Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Planning Board Jan-March minutes FINAL APPROVED AS PRINTED JANUARY 23, 2001. Draft to Clerk 01212000. Approved 01232000 To Clerk 01262000 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue ; Tuesday, January 9, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. One vacant seat. B. Absence - Nischan C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager; Sue Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator; William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Communications received regarding P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat, were reserved for the hearing. B. Communication from the Historic District Commission regarding agency referral for Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, "D-1" Professional Office to "G-1" Business District 4. HEARINGS A. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2001-2002 Chairman Keene read the following statement. This is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed objectives, goals and projected use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, to be included in the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission for Fiscal Year 2002. The City expects to receive and have available a total of approximately $4.0 million in funds through the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter grant programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2001 and ending on June 30, 2002. Any person in the audience that wishes to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 2 microphone, state your name and address and provide us your comments. Written comments will also be accepted for consideration. JENNY GRAD, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, 201 LATHROP STREET, LANSING. I am commenting in support of the funding that we have received, over the past three years actually, perhaps longer than that, but at least in my tenure, three years. It's been very special funding for us, because it is a cornerstone for most of our projects in Lansing. We are able to get construction funds from others when they are assured that they are not the only people in the project, and so we are able to take the money that we get from the City, which is not huge. We are a half-million dollar operation, and you give us about $50,000 of our budget, but it is a very psychologically important $50,000, because we can put $10,000 in several projects and say, OK, the City is in for $10,000—what is your commitment? It is a tremendous leveraging tool. I also want to thank you, especially in this past year for your support, because we made a quantum leap. We went from doing four houses a year in the past. This past year, 2000, we completed seven houses, which was a huge increase for us, and a really exhilarating experience. Three of those houses you had a substantial role in obtaining the funding for, so I would like to thank you for your past support; I would like to remind you that low income affordable housing is still a great need in this community, and the work that Habitat does has enabled us to provide owner-occupied housing for people making approximately $1,000 per month, and that it is safe, it is ten years' maintenance-free, and it is usually the first thing of any substantial value that these family own, and as a result of the work that they put into the house, and the pride of ownership, the properties are wonderfully maintained, and the families usually use that as a stepping stone to catapult into other wonderful things in their lives, like better jobs, or better education, or more stable home environment for their kids. So mostly, I just want to say thank you. B. ALMUS THORP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE GREATER LANSING COALITION, 423 N. SYCAMORE, LANSING. I am not going to tell you folks a thing you don't already know, but perhaps some of this bears repeating, following up on Jenny Grau's excellent testimony. This past year, the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition has made it possible for 45 folks to own a home for the first time. Thirteen of those were rehabilitations; 25 were providing down-payment assistance through the City, and seven were the fixer-upper program that we have, collaborating with the City for the LHOP Program, Lansing Home Ownership Program. We are one of five active community development corporations that are providing housing for income-eligible, meaning low- or moderate-income folk who are first-time home buyers. They include the Coalition, my PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 3 organization, Franklin Street, St. Stephen's Nonprofit, Habitat for Humanity, and Ferris Development. We could not do what we are doing without the money that we get from the state and the federal government through this particular program jurisdiction, the City. We simply couldn't. It is hard enough to make budget, even with your help. The difficulties of raising private funds in the Lansing community are well known, so what the City is doing is absolutely indispensable to what we are doing, and what we are doing is really not only stabilizing families, but helping to stabilize neighborhoods. We do it in a concentrated fashion, not just higgledy-piggledy all over the City, but concentrating it and clustering it so that it really makes a huge positive impact on some of the most distressed communities in the City. You know that, and you also know that home ownership is the cornerstone for lots of other human gains that are by- products of the stability that it creates, jobs, education, lowering of the level of abuse and violence in people's lives just a place for a kid to come home from school and actually be able to do his or her homework. So it is a cornerstone, and especially in a City where there is far too high a percentage of rental as compared to home ownership; far too high a percentage of that rental is substandard. Bringing homes back to single- family occupancy is absolutely vital, and you make it possible. Thanks. AL SWAIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CAPITOL AREA CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING IN LANSING, 3815 W. ST. JOE. This is one of my co-workers, Ellen Weaver. I am here to support the funding and the effort that the City is making around housing, and I want to refer back to what the original speaker from Habitat for Humanity had to say and piggy- back on that a little bit. Our office supports a variety of independent living options for people with disabilities, and one of the big, big issues for people with disabilities is housing, because just like any low-income person, that is a need. The thing I can say about housing in the City of Lansing, and especially accessible housing, is that there isn't enough of it. There needs to be more of it. So when we talk about low income folks having homes that are affordable, I think what we always need to include in that mix is low income people of any background or any circumstance, which would include people with disabilities. So the phrase is, low-income housing that is affordable and accessible. Every time you think about rehabing a certain number of units, dedicate some of that effort to making sure the unit is accessible for someone with a mobility limitation, a wheelchair user or a person using a walker. Whenever you do new construction, dedicate some of the thinking about that home that is being built being accessible. Then another concept that I want to put out there (they are doing this in Atlanta and some other places around the country), and that is the notion of visitability in terms of housing. Visitability means that, for example, you might have a home, and you might not be a person PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 4 with a mobility limitation, but I might want to come visit you, so there ought to be some basic features about your home that allow me to get in, like a level threshold, wider doorways, wider hallways, that kind of thing, even though you owning the home are not a person with a disability. The additional spin on visitability is maybe you living in that home right now don't have a mobility limitation, but as you age, disability is a natural part of that. Perhaps 40 years from now, that might be a need for you. So what visitability also means is that when you build something, you put some basic features in that house, like reinforcement in the bathroom walls, so that if you need to put grab bars in there for a tub, they are already there later in your life. Things like that, so I want to encourage you to continue to make strides in the area of housing for folks, but let's make sure that we include all the people in the Lansing area when you do that. Thank you for your support. BILL DRULINER, SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT THE LANSING REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I am also very involved with the Lansing Community Micro Enterprise Fund. I just wanted to come here and let you guys know that, as you may or may not know, the Micro Enterprise Fund does small loans to low- to moderate- income individuals who are looking to start a business, very often as a way out of poverty in many situations. It is an opportunity to create a job for themselves. Many times, through the Micro Enterprise Fund, they receive training through the training course, which addresses issues that they need to know about if they are going to start a business themselves. The Micro Enterprise Fund is currently a recipient of the CDBG funds from the City, and it heavily relies on those funds to fund its operations. The Micro Enterprise Fund also offers, as I said before, micro loans to entrepreneurs, and many times these loans are crucial in the beginning stages for these small businesses that are getting started. The funds very often are not available to these individuals through regular financing opportunities, such as through a financial institution. These are folks who many times are not bankable. Their credit may not allow for them to receive a loan under normal circumstances, but the Micro Enterprise Fund offers credit opportunities for these individuals. It is a very worthy program. It is a good program. I have loved my time involved with them, and it is a very bright spot in my life to participate in this. It is great to see individuals who are looking to make a difference in their lives, do a really pro-active thing in learning how to start a business, what skills they might have, what training they might have that they could offer to the community and to the business community through starting their own business. It is a lot of fun to participate in that, so I just wanted to offer my encouragement for you to continue to support that program, and I just wanted to thank you for your past support. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 5 CHERYL RISNER, LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, 500 W. LENAWEE, RM. 319. Our office is currently working with 42 established neighborhood groups. The three newest groups that we are working with include the Groesbeck Association. Boundaries on the north are Lake Lansing Road, on the south is Grand River Avenue, on the east is U.S. 27, and on the west is Wood Street, the west side of David, Pepper Tree and Barrett. The group is focusing at this time on proposed Lake Lansing Road development. The second group is the Knollwood-Willow Neighborhood Association. Their boundaries on the north are the Grand River; south is the north side of Willow Street, they go east of the Grand River to the west side to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. This group is working on housing issues and to get basic needs that are needed in the neighborhood. The third group, many of whom are sitting behind me, is the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association. Their boundaries on the west are Horsebrook Park, on the east is the north side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, south is North Grand River, and north is Pere Marquette Railroad. This group is focusing on the proposed housing development in the northern part of their boundaries. Our office works to set up neighborhood groups all over Lansing. At this point, we are trying to make an extra effort to try to establish some more on the south end of town. We don't have a lot of representation down there. Our office is working on preparations for this year's Bea Christy Award dinner that is being held at the Lansing Center on Friday, February 9. The social hour begins at 6. Dinner will be at 6:30. Tickets are $11, and last year over 325 people came out to see the awards banquet. Tickets are available through LNC or any neighborhood group, and this year, as many of you know, in March of 2000, due to Title 10 regulations, LNC had to cancel the Paint Blitz, for the first time in many years. In June, with the help of over 250 volunteers and companies that helped to underwrite the cost of the paint, primer, tee shirts and lunch, our office was able to help coordinate a mini paint blitz, and we were still able to paint 11 houses for low-income, handicapped and/or senior citizens. At this time, our office is working to find a nonprofit that is able to take over the Paint Blitz, so that we don't lose this vital service for Lansing neighborhoods. Our office is also happy to announce that this year we are coordinating the Neighborhoods 'N' Bloom program for 2001. The deadline was last Friday, and we received many, many orders for flowers. We are all excited to see what all we are going to end up getting. This year we are having perennials for the first time. We are offering five different perennials along with all the annuals to help build on the gardens. The flowers again will be delivered to and distributed from the Lansing City Market. At that time, we are asking everyone to pray for good weather for those two days for us, please. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at my office, 372-6290. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 6 JOAN NELSON, 217 ROSAMUND STREET, REPRESENTING ALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND THE EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMIT PROJECT. I came before this group several weeks ago, and I am here with essentially the same message, and that is to remind all of you that under the auspices of community voices, the ICHD Community Voices, three large planning summits have been held in three different neighborhoods over the last year, one on the east side in March, one on the northwest side in May, and one just recently on the south side. Each of those planning summits drew several hundred people and launched a planning process that is resulting in each of those three areas in an action plan. Two of those actions plans will be ready for distribution within about three weeks. One is expected to come out in April. There are many strategies in all three of those plans that are housing-related or related to community development. This is actually just heads up. We are a little bit out of--timing is not real congruent with your budget process, but I did want to just remind you that these will be distributed in the next couple of months, and many of the strategies in each of these plans can be supported by CDBG money. I look forward to talking with you more about those possibilities in the future. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. BEVERLY WIENER, DIRECTOR, HAVEN HOUSE'S SHELTER FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES, AND ALSO CHAIR OF GREATER LANSING HOMELESS RESOLUTION NETWORK, 311 S. JENISON. Just speaking to remind people that some of the CDBG money—not CDBG money—is ESG CDBG? Am I in the wrong place? No? OK. There is funding that goes to emergency shelter and some of the transitional housing programs. We are finding that the numbers are going up. We thought things had stabilized, but especially during the summer, we saw huge increases, especially in the number of homeless families. We are seeing this as an ongoing problem, so we hope for continued support in this area. We need some of the transitional housing programs that we have to give both individuals and families some of the skills that they need to maintain their housing, to budget their money, etc., so that they can remain stable and stay out of the shelters. I will also mention, I know there is a big push for home ownership, which we really believe in, but we see a lot of people that are not at the stage to do that, so just keep in mind the need for continued rental housing. We are seeing a real shortage of that as a lot of the focus is on home ownership, and so I just mentioned that because we have trouble moving people from the shelters sometimes because the supply of rental housing, at least for low-income people, is shrinking. But I just encourage you to continue to be aware that we do have a homeless problem in the Lansing area and that's all I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 7 am going to say. If you have any questions, you are welcome to call me. Thank you for listening. JEROME FRANK, SALVATION ARMY'S HOUSING PLACEMENT PROGRAM, 400 LONG BLVD., #439. To locate and obtain and maintain permanent housing while striving toward self sufficiency is the actual mission statement of our program at the Salvation Army. Although we know that home ownership is important for low-income people, all people in the community of Lansing need to have a place to live, so we try to focus on assisting people to get into rental housing and to use rental housing as stepping stones to be able to get to where it is, maybe home ownership one day in the future. It's a hard job to work with landlords and to work with people who may not have the skills to be able to maintain permanent housing, but we are able to do that, in part through the funding and continued support by you all. We just want to encourage that you continue to support programs like ours. We too are part of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network with the transitional housing programs and homeless programs within the City, and I want to piggy- back on what Bev says. We do have a homeless problem, but we as a continuum of care are trying to abate it as much as possible. We are struggling still, and your support is very much appreciated, and we thank you. Seeing no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the Chairman declared the hearing closed. The Urban Development Committee of the Planning Board will meet Tuesday, January 30, 2001, at 4 p.m. to discuss the proposed objectives, goals and projected use of funds presented this evening. The meeting will be held in the Building Safety Conference Room of the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, located at 316 N. Capitol Avenue in the North Capitol Ramp. B. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to "G-1" Business District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request from the Granger Group of Companies, on behalf of the owner of 301 W. Lenawee, the YMCA, Young Men's Christian Association. There is currently a five-story building at this address. The purpose of this proposal is to demolish that building and construct a larger seven-story building with an attached 300-car parking ramp. The first two floors would be for the recreational facilities of the YMCA and for a coffee shop. The upper five floors would be for office space. Because it is a mixed use, it fits under the "G-1" District. In the staff report, there is some background information as well as information on the historical significance of the existing building. We PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 8 will be prepared to present a recommendation at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge said on the preliminary site plan it appears the parking garage and the building are going to be built right up to the south lot line; Ms. Stachowiak said that is correct, there are no setback, parking, height requirements, or lot coverage requirements, etc., in the "G-1" District. Mr. Ruge asked what is on the two lots just south of this project; Ms. Stachowiak said residential. Surrounding land use is residential and office. Mr. Ruge said so a seven-story building would abut a residential property? Ms. Stachowiak said that is correct. KAREN CHANG, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE YMCA AND THE GRANGER GROUP OF COMPANIES, 301 W. LENAWEE. The YMCA and the Granger Group entered into a joint development agreement in the fall of 2000 to investigate the redevelopment of their downtown branch located at 301 W. Lenawee. We believe this is an excellent opportunity for the long term future of the YMCA and the downtown Lansing community. The parcel is currently zoned "D-1", which allows professional office and other uses as well as multiple dwelling uses. The Michigan Chamber Offices are on the western portion of that, and rental housing on the other lot adjacent to the YMCA parcel. It is a seven-story building. Currently, the parcel is occupied by the YMCA and its parking lot. We are petitioning for a rezoning to "G-1" Business in order to allow the YMCA to continue its current use and also to allow establishment of a coffee shop and other retail uses, which is not allowed in a "D-1" District. In addition, the height and area requirements in a "G-1" District would also allow for our proposed development. These plans are by no means final. We are still working with our architect and with the YMCA to finalize these plans, but what we have today is the northern portion of the block, two acres, which we would be occupying, and a portion of that would be dedicated to the parking deck, and the other portion to the office building, which will be approximately 220,000 sq ft. The YMCA will occupy levels one and two, where the setback for the northeast corner is 20 ft, allowing for a pedestrian colonnade around that corner on Lenawee and Townsend. That colonnade is also at a height of 30 ft, and there are numerous windows that are very pedestrian-friendly. It also will feature a limestone-look precast on the exterior which is complementary to the surrounding office buildings, in particular the new Courts facility going up across the street on Lenawee and also other state buildings downtown as well as other residential buildings downtown. This rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive Master Plan of the City of Lansing, as it is located in the south central business district, and the uses as office and YMCA would be consistent. This rezoning is also compatible with adjacent uses of land as the property directly to the north is zoned "G-1", and the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 9 property to the east on the other side of the Porter Building is also zoned "D-1", as well as "D-1" zoning to the west and the south. We also believe that this rezoning is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that it is to allow for a general retail commercial district for the downtown area. Finally, we believe that this is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Lansing. In order for the YMCA to continue as a vital presence in this community, they need this approval so that we can develop this site and they can continue to serve the members of the downtown Lansing community. So we are requesting that the Planning Board recommend approval of our petition to amend the boundaries of the zoning districts. Thank you. Mr. Smith said the renderings show a dome-like structure at the very top. What the anticipated use would be? Have you considered possible uses for the roof area of the building, for example, urban gardening. Ms. Chang said use of the dome has not been determined. Right now it is a metal framework. At this point, Ms. Chang introduced Tom Tooley, architect, Beta Design Group, who is working on the design. We are thinking of a lighted feature on the building. Regarding the roof, Ms. Chang said that on the site plan, the portion that is dedicated to the gymnasium and an auditorium is only two levels high. We are considering putting some type of plaza or green space on there that people can use and access from the office building. Mr. Ruge asked about the two-story and the seven-story parts of the building. Could it could be spread out more over maybe five stories and have the same amount of floor space? TOM TOOLEY, ARCHITECT, BETA DESIGN GROUP. To spread the floor out would create a floor plan that was not as feasible as the one we have designed. Also, structurally, the implications of building office space above the gym and auditorium becomes an economic issue because of the clear span space of approximately 75 feet. To put office floors on top of that becomes a real economic issue. Addressing the roof garden, there would be an enclosed connection that we are looking at from the parking deck to the office tower. Mr. Smith asked about the 50-year old building and historic preservation. "How long do you anticipate this building would last?" Ms. Chang said we are hoping that this will be at least a hundred-year building. We have gone through historic review, and we have met with the Historic District Commission on several occasions to let them know that we have gone through feasibility studies, not just economic feasibility, but also considering tax credits and state and federal historic tax credits. For the YMCA, it was a matter of being able to efficiently use their space, which PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 10 they cannot do in their current building. Adaptive reuse was not a feasible or viable option for them. Ms. Foster asked about building design and energy use. Will the building be an energy drain on the City? Will it be sustainable on its own? Ms. Chang said they are checking regarding additional loads with Board of Water and Light and are awaiting a response. Ms. Foster asked if it is possible to design the building so that it does not use any City electricity and is completely sustainable. If this is a hundred-year building, maybe you need to look into the future, to sustaining the building without having to draw from City utilities. Mr. Tooley said it is an issue we are considering but our design is in an early stage. As we approach any new building, we look for sustainable issues. Ms. Foster asked about the colonnade and green space and the incorporation of green space. There are no trees or greenery. Ms. Chang said there is some landscaping along Townsend and Lenawee which they hope to incorporate into the design. DARRELL TENNIS, 526 TOWNSEND. My partner and I own a business at 526 Townsend, the building immediately to the south of the YMCA. The dental office of Dr. Bruce Champion DDS has been there for many years. We bought the building five or six years ago, investing considerable money to remodel it to make a viable office. We are not opposed to the rebuilding of the Y. They have been a wonderful neighbor, and we have had a wonderful relationship with them. We are concerned about the attempt to shoehorn a very large building and large parking structure in this space right up to the lot line. We were approached maybe a year ago regarding selling our property to Granger. Since then we have heard nothing from Granger. I shudder about running a business in the shadow of a seven-story parking structure which shares a drive with our business. If that parking structure runs right up to the line of that drive, we are going to be like a very big alley with a very big building. A big building would blot out our beautiful view of the Capitol. I hope you would be somewhat sensitive to allowing any construction that would put a seven-story parking structure right up to the lot line of a downtown business that has been there for many, many years. We have other residential neighbors on the south. The State Chamber of Commerce does not have concerns about a seven-story parking structure. My other problem is, if this goes to the lot line, it will move right into our parking lot. We have an understanding with the Y at this time. When we bought the building, we agreed, basically a hand-shake agreement, that we would pay to pave it, clean it up and make it look nice and that we would use the parking behind the Y. They own the 12 or 15 feet out from their building. It will be an extreme hardship on us to have a parking PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 11 structure up to the lot line. It will make a good portion of the parking lot unusable for us. Only staff parks there, not patrons. We will not have sufficient parking for our staff and the staff of our tenant. DR. R. BRUCE CHAMPION, DDS, 524-526 TOWNSEND. I have been there since 1971. 1 share Mr. Tennis's opinion about being stacked up against a seven-story building proposed to be directly on the lot line. It is my understanding that the driveway that serves the north section which goes into our parking lot and into a parking lot on the southeast corner of the Y is a shared driveway and that the driveway could never be used for anything other than a driveway. I was told that neither the Y nor we could close that driveway. If the new building as proposed goes right on the lot line, we lose the north section of our driveway that goes into our building because it sits right on the lot line. Half of it is on the north side; half of it is on the south side. It is my understanding that it was dedicated as a driveway forever and could never be changed. The other thing is, when Mr. Tennis and his partner bought the building, they liked the fact that there was a yard, grass, a hedge and landscaping in almost a residential type setting. They are going to stack a seven-story building immediately on the lot line? With no landscaping? The other reason I like it is I have a wonderful view on the north side. I am not interested in looking at a seven-story building 40 feet away from my window. Please take that into consideration. There needs to be investigation on the driveway issue and the dedication that I assumed was there forever. TONY FRAGALE, PRESIDENT OF THE YMCA, LANSING. It is in the YMCA's interest to do several things downtown, one of which is to be a good neighbor. Its other mission is to serve the people who live and work in and around the downtown community. Our structure, although nearly 50 years old, has served us well but is no longer sustainable in its current condition, nor is it functional, nor has it the kind of utility we will need to prepare for our future. We want to improve and to strengthen our future in the downtown community right on that property. These are unique facilities. They exist in some places around the country, where YMCAs are combined with commercial development, but there aren't that many of them, and every city is different. I encourage you to favor this request on the part of the YMCA. Seeing no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to "G-1" Business District. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will take up the matter at its meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2001, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 12 A. P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request for tentative preliminary plat approval from Mark and Carla Allaire of LaMaire Properties. The surveyor/engineer is Fred White Engineering. The parcel is located at the north end of Westwood Avenue, an existing street north of Grand River. The map illustrates the location in relation to Westwood Avenue and Shady Oak Lane. The property contains approximately 7.116 acres, the request is for 14 single family lots. The plat also includes a public park as well as a public walkway leading from Westwood Avenue into the park. The road for the project would be an extension of Westwood Avenue that would end in a cul-de-sac. The packet provides basic information, gives agency responses received to date, and offers an initial analysis. The full report will be presented to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting next week. A number of letters have been received. One had a petition attached that was submitted to the Planning Office about a year ago with several signatures when another developer was considering developing this property. It was quite lengthy, but it will be passed around so everyone can look at it. Chairman Keene said the Planning Board has received copies of a couple of letters regarding this application, the first, a three-page letter from Nancy Dear, 3303 Westwood, with an attached article concerning safety issues with the proximity of the railroad tracks to some of the properties. The other concern is with increased traffic. She also discusses new sidewalks and other matters which the Board will consider. Another letter is from Marjorie A. Ringle, 3309 Westwood, talking about quality of life issues and how the development would change the nature of the neighborhood itself. The Board will review Ms. Ringle's letter in our deliberations. Mr. Ruff said Susan Stachowiak received a letter from the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association which makes a number of points. There is a four-page letter to our office from the co-chair of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, James McDaniels, that expresses concerns regarding the development of this property. Stephen Ring and Marie Ring, 1724 Shady Oak Lane, sent a letter regarding P-1-2000 that requests consideration of various elements. Bruce and Heather Overland, 3015 Green Oak Avenue sent a letter with regard to P-1-2000. They are concerned about the development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 13 Laurie and Brian Yusten, 3119 Westwood wrote regarding P-1-2000. Letter from Kenneth and Violet Verhougstraete, 1800 Shady Oak Lane, expressing their concerns about the development concerning traffic, noise, and proximity to the train tracks. The letters will be on file and will be included in the evaluation of the request. MARK ALLAIRE, ADMINISTRATOR OF LAMAIRE PROPERTIES. (Brought three updated preliminary plats which were passed around to Board members.) I received some information from Susan Stachowiak on Saturday. I would like to address the concerns that she has sent me. Concern No. 1. As you are looking at that, Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 need to be redesigned. The applicants should consider removing one of the lots to allow for a better design of the others. Lots 12 and 13 are unusual in shape, have a large amount of front yard, will have a small back yard area, a small buildable area and no defined rear lot line. This could create a problem complying with setback and parking requirements. Our response: Lots 11, 12, and 13 have been redesigned, and Lot 14 has been omitted. Lot 12 is still of an unusual shape; however, we have designed these lots to flow with the ecology and to be unobtrusive to the natural beauty that exists there. With the redesigning of Lots 11 and 12 and 13, along with the deletion of Lot 14, problems arising with setbacks and parking requirements have been eliminated. Concern No. 2. Lots 9 and 10 do not comply with the required maximum width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. The applicant could request, in writing, a variance from this requirements for these two lots. Our response: We have that with us this evening, a request in writing addressed to Ms. Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development. Concern No. 3. Screening and buffering in the rear yards of lots 5 through 9 needs to be shown to provide a barrier between the railroad and the future homes on these lots. Our response: Screening and buffering are not needed on lots 5, 8 and 9 as these three lots are completely wooded. Only those trees that are in the proposed driveways and the actual building sites will be removed. Those trees removed from lots 1 through 5 and lots 8 through 13 shall be transplanted into lots 6 and 7 where feasible to make these two lots PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 14 conform to the surrounding area, providing the screening and buffering requirements. Please note that on the updated preliminary plat plan, a six-foot screen berm and screen trees have been incorporated into the print. Discussions with Chesapeake and Ohio Railway will be ongoing to see about a joint venture between them and LaMaire Properties concerning the possibilities of a security fence. We believe that a physical barrier separating the proposed subdivision from the railroad property will be a benefit to all parties, and the City of Lansing as a whole. Concern No. 4. The description of the land as shown on the plat is incorrect. The proposed subdivision is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5, not the Northeast 1/4. Our response: The description of the land as shown on the plat has been corrected. The proposed subdivision now reads that it is located in the Northwest quadrant of Section 5, and not the Northeast. Concern No. 5. The applicants need to provide information as to their interest in the property. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner(s) must be shown on the preliminary plat. Our response: A copy of Greater Lansing Association of Realtors Uniform Buy and Sell contract between Mark S. Allaire and Carla M. Allaire, husband and wife, and Robert Bower, representative of Giving Tree Farms, has been faxed to Ms. Susan Stachowiak prior to the meeting's start. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owners will be found on the preliminary plat listed under developer. (Mr. Allaire asked if Ms. Stachowiak received the fax; she indicated that she did.) Concern No. 6. Indicate if the pedestrian walkway is to remain private or if it is to be dedicated to the public and in what manner. (See comment #5, letter from City Assessor.) Our response: We have two responses to this. It is LaMaire's intentions that the pedestrian walkway will be deeded over to the City provided: a. The City of Lansing wishes to receive this gift from LaMaire Properties LLC. b. The City of Lansing will incur any and all legal fees, have all associated papers drawn up and recorded for deed transfer. I am sure the City Attorney can take care of that. C. The City of Lansing will pay LaMaire Properties the sum of$1 to make this a legal and binding contract on both parties. d. The donation of the land is to be used as a continuation of Horsebrook Park for the benefit and enjoyment of the entire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 15 populace of the City of Lansing and will be finalized at a City Council meeting. Second part: If any of the above requirements have not been met, LaMaire Properties will withdraw its offer of 1.546 acres of land for the extension of Horsebrook Park and any and all adjoining properties offered to the City. Concern No. 7. Reducing the curve of the street may allow for a better layout of the lots that front along the south side of the street. Our response: Reducing the curve of the street takes away aesthetic value that we believe will do more ecological harm than what is warranted or needed. Concern No. 8. It may be necessary to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Reynolds Drain in the proposed public park. Our response: We believe that it will be necessary to construct a span over the Reynolds Drain to gain access to the proposed park. In summary, that is a gorgeous piece of dirt. If I lived on Westwood Avenue, or Shady Oak Lane, I would have concerns also. I don't know how many times I have been there, and I have seen deer within the City limits of Lansing. It is a phenomenal piece of land. But it will be developed. If not by us, somebody else will. How it gets developed is the concern. We want to do as little damage, and I am going to call it damage. What it really is, is the removal of trees. That place is loaded with oak trees. We want to remove just enough to slip a house in and put a driveway up to it. I want the people behind me to think of what else could go there. Thank you. Mr. Ruff noted that what the applicant has referred to from our comments were some initial comments of the plat as originally presented. They do not reflect the comments of the Planning Board, rather, they are general design comments directed to the applicant. Chairman Keene requested that people wishing to comment should limit their remarks to five minutes. TRACI GORMAN, 3233 WESTWOOD, CO-CHAIR OF SHADY OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. The following requirements, comments and recommendations pertain to P-1-2000. We, the residents of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, do hereby require that at a minimum, we would like a Phase 11 Environmental Study completed on the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 16 7.116 acres located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. SONA, the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, has discovered evidence that the adjoining properties known as the Capitol Region Airport Authority Medical Waste Site No. 2 and the Federal Surplus Warehouse Site have been classified as a Site 201 by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The information on file relates to volatile and semivolatile compounds known as Michigan Ten Metals, sodium, potassium, cyanide, chloride pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenols, known as PCB contamination. The above-mentioned sites have been remedied, but MDEQ still makes no warranty or guarantee as to the fitness of these sites. Due to the relatively close proximity of these adjoining properties, we feel that there is sufficient evidence, and I have provided you copies of the information from MDEQ, that the 7.116 acres may also be contaminated, thereby affecting the soil and the ground water beneath that parcel of land that, to the best of our knowledge, has never been tested. So we are requiring the parcel of land be tested with a Phase II Environmental Study. The Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association also recommends that the Planning Dept. deny the proposed development at the Westwood parcel and ultimately have the City of Lansing purchase the land in order to turn it into a park. Again, we have the 214 signatures asking to keep the parcel of land in open green space, thus preserving the integrity of our neighborhood. Should the Planning Dept. decide to let this be developed into a subdivision, SONA would require the following items be stipulated before final approval. Approximately 20 to 25 trains run at an average speed of 30 mph every day down those tracks alongside the Westwood parcel. The proposed subdivision would put homes and families literally feet from those trains. For the safety of those families, we are requiring that a barrier be put in place to keep children out of harm's way. We require that this barrier be strong and safe, yet pleasing to the eye. The previous owners, Giving Tree Farm, Inc., have torn down and eliminated the once-existing natural buffer zone between the neighborhood and those railroad tracks. Therefore, a new buffer zone must be implemented on the north along the tracks and supplemented with additional plantings of evergreens. A buffer zone on the west along the drain easement, with no buildings of any type, a buffer zone along the south, in between existing housing and new housing. Infrastructure, such as the road, gas, sewage, etc., be completed and signed off before any housing construction begins. Lot sizes and housing be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The development—we are requiring that it be an owner-occupied community. A tree inventory must be completed and all healthy mature trees be protected on the whole site. As stated before, the previous owners came in and tore down healthy mature trees. We are trying to save what's left. A vegetation plan for the entire site is something we would also like to see, and finally, accountability. Basically, we are asking that no codes be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 17 violated at this point in time. We thank you very much for keeping us informed. We are just trying to protect our neighborhood. Thank you. MARY CORSO, 3026 WESTWOOD. I have lived there for 11 years. I work in Lansing for the Public School District. I know that others have mentioned safety issues, and the proposed extension of Westwood Avenue. There are no sidewalks on Westwood or in much of the subdivision. Children walk to and from the buses in the street. People like myself who walk recreationally do so in the street, as do people from the neighboring businesses, specifically the Greater Lansing Board of Realtors and Peckham Industries who walk at lunchtime. The proposed 14 or even 13 new homes that have been suggested, recent statistics indicate that on average, each home has two vehicles and produces 10 trips in and out of the neighborhood per day. Westwood Avenue is not designed to handle that amount of traffic. Although we didn't know it was ever for sale, Giving Tree Farms was able to purchase this land for $1. We too are a nonprofit organization, and we would be happy to double their money and pay $2 for it. Then we would not have to worry about future development because we could save it for a park or community area. Thank you. STEPHEN RING, 1724 SHADY OAK LANE. I live as close to the trains as anybody would want to live. Those trains break all my light bulbs in the house; all my light sockets are loose. You put houses even closer to those trains, and who is going to live there? What kind of property value will be in that neighborhood? This man will tell you that they are going to sell them for x amount of dollars, but realistically, who is going to live by a railroad track and keep it owner-occupied and not turn it into a rental district? Thank you. ROD SHANGLE, 3203 WESTWOOD. I have lived there for 23 years. I analyzed the existing housing on Westwood and Shady Oak and discovered under the current plan proposed by LaMaire Properties, the housing would not be consistent with the existing housing either in size or square footage. From information obtained from the City of Lansing Assessor's Office, I compared the proposed development with 14 existing houses on Shady Oak, the street immediately adjacent to the proposed development. If the homes on Shady Oak were placed as they are, they would occupy approximately 183,000 sq ft of land. They plan to place 14 houses on only approximately 100,000 sq ft of land, excluding the streets. Additionally, the average square feet of the living space of a house on Shady Oak is 1,000 sq ft, and while we don't know the size of the houses proposed for the development, it would seem, according to the size of the lots, it would be somewhat smaller than that. The properties are not in harmony with the existing homes sizes and lots sizes and will eventually PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 18 cause the devaluation of the existing properties in our neighborhood. Most real estate people will agree that building a lesser-valued house negatively affects the values of the existing houses. My questions to the Planning Board are: If the City of Lansing Community Development objectives, are as stated in the notice of public hearing and I quote, partially, in Paragraph E., the preservation and improvement of residential neighborhoods, then by approving housing inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood, how does improving the neighborhood include building homes of lesser size and value preserve and improve the neighborhood? Under Paragraph F., the revitalization of the community through a more rational utilization of land and other natural resources, the reasonable use of land with a very close proximity to the railroad tracks, and I understand that there is supposed to be 100 feet of leeway between the track and the building, but without requiring the developer to assure the safety of the inhabitants, it is definitely questionable. In line with the Mayor's plan for green space, I would suggest a better use for the land would be a natural boundary between the residents and the noise pollution from the airport and the railroad. Under Paragraph G., the implementation of activities designed to meet the other community development needs have a particular urgency when existing conditions pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the community. If the intent of the Planning Board is to meet the needs which exist as a result of a serious threat to the health and welfare of the community, I suggest the approval of such a development would rather be contributing to the threat to health and welfare of the community. Again, due to the close proximity of the railroad track, and with the number of homes planned creating a shortage of backyard recreation area, where will the children play if the size of the lot is taken up with the house and garage? Other health issues are drainage. Mr. Lindemann has stated that the Reynolds Drain is already at capacity and that he would not approve any development without a plan to address the runoff. And then there is the issue of the possibly contaminated site. I would propose the Planning Board not approve the intended plat as submitted. Instead I would propose a study to be done, Phase II or similar, to be sure that the people living there are not exposed to invisible environmental hazards. I would propose a plan that is pared down to make it consistent with the current and existing neighborhood housing. Reduce the number of houses to a maximum of six. I would propose the development address the proximity of the railroad and noise levels by establishing some sort of noise barrier, a berm or similar wall. I would propose a holding pond with a protective fence be installed to address the runoff. Thank you. LEE MASON, 3204 WESTWOOD. I also own property at 3212 Westwood. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Shady Oak Neighborhood Association. I have been in that neighborhood for 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 19 years. I would like to request from the Board a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act for all correspondence between the Planning Board, the Planning Department, with reference to this proposed property, and the plans for it, from the previous owner to the present owner. We are also concerned about the safety of the residents, property owners, and the children. I used to be the deputy superintendent of schools for Lansing, and I understand what safety is about. Children walking to the bus stop in the dark is a problem. I have two cars that have been hit in front of my house. It would obstruct traffic flow. It has been stated that something is going to be built one way or the other. I don't know about that; it hasn't been done yet. I would urge you to vote no on the plan, and I would also urge you to suggest that the present owner sit down with the neighborhood association and discuss the future of this property. Thank you. KEN KLINE, 1700 SHADY OAK LANE. I would like to bring up the existing sanitary main. I would like to see if it can be televised, to see if it can accept these houses coming into it, because it is eight-inch clay. I was just wondering if it could even handle these houses. They won't have a problem; they will have brand new PVC. When it comes into the old existing clay, it's our houses that will back up. If it does go on, I would like to see soil erosion control, no weekend construction, and I would like to invite everyone out to the property to look around, look at the tracks and say, how could they put 14 houses here? Thank you. BETTY BEDARD, 1818 SHADY OAK LANE. We are backed up pretty close to the railroad tracks. We have shaking in our house already. The noise is loud when the trains come by. If I am trying to talk to somebody on the back porch, we can't really talk and be heard, and we are not backed up right to the railroad track like this new subdivision will be backed up to it. When airplanes come by, they are so loud, I tell my kids cover your ears, or come in the house when they go over, because they are so loud I am afraid for their hearing. Getting even closer to the airport, it seems would be a danger for not only children but for adults as well. If you are going to put in 14 homes, you are going to be taking trees out. I know they want to preserve as many as they can. Moving the trees to a different lot disturbs mature trees. Taking down the trees you need just to build is one thing; shocking them by putting houses right next to them also will kill trees and therefore, we are going to be losing the trees again. It is hard to preserve a woods and put 14 houses or 13 in it. It is an enhancement to the whole community and Lansing itself that draws people to a nice part of Lansing where you can say this is a nice city, the city of trees. We have to preserve the trees to keep it that way. Preserve it as a park, or if it's going to be developed, put way less homes in there in order to keep it a wooded area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 20 JAMES McDANIELS, 1732 SHADY OAK. My property backs up to this development directly. I am also Co-Chair of our neighborhood association. There are a couple key points I want to make perfectly clear. We aren't opposed to development of this land. What we are opposed to, is it being done hastily and incorrectly? We believe that this land could very likely be contaminated. In addition to that, the plat has three homes placed between my home and the railroad tracks. I can't fathom anybody in their right conscience wanting to put ten homes back there. What is proposed, 13 homes are being put on 4.9 acres of land. There are three lots that can fit on mine. Rod Shangle talked about keeping this subdivision in character with the natural integrity of our neighborhood. The more houses you try to "slip in" here and "slip in" there decreases our standard of living. I found an interesting note on the City of Lansing web site. One of the goals of the Mayor of Lansing or the responsibility of the Planning Board is to try to make sure that development projects assure quality of life in our neighborhoods. Well, we are that neighborhood and we are there right now. I would request that each one of you take time out of your schedule and walk with me on this property to hear some of our concerns. I have a six-year-old son. I can't fathom putting three more houses, potentially with a child or a couple children, between myself and the tracks, when I worry about my son and his safety. What I am asking of you is to either do nothing with this initial plat and/or decline it, because in my opinion, this plat has been prematurely submitted. I don't want it to start its process without people addressing our environmental concerns. We have a main creek over at the Reynolds Drain that hasn't been addressed. We have a sound barrier issue with a major track. The owner stated that the barrier issue with the track wasn't needed. I would propose for a safe development that it did not exceed four to five homes. It would keep the integrity of the neighborhood as long as it had a barrier at the track. I would appreciate further consideration prior to making any decision. Thank you. CARLA ALLAIRE, LAMAIRE PROPERTIES. I would like to address some of the concerns that I have heard. First, you have the plat in front of you. Most of the homes have about a half acre of property. Some have a lot more than that. We are not trying to press a bunch of houses in and make them look like tract houses. Second, the houses. This one is 1,728 square feet, full basement, two-car garage. This one is 2,036 square feet, with 330 unfinished bonus room. This one is a marvelous tri level, absolutely magnificent. This is 1,728 sq ft with a 288 bonus room, two-car garage, full basement. We want to make a quality, beautiful subdivision. We understand the feeling of a neighborhood. We would not in good conscience do anything to a neighborhood, even though we don't know the people. We want to make a good quality house, we want to get along with the neighbors; we want to put people in there that are going to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 21 good, honest, hardworking homeowners. We are willing to meet with the Shady Oak Neighborhood and get this hashed out because we want them to rest assured that we have no intentions of doing anything shoddy or slip-shod. We want it to be a nice area for everyone. BRYAN YUSTEN, 3991 WESTWOOD. Most of my feelings on this have been addressed. In the last seven or eight years, there have been at least three time frames when stuff has been attempted to be put in there. We do have a little bit of a bad taste in our mouth in the neighborhood because of the way that these things have come through. The biggest case in point is what happened with the Giving Tree Farms and the way that they handled the property, in which they came in and before we really even knew what was going on, they cleared out a whole section of it, which is what was referred to as the removal of the barrier. This was despite code violations and the various other things that they did, contrary to ordinance, etc., on that. What I request of you is that if anything of this nature happens prior to any proper approval and that if the new developer does anything regarding fouling stuff that appears to be intentional, that at that point you immediately suspend and remove the application, no matter what point he is at in his construction. That would give us a better feel in support of him, if we know we have the support of the Planning Board. Some of the previous owners have seemed to run things in slip-shod before we know what's going on, and not following through properly. I would like to hold him to that in following through and not doing anything until he has all the proper approvals. I am asking you, as the Board, that if he does anything of that nature, that you consider pulling the rug out from underneath him at any point in time. Thank you. SCOTT BEDARD, 1818 SHADY OAK LANE. I would like to comment on how they expect to sell these houses without tearing down some trees. They plan these big houses with two-car garages and they say on top of that they illustrate they don't want to jump anything onto us, but before consulting anybody in the neighborhood, they just come in with chainsaws and bulldozers and tear up a whole bunch of trees without telling anybody a thing. I think that is extremely dishonest. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing for P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will take up the matter at its meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2001, at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. People can raise issues at that point; also further written comments can be submitted during the process or subsequent to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 22 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each). None. 6. RECESS (Z&O Committee to meet at recess to discuss NCU-12-2000). 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: December 5, 2000 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of December 5, 2000, without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of December 5, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Mr. Frederick reported that he was no longer Chairman of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. In Committee, officers were elected: Mr. Ruge, Chairman, and Ms. Foster, Vice Chairman. Mr. Ruge assumed the chair. a. NCU-12-2000, 118 W. Grand River, Class A Status The Committee met this evening during the recess. The applicant is requesting a Class A nonconforming status for 118 W. Grand River Avenue to renovate the existing two- unit building in the "DM-4" Residential District. The property is nonconforming due to the front yard setback of the building and therefore is limited to 35 percent of the value of the structure for repairs and renovations. We received the staff report and found that all the criteria for a Class A status have been met. In Committee, a motion was made and seconded to approve that the class A nonconforming status be approved subject to two conditions: 1. That the building be completed within one year of funding being approved from the City, because the applicant is getting City funds to help renovate this property, and 2. That improvements be respectful of the historic character of the property. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-12-2000, 118 W. Grand River, Class A Status, with two conditions. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 23 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays, None; motion carried unanimously, NCU-12-2000, 118 W. Grand River, Class A Status with two conditions as listed above was APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, January 17, 2001, at 8:30 p.m., City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall. b. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. The Urban Development Committee has not met. Next meeting, Tuesday, January 30, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to resolve to the Committee of the Whole; unanimous; carried. C. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair 1. Proposed Capitol Historic District Mr. Rieske presented the report. He provided a copy of information that was mailed to property owners for the hearing. Since the public hearing, we have received a number of comments on the response card that was included with the public notice. These responses have been tabulated and summarized by property. We plan to link that with GIS using that technology to determine the nature and location of the responses relative to the applicable properties. We have mapped the National Register properties, those properties which in the opinion of the study committee are National Register eligible, and the State Register properties, and all contributing properties "contributing to the character of an historic district" in order to look at where clusters emerge. The process envisioned would be consideration of the properties, and finding out how many of these factors would apply. Are the buildings contributing, are they on the state and/or national registers and/or eligible, and is there public support? Where considerations coincide, a possible district may be indicated. We have heard from the Study Committee public hearing and from the Board that a large district may not be supportable at the City Council level. Regarding anthropology and archaeology, the report covers above-ground items that have been developed in recorded PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 24 history. Money has not been available to do archaeological digs. Concerning uniformity in considering old structures, they would be treated in a uniform manner as to processing building permits which would be reviewed by the Historic District Commission. The issue of facade treatments in a historic district differing from suburban deed restrictions has some similarities. The same principle holds true with regard to historic districts. Within a district, improvements would be protected by protecting the setting that they go into. Enforcement of deed restrictions would be a civil matter, whereas in the historic district, enforcement would be by the local government. Ms. Patrick asked about card returns. Mr. Ruff said some owners owned multiple properties and some sent letters. Cards are still trickling in. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Proposed Capitol Historic District be tabled in the Committee of the Whole. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; the Proposed Capitol Historic District was TABLED. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to rise from the Committee of the Whole; Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously. 4. Executive Committee C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff reported that, regarding the Drakes Refinery station on S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., the matter is to be heard by the Demolition Board in January. There will be a press conference regarding the Boys Training School site on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, at 9 a.m. The Michigan Economic Development Corporation is awarding the City of Lansing $770,000 to purchase the site. The City Council is reviewing a purchase agreement with ADCO of Novi for a traditional neighborhood development. Plans have not as yet been received, though an application for rezoning should be received soon. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 25 We are requesting that bids be taken for sign companies that would do sign abatement for the City. We are progressing with sign abatement activities so that if a sign is hazardous or abandoned, it can be removed. Forum News from the National Trust for Historic Preservation lists tax incentives for historic preservation state by state. Michigan is listed as offering tax incentives. At the hearing the other night, some people said it would be nice if there was a property tax abatement versus an income tax credit. Under the Mathieu-Gast Act, you are allowed to do certain home improvements and not be taxed. 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, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole a. Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over South Washington Square(Tabled December 5, 2000) b. Proposed Capitol Historic District 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith commented on a hazardous traffic situation at Celebration Cinema on Edgewood Blvd. Traffic was backed up almost to Cedar Street. Does the City have jurisdiction to assess the traffic pattern of the parking lot? Does the Fire Dept. have any interest? There is no way an emergency vehicle, a fire truck or an ambulance, could get in or out. What City office has authority in this situation. Mr. Ruff will contact the Fire Marshal's office. A twenty-foot-wide access is required by the Fire Marshal to the facilities. Fire lanes as ordered by the Fire Marshal must be posted. Mr. Ruff will have discussions with Celebration Cinema. A variance for parking was granted based upon consideration of the timing of programs in a cycle of start times so that all the shows did not start at once. Mr. Smith also noted possible OSHA violations in that personnel PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 PAGE 26 attempting to direct traffic were not equipped to do it. They had no reflective gear or flashlights, nor were they trained in directing traffic. Ms. Patrick said a section of S. Cedar where Farmer Jack's is being developed has a serious problem with sidewalks not being plowed. People walk in the street in rush hour traffic to get around the property, the only one that has not been shoveled. Ms. Foster said people are walking in the street on Saginaw where sidewalks have not been plowed. Mr. Frederick said the City has a lot of gall giving tickets to people for not clearing their snow. One street that the snow plows drove up and down has a restaurant at the end where the plow personnel took their breaks. They didn't have the consideration to drop the blade and plow the street on their way to break. The City needs to evaluate snow removal practices. Mr. Ruge will be out of town from January 12 to 22 and will miss the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on January 17, 2001. On Z-15-2000, Mr. Ruge said they want to have a more intense use than the "D-1" Professional Office. Mr. Ruge was concerned with them doing whatever they wanted with the "G-1". Is there a way through variances that they can at least partially accomplish their goals but still control the situation? Mr. Ruff said "G-1" may not be the zoning they need. Other zoning districts would accommodate the coffee shop as well as the office and recreational use. There are other options. Variances would be rather difficult. In the "D-1" District, they could vary the setbacks and the height, but really the more appropriate response is some zoning action. They could not grant a variance for the use, like the use of the coffee shop. That is a land use matter for the Planning Board and City Council. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted —j Jame*Auff., cretary Planning Board =01092001 a:\61 APPROVED AS PRINTED FEBRUARY 6, 2001. Draft to Clerk 01212001 Approved 02062001 To Clerk 02142001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting r— LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers �- Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue ti Tuesday, January 23, 2001 C. =- wr 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. One vacant seat. B. Absence - Nischan. Mr. Nischan's letter of resignation is expected soon. C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager, and William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each). None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: January 9, 2000 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of January 9, 2000, without corrections. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of January 9, 2000, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. Foster, Chair. a. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, "D-1" Professional Office to "G-1" Business District The applicants are requesting the rezoning of the property from "D-1" Professional Office to "G-1" Business District to develop a mixed-use seven-story building and a parking deck with off-street parking. Staff recommends denial of the request. Mr. Frederick asked for more information on the rezoning of the Michigan Catholic Conference site. Also, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 3 Attached is a copy of the original diagram and photographs, both of which were included in the December 5, 2000 meeting packet, plus two additional diagrams which we received yesterday. The first diagram is a revised view of the storefronts involved. It shows double-hung windows replacing casements, and a revised alignment for the window headers. For 115 S. Washington, the balcony width is reduced to that of a single set of French doors. For 119, the two sets of French doors originally proposed are reduced to one, flanked on each side with double-hung windows. The second new diagram is a balcony section, showing a side view of the balcony. It shows the balcony projecting 3 feet from the building (reduced from 4 feet). The railing is premanufactured square steel tubing. The corner posts are 2 inches square, with 3/4 inch square vertical slats, under a 2 inch x 1 inch horizontal railing. The floors are made of two-by-fours on their sides connected by dowels. The balconies are anchored with 9 feet steel channels, tied into 10 inch x 30 inch beams running the width of the storefront. Staff recommends approval, with the understanding that: • the Building Safety office will require prior approval of specifications, as well as inspections during the course of construction, • if EDC funds are used as planned, the project will also be subject to the EDC's design review committee recommendations, • The City Attorney's Office will approve as to form the appropriate license for use of the City's air rights over the Washington Avenue right-of-way, for approval by City Council. Mr. Smith asked about the 2 x 4s laid on their side for the balcony flooring—what kind of wood, and how impervious are they to the weather? For instance, cedar as opposed to pine? Mr. Smith was concerned that the material be long-lasting that would not deteriorate and present a poor appearance. Mr. Stockwell was in the audience but did not know the answer. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of Act-19- 2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, with the following recommendations : 1. That the Building Safety office will require prior approval of specifications, as well as inspections during the course of construction, 2. That if EDC funds are used as planned, the project will also be subject to the EDC's design review committee recommendations, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGES In comments thus far, Planning Board members have indicated these concerns: Planninq Board Comments thus far: • Concerns expressed over the administration of the Historic District Ordinance, the need to have a clear process of approving exterior renovations in the district, the potential administrative burden due to the addition of a large historic district, and the desire to see some smaller successes in the area; • The report's omission of historic landscapes, the historic nature or character of the space, and the use of historic gardens with native plants; • The report's omission of archaeology or anthropology, and thus, the contributions of Native Americans in the area; • A concern about public acceptance of the proposed district; • A concern that the report address both the concerns of the public and the public benefit of historic preservation. These are the most substantive comments from the Planning staff. Hopefully, they address the Planning Board comments we have heard thus far, and are substantially compatible with those of the State Historic Preservation Office. Section III - Project Objectives and Methodology. Include holding a public hearing; receiving written, oral comments and agency comments; GIS mapping of contributing and National Register properties as well as comments received; an analysis of building permit activity within the study area; and tours the study area with State Historic Preservation Office staff. Section V - Project Constraints. Fold it into Section III regarding methodology, and focus on constraints or limitations of the study. The study is considered a reconnaissance level study, and as such it does not address matters of cultural significance in great depth. Archaeological sites are also outside the scope of the project. These two factors limit its usefulness for research on Native Americans. Since the study cannot be expanded, these disclaimers are essential. Section VI - Economic Incentives and Benefits of Preservation. This is a four-page discussion which provides useful detail, but strays from the discussion of the study itself. Staff recommends PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 7 A summary of the State Historic Preservation Office comments was attached. The State Historic Preservation Review Board and the Michigan Historical Commission reviews are not yet completed, and their comments are not yet received. There are three entities from whom comments are expected; the two mentioned above, and the Planning Board. The Historic District Ordinance charges the Historic District Study Committee with submitting a copy of the preliminary report to the Planning Board for review and comment. The Board's responsibility is presumably to return comments to the Study Committee. The staff recommendation is to use the comments contained herein as the basis for providing the Planning Board's official comments to the Capitol Historic District Study Committee. Mr. Frederick asked, about Michigan Historical Center's State Historic Preservation Office report, why is that required to be included with this, or what is the process for them making their comments? Mr. Rieske said they are the staff for the State's Historical Center's Historic Preservation Review Board. When we send our comments to these other two bodies, we send it to the State Historic Preservation Office. These two organizations rely on the State Historic Preservation Office for the staff support and the staff work relative to their comments. Two things about these comments are useful. One is that they foreshadow what we would be expecting from these other two agencies. Secondly is, we got them early enough so that we can incorporate them into the process without waiting for the other agencies who are slower to respond. Their comments have been helpful in terms of channeling our efforts in strengthening the report. Mr. Frederick said he agreed, in the recommendations section, comment 13, they recommended that the recommendations be moved to the front; and in the last paragraph, state the criteria used to evaluate the historical significance, he agreed with that comment too. Mr. Smith commented on Section V. The statement was made that the study is considered a reconnaissance level study and as such does not address matters of cultural significance in great depth, and that archaeological sites are also outside the scope of the project. Archaeological sites may be thought of as dealing with very early history, but in fact there have been in Michigan archaeological studies in southwest Michigan on 19th Century farm sites. There could be some recommendations here that recognize that when a place is being considered for its historical significance that there in fact may be a need to bring in the state to assess it archaeologically. The fact that you refer to this as primarily a reconnaissance level study suggests that this is the very PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 9 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Frederick . .Ave Foster .Ave Patrick. . . Ave Ruge . Ave Smith. . . Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, with conditions as follows: 1. That the Building Safety office will require prior approval of specifications, as well as inspections during the course of construction, 2. That if EDC funds are used as planned, the project will also be subject to the EDC's design review committee recommendations, 3. The City Attorney's Office will approve as to form the appropriate license for use of the City's air rights over the Washington Avenue right-of-way, for approval by City Council was APPROVED. (Editor's Note: Safety-related conditions for the balcony most recently approved, Act-18-2000, 210 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air Rights for Balcony over Washington Avenue, were discussed but were not included in the recommendations by the Planning Board for Act-18-2000. Likewise, they were not included in the recommendations for Act-1 9-2000.) b. Proposed Capitol Historic District The Committee addressed the comments contained in the staff report regarding the Capitol Historic District Study Committee and agreed to adopt the recommendations and to move the report along with the option that more recommendations could be made at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to transmit Board comments and staff recommendations to the Capitol Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report, with the understanding that the staff will try to accommodate subsequent comments when feasible. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; that the Planning Board comments and staff recommendations be transmitted to the Capitol Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report was APPROVED. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 11 Ms. Keene asked about vacancies and new members. Mr. Ruff is searching for new members. Mr. Smith suggested that at their meetings City Council might announce board vacancies. It might be a way of generating inquiries. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge asked about signs and about abandoned poles for signs no longer in existence. Is there a mechanism for removing the poles? On Michigan Avenue between Sparrow and Clemens, there are at least 30 poles. Mr. Ruff said the City is going to retain a sign contractor to remove abandoned signs and structures. Mr. Smith mentioned a recent article about church steeples as placement points for cell phone towers, and ways of concealing them. Church towers might be mentioned as possible sites when communications companies are looking for locations. Ms. Foster said she will be taking students on a study abroad program in April; she will miss two Planning Board meetings and one Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting in April. Ms. Patrick will be away February 27 and so will be unable to attend the Urban Development Committee meeting on that date. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick has received comments from female coworkers in the Grand Tower walking to and from their parking structures that since the Ground Transportation Terminal has opened that they have been panhandled and harassed by homeless people. It's not simply people panhandling and asking for cash; they are also following along behind them. It has been bothersome. Mr. Ruff said besides LPD, we do have security in the City parking ramp. He asked for a contact person from the Grand Tower. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted 4Jamsuff, ecretary Planning Board =01232001 a:\61 APPROVED AS PRINTED FEBRUARY 20, 2001. Draft to Clerk 02202001 Approved 02202001 To Clerk 02272001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, February 6, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. Two vacant seats. B. Absence - None. C. Introductions. William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Rieske said at the last Urban Development Committee meeting, the Committee decided to meet at the recess regarding the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Designation at 100 Blk N. Washington Square. This item, at the pleasure of the Committee, could also be dealt with in the Committee of the Whole. The change to the agenda was agreeable to Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Urban Development Committee. With that change, the agenda was approved. Mr. Ruge arrived at this point. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-1-2001, 701 W. Jolly Road, Church and Salvation Army Social Services Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request by the Salvation Army for a Special Land Use permit to use an existing 13,426 sq ft building at 701 West Jolly Road for Salvation Army purposes. Their main office is on North Pennsylvania; this would be a satellite office. They would offer many of the same services that they offer at their Pennsylvania Avenue address, including regular Sunday church services. The applicant is proposing to move their operation at 1501 Windsor Street to this location. The existing building will be remodeled into a church with seating for 100 parishioners. The site is 2.42 acres in size, L-shaped, with 90 parking spaces, more than enough parking for the proposed use. Additionally, social services such as a food pantry and utility payment assistance will be provided at this location. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of January 23, 2001, without corrections. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of January 23, 2001, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. 1. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources for FY 2002 In Committee, Emil Winnicker presented the proposed use of Community Development Funds. The funding sources include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME Program, and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). The Planning Board held a public hearing regarding this item at its January 9, 2001, meeting. Since then, several minor changes were made in the allocation of funds among the individual line items, some of which were mandated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Funding allocations will not be firm until grant agreements are executed by HUD and the City of Lansing. Historic Preservation is not included as a line item as it was in the past because the City has $98,000 of unexpended funds already allocated to historic preservation. Most of the applicants for the historic preservation funds do not meet the income criteria (less than or equal to 80 percent of the area median household income). Mr. Winnicker wanted this explanation emphasized this evening so that people understood. Staff recommends approval of the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs, FY 2001-2002. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources as revised. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 PAGE 5 Staff recommends approval of Act 23-2000, the BWL proposal to grant utility easements to Consumers Energy Company, in Alaiedon and Delta Townships, as proposed. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of the proposal, that the proposed easements are located outside the Lansing city limits, will not interfere with the operation of any city utility, and will have a negligible effect on the character of their surrounding areas. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act 23-2000, the BWL proposal to grant utility easements to Consumers Energy Company, in Alaiedon and Delta Townships, as proposed. 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 23-2000, the BWL proposal to grant utility easements to Consumers Energy Company, in Alaiedon and Delta Townships, as proposed. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . .Ave Foster . .Ave Patrick. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. Aye Keene .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act 23-2000, the BWL proposal to grant utility easements to Consumers Energy Company, in Alaiedon and Delta Townships, as proposed was APPROVED. Chairman Smith remarked that one other item that the Committee did look at and did not take any action on at the Urban Development Committee meeting was the issue of the 100 Block N. Washington Square, Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) Designation. It will be discussed in Committee of the Whole. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 PAGE 7 Lansing, but also for other Michigan cities, to learn about it and develop the program and publicize it. There is a very good chance that this will be extended for an additional period of time. Mr. Smith asked about three property owners that recommended for approval. What is the opinion of the others? Ms. Smith said the two parcels consisting of the State Legislative Offices and the City Hall facing Capitol Avenue obviously would have no areas to be converted to residential; however, the 110 W. Michigan Avenue building could possibly eventually be developed into lofts. Mr. Smith asked about the ten listed property owners and the three recommending in favor. Seven have not commented? Ms. Smith said the property owners who have commented are the ones facing Washington Square. Ms. Foster asked how many housing units are expected? Ms. Smith said by calculating the space above the 100 North Block, they would expect about eight units total. The state does not allow more than eight units per building to be converted. Mr. Rieske noted that this is a step that implements the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan which recommends downtown housing and loft development. Mr. Ruge asked which three property owners were in favor; and are they planning to do the lofts conversions? Ms. Smith said Mr. Kositchek; Mr. Stockwell and Mr. English; there is interest from one property owner who has shown an extensive interest in putting in loft living space above commercial. Mr. Ruge said only one in this block? Ms. Smith said all three wrote letters of recommendation, but one is currently very much interested in the loft. Mr. Ruge said Mr. Stockwell has plans for S. Washington; Ms. Smith said he is putting in 15 new lofts on Allegan Street and on the 100 block of S. Washington. Mr. Smith asked, if it does get the designation, does this mean that the owners of all ten properties will be able to get tax abatements regardless of whether they ultimately develop any residential space? Ms. Smith said no, this pertains to residential only. A property owner first has to go through an application process. The property has to be considered residential for either rehabilitation or new PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 PAGE 9 current Master Plan and findings as above, and that these findings will be forwarded to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, based on testimony, evidence and the reports presented, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part thereof, to pass the resolution, Exhibit D, as presented. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; 100 Block N. Washington Square, Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) Designation was APPROVED. That was the only item on the Committee of the Whole agenda; Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the Committee of the Whole do rise; carried unanimously. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Committee of the Whole heard a report from Marchelle Smith, the Economic Development Corporation Special Projects Administrator, concerning the 100 Block N. Washington Square, Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) Designation. There were questions and answers of Ms. Smith, and as a result, the Committee of the Whole supported unanimously the adoption of the sample resolution. 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 approve the resolution for the 100 Block N. Washington Square, Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) Designation. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; the resolution for the 100 Block N. Washington Square, Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) Designation was APPROVED. Mr. Frederick said that concludes his report. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 PAGE 11 Mr. Ruge said there was an old Midas Muffler Shop on the north side of the 2300 Block of East Michigan Avenue that turned into American Transmission. It was built right on the property line and now it has been torn down. He wondered what was going on. Ms. Patrick will not be in town for the next Urban Development Committee meeting on February 27. Mr. Ruge volunteered to attend in her place. Mr. Frederick said if that does not work out, he probably would be available on that date. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Secretary Planning Board mn0206001 a:\62 ACT-23-2000, Alaiedon and Delta Townships BWL Easements to Consumers Energy GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lansing Board of Water and Light 1232 Haco Drive P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, MI 48901-3007 REQUESTED ACTION: The Board of Water and Light wishes to grant two utility easements to Consumers Energy Co., outside the City, but within the LBWL service area EXISTING LAND USE: Alaiedon Township: LBWL's Hulett Road Pump Station. Delta Township: LBWL's Erickson Station. EXISTING ZONING: Not Applicable PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: Alaiedon Township: Rectangular, 10' x 377.14' Delta Township: Parallogram, 30' x 145' SURROUNDING LAND USE: Alaiedon Township: Office and Commercial Delta Township: Industrial and Railroad SURROUNDING ZONING: Not applicable MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Not applicable SPECIFIC INFORMATION Alaiedon Township. The easement to Consumers Energy in Alaiedon Township for underground electric facilities for a consideration of$1 will permit Consumers Energy to operate a north-south underground electric facility in a location west of the reservoir on the pump station property. This easement will encumber the same 10 ft presently encumbered by a gas main and gas main easement. The Board of Water and Light is not currently using nor has any foreseeable use of this portion of the Hulett Road Pump Station property for utility purposes. Delta Township. The easement to Consumers Energy in Delta Township for overhead electric facilities for a consideration of $1 will permit Consumers Energy to operate their north-south overhead electric facility in a location westerly of the widened Creyts Road now under construction by the Eaton County Road Commission. The Board of Water and Light is not currently using nor has any foreseeable use of this portion of the Erickson Station property for utility purposes. ACT-23-2000, Alaiedon & Delta Twps., BWL Easements to Consumers Energy P. 2 AGENCY RESPONSES Public Service: The Public Service Department does not object to the issuance of these easements and has no comments. Assessor: Not in City. No Assessor's Office comments. City Attorney: None received. Parks & Rec. Dept.: No comment. It does not impact park operations. AT&T: No comment received. ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: Both parcels are located outside of the City limits and outside of the P.A. 425 areas. In Alaiedon Township, the proposed location is the Hulett Road Pump Station. In Delta, the proposed location is at the Erickson Station west of Creyts Road. CHARACTER: In Alaiedon Township, Consumers Energy proposes underground electric facilities within a 10' easement used for gas lines. The character of the area will be unaffected. In Delta Township, the proposed Consumers Energy overhead wiring will have a negligible impact on the character of the industrial area along Creyts Road and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad. EXTENT: The Board of Water and Light has approved the proposed easements, and affirmed that the easements will not affect BWL operations. The proposed easements are also outside the service area of the Parks & Recreation and Public Service Departments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act 23-2000, the BWL proposal to grant utility easements to Consumers Energy Company, in Alaiedon and Delta Townships, as proposed. Wlb,r d'A"red'Ad 285 R.tii.—2000ACT5S00ad23'ACT-27-2000.FE.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 ...................................... V1/ATERBcLIC�iT .... ................... ............ #2000-10-2 GRANTING OF EASEMENT- ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP RESOLVED, that the Board authorize the granting of an easement to Consumers Energy for underground electric facilities at a cost of$1.00, subject to the approval of City Council as required under Article 2, Section 5-203.3 of the Lansing City Charter. The easement is located on a portion of the west side of the Hulett Road Pump Station property in Alaiedon Township. This easement has been requested by Consumers Energy. Easement Description: The west 10 feet of Parcel A described below: Parcel A A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 5, T. 3 R. 1 W, ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN (SAID 1/4 CORNER BEING RECORDED IN L. 9, P. 452 OF INGHAM COUNTY LAND CORNER RECORDATION CERTIFICATES); THENCE ALONG THE 1/4 LINE S 00035'16" E 1309.17 FT.; THENCE S 88019'51" W 551.90 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION: THENCE CONTINUING S 88°19'51" W 240.00 FT.; THENCE NORTHERLY (PARALLEL TO THE N-S 1/4 LINE OF SECTION 5)N 0003 5'16" W 377.14 FT. TO THE NORTH LINE OF LAND OWNED BY THE"FORSBERG FAMILY L.L.C." AND KNOWN AS ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP TAX PARCEL NUMBER 06-05-100-047, SAID TOTAL TAX PARCEL CONTAINING 32.746 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS (ACCORDING TO TOWNSHIP RECORDS); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TAX PARCEL S 89058'59" E 239.97 FT.; THENCE SOUTHERLY (PARALLEL TO THE N-S 1/4 LINE OF SECTION 5) S 00°35'16" E 370.08 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. THIS PARCEL IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION FOR THE "DINGMAN DRAIN", SAID RIGHTS GRANTED IN A RELEASE OF RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED IN L. 73, PP. 386-388, MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF INGHAM COUNTY, ALSO SUBJECT TO GAS LINE EASEMENT RIGHTS OF CONSUMER ENERGY COMPANY AS RETAINED IN A"PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT" EXECUTED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1999 BY VINCENT D. EDWARDS (CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY GAS FIELD MANAGER), SAID GAS LINE EASEMENT ENCUMBERING THE WEST 10 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL OTHER EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 89,650 SQ. FT. OR 2.0581 ACRES-OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. CERTIFICATION I, Mary E. Sova, Corporate Secretary of the Lansing Board of Water and Light, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Water and Light Commissioners of the City of Lansing, Michigan, at a regular meeting, held on the 241" day of October, 2000, and that a quorum was present and notice of said meeting was given in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. This resolution is still in full force and effect. Certified this ,day of , 2000. Mary Sova Corporate Secretary ,4 Jolly Road North 1/4 Cor., Section 5, Alaiedon Twp., Ingham Co., Mich. North Scale: 1 in. = 200 ft. 'D c0 0 rn 0 0 2 Easement Area (shaded) 239.97' d- co o r` Parcel A o ti r` � m 10' 551.90' 240.00' Attachment "A" hAmwMacadlhu lease.dwg i ATTACHMENT 2 QVQA 0. #2000-10-3 GRANTING OF EASEMENT—DELTA TOWNSEM? RESOLVED, that the Board authorize the granting of an easement to Consumers Energy for overhead electric facilities at a cost of$1.00, subject to the approval of City Council .is required ender Article 2, Section 5-203.3 of the Lansing City Charter. The easement Brea is located on a portion of the most ezterly end of the Erickson Station properly. Consumers Energy has requested the new eaE�ernent for relocated electric facilities. Easement Description: THE EASTERLY 145 FEET OF THAT PART OF A 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND IN TBE N.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 3 W., DELTA TOWNSHIP, EATON COUNTY, MICHIGAN, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF GRAND TRJN WESTERN RAILROAD LAND AND WESTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 34, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN CREYTS ROAD, AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. CERTIFICATION I, Mary E. Sova, Corporate Secretary of the Lansing Board of Water and Light, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Water and Light Commissioners of the City of Lansing, Michigan, at a regular meeting, held on the 24`h day of October, 2000, and that a quorum was present and notice of said meeting was given in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. This resolution is still in full force and effect. Certified this PA day of 2000. Mary E.X2/l� Corporate Secretary North Scale 1 in, = 60 f t' L5 9U m 0 m Sm wood pde (easement Area (cross-hatched) guy wires d c 0 u 145' o� o East 1/4 Cor, Ln UJ Section 34, C6 O' T. 4 N., R. 3 W., L 66, Delta Township, o U / Eaton Co„ Mich, m.� tm $ o AttachmL-nt 'A° h\nw w\ncod\celisc.d erg TOTAL P.03 Draft to Clerk 02202001 Approved 03062001 To Clerk 03232001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ; ; 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. Six present, two vacant seats. B. Absences - None. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Ruff noted that the Urban Development Committee will meet February 27, 2001, and not March 27, as shown on the agenda. With that correction, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo dated February 20, 2001, to the Planning Board from Sam Quon, Senior Planner, regarding SLU-1-2001, giving information about shade trees. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: February 6, 2001. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of February 6, 2001, without corrections. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of February 6, 2001, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met on February 14, 2001. a. SLU-1-2001, 701 W. Jolly Road, Church and Salvation Army Social Services Sam Quon presented the case, a request for a Special Land Use (SLU) permit to use an existing 13,426 sq ft building at PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 2 701 W. Jolly Road for a church. The applicant, The Salvation Army, is proposing to move their operation at 1501 Windsor Street to this location. The existing building will be remodeled into a church with seating for 100 parishioners. Additionally, social services such as a food pantry and utility payment assistance will be provided at this location. This will be a satellite office from the main office on 525 N. Pennsylvania Avenue. Based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, it meets all nine criteria. The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. 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 facilities in excess of current capacities. The proposed Special Land Use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and objectives of the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Land Use will meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit with the condition that the fence on the south side of the property be replaced to provide screening and/or landscaping. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 3 In Committee, the members discussed several aspects, including landscaping, specifically, planting shade trees in the parking lot. Also, possible acquisition of the property by The Salvation Army at Washington and Jolly was discussed. Some environmental problems on this property may exist. The Committee considered the control of light pollution of the parking lot if the lights have to be replaced. Sam was asked to research prices for shade trees. The Committee also recommended that The Salvation Army consider installing shade trees around the parking area. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-1) to approve SLU-1-2001, 701 W. Jolly Road, Church and Salvation Army Social Services, with the following conditions: 1. The fence on the south side of the property shall be replaced with another fence or landscaping to provide screening; 2. The existing sewer easements on the east side of the property be retained; 3. The replacement of exterior lights shall be shielded and limited in height to prevent light pollution; 4. The expansion of the building and parking is not permitted; and 5. The installation of shade trees is recommended around the perimeter of the parking lot. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve SLU-1-2001, 701 W. Jolly Road, Church and Salvation Army Social Services, with the following conditions: 1. The fence on the south side of the property shall be replaced with another fence or landscaping to provide screening; 2. The existing sewer easements on the east side of the property are retained; 3. The replacement of exterior lights shall be shielded and limited in height to prevent light pollution; 4. The expansion of the building and parking is not permitted; and 5. The installation of shade trees is recommended around the perimeter of the parking lot. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruff asked Mr. Ruge about the intent of condition 4. Mr. Ruge explained that if The Salvation Army wanted to increase their programs and add to the property, or increase PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 4 the intensity of the use, that the Planning Board would have the right to review increases and expansions for additional concerns. Condition 4 was revised as follows: 4. The increase in the intensity of the proposed functions/land uses or a significant increase in the size of the parking lot is not permitted; and . . . . The friendly amendment was acceptable to both Mr. Ruge and Mr. Frederick. Mr. Frederick said the applicants discussed acquisition of Lot 13, but there may be an issue of contamination. Mr. Ruff said there is a program through the Economic Development Corporation to help fund identification of potential brownfield sites and for remediation of sites. Ms. Foster said on Lot 15, the City has dumped concrete rubble fill. Mr. Frederick said it would be nice to see that corner looking better and put to some good use. Frederick . .Ave Foster . .Ave Patrick. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . Ave Smith. Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; SLU-1-2001, 701 W. Jolly Road, Church and Salvation Army Social Services, with conditions as follows: 1. The fence on the south side of the property shall be replaced with another fence or landscaping to provide screening; 2. The existing sewer easements on the east side of the property are retained; 3. The replacement of exterior lights shall be shielded and limited in height to prevent light pollution, 4. The increase in the intensity of the proposed functions/land uses or a significant increase in the size of the parking lot is not permitted; and 5. The installation of shade trees is recommended around the perimeter of the parking lot was APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. The Urban Development Committee has not met. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Committee of the Whole - has not met. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. C. Report from Planning Manager PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 5 The City Council on February 19 held a Make Safe or Demolish hearing for 3500 S. Waverly. The Drakes station will have a Make Safe or Demolish hearing before City Council on March 12. Efforts to remediate commercial blight are continuing. The Planning Board has two vacant seats. Efforts by staff, the Mayor's Office, and Comprehensive Planning activities should help generate interest in Board membership. We need both a Third Ward and a Fourth Ward member. Three vacancies exist on the Historic District Commission, one of whom should be an architect. The Board of Zoning Appeals has three vacancies, two in the First Ward and one in the Third Ward. Mr. Frederick said Diane Burns, who is developing the church at the corner of Grand River and Larch, is a potential candidate for the Planning Board. 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) d. P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat e. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District f. Proposed Revisions to the Historic District Ordinance(Tabled February 14, 2001) g. Zoning Ordinance Amendments-"F-1" Commercial District(No Action Taken February 14, 2001); Accessory Buildings and Front Yard Setbacks (Not taken up for discussion) 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 8. NEW BUSINESS - Mr. Ruff confirmed that members received their packets in a timely manner. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge asked what is being done with the old Midas station on Michigan Avenue. Mr. Ruff said the property was purchased by the church directly to the east. They anticipate building some additional parking for the church. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 6 Mr. Ruge asked about the stop light at Michigan and Lathrop in front of Resurrection Church. The light is very short, to try to cross the street. Mr. Ruge's concern is for children trying to cross, with spring coming and the 1-496 closure. Mr. Ruff will discuss it with Mr. Berridge. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Ruff about the apartments Harry Hepler intended to construct north of the North Precinct. Mr. Ruff said it was a Special Land Use permit request for constructing residential units in an industrial district; it has been on hold since the fire occurred. At this point, it has not progressed through Council. It is pending at City Council. Mr. Ruge asked about the new housing code which was passed. Does it have new provisions for front yard parking? Mr. Ruff said yes. Enforcement training is being completed for code compliance officers. The training will also be cycled into LPD training sessions. Ms. Patrick said she will be unable to attend the Urban Development Committee meeting next Tuesday, February 27. Mr. Ruge said he volunteered; however, he has a conflict and must withdraw his offer of participation. Mr. Frederick said he believes his calendar is clear, and probably he can make it. Mr. Frederick commented relative to making Lansing more walkable. He has received several complaints about people being confronted by large dogs such as Rottweilers, etc. Does the City take responsibility for dogs running loose and threatening people? Mr. Ruff will check enforcement measures. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS. Mr. Frederick said at 3205 S. Cedar, parking lot next to the old Stella's Greek- Mexican Restaurant. The parking lot is being used to store five semi trailers and one large delivery truck. Mr. Ruff said the property is zoned Commercial and does not permit outside storage. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 7.45 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ru , Secretary Planning Board mn02202001 a:\62 SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 1 Special Land Use for a Church GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Salvation Army PROPERTY OWNER: Douglas J. and Sandra Weaver 1801 Mirabeau, Okemos, MI 48864 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Buy sell agreement subject to SLU approval REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU) to use an existing 13,426 sq.ft. building at 701. W. Jolly Road for a church. EXISTING LAND USE: Previous site of Sankofa Shule School EXISTING ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office & "J" Parking PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 2.42 acres - "L" shaped lot SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial and Residential S: Residential E: Institutional W: Commercial and Vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial, "A" and "C" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "B" Residential and "J" Parking W:"D-1" Professional Office MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, designates the land use as commercial. Jolly Road is classified as minor arterial and Washington Avenue is a collector street. BACKGROUND: The property was last rezoned in 1973 from "C-2" Family Residential to "D-1" Professional Office for a funeral home. Sankofa Shule school was the most recent occupant of this site. SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 2 Special Land Use for a Church SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to move their operation at 1501 Windsor Street to this location. The existing building will be remodeled into a church with seating for 100 parishioners. Additionally, social services such as a food pantry and utility payment assistance. will be provided at this location. This will be a satellite office from the main office on 525 N. Pennsylvania Avenue. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessor: If an exemption from property taxes is requested the property must first be owned and occupied by the church. Even if the property was purchased in the year 2000, we have no record of it being occupied as a church on or before 12-31-2000 and it would therefore not be exempt for the year 2001. AT&T: No comments received City Attorney: No comments received Code Compliance: Please notify this office of any special requirements for this SLU if approved. Consumers Energy: No comments received Board of Water and Light: Electric- No conflict Water- No objection to land use permit Economic Development: EDC has no concerns or comments on this proposal. Fire Marshal: No objections. Building must meet current codes for assembly occupancy. Ingham Co. Drain Commission: No comments received Lansing Neighborhood Council: No comments received SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 3 Special Land Use for a Church Lansing Police Dept.: No comments received Parks and Recreation: This does not impact park operations and use. Public Services: Public Service has no comments about the proposed SLU. Please note that there is a sewer easement containing a sanitary and a storm sewer on the East side of the property. Transportation: No comments or requirements. APPLICANTS PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to move the Salvation Army operation at 1501 Windsor Street to this location. Salvation Army will remodel the building for a church that will accomodate100 parishioners. Salvation Army will also provide social services such as a food pantry and utility payment assistance at this location. This facility will serve as a satellite office from the main Salvation Army office on 525 N. Pennsylvania Avenue. 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 property is 2.42 acres with an existing 13,426 sqft. building on site. This property has frontage on W. Jolly Road and S. Washington Avenue. A beauty school and charter school were previous uses at this property. The Salvation Army proposes to remodel the existing building into a church and provide a food pantry and utility payment assistance service. Hours of operation for the social service portion will be from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Monday to Friday, and until 9:00 PM on two nights. Church service will from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Sunday. Currently, a dilapidated fence is on the south side of the property separating this property with residential uses to the south. The Salvation Army will replace the dilapidated fence if this SLU is approved. Improvements to the property and the proposed Salvation Army operation would be harmonious with adjacent properties. SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 4 Special Land Use for a Church 2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the surrounding area? The proposed SLU will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. This property has been used for a variety of uses that were more intensive than the proposed church use. Activities near this intersection include residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses. 3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property? The proposed SLU will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. Ingress and egress to the site will be from Jolly Road or Washington Avenue. Hours of the operation will not impact adjacent residential uses. Landscape, screening, and buffering will be required between the proposed church and residential use to the South. 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? The applicant will remodel the existing building for church purposes. Landscape, screening, and buffering will be required where the property abuts residential properties. Occupancy of the facility will be an improvement to the property and surrounding area in general. 5. Will the proposed special land use be hazardous to adjacent property, or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which are detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare? The proposed church does not pose any hazards to adjacent properties. Operation of the church and social service center will not generate any additional noise, smoke, odor, or fumes that will impact businesses or residents in the area. Glare onto residential property from vehicular headlights is a concern. This can be mitigated by requiring the applicant to replace the existing dilapidated fence and/or install landscaping. 6. Will the proposed special land use be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or is it demonstrated that the person SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 5 Special Land Use for a Church responsible for the proposed special land use is able to continually provide adequately for the services and facilities deemed essential to the special land use under consideration? Public services and utilities are adequately provided at the site. 7. Will the proposed special land use place demand on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity? The proposed SLU will not place an increase demand on public services. 8. Is the proposed special land use consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code and the objectives of any currently adopted Comprehensive Plan? Zoning of the property is "D-1" Professional Office District. Churches are permitted in this district with a SLU and if the property abuts a collector, principal arterial, or minor arterial. Thirty-three parking spaces will be required based on the 100 parishioners who will attend the church (1 parking space/3 seats). There are 91 existing parking spaces on site. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property for commercial use. A church would be an acceptable use at this site. Churches are community facilities that should be encouraged to locate near residential areas. The location of this proposed church is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located? The existing building meets all the dimensional requirements in the Zoning Code. SUMMARY Based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, it meets all nine criteria. The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property and surrounding uses. 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. SLU-01-2001 701 W. Jolly Road Page 6 Special Land Use for a Church 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 Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Land Use will meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit with the following conditions: 1. The fence on the south side of the property shall be replaced with another fence or landscaping to provide screening; 2. The existing sewer easements on the east side of the property are retained; 3. The replacement of exterior lights shall be shielded and limited in height to prevent light pollution; 4. The expansion of the building and parking is not permitted; and 5. The installation of shade trees is recommended. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner a LOOKING SOUTH AT 701 W. JOLLY z s�{ a i 114':, 'I ._,�M �. '• may� N - - _. - _ LOOKING EAST AT REAR (SOUTH SIDE) OF 701 JOLLY RD. \ 1 �L\'• J f�:1y tK1 i u t I:3► Site Plan SURVEYOR'S MORTGAGE REPORT Salvation Army For: Salvation Army 701 West Jolly Road 525 North Pennsylvania Lansing, Michigan Lansing, Michigan 48901 mmitment Legal 2, 14,p15oand(As theFEasts13dfeet andltheosoutherlyP45.3dfeet of Lot 13, Lots 12, 14, art of. the Northwest. 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of McIntosh Subdivision No. 1, P City of Lansng, Ingham County, Section 4, T3N, R2W, Delhi Township, In ham County Records. Michigan, as recorded in Liber 15, Page 29, 4 WASNING710N AVENUE A L7 t, 160.00' 1"=60' REST Ll I 7 4b.70 09.00' ,o,To iAS"Ll BACK� Vol ti w � u ti O O 4 d 13.00 t F—� FIL 150.70' a•w I � Io•Iz' J 125.7' Lori^ FRAME IN I ST RY OLOCX 1 6RICK/AIETAL 'S f & � �' FRAME6L0a a LOT 2c Q 0 19.1' a r CWC WALK a J ASPHALT CURB O o � O w � z r� f o J 89.00' y LOT LINE 286.50' We hereby certify that we have surveyed the property herein described; that the buildings nd improvements as shown are entirely within the property lines; and that there are no a and imp encroachments upon the above described property, except as ehown hereon. ble for mortgage purposes only. Dimensions from boundary Note: This document was performed lines to improvements are approximate and should not be used to establish properly lines. Fences, (if any) plotted on property lines saarcel1e ante ended to bounindi dary Cate tha yl�iseneededstora on o`iear the boundary lines of this p accurately define the limits of this parcel. l,.Ryp WHITE ENGINEERING COMPANY ,PdIwhite, P.S. 11203� 2300 North Grand River Avenue surv.y No: 003961 Lansing, Michigan 4B906 pate: October 23, 2000 Phone (517) 321-7111 O 0 RE '5 o mom M.L. K O `0 y 5 � BOGART j 0 M DORNELL z m o � m '3AV 0 y DELRAY O. DELBROOK AVE. a m `c` BURCHFIELD AVE. ^ HINGTON AVE WASHINGTON LOWCROFT TULIP AVE, m r m A- m w m rri SUNROSE AVE. \, PALMER ST. D 0 �� 00 j Ox n O I a � TENNY ST. CROCUS V LAURIE LA CD 0 KESSLER L (/) m O r- K C � O O ORA ST. w C CL -a ER rrnon SLU-01-01 701 W. Jolly Road NORTH fr Zoning w m � z � 0 O ct� 1 O CD w w m z m < w C) "A" 3 C: "C„ "A„ Res. Res. Res. " _2„ "D-1 - "B"Res. Prof. & " "A„ Res. TULIP AVE. APPROVED MARCH 20, 2001 with the following correction Pg 18 Ln 1.51" Pos 3.58" Draft to Clerk 03092001 The vacation or sale of the surplus ROW could sTimulate the development of a Approved 03202001 single-family house in the area. To Clerk 03232001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, March 6, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. Six present, two vacant seats. B. Absences - None. C. Introductions. William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, introduced staff present, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter to Zoning Board dated March 1, 2000, Regarding Parcel 33-01-03- 376-201 on Lake Lansing Road, from Frank & Carmella Cena 4. HEARINGS A. NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming - Residential in Commercial District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request from owners D.J. and Dorothy Dunn for a Class A Nonconforming status for the purpose of ensuring that their existing two-unit residential building, located in the "F" Commercial District can be rebuilt as a residential two-unit if it is destroyed, even 100 percent, by fire or by other means. The property was rezoned by the owners in 1984 from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial. When it was annexed into the City in 1957, it automatically became "A" Residential. It was nonconforming at that time since it was a two-unit in a single-family district. It was rezoned to "F" and has been used for a commercial use. There is a sign in the front yard that says "Psychic Reader." To the best of our knowledge, there is no commercial use associated with the property right now. It is a duplex. The garage has been converted into a residential unit in part, and the other part is enclosed storage. There is a single family unit in the existing home which has an attached garage. Ms. Foster asked about the storage area; Ms. Stachowiak said the front half of the garage is just enclosed storage area. The garage door does PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 2 not go up to allow a vehicle to drive in. The back half is a residential unit with somebody living there. Mr. Ruge asked what is being stored; Ms. Stachowiak said a couch, some furniture, clothes—household items. Mr. Ruge asked if there is a zoning category that would allow for the rebuilding of a two-unit building on a single lot? Ms. Stachowiak said "C" Residential is a two-unit residential zoning; any one of the multiple family districts would allow for it. It is nonconforming because it is a residential use within a commercial district. Mr. Ruge noted that the property was used commercially for a while. Ms. Stachowiak said an on-site inspection indicates no commercial use of the property at present. Someone who owns a lawn care business lives in the house in one of the units, but no actual business takes place. No customers come, no signage is associated with the business, and no lawn care equipment was being stored outside. The applicant was not present. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed. The matter will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-2-2001, Vacant Land Northeast Corner Townsend and Washtenaw Streets, Surface Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, explaining that the property is the lot just north of the corner. It is a request by Martin Property Development, Inc., representatives of the Accident Fund Company, owners of the large office building on the corner. They also own the parking lot at the corner of Townsend and Washtenaw. The subject of this request, the lot just north, used to be the YWCA building which has been demolished. Right now the property is vacant and unimproved. The Accident Fund would like to create a parking lot that would be an extension of the existing parking lot at the corner. The property is zoned "G-1" Business. In order to utilize a single property for parking and for no other use, a special land use permit would be required. That is the subject of this request. Mr. Ruge said the Accident Fund has done a nice job on buffering their parking lot with ornamental trees and evergreens. Do we know what kind of trees they are planning for the perimeter of this parking lot? Ms. Stachowiak said on the plan they are labeled deciduous or coniferous PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 3 trees. We will have that information in time for the final report for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Foster noted the location of utilities at the tree-planting sites. Are they overhead or underground utilities? Ms. Stachowiak said she believes the utilities are underground. Mr. Smith asked if they plan to soften the edges along the sidewalk to the parking. Ms. Stachowiak said they plan a row of trees along the west border of the property. JOHN PECKHAM, MARTIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE ACCIDENT FUND. The zoning is "G-1", which does allow for this use with a special land use permit. The current condition of the site is gravel. The layout in your packet is a preliminary site layout. We need to finish the engineering. To address landscape issues, it is the intent of the Accident Fund to landscape the west and north property lines of the proposed parking area, consistent with that existing on the south side. We will be preparing a formal landscape plan for review and approval by staff. This parking will be used as an interim use. The Accident Fund is currently in the process of evaluating how they are ultimately going to develop this site. They want to start construction on the parking lot as soon as approval is obtained. Ms. Foster asked what is the next use after the parking lot. Mr. Peckham was not prepared to discuss it at this time. Ms. Patrick asked if the lot is for employee or customer use; Mr. Peckham said it will be for employee parking. It is contiguous to the existing lot to the south. We will reconfigure spacing; approximately 40 new spaces will be generated. Ms. Foster asked if all 40 new spaces are needed; Mr. Peckham said we are trying to generate as many spaces as possible for employee parking. Ms. Stachowiak said if the SLU permit is granted, a full site plan would have to be submitted and reviewed by Public Service for drainage, and by the Transportation Office for circulation. A complete review of the landscape requirements would be necessary. Mr. Ruge asked the number of employees at the Accident Fund. Mr. Peckham introduced Roy Swan with the Accident Fund, who answered about 250 employees. Mr. Ruge asked with the 40 additional spaces, how many spaces would exist on-site. Ms. Stachowiak said there are no numerical requirements for parking in the "G-1" Business District. They are not required to have the existing or the new parking. Mr. Swan said at present about 90 spaces are available for the building. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed. The matter will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 4 Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-1-2001, 1133 May Street, "G-V Business to"H" Light Industrial District. Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request from the owners of the existing warehouse on May Street, and also the vacant lot next to it, which is the subject of this request. The existing warehouse is currently zoned "H" Light Industrial, and the property in front of it, along May Street, is zoned "J" Parking, where they have their customer and employee parking, as well as their truck dock. They would like to have the vacant property directly east of it rezoned to "H" Light Industrial, for purposes of expanding the existing warehouse onto the property. Photos in the packet show a fence on the north border. The property is vacant and unimproved. Along the corner of May and Cleveland, directly to the east of the subject property, is "B" Residential, single family. There is a mixture of zoning districts in this block, quite a bit of"H" Light Industrial, "J" Parking. Currently the subject property is zoned "G-1" Business District. Mr. Ruge asked if there is a reason why they cannot build the warehouse in the "G-1" District; Ms. Stachowiak said the district does not permit warehousing. It would have to be a more commercial use rather than industrial. It is permitted in three zoning districts, "G-2" Wholesale, "H" Light Industrial and "I" Heavy Industrial. The applicant chose "H" Light Industrial District because it is consistent with some of the adjoining zoning. Mr. Ruge asked about the proposed double truck well on May Street—will it be a pit going below-grade? Ms. Stachowiak said it is for loading and unloading. Mr. Ruge was concerned about buffering for the addition from the residential properties to the north and to the east. It is bringing industrial closer to residential properties. He would like to see a buffering concept discussed in Committee. Mr. Frederick asked for an example of other kinds of businesses allowed in "H" Light Industrial; Ms. Stachowiak said "H" Light Industrial allows warehousing, light manufacturing, vehicle repair, parking facilities. Its primary focus is on manufacturing. Animal hospitals and kennels are permitted with special conditions. Outdoor storage is permitted along with storage of contractors' materials and equipment, freight stations, railroad terminal freight stations, and uses accessory to a principal industrial use such as storage barns, offices. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 5 Mr. Smith asked about the residential properties to the north and to the east, are they owner-occupied, or rentals, and what would be the principal hours of operations. Mr. Ruge said the code requires a front yard of 25 feet in the "H" Light Industrial District. Would a truck well be considered a front yard? Ms. Stachowiak said it is considered a front yard; however, you can have parking in the front yard in "H" Light Industrial. It is a building setback of 25 feet. Mr. Ruge said so there could be a well in the front yard. Mr. Frederick, asking about business hours, said the business could function 24 hours a day. It could include light assembly and light manufacturing. Ms. Stachowiak said that is correct. DON HARTWICK, ARCHITECT AND PLANNER, REPRESENTING ABATAR INSTITUTIONAL FOODS. With me also is Andy Lichumski. We are happy to answer questions. Regarding Light Industrial versus 11G-111, "G-1" does not require any set backs, front, side nor rear. In the present zoning, by right the applicant could put up a building the size of the site with no buffering required. The existing facility is Light Industrial. It is being used for warehousing for food products. The company is growing and more warehouse space is needed. Other than relocating, his only other choice is to add on to the vacant lot to the east. It will be attached to the present building. We will provide buffering, both to the east and to the north. The single-family lot directly east is occupied by a two-car garage, and the next lot over, which is on the corner, is vacant. We have a back yard in common with the single family lot directly north of us. The house is on Cleveland Street, not anywhere near our back property line. There is a change in grade from the existing parking area in front that rises proceeding east, maybe a 4-6 ft rise to where the garage is. If the application is approved, and the addition is built, we proposed to stay at least 10 feet away from that property line. We will be maintaining the same floor level as the existing building so from the standpoint of height of the building, we won't be any higher than a one- story building. With the buffering, it should not be obnoxious. It should be better looking than if somebody came in and established a store or bar or nightclub. Regarding hours of operation, Andy's operation is from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; he has about seven employees. Trucks come in daily, unload, and leave. The loading dock in front--we are unsure if it will be a raised platform in the rear, or whether we will lower the driveway as the truck backs up to a dock. It is also maintained 10 feet away from the adjacent property line. Remember the grade rises, so it will not be high as it relates to the residential next door. The highest it would be is about three or four feet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 6 Mr. Smith asked about the truck well, what is the anticipated increase in activity with trucks with this addition, or do you anticipate an increase. Mr. Lichumski said actually it would probably be less, if we can park two trucks there during the day. Ms. Foster asked about the facade of the building; was there any idea of having it reflect the nearby residential component? Mr. Hartwick said textured masonry block, and it would be hard to do that. The roof line of the new building would be sloped and gabled toward the street. It would not be a flat roof, although the rest of the roof is flat, because it is older construction. The size would prevent making it look like residential. Mr. Ruge said concerning the truck well, it appears to be right up next to the sidewalk. What kind of treatment do you propose to separate the sidewalk traffic from the truck well? Mr. Hartwick said if the truck well were to be depressed, we would need a guard rail around the depression of the truck well between the sidewalk and the truck well. "If it is level, don't know of a need requirement. . . . Basically, it is a parking area." Ms. Stachowiak noted that this is a rezoning request and no conditions can be attached. GERALD J. ROWLEY, OWNER OF 737, 738 AND 740 N. PENNSYLVANIA, the southwest corner of Pennsylvania and the east corner of S. Pennsylvania, the corner lot. There is a lot of traffic caused by those warehouses, 40-ft. semis driving down a two-lane residential street. (Passed out pictures.) I can sit on my porch in summer and see 20 trucks going down through there, kids playing on the street, and semis trying to pull in on a two-lane street off a five-lane street. This zoning would create more havoc in the area. I am against it adamantly. This is a neighborhood. Mr. Smith asked about the numbers of trucks in the area; Mr. Rowley said in the summertime he could count at least 20 a day. There is parking on the street for residents' cars. Sometimes two semis get caught on May Street, with cars parked there. In general, there is too much traffic now. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed. The matter will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 7 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) FRANK P. CENA, 11810 WRIGHT RD., EAGLE, MI. I am asking that Lot 65 be granted to me, because it is useless to the City. Lot 64, we can't do nothing with it. Actually, we are lucky that the buyer comes forward and wants to buy that with Lot 65. We are planning to survey that. I don't know if Lot 64 is encroaching on the sidewalk or not. I ask that you let me have that Lot 65. The rezoning fee is $500. The surveying is $600, plus the real estate person, plus a lot of charges we haven't even come to yet. Ms. Keene said the Planning Board does not have the authority to waive fees. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: February 20, 2001 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of February 20, 2001 without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes G8 re APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chair. Did not meet. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. The Urban Development Committee met on February 27, 2001. a. Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement Bill Rieske presented the case, a request by Ameritech Right-of-Way Department, 54 North Mill Street, Mailbox#30, Pontiac, Michigan for a proposed 20 ft x 20 ft easement to place an 8 '/z ft x 3 3/4 ft fiber optic cabinet and associated cable on the north side of Moores River Drive near Boston Boulevard in Riverside Park. Ameritech wishes to upgrade telephone facilities in the Lansing area to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. The integration of fiber technology with copper phone lines will occur at special fiber optic cabinets and underground structures housing Ameritech's electronic equipment. The new PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 8 network will increase line capacity and improve availability and reliability of phone and data service. The proposed cabinet would be located in Riverside Park, just east of a row of evergreen trees which would screen the cabinet from the west. The applicant would provide additional landscaping and screening as necessary. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of the proposal, that: 1. The proposed cabinet will have a negligible impact on the park's appearance and operations, 2. The proposed cabinet can be screened with landscaping to minimize its visual impact, 3. The proposed cabinet would not interfere with the use of Riverside Park as a public park, 4. The project helps minimize the land area required to integrate fiber technology with copper phone lines, and to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. 5. A license terminable at will provides the City with adequate leverage to discontinue the use if it is found to interfere with the public use of Riverside Park. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-21-2000, to grant a license to Ameritech for the installation of fiber optic electronic cabinets at Riverside Park, with the following conditions: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will, 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 3. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 4. An annual easement license fee of $1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. 5. The amount of the fee assessed should be adjusted periodically after a review of the license agreement, 6. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to any vandalism or graffiti that occurs, 7. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet at the end of the agreement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 9 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement, with the seven conditions as outlined above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Rieske mentioned corrections in the report. In the first paragraph the proposed easement is 20 ft. x 20 ft., and not 15 ft. x 20 ft. The City Attorney recommends a license, so the easement would be in the form of a license which would be a contractual conveyance of the rights to use the property, as opposed to a real estate conveyance. The word "easement" would be deleted in 1., and 4. Condition 6 would read: The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to REPAIR AND REMOVE any vandalism or graffiti that occurs. Condition 7 would read: The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION at the end of the agreement. The friendly amendments were acceptable to maker and second. Ms. Foster asked if there would be any removal of existing vegetation. Mr. Rieske said his impression both from talking to Ameritech and the Parks Department is that there would not. There is a row of evergreens that runs perpendicular to Moores River Drive. The cabinet would be tucked in east of the evergreens which would act as screening for the cabinet. Frederick . .Ave Foster . .Aye Patrick. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . . Ave Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement, with conditions as follows: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will, 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 3. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 4. An annual easement license fee of $1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. 5. The amount of the fee assessed should be adjusted periodically after a review of the license agreement, 6. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to REPAIR AND REMOVE any vandalism or graffiti that occurs, 7. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION at the end of the agreement was APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 10 b. Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement Bill Rieske presented the case, a request by Ameritech Right-of-Way Department, 54 North Mill Street, Mailbox#30, Pontiac, Michigan for a proposed 15 ft x 20 ft easement to place an 8 '/2 ft x 3 3/4 ft fiber optic cabinet and associated cable on the north side of Moores River Drive near Cambridge Drive at Frances Park. Ameritech wishes to upgrade telephone facilities in the Lansing Area to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. The integration of fiber technology with copper phone lines will occur at special fiber optic cabinets and underground structures housing Ameritech's electronic equipment. The new network will increase line capacity and improve availability and reliability of phone and data service. The proposed fiber optic cabinet is to be located in Frances Park, just north of the Moores River Drive ROW line, south of the Grand River, and just east of the Frances Park entrance sign. Reevaluation of the exact location of the easement may be necessary due to the presence of a 15" sewer, an abandoned regulator, and a proposed sidewalk along Moores River Drive. The fiber optic cabinet at its proposed location would have a negligible impact on the neighborhood, except for the immediate area near the park entrance. It would be located in a visible area right next to the street, at an intersection with Cambridge Rd. This problem may be mitigated by relocating the proposed easement, and with proper site planning, which will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extend of the proposal, that: 1. The proposed cabinet will have a negligible impact on the park's appearance and operations, 2. The proposed cabinet can be screened with landscaping to minimize its visual impact, 3. The proposed cabinet would not interfere with the use of Frances Park as a public park, 4. The project helps minimize the land area required to integrate fiber technology with copper phone lines, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 11 and to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens, 5. A license terminable at will provides the City with adequate leverage to discontinue the use if it is found to interfere with the public use of Frances Park. 6. A slight change in location would eliminate the project's conflict with an existing public sewer. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant, Parks and Recreation, and Public Service Departments consider an alternative location, perhaps behind the Frances Park entrance sign, to minimize interference with the sewer easement and the proposed sidewalk project, 2. The easement license be terminable at will, 3. The applicant provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 4. The project be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 5. An annual easement license fee of $1,500 be assessed for the use of park land at each site, 6. The amount of the fee assessed be adjusted periodically after a review of the license agreement, 7. The applicant, as necessary, be required to REPAIR AND REMOVE any vandalism or graffiti that occurs, 8. The applicant be required to remove the cabinet AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION at the end of the agreement. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement with corrected conditions as listed above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: The friendly amendments were acceptable to maker and second. Foster . .Ave Patrick. . .Aye Ruge. . . Aye Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 12 On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement, with revised conditions as follows: 1. The applicant, Parks and Recreation, and Public Service Departments consider an alternative location, perhaps behind the Frances Park entrance sign, to minimize interference with the sewer easement and the proposed sidewalk project, 2. The easement license be terminable at will, 3. The applicant provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 4. The project be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 5. An annual easement license fee of $1,500 be assessed for the use of park land at each site, 6. The amount of the fee assessed be adjusted periodically after a review of the license agreement, 7. The applicant, as necessary, be required to REPAIR AND REMOVE any vandalism or graffiti that occurs, 8. The applicant be required to remove the cabinet AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION at the end of the agreement was APPROVED. C. Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquire for River Frontage Susan Cantlon presented this request by City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to acquire the property at 125 Cottage Street for river frontage access. A two-story, structure ca. 1908, is still extant on the site. Architectural surveys of the area have evaluated the building as a "contributing" structure to a proposed River Point Neighborhood Historic District, significant for its development associated with the history of automobile manufacturing in Lansing. It is a two-story, 1,100 sq. ft., front gable, vernacular building situated on a small lot adjacent to the Grand River. The building retains its form and fenestration and is the mirror image of the residential structure at 123 Cottage Court. The River Point Neighborhood Association has requested the establishment of a local historic district which would include this property. The River Point Comprehensive Plan recommends maintaining and protecting residential structures in this area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 13 The structure has lost its immediate context due to the loss of the three residential structures along Cottage Ct., which has occurred since the amendment to the Southeast Area Plan (River Point Neighborhood). The property is considered a "contributing" resource in the potential River Point Neighborhood Historic District. Currently the property is zoned "F" Commercial District. It is at an elevation of 845 ft. and is not in the flood plain. Cottage Court is a private street and is not maintained by the Public Service Department. Both sides of the street are used for parking for adjacent commercial properties to the east. The applicant has indicated the proposal may result in the "possible loss of residential housing (if demolition occurs)". The applicant has indicated that Parks and Recreation Dept. does not have any immediate plans for the development of the property nor removal of the existing residential structure. The City owns four parcels on the east side of the Grand River between Elm and South Streets, including Parking Lot #7. The proposed request would allow Parks and Recreation to acquire a fifth parcel along the river bank for future development between Elm and South Streets. An earlier proposal to market Parking Lot #7 for sale (Act-22- 96) has been dropped. The request is part of a long-range plan for trail development along the river in this area. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. A 106 Review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) be completed if it is contemplated that federal or state funds will be used to acquire, demolish or redevelop the property. A meeting and review should occur before acquisition of the property. 2. A survey/title search be required before acquisition, as well as an appraisal. 3. Maintain the residential structure on the property for adaptive reuse (e.g., restroom, interpretive center). In the event it is determined to be economically or technically unfeasible to preserve the structure in its context, market the structure for relocation to a nearby property to cluster the remaining residential structures in the River Point neighborhood. The City PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 14 could subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. 3. In the event the structure is removed, redevelopment of the site would need to accommodate the 10" sewer under Cottage Court. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of the proposal, that: 1. Acquisition of the property would help with riverfront development for public use. 2. The house has been found to be a contributing resource in a potential historic district. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0, to recommend approval of Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage, with the following conditions: 1. A 106 Review by the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) be completed if it is contemplated that federal or state funds will be used to acquire, demolish or redevelop the property. A meeting and review should occur before acquisition of the property. 2. A survey/title search be required before acquisition, as well as an appraisal. 3. Maintain the residential structure on the property for adaptive reuse (e.g. restroom, interpretive center) or consider marketing the structure for relocation to a nearby property to cluster the remaining residential structures. The City could subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. 4. City retain easements if necessary to accommodate all utilities. On a Voice vote, the motion carried unanimously 3-0. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquire for River Frontage with conditions as listed above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Rieske spoke regarding two key pieces of information. Cottage Court is a private street, so how does that play into the picture. The Parks Department indicated that the survey shows the property line going to the middle of Cottage Court. The City owns PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 15 Parking Lot #7, directly across from the house. The implication would be that the Parking Lot#7 also extends to the middle of Cottage Court. So that deals in part with what happens with the 10" sewer. The second thing is to convey to the Parks Department the Planning staff recommendation that the structure should be maintained on site if possible. The Parks Department indicated that although that would be nice, they don't have enough money to take care of Scott House, so they don't anticipate being able to maintain this house as a restroom or interpretive center, so removal or demolition of the building would be likely. We indicated our preference for relocation as opposed to demolition. Parks said they would market for that purpose. Mr. Frederick said he attended a meeting of the American National Heritage Association. The consensus was that these buildings, built for early automotive workers, would be ideal to preserve and use as part of the designated historical area concerning the early days of the automobile. How can we on one hand consider this as being important for the City of Lansing, and then hear the Parks Department say they didn't have enough money to preserve a structure with historic value. He recounted a chance conversation with an acquaintance as an indication of the intense interest that exists in preserving these remnants. Mr. Frederick was willing to change condition No. 3 to state specifically that the building should not be demolished. "Reluctantly, I think I would agree to have it moved to some other area nearby in the same historical context, so that it would be maintained. I would not like to see either of these structures lost, simply because the Parks Department can't find enough money to keep them there long enough to find some money to restore them." There is interest in keeping and maintaining the automotive heritage. "I want to hear the Parks Department commit to preserving this resource." Rather than consider marketing, give them a choice. Fix it up and keep it or else figure out a way to move it someplace so it will be maintained in its present condition. Revise No. 3 as follows: 3. Maintain the residential structure on the property for adaptive reuse (e.g., restroom, interpretive center) and/or market the structure for relocation to a nearby property of eansider marketing the Stftidtlfe for relocation to a neaft Ito cluster the remaining residential structures. The City could subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. The friendly amendment was acceptable to maker and second. Mr. Ruge was concerned with expenses involved in moving. He advocated going back to the Parks Department with the above suggestion to get their reaction. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to TABLE Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; motion carried unanimously; Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage was TABLED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 16 d. In Committee, Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW also was TABLED. e. Act-2-01, Lake Lansing Rd. E. of High St., Disposition of Lot 65 Donna Wynant presented the case to the Urban Development Committee, a request by Frank and Carmella Cena to acquire Lot#65 from the City of Lansing and combine it with Lot #66. Lot #66 is 5,092 square feet and Lot #65 is 5,124 square feet. Additional lot area from the subject Lot #65 would result in a better overall building site for a home if combined with the applicant's adjacent lot. The property is vacant land located at the northeast corner of High Street in the 1000 block of Lake Lansing Road in the Northtown Neighborhood. The intersection at High and Lake Lansing has changed over the years. Lake Lansing formerly ended at High Street. Lake Lansing Road was extended from High to North East Street. High Street was reconstructed, north of Lake Lansing to connect with Lake Lansing at a right angle. The subject property consists of acquired right-of-way that appears to include a portion of High Street and a sidewalk along the east side of the right of way (according to the aerial photograph). The property measures 40 feet long along the Lake Lansing frontage, at an average depth of 128 feet and is approximately 5,124 square feet in size. The former use of the property, according to a 1979 aerial photo, appears to be for an auto body shop or some type of auto- related business. The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial/warehouse on the future land use map. Lot #65 is zoned "F" Commercial for retail development. The applicant's vacant property to the east is zoned "B" Residential for single family residential development. The applicants have indicated they want to build a single family home at this location. The applicants currently have a real estate sales sign on their property. The applicant's property is zoned residentially, but the City's property is zoned "F" Commercial, which does not allow single family homes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 17 A complete stake survey is needed to evaluate how the paved street and sidewalk are situated on Lot #65, and to show all utilities above and below ground. The Public Service Department has indicated their approval to dispose of property that goes beyond one foot east of the curved sidewalk. The applicant has pointed out that he has been taking care of the property for over 50 years "because we thought we owned it." However, the City actually purchased Lot #65, along with Lots 62, 63, and 64 of Plat of Park Manor Heights Subdivision in 1982 from Robert and Nancy Smith for $42,000. Lot #65 appears to have been part of an auto body shop business. It should be noted that additional excess property to the west of the existing High Street is paved and used by a private business. This matter should be cleared up before it becomes a liability to the City of Lansing. Staff recommends approval of the disposal of any excess property found with Lot #65 of Park Manor Heights to the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. A complete survey be done, in recordable form, at the applicant's expense, showing all utilities below and above ground, and giving legal descriptions of any necessary easements. 2. A value be determined on the property, based on square footage determined to be in excess of land needed for existing street and sidewalk. 3. Any easements for utilities be given legal descriptions and recorded with the deed. 4. The applicant apply to rezone the excess land to the "B" Residential District to be consistent with the adjacent property and to allow for the development of a single family home. Sale of the property should be contingent on rezoning, and combination with Lot #66. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of the proposal, that: 1. The subject property is surplus property, with no remaining public purpose, 2. The property is adjacent to a residential district, although it is designated for industrial development in the North-East Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 18 3. The vacation or sale of the surplus ROW could sTimulate the development of a single-family house in the area. In Committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-2-01, Lake Lansing Rd. east of High St, Disposition of Lot 65 with conditions as follows: 1. A complete survey be done, in recordable form, at the applicant's expense, showing all utilities below and above ground, and giving legal descriptions of any necessary easements. 2. A value be determined on the property, based on square footage determined to be in excess of land needed for existing street and sidewalk. 3. Any easements for utilities be given legal descriptions and recorded with the deed. 4. The applicant apply to rezone the excess land to the "B" Residential District to be consistent with the adjacent property and to allow for the development of a single family home. Sale of the property should be contingent on rezoning, and combination with Lot #66. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-2-01, Lake Lansing Rd. east of High St., Disposition of Lot 65 with conditions as listed above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Foster's concern was that if an auto body shop business was located there years ago, hazardous materials might exist on the site, unknown to the applicants. If it becomes residential, that could be a problem. This was discussed in Committee. The applicants were at the Committee meeting and are aware of the possibility. Mr. Frederick said the Committee discussed the property being rezoned to residential. In the past commercial uses existed there. If it remained commercial, it could be used for a commercial purpose by right. Mr. Frederick was not comfortable taking action unless we could ensure a less intensive use of the property in the near and far future. Mr. Frederick understands the applicants' concern about the cost of a rezoning. The Planning Board does not have the authority to waive fees. What if the City applied to the Planning Board to rezone the property? That way the applicants would not have to incur the $500 cost. That way we could accomplish the same goal: rezoning the property to residential. Mr. Rieske said the City Council has initiated rezonings on a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 19 few occasions. It could be suggested. It could be a recommendation from the Planning Board that the City Council initiate the rezoning. Mr. Ruge said the filing cost goes to postage, the ad cost, etc. The money would have to come from some budget, if the applicant does not pay. Mr. Frederick said Condition #4 could be changed to: 4. APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF THE LAND TO THE APPLICANT BE CONTINGENT UPON REZONING THE PROPERTY The applieant apply to rep-one theexeess land to the "B" Residential District to be consistent with the adjacent property and to allow for the development of a single family home. Safe CONVEYANCE of the property shed'd be contingent on rezoning OF THE EXCESS LAND TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, and combination with Lot #66 This would not necessarily require the applicant to apply for the rezoning. Mr. Frederick explained further. The approval of the sale of the land to the applicants be contingent upon rezoning the property to "B" Residential District. That way it doesn't necessarily require the applicant to be the one to request the rezoning, but it requires the land to be rezoned before it can be conveyed to the applicant. Take out the language that says the applicant apply to rezone. Mr. Frederick is not comfortable voting for this if it is not rezoned. A mini-Quality Dairy could go in on the corner in the future, or a mini-gas station. The Cenas may be genuine in their attempt to put a residential home on that property—we are not looking at them to turn this into a commercial endeavor. If it is not rezoned, it will stay commercial forever. Mr. Ruge said Condition #2 requires that a value be determined on the property. What is the purpose for that? Mr. Rieske said first of all, it is required by our property disposition regulations, according to ordinance. Secondly, the City, even if the property is given away, wants to know what it is giving away. It protects against corruption. The notion of having a value on a property before it is sold, even if the value is waived in terms of consideration received, is an overt act of acknowledging that something is either sold at fair market value or that the cost has been reduced. Mr. Ruge said it doesn't say that the property is going to be given away. Mr. Rieske said it doesn't say in the recommendation that the property is going to be given away. The recommendation is neutral with respect to whether it is given away or purchased at fair market value. Mr. Ruge asked if City Council will make that choice? Or the Cenas? Are they going to be charged for the property? How is that going to work? Mr. Rieske said we wanted to determine that there is no public purpose for the property, and that being said, it could be surplus property. It could be either given, as determined by Council, to the applicants, like a street vacation. Or it being acquired right-of-way, our internal staff determination was that it was an acquired right-of-way as opposed to a platted right-of-way. Acquired rights-of-way are generally conveyed through a real estate instrument rather than a resolution to vacate. The instrument to convey the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 20 property would be sort of a sales agreement regardless of whether or not it was treated as a vacation and conveyed at nominal cost or at fair market value. Mr. Ruge said, so we are leaving the question of the price for the property up to City Council? We are saying here whether it is a good idea to get rid of the property? Mr. Rieske said yes. Ms. Keene mentioned Condition #4, the amendment suggested by Mr. Frederick. Mr. Smith was agreeable to the friendly amendment. Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith. . —Aye - Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . •Ave Patrick. . .Aye Keene . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-2-01, Lake Lansing Rd. east of High St., Disposition of Lot 65 with conditions as follows 1. A complete survey be done, in recordable form, at the applicant's expense, showing all utilities below and above ground, and giving legal descriptions of any necessary easements. 2. A value be determined on the property, based on square footage determined to be in excess of land needed for existing street and sidewalk. 3. Any easements for utilities be given legal descriptions and recorded with the deed. 4. APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF THE LAND TO THE APPLICANT BE CONTINGENT UPON REZONING THE PROPERTY The applicant apply to . __ ne the excess land to the "B" Residential District to be consistent with the adjacent property and to allow for the development of a single family home. 6a+e CONVEYANCE of the property shOd'd be contingent on rezoning OF THE EXCESS LAND TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, and combination with Lot #66 was APPROVED. e. Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate ROW for School Parking. Bill Rieske presented the withdrawal letter submitted by the applicant. Staff recommends acceptance of the withdrawal letter and dismissal of the case. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend dismissal of Act-7-99, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 21 Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate ROW for School Parking. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of the acceptance of withdrawal letter from the School District for Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate ROW for School Parking. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried unanimously; Act-7-99, Somercroft Drive at Post Oak Lane, Vacate ROW for School Parking was WITHDRAWN - DISMISSED. Next meeting, Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Committee of the Whole - has not met. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske reported on two items. First, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Sissi Foster has generously volunteered to look at some of the work plan items as they relate to urban design. Mr. Rieske conveyed his thanks. Secondly, there was a meeting regarding the Two-Way Street Conversion west of the Grand River. In the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, six one-way streets were proposed for conversion to two-way, Ottawa and Allegan, Pine and Walnut, and Capitol and Grand. There will be a public meeting regarding the two-way street conversion on March 21, 2001 in the City Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. E. 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) d. P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat e. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District f. Proposed Revisions to the Historic District Ordinance(Tabled February 14, 2001) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 6, 2001 PAGE 22 g. Zoning Ordinance Amendments-"F-1" Commercial District(No Action Taken February 14, 2001); Accessory Buildings and Front Yard Setbacks (Not taken up for discussion) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. ACT-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel, Lansing Printing Co., Vacate Portion of Beech St. ROW(Tabled January 30, 2001) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. d. Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW (Tabled February 27, 2001) 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - A. Shiawassee Arts Council Opening Reception, Mr. Michael M. Smith, Painting and Photography exhibit, 2-4 p.m., Sunday, March 11, 2001, at Shiawassee Arts Center, 208 Curwood Castle Drive, Owosso. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - Mr. Frederick thanked Mr. Ruff for his communication concerning the dog issue brought up at the last meeting. Animal control is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department. The Lansing Chief of Police is interested in the outcome of this incident because he did say they would send a car in an emergency situation though they would rather send a policeman to contain the dog. Ms. Patrick expressed her appreciation for Mr. Frederick's filling in for her at the Committee meeting while she was in Washington last week. Mr. Ruge asked about screening and buffering for parking lots, and parking requirements for the "H" Light Industrial District. Ms. Stachowiak said it is in initial stages, just starting, and parking requirements in the Ordinance are Chapter 1284, Off-street Parking. Mr. Smith asked if the City is looking at noise ordinances. Ms. Stachowiak reported that she understood a committee was formed by City Council to look into noise amelioration. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9 p.m. Respectfully bmitted 9-V. James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board mn030601 a:\62 ACT-21-2000, Riverside Park Ameritech Easement GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ameritech 54 N. Mill Street, Mailbox #30 Pontiac, MI 48342 REQUESTED ACTION: Utility Easement EXISTING LAND USE: Riverside Park EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change. PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: The property is flag shaped, with a 20' x 20' flag and a 6' x 50' pole, running north from the Moores River Drive ROW SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Grand River S: Residential E: Riverside Park W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "B" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A".Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area-Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Residential, 0-7 du/acre. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by Ameritech Right-of-Way Department, 54 North Mill Street, Mailbox #30, Pontiac, Michigan for a proposed 20 ft x 20 ft easement to place an 8 Yz ft x 3 3/4 ft fiber optic cabinet and associated cable on the northeast Corner of Moores River Drive and Boston Blvd. at Riverside Park. Ameritech wishes to upgrade telephone facilities in the Lansing Area to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. The integration of fiber technology with copper phone lines will occur at special fiber optic cabinets and underground structures housing Ameritech's electronic ACT-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement Page 3 eastbound lane blockage had been removed as of a field check during the week of January 22, 2001.] ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The proposed fiber optic cabinet is to be located in Riverside Park, just east of a row of evergreens that run N-S between Moores River T Drive and the Grand River, and may be screened on the south by an existing evergreen shrub. The proposed easement runs south to the Moores River Drive north ROW line. CHARACTER: The proposed fiber optic cabinet will have a negligible impact on the neighborhood, except for the immediate area within the park itself. This problem can be mitigated with proper site planning, which will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. EXTENT: The extent of the impact can be limited by City Attorney's recommendation that, as park property, this should be an easement license that is terminable at will if a park necessity arises. The extent of the benefit is that it helps minimize the land area required to integrate fiber technology with copper phone lines, and to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-21-2000, to grant an easement license to Ameritech for the installation of fiber optic electronic cabinets,.with the following conditions: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will, 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 3. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 4. An annual easement license fee of$1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. ACT-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement Page 3 eastbound lane blockage had been removed as of a field check during the week of January 22, 2001.] ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The proposed fiber optic cabinet is to be located in Riverside Park, just east of a row of evergreens that run N-S between Moores River Drive and the Grand River, and may be screened on the south by an existing evergreen shrub. The proposed easement runs south to the Moores River Drive north ROW line. CHARACTER: The proposed fiber optic cabinet will have a negligible impact on the neighborhood, except for the immediate area within the park itself. This problem can be mitigated with proper site planning, which will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. EXTENT: The extent of the impact can be limited by City Attorney's recommendation that, as park property, this should be an easement license that is terminable at will if a park necessity arises. The extent of the benefit is that it helps minimize the land area required to integrate fiber technology with copper phone lines, and to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-21-2000, to grant an easement license to Ameritech for the installation of fiber optic electronic cabinets, with the following conditions: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will, 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 3. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 4. An annual easement license fee of$1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. OCG4� . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.CAPnoL Av»-SunE D-1-LANSING,MI 48933-1236 (517)483-4066-FAX:(517)483-6036 PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor Memorandum TO: Urban Development Committe� ` FROM: Bill Rieske, Principal Planner DATE: February 21, 2001 RE: Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement, and Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement At its January 30, 2001 meeting, the Urban Development Committee tabled Acts 21 and 22, with some questions about the project and the Parks and Recreation Department's position and philosophy. I discussed these matters with Dick Schaefer of the Parks and Recreation Department, and by phone with Gary Samkowiak, of Ameritech's ROW Department. Their responses are paraphrased below, based on my notes from these discussions: Question: Does this action form a precedent? Will there be more? Schaefer: This does not establish a precedent. There are cell towers and other equipment in other parks. No others are proposed at this time. Question: Do the boxes have to be above ground? Can they be buried underground? Samkowiak: Waterproof vaults are installed underground for larger facilities, but not for cabinets of this size. Question: What equipment is located underground? Samkowiak: Just cable, leading to the junction box above ground. Question: Do these facilities emit electro-magnetic fields (EMFs)? Samkowiak: No. Question: - Are there any safety risks? ® Pk= TqW OPPMUMY awtow s DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.CArrroL AVENM•Sum D-1-L.ANSING,Nfl 48933-1236 (517)4834066-FAX:(517)483-6036 PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor Memorandum TO: Urban Development Committe� FROM: Bill Rieske, Principal Planner 4 DATE: February 21, 2001 RE: Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement, and Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement At its January 30, 2001 meeting, the Urban Development Committee tabled Acts 21 and 22, with some questions about the project and the Parks and Recreation Department's position and philosophy. I discussed these matters with Dick Schaefer of the Parks and Recreation Department, and by phone with Gary Samkowiak, of Ameritech's ROW Department. Their responses are paraphrased below, based on my notes from these discussions: Question: Does this action form a precedent? Will there be more? Schaefer: This does not establish a precedent. There are cell towers and other equipment in other parks. No others are proposed at this time. Question: Do the boxes have to be above ground? Can they be buried underground? Samkowiak: Waterproof vaults are installed underground for larger facilities, but not for cabinets of this size. Question: What equipment is located underground? Samkowiak: Just cable, leading to the junction box above ground. Question: Do these facilities emit electro-magnetic fields (EMFs)? Samkowiak: No. Question: Are there any safety risks? ® Plow Rmyde TqWitr ' ��, ■�!� ..:■fir - ►+ ddil ice' " PRIEST RA gills ■•,■- NOR r. IP r � u ■■7Ws LA POINT Adill _ NAM ■•�■ M imam ■. �.. ail 011 PAN :� LIM 9�_ / � � ..� � .� ' • • _ - 'ram __.- �. ��� . ,; �• - � [1 �i, - T7 r - ._. ....;M.v...:... .., .. .� .. ..• 1�1L ' .. . � r _ •r• l f' 11 • ,. ` � h(� : it ,. � �.► • "�y���Ylryy '.n4�Ut -.l - i AMERITECH EASEMENT U.) o� Sod I' u i . Z1 PROPOSED PROPOSED ERITECH CABINET 6' X 50' 1/2 X 3 3/4 INGRESS EASEMENT 20' o � ® v �urve ine H © � Pines I ' 3 5' Conc. Walk PATTENGILL G' God TIP 6 31' Asph. Pa v'f. h `� � ETC .� -�'i• % ;'. ♦ •�����' -ice. •:� .. :,•y�—•: •..►+1�;`�mil. .t.;bR;�•1. I� ,�vr t'�{ : ��\OL-%:Z ..t.'1�t• •1� :,��•a�.•,`'K' C sIF ��.t�w�� •�q. .�v�• ` }� ter. � �ti`�.it�a 7•iF .'. •J 1.• •y � � ',l•'ij. .C' •�L� i^_��.��� �;• �� Wr <i '?Y' .. � is`Y• -_• � �a:! •: - The Utes an® LSG3 20 0 + P Remote Tcrrrunal Outdoor Cabinet Right of Way 90"midpoint Concrete Pad Height=70" i 123-3/4" I i 45" 62-1/2" i midpoint i I i 17-1/2" ! 'ti It 1o3.1/a" � I ! 35-5/16" I i — — 180-3/4" j LSC-2030 Pad dimensions and local right of way requirements may vary. i Shown free-standing with optional Evergood power pedestal. 35.5/16" -- i ! ! I i 29" I POWER PEDESTAL SC -MMUNICATlll.. 1190#04 Mral•Maw Trau'Vi t.Wig M.;PAYI•h-+da---..•y,a pnfif:w at1�[t ra aA�r.fir�rw�r _.-. 'WnIN Gww.rww.�:.rya.w QR�Mu•1.Y. �'1��Vagtw�w�ew�rsd��i.d fRY:Gwsacrw.GT�aa.w ' � . c 1 1 Ao. Eft M. ..fAX ell Wv p GRAND RIVER SITE NORTH �\�` �Q7 s(DU)� s �J « MT. HOPE 0p A�-21 - 20oo Srr� o V kv�RSID� m ao LOCATION SKETCH NOT TO SCALE V o --o C v ° N I GRAND IVER f c>� Do o co "I Z SI TE 00 Sao S P t .Q'N o o -' O z ° L •U ox 41 LL N O o o ACT- 0 wo za Srr� Qc: o MT. HOPE FR CS PaRk N c4 h i^^ . C 1W U 0 V 111 N i v N ' •� NOTE: LOCATION SKETCH UUTILI IES AS SHOWN OF RIGHT- LOCATION NOT TO SCALE WHERE INDICATED AND FIE R- HO „� APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO Ct IH ADDRESS TYPE SIZE CONSTR. TYPE THICKNESS F do C YEAR L W HR BRICK/PRECAST/POURED WALL ROOF FLOOR CONFIDENTIAL: Solely for u: U- 1 IF TTM 22- MJ' Ins Nino Tim- _ Nil. - � ER,.. �a■' AUpoll,q* � • Nino EXHUMMMW Rai Urban Development Committee Page 2 February 21, 2001 RE: Ameritech Easements in Riverside (Act-21-2000) & Frances Parks (Act-22-2000) Samkowiak: There will be an external power meter (110 volt), the same as can be found on residences. Question: Are there any alternative sites? Is there any nearby city property that is not parkland that these could be located in? Schaefer: If underground, it could go in the ROW. Question: Has Ameritech agreed with the license fees proposed by the Parks and Recreation Department? Schaefer: No, but they knew there would be a charge. Samkowiak: Ameritech prefers a one-time fee (for an easement) rather than an annual fee for a license. In other communities, Ameritech was able to obtain an easement (real estate interest) as opposed to a license (contractual interest). Question: How does this fit in with the philosophy of the Parks system? Schaefer. Equipment installed in the parks can not conflict with park purposes. If it does conflict, it has to be relocated or removed. Ameritech will be interested in discussing the terms of the license agreement before it is finalized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Acts-21 and 22-2000, to grant a license to Ameritech for the installation of fiber optic electronic cabinets at Riverside and Frances Parks, respectively, with the following conditions: 1. The easement license.should be terminable at will, 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, 3. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 4. An annual easement license fee of$1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. In the case of Frances Park(Act-22-2000), staff also recommends that the applicant, the Parks & Recreation Department, and Public Service Department consider an alternative location, perhaps behind the Frances Park entrance sign, to minimize interference with the sewer easement and the proposed sidewalk project. b,�......,...,..o. Ilan...r.�. SI -G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.CAPrrOL AVENUE•SurrE D-1•LANSING,MI 48933-1236 G Q+� (517)483-4066•FAX:(517)483-6036 PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor Memorandum TO: Urban Development Committe ` FROM: Bill Rieske, Principal Planne. DATE: February 21, 2001 RE: Act-21-2000, Riverside Park, Ameritech Easement, and Act-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement At its January 30, 2001 meeting, the Urban Development Committee tabled Acts 21 and 22, with some questions about the project and the Parks and Recreation Department's position and philosophy. I discussed these matters with Dick Schaefer of the Parks and Recreation Department, and by phone with Gary Samkowiak, of Ameritech's ROW Department. Their responses are paraphrased below, based on my notes from these discussions: Question: Does this action form a precedent? Will there be more? Schaefer: This does not establish a precedent. There are cell towers and v other equipment in other parks. No others are proposed at this time. Question: Do the boxes have to be above ground? Can they be buried underground? Samkowiak: Waterproof vaults are installed underground for larger facilities, but not for cabinets of this size. Question: What equipment is located underground? Samkowiak: Just cable, leading to the junction box above ground. Question: Do these facilities emit electro-magnetic fields (EMFs)? Samkowiak: No. Question: -- Are there any safety risks? ACT-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement Page 4 4. The project should be subject to the normal site plan review and approval process, including Parks Dept. review, 5. An annual easement license fee of$1,500 should be assessed for the use of park land at each site. ACT-22-2000, Frances Park, Ameritech Easement Page 3 Sagamore Hills Neighborhood Assoc. No response received. ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The proposed fiber optic cabinet is to be located in Frances Park, just north of the Moores River Drive ROW line, south of the Grand River, and just east of the Frances Park entrance sign. Reevaluation of the exact location of the easement may be necessary due to the presence of a 15" sewer, an abandoned regulator, and a proposed sidewalk along Moores River Drive. CHARACTER: The proposed fiber optic cabinet will have a negligible impact on the neighborhood, except for the immediate area near the park entrance. It would be located in a visible right next to the street, at an intersection with Cambridge Rd. The problem may be mitigated by relocating the proposed easement, and with proper site planning, which will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. EXTENT: The extent of the impact can be limited by City Attorney's recommendation that, as park property, this should be an easement license that is terminable at will if a park necessity arises. The extent of the benefit is that it helps minimize the land area required to integrate fiber technology with copper phone lines, and to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-21-2000, to grant an easement license to Ameritech for the installation of fiber optic electronic cabinets, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant, Parks and Recreation, and Public Service Departments consider an alternative location, perhaps behind the Frances Park entrance sign, to minimize interference with the sewer easement and the proposed sidewalk project, 2. The easement license should be terminable at will, 3. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and park, AGENCY RESPONSES Assessor: No comments. City Attorney: Since this is park property, we should grant an easement license that is terminable at will should he property be required for a park necessity. AT&T: No response received. Consumers Energy: No response received. Parks & Rec. Dept.: The Parks and Recreation Department recommends the placement of this utility structure on park land. It currently is used as open space and does not conflict with any recreational use. Within the last several months there has been discussion of extending a sidewalk along the north side of Moores River Drive which would involve moving the proposed location of the cabinet to the north approximately ten feet. Additional landscaping to screen the utility cabinet from the road and sides of the cabinet will be necessary. Monetary consideration will be needed in the granting of the easement on park land. The Park Board, on May 17, 2000, recommended support for the granting of the easement at Frances Park. (Addendum: Per your question regarding monetary consideration (Act-21-2000 & Act-22- 2000)for the easements at Riverside and Frances Park, an appraised value was established by the Assessor's office of$1,500 for each site ($1;000 for land and $500 for easement value). The Parks Department is recommending assessing $1,500 annually for the use of park land at each site. Site Plan review and approval by the Parks Department would also be required.] Public Service: Proposed Ameritech cabinet may be located over abandoned sewer regulator(see attached). Existing 15-inch storm sewer will go through proposed Ameritech easement. Public Service will require this easement be relocated, so that we can adequately maintain this line (15 ft either side of the sewer line). ACT-22-2000, Frances Park Ameritech Easement GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ameritech 54 N. Mill Street, Mailbox #30 Pontiac, MI 48342 REQUESTED ACTION: Utility Easement EXISTING LAND USE: Francis Park EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No Change PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: 15' x 20' rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Grand River S: Single Family E: Single Family (?) W: Frances Park SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Grand River S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential, 0-7 du/acre SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by Ameritech Right-of-Way Department, 54 North Mill Street, Mailbox #30, Pontiac, Michigan for a proposed 15 ft x 20 ft easement to place an 8 % ft x 3 3/4 ft fiber optic cabinet and associated cable on the north side of Moores River Drive near Cambridge Rd. at Frances Park. Ameritech wishes to upgrade telephone facilities in the Lansing Area to make a broadband network available to Lansing citizens. The integration of fiber technology with copper phone lines will occur at special fiber optic cabinets and underground structures housing Ameritech's electronic equipment. The new network will increase line capacity and improve availability and reliability of phone and data service. The qtespaff LSC-2030 . Remote Terminal Outdoor Cabinet Right of Way • 90"midpoint Concrete Pad Height=70" 123-3/4" \ I 1'r i 45" i 62 mid1/2 poin"t i i i 17-1/2" II 103.1/4" I 35-5/16" — i - - 180-3/4" --- - ---i i LSC-2030 Pad dimensions and local right of way requirements may vary. i Shown free-standing with optional Evergood power pedestal. - I I 35.5/16" ---- I ! I i i I 29 I _ I I POWER PEDESTAL COMMUNICATIONS prp 6al Jhew!•llfii..Irw..'Vi i-Wit il4.Y►,(,•1-.+d.--4ri N la_Yi.lk/7rr��tlG�l 1..ni,•!*dhow(A%054..ii'_4..iiAft 4sw,d�a��..to•�/w�rr w,kt 'IY+.IIY,:wwn�w.rrw•�:�ryswr w M?��I.Y. MMMWcalm Mw}wwd akwtwk..(RCGw—w.�.n.�i�ry�rn v Q + t-tL 0 L+ NpftTH L1 'S�r.3 ►'1 ►7 5� PROPOSED PROPOSED AMERITECH CABINET 15' X20' 81/2X33/4 AMERITECH EASEMENT. SM;G/l rree FRAN, In Y _: Asph. o In v.6' . �- 12"S _ h LANSI 4 FRC TRAP REMARKS NOTE: THE LOCATIONS OF R!Q{T-OF-WAYS, PROPERTY IDS AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTUMES AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAW= ARE FROM EXISTING RECORDS EXCEPT WHERE RIDICATEO AND nCLO VERIFICATION SHWW 8E UNDERTAKEN WHERE _ APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. .mployees of Ameritech companies who have a need tc j, • gas' Ni y 0 0 CD 0 CD + a NORTH \ O V ti PROPOSED PROPOSED 15' X 20' AMERITECH CABINET AMERITECH EASEMENT, Small Trees 8 1/2 X 3 3/4 FRAM 20' cn ;o o Asph. o In v.6' 12„S h LANSI FRC TRAP REMARKS NOTE THE LOCATIONS OF RICHT—OF—WAYS. PROPERTY LINES AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE FROM EXISTING RECORDS EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED AND FIELD VERIFICATION SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN WHERE APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ,mployees of Ameritech companies who have a need t( Act-24-00, 125 Cottage Court _Page 1 Acquisition for River Frontage GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Parks & Recreation 318 N. Capitol Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 REQUESTED ACTION: Acquisition of Property at 125 Cottage Court. EXISTING LAND USE: Residential EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 125' x 66' 8250 ft2 (.189 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: City Parking Lot and Residential S: Residential and Commercial E: Residential and Commercial W: River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial District S: "F" Commercial District E: "F" Commercial District W: "F" Commercial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Master Plan Amendments for the River Point Neighborhood designates this area for commercial/ business. The plan also-recommends maintaining and. protecting the few residences within the block of the subject property. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by City of Lansing Parks&Recreation Department to acquire the property at 125 Cottage Street for river frontage access. A 2-story, structure ca. 1908, is still extant on the site. The property extends to the centerline of Cottage Court, which is privately owned. Architectural surveys of the area have evaluated the building as a "contributing" structure to a proposed River Point Neighborhood Historic District,significant for its development associated with history of automobile manufacturing in Lansing. The applicant has indicated the proposal may result in the "possible loss of residential housing (if demolition occurs)". The applicant has indicated that the Parks& Recreation does not have any immediate plans for the development of the property nor removal of the existing residential structure. AOa Pnprb Cy fAC 00/t2/20pt. 14vyb ItNt. %PIrFMrWwMQMd M Mvim%'2000A SW0KtZ4V n400.FE.wPd Act-24-00, 125 Cottage Court Page 2 Acquisition for River Frontage AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: Any service to property to be abandoned by Ameritech. Notify if house is to be demolished. AT&T: No response received at this time. Assessor: If a sale or transfer of ownership did not occur on or before 12/31/2000 property taxes would still be due on July 1, 2001 and on December 1,2001. BWL: No response received at this time. Building Safety: No objection. City Attorney: No response received at this time. Code Compliance: No response received at this time. Development: Issues to consider: 1. Use of federal or state funds to acquire, demolish or redevelop contemplated? 2. Flood plain? 3. Historic issue - need SHPO input regarding acquisition & removal particularly if using federal or state funds in any phase. Recommend conversation with SHPO prior to final decision to acquire as well as identifying funding sources. Recommend survey/title up front. Appraisal required. Downtown Neigh. Association: No response received at this.time. EDC: The EDC has no comment concerning this proposal. Fire Marshal: No objections Historic District Commission: The Executive Committee of the HDC met on February 1,2001 to review the Act-24-00 request by-the City of Lansing Parks & Recreation Dept. The Committee findings included: • the structure, built ca. 1908, is a 2-story, sq. ft., front gable, vernacular building situated on a small lot adjacent to the Grand River, • although the building has been vinyl-sided and the original porch has been removed, the building still retains its form and fenestration; R00"P1 wo M"C Ot/ /Ml.fwwa 3(m. YPlan, 0V1p te6 4MCT2400.FE.Mpe Act-24-00, 125 Cottage Court Page 3 Acquisition for River Frontage • in addition to the structure at 125,only one other structure at 123 Cottage Ct(which is a mirror image of 125)is still extant of five that originally lined Cottage Ct.behind the Commercial buildings fronting S.Washington Ave. • the structure has lost its context due to the loss of the three(3)residential structures along Cottage Ct., which has occurred since the amendment to the SE Area Plan (River Point Neighborhood); • the property is considered a"contributing"resource in the potential River Point Neighborhood Historic District; • the River Point Neighborhood Association forwarded a request to City Council (January 2000) and to the HDC for the establishment of a local historic district for the River Point Neighborhood. To date, the Council has not acted upon this request; Although the building is not architecturally significant, it is a contributing resource in the potential River Point Neighborhood. The Committee recommends support for the ACT-24-00 request with consideration that the building be preserved in place(for continued or adaptive reuse), mothballed until an appropriate use is determined, or moved to a nearby location within the neighborhood rather than demolished.The motion carried unanimously (2-0). Parks and Rec.: No response received at this time. Police: No response received at this time. rnncipai Shopping District: No response received at this time. Public Service: Public Service has no issues. Please note that Cottage Court is a private street and is not maintained by Public Service. Additionally there is a 10" sanitary sewer in Cottage Court. River Point Neighborhood: No response received at this time Trans. Engineer: No comments or requirements. The City's current plans are to retain Parking Lot#7,just north of Cottage Court. ANALYSIS This is a request by City of Lansing Parks&Recreation Department to acquire the property at 125 Cottage Street for river frontage access. A 2-story, structure c. 1908 is still extant on the site. Architectural surveys of the area have evaluated the building as a "contributing" structure to a proposed River Point Neighborhood Historic District,significant for its development associated with history of automobile manufacturing in Lansing. The applicant has indicated the proposal may result in the "possible loss of residential housing (if demolition occurs)". Hawn��w a fAC wrurlOo.�«r•a yA. — Wnlld•vWy,IAp M {OO.FE."pd Act-24-00, 125 Cottage Court Page 4 Acquisition for River Frontage EVALUATION 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). 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 property is located in a small residential section beside the banks of the Grand River,west of the commercial district. The property is at an elevation of 845 ft. and is not in the flood plain. The City owns four parcels on the east side of the Grand River between Elm and South Streets, including Parking Lot #7. The City has retained ownership of Parking Lot #7 despite an earlier proposal to market it for sale (Act-22-96). 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. Currently the property is zoned"F"Commercial District. Cottage Court is a private street and is not maintained by the Public Service Department. The both sides of the street are used for parking for adjacent commercial properties to the east. The acquisition may result in the removal of a residential structure resulting in further deterioration of a small residential development located between the river bank and the rear entrances of commercial structures along Washington Avenue. The future development plans for the site are unknown; therefore the potential design and development impact on the surrounding area cannot be addressed at this time. EXTENT: 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. The proposal may have a positive impact on the surrounding area by providing a green space buffer between Grand Riverand the surface parking lot(north and east of the subject property)and the commercial structures to the east. The Parks Department currently owns two parcels along this section of the river; one to the south and one to the north. The request is part of a long range plan for trail development along the river in this area. OTHER: Rwon P we by SAC 02r2MM1.R&AW 311M1. NPWMdr W W*eAd 205 NICM400-FE.V*d Act-24-00, 125 Cottage Court Page 5 Acquisition for River Frontaqe In terms of land use and environment, the Southeast Area Plan, as amended, specifically addresses this section of the River Point Neighborhood Area • recommends maintaining and protecting residential structures in this area. The acquisition may result in the removal or adaptive reuse of a contributing historic resource in a potential historic district. Historical Significance The structure, built ca. 1908, is a 2-story, 1,100 sq. ft., front gable, vernacular building situated on a small lot adjacent to the Grand River. The building retains its form and fenestration and is the mirror image of the residential structure at 123 Cottage Court. The structure has lost its context due to the loss of the three (3) residential structures along Cottage Ct., which has occurred since the amendment to the Southeast Area Plan(River Point Neighborhood).The property is considered a"contributing"resource in the potential River Point Neighborhood Historic District.The River Point Neighborhood Association has requested the establishment of a local historic district which would include this property. SUMMARY The proposed request would allow Parks and Recreation to acquire a fifth parcel along the river bank for future development between Elm and South Streets. If acquired by the city, the buffer zone between the commercial district and river is mninfnincrl IkAq;nfpn, , _ „r•4,- ... _ ..._ a.n av w w� v a11G L_ Pal"Cla currently owned by the city and a third parcel may prevent erosion of the river bank and possible dumping of debris into the river,thus benefitting all development between the river and commercial district. REVISED RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. A 106 Review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is completed if it is contemplated that federal or state funds will be used to acquire,demolish or redevelop the property. A meeting and review should occur before acquisition of the property. 2. A survey/title search be required before acquisition, as well as an appraisal. 3. Maintain the residential structure on the property for adaptive reuse (eg. restroom, interpretive center). In the even it is determined to be economically or technically unfeasible to preserve the structure in its context, market the structure for relocation to a nearby property to duster the remaining residential structures in the River Point neighborhood. The City could subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. 4. In the event the structure is removed, redevelopment of the site would need to accommodate the 10"sewer under Cottage Court. �;�Iw \ ice:f ���+;r� '� . : , it •� _• .i A 1.i.-.ii_i '�f Pr Yam" ,�r /�• �r+..-. _�.J:x:��r';:..i :-...'•.q \�• �, � .'� s .' .4J"t%i.i i' .. � * .;�Fv.' ,..�' _.•r:'•�' i�•'1'• .r•�.S 1, -, '1 �1 ,�.>��.<-0�'.�; .$"'i' • ��r:l•Y '�yS�'���I,IJ��j�??�t�i�''•�•!;�;�1•j.��tr! t{1.�,'�� i� r1i.��1.^cf.'�'1'��; �IJi ��:�w 1'i.�.•i�a':i •� !� i ril •� x � •1 ' SLR WSJ'i'I�I N, 1 �.I.�' 'll .. ,•i ACT-24-00, 125 Cottage Court NOON Acquisition for River Frontage. I ST ' W. ELM Ty ff pe. Covnc;r y-so7e � 5 1 � 11 k �� 0 10 0 r r 4 2 I 20, y 0 a r roC:may 1 �9 0 r QD `�. o r S P - vro •///, _ _I r - r r v E r 8 `� ? �V Q r \� O 0 ti M 14 '� Q ` Q �OI n + O 0 . ? \ „• DO h s.r• a. �1 z 5 9 10 11 12 ?� w AO $O w _i 4 \ \ • 64' JL' 16 I as' 1 /f Z 1 /Z 3 � ST. z '- W. SOUTH y V b Z D /ea /L/ it'? - 6 O�'O c _ poi. oro 7 - Z Q : oeo . a Z �' �j O o 0I • 2 t 8 J Q fs' tJ' V ^ - w --- --t�i'i I. 14 f" ♦ v Q o _ _ ---- - - soo'� - - --- (n Q ��ff 4 1 3 z ACT-24-00, 125 Cottage Court NORTH Acquisition for River Frontage. ELM X 838.2 836.7 ST 6 840 PB 35 /T Q 845.5 F- i� 825 Z 824.6 2 PARKING 844 /8 3 � Q ❑ 42 845.0 WALLS J - 3 40 845 845.9 PARKING ap 0 :o OTTAG ---AVE 830 29 30 29 /5 /7 845.9 /e 845 29 833.0 30 Ps p /5 844 845.4 SOUTH ST 840.2 Boo� P6 8 4 -TO 3/ PARKING 3 /9 P9 845 3/ b 845.0 840 4 50 833 WALL 40 832.6 /7 838 /6 26 40 Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel Lot#65 Park Manor Heights NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Frank and Carmella Cena 11810 Wright Road Eagle, MI 48822 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Lansing LOCATION: Generally located at the NE comer of High Street and Lake Lansing Rd., more specifically identified as Lot #65 of Park Manor Heights EXISTING ZONING: The subject parcel is zoned "F" Commercial REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant would like to acquire the subject property from the City of Lansing. EXISTING LAND USE: Lot#65 is primarily vacant. The lot contains a city sidewalk and public right of way for High Street PROPERTY SIZE: Frontage along Lake Lansing: 40' Total land area: 5,124 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Light Industrial/Warehouse S: Single and Two Family Residential E: Vacant property, and Single Family Residential W: Light Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "C" Residential E: "B" Residential W: "F" Commercial and "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The.Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this the area along the north side of Lake Lansing Road for industrial/warehouse development and land along the south side of Lake Lansing for Residential at 0-7 du/ac. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting to acquire Lot#65 from the City of Lansing and propose to combine it with Lot Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel Lot#65 Park Manor Heights NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. page 2 #66. Lot#66 is 5,092 sq. ft. and lot#65 is 5,124 sq. ft. Additional lot area from the subject lot #65 would result in a better overall building site for a home if combined with the applicant's adjacent lot. BACKGROUND INFO: Lots 62, 63, 64, and 65 Plat of Park Manor Heights Subdivision, were purchased by the City of Lansing from Robert and Nancy Smith for$42,000 in 1980. Lake Lansing was extended from High Street to Northeast Street during the 1980s and the two existing traffic lights were installed where High Street meets Lake Lansing. AGENCY REFERRALS: AMERITECH: (No response received.) ASSESSOR: (Dave T): When was High Street re-aligned? Perhaps there should be a survey done by the City, because there is an excess parcel on the other side of the street that could be sold off also. (John G.) Yes! I agree! If we are going to sell part of Lot 65, let's vacate High Street at the "cut-off", survey both "sides"of the relocation & dispose of everything at once. (John G. continued on attached memo) The issue from our stand point is not the sale of Lot 65, but the eventual descriptions, regarding which part of Lot 65 is to be sold, and which part is to be retained by the City. The air photo (if accurate!) Indicates that a portion of Lot 65 has a City sidewalk. We must presume: that the walk itself, and that part of Lot 65 to the South of the Northerly"Side", or"line" of the walk, will continue to be required by the City as "street". We should understand: Lot lines are permanent, legal entities. Once Platted; they cannot be changed except through Court Orders. Street features, such as pavements and sidewalks are not . Property lines, or occupation lines, are still not permanent features, Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel Lot#65 Park Manor Heights .R NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. page 3 because they may be changed by an individual (through the deeds, etc.). I would recommend a survey of some sort, even if it's only what we refer to as "light fielding": wherein a general location of the back of the walk, or a foot off the back or so can be determined by a field check. Those finds can be called out accurately on a deed. Public Services must have a set of plans for the re- location of Lake Lansing/High Street. There may be construction details on those, giving radii and segment lengths on the walk. Perhaps the Lot corners had to be located by the City for construction to proceed? Perhaps the applicant knows where the comers common to (his) Lot 66 & Lot 65 are located. Whatever the sources, the description on the deed should be written in relation to the Lot corners of either Lot 65 or 66, tying the lands sold, to permanent points. Are there any plans to vacate the parts of High Street which have been cut off by the relocation? BUILDING SAFETY: No objection BWL: Electric BWL Electric Utility has no objection to this plan. It will not affect our service lines. Contact Person: Ron Monroe . 702-6094 Water No comment. Contact Person: Bill Erskine 702-6818 CITY ATTORNEY: (No response received.) CODE COMPLIANCE: The Code Compliance Office is always in support of proposals which will increase the supply of safe, decent and sanitary housing in Lansing. This office recommends approval. Larger lot size advantageous with streets at the front and the rear. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No response received.) Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel Lot#65 Park Manor Heights NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. page 4 DNR/DEQ: (No response received.) DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: Purchased right-of-way. Survey to determine what is to be (can be) sold. Establish value of land to be sold through Assessor's Office. Is there any part of this which includes sidewalk, curb, etc. that we may wish to keep? Check with Pubic Service and Transportation. Retain easements. ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: The EDC has no comment or concern regarding this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) LANSING NGBD COUNCIL: (No response received.) MDOT: No comment. MEDIA ONE: (No response received.) PARKS & RECREATION: No comment. It does not impact park operations and programming. POLICE DEPT. (No response received.) PUBLIC SERVICE: Relocated High Street and its sidewalk is located within Lot 65. Only the portions of lot 65 located one foot outside the sidewalk will Public Service allow to be vacated. The Cena's will have to provide a survey prior to approval. If there are utilities located in Lot 65, an easement will be required. TRANSPORTATION ENG.: (No response received.) Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and_its use. Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel = : Lot #65 Park Manor Heights NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. a e5 Location The property is located at the northeast corner of High Street in the 1000 block of Lake Lansing Road in the Northtown Neighborhood. The intersection at High and Lake Lansing has changed over the years. Lake Lansing formerly ended at High Street. Lake Lansing Road was extended from High to Northeast Street. High Street was reconstructed, north of Lake Lansing to connect with Lake Lansing at a right angle. Traffic lights were installed to better control traffic and circulation at the two points where High Street and Lake Lansing come together. Character The subject property is vacant and includes public right of way that appears to include a portion of High Street and a sidewalk along the east side of the right of way (according to the aerial photograph). The property measures 40 feet along the Lake Lansing frontage, at an average depth of 128 feet and is approximately 5,124 square feet in size. The former use of the property, according to a 1979 aerial photo appears to be an auto body shop or some type of auto related business. Lot#65 is zoned "F" Commercial for retail development. The applicant's vacant property to the east is zoned "B" Residential for single family residential development. The applicant has indicated he wanfe fn ki m;W lL_ ----••--- -� ,%A a 51110v lollilly 11u111e dl this iocatlon. The applicants currently have a real estate sales sign on their property. The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial/warehouse on the future land use map. The applicant's property is zoned residentially, but the City's property is zoned "F" Commercial, which does not allow single family homes. The property, if sold to the applicant, should be zoned to the "B" Residential District to allow for the use of the property as a residential property. Extent A survey is needed to better evaluate how the paved street and sidewalk are situated on Lot#65. A complete stake survey is also needed to show all utilities above and below ground. The Public Service Department has indicated their approval to dispose of property that goes beyond one foot east of the curved sidewalk. The applicant has pointed out that he has been taking care of the property for over 50 years "because we thought we owned it." However, the City actually purchased Lot #65, along with Lots 62, 63, 64 of Plat of Park Manor Heights Subdivision in 1982 from Robert and Nancy Smith for$42,000. Lot#65 appears to have been part of an auto body shop business. 20 11, 19 81 J ^ 112 / N O r 51 10i 80 - 322 bry 52 79. 114 53 30; 78 16 k 54 77 u ' 55 131 14 , 115, 13 56 141 AV o 71 57 151 12 76. 58 75 74 59 0. 10 N — :!:::f 73 060 72 9 1 Of 71 Ilk 61 9 6 70 0 061 69. 8 0 7 %0 4 F-S' A 20i . 071 11Z 6 67 0 411 66 5 i 7 011 zi 10 4e. 5 3 63. k 4 " a .0 12 i 1. X 62. 0,k -31 C3 5 —19. So- 10 16 o 10 too I 86 1p 1997 88 f- SEE 3301 - 10- 100-1 mm a _ _.� ', �. ,1 of . , { t • ;};ffN4 WA • .• '+�f� �• .n .r�''��Yrr.,f.;� 1 ' •f `1 w� i�i! 1 � !• �a' �C�J'••'"��a�'«�'. S' • / �r .� fit. i}.� ::�• t'�•i , -l orJig . Sir cj ry 49 ay lot lip w . .�', ..yam„ +��'.� �,•_r. - ^ • ^�.. .. { �� 7 ,,yam �.. . j �. ` •� 1: c .�'�,:sl,• .�C•�- `ti � •V'�-e�;. i• � �t���� �! \:`� ^4P�j,' y� ?i'ii�'f. fS 't ��: - `r • I :� j •: '�ri _ :; ..-- ..1�• 4 •' •'� I 21 il._t��...'�� 'T• •' 9NJ�/r i .�`.�1+:•�t� :~! •`• .•F,''► ••la •I fir\ - •��•'f•'- \ �. V, .f�•.ta�• - { I R �,k)`� . J\� • V;�• = ♦/l.7•..`{•1�� - • ,•,•V Lo � .��'� •r — 'fit: .t?k .�'►1 �•� '�:ti.'�''a' � �^'� .as ,1:.' • `.9 �. wy f �� ��EE�SIC►, , � �.., . ���� � �,. C� � s'n���� llll01�►i►v° - _ �i �I 1�1111 [� E CITY OF:LANSING,MICIAGAN a: .rt �t•`�• •+�% ; ,• = , ' �°' �`. -���s. �'4t,:•"� � �- �.f '• .� ••� .ear �. ,� �._..,'`_4, s •,�' s>-;�r.c. j�� .i.t.�i•r l•- r_ r., �.Lf' S_:•Y•; ga ' `�r . • :; :` '.,,r• rt .Mite. •• •,}.ti-i ,erg •. , V. pi •.•y�y •' .�- Jy '�� •r p •PY t� y •'�' �•,•�%•' •.,. < �7`/s„ :r+ mod.. -, I " '� '•�r•r/1. �C. ��f"C•'F�rl r •.} i7'.' �. .Y.l tt ,.f�Q4 a,..*• ;• f IA 40 Noll �` � � ��'`. if�j �'�+G��%M' ,� -e.♦ '.+il)i;••�\f , s�..>'� _��_._ - ter+. p• •� ,� ;. ••... .�� a •�,.�. r�. � �.y.�. i���- � •� ':f '�J�a'���lla+F.. _ f^.';c..t'� -,�.. •��I`� �t r~ht • lac'' ` IL ow -4J i-.•,fir• :�..;tt•= _�t"�,J''t �•'.L>!t. f •^- .:��' - c'► '� if �' -5!: f _l..'• i��+ •`•,� a= �. -:il �.� - - _ .. :. Sys'.• •� \ Via, r, � :. •::_ ti�.t•-'`'' : -.,, � We have maintained lot 65 for over 50 years because we thought we owned it. We would like to combine lots 66 with 65 so in the future we have hopes for a single family dwelling on the property. It is to the cities advantage to let us have this lot, it would enhance the city's tax roll, should the city deny this request, the city will have to do all future maintenance on this lot. We will gladly grant you any right of way easement to the property as needed. We own all the family dwellings across the street from lot 65 and 66 on Lake Lansing Road, you can see they are well maintained and a credit to any neighborhood. Gary Carrick (city inspector 483- r 43 61) is our house inspector, he knows we go above and beyond what is expected of landlords. Any consideration given to this request will be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Frank &.Carmella Cena 517 - 626-6293 Act-2-01: Request to Acquire City-Owned Parcel Lot#65 Park Manor Heights NE Corner of High St. and Lake Lansing Rd. page 6 Other It should be noted that additional excess property to the west of the existing High Street is paved and used by a private business. This matter should be cleared up before it becomes a liability to the City of Lansing. SUMMARY The applicant would like to acquire the subject lot from the City of Lansing. A portion of Lot#65 appears to include paved street and sidewalk. No other information is available about the property, except that utility boxes appear to have been installed above ground. A complete stake survey is needed, giving all legal descriptions of street, sidewalk and utilities below and above ground. Once the square footage of the portion that is considered excess by the City is determined, an appraisal can then be made of the property, establishing the value and sales price to the applicant. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the disposal of any excess property found with Lot#65 �� ���i AI.. -Ll� SILL_ 1- LL_ _1.___L _L! _t i_ tL_ f_11_ _•i• vI I aln rvlano ""e-191ILS LU Lilt; tlpp111:dIIl bUUjCla lU LIM WIIUWIfIy uundilions: 1. A complete survey be done, in recordable form, at the applicant's expense, showing all utilities below and above ground, and giving legal descriptions of any necessary easements. 2. A value be determined on the property, based on square footage determined to be in excess of land needed for existing street and sidewalk. 3. Any easements for utilities be given legal descriptions and-recorded with the deed. 4. The applicant apply to rezone the excess land to the "B" Residential District to be consistent with the adjacent property and to allow for the development of a single family home. Sale of the property should be contingent on rezoning, and combination with Lot#66. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant,AICP Senior Planner a:Wct-2-01.rep APPROVED AS PRINTED APRIL 3, 2001 Draft to Clerk 94182001 Approved 040 22001 To Clerk 042 22001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick (arrived at 7:30), Smith, Ruge. Six present, two vacant seats. B. Absences - None. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Ms. Foster requested that NCU-1-2001 be taken up in the Committee of the Whole. With that change the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo to the Planning Board from Ms. Eleanor Love regarding NCU-1-2001. 4. HEARINGS -None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) JOHN PECKHAM, MARTIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING ACCIDENT FUND. We are here this evening to address questions relative to SLU-2-2001. We are in support of the staff recommendation concerning conditions for approval. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 6, 2001 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of March 6, 2001 with the following correction Pg 18 Ln 1.51" Pos 0 3.58 The vacation or sale of the surplus ROW could sTimulate the development of a single-family house in the area." On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; with that amendment, ROVED. the minutes were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 2 B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Ms. Foster, Chair. a. NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status - Residential in Commercial District In Committee, this case was tabled. It will be dealt with in Committee of the Whole. b. SLU-2-2001, Vacant Land Northeast Corner Townsend and Washtenaw Streets, Surface Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit to construct a surface parking lot at 217 Townsend to provide additional parking for the Accident Fund Company's office building. Staff recommended approval of SLU-2-2001 with the following conditions: a. Approval of the site plan by the Planning Office and other relevant City departments. b. The landscaping be consistent with the existing landscaping of the applicant's parking lot to the south of the subject property. C. The applicant/owner retain the existing BWL easement, as shown on the mortgage survey for the subject property. d. Parking area lighting be confined within and directed onto the proposed parking lot. The Committee members discussed the request in general. Mr. Frederick said there is no reason to deny it since it meets all nine criteria for granting Special Land Use requests. The Committee recommended approval. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of SLU-2-2001, 217 Townsend, Off-street Surface Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 3 Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-2-2001, 217 Townsend, Off-street Surface Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said their parking lot has much nicer landscaping than most City parking lots. Was there any discussion of having full-sized trees rather than the little ornamental trees? Ms. Foster said this is going to be a temporary use only. Frederick .Ave Foster -Ave Patrick . Ave Ruge . Aye Smith . Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; SLU-2- 2001, 217 Townsend, Off-street Surface Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District with four conditions as follows: 1. Approval of the site plan by the Planning Office and other relevant City departments. ent with the existing landscaping of the applicant's 2. The landscaping be consist parking lot to the south of the subject property. 3. The applicant/owner retain the existing BWL easement, as shown on the mortgage survey for the subject property. 4. Parking area lighting be confined within and directed onto the proposed parking lot APPROVED. was e. Z-1-2001, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business to "H" Light Industrial District The applicant is proposing to rezone the property located at 1133 May Street from "G-1" Business District to "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the property for the purpose of building a 4,346 sq ft addition to their existing facility at 1133 May Street for additional warehouse storage. Staff recommended denial of the request to rezone the subject property from "G-1" Business District to "H" Light Industrial District. Staff recommended instead that the property be rezoned to "G-2" Wholesale District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 4 The Committee members discussed site circulation. Mr. Frederick said that Transportation has concerns about truck circulation in and around the site. Sue Stachowiak said that this would be addressed during site plan review. Committee members discussed landscaping and use issues. Ms. Foster asked that the applicant take into account the windows on the adjacent garage when designing their landscape plan. Mr. Frederick noted that "G-2" is the least intensive zoning district that meets the needs of the applicant. Ms. Patrick asked if any other neighbors in the area have commented on this case; Ms. Stachowiak said no. The Committee asked that the Planning staff be vigilant in its review of landscaping and transportation issues. In Committee, a motion was made and seconded to deny Z-1-2001, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business District to "H" Light Industrial District and to recommend approval of rezoning to "G-2" Wholesale District. Ayes: 3; Nays; 0; carried unanimously. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Z-1-2001, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business District to "H" Light Industrial District as requested and to recommend approval of rezoning to "G-2" Wholesale District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the request was as follows. Mr. Ruge said he remains concerned about the front yard parking of two semi trucks right next to the right-of-way. In the Code, Front Yard Parking section, no front yard parking is allowed. 'I could not find an exception for the "G-2". I don't see where parking is allowed in "G-2."' Ms. Stachowiak quoted Chapter 1284.03 `Parking shall be allowed in the required front yard only in the "E-2" District, "F" Commercial District, "G-1", G-211, "H", "I" and "J" Parking Districts."' Mr. Ruge's main concern is that this building is next to an occupied property. The house is attached to the garage right next to the building. This industrial warehouse area is in a residential area. "I am concerned about making it worse than it is already." Having this stick out all the way to the right-of-way is not a good thing. They obviously intend to have semis next to the sidewalk all the time. Mr. Ruge cannot support this. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 5 Mr. Ruff said the site plan submitted is not in conformance with the "G-2" standards as of yet. The property presently is zoned "G-1" which would allow an office addition; they could build up to the property line all the way around. The opportunity for landscaping along the street frontage adjacent to the loading area was discussed. The "G-2" District does require setbacks for the building. In the case of"G-1" versus "G-2" where the G-1" would not require a setback, the "G-2" does, and we would have the opportunity to provide buffering around the building, and the building itself would not have openings on the side that the houses would be exposed to. This is a situation where there are office, industrial and warehousing uses in the middle of a residential area. There is not much opportunity for transition. We felt the "G-2" District would be better than the "G-1" in its present state, even though it is not optimal. Based on the existing situation, "G-2" seems to be better, except frontage and landscaping would be concerns. Mr. Frederick said in the Committee meeting, he too was concerned. The commercial property apparently has been there since 1949. In Committee, we discussed the semi truck parking. The Transportation Engineer also has a problem with it. The site plan is going to have to clear the Transportation Engineer before they can build. "I believe, based on the discussion we had in the Committee, that there would be some changes that would minimize the potential hazard of semi parking so close to the front property line." We discussed the landscaping with Ms. Stachowiak, and the applicant seemed to be amenable to making modifications and working with the staff. Since the applicants agree that "G-2" would meet their needs, this is about as good a compromise as we could get. Mr. Smith asked for clarification from Mr. Ruff. With the "G-2" there are setback requirements? Would that bear on where the semis are going to be parked? Mr. Ruff said he has not reviewed the plan in its entirety. It is just a sketch plan without a lot of detail. Ms. Stachowiak said the sketch plan does comply with setback requirements in both "H" Light Industrial and "G-2" Wholesale. "It is my understanding that the truck dock will be unenclosed and uncovered." Mr. Ruff said it may not qualify as a building if it is not enclosed and not covered. Mr. Ruge said he is not opposed, but in sensitive areas like this, the Planning Board should review the site plan. DON HARTWICK, ARCHITECT. With regard to trucks being parked in the front yard, that whole block is zoned "J" Parking from the front of the existing buildings up to the right-of-way line. Anything can be parked in "J" Parking, right next to the sidewalk. If one or two trucks were parked in the well indicated, it would not be strange for that area. The existing "G-1" zoning allows zero setbacks on all four sides. A bar or restaurant could go in there right to the property line with no parking, landscaping or buffering. Our original request was for light industrial. We have no objection to changing it to "G-2". We are providing the proper setbacks and landscaping. The plan in front of you is just an idea sketch. We have not surveyed the site yet, or talked to Transportation. "G-2" is a lesser use of the site than "G-1." Our use of the site for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 6 parking and use of the building is compatible with the remainder of the block, the majority of which is light industrial. There is a grade change between our lot and the residential lot next door. It goes uphill to the residential lot. A raised dock probably won't have any impact on the garage located next door. Mr. Ruff noted that an aye vote is a vote to deny the rezoning from "G-1" to "H" Light Industrial, and further to recommend approval of the "G-2" Wholesale District for this property. Foster . Aye Patrick. . .Abstain Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Smith. . Ave Frederick . Ave Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; and one abstention. Even though the motion carries, because a rezoning case must have a minimum of six affirmative votes, the case would be referred to City Council with this vote but without an official recommendation. Next meeting, Wednesday, April 14, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. NAYt mccfinn Tl nncA w RA-,-" r)7 r)nne ..4. A .- • • • •••�.+..,,W) . awv.,.�—uy, IVIGII trl1 L/ , GVV I, aL `t N.M., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole; unanimous; carried. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick. a. NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak said this is a request by D.J. and Dorothy Dunn, owners of 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., for a Class A Nonconforming Status to ensure that the applicant can reconstruct the building as a residential 2-unit in the event the structure accrues damage greater than 50 percent. At present the house is being used as a duplex. There is one unit in the main house and one residential unit in part of the garage. The other part of the garage is used for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 7 residential storage. Currently, the use on the property is nonconforming because the "F" Commercial District does not permit a residential two-unit as a principal use. A residential use is permitted in the "F" Commercial District as a secondary use if it meets the lot area and parking requirements in the "DM-Y Residential District. The use has a Class B Nonconforming status that limits the amount of improvement to the structure to 35 percent of the structural value. Class A Nonconforming status is required in order to allow the house to be restored, reconstructed, extended, or substituted. In the case of fire or other catastrophe, a Class A Nonconformity may be restored or reconstructed if the cost is not more than 50 percent of the nonconformity's pre-catastrophe fair market value. If damage is greater than 50 percent, the restoration or reconstruction may be permitted only by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff recommends that the Class A Nonconforming status be approved with the following conditions: (1) The Class A meets all conditions required by agencies referred; (2) The accessory structure is cleaned up and maintained; (3) The rental units are registered with the City; (4) The owner supply the Planning Office with a parking plan; and (5) The parking area is hard-surfaced. The Committee discussed ownership aspects and landscaping requirements. The Committee tabled the request because of the concern for the location of the parking since in the "F" Commercial District, parking is permitted in the front yard. The applicant's parking plan was distributed this evening, showing how they intend to handle parking. It is shown as hard-surfaced, with four parking spaces as required for this property. The layout shown is the least objectionable layout. Mr. Ruff said with the site plan the way it is, it should be noted the property is on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. in a commercial area. Right now there is some parking in the front yard on gravel or unsurfaced area. That would have to be corrected. Mr. Ruff suggested as we go through this that potentially they also PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 8 include a small area to turn around in. We may also look at the necessity for some landscaping to screen the turnaround. Ms. Keene said she was not in favor of granting the Class A nonconforming status because the area is commercial, and the Southwest Area Master Area Comprehensive Plan for 1990 designates this as a commercial area. Given the makeup of the area, commercial is what this property should be. "I am opposed to granting the applicant's request." Ms. Foster said she did not see a problem with mixing the two uses, because isn't that what we are trying to do downtown, mix commercial with residential so that we can bring life to downtown. This is a different area, but for the sake of mixing the uses, it may bring some life to this area. Mr. Frederick said the rental units are not registered. This is a condition imposed in Committee. "I am not comfortable with the site plan submitted." Ms. Stachowiak said he has designed the parking for residential use rather than for a business use. "I think he is trying to demonstrate that he intends to hard surface it since that is one of our conditions." Mr. Smith said when it says the applicant is requesting a Class A to ensure that it can be reconstructed in the event the structure accrues damage greater than 50 percent, is this something he is doing or does he have actual plans for reconstruction? Mr. Ruff said in this situation, when refinancing is obtained, Class A gives them more security. The property does not have to be rebuilt at this time. It has not had a catastrophe. If it did, it may be necessary at that time to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for additional dollars. In this situation, it is done for refinancing purposes. Mr. Dunn wants to sell the property to his son, who is having a problem getting financing without assurance from the City that should a problem arise, he can rebuild to 50 percent of the value. Mr. Ruff said if this is denied, he can make it a mixed use, making the primary use commercial or office. Ms. Stachowiak said the zoning use to the north is "F" Commercial, and the zoning to the east and south is "A" Residential. Across the street there is a mix of commercial and residential, single- and two-family. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 9 home to the south looks identical to the home in question. It is the same color, trim, everything. Clearly it was built by the same person. Mr. Frederick said the rental structure needs some repair. If the applicant were interested and were coming to us because he intended to make the repairs, that would help explain why he wants the nonconforming status. "But I haven't heard any indication that the applicant or his son is interested in doing any repair. Also, if this building were damaged, beyond the required percentage, he still has the right to knock it down and put up something commercial there. Mr. Frederick senses that this is a piece of property that the man's son intends to keep right on renting out and putting as little into it as possible when it would probably be more appropriate to be a commercial use. "I am having difficulty supporting this and would probably vote against the nonconforming status." Mr. Ruff said you have two options. You can take action on it, or refer it back to committee. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to deny 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: 6 Ayes; 0 Nays; motion carried unanimously; NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status was DENIED. There being no other business for consideration by the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Committee arise; unanimous; carried. Ms. Keene resumed as Chairman in the regular Business Session with a report from the Committee of the Whole. 4. Report of the Committee of the Whole Mr. Frederick Chair The Committee of the Whole met and addressed NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status. The item had been tabled in Committee and had been referred to the Committee of the Whole. After considerable discussion, the Committee of the Whole unanimously moved to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 10 deny NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, to deny NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Foster asked what happens next. Ms. Stachowiak said nothing changes. The property will remain as is. It may not be able to be sold because of the financing, which may still be an issue for them. It does not mean they have to discontinue the use. They can continue the use, but they will be a Class B Nonconformity. Ms. Foster asked can they park in an area that is not hard-surfaced? Ms. Stachowiak said no, it is not legal parking. Ms. Foster asked if they can fix it? Mr. Ruff said they can remedy any illegal situation and correct it. Mr. Ruge asked if we can get an opinion as to whether they are renting out that structure illegally as a residential structure? Mr. Ruff said yes, we would have to get the history of the use of the structure even while it was used commercially. "I believe that it was occupied residentially and that occupant opened up part of the home for a commercial venture while maintaining it as a residence." That would have to be confirmed, but we could do that. Ms. Stachowiak said she had asked that exact question of the applicant, and he said it has consistently been used as a two-unit ever since it has been annexed in to the City; that at one time while using it as a two-unit, they conducted the psychic reader business in the home there. We have done as much research as we are able to do, given our records. We have been able to find nothing to the contrary. Mr. Frederick said so even though the owner rezoned it to "F" Commercial, he never really used it as "F" Commercial? Ms. Stachowiak said he continued to use it for his two-unit residential purpose, while for a short period of time, conducted the psychic reader business there. You can almost say more of a home occupation than an actual business. The principal use of the building was still the residential part of it. Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Ruge. . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . .Aye Frederick. . .Ave Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 1; motion carried; NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status was DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 11 Ms. Patrick said she misunderstood the way the motion was read. She asked to change her vote to Aye. On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; NCU-1-2001, 4501 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Class A Nonconforming Status was DENIED. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. C. Report from Planning Manager There are still vacancies on the Department Boards; we have received no applications as yet. One person new to the Fourth Ward did call, but the person as yet has not lived in the City for one year. We are going to send an application in anticipation of November, when the time is up. We have vacancies on the Planning Board, Third and Fourth Wards; three vacancies on the Historic District Commission, one of whom is intended to be an architect. For the Board of Zoning Appeals, we also have three vacancies, two First Ward, and one Third Ward. Also, on Council's agenda was a Make Safe or Demolish Order for the Drakes Refinery gas station on S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. next to the McDonalds. They have 30 days to bring it up to code or demolish the building. Ms. Love and I did the Front Yard Parking video in cooperation with City TV. It is now completed, and has been played today at least once. It is an eleven-minute educational piece to help people understand parking in the front yard, and the need for hard-surfacing areas that are going to be used for parking. There is a frequently-asked question-and-answer segment where we also share our comments regarding the questions. We have been working with the Police Dept. in training for that area. That part of the ordinance will go into effect in April. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will have a meeting on March 28 at 7:30 p.m. to present an overview of the Coordinated Planning Act that was proposed last year as a House Bill. It would consolidate and retool the four planning acts that govern cities, townships, villages and counties. The intention is that the bill will be reintroduced this current session. Many issues are involved. At our next meeting, I will provide you with a copy of a summary, and if you would like, a copy of the House Bill as introduced last year. There is a provision for money to implement new plans, starting at the regional or county level, and then extending to the cities. Ms. Keene asked about pending items a. and b.; Mr. Ruff said he will be attending a meeting soon in Old Town to discuss them. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 12 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) d. P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat e. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District f. Proposed Revisions to the Historic District Ordinance(Tabled February 14, 2001) g. Zoning Ordinance Amendments-"74" Commercial District(No Action Taken February 14, 2001); Accessory Buildings and Front Yard Setbacks (Not taken up for discussion) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) 2. ACT-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel, Lansing Printing Co., Vacate Portion of Beech St. ROW(Tabled January 30, 2001) 3. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process 4. Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW (Tabled February 27, 2001) 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - Mr. Smith commented about parking in the front yard. One of the side effects, unintentional perhaps, is an encouragement for more people to pave parts of their front yards so they are in conformity so they can park vehicles. In many middle class neighborhoods, we routinely see expanded driveways, additional aprons paved for RVs, jetskis, and boats. These mini-parking lots are just as unsightly as a rusting car in a poorer neighborhood. This ordinance seems to target that while failing to deal with other issues in the "better neighborhoods." Mr. Ruff said parking in the front yard is not allowed whether it is on a hard- surfaced area or not. The Board of Zoning Appeals had an application in a less- fortunate situation, a smaller home on a smaller lot that didn't have conforming parking. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance. One of the conditions was that the variance information actually be stamped into the concrete, giving meeting date, etc. In neighborhoods of larger homes on larger lots, there is more opportunity to meet existing code requirements than in older neighborhoods where properties were not designed for modern vehicles. The Board of Zoning Appeals can offer options. Many aprons are not legal. We have compiled a list of all BZA actions since 1974 when the Front Yard Parking ordinance went into effect. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 20, 2001 PAGE 13 Mr. Smith said five or six vehicles parked on concrete on one property after another repetitively down the street contributes just as much to an ugly environment as does the occasional junk vehicle sitting on the grass. There is a built-in unfairness. Mr. Ruff said the Front Yard Parking ordinance has not changed since 1974, rather, the enforcement has changed to abate the offense, to get the vehicle out of the front yard. Mr. Ruge said that at Pennsylvania and Michigan, when the lights were redone about a year ago, camera-like devices were installed. Mr. Ruff said they could be signal light control sensors for use by the Fire Department; he will find out. Mr. Ruge continued, referring to a yellow house near the Bethlehem Temple in Old Town. The owner parks dump trucks in the driveway. He has expanded the driveway, and now he is parking a semi tractor. Mr. Ruff will check. Mr. Ruge said in his neighborhood there is an empty lot--the house burned down. Can the neighbors just park on the lot? Mostly they park on the driveway, about three vehicles at a time. Mr. Ruff said normally when a house is demolished, we try to get the driveway removed and the curb reinstalled. Mr. Ruge asked about 2935 and 2925 North East Street, being offered by Ken Stockwell. The Board approved a rezoning from residential to commercial. It looks like too much is crammed on the property, with two separate buildings, connected, with very little buffering between that property and the residential property to the south. To the west is a residential property with buffering of about five ft of stones, and then some trees, then a solid fence. What the neighbors look at is the solid fence next to their property. He should have switched that around so that the neighbors could get the trees, and his parking lot gets the fence. When we considered this property, we knew it was going to be tight. It is properties like this that I would like to have the opportunity to look at when site plan review is done to be sure the owner can use the property and that adjoining uses can be buffered. We would have to work out a review system. Ms. Foster said she would be away until April 20. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:43 p.m. =Ruff, , Planning Board mn03202001 a:\63 SLU-2-2001 Page 1 217 Townsend, Lansing GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Martin Property Development, Inc. 1111 Michigan Avenue, Suite 201 East Lansing, MI 48823 OWNER: Accident Fund Company 232 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner's representative _ REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use Permit (SLU) to construct a surface parking lot at 217 Townsend to provide additional parking for the Accident Fund Company's office building. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant. Previous site of YWCA. PPN 3301-16-327-012 EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: .34 acres - "L" shaped lot SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Parking Lot South: Parking Lot East: Accident Fund Office Building West: Post Office SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "J" Parking District South: "G-1" Business District East: "G-1" Business District West: "G-1" Business/"DM-4" Residential Districts MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for mixed use (residential, office and commercial). The proposed parking lot is accessory to the Accident Fund Office Building. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 217 Townsend is the site of the former YWCA building. The YWCA was established at this location in 1927. The building was demolished in December, 2000. SLU-2-2001 Page 2 217 Townsend Lansing SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use Permit to construct a 40± space, off-street, surface parking lot at 217 Townsend Street. The property is currently zoned "G-1" Business and off-street parking facilities are a use permitted by Special Land Use Permit in this district. This is not a matter of rezoning. AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor: No comments. Building Safety: No objection. BWL: Electric Utility- No apparent conflicts. The BWL still has an easement, as shown on the mortgage survey. At this point, we are not willing to give up this easement. Water Utility - Approved with conditions listed - All existing water service to the site will be disconnected a the property line only. The owner to request service to be disconnected. Steam: - No comment. Street Lights - No conflicts with existing street lighting facilities as shown on the plan. City Attorney: (No response received yet) Code Compliance: Any special conditions or requirements which are approved by Council should be forwarded to this office. Consumers Energy Co.: (No response received yet) Development Office: (No response received yet) Fire Marshall: No objections. Access must meet current codes. Historic District Commission: (No response received yet) North Lansing-Comm. Assoc.: (No response received yet) Northtown. Neighborhood Assoc: (No response received yet) SLU-2-2001 Pane 3 217 Townsend, Lansing Parks & Recreation: (No response received yet) Public Service: (No response received yet) Transportation Engineer: No comments or requirements. 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? As illustrated on the site plan, the proposed layout of the parking area is consistent with the adjacent parking lot to the south. The applicant has stated and will be providing a plan that demonstrates that the landscaping of the subject property will be consistent with the existing landscaping of the applicant's parking lot to the south. The proposed plan includes utilizing the existing access drives that currently serve the Accident Fund parking lot to the south. Therefore, this proposal is harmonious with the character of the adjacent properties. 2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the surrounding area? The proposed parking area will be an extension of the existing parking lot to the south that currently provides parking for the Accident Fund office building. There is also a separate parking lot to the north of the subject property. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding area since there are existing parking lots to the north and south of the proposed parking lot. 3. Will the proposed special land use change 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. The proposed special land use represents an improvement to the property which is currently an unimproved, vacant lot. There are no anticipated impacts on the environment that will result from this project if it is approved. SLU-2-2001 Page 4 217 Townsend Lansing 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 parking lot does not pose any hazards to adjacent properties. The use will not generate any excessive traffic, additional noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare for the area in which it is located. 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 special land use will not place an increase in demand on public services. 8. Is the proposed special land use consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code and the objectives of any currently adopted Comprehensive Plan? The property is currently zoned "G-1" Business District. An off-street parking lot facility is a use permitted in this zoning district with a special land use permit approved by the City Council. The proposed parking lot will serve the employees of the Accident Fund office building. Although there are no numerical parking requirements in the "G-1" district, the applicant feels that the additional parking spaces are needed. The subject property is designated in the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan for mixed use (residential, office and commercial). Since the proposed parking lot is accessory to the applicants principal use which is the office building, the proposed SLU is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. 9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located.? There are no dimensional requirements for uses, including parking lots, in the "G-1" Business District. SLU-2-2001 Page 5 217 Townsend Lansing SUMMARY The request for a Special Land Use permit to construct a surface parking lot in the "G-1" Business District complies with all nine criteria contained in Section 1282.02(f) of the Zoning Code. The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent properties and surrounding uses. 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 lot as it currently exists. 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 Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. There are no dimensional requirements associated with the proposed Special Land Use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SLU-2-2001, a request to construct a parking lot at 217 Townsend Street, in the "G-1" Business District with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the site plan by the Planning Office and other relevant City departments. 2. The landscaping is consistent with the existing landscaping of the applicant's parking lot to the south of the subject property. 3. The applicant/owner retains the existing BWL easement, as shown on the mortgage survey for the subject property. 4. Parking area lighting must be confined within and directed onto the proposed parking lot. Z-01-01 1133 May Street "G-V Business District to "H" Light Industrial District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Abatar Institutional Food Co. 1133 May Street P.O. Box 24066 Lansing, MI 48909 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Abatar Institutional Food Co. EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPOSED ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangular, =32,026 ftZ, =% of an acre Subject area: 66' x 123.17 = 8,129 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Delta Printing/Single Family Residential S: Commercial business/Single Family E: Single Family W: Commercial business SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial/"B"Residential S: "H" Light Industrial/"B" Residential E: "B" Residential District W: "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property located at 1133 May Street from "G-V Business District to "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the property for the purpose of building a 4,346 sq. ft. addition to their existing facility at 1133 May Street for additional warehouse storage. Z-1-01, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business to "H" Light Industrial District Page 2. BACKGROUND: See attached letter. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received yet. Assessor: New front setback would be 25 ft. Would a 40 ft. semi- trailer be allowed to extend out into the road ROW? No legal change appears to be required. BWL: Electric No objections. Contact Person: Ron Monroe 702-6094 Water Approved. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 Building Safety: Construction documents must be submitted to the Building Office for review and approval. Code Compliance: Please provide this office any requirements which result if this proposal is approved. Consumers Energy: No response received yet. Development: No comment. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Media One: No response received yet. North Lansing Community Assn.: No response received yet. Z-1-01, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business to "H" Light Industrial District, Page 3. Northtown Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objections. New addition will cause re-evaluation of current water flow available. Parks & Rec.: No comment. Does not impact park operations. Public Service: No response received yet. Trans. Eng. It does not appear that there is sufficient room for semi- trucks to service the proposed facility without modifications to the driveways on May Street. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE There is a mixed land use in this area. The surrounding land uses consist of residential to the east and south and industrial uses to the north, south and west. The zoning in the area is also a mixed use; the subject property is zoned "H" light Industrial and "J" Parking. The proposed location for the warehouse addition is in an area zoned "G-1" Business District. In the "G-1" Business District, there are no height or area requirements. Therefore, any use allowed in the"G-1"Zoning District would be allowed with no type of buffer zone, parking requirements and with no setbacks or height restrictions. A warehouse storage is not allowed in this zoning district. However, warehouse storage is allowed in the "G-2" Wholesale District, which is a less intense zoning district than the "H" Light Industrial District as proposed. Also, there are setback requirements in the "G-2" Wholesale District which would provide a buffer zone for the adjacent residential properties. It would be more appropriate to rezone the property to the "G-2"Wholesale District instead of the "H" light Industrial District. If the property is zoned "H" Light Industrial, a more intense use could potentially locate in the area. The"G-2"Wholesale District would be more compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses because it would be a step down between the "H" Light Industrial District to the west and the residential zoning to the east. Z-1-01. 1133 May Street "G-1" Business to "H" Light Industrial District, Page 4. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. The proposed addition is in compliance with the NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC There are concerns regarding circulation in and around the site. Specifically, how semi-trucks would service the facility. Circulation concerns would be addressed on the site plan as well as with the Transportation Department. The applicant has indicated that the proposed addition would make their operation more efficient requiring less trucks and less vehicle trips per day. There should not be any other adverse impact on vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No significant environmental impacts are anticipated. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT No significant impact on public services are anticipated. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT This is a mixed use neighborhood. The expansion of this facility should not have any adverse impact on future patterns of development. OTHER There are very few options available to build an addition onto the existing facility at 1133 May Street. The addition is proposed to be erected on the east side of the building and would be adjacent to residential uses on the south and east. Therefore, a landscape, screening and buffer plan would need to be submitted for the site plan review process. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider rezoning to "G-2" Wholesale District instead of"H" Light Industrial District since it would be a less intense zoning district. The Transportation Engineer has a concern Z-1-01, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business to "H" Light Industrial District, Page 5. that it appears that there is insufficient room for semi-trucks to service the proposed facility without modifications to the driveways on May Street. The applicant will need to address the circulation pattern as part of the site plan review process. SUMMARY The proposal is compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses. The proposed addition is in compliance with the NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan. There are concerns regarding the circulation around the site. Specifically, how semi-trucks would service the facility. This issue, as well as landscape, screening and buffering, will be addressed during the site plan review process. There should not be any other adverse impact on vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. There should be no significant impacts on the environment, public service or future patterns of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request to rezone the subject property from "G-1" Business District to"H° Light Industrial District. Staff recommends that the property be rezoned to "G-2" Wholesale District. 1:Q DONALD HARTWICK ARCHITECT & PLANNER AIA 6060 HARTWICK OR RES:(517)626-2577 tANSING MI FAX:(517)626-6699 48906 BUS: (517)626-2578 February 1,2001 City of Lansing Zoning Department RE:ABATAR INSTITUTIONAL FOODS CORP Rezoning request on May St. City of Lansing Dear Sirs: Abatar Institutional Foods is requesting a rezoning request for a parcel of land adjacent to their existing facilities at 1133 May St. in Lansing. The present facilities and the adjacent parcel are owned by the applicant. The applicant needs additional warehousing space since their business is growing. The present facility is zoned"IT'Light Industrial with"P'Parking in front and the adjacent parcel which is owned by Abatar Foods is presently zoned"G-1"Business which does not allow warehousing as a permitted use. We believe that this is a reasonable request for the following reasons: 1. The present zoning of"G-1"is not very conducive to the surrounding area for some of the uses allowed are: • Restaurant,Bar and Tavern • Assembly hall • Hotel • Retail Store 2. There is a significant amount of"IT'Light Industrial zoning adjacent to this parcel and in this block. 3. We suggest that the use of warehousing is certainly not as intense a use as the above uses that are allowed by right in"G-1". 4. The lot directly east of the parcel is zoned`B"residential and is presently occupied by a garage. The next lot over at the corner of Cleveland and May, is also zoned"B"residential,but is vacant. The lot directly north of Abatar's vacant lot is zoned`B"residential and is the rear yard of the residence. 5. There are no minimum yard setbacks for"G-1".The setback requirements for'IT'are 25',20' and 10 to 25' for front yard,rear yard and side yard respectively. 6. This request, if granted,would allow the owner to expand his business without relocating. We will be more than happy to answer any further questions that you may have at any time. Thank you for your time and consideration, -7 Donald Hadwic< Licensed Architect Z-1-01, 1133 May Street, "G-1" Business to "H" Light Ind. District NORTH 1 NIIM `12 13` 14 II I [ �. IJ� 14 ° � I \ 2 k 1 I k u ,6 �. 37 s ° 66.75' 10 -- Ya.1y ct.75' 17.14' - 3Jf/'— Off\ 7 17 1 � � i� 1• � ^. 7v— c 0ly v .1 12 I46#1 � pv !!' ..,8' Vi.73' 97.22 /o." Z —!'�"` 1305 1307 1311- 13+r 7 11C.7 v///7 air //Z/ //!1 o, MAY ti M)kY 3?'- 9 S T. I "004 h Iseb 1310 /31Y: 131 8 ,t�4 I I1 O fill. 7,2 33- 33' 41.z57 yl,cS' � h 0 „V - �1r^ �' 12 1 3 I I4 �-�l b4 5� �'' Y�j ' i` 1 y ! i �'i a 1 r "1 ~12 0 3 I 14 15h)\ l - 2 n L ti j, II 7 II r8r ' ILt.I• Z4� n "' 0 .- ,17. -- tG ° 031 to Z SI v ... 10 n s,.. - '-- -- 0 59 � - �IlB_IL' $ — �15 tit v, ` �'j1 I 9 f7.34' 6 ns.Ye' 77-7' t`tYs. h \ u 6 ZZ Q r7.7 0 5 S 1, IM IJ.Js * 13 q 1 2 3 434 ` �►►\ I a l 0 6 0 \ \v \ V 31. ,-, )!' iir. Vf 4`' ilo' tf` 13e7 1911 13 r319 201 /2es m SAGINAW - - E . Zo c=O N � y/�7ooSF t s = /S,SGAcE 5 J I � � o d � 0 � ,e�zo.�/��G ,QEouES7 4f 14 Li J N w4�6�0(JS� ' � EXTG 2o.✓i..r�� 0 �G/ a I 1 � w.4,e's Nd c.4 5 E N L)04oi7-/Oti1 I V z3' /8S � v M S3 � IN< . r�,eo�os,�a l �LoT/ —i FLoTh - 6o7'3—a .ti!.4 DONALD-HARTWICK