Mere Avenue until it dead ends. If this rezoning is not approved, there would be one residential parcel left at the end of that street. It would be surrounded by multiple family to the west and the Holiday Inn development to the east. Mr. Ruge asked what kind of buffering is required between the apartment buildings and the parking lots. Ms. Stachowiak said that we really have not gotten involved in that right now; that is a site plan issue to be taken up at the time of site plan review. Mr. Ruge said there was another parking lot just east of there. Ms. Stachowiak said they have not gone through the site plan review stage yet, they are still in the planning phases. Mr. Ruff had discussions with the applicant a long time ago. We basically informed the applicant that a significant buffer must be provided, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 3 something that can be done in a couple of ways. The closer the parking is to the property line, the more significant the buffer needs to be to help avoid noise problems and view problems. Then, in the other area, we also tried to look at larger green space areas and the flow of green space throughout the project and incorporating the buffer areas for larger green space areas. That is part of the proposal, it just has not been designed fully. Mr. Ruge asked if part of the green space would be berms to block headlights. Mr. Ruff said depending upon the drainage situation, it could be berms, plantings or walls. It could involve a number of elements. Many things will have to be engineered as part of the engineering plan. Mr. Ruge's other concern was Mr. Berridge's suggestion that this part of Just-A-Mere be vacated. That is a good idea. There is no reason for the City to maintain that street and plow it when only the convention center is going to be using it. Mr. Ruff said that we have discussed that matter, and several issues exist. Georgia still connects with Just-A-Mere, but we are looking at the whole idea. It will probably come before you in the future. Mr. Ruge said that when we discussed rezoning some of these residential properties for parking, the existing houses should not have to deal with all the traffic that will be generated by this development. In our recommendation, we recommended that Georgia be closed off anyway. Ms. Foster asked about the on-site storm water management and how they are planning on handling storm water? Mr. Ruff said we do not yet have an engineering plan for that. We have tried to make sure that there is enough green space to help provide for storm water handling. Some of the green space is dedicated over a sewer easement area. At the east end of the green space north of the suites off Willoughby, you will see an area that is dotted in. I think that is where they want to have storm detention towards Cedar and then follow a green space pattern through the development. Ms. Foster asked if it is just grass. Mr. Ruff does not have the plan yet. Ms. Foster asked if it was possible to use bioswales in the parking lots to maintain water on site rather than carrying it to another site. Mr. Ruff said a lot of this depends on the existing grades. We will be looking at these issues in the engineering plan. This is more of a layout plan at present. Mr. Ruge said the development is short on parking. Ms. Stachowiak said that is correct; this rezoning request would help their situation. Next Thursday, they are going to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a variance from some of the parking requirements. They actually have a very good case, because they have provided figures that show that they are not going to have a full hotel and a full convention center simultaneously. It is more likely that the people who are occupying the hotel would be using the convention center at the same time. Furthermore, the office building would generally have 9 a.m.-5 p.m. hours. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 4 There are different peak hour demands for these different uses contained within the development. That is the case that they are taking to the Board of Zoning Appeals next week. No one was present to represent the applicant. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District and referred the case to the Committee of the Whole. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. At this point, discussion took place regarding separate meetings for the Urban Development and the Zoning and Ordinance Committees or a joint meeting as Committee of the Whole to consider the matters simultaneously. The consensus was that Committee of the Whole would be best. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole. Voice Vote, carried; unanimous. A. Meeting of Committee of the Whole Mr. Frederick called the Committee of the Whole to order. 1. LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road, Lots 161, 162, 163 Pleasant Grove Subdivision Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. The recommendation is to approve the variance request for both parcels to exceed the maximum width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5 and for the proposed parcel "B" to be less than the minimum width of 60 feet. Mr. Frederick asked about the original platting of this subdivision. From the map, it appears most of these properties were platted very deep to begin with and I don't see how anybody could do anything without being in violation of the width-to-depth ratio. Ms. Stachowiak said I do not think there is a single lot in this section of Hughes Road that complies with the width-to-depth ratio. This would not at all be out of character. Mr. Frederick asked when this particular subdivision was platted. Ms. Stachowiak did not know. Mr. Ruff asked Mr. Landon when his house was built; Mr. Landon said around 1950. Mr. Ruff said probably the subdivision was platted around 1950, before it was annexed into the city. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 5 Ms. Patrick asked, when the ordinance was passed to set 60 feet of frontage, was that an incentive to increase the buildability of lots? Mr. Ruff said the 60 x 100 minimum lot size is in the subdivision regulations nowadays to provide guidance for the development of subdivisions. It is a city regulation. The state does have regulations on lot width-to-depth, 1:3, in the Land Division Control Act. We had a couple of options in this situation. If Mr. Landon divided it right on the plat line, he would not be before you. He could have split it on the plat line, because that is how it was approved as a plat. In this situation, since he was dividing it beyond that and not meeting the 60 ft, we are bringing it to you to make sure that a potential buyer would not have any problems either. The 60 x 100 ratio is geared to the platting of new properties, new lots, and new subdivisions. Also, it helps in situations where people want to split off much smaller pieces. We have a number of those downtown, where a 66x136 foot lot was divided three times to produce some 66x66 foot lots or 33x66 foot lots. They are very small and do not provide enough yard area for a family, so it allows us an opportunity to review those cases and make a decision on them. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road, Lots 161, 162, 163 Pleasant Grove Subdivision. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road, Lots 161, 1621 163 Pleasant Grove Subdivision was recommended to be APPROVED. 2. Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, which is also being recommended for approval. Staff is of the opinion that this would provide a good use for this property as part of the overall development rather than leaving it residential backing up to the parking at the Holiday Inn Convention Center. Landscaping and other matters will be addressed during site plan review. Ms. Foster requested clarification of the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Ruff said that they did a parking demand study based upon the multiple uses within the complex, and the parking that they are going to provide will exceed the number that the parking study stated as a maximum. So the 82 would be above what the study says they would need. They are still short of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 6 code requirement, but it does exceed the maximum as determined by the consultant firm. Ms. Foster asked by how much does it exceed it? Mr. Ruff said they are a couple hundred over the number that the parking study gave. Ms. Foster said so they may not even need this parking lot? Mr. Ruff said this will help them meet the demand for close-in parking. Everybody wants to be as close to a facility as possible. Also, if we need to make adjustments in the site plan, it allows us to juggle 10 or 20 parking spaces here or there for accommodating storm water retention. Ms. Foster said the parking lot right next door has no green space except for one tiny little island. Could that parking space be broken up to add trees? Mr. Ruff said one of the good things about their exceeding the number determined by their parking study is that we can reserve some parking spaces for green space, green strips, and other things. We will be looking into all that in site plan review. Mr. Ruge said, along those same lines, maybe we should aim for the minimum amount of parking spaces as determined by the consultants so that we can have as much green space as possible, and then in the future if they need more, then they could add some instead of doing what they used to do, which is pave everything. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District was recommended to be APPROVED. 3. Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air rights for balconies over South Washington Square Mr. Rieske presented the case. The Committee met on November 28, 2000. We did not have a quorum, but we did have applicants present, so we continued the meeting without reaching a decision or taking official action. This is a request by Ken Stockwell, on behalf of Spirit Partnership, to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 115 and 119 S. Washington Square. The property at 115 is the old building called PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 7 the Barbers in the 70s, and 119 is Sarah's Lunchbox Express. Those two buildings are the ones involved. The applicant is proposing to use the first floor for retail and the second floor for residential use in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant wishes to erect one prefabricated rod-iron tubular balcony, approximately 10 ft 8 in x 4 ft on the second floor on 115 and the same kind of balcony, 7 ft 8 in x 4 ft, two of these, on 119. They would project 4 ft over the right-of-way. They would be approximately 10 ft above the sidewalk, which meets the minimum requirements of the Transportation Division. The Comprehensive Plan for the area recommends retail on the first floor and residential on the upper levels. The plan also recommends that future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown area. The fact that this is a plan recommendation makes historic preservation an issue in this case. This is not located in an existing historic district. Early commercial buildings did have retail on the first level and residential on the upper levels. In Lansing's early commercial buildings, there were no balconies, so the exterior changes would be inconsistent with the past. Proposed changes would include removal of nonhistoric facades which were installed for the Barber's Building at 115 and the installation of French doors and balconies. Those will result in the removal of historic materials. That is also the case at 119. The staff recommends denial based on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the issue of pedestrian safety. The applicant, who was present at the previous meeting, discussed his plans for the project. He would like to include balconies wherever feasible on this and other projects. He feels potential loft occupants would want the balcony or deck space. He intends to remove the nonoriginal siding covering the detailing at the Barber's Building at 115. He sees balconies as a safety factor for residents as an alternative to second story egress. His downtown investments are for the long term. Marchelle Smith of the Economic Development Corporation, who was also in attendance at that meeting, noted that the project is proposed for EDC financing and recommended approval. The Urban Development Committee tabled the item. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 8 The Public Service Dept. returned a referral stating that they will require access to the areas beneath the balconies for future construction and maintenance activities. They have concerns about pedestrian safety. The Development Division returned a referral with no comment. In case there is not concurrence by the Committee with the staff recommendation, staff put together a suggested set of conditions if the Committee should recommend approval. Both Mr. Stockwell and Ms. Smith are in attendance tonight in the audience. Mr. Ruff reviewed a previous case in the second block of S. Washington Square that the Board acted on. Possible conditions have been prepared with the idea of putting the building facade in a historical framework and adding a balcony. It would be desirable to retain the window pattern and storefront elements. Pedestrian safety is a concern. The Law Office has indicated that these balconies should be approved for a license versus an easement, so that conditions can be attached to the license, and also in the event of misuse, the City could require the balconies to be removed. Ms. Patrick said, speaking for herself, the plan originally was for the Committee to look at and evaluate the impact on the building facade before a second application was filed. Conditions passed with the first case were that it had to be substantially adjusted. We would want to consider the historic preservation issue and want to move cautiously. Mr. Smith said, since that meeting, the December 4th issue of The New Yorker magazine published an interesting article dealing with the crumbling skyline of New York City, more specifically, the facades of many taller buildings which date from this same time period. The real dangers to passersby are from facade pieces breaking off and falling to the sidewalk. Mr. Smith questioned less the dangers presented by balconies and more the potentially deteriorated conditions of the facades themselves. Mr. Smith would be concerned with approving balconies until we had more information about the structural qualities of the facades to support the balconies. Caution may be due; however, since this is not a historical district, and there are many other aspects of these buildings that are not historical in character--signage would be one example--in many ways it comes back to an issue of taste and judgment. We have not had an opportunity to see how the first one plays out or to see if the facades are structurally sound. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 9 Mr. Ruff said the Building Safety Office, in the permit process, will require massive beams to tie the floor through the bearing wall and into the building for structural soundness from an engineering standpoint. Sealed drawings are required. Mr. Smith said he was concerned with facades, not only where the balcony attaches, but also with the overall facade, and particularly those which have been covered over time. Mr. Ruge asked for a photograph of the rod-iron structures. Ms. Keene supported the concept of having balconies because they are consistent with the plan and our objective of having residential combined with retail for a more active downtown. She understands the concern about seeing how the first one is going to be, but we don't know when that is going to happen and if it would be representative. She asked about liability insurance and who would be required to have the insurance. Mr. Stockwell said the units are projected to be rentals. Occupants must carry a certain amount of insurance in a policy before rental commences. We also have our own insurance, so there are two layers of insurance there. Mr. Ruge asked how this would be enforced. Is the license reviewed annually? Mr. Ruff said it could be written into the license. Mr. Ruge said conditions for this application should be similar to the conditions for the previously approved application. Mr. Rieske said these conditions were adapted from the previous set of conditions. We took into account what was proposed in the past as a set of conditions. They are not identical. Ms. Keene emphasized that she did have concerns because she did not know what a prefabricated rod-iron structure looks like. She wanted it to look like what we envisoned for the last project. Ms. Foster commented regarding the second suggested condition concerning fenestration and the preservation of the original door and window openings. The dimensions would be changed. Can we recommend preserving the character of the fenestration in the new window opening, rather than just the dimension? Mr. Smith said on the first floor levels much of the treatment of windows, casings and door framing is not in character with the building. If we are going to put something back in character, we are only half-way doing it if we are talking only about the second or third floor and not looking at the first floor. Another striking thing is the typography of the signage. We can regulate the size and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 10 position of the sign, but the type faces of these signs are not in keeping with the historic character or the age of that particular building. If we are trying to achieve an overall effect, we must look at more than just adding balconies. Mr. Ruff said, in historically restoring the building, many things would be done. Last time the Board recommended approval. We wanted to consider that action, and to try to provide a framework to maintain the integrity of the building, so that if the building were to be restored to its original historic character, the framework would be there. Mr. Smith said the balconies visually send the message that residential use is encouraged here. Now the message is that commercial use is wanted here. Part of the plan we developed was to encourage more people to live in downtown. Mr. Frederick said the original purpose of the Downtown Plan was to encourage redevelopment and turn it into a vibrant downtown. To do that, there has to be a mix of commercial and residential. The balconies will add an amenity to the second floor residential. Mr. Frederick was inclined to vote for approval as long as the historical character is maintained rather than historical preservation. It would be extremely difficult to restore the original historical look, but we could maintain a historical character to create a draw to downtown. Mr. Ruge asked if the windows are double-hung or casement; he would like to see what balconies look like before approving them. Could we get some pictures before our next board meeting? Mr. Stockwell said he would like the board to approve the concept; he would be happy to provide photographs and renderings. These are expensive up-scale housing units. Structurally, the balconies will be safe. They are a desired amenity. If we could put decks on, we would. Some of these lofts are not big--we are trying to provide a little more open space. Mr. Smith asked about removing the aluminum storefront from 119 and replacing it and removing the existing door and framing. Would the street level treatment be consistent with the second floor? Mr. Stockwell said he wants the building front to be all brick. Mr. Ruge wanted information about windows, about uniformity and historical sensitivity. Mr. Ruff said three issues are involved here. First, Mr. Stockwell wants to develop lofts. He can do that by right, from a zoning standpoint. Second, he wants to put balconies on some of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 11 units, the Act 285 issue. Third, he has applied to the Economic Development Commission for building facade grant dollars. The only issue we are dealing with here is the balcony issue. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend supporting the concept of lofts and balconies in the downtown area. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: AII; Nays: None; the motion of the Committee to recommend supporting the concept of lofts and balconies in the downtown was APPROVED. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to table Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square, until receipt of further information. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square, was TABLED. 4. Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail This is a request by the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to obtain an easement to reroute the River Trail. Currently, the River Trail lines the east side of the Red Cedar River across from Riverpoint Park. Then it turns eastward inland to utilize Spring Street in front of the S&S property. The proposed trail would extend behind the S&S Die building and connect with the existing asphalt path to the east of the building. The easement would allow a continuous riverfront path, eliminating the detour onto Spring Street. A cyclone fence would be installed along the S&S property, at the expense of the Parks Department. The easement would be donated or conveyed to the City. Staff recommends approval of Act-20-2000, with two conditions: a. That S&S Die Company retain a four-foot-wide setback along the north and west perimeter of the building, and b. That the City pay the cost to erect an eight-foot chain link fence along the easement line. Staff further recommends that alternative fence or screening designs be considered that would provide the desired security with an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The applicant said the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 12 Parks Department will explore measures to improve the aesthetics of the chain link fence. This was discussed at the November 28, 2000 Urban Development Committee meeting that did not have a quorum. Ms. Foster suggested S&S Die not turn its back on the river, but rather take advantage of the river as an amenity. Tanya Moore of the Parks Department said the river bank ranges from two to twelve feet wide, with a drop of six to eight feet. It has vegetation on it. The building is concrete block with no windows on the river side. S&S Die requested that we erect the fence. Mr. Smith said this would be a welcome addition to the trail. Ms. Patrick agreed. Acquisition of river access for the public is a plus; she is in support, as is Mr. Frederick. Mr. Smith suggested S&S Die may be hoping not to make it more of a public open space, but rather to make their space more secure and allow the public to bypass them. Ms. Moore said they offered the easement with that condition. One reason for the fence was to eliminate access to a surface for graffiti, a problem along the trail. This is an industrial operation. S&S owns the two buildings on the south side of Spring Street, as well as the one on the north (where we are gaining the easement) and another building on the opposite corner of River and Spring Street. They often have forklifts or other industrial traffic traveling between each building. They have a liability with them as well as with the City. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to recommend approval of Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail, with an expression of appreciation of their donation and the suggestion that S&S Die might want to consider making space available for their employees to use that space. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge suggested a third condition that an alternative fence or vines be installed to soften the look of the chain link fence. The friendly amendment was acceptable to both the maker of the motion and the second. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail with the following conditions: 1. That S&S Die Company retain a four-foot-wide setback along the north and west perimeter of the building, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 13 2. That the City pay the cost to erect an eight-foot chain link fence along the easement line, and 3. That an alternative fence or vines be installed to soften the look of the chain link fence was recommended to be APPROVED. 5. Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal A preliminary report was submitted in accordance with the Historic District Ordinance for review and recommendations. It was discussed at the Urban Development Committee on November 28, 2000 to carry out this review and develop those recommendations. This is a request by Tom Stanton and Carol Skillings for a single resource local historic district at the Darius B. Moon House, 216 Huron Street. The study consisted of basic archival research and a photographic inventory of the house located at 216 Huron Street. The Preliminary Report was prepared by the Committee members with assistance from Planning Office staff. The Study Committee's preliminary findings are based on research and field work and include: Darius B. Moon was a noted architect-builder who had a significant impact on Lansing's late nineteenth century identity. Darius B. Moon resided in this home for more than forty years. The house is both historically and architecturally significant. • The house was listed in the State Register of Historic Sites on August 6, 1976; was subsequently moved to its current location; and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on November 30, 1982. • There is currently an opportunity for property owners to take advantage of State tax credits for rehabilitation if their properties are located within a local historic district. The Study Committee's preliminary recommendation is for the approval of the request by Carol Skillings and Thomas Stanton for the designation of 216 Huron Street as a single-resource local historic district. The Study Committee also recommends that: • the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation be adopted for the treatment of properties within the proposed district as it relates to exterior work, and the property owners apply for State tax credits available for the rehabilitation of eligible historic resources, if the Darius B. Moon House Historic District is established by ordinance. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 14 The Study Committee will be holding a public hearing on Thursday, January 4, 2001, regarding this matter. Subsequent to that hearing, final recommendation will be developed based on the comments received and submit its final report for Council consideration. If that report recommends the establishment of a district, a draft ordinance will also include a draft ordinance to implement the recommendation. No action was taken at the Urban Development Committee. Ms. Patrick noted that she was the supervisor of the applicant for a six- year period ending in 1992, and that a potential conflict may exist. She would realize no economic gain or loss by recusing herself. Ms. Patrick wished to make the disclosure. Mr. Ruge asked what action is requested of the Board. Mr. Ruff said the applicants have requested the district, and City Council would pass an ordinance. Planning Board action is not binding, rather, it is a recommendation that would be included in the final report and in the transmission to the City Council for their action. The Planning Office requests the support of the Planning Board so that a positive recommendation can be included in the Study Committee's final report. Mr. Smith said that this is one case that is deserving of protection as a historic district. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend that the Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal be approved. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal was recommended to be APPROVED. e. Capitol Historic District Proposal This proposal was considered by the Urban Development Committee at its November 28 meeting, which lacked a quorum. The proposal is submitted by the Study Committee for Planning Board comments. Planning Board action is not binding. The Study Committee, which will be holding a public hearing on January 4, 2000, requests Planning Board comments before that time. The Capitol Historic District preliminary report is a reconnaissance survey of an area bounded by Saginaw on the north, Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. on the west, 1-496 on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 15 the south, and Capitol Avenue and the Grand River on the east. The study encompasses approximately 196 acres, 564 properties, and 700 buildings. The Preliminary Report was prepared by the Committee members with assistance from Planning Office staff. The maps show areas that are covered by comprehensive plans; the north portion is covered by the River Island Comprehensive Plan 1986; the southern area is covered by the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan 1999. Future land use designations within the proposed Capitol Historic District are shown. We also put together some points concerning comprehensive plans and historic districts. This proposal differs from the previous Darius B. Moon House Historic District proposal. This one contains about 564 properties; the other one contained one property, and 100 percent of it was recommended for a historic district. In this case, virtually all of the area is recommended in the Study Committee's report as a historic district. Various aspects of historic districts as they relate to comprehensive plans include: • Historic districts can be a plan implementation tool similar to neighborhood enterprise zones. They can also provide financial incentives through the tax credits. • The historic district creates a review process for exterior improvements within the district involving existing densities, compatibility of scale, massing architectural design, etc. The historic district does not regulate land use, but it has an impact. It would not prevent the adaptive reuse of a structure from one use to another. Design guidelines adopted in a historic district include the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation which involve the use of original materials or compatible materials, preservation of the existing scale, etcetera. • Preservation tax credits are available. • No inherent incompatibility with either the 1986 River Island future land use plan or the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan is evident. • We have two existing historic districts, the Cherry Hill District, and Ottawa-Walnut. Both are covered in the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 16 Ms. Keene asked about the process of approving exterior renovations in the district; Mr. Rieske said once a district is established, any building permit application for exterior work is reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Mr. Smith said in the Urban Development Committee the report did not address historic landscaping issues, and the historic nature or character of the space. He also asked about the makeup of the Committee—do the members have expertise in archaeology or anthropology. Did they look at contributions of Native Americans in this area? When we talk about historic districts, we look primarily at structures developed by white settlers or industrialists. That is a narrow perspective. We might want to consider a broader aspect of historic districts. Mr. Ruge said he was supportive of the efforts of the Study Committee. There needs to be uniformity in the way these old structures are dealt with. Approval of facade treatments—is it any different than deed restrictions in suburban subdivisions? This is a positive step in making this part of Lansing a more attractive place. Mr. Smith asked if a Native American campground were involved, should property owners alter the land and impair the historic character of the property? Mr. Ruge said the history should be developed so we can know about the area before arrival of white settlers. Mr. Smith suggested encouraging historic gardens with native plants in the plan. Mr. Rieske noted that the Urban Development Commmittee report contains comments received thus far, plus comments made here. We are presenting pros and cons, frequently- asked questions about historic districts, and a response card so people can provide their opinion about the district. We are also developing a database and a map showing those properties which meet the guidelines for National Register eligibility. Mr. Ruff commented as an administrator. At present we have two small districts of about 30 properties and one planner on staff focusing on historic preservation efforts. The addition of 700 properties would have an unknown impact. Mr. Ruff requested maps be prepared for the Planning Board's information concerning preservation and the Master Plan's stance regarding preservation of land uses as well. We want to compare the historic district PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 17 ordinance in a historic area with a master planning area with regard to redevelopment areas or land use types. Ms. Keene did not want such a large area. She would like to see some smaller successes in the area. Mr. Ruff said it would be possible to schedule an Urban Development Committee meeting prior to January 9, 2001; it would also be possible to provide Board members with a copy of the entire packet being mailed to owners and occupants in the Historic District area. Mr. Ruff said staff is trying to put together a map showing all the properties, which are considered noncontributing and which are considered contributing and which we know are National Register- eligible at this time. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to table the Capitol Historic District Proposal until the next meeting. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; the Capitol Historic District Proposal was TABLED. Ms. Keene made a motion seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Committee of the Whole rise; carried unanimously. The Committee rose. Ms. Keene resumed as chairman. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 21, 2000. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of November 21, 2000; on a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays; None; the minutes of November 21, 2000 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue in the Department Conference Room. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chairman. The next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be announced at a later date. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER S, 2000 Page 18 a. LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, that the report be adopted and read into the record as previously discussed in the Committee of the Whole; on a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the report on LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road was adopted and received into the record. In Committee it was found that the properties in the subdivision were originally platted as 40 ft wide. A motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend approval of LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road. PLANNING BOARD ACTION ON THE MOTION was as follows. Frederick . . Ave Patrick . Aye Ruge. Aye Smith Ave Foster .Ave Keene •Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously, LS-25-2000, 4707 Hughes Road was APPROVED. b. Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, that the report be adopted and read into the record as previously discussed in the Committee of the Whole; on a voice vote, there were Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously, the report on Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District was adopted and received into the record. The Committee found that the additional 82 parking spaces in this rezoning request will permit the applicant to meet the recommendation of the parking study and will allow flexibility for landscaping, buffering and run-off control. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend that Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District be approved. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 19 PLANNING BOARD ACTION ON THE MOTION was as follows. Patrick. . .Ave Smith. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene •Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Z-14-2000, 908 Just-A-Mere, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District was APPROVED. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. a. Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the report be adopted and read into the record as previously discussed in the Committee of the Whole; on a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the report on Act-19-2000, 4707 Hughes Road was adopted and received into the record. The Committee supported the concept of balconies and lofts. In Committee of the Whole, Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square was TABLED. b. Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for Rivertrail Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the report be adopted and read into the record, as was discussed in the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the report on Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for Rivertrail, was adopted and received into the record. 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 recommend approval of Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for Rivertrail. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Smith. . . Ave Ruge . Ave Foster . .Ave Frederick • Ave Patrick. . .Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously, Act-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for Rivertrail was APPROVED. C. Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 20 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that the report be adopted and read into the record, as was discussed in the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the report on the Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal was adopted and received into the record. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached thereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of the Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously, Darius B. Moon Historic District Proposal was APPROVED d. Capitol Historic District Proposal In Committee, the proposal was TABLED. 4. Executive Committee has not met. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff said you have another set of tabs in your report; you can comment on them as desired. He withheld further comment until the Work Program and the budget, under New Business. D. Pending Items: Future action required 3. 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-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-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking (Referred to UDC May 18, 1999) b. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 1. Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square(Tabled December 5, 2000) Regarding a. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate Public Right-of-way for School Parking, Mr. Rieske said nothing has happened, but he is hopeful of action soon. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Work Program for Year 2001-2002 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 Page 21 Mr. Ruff said information was included on the work program for this current fiscal year. An update was distributed tonight for FY 2002, a draft work program that includes the basic issues that the Board considered as priorities last year at this time. It focuses on the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. We are in the midst of creating a plan of attack to deal with the Plan so that we can utilize both the money that the Council and Administration has granted to help produce the plan and the staff time available. Material in front of you tonight includes current budget amounts plus comments about our next year's budget. This budget request has gone to the Mayor as a new item. We have requested a new planner position that would focus on graphic and information support and also would serve the Department and the public. It is evident that our office has been operating below subsistence level, making it difficult to keep up with updating and reporting information and providing quality maps and graphics and communicating with neighborhood groups and the public. To correct this, this staffing request has been made. We are also proposing to increase the level of contractual services for the Economic Development Corporation due to the increased services that they provided us since this last year, from $80,000 to $90,000 for FY 2002. That would bring the total budget to approximately $690,000 plus the necessary wage increases that are contracted. Mr. Ruff asked the Board to approve the budget as requested for 2002, and to consider the draft Work Program. The major areas are comprehensive planning, neighborhood planning, ground water management plan, code amendments. Other areas include Decentralization Committee work with City Departments and neighborhood groups, historic resource planning, and neighborhood preservation programs. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the proposed budget and the draft Work Program; Voice vote; Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the proposed budget, together with the draft Work Program, was APPROVED. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:05 p.m. Respe tfully submitted es . R , Secretary Planning Board mn12052000 a:\60 Page 1 LS-25-2000 4707 Hughes Road GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Phillip and Phillis Landon STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split EXISTING LAND USE: Single family EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: Same PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 212' x 120' =25,440 Sqft. and rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family S: Single Family E: Single Family W: Single Family SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to divide a 25,440 sqft. lot located at 4707 Hughes Road, and more particularly described as Lots 161, 162 & 163 Pleasant Grove Subdivision (see existing parcel map). These proposed lots will be 15,963.6 sqft. (Parcel "A") and 9,476.4 sqft. (Parcel "B"), and more particularly described as: Parcel "A"(4707 Hughes Road): The North 35.3' of Lot 162 and Lot 163 Parcel "B": Lot 161 and the South 4.7' of Lot 162 Page 2 LS-25-2000 4707 Hughes Road Both parcel "A" and "B" exceeds the width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 set forth in Section 1236.07 (d). Additionally, parcel "B" does not meet the minimum lot width of 60' set forth in section 1236.07(b). 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'. ANALYSIS Section 1236.08(d) of Lansing's Subdivision Design Standards allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. The applicant is requesting a lot split that will create two lots that exceed the maximum width to depth ratio. Additionally, parcel "B" will not meet the minimum lot width of 60' required by section 1236.07(b). Therefore, this is a variance request to exceed the 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio and the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. Location, Size, and Character Properties forthis petition are located on Hughes Road between Reo Road and Jolly Road. Proposed parcel "A" is rectangular and is approximately 15,964 square feet. Proposed parcel "B" is also rectangular in shape and is approximately 9,476 square feet (see proposed parcels). 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. Table 1 - Width to Depth Ratio Existing Proposed Width Depth Ratio Width Depth Ratio Parcel "A" 120' 212' 1 to 1.77 75.3' 212' 1 to 2.82 Parcel "B" N/A N/A N/A I 44.7' 212' 1 to 4.74 Proposed parcel "B" is also 44.7' wide, which is less than the 60' required by the Subdivision Design Standards. Lots in this subdivision were platted at 40' wide and over 200' deep. Over the years, some properties were combined to create double and triple wide lots. This lot split will not increase the number of parcels originally platted. Most of the properties on this block of Hughes Road are similar in width and dept to proposed parcel "B". There are 19 lots (53%) that are at least 40' wide, 13 lots (36%) that are at least 80' wide, and four lots (11%) that are greater than 120' wide along Hughes Road, between Reo and Jolly Roads. Page 3 LS-25-2000 4707 Hughes Road 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. Most of the lots are already developed with single family houses. Summary Properties in this petition are located on the 4700 block of Hughes Road. This lot split will create two parcels. Parcel "A" will be 75.3' x 212' with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.82. Parcel "B" will be 44.7' x 212' with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.74. Both parcels exceed the width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 in Section 1236.08(d), and parcel "B" does not meet the minimum lot width of 60' in Section 1236.08(b). The physical character of this area along the 4700 block of Hughes Road will not change as a result of this lot split. Approximately 89% of properties in this area have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width to depth ratio. Additionally, 53% of the lots along this section of Hughes Road are less than 60' wide. This lot split will not impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation. No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this variance request for proposed parcels "A" and "B" to exceed the maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5, and for proposed parcel "B"to be less than the minimum width of 60 feet. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 4 LS-25-2000 4707 Hughes Road Existing Parcel ?, A 1 0) N I tw, K I N 1• 11( p N (( b •{ \ N Ira Y v p� O f� ti V � N M V �1 O ilia O � M 'j y�• I — ~ n O tT ti — '+ K ` h p O> Pw Oz 0 I I D � y�' V�' yR' yv• = Y e� a "c 110 ZIZ! 'fly 0 six' a Page 5 LS-25-2000 4707 Hughes Road Proposed Parcels Yw' a I N ICji h N S ,1' \ N ( YS Ilk `A ti \ h f,t' yak° ro O m ti'q, rn r- ti N \. Q a '� _ 1 b O CV ~ 0 M O O H1c ti m 1 to — I 7 yil' fly' r r r /71' ' 1w of 6L o 707 0 � 4 /v,5 //V& 1, or / Lf lOT 4OT 6/ 6 9.3,* r O l3 F�olvr r OR c!F w a m 3 R. 7L0%NvIy NON IT 'Y Fn -�RoPos+± To -_ _ /0 4. FY/v Li.ls LA /n 'V -- A K i n, NE" 'Al I n.'T L/44,']' ��E S lc rl 1— O W iK F_ R$ D r fq 1, O� S yam, 4707 Hughes Road NORTH Vic init Map GREENBELT DR. MARCT. c=i Y AIARY AVE. AIARY AVE. C11� PIERCE RD. RISDAIF J m JRN RED RD. U Z Lite NNCENT DORCHESTER CIRCLE 0 RLARRELD R. i V 1,1 r^ < S. BRIARFM D m JOLLY RD. JOLLY RD. JOLLY RD. MIDWOOD Si. � Q 0 2G > J W � � aRAN4LL J � PLEASANT GROVE RD. 0 • a � STAR AVE. 0 r 0 � N HUGHES � RD. o cn CHRISTANSEN RD. c�D oy cn = cn 0 0 BRISTOL ST. Q. Page 1 Z-14-00: 908 Just-A-Mere Ave. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Gordon Long 6820 S. Cedar Street Lansing, MI 48911 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Representing Lansing Clarion Limited Partnership & Gordon L. Long 6820 S. Cedar Street Lansing, MI 48911 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "J" Parking District (see proposed rezoning map) PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 132 feet of frontage (along Just-A-Mere Avenue) and 288 feet deep (38,016 square feet in size) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Multi Family Residential (Oak Park Village) and Holiday Inn parking lot S: Multi Family Residential (Oak Park Village) E: Single Family Residential (planned for expanded parking lot for Holiday Inn) W: Multi Family Residential (Oak Park Village) SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "CUP" Residential District S: "CUP" Residential District E: "A" Residential W: "CUP" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Plan generally designates properties along Georgia Avenue as low density residential and designates land along S. Cedar Street as office, commercial and warehouse/research park. Page 2 Z-11-00: 7011 Georgia Ave. Georgia Avenue is identified as a local street. CASE HISTORY: The request to rezone several properties (Z-15-99), was made by Mr. Gordon Long for the expansion of the Holiday Inn South Convention Center complex. Additional properties were included in this request at a later date. A request to rezone 7011 Georgia Avenue (Z-11-00) was made after the applicant was able to acquire the property. The subject property was recently acquired by Mr. Long and is now proposed for expanded parking for the convention center complex. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: Property at 908 Just-A-Mere will provide 82 additional parking spaces within the proposed Surface Parking Lot E. The parcel also allows a better assemblage of land for the expansion of the Holiday Inn South Convention Center complex as identified in the Z-15- 99 and Z-11-99 requests (see attached site plan). As a reminder, the overall Holiday Inn South Center complex, as proposed, will include: • 280,000 sq. ft. addition to the Holiday Inn South Convention Center which includes approximately 161 new hotel rooms, 32,500 sq. ft. of exhibition space, 25,000 sq. ft. of meeting rooms and 247 fixed seat meeting auditorium. • 919 space parking ramp for visitors • 150 suite extended stay hotel facility (separate from the Holiday Inn). • 16,800 sq. ft. single story office building. • overall parking spaces: 2,280 spaces (which includes the 919 space parking ramp and the additional 82 spaces on the 908 Just-A-Mere property) Page 3 Z-11-00: 7011 Georgia Ave. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: (No response received.) Assessor: (No response received.) AT & T Cable Services (No response received.) Bd. of Water & Light: Electric: No objections to the rezoning of the properties. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water: No objection to rezone. Owner to request service demo and meter removal from BWL (371-6006). Service to be killed at the right-of-way. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Street Lighting: Roger Adsit 371-6085 242-5175 Building Safety: No objection, the proposal does not impact construction related codes. Code Compliance: No comment. Consumers Energy: (No response received.) City Attorney: (No response received.) DNR/DEQ: (No response received.) Development Office: No comment. Fire Marshal: No objections. Lansing Neigh. Council: (No response received.) MI Dept. of Transportation: No comment Parks & Rec: No comment, it does not impact park operations. Public Service Dept.: The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed re-zoning request Z-14-2000. Page 4 Z-11-00: 7011 Georgia Ave. In regards to this general development, the Public Service Department has not received the additional information requested for the Z-15-99 and MPA-1-99. Traffic Engineer: No requirements. However, it appears that Just-A- Mere west of Georgia only services parking lots after the acquisition of these parcels. Therefore, Just-A- Mere could be vacated and parking lots reconfigured to increase surface parking. This should be invested prior to final approval of the overall development. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The property at 908 Just-A-Mere is surrounded by multiple family residential development (Oak Park Village) to the north, south and west. The proposed expansion of the Holiday Inn South Convention Center complex as identified in the Z-15-99 and Z-11-99 request has involved the acquisition of several properties for additional parking. The extended stay hotel facility and proposed office building that both front onto Willoughby Road, have also resulted in the acquisition of several homes. The area will therefore change from a residential neighborhood to an commercial and office area, assuming the Z-15-99 and Z-11-00 (currently under review by City Council) are approved and the hotel/convention center is developed. The property at 908 Just-A-Mere is the only remaining property along Just-A-Mere. To include this property within the overall development would be logical and would provide a better land use arrangement by including it into the hotel/convention center complex Leaving one house isolated at the west end of a commercial development would decrease value and quality of life of the property as a residence. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN This area of south Lansing lies within the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan which generally designated properties along S. Cedar for commercial and office use and identifies continued residential land use behind the commercial/office strip. Cedar Street is identified as a principal arterial and Willoughby Road as a collector street, and Just-A-Mere and Georgia Avenues are identified as local streets. An amendment to the master plan (MPA-1-99) was requested to evaluate the changes in development and development trends since the adoption of the plan in 1981 . The Planning Board approved the Master Plan Amendment (MPA-1-99) for this area which Page 5 Z-11-00: 7011 Georgia Ave. designates properties along the east side of Georgia as commercial development and designate land at the northeast corner of Georgia and Willoughby for office land use. Land along the west end of Just-A-Mere was designated for commercial development. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The anticipated increase in traffic volumes to result from the proposed expansion of the hotel/convention center complex have been addressed in a traffic impact study. Traffic will be directed more towards the development and away from the remaining residents adjacent to the hotel/convention center complex with the emphasis upon the main entries into the development at Just-A-Mere/Cedar and the main entry off Willoughby Rd. The rezoning of the land at 908 Just-A-Mere Avenue will allow for an additional 82 spaces to surface parking Lot E. As pointed out by the Traffic Engineer, once the last remaining home is removed, Just-A-Mere west of Georgia could possibly be vacated and parking lots reconfigured to increase surface parking. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The inclusion of property at 908 Just-A-Mere (measuring 28,016 sq. ft.) will better accommodate the parking demand for the hotel/convention complex and provide additional space for landscape, screening and buffering. The redevelopment of the subject parcel will allow for a better design to the Surface Parking Lot E. Since the property allows for additional parking spaces, it gives greater flexibility to the developer to provide landscaping throughout the overall development which should ultimately enhance the site. As mentioned in previous reports, many homes and mature trees will be removed to allow for this sizeable development, changing the character from residential to commercial. The applicant has indicated that significant trees will be saved where possible. Lights for the parking lots are required to be directed away from adjacent residential properties and runoff from parking lots will be subject to the review of the Public Service Department. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The rezoning of 908 Just-A-Mere will be consistent with the previous rezonings, resulting in a better overall development. The inclusion of this last home on Just-A-Mere also opens up the possibility of eventually vacating Just-A-Mere, west of Georgia (subject to Act 285 Review), which would allow for an even better layout to the surface parking lots in this area. Page 6 Z-11-00: 7011 Georgia Ave. SUMMARY Mr. Gordon Long is requesting that property at 908 Just-A-Mere be rezoned from "A" Residential to "J" Parking to allow for a better assemblage of land for the expansion of parking for the Holiday Inn South Convention Center complex as identified in the Z-15- 99 and Z-11-00 request. The subject parcel would allow for 82 additional parking spaces and a better layout to Surface Parking Lot E, and would give better flexibility for additional landscaping materials throughout the development. The inclusion of the subject property would also create a more logical land use pattern, thereby removing the one remaining home at the west end of Just-A-Mere that would otherwise be left isolated from any other residential properties in the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that property at 908 Just-A-Mere Avenue be rezoned from "A" Residential to "J" Parking. 1-a5 • LOrC BOl1EVARD PROJECT INFORMATION SAY tN�.t r—'--'r, I, �,f_ ••...0. ry I ``- ICM rLL'M15-w roo*6 eMTK.900#6-'A0 R00IK TCfx Cl ST ROOT -"tL1CN6 .rex wAxxal-320c sr w.�T ua5 cH5 �' k� FF for o•m TrR teas,� outs for e-xe o II�, I IIIJJIIII,ill lllll11111III fRI ,- y, J µ'{."r2' .. +- r � Tofx-�OfI�JRS 1 a— 4: HI u _ ¢•'irr'� J,i i y?_ r` 5 Q50 tNNG t a eMtLO i JJST-A-MERE'AVe, x— —— ---1 �� OT[Y HIDT*A- r cncktl TOrx-22e0 C Rs lg-ZoaO - VVV -T i I Q I -i-, 'rt is ❑ i�- --- Lij, I - I • Vl IL LOIIG M BY STREET \ OIl� �;T;w�: OVERALL SITE PLAN HOLIDAY IYN EXPANSION aaatsR ctcur I A�•-Itecs t �u ,�nll..z STATBRD6E SUfTE5 HOTEL Act-20-2000, 830 River Street Easement for River Trail GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Department of Parks and Recreation 318 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48933 REQUESTED ACTION: Easement for rerouting of the River Trail EXISTING LAND USE: S & S Die Company EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 7,700± square feet (S&S Die Company) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Red Cedar/Grand River S: S&S Die Company E: Parking lot/industrial business W: Red Cedar/Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Red Cedar/Grand River S: "H" Light Industrial E: "I" Heavy Industrial W: Red Cedar/Grand River MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for parks/open space. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by the City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation (P&R) Department to obtain an easement to reroute the River Trail. P&R would like to acquire the easement by a donation from the S&S Die Company on the west and north sides of the building at 830 River Street in order to reroute the River Trail away from industrial operations on Spring Street (See enclosed drawings). According to P&R, this proposed easement is for accessible ten (10') foot wide boardwalk path along the riverfront starting at Spring Street and moving north and DMW.11/30/00 "Plan-dev\shared\Act 285 Rev4ews\2000ACTS\00act20WCT2000.FE.wpd ACT-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail Pg. 2. east. The proposed trail would extend behind the S&S Die building and connect with the existing asphalt path to the east of the building. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received yet. AT&T: No response received yet. Assessor: No comment. BWL: See attached. Building Safety: An easement would not impact building code requirements, however a transfer in ownership would require that the exterior walls and openings be protected in accordance with Table S-A of the Uniform Building Code. City Attorney- Based on map and agency referral, no comment at this time. Code Compliance: No comment. Consumers Power: No response received yet. Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: No objections. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. River Point Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Parks & Rec.: We support this project as we initiated it. Approved by the Parks Board on January 19, 2000 as a project for MDNR Trust Fund. Police: The Lansing Police Department is OK with the change. It is believed it will be safer for trail users. DMW,11/30/00 \\Plan-dev\.shareMct 285 Reviews\2000ACTS\OOact20\ACT2000.FE.wpd ACT-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail Pg. 3. Public Service: No response received yet. Trans. Engr.: We support acquisition of the easement and relocation of the RiverTrail. 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 River Trail is a 25 year old trail system and is used for walking, bicycling, running, etc. and the general enjoyment of the view of the natural environment. According to Parks and Recreation, there is a need to reroute the easement for the River Trail. They have indicated that the River Trail is growing each year and it becomes increasingly important to improve and renovate sections of the trail. The subject site is one of the earliest sections of the trail. Its original purpose was to provide access to the rivers and the easement was not available at that time. The purpose and uses of the Rivertrail have also changed over time, with the addition of linkages, connections, multiple uses. Currently, the Rivertrail lines the east side of the Red Cedar River, across from Riverpoint Park. Between Spring and River Streets, it turns inland (eastward) to utilize Spring Street in front of the S&S property, then just northward in the River Street ROW toward the River, where it connects with the main trail. S&S Die Company has offered to donate, to the City of Lansing, an easement on the west and north sides of the building at 830 River Street (See attached letter), provided that the City erect an eight foot chain link fence along the easement line. The easement would allow a continuous riverfront path, eliminate the detour onto Spring Street, and permit the widening of the trail near S&S Die Co. The easement is legally described as: Block 226, Original Plat of the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, except beginning at the Southeast corner of said Block 226; thence DMW.11/30/00 \\Plan-dev\shareMcl285 Reviews\2000ACTS\OOacl20\ACT2000.FE.wpd ACT-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail Pg. 4. S89039'00"W 104.34 feet; thence N00°04'03"E 47.82 feet; thence S89°55'57"E 103.96 feet to the East line of said Block; then S00023'32"E 47.06 to the point of beginning. LOCATION: The proposed easement is basically located at the northwest corner of River Street and Spring Streets. The project would take place along the east bank of the confluence of the Red Cedar and Grand River from Spring Street to the 1-496 expressway. CHARACTER: Rerouting the RiverTrail off of Spring Street and onto the proposed easement will have a positive impact on the trail's character. Northbound, the 5' wide River Trail ends at Spring Street, utilizes the surface street, and it comes in contact with industrial uses. The River Trail walkway is proposed to be widened and eliminate the conflicts created by the recreational user and industrial uses, and provide a continuous River Trail pathway. EXTENT: According to the Parks and Recreation Department, rerouting the RiverTrail will create a public open space buffer between the S&S Die Company and the river,and protect the east bank at the confluence of the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers from the current industrial operations. It will also create recreational opportunities for all who use the trail by giving access to the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers to the residents of Lansing. Also, P&R stated that there is a direct connection from East Lansing to the River Trail with the newly expanded portion of the trail from the end of Clippert Street to the intersection of Kalamazoo and Harrison Roads, and along Clippert Street. Further, the P&R Department is looking toward future development of providing direct access to the trail for other communities. OTHER: DMW.11/30/00 \\Plan-dev\shared\Act 285 Reviews\2000ACTS\OOact20WCT2000.FE.wpd ACT-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement for River Trail Pg. 5. The goal of the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department is to make the path a safe, continuous, accessible, non-motorized trail. Also, rerouting this section of the trail would close the loop created by Spring and River Streets, correct this area along the trail where there are significant safety issues, and provide a continuous pathway. SUMMARY The proposed easement is basically located at the northwest corner of River Street and Spring Streets. The City of Lansing Parks & Recreation Department would like to gain an easement from the S&S Die Company on the west and north sides of the building at 830 River Street in order to reroute the River Trail away from industrial operations on Spring Street. The rerouted River Trail onto the proposed easement and off of Spring Street will have a positive impact on the character of the area. This easement will protect the east bank at the confluence of the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers from the current industrial operations by creating a public open space buffer between the S&S Die Company and the river. It will also protect the bank by creating recreational opportunities for all who use the trail and by giving access to the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-20-2000, the request by the City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to accept the donation of an easement from the S&S Die Company on the west and north sides of the building at 830 River Street in order to reroute the River Trail away from industrial operations on Spring Street with the following conditions: 0 that S&S Die Company retain a four (4') foot wide setback along the north and west perimeter of the building, and 0 that the city pay the cost to erect an eight foot chain link fence along the easement line. Staff further recommends that alternative fence or screening designs be considered that would provide the desired security with an aesthetically pleasing appearance. DMW,11/30/00 %%Plan•devlshared\Ad 285 ReviewsU000ACTS100act20lACT2000.FE.wpd & S DIE COO 830 RNER STREET u LANSING.MICHIGAN 48912 PHONE(517)484-8144 o FAX(517)484-551 1 �CnulcG QK� S March 28, 2000 Murdock Jemerson, Director Department of Parks & Recreation 318 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48433-1206 Dear Mr. Jemerson, Pursuant to our meeting regarding the Lansing River Walk project. We are willing to grant the City of Lansing an easement on the west and north sides of our 830 River Street building. This would be for the purpose of re-routing the existing River Walk. This easement would be gifted to the City of Lansing. The only restrictions would be that we have a four foot easement along fethe ann girth anight d west arm�ter of the fen c along building and that the city pay the cost to the easement line. We look forward to working with you. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana G. Hurst Vice President � ACT-20-2000, 830 River Street, Easement J 0, NORTH 1- 496 0 4. 3 2 5 4 3 2 0 001 13 12 it 001 3 -1-- 4- 3 OXX1 0 60, C V ^ 9 .0 11 12 1 14 15 14 5 • All 4 5 (0 7 F L9 RAIN ST, E. MAIN LL 3 2 u 01 cr oil, V TX(FH ZE?F§r u owt4w 3 5 4 r 0 I- KOHLER CT. 3 r T zQ 00 z CLOSED C.P. 7-4.4% r- _r _ T77 14 5 20 21 2 lk ui u SPRING S T CLOSED C.P. 10 D05 10 �,o a., + apt tj U) (o 2 2 ciTL( 4Q + ow�jf 0 2 0 2 Oqo +: 01, ct alp DID ej + —.00 010 - Qj 5 OV it ST E. HAZEL W) 0 alp 2 c\j I t,50 w LEGAL BOUNDARIES MAP > 2 < 2 (r RIVER TRAIL RENOVA I• '0�wi * 'o c-nomin cz-r -rr) 1-110P, V✓v - 828.8 WALL G n ihSPRA L T TIeA I C. / T To Be w IDc"L-D I To to FEI;7 UI IST/W. J TAAIL �ur.AvM&NT S2� 3 CAS P"AI-T) LINE of 7RAIL.0 F�rSEAAf IJ 7 3O ��O A l,16N N ENT FjC. / 5X 6x Q - PORKrNG PA T b 8295 Qj \ SAS1� co. r Ewpo SPRING' Nn TRAIL S T RowU NEE i SAS << DIe Co DIE CO. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN RIVER TRAIL RENOVATION aU SPRING ST. TO 1-496 3-27-00 .� _� LANSING, MI TMM I � ;r ACT-20-2000 830 River Street Easement NORTH 10' — - EDGE OF WATER (TOP OF WATER N D - 819.00 JCH MARK: A 19=0 DRANT VALVE STEM 9/2 818.901/2000) CJ R -i � ;T CORNER OF / �' ID RIVER STREETS �• J ---���L° _ _ — — _ �_ i t V.G.V.D. i / 82 _ J 0.2 ' / J az3.ta�89°55'57"E 823.83824.23 103.96'— 826.2� �ei7. / a36o3 r / i 825.00 825. 3 ^019.i/ — \� 826.50 4. 8.8'x5.3' 100.03' 10" BLOCK FOUNDATION 5'x4.8' 0.0 0 / / CONCRETE F T/WALL 825.53 4.7'x3.7' 8 .50 4.2'x3.5' SLAB w/ CONCRETE PAD �N CONCRETE FRAME SHED (AIR CONDITIONER) / FOUNDATION p- BLOCK 226 / . �j 820.80 � ^,co 828.1 F/F BLOCK BRICK BUILDING 82e.23 #830 RIVER STREET F/F01 5 828.37 X Ci 828 o 526.50 826.40 —827 Z 1 0 p p CONCRETE 4.00' 81 80 /826.50 827.52 827.87 100.33' e2ze7 t 82118 S89°04'12"W 37.23' S89°39'00"W 104.34' JI x 1.79' < I r �x I GRAVEL a CHAIN LINK ONCRETE FENCE z — x x x 827.50 37 — � 2" D.I. WATER MAIN —827— 826.71 826.872 819 BO ' CATCHBASIN CURB T CURB 826.57 1 E 822 77 / WATER8U GH T MWBOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO November 21, 2000 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 371-6034 RE: 830 River Street Request by the City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation (P & R) Department to re-route an easement for the River Trail. P & R would like to gain an easement from the S & S Die Company on the West and North :.:ides of the building in order to reroute the River Trail away from industrial operations on Spring Street_ SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric No objections. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water BWL has water main in area. MISS DIG to be used before diggir,g any footings. Riverwalk would be required to be removed if main break occurred. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Steam No steam at this location. Contact Person: John Hundt 371-6497 STREET LIGHTING Existing street lighting facilities are in the ROW and may have to be relocated. Contact Person: Roger Adsit 371-6085 Cell Phone 242-5175 11-2000-1d.doc TOTAL P.01