Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Planning Board Apr-June Minutes FINAL APPROVED AS PRINTED APRIL 17, 2001 Draft to Clerk 04192001 Approved 04172001 To Clerk 04232001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 3, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chairman Frederick in the absence of Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. Four present, two absent, two vacant seats. B. Absences - Ms. Foster on January 23, 2001 requested and was granted an excused absence for April 3, 2001. Ms. Keene on April 3, 2001 requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Ruff said that the Planning Office sent out notices regarding a public hearing originally scheduled for tonight, Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts, postponing the hearing to May. A legal ad was also placed in the newspaper. With that note, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum addressed to the Planning Board dated March 30, 2001 from Bill Rieske RE: Act-6-01 and Act-7-01, Air Rights for Balconies. B. Communication from Joan DeRose, resident manager of Colonial Townhouses regarding Act-4-2001. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-4-2001, Pleasant Grove Fire Station, Market for Sale Mr. Rieske presented the proposal to market the fire station at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. The property, zoned "A" Residential, is about 1.31 acres in size, rectangular. It is surrounded by residential land uses, and surrounding zoning is also residential. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use as a community facility. Fire station services have been relocated to the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove and Jolly Roads, which makes this fire station a surplus property. No objections from community agencies have been received. The main PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 2 comment received concerned the need for determination on the tower located on the property. Mr. Ruge asked what the building could be used for. Mr. Ruff said that is another purpose for the public hearing, determining the maximum use potential for the property based on location, lot area, surrounding uses, and the master plan, and also determining the uses it could be marketed for. The property is zoned "A" Residential which is what many fire stations would be zoned as a public facility. Single family or similar uses are allowed, or special land uses allowed in the "A" Residential District such as child care facilities. GREG MARTIN, LANSING FIRE CHIEF. In 1995, the City commissioned a Fire Department utilization study that considered fire station locations. The recommendation was that this fire station be relocated from 3708 Pleasant Grove to Pleasant Grove and Jolly, about a mile south. In the latter part of 1997, we commissioned Capitol Consultants to look at all of our facilities in terms of condition and upgrades needed. Study results indicated that Lansing fire stations needed $10.6 million in upgrades and repairs. Lansing voters approved a two-stage $7 million bond proposal. The first stage is the construction of a new Fire Station #6 at Pleasant Grove and Jolly. We are interested in having the City sell the old station and return the proceeds to the Fire Department. The study indicated over $10.6 in needs, so, even with the $7 million bond approval, we are going to come up short. This will be our first new station or major remodel since 1978. JOAN DE ROSE, 3818 PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, PROPERTY MANAGER FOR COLONIAL TOWNHOUSES. Mr. Rieske just provided Planning Board members with a copy of my letter of October 1999 to Tony Benavides. We wanted to let everybody know we are still interested in possibly purchasing the fire station. ROBIN SLATON, 2111 DESOTO DRIVE. I submitted a letter to City Council about a week ago notifying them of my interest in purchasing the Fire Station to turn it into a child care center. It would enhance the City and provide drop-in and back-up care for people who need it. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Frederick announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Act-4-2001, Pleasant Grove Fire Station, Market for Sale. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee for consideration at their meeting to be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 3 A. Z-2-2001, 524 East Miller Road, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request by the owner of Tony's Party Store located at 524 E. Miller Road, on the southwest corner of E. Miller and S. Cedar. The property owner wants to rezone the vacant parcel directly west of Tony's Party Store. He then wants to tear down the existing building, combine the two lots, and redevelop a new building of 6,900 sq ft area. Additional parking is shown on the conceptual site plan in the packet. The property is currently zoned "A" Residential; they want to rezone it to "F" Commercial. "F" Commercial is located to the north and to the south, as well as some multiple family residential. To the west is "A" Residential; to the east is "E-2" Shopping District and "F" Commercial. The same is true at the northeast corner of the intersection. We have received responses from agencies indicating no real objections. BRUCE STEWART, SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR MR. KESTO, OWNER OF THE TWO PARCELS. You have had a good summary of the situation. Most of the properties surrounding this residentially zoned property are commercial, particularly directly across Miller Road. That entire block from Cedar Street west to Kaynorth Road is presently zoned "F" Commercial. The house that sits immediately west is vacant. It was owned by RiteAid. To the south is an apartment complex that is not close to this property. Generally speaking, it is a very commercial area. The site is tight, with poor traffic circulation and driveways on the intersection. Combining the additional parcel will allow Mr. Kesto to relocate the Miller Road driveway which will improve access to the property and circulation at the intersection. City transportation engineers have looked at this plan, and to them the driveway location is an improvement. Mr. Ruge was concerned about the dumpster location right next to the "A" Residential parcel to the west and asked if it could be moved. Mr. Stewart said this is the first sketch of the parcel and it probably could be relocated. We are willing to work with the City. Mr. Ruge asked Ms. Stachowiak about the 51 parking spaces indicated. She said we have not figured the parking necessary for a building this size. This is a preliminary stage. The applicants have not as yet prepared a site plan. In addition to reconstructing the Tony's Party Store, they would also have some tenant space to lease in the new building, so we would need to know the use of that in order to calculate the parking requirements. As yet, we don't have a floor plan to use to calculate required parking spaces. Mr. Ruge said that at present the lot is paved up to the curb. If it is redeveloped, will green space be required beside the curb or sidewalk? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 4 Ms. Stachowiak said there is no requirement, but we would work with the applicant for some landscaping. Ms. Patrick asked about the building redevelopment. Mr. Stewart said it will be a completely new building. The existing building will be razed. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Frederick announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Z-2-2001, 524 Miller Road, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. The matter will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for consideration at their meeting to be held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-4-2001, Aurelius & Cavanaugh Rds. near 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd., "A" Residential to "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts Ms. Stachowiak presented case, a request by Terry Baker of Kater Engineering Associates on behalf of Parker Memorial Baptist Church at 1902 E. Cavanaugh Road. There are three different sections of the property that are the subject of this request. The parcel directly west of the existing church building is currently zoned "A". They would like to rezone that to "J" Parking for the purpose of creating additional parking. The property directly east of the property that is currently zoned "J" Parking, the applicants would like to have it zoned "J" Parking, because it is currently being used for parking. It is zoned "A" Residential, but it is currently parking, so to bring that into conformance with the ordinance, as part of this request, they are asking that it be zoned for its current use. The property directly south of the property fronting along Cavanaugh Road, they would like to rezone from "A" Residential to "H" Light Industrial, because they would like to construct a building that would be used for a gymnasium as well as a print shop. We understand that they will be doing printing for the church, newsletters, Bibles, etc. They plan to do distribution of the printing also. It fits better into the industrial zoning classification. They have included a conceptual site plan. Ms. Stachowiak noted that everything south of the property is currently zoned "I" Heavy Industrial. A parcel directly west is also zoned "I" Industrial. It is surrounded on at least two sizes by other industrial zoning. TERRY BAKER, KATER ENGINEERING, 2495 FEATHERSTONE DRIVE, LANSING. There are three parcels here. One lot owned by the church to the west of the existing church building, currently zoned "A" Residential, they would like to have it zoned "J" Parking for parking closer to the building. They could use some additional handicap spaces. The parcel to the east was made into parking many years ago. We want to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 5 get that into compliance. The proposal for the part in the back is for a gymnasium and work area for some of their publications that they use in their school. Up until 1985, that property was zoned light industrial. In 1985, 500 feet from Aurelius Road was changed to Residential, and a garage was built. They want to keep that part of the property abutting Aurelius Road as residential, as there is a house that the church owns on the property now. They want to rezone the part from the southwest corner of the existing property at the corner on to the west, so it squares off the property. Then there would be some parking associated with the gymnasium that would be shared with both the gymnasium and the church facility. Mr. Ruge asked what kinds of things would be printed at the site. Mr. Baker deferred to the associate pastor. REV. STEVE GREEN, 3821 AURELIUS ROAD, ASSOCIATE PASTOR, PARKER MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH. We have been ongoing since 1976. We print portions of scripture, new testament, and gospels and we distribute them all over the world. Last year we put out 2.7 million portions of scripture in Russian, Romanian, Spanish and some English, free distribution to missionaries all over the world. One portion is going to be our assembly area. We have volunteers who come in and collate and assemble. Then we box and ship them. The other portion of the gymnasium would be used for fellowship area, for receptions and recreational use. Mr. Ruge asked if the printing is now being done in the existing building? Rev. Green said we moved some of our Sunday School rooms around to accommodate the printing. Now we need the areas back and want to give them a separate building. Mr. Ruge asked what kind of a printing press they have currently. Rev. Green said a 12x17 multilith, plus a small web press that prints about a 14-inch-wide sheet of paper, both sides, on a roll. Much material is printed out- sourced, and we bring it in and assemble it. Mr. Ruge asked how is the material shipped out? Rev. Green said the material is shipped out in semis. We have a loading dock on our garage facility so the trucks can back up and load pallet-sized shipments. Mr. Ruge said how many semis? Rev. Green said maybe we have a semi every two months, because we have several million portions printed in a facility in Chicago. We haul it here, warehouse it and as we get people to assemble it, bring it to the building with a forklift or pickup or whatever. We have other churches, in Mason, in Maple Rapids, in Indiana, that come and get materials to take there and assemble themselves. The senior citizens get together and assemble these things. It gives them an activity to get together and helps us get out the word of God. Mr. Ruge asked where is the warehouse. Rev. Green said right there on the property we have a 40 x 60 warehouse building now existing on the property. It would be near PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 6 the southeast corner, on the back of the property. Mr. Baker said it is probably labeled garage on the drawing. Rev. Green said we are putting the new building next to this existing building so we can shuffle materials back and forth. Mr. Ruge asked if it has a loading dock on it and are you going to continue to use it? Rev. Green said yes, to both questions. Mr. Ruge asked if you use the drive off Aurelius Road? Rev. Green said we have a drive coming off the main parking lot that goes back to that, so the semi comes off Cavanaugh, goes through the parking lot, swings around and backs up to the loading dock. Some things we haul from the printer ourselves with a utility trailer. It depends on how much portions we have coming from the facility in Chicago. Ms. Patrick said she passed the facility often and has been impressed with how busy things are. Are you a seven-day-a-week operation? Rev. Green said yes. Evenings and daytimes? Rev. Green said yes, we have a (unintelligible) institute on Mondays and Thursday nights and a mid- week service on Wednesday night. People come and collate scriptures and portions on Tuesday night. Ms. Patrick asked how long this rezoning will carry you? Rev. Green said it should last a long time. ROBERT AYRES, 6860 MAPLE RAPIDS, HERE ON BEHALF OF MY MOTHER, EPPIE AYRES, 1834 E. Cavanaugh, west of the west parcel and north of the south parcel. The south portion of the property in question was excavated years ago. It was a sand pit, really a hill, and all the sand was removed down to water level. It was then filled back in with various fills, clay and concrete. The property to the west of the church that they are going to use for "J" Parking has not been altered. This past spring, when we had the run-off, my mother received a yard full of water from that property in the back and from the property to her east, which would be the west piece of property there. The water came running off of that property onto her house foundation to within a foot or 18 inches of the basement windows. She is concerned that this be noted and addressed in connection with this building. They originally were going to have it be an activity field. That is what they use it for now a lot. She had many concerns that she has lived with for ten years. One issue was drainage with a two- to three-foot-run of water coming from that property that was a couple inches deep onto her property. Mr. Ruge asked, when they filled in this pit, they filled it in higher than your mother's property, so that the water runs down onto her property? Mr. Ayres said the property prior to that was higher, and it was filled up higher. At times there was water in my mother's back yard, from seepage off the sand hill, but not as bad as last year. It never before reached the house, as it did this year. It came up two feet on the wall. The sand was removed over a period of ten to thirteen years, and the area refilled. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 7 Mr. Frederick asked about the runoff, is it from something the church has done, or has it been from the final fill? They have been filling the area from the south to the west of the residential lots. I saw the runoff this spring and it was dramatic. Did you or your mother talk to any of the owners of that property, or whoever was responsible for filling it, or tell them there was a problem? Mr. Ayres said the associate pastor was informed of the problem. Mr. Frederick said so it was the church doing some of the filling? Mr. Ayres said it was the church's property being filled, yes. Mr. Ruge asked staff why the existing "A" residential parcels have to be rezoned to "J" Parking? Many churches are in residential areas with residential zoning. Generally we don't rezone parking lots to "J" Parking. Ms. Stachowiak said they could combine the land with the property they have now and it would be accessory to the church. The other alternative would be a special land use. Mr. Ruge asked what uses are allowed in the "J" Parking District. Ms. Stachowiak said just parking. Mr. Ruff said it couldn't be used for storing vehicles. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Frederick announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Z-4-2001, Aurelius and Cavanaugh Rds. near 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd., "A" Residential to "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts. The matter will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for consideration at their meeting to be held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) 6. RECESS - The Urban Development Committee met during the recess to consider Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW, and Act-7-01, 121 S. Washington Square, Use of Air Rights for Balcony over S. Washington Square. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 20, 2001 Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve the minutes of March 20, 2001 without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 8 B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting, Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chair. a. Act-3-99, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate as Public Street b. Act-3-01, "Skoog CU' - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate Extension as Public Street These cases are being considered within the same staff report since both deal with Skoog Court; however, Act-3-99 deals with an existing street, and Act-3-01 deals with the extension of an existing street. Skoog Court is a private street running southward from Jolly Road approximately 891 ft west of S. Cedar Street. Act-3-99 was originated by Jim Caster, representing Blue Water Financial, which desires to donate the existing Skoog Ct. roadway to the City. Act-3-2001 was initiated by the Brothers Land Company, LLC, which wishes to extend the existing Skoog Court roadway approximately 381 ft, and donate that portion to the City. The two proposals combine to extend Skoog Ct., donate it to the City, and rename the street to an as yet undetermined name. The existing Skoog Court currently provides access to the military processing office, located in the southwest corner of Jolly and Skoog. The proposed extension of Skoog Court will provide access to three additional building sites under condominium ownership. Parcel A would be developed for the Robinson Memorial Church of God in Christ. Parcels B-1 and B-2 would be developed for offices. As proposed, the Skoog Court would include a cul-de-sac on the south end of the proposed street extension. A landscape island is proposed for the middle of the cul-de- sac. The Public Service Department does not currently permit islands in cul-de-sacs, and does require sidewalks on both sides of the street. The cul-de-sac prevents the connection of Skoog Court and McCourt Street, across the utility right-of-way, to the south. The connection of these two streets was opposed by the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 9 McCourt area neighborhood residents when an apartment development was previously considered. Street names are usually determined in the platting process, after review by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to prevent duplication of street names. TCRPC is being consulted regarding the renaming of Skoog Court, which is not a platted street. Skoog Court as it currently exists and the proposed extension of the street will provide access to three additional commercially-zoned condominium sites. City standards must be met that are specified by the Public Service Department. These include walkways within the designated right-of-way. Detailed drawings are required to determine compliance with all construction requirements. Staff recommends the donation of the existing Skoog Court (Act-3-99) and the proposed extension of Skoog Court (Act- 3-01) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant give full disclosure of the nature of the gift. 2. Applicant provide survey and property description. 3. Title insurance commitment. If title is not clear/marketable or taxes or other liens or encumbrances exist, applicant must establish how they are to be handled in the gift. 4. Retain easement for existing utilities and create easements where new are created or existing utilities are extended. 5. A plan and profile showing street infrastructure must be provided. Applicant must submit letter stating storm and sanitary sewers are in good shape and free of obstructions. 6. Street to be designed to City standards with sufficient capacity to service commercial vehicles. 7. Applicant to pay all closing costs and 2001 property taxes. B. Applicant provide a warranty deed. 9. Requested street names be reviewed by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-3-99, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 10 "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate as Public Street as recommended by staff, without objection to any street renaming. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-3-01, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate Extension as Public Street as recommended. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval of both Act-3-99, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate as Public Street District and Act-3-01, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate Extension as Public Street, subject to conditions, as recommended. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said given that this is so near the Jolly-Cedar intersection, was any consideration given to closing off Skoog Ct. at Jolly and using Jolly-Cedar Court as the access? Mr. Ruff said if this property were going to be developed as a single parcel, that may have been a possibility, but with the size of the property and development pattern, especially with the land-locked piece in the back, extension of Skoog Ct. is the best way to handle it. This is under a previous approved action for the special land use permit for Robinson Memorial Baptist Church. Instead of running additional traffic down Jolly-Cedar Ct., it is probably preferable because of the proximity of Cedar Street to use this street. It also eliminates the need for additional curb cuts onto Jolly. Patrick. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . . Aye Frederick . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-3-99, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate as Public Street District and Act-3-01, "Skoog Ct." - S. Side Jolly W. of Cedar, Dedicate Extension as Public Street, subject to conditions as follows 1. Applicant give full disclosure of the nature of the gift. 2. Applicant provide survey and property description. 3. Title insurance commitment. If title is not clear/marketable or taxes or other liens or encumbrances exist, applicant must establish how they are to be handled in the gift. 4. Retain easement for existing utilities and create easements where new are created or existing utilities are extended. 5. A plan and profile showing street infrastructure must be provided. Applicant must submit letter stating storm and sanitary sewers are in good shape and free of obstructions. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 11 6. Street to be designed to City standards with sufficient capacity to service commercial vehicles. 7. Applicant to pay all closing costs and 2001 property taxes. 8. Applicant provide a warranty deed. 9. Requested street names be reviewed by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission as recommended was APPROVED. 1. Act-5-01, "T"-shaped Alley Between 100 Blk. S. Cedar & 100 Blk. S. Larch -Vacate Alley for Redevelopment This is requested by the City. The subject property is a T- shaped platted alley surrounded by City property in the 500 Block of E. Michigan Avenue between Larch and Cedar Streets. The alley is approximately 9,181 sq ft in size and is currently incorporated into the City of Lansing surface parking lot across from Oldsmobile Park. The vacation of the alley is not a necessity at this time; however, it will be necessary for the redevelopment of the parking area. Since the alley is surrounded by City property, there is no public purpose in maintaining its status as an alley. Upon vacation, it would become absorbed by the surrounding properties, which will still lie in City ownership. The "T" shaped alley is located between the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch streets. The area consists of a mixed use of commercial development, and the vacation of this alley will not change the character of the area. Without the land assembly, the alley would be dysfunctional. Therefore, the location, character and extent of this proposal appear to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the request to vacate the "T" shaped alley in the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch Street for redevelopment. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of Act-5-01, in accordance with its Act 285 review procedures, that: a. The "T" shaped platted alley is surrounded by City property, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 12 b. Vacation of the alley will not change the land use pattern, since the alley would be absorbed by the surrounding City properties; C. The vacation of the alley will eliminate a step that would need to be taken for the properties to be redeveloped; d. The continuation of the alley as a separate parcel no longer serves a public purpose. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve Act-5-01 as proposed. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval with conditions of Act-5-01, "T"-shaped Alley Between 100 Blk. S. Cedar & 100 Blk. S. Larch - Vacate Alley for Redevelopment. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith. . . Aye Patrick. .Ave Frederick .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-5-01, "T"-shaped Alley Between 100 Blk. S. Cedar & 100 Blk. S. Larch - Vacate Alley for Redevelopment, subject to conditions as follows 2. The "T" shaped platted alley is surrounded by City property, 3. Vacation of the alley will not change the land use pattern, since the alley would be absorbed by the surrounding City properties; 4. The vacation of the alley will eliminate a step that would need to be taken for the properties to be redeveloped; 5. The continuation of the alley as a separate parcel no longer serves a public purpose. was APPROVED. d. Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW This was tabled in Committee but was removed from the table and discussed this evening during recess. This is a request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. The applicant is proposing to utilize the upper floors for residential use. In doing so, the applicant wishes to erect six (6) prefabricated rod-iron balconies, each 7'10" wide. The balconies would extend 4' into the Allegan Street right-of-way. Three PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 13 balconies would be located on the third floor and three balconies on the second floor. The second floor balconies would be located approximately 12 ft above grade from the sidewalk. The building has been considered a contributing resource in a potential historic district. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan recommends the use of upper stories for residential use, and the preservation of the facades of the building to the maximum feasible degree. The balconies would exceed the minimum height requirements given by the Transportation Office. The Transportation Office also noted that Allegan Street is a right-of-way owned by Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). MDOT is being consulted for its input on this project. Since this is a state right-of-way, MDOT would have a role in the decision for the air rights for balconies in this section of Allegan Street. If MDOT permits the use of air rights over the right-of-way, this recommendation would serve to support a request to MDOT. The proposed use of the buildings would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. The proposed balcony is not compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. Staff recommends approval of Act-6-2001, by issuance of a license, for the request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. While it is not advisable, from a historic preservation perspective, to add balconies to buildings in commercial districts where historically they did not exist, this type of housing amenity can be provided with required approval conditioned in a license agreement. We are also anticipating information forthcoming from Michigan Department of Transportation which may further condition Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights, for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and approved unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights, for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 14 1. The balconies be designed in such a way as to minimize the removal or impact on original materials and architectural features, and that if the balconies are removed in the future, the building could be restored to its original character. The other conditions are those cited for Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony, as follows: 2. That the Building Safety office will require prior approval of specifications, as well as inspections during the course of construction, 3. That if EDC funds are used as planned, the project will also be subject to the EDC's design review committee recommendations, 4. 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 made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW with the conditions stated above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Smith. . . Ave Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . .Aye Frederick . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-6-01, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan, Use of Air Rights for Balconies over E. Allegan ROW, subject to conditions as follows: 1. The balconies be designed in such a way as to minimize the removal or impact on original materials and architectural features, and that if the balconies are removed in the future, the building could be restored to its original character. 2. That the Building Safety office will require prior approval of specifications, as well as inspections during the course of construction, 3. That if EDC funds are used as planned, the project will also be subject to the EDC's design review committee recommendations, 4. 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. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 15 e. Act-07-01, 121 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air Rights for Balcony over South Washington Square This was tabled in Committee but was removed from the table and discussed this evening during recess. This is a request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 121 S. Washington Square. The applicant is proposing to use the first floor of the building at 121 S. Washington Square for retail space and the second floor for residential use. In doing so, the applicant wishes to erect one (1) prefabricated rod-iron balcony on the second floor of the building at 121 S. Washington Square. The balcony would be approximately 12' wide, 10' above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 3' into the ROW. The building has been considered a contributing resource in a potential historic district. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan recommends the use of upper stories for residential use, and the preservation of the facades of the building to the maximum feasible degree. The proposed use of the buildings would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. The proposed balcony is not compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. Staff recommends approval of Act-7-2001, by issuance of a license, for the request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 121 S. Washington Square, with conditions.. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and approved unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-07-01, 121 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air Rights for Balcony over South Washington Square with the same conditions as in Act-19-2000, 115 and 119 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval with conditions of Act-07-01, 121 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air Rights, for Balcony over South Washington Square. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Patrick. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aye Smith. . . Aye Frederick . .Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 16 On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-07-01, 121 S. Washington Sq., Use of Air Rights, for Balcony over South Washington Square subject to 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. as recommended was APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 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. Ruff briefly reviewed the closure of 1-496, and the concomitant closure of portions of the River Trail. Mr. Ruff intends to prepare a letter of support for two-way streets from the Planning Board. If you need a report from the Transportation Engineer, Mr. Ruff can get an executive summary, or have Transportation staff come to the next meeting for a report. "I will prepare a letter of support for the Chair to sign if that is reasonably appropriate" with a recommendation from the Central Lansing Plan. Mr. Ruge said he would be interested in having the report given by Transportation staff or reading the executive summary. He would also support the letter. Council staff is not present tonight, and the meeting has not been televised, so Mr. Ruff omitted the announcement concerning vacant Board positions. 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 17 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-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. CT-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 On a motion by Ms. Patrick, second by Mr. Ruge, carried; unanimous; Ms. Keene was given an excused absence. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - Ms. Patrick said at last meeting, Mr. Ruge asked about cameras on traffic signals at Pennsylvania and Michigan. It is part of the closure of 1-496 real time on computers. Mr. Ruff said those devices are sensors instead of magnetic loops in the street, part of a traffic demand-response system to facilitate smooth traffic flow. Cameras have been installed at Holmes and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to ease traffic circulation on the main arterials. Ms. Patrick said at her Team 14 meeting last week for neighborhood watch groups, a question was asked concerning the impact of the 496 closing on S. Cedar. The sergeant in attendance said he was going to be briefed by Transportation staff. The Team asked him to report back to the group. Ms. Patrick asked Mr. Ruff about traffic signals that have been changed. Is this a switch to LED? Mr. Ruff said standards have changed over time. Traffic standards have increased the lens diameter for enhanced visibility. Mr. Ruge asked if a parking plan had been received from the church on Michigan Avenue that took over the Midas Shop. Mr. Ruff said it is expected in a few weeks. Mr. Ruge said because Ms. Foster is away, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will need to have a member appointed temporarily. Mr. Ruff said Ms. Patrick has volunteered. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 18 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS. Mr. Ruge asked about the yellow house on N. Cedar having trucks parked there. Mr. Ruff said Ms. Stachowiak and Code Compliance are working on the situation. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Jam uff4Sec tary, Planning Board mn04032001 63 Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-3-01• South end of Skoog Ct.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to City Page 1 This Act 285 Review was made originally in 1999 by Jim Caster to dedicate the north 488 feet of Skoog Court. The most recent request was made by The Brothers Land Co. LLC to dedicate the south 381 feet of right-of-way to the City of Lansing and to name the street Robinson Memorial Circle. These are being considered within the same staff report since both deal with Skoog Court. One section however deals with an existing street (Act-3-99) and the other deals with the extension of an existing street (Act-3-01). GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Act-3-99: Donate Existing Street to City Jim Caster, representing owner, Blue Water Financial 1500 Kendale Blvd. Ste. 305 East Lansing, MI 48823 Act-3-01: Extend existing street, donate to City The Brothers Land Co. LLC P.O. Box 116 Okemos, MI 48805 PROPERTY OWNER: Act-3-99: Bluewater Financial 2000 Royal Marco Way, GPH Marco Island FL 34145 Act-3-01: The Brothers Land Co. LLC P.O. Box 166 Okemos, MI 48805 LOCATION: Skoog Court is located south of Jolly road, 891 feet west of Cedar Street. EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial REQUESTED ACTION: The applicants are both requesting that Skoog Ct., a private street, be dedicated as a public street and renamed from Skoog Court to Robinson Memorial, Robinson Drive, or Robinson Memorial Drive (in order of preference). Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-MI: South end of Skoog Cf.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to City Page 2 EXISTING LAND USE: Private street PROPERTY SIZE: Street right-of-way is approximately 80 feet wide and 1,000 feet long. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential development, and Commercial Development S: Consumers ROW and residential E: vacant land W: vacant land SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: "F" Commercial E: "F" Commercial W: "F" Commercial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial development. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to dedicate the existing private street and the future extension of the private street to the City of Lansing as public-right-of way BACKGROUND INFO: Apartments were previously proposed for this area. Application for Act-3-99 was made by Blue Water Financial. They were advised to plat the area at that time. Application for Act-3-01 was made by Bill Jakovac of The Brothers Land Co. LLC to extend the street to give access to several condo sites. Robinson Memorial Church of God in Christ has submitted a site plan for Parcel A, located at the south end of the proposed cul-de-sac. Act-3-99 (North end of Skoog Court) AGENCY REFERRALS: AMERITECH. (No comments received yet). Act-3.99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-3-01: South end of Skoog Ct.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to City Page 3 ASSESSOR: See attached memo. BUILDING SAFETY: (No comments received yet). BWL: Electric No objections to the dedication of Skoog Court to the Lansing Street system. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water If status of existing ROW changes, Water Department has to retain an easement for water line. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 CITY ATTORNEY: In consideration of any donation, there needs to be full disclosure of the nature of the gift. For real property, a preliminary title insurance commitment would be a minimum requirement. This should be provided and if title is not clear/marketable or taxes or other liens or encumbrances exist, how they are to be handled in the gift must be first established. CODE COMPLIANCE: (No comments received yet). CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No comments received yet). DNR/DEQ: No comment. (Rob Frank) DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: Is it a platted street? Is he deeding to the City? When will he pave the street and sidewalk? (R. Engle) ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: (No comments received yet). FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. Water supply will need to be extended when development occurs. INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: (No comments received yet). LANSING NGBD COUNCIL: (No comments received yet). MDOT: (No comments received yet). MEDIA ONE: (No comments received yet). Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-MI: South end of Skoog Ct.- Extension of Roadway, Donation to City Page 4 PARKS & RECREATION: The size and shape of this parcel would lend itself to a private road verses a dedicated street. If an apartment/townhouse complex is built here a private road would be more appropriate. Access to this site should be from Jolly Cedar Court not Jolly (too high a traffic volume). POLICE DEPT. (No comments received yet). PUBLIC SERVICE: Plan and profile showing street infrastructure must be provided. Applicant must submit letter stating storm and sanitary sewers are in good shape and free of obstructions. TRANSPORTATION ENG: (No comments received yet). TRI COUNTY REG. PLNG: (No comments received yet). Act-3-01 (South end of Skoog Ct.) AGENCY REFERRALS: AMERITECH: (No comments received yet). ASSESSOR: (No comments received yet). BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. BWL: Electric No conflicts. Contact person: Steve Conn 702-6726 Water Approved with conditions- Hydrants that would have been private will be public and the City of Lansing will receive the annul cost. If approved, BWL will change status of hydrants. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 CITY ATTORNEY: (No comments received yet). Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Cf.- Donation to City Act-3-01: South end of Skoog Cf.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to City Page 5 CODE COMPLIANCE: No comment. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No comments received yet). DNR/DEQ: (No comments received yet). DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: 1. Recommend petitioner provide survey and property description. 2. Need title commitment. 3. Donater to pay all closing costs and 2001 property taxes. 4. Require a warranty deed. ECONOMIC DEV. CORP: (No comments received yet). FIRE MARSHALL: No objection to #1 or#3. Robinson Road already exists. INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: (No comments received yet). LANSING NGBD COUNCIL: (No comments received yet). MEDIA ONE: (No comments received yet). PARKS & RECREATION: No comment. Doesn't impact park operations. POLICE DEPT. (No comments received yet). PUBLIC SERVICE: See attached memo. TRANSPORTATION ENG: Street to be designed to City standards with sufficient capacity to service commercial vehicles. TPO reserves the opportunity to review and comment on design plans when they are available. TRI COUNTY REG. PLNG: (No comments received yet). Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-Ml: South end of Skoog Ct.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to Citv Page 6 Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. This review will be of the overall proposed street from Jolly Road to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. Location Skoog Court is a private street that runs south of Jolly Road, west of Jolly Cedar Court and 891 feet west of Cedar Street. The existing Skoog Court currently gives access to the Military Processing Office, located at the southwest comer of Jolly and Skoog. The proposed extension of Skoog Court will give access to three additional building (condo) sites: Parcel A (for the Robinson Memorial Church of God in Christ), Parcel B-1 and Parcel B-2. Character This overall area is surrounded by a variety of development. Commercial development is located to the east (between Jolly-Cedar Court and Cedar Street) and to the north at the northwest comer of Jolly and Cedar Street. Directly north of Skoog Court, across Jolly Road, is a residential condominium development. Skoog Court does not line up with the main access point into the residential development, which may pose an egress problem for these developments in the future (See attached aerial photo). The street right-of-way is approximately 80 feet wide and 1000 feet long, which includes a cul-de-sac at the south end of the proposed street extension. Required sidewalks are not shown on the street drawing, and an island shown in the cul-de-sac is not permitted according to the Public Service Department. Extent The applicants have requested that the existing paved Skoog Court and the proposed extension of Skoog Court be donated to the City of Lansing and dedicated as public right-of-way. The cul-de-sac prevents the connector of Skoog Court and McCourt Sreet, which is south of the site across a utility right-of-way. The connections of these two streets was opposed by the neighborhood residents when the apartment development was previously considered. Act-3-99: North end of Skoog Ct.- Donation to City Act-3-01• South end of Skoog Ct.- Extension of Roadway. Donation to City Page 7 SUMMARY Skoog Court as it currently exists and the proposed extension of the street will give access to three additional commercially zoned condominium sites. City standards must be met that are specified in the comments by the Public Service Department. These include sidewalks within the designated right-of-way. Detailed drawings are required to determine compliance with all construction requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the donation of the existing Skoog Court (Act-3-99) and the proposed extension of Skoog Court (Act-3-01) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant give full disclosure of the nature of the gift. 2. Applicant provide survey and property description 3. Title insurance commitment. If title is not clear/marketable or taxes or other liens or encumbrances exist, applicant must establish how they are to be handled in the gift. 4. Retain easement for existing utilities and create easements where new are created or existing utilities are extended. 5. Plan and profile showing street infrastructure must be provided. Applicant must submit letter stating storm and sanitary sewers are in good shape and free of obstructions. 6. Street to be designed to City standards with sufficient capacity to service commercial vehicles. 7. Applicant to pay all closing costs and 2001 property taxes. 8. Applicant provide a warranty deed. 8. Requested street names be reviewed by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner NORTH Act-3-2001 Skoog Ct. South Side of Jolly Road JOLLY RD. T — NORTH LINF SEC. V �a 1 � 0 I Ivr..•�Y h . 0 f 1 ~ +, 1 �^ 1 lu r /�'/(�� r.�.1V. � 0to .. 3 or. rf. I r vI .. p I f ( 017 Ux ' I I I W 1 7 U = 1 ACKER 4(PV T.)- --_— . 1 /* My V� YsY lr' �• �: I rv'P , soL.oYsl � I �1 O o I to I in I rn o ; W W r I I 4= i f/l Gi 'b,y I L L O hl ARI I I I I fr Jr�.er •r �� 7 a I CONSUMERS POWER 11/w tfi-001 \ f 4 Fitzgerald Henne ID :5178876335 OCT 17 '00 11 :28 No .006 P .02 c I �\ I r U3 r4°� a a / r � v o - o 'Ile UX nA . i r S PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT 732 City Hall 124 W.Michigan Ave. Lansing,MI 48933 (517)4M 4455 FAX:(517)483-6082 r� xi � P David C. Hollister, Mayor DATE : March 15, 2001 TO: Donna Wynant, Senior Planner FROM: Dan DDanke, Project Engineer Subject: Act-8-2001, Skoog Court We have reviewed the plans for Skoog Court and have the following comments: 1. A detailed basis of design is required for the application the City will submit to the DEQ for an addition to the City' s Wastewater System. 2 . The plans will have to be sealed by a Michigan Professional Engineer. 3 . Please submit the calculations used in the sizing of the storm sewer piping. 4 . Sidewalk will be required on both sides of Skoog Court. 5. For Act 51 purposes, a center line description of the roadway is required. 6. Prior to the acceptance of the new (south) section of Skoog Court, all issues with the old (north) section of Skoog Court will have to be resolved. This includes the sanitary and storm sewer in the old section of Skoog Court. 7 . The island shown in the cul-de-sac is not allowed within the City right-of-way. 8 . For the storm manhole detail, add to the note for the base that #5 bars are required at 12" o.c. both ways for the 8" poured in place option. This detail shall be also added to the sanitary manhole detail . 9 . SDR35 is not acceptable material for storm pipes . 10 . The VCP Vertical Riser Detail is not acceptable. Please use the attached-City detail for the VCP Vertical Riser Detail . 11 . Density for sewer and road construction shall be as per MDOT' s 1990 Standard Specifications for Construction. "Equal Opportunity Employer' 12 . A pavement design for the road extension is required. This will require soil borings to be taken in the proposed roadway. 13. In the road cross section, bituminous mixes 13AL and 13 AT shall be used instead of the 1100L and 1100T. 14 . A soil erosion permit, issued through the Public Service Department, is required. 15. The detail for the curb and gutter is not acceptable. City of Lansing accepts either MDOT F4 curb and gutter or curb and gutter with 3/4 inch backfall in the gutter pan. 16. The roadway, storm sewer and sanitary sewer shall be constructed as a Letter of Intent project. 17 . Since the owner is asking that the City accept -ownership of the street it will be necessary, prior to acceptance and after construction, that a warranty deed dedicating the right-of-way be submitted to the City. This deed will be placed before the City Council for acceptance. The City will also require a title commitment be submitted along with the deed. 18 . The proposed name change of Skoog Court will have to be submitted to the Tri-county Regional Planning Commission for review. If the developer has any questions about the above comments, please have them contact me at 483-4461 . FTh.efollowing comments apply to all sites with proposed sanitary and/or storm sewer side of the building: ewer permit shall be obtained from the Public Service Department, 7th floor y Hall, by a drain laver licensed by the City. e of material allowed for sanitary or storm sewers: - Vitrified Clay ASTM C-700ES - PVC Schedule 40 ASTM D-1785 or SDR 23.5 ASTM D-3034 - Concrete ASTM C-76 (storm only) - Ductile Iron A-746 - All sewer work shall be performed by a drain layer licensed by the City. Prior to working on sidewalk, curb & gutter, or drive approaches within the right of way the owner or contractor shall obtain a permit from the Public Service Department, 7th floor City Hall. ti Q+N S 1 �C CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 3rd Floor.City Hall 124 W.Michigan Ave. Lansing,Ml 48933-1687 (517)483-4020 jCH 1 G David C. Hollister, Mayor ATTN: Donna Wynant RE: ACT 3-99, Action on Skoog Court As far as I am aware, streets do not generally become"Dedicated" unless they are specified as being a gift, ie. "dedicated to the use of the Public", by a private landholder, as a part of a Recorded Plat. Is there an intention to Plat some of the lands here, perhaps including Skoog Court? Is this the site of the once-proposed`Bluewater Plat"? If a new Plat is forthcoming, why not just wait for it to be recorded, and ask for the dedication of the right-of-way as one of the Plat requirements? Conversely; is this an attempt to circumvent the Plat Act? The Assessor's Office would much rather see these lands divided into Lots in a recorded subdivision, if that is a choice. "Platted Lot" descriptions are much easier to handle on the Rolls than the current"Metes and Bounds" variety. Currently, this is a private street. It is part of Tax I.D. 3305-04-201-016. As a private drive, street, or way, it is presumably subject to assessment. However, IF"Green- Pen" wants to sell the "Skoog Court"description to the City: 1) They should assure the City that they have good Title on the land to pass; 2)"Green-Pen" should transfer the land to the City by Warranty Deed without conditions; 3)Public Service Department should assure Planning Department that it actually wants this as right-of-way; 4) Assurances need to be made that Council will accept the deed when presented. A parcel deeded to the City without Council Acceptance has no effect of passing Title. IF this is sold to the City, the Assessor's Office would treat it as an acquired right-of-way. Our Office would split the"City" part of description from the portion retained by"Green Pen" (or then-current private owner). The"Court" would be given it's own tax parcel number, and would be Tax-Exempt beginning in the year following the sale. IF"Green-Pen" Plats and Dedicates, there won't be any question of land-locking parcels, the subsequent descriptions will be in Platted Lot form, and as a platted and dedicated right-of-way, there will be no need to generate a separate description for the street. Streets which are"truly" dedicated in a recorded plat are not required to be described on the Tax Rolls. ohn C. Grannell Tax Descriptions Specialist March 8, 1999 "Equal Opportunity Employer" •Y �, II�{ ,• Apr::, r• •.�, �•• _ _ Li ." 7 •\�• :, ..._ zr+,$ ap .. � `! �i.. t' 1, •�•. \ •f-177r.!!.1 f •j� `. II► � ', I l tot \y r:.._— •-N•.,�1'fh.,'' _."L•133••'�•+:• _t y`` �.,•; •.11�•t �•trx�:xr�l _ 1•' � .�' ,•�'' -' "' 1 [L r , '��1 " ��'.'..:i ,lr•.- -.•• �t .c`•.. , -fir. • .�: •. ii'• � .. ...�. ,�'r��r'�.i' 's .�. ¢f1 .�:�;�,�; f I ly•i 1 t.l 1 �;••� I I _ -.r = /xo:��r�1 �� ;�,, r 1 •Adl�r:,ss:,•tF��•:z�iv.7:J+'� li :r �'•:. ° jJ�� � - �y����+��S�'�a,���',•r �.I 6''' 1'• T :. ` f Y: � � •a''' ESL' . .W-II � • !�•+'�-"• '�-- / "• �','P�la�� 'r♦� � .ail.:,- rir ..• ram. I ..r 1j .i-1 _ " '• fi .�+, .. _I, .. .ii S. "' � 'lll' •� ',a�l,-��i.:�• _,. •.... v��:� •t, :.. '�^l kk •4. ,,`. �, I, r ,1 .i..}� I 1 ll�. 1 � �' ... � ,�;}• 'i.;..►•�..1 y .,j•�y{•.c.'a=.� �'� � .••�Tt •v_ _�.ar-_._ ''' _.� r�:-a,�� -i.�.ac�'__ r'a?•.t.a:ti a.sas;•s�:.:...zm�!�wn.�+ww-c.•�:-.�,__. •��.+rs'a w+r'•'!• _ •1: S2'L: �� _. �� � .. _ _ �-ra.:yarwe.•,v'•9.::aW.�L- = �A � � •�` '��Ti�,. i' 1���,-�- -- b,1'.�7aYi► an '•`-� 'iYnat���-yMlr•�.+r.�a—__Y-_ _—tea_.. .:. + �. ;:. �...I��:�; 1,�,�•�� �• '� \ �� '�r�� w�,a � „�,*" Y _ ��. .1 �-r:i, �Y rKd r�tu� '! u -,� 1,{ ,•I �• !1 ',! 1 � �' -';��� �• � '.'r _•• �y';•�- Jam•d� �•• � 11 '' ° $ ;1 � :1 •� � r' +`•% 1 r•S- �•'�..�• T, `. ,• `�i<,:: Z'._ .i�';`r.';.'rr: � `. r 1 .,• I 7 jr.^.�...';' •,�':. 14 Nn ji u��y�(( � • i � r •� �..• � 1��';ly',!•„fit:.�'l:'..�,I��'- fr:: •ram L�,�' � Fal• '1' '1 *... r �'t�1i+t:3��•i}�Wrw•i .:� ..r tT'�• v, ♦'I _ "'� •,�_ . 11 ��, J' 77•, ...I T' CC .ii w� I �' li.,lv�� J'D .ice MAIM I■ '.F 4• as •f' ' 11 1 I' ..t 1"1•nr .... •�./ '. �a •+w. 1- ^.. ify •,�IP�•• 10 � _�-�I-�� ter* �' �' ..• -' l ;. �` �'Y-, :I -. •�`•}�/.w% •`- 1�K�.LLI• '_ AL gift .I= J M JOLLY RD. y NOR 1 r K•- ....• I ru.u• I Op( u ^ 0g3 34 t I ti I t 0`V I I I o n.• Z I 10 o + I 0 3 pSv I�k ZOO I 0 I O 4 0�0N I tJ cr I n• 1 O W 1 v { I Oli I - * ACKER �t \y\ s � { 7 w.Y• 10\ O fb L•/y.1 got,or'N • r v � � O n O M M 8 W r W f/f N rJj One 9/3.6v' CONSUMERS POWER A/W 751-001 O\ � 0 1N +r fvr.1• I fr � ' ffIll ...f L .dVANY SKOOG COURT A ROAD EXTENSIONTO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF LANSING IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, b. T3N R2W,CITY OF LANSING INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN LUCATION MAP INDEX TO D RAWINGS —�, Q I I ' `' sr I DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION --—-- r - COVER SHEET 2 GRADING&SOIL EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1 S COURT 3 SKOOG CT. G. i �T-3 oLGT—'3-�9 DETAILSI , o0 Oco s1 Imo. 3WA I wffr�o PRELIMINARY 1 4 ACT-5-2001 100 Blk. of S. Larch Vacate Alley for Redevelopment GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood Development 316 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48933 REQUESTED ACTION: Alley Vacation PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: "T" shaped, =9,181 sq. ft. APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: The City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development is request to vacate a "T" shaped alley between the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch Street for redevelopment. EXISTING LAND USE: Alley, surface parking lot EXISTING ZONING: Unzoned PROPOSED ZONING: Same SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: City of Lansing Parking S: Board of Water and Light E: City of Lansing W: Board of Water and Light SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District S: "H" Light Industrial District E: "H" Light Industrial District W: "H" Light Industrial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor: No response received yet. Building: No objections. BWL: See attached. Code Compliance: Not applicable. Development: Parcels 012-022 under jurisdiction of Parks and Recreation Department (Rainey property). Any revenues must go to maintaining Rainey Park. Check deed. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objections. Any building constructed without access greater than 150' may require additional fire protection. Forestry: No comments. Parks & Rec.: No response received yet. Police: No response received yet. Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Public Service: Storm and sanitary sewers are in the alley. They serviced the buildings that were demolished to construct the parking lot. The storm sewer is still used to service the parking lot. Transportation: No comments or requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION The "T" shaped alley is located between the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch streets. It is approximately 9,181 sq. ft. The alley is currently incorporated into the City of Lansing surface parking lot. The applicant would like to vacate the "T" shaped alley for future redevelopment. CHARACTER The area consists cf a mixed use of commercial development. The vacation of this alley is for the redevelopment of the site. The city is in the process of assembling the land. The BWL has utilities in the alley (See attached comments) that can be dealt with to accommodate the vacation. The vacation of this alley will not change the character of the area. The redevelopment of this site is for the future. EXTENT The proposal is to vacate the "T" shaped alley for a future proposed development. The City is trying to assembly the land and a vacation is needed. Without the land assembly, this will be a dysfunctional alley. The extent of this proposal is reasonable. SUMMARY The "T" shaped alley is located between the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch streets. The area consists of a mixed use of commercial development and the vacation of this alley will not change the character of the area. Without the land assembly, the alley would be dysfunctional. Therefore, the location, character and extent of this proposal appear to be reasonable. There are BWL and City of Lansing Public Service utilities in the a!ley. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to vacate the "T" shaped alley in the 100 blocks of S. Cedar and S. Larch Street for redevelopment. MAR-19-2001 12:16 BD OF WATER LIGHT 1 517 7026855 P.01i01 WATER&JGHT BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO March 19, 2001 TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Develo ment FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 702-6034 RE: 100 Blocks of South Cedar and South Larch Streets Request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, to vacate a "T" shaped alley for redevelopment. SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric If vacated, BWL must retain 12-foot easement East-West with vehicle ingress and egress to maintain active high voltage electric existing duct, cable and manholes. Also required rights to 6-inch active steam line in East-West alley. Any consideration to relocate overhead or underground utilities will initially be a developer cost. Contact Person: Bruce Archer 702-6081 Water Approved with conditions — BWL would still have access to well and resolver. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 Steam The BWL has an abandoned 6" steam line running East and West in I,Js alley. BWL has no objection to vacating this alley for redevelopment. Contact Person: John Hundt 702-6497 PROJECT ENGINEERING This alley property has some BWL utilities within its limits. There is an East-West steam main in the alley 100 feet± South of East Michigan Avenue. There may be other BWL utilities in these alleys. Some landscaping improvements were done about 10 years ago on the Southerly end of the North-South alley. This work included seeding and tree placement. This work was done in conjunction with the asphalt s.;rface parking lots that were constructed at that time by the City of Lansing. Contact Person: Mark Witalec 702-6058 STREET LIGHTING The Board of Water and Light has existing lighting facilities in this area to provide lighting for the City's parking lot. The lighting facilities can be removed if the property is developed. Contact Person: Roger Adsit 702-6085 Mobile Phone 242-5175 CS4001 r16.doc TOTAL P.01 L zmm: j ACT-5-2001, 100 Blk. of S. Larch, Vacate Alley for Redevelopment NORTH -E M I C H I G A N 4 - vZo sio �n 1Y ' - t • - - e >4.K• tl .. - - - - - t1• .. a ez.s• �>.• 7 6 S 4 3 2 :1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 1415 16 17 19 19181 G ��; CITY 0 PKNG •, sKK;'3 n.�M a ' IAY ST. ,t.y 111.11r rst-.- 27 20 13 s' " G-f LOT '" -+ - o\Y OL2 f 14 2 6 ,r 15 \4 21 / y l t 1.r,k- 0 TdkSh � 17 Q 5 �. a 22 SW L i 24 23 � + } 2 + 2 \a\ 3 241 , OWL P F- +, o\ 4 y\ : >• \V Eb 3 • o$ 00 - - u� 427 r 8W/L WATER 0\ TREATMENT PLANT 4 1 I �I ' v 6. 1C • r M U N w ti J r Y � 4 i — 5 Act-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street Air Rights for Balcony GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Spirit Partnership 4277 Okemos Rd Okemos, MI 48864 On behalf of Stockwell Realty REQUESTED ACTION: Permission for Use of Air Rights for six(6) balconies over the 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street ROW EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant second story above commercial space EXISTING ZONING: Unzoned right of way bordered by "G-1" Business District PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 66' x 116.125' = 7,664.25 ft2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Commercial E: Commercial W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District S: "G-1" Business District E: "G-1" Business District W: "G-1" Business District APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL This is a request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. The applicant is proposing to utilize the upper floors for residential use. In doing so, the applicant wishes to erect six (6) prefabricated rod-iron balconies, each 7'10"wide, approximately 12' above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 4' into the ROW at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION The River Island Area Plan designates this area for commercial/business. The plan does not speak to the use of air rights over the sidewalks. Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. \\Plan-deAshared\Act 285 Reviews\2001 Acts\01act06\ACT601.FE.wpd AC: s_2nn1. 1n7, ins. 111 E Alegan 4trept. Air Rights for Balconies. Pg 2 In terms of land use and environment, the River Island Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation and enhancement of the historical and cultural heritage of the River Island area by: Identifying and preserving historically significant buildings and places of interest Limiting the demolition or alteration of buildings of historical or cultural significance. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan identifies Washington Avenue area as the traditional retail center. According to the Plan, future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown. The streetscape on these streets should represent the highest quality public environment the City has to offer, they should be maintained to the highest standard of the entire city to reflect the importance and level of pride in downtown. Further, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan states that the Washington Square commercial district is the primary retail district located near the State Capitol. This area serves as a common element between the entertainment and business/retail uses. Ground floor uses should be retail with window displays and cafe seating, upper floors should accommodate residential and/or office uses. The Plan notes the streetscape on S. Washington Square is attractive and creates a comfortable pedestrian environment. It recommends historic preservation as the primary building renovation strategy. SPECIFIC INFORMATION AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received at this time AT&T: No response received at this time Assessor: No response received at this time BWL: Electric: Must retain clearance from overhead electric. Balcony cannot be allowed to wrap-around the Southwest corner of the building to run North. BWL electric utilities are presently on the West side of the building. As proposed on back page, BWL will approve. Water: Approved Steam: No objections Street Lighting: No conflicts with existing street lighting facilities. Existing street lighting poles are located three feet behind excising curb and are 30 feet above grade line. Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. 1tPlan-0evtsharedlAct 285 Reviews12001 Actswl actOGv1CT801.FE.wpd ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street, Air Rights for Balconies, Pg. 3. Building Safety: No response received at this time City Attorney: No response received at this time Code Compliance: Not applicable Development: No comment. Downtown Neighborhood Association: No response received at this time EDC: See attached. Fire Marshal: No objections or comment. Historic District (No referral, not in current study area) Commission: MDOT: No response received at this time Parks and Rec.: No response received at this time Police: No response received at this time Principal Shopping No response received at this time District: Public Service: Allegan Street at this location is MDOT Right Of Way. Public Service requires access to the area beneath the balconies for construction and maintenance activities. Public Service has concerns regarding safety of pedestrians from objects falling off the balconies onto the public sidewalk. Trans. Engineer: No comments or additional requirements. ANALYSIS An Act 285 Review is conducted when the City purchases or conveys an interest in property, or substantially changes the use of City 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). Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. W Ian-de%Ashared�Act 285 ReviewsQ2001 ActswlactOS ACT801.FE wpd ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street, Air Rights for Balconies, Pg. 4. BACKGROUND The Assessor's records lists the build date for 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street as ca. 1875. The Lansing Architectural Survey, Phase II, prepared in 1998 by preservation consultants, Henry and Henry on behalf of the city, indicated: • the original historic brick materials, fenestration and detailing around and below the windows still exists beneath the modern addition of an aluminum paneled screen which covers the upper story; • the building is a "contributing" resource in a potential historic district; • the adjacent property at 123 S.Washington Square, the former Rouser Drugstore, was executed in the Renaissance Revival/Italianate style, and has been a Lansing landmark since its founding in the 1860's; • taken individually or as a part of an urban streetscape, many of the two and three story, brick commercial buildings retain their scale, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and add to a sense of time and place, ranking most of the buildings as "contributing" resources to a potential historic district; • the historic commercial district contains several architectural landmarks (or linchpins) of more considerable size and architectural distinction - - the Prudden Building, Hollister Building, Rouser Drug Store, Michigan Theater and Arcade building, and the J. W. Knapp building which would contribute to a potential National Register and/or local historic district; LOCATION: To examine the element of location,the proposal must be evaluated as to whether the use is in an appropriate location and if it is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed location of the balconies would be in the 100 block of E. Allegan Street, within the primary retail district in the downtown area. The property is located in the "G-1" Business District and regulated by Section 1270 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1270.03(c) of the Zoning Code allows residential use if the residential use meets the lot area requirement of the"DM-4" Residential District. The upper story of the building at 121 S. Washington Square currently is vacant. Eleven (11), efficiency (dwelling units) loft apartments are proposed for the second and third upper levels. A lot area of 5,500 square feet is required and met. The applicant wishes to erect six (6) prefabricated rod-iron balconies, each 7'10" wide, approximately 12'above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 4'into the ROW at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. The Transportation Office has indicated that the minimum for the decking of balconies should be 10' (Act-19-2000), preferably 12' from the sidewalk. Therefore, the minimum requirement is met. Report Prepared by SAC 03/072001. I%Plan-defthared\Act 285 ReviewsQ,001 Actek01act06WGT601.FE.wpd ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street, Air Rights for Balconies, Pg. 5. The Comprehensive Plans for the downtown area support retail use in the lower levels and residential use in the upper levels. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan recommends the following: • the historic buildings and character in this district (commercial/retail core) should be protected as vital to the character of Lansing. Future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown; • the streetscape should be designed for pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as for the visibility of businesses 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. Traditionally, Lansing's early commercial buildings had retail use on the first level and residential (and/or office) on the second or upper levels. The proposed use is consistent with the historic use and compatible with the surrounding environment. Historically, however, buildings in Lansing's commercial/retail center did not have balconies on their upper levels, including the downtown hotels. The removal of the modem screen on the upper level of 121 S.Washington Square should expose the original nineteenth century brick facade of this commercial building. The proposed relocation and enlargement of the original window opening, and the installation of the balcony are not compatible with the historic character and environment of S. Washington Square. The proposed exterior changes may result in the removal of historic materials, features and spaces that characterize the building and its surrounding environment. The proposed changes may not be reversible in the event a future owner wants to restore the facade. 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. This section of Allegan Street is a MDOT ROW. MDOT would have a role in the decision regarding the use of the air rights for the balconies. The balconies would increase the extent of the proposed residential use into the public ROW. The balconies would be for private use of the residents of the proposed apartment/loft. Reporl Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. WWIan-dev%shareMAct 285 Reviewsk2001 Acts101act06\ACT601.FE.wpd ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street, Air Rights for Balconies, Pg. 6. Consideration should be given to the maintenance issues of balconies, pedestrian safety and comfort. No specific information was provided regarding the balcony floor decking. Consideration should be given to pedestrian safety from falling objects, water run off, ice accumulation and snow removal. A license agreement may address these issues. A precedent has been set with Act-1 B-00 and Act-19-00 for the properties at 115, 119 & 210 S. Washington Square. This will have an effect and impact future requests for balconies over the ROW, as well as on other historic properties. The full impact of the first balcony proposals have yet to be determined. OTHER: • This analysis was based on a preliminary CAD (computer aided design) drawing submitted by the applicant which does not provide some details and dimensions. The proposed access doors forthe balconies will change the original dimensional openings and architectural details of the windows. SUMMARY The proposed use of the buildings would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. The proposed balcony is not compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. An agency referral has not been received from MDOT, which has the ROW in this section of Allegan Street, and would have a role; therefore, in the decision regarding the use of the air rights for the balconies. CONCLUSION Based on its review of the proposal, staff concludes that: • The proposed use of the building is recommended in both the River Island and Central Lansing Comprehensive Plans, • Both plans recommend the protection and preservation of historic buildings • Neither plan recommends the use of the installation of balconies over the public ROW, • The full impact of the approval of balconies over the ROW at 115, 119 and 210 S Washington Square has not been determined RECOMMENDATION Since this is a MDOT ROW, MDOT would have a role in the decision regarding the use of air rights for balconies in this section of Allegan Street. If MDOT permits the use of the air rights over the ROW, this recommendation would serve to support a request to MDOT. Reporl Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001, WPlan-deAsharedXAct 285 Reviews12001 Acrswlact06\ACT601.FE.wpd ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street, Air Rights for Balconies, Pg. 7. Staff recommends approval of Act-6-2001, by issuance of a license, for the request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street. While it is not advisable, from a historic preservation perspective, to add balconies to buildings in commercial districts where historically they did not exist, this type of housing amenity can be provided with required approval conditioned in a license agreement. Conditions would include: 1. The balconies be designed to ensure pedestrian safety; 2. The storage of items on the balconies be prohibited; 3. The balconies be designed in such a way as to minimized the removal or impact on original materials and architectural features, and that if the balconies are removed in the future, the building could be restored to its original character; 4. Original material removed to accommodate the new balcony access be preserved, labeled and stored on the property for potential restoration work in the future. Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. \\Plan-devlshared\Act 285 Reviews\2001 Acts\01act061ACT601.FE.wpd -,t4S1 �' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOODDEVELOPMENT 309 N.WASHINGTON SQ.,SurrE 016 • LANSING,MI 48933 • (517)483-4140 FAx: (517)483-6057 r c H I G ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Tax Increment Finance Authority David C. Hollister, Mayor Brownfield Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Cantlon, Preservation Planner FROM: Marchelle Smith, EDC DATE: March 20, 2001 RE: 121 S. Washington Square - Request for Use of Air Rights and 107, 109, and 111 E. Allegan Street - Request for Use of Air Rights In conjunction with our previous support of the application for the use of air rights by Ny-Mac Enterprises for the property located at 210 S. Washington Square and by Spirit Partnership for the property located at 115 and 119 S. Washington Square,the EDC continues to support the use of air rights by Spirit Partnership for the properties located at 121 S.Washington Square and 107, 109 and 111 E. Allegan Street. The City of Lansing,through the Economic Development Corporation(EDC), is administering the Facade and Loft Improvement Grant Program for property and/or business owners who qualify for these programs in the Washington Square corridor. Spirit Partnership has applied for both the Facade and Loft Grant for the property located at 121 S. Washington Square. However, Spirit Partnership was unable to apply for these Grants on the properties located at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan because they were outside of the targeted boundaries recommended by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Downtown Revitalization. As outlined in the Downtown Revitalization Report,the creation of loft-style housing opportunities in and around the downtown area is vital to creating the"after hours crowd"and critical mass needed to spur the redevelopment efforts for economic enhancement. Allowing residents of these lofts the opportunity to interact on a daily basis. with the activities and atmosphere of the street front, via a balcony, is directly in line with the goals outlined in the Blue Ribbon Report. We encourage and support the approval of air rights as per Spirit Partnership's request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for allowing the EDC the opportunity to comment. ® Please Recycle `Equal Opportunity Employer" r i ACT-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 EACT-6-2001,107,109, 111 E. Allegan Street NORTH E-- MICHIGAN Ib1MICH.AVE.VAC.CP 2-13-78 N Ily 11� V% IJ�•It 115.E �u• jM, rt 44 it' tv .44 1 Iry, ptX V) ;« 5 0%% Z . 4 Otis of III . 4V ui ti z �. Q ♦ , I �Y 01 �Y o�� M y 4 ti 60 ' . � 8 9 10 h 0 8` ♦ ti 0„ 1oy.e1.11 II - IIS 11 It1-I96 N E. ALLEGAN m MICHIGAN AVE 104 33 35 PARKING PAR ING 37 /3 Z 0 44 1- (D Z LF Z 2B ?9 WALLS Boo Q /5 3 2e 833 h 27 29 B 27 \\\ I Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. 841.3 846.E ALLEGAN ST ly..rK � y`'y I t�^'y v' i"'r y.:. ° •���F ,", .. f� � � 1� � �: R tJr"� �', t��r��,�} rir:i+' Q) LLJ IA r CD CD1 O 70 CD rf t N I r 1 Act-6-2001, 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan Street Air Ri hts for Balcon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —�� MEI AI FAUDE.rAICn E.61�r. wA10. IAAECHr .O , FMvf IAUDf •• _.. .. - - ��. � •"I r rROviD[DOUMf OR Itirl!) LOOSE lAo Srla S wl EA�n w E � � I� a � c uORIAe RilO F.iPrrO r+AY t. i � �, � lCA'SE IAO�KFI AI prYp' lllull � � efe ---� � Iwn eDea nR.OED IuII GAS lr Anpf Ryw, rUl _ o a a RE AO EEk6 qO wR.DOwS. cuss Doan wflRAwSprn I eESw EEE+f4nCn GusS DO!l u JOB: 11 _ . . El ❑ a ❑ ❑a❑ li Act-7-2001, 121 S. Washington Square Air Rights for Balcony GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Spirit Partnership 4277 Okemos Rd Okemos, MI 48864 On behalf of Stockwell Realty REQUESTED ACTION: Permission for Use of Air Rights for balconies over the 121 S. Washington Square ROW EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant second story above commercial space EXISTING ZONING: Unzoned right of way bordered by "G-1" Business District PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Lot 6 20' x 66' = 1,320 ft2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Commercial E: Commercial W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District S: "G-1" Business District E: "G-1" Business District W: "G-1" Business District APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL This is a request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 121 S. Washington Square. The applicant is proposing to utilize the first floor of the buildings at 121 S. Washington Square for retail space and the second floors are proposed for residential use. In doing so, the applicant wishes to erect one (1) prefabricated rod-iron balcony on the second floor of the building at 121 S. Washington Square. The balcony will be approximately 12'wide, 10' above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 3' into the ROW. MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION The River Island Area Plan designates this area for commercial/business. The plan does not speak to the use of air rights over the sidewalks. Reporl Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. UPlan-devlshared1Ac1285 RevlewsX2001 ActsW1act071HCT701.FE.wpd ACT-7_9nn1 121 R WachinC3 nn G i� ara, Air Reahtc fnr Ralcnny Pe- 9 In terms of land use and environment, the River Island Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation and enhancement of the historical and cultural heritage of the River Island area by: Identifying and preserving historically significant buildings and places of interest Limiting the demolition or alteration of buildings of historical or cultural significance. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan identifies Washington Avenue area as the traditional retail center. According to the Plan, future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown. The streetscape on these streets should represent the highest quality public environment the City has to offer, they should be maintained to the highest standard of the entire city to reflect the importance and level of pride in downtown. Further, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan states that the Washington Square commercial district is the primary retail district located near the State Capitol. This area serves as a common element between the entertainment and business/retail uses. Ground floor uses should be retail with window displays and cafe seating, upper floors should accommodate residential and/or office uses. The Plan notes the streetscape on S. Washington Square is attractive and creates a comfortable pedestrian environment. It recommends historic preservation as the primary building renovation strategy. SPECIFIC INFORMATION AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received at this time AT&T: No response received at this time Assessor: No response received at this time BWL: Electric: Must maintain clearance from overhead electric Water: Approved Steam: No objections Street Lighting: No conflicts with existing street lighting facilities. Existing street lighting poles are located three feet behind existing curb and are 16 feet above grade line. Building Safety: Authorized subject to compliance with Sec.3204 of Lansing Uniform Building Code. Clearance above grade over 8' of projection is permitted for each additional inch of clearance provided that no such projection exceeds 48". Balcony shall be designed for a live load of 60 # P.S.F. Engineering for the system shall be approved. Report Prepared by SAC 03107/2001. 11PIan-0evlshared\Act 2a5 Reviews12001 Acts101 act07\ACT701.FE.wpd ACT-7-2001, 121 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony Pg. 3 City Attorney: No response received at this time Code Compliance: No comment. Development: No comment. Downtown Neighborhood Association: No response received at this time EDC: See attached. Fire Marshal: No objection or comment. Historic District (No referral, not in current study area) Commission: Parks and Rec.: No comment. Police: No response received at this time Principal Shopping District: No response received at this time Public Service: The Public Service Department requires access to the area beneath the balcony for construction and maintenance activities. It also has concerns about the safety of pedestrians from objects falling off of the balcony onto the public sidewalk. Trans. Engineer: No comments or additional requirements ANALYSIS An Act 285 Review is conducted when the City purchases or conveys an interest in property, or substantially changes the use of City property. According to Section 125.36 of Act 285, PA 1931, as amended, the character, location and extent of the proposal must be evaluated. The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). BACKGROUND The Assessors records lists the build date for 121 S. Washington Square as ca. 1875. The Lansing Architectural Survey, Phase I[, prepared in 1998 by preservation consultants, Henry and Henry on behalf of the city, indicated: Reporl Prepared by SAC 03107/2001. Wt Ian-dev\sharedtAct 285 Revlewsf2001 Acts101act071ACT701.FE.wpd ACT-7-2001, 121 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony Pg. 4 • the original historic brick materials and fenestration may exist beneath the modem addition of an aluminum paneled screen which covers the upper story; • until the modern panel is removed, it cannot be determined whether this building is a "contributing" or"noncontributing" resource in a potential historic district; • the adjacent property at 123 S. Washington Square, the former Rouser Drugstore, was executed in the Renaissance Revival/Italianate style, and has been a Lansing landmark since its founding in the 1860's; • taken individually or as a part of an urban streetscape, many of the two and three story, brick commercial buildings retain their scale, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and add to a sense of time and place, ranking most of the buildings as "contributing" resources to a potential historic district; • the avenue contains several architectural landmarks (or linchpins) of more considerable size and architectural distinction - - the Prudden Building, Hollister Building, Rouser Drug Store, Michigan Theater and Arcade building, and the J. W. Knapp building which would contribute to a potential National Register and/or local historic district; LOCATION: To examine the element of location, the proposal must be evaluated as to whether the use is in an appropriate location and if it is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed location of the balcony would be in the 100 block of S. Washington Square, the primary retail district in the downtown area. The property is located in the "G-V Business District and regulated by Section 1270 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1270.03(c) of the Zoning Code allows residential use if the residential use meets the lot area requirement of the"DM-4" Residential District. The upper story of the building at 121 S. Washington Square currently is vacant. A one bedroom loft is proposed for this upper level. A lot area of 700 square feet is required and met. The balcony will be approximately 12'wide, 10'above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 3' into the ROW. The Transportation Office has indicated that the minimum for the ..decking of balconies should be 10' (Act-19-2000), preferably 12' from the sidewalk. Therefore, the minimum requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plans for the downtown area support retail use in the lower levels and residential use in the upper levels. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan recommends the following: • the historic buildings and character in this district (commercial/retail core) should be protected as vital to the character of Lansing. Future development and facade improvements should mirror the unique and historic architecture in the downtown; • the streetscape should be designed for pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as for the visibility of businesses Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. khan-devAshared\Act 285 Reviews12001 Acts101actU7ACT7011E.wpd - ACT-7-2001, 121 S Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony Pg. 5 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. Traditionally, Lansing's early commercial buildings had retail use on the first level and residential (and/or office) on the second or upper levels. The proposed use is consistent with the historic use and compatible with the surrounding environment. Historically, however, buildings in Lansing's commercial/retail center did not have balconies on their upper levels, including the downtown hotels. The removal of the modem screen on the upper level of 121 S.Washington Square should expose the original nineteenth century brick facade of this commercial building. The proposed relocation and enlargement of the original window opening, and the installation of the balcony are not compatible with the historic character and environment of S. Washington Square. The proposed exterior changes may result in the removal of historic materials, features and spaces that characterize the building and its surrounding environment. The proposed changes may not be reversible in the event a future owner wants to restore the facade. 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 balcony would increase the extent of the proposed residential use into the public ROW. The balcony would be for private use of the residents of the proposed apartment/loft. Consideration should be given to the maintenance issues of balconies, pedestrian safety and comfort. No specific information was provided regarding the balcony floor decking. Consideration should be given to pedestrian safety from falling objects, water run off, ice accumulation and snow removal. A license agreement may address these issues. A precedent has been set with Act-18-00 and Act-19-00 for the properties at 115, 119 & 210 S. Washington Square This will have an effect and impact future requests for balconies over the ROW, as well as on other historic properties. The full impact of the first balcony proposals have yet to be determined. OTHER: • This analysis was based on a preliminary CAD (computer aided design) drawing submitted by the applicant which does not provide some details and dimensions. The proposed access door for the balcony will change the dimensional opening and architectural detail of the original window. Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. \\Plan-devIshared\Act 285 ReviewsI2001 Acts101 act0T�ACT701 YE.wpd ACT-7-2001, 121 S. Washington Square, Air Rights for Balcony Pg. 6 SUMMARY The proposed use of the buildings would be compatible with the other surrounding uses. The proposed balcony is not compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. CONCLUSION Based on its review of the proposal, staff concludes that: • The proposed use of the building is recommended in both the River Island and Central Lansing Comprehensive Plans, • Both plans recommend the protection and preservation of historic buildings • Neither plan recommends the use of the installation of balconies over the public ROW, • The full impact of the approval of balconies over the ROW at 115, 119 and 210 S Washington Square has not been determined RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-7-2001, by issuance of a license, for the request by Spirit Partnership to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 121 S. Washington Square. While it is not advisable, from a historic preservation perspective, to add balconies to buildings in commercial districts where historically they did not exist, this type of housing amenity can be provided with required approval conditioned in a license agreement. Conditions would include: 1. The balcony be designed to ensure pedestrian safety; 2. The storage of items on the balcony be prohibited; 3. The balcony be designed in such a way as to minimized the removal or impact on original materials and architectural features, and that if removed in the future, the building could be restored to its original character; 4. Original material removed to accommodate the new balcony access be preserved, labeled and stored on the property for potential restoration work in the future. Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. \Plan-deOsharecMct 285 Reviews%2001 Actswl act071ACT701.FE.wpd DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT .�1 309 N.WASHING-MN SQ.,SurrE 016 • LeNSrNG,MI 48933 • (617)483-4140 • FAx: (517)483-6057 r c H 1 G �' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Tax Increment Finance Authority David C. Hollister,Mayor Brownfield Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Cantlon, Preservation Planner FROM: Marchelle Smith, EDC DATE: March 20, 2001 RE: 121 S. Washington Square - Request for Use of Air Rights and 107, 109, and 111 E. Allegan Street- Request for Use of Air Rights In conjunction with our previous support of the application for the use of air rights by Ny-Mac Enterprises for the property located at 210 S. Washington Square and by Spirit Partnership for the property located at 115 and 119 S. Washington Square,the EDC continues to support the use of air rights by Spirit Partnership for the properties located at 121 S. Washington Square and 107, 109 and 111 E. Allegan Street. The City of Lansing,through the Economic Development Corporation(EDC), is administering the Facade and Loft Improvement Grant Program for property and/or business owners who qualify for these programs in the Washington Square corridor. Spirit Partnership has applied for both the Facade and Loft Grant for the property located at 121 S. Washington Square. However, Spirit Partnership was unable to apply for these Grants on the properties located at 107, 109, 111 E. Allegan because they were outside of the targeted boundaries recommended by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Downtown Revitalization. As outlined in the Downtown Revitalization Report,the creation of loft-style housing opportunities in and around the downtown area is vital to creating the"after hours crowd"and critical mass needed to spur the redevelopment efforts for economic enhancement. Allowing residents of these lofts the opportunity to interact on a daily basis, with the activities and atmosphere of the street front, via a balcony, is directly in line with the goals outlined in the Blue Ribbon Report. We encourage and support the approval of air rights as per Spirit Partnership's request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for allowing the EDC the opportunity to comment. ® Please Recycle "Equal OpporUmity Employe'" Q.� S1 � G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT a r ' m 309 N.WAB GToN SQ.,SurrE 016 • LANmG,MI 48933 • (517)483-4140 Fex: (517)483-6057 7 C j� j G ¢' ECONOWc DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Tax Increment Finance Authority David C. Hollister,Mayor Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Mr. Ken Stockwell March 14, 2001 Spirit Partnership 4277 Okemos Road Okemos MI 48864 Subject: Design Review for 121 S. Washington Square Dear Ken: As a follow up to our meeting on Tuesday, March 6, I would like to take this opportunity to summarize below the main goals of Spirit Partnership regarding the facade improvements to the property located at 121 S. Washington Square: • The facade above the commercial space is currently covered by a panel on the exterior of the building pnd currently covered by drywall on the interior portion of the building. Based on architectural drawings, there will be a three panel window opening to accommodate a 3' x 10' balcony. • The window opening will be off center to accommodate one window panel for the bedroom. • Once the existing exterior panel is removed,there is uncertainty as to what damage has been done to the brick. However, it is the intent to restore the facade to the original brick on the loft portion of the building if possible. • The marble and glass front on the commercial space will remain as is, but you were concerned that the marble had deteriorated and may need replacement.. • Two exterior light sconces will placed beside each side of the window. The Design Review Team is in support of this direction for the design on 121 S.Washington Square. Once your architect and/or contractor determines what lies beneath the existing facade,we will need to schedule a.final review meeting with the Design Review Team to go over any changes that are required due to damage or other problems that may be incurred. The same would apply to the buildings located at 115, 117,and 119 S. Washington Square in which you had previously applied for the Facade and Loft Grants. ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" If we are incorrect in any of the above summations,please contact me immediately at 485-5419. Otherwise, I will contact you in the next few weeks for an update on the progress of your projects. The Design Review Team continues to look forward to assisting you on your facade designs. Sincerely, Marchelle C. Smith Special Projects Administrator cc: Jim Bennett, Plan Review Analyst Todd Callaway, GDR Architects, Inc. Susan Cantlon,Historic Planner Patricia Cook, EDC Manager Jim Ruff, Planning Department Manager ACT-7-2001, 121 S. Washington Square NORTH E- MICHIGAN IbIMICH.AVE.VAC.CP 2-13-78 ►� lift III rr'• ya tt' ti' •{Y' bit' � I y 001fk pt� I ja Araft III J. Z 7 8 9 10 3 y M • — — -- — IoT.-e1-11 II ny II Icl-las y E. ALLEGAN MICHIGAN AVE 1 /04 I/6 33 35 V1 PARKING PAR I NG 37 /3 Z 44 O z pg = P9 WALLS� 84O U) /5 Q PB 3 833. P7 N 43 29 16 P9 846.6 ALLEGAN - 3T 841.3 .% •� - � � ' + �. -!. � ,,,t�� •�.•-~�' r it " "•v.��`! .•tF.� qn12 r-. j" �� a��r�It e�•r`� !9 i , � r'— _\ss�. + All Vi oil • '�r�l �.,.,,'�1i1 may_. ,- - -� '��. r{ i•, ..._tit .J.�!._ �- -..-..•��`_.- =-.—_.__---- -�' �==�`•�`7 �.. fT i•Y. �tF�si£ —�;� ,��:-•tom . -�:f I P., 1 a'y Act-7-2000, 121 S. Washington Square Air Rights for Balcony FIXED GLAZING REMOVE EXISTING COPING AND REPLACE WITH NEW. INSTALL OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE TYPE C FOR WET CONDITIONS. PELLA CLAD DOORS F-24 L-24 F-24 INSTALL NEW STEEL RAILINGS WITH NEW BALCONY. SEE DETAILS. EXISTING STOREFRONT TO REMAIN. i Report Prepared by SAC 03/07/2001. A:WCT701.FE.wpd ELEVATION A2-1 SCALE: 1/4" = F-0" APPROVED AS PRINTED MAY 1, 2001 Draft to Clerk 04272001 Approved 05012001 To Clerk 05092001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall -? 124 West Michigan Avenue <. Tuesday, April 17, 2001 cP 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick. Three present, one absent, two excused absences, two vacant seats. Noting tonight's attendance, Mr. Ruff said that under the Rules of Administrative Procedure, the Board may accept communications, but unless we have a fourth member present, it cannot take action. (Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:10 P.M.) B. Absences - Ms. Foster on January 23, 2001 requested and was granted an excused absence for April 17, 2001. On April 16, Mr. Smith requested an excused absence for April 17, 2001. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Ruff corrected the date of the next Urban Development Committee. It will meet on April 24, 2001. As an addition to the agenda under communications, Shane Silsby is here from the Transportation and Parking Office to give a short presentation on the Two-Way Street Study, Phase II, review the executive summary, and answer questions. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Shane Silsby, City of Lansing Transportation and Parking Office, distributed executive summaries to the Board and staff of the Two-Way Street Study, Phase 2, which looks at feasibility and implementation impacts of converting Grand and Capitol, Pine and Walnut, and Ottawa and Allegan from one-way to two-way operation. Three one-way streets downtown were converted in November, 1999 to two-way streets, Shiawassee, Ionia and Washtenaw. The more difficult ones are yet to come. The basic reasons for conversion are accessibility, to make the downtown more visitor-friendly and hopefully to increase downtown revitalization and business development. Also reduction of speeds should cause a small traffic calming effect to occur, and give a more residential feeling in the out-lying areas that are not as urbanized. This conversion can be successful. Because of the excess capacity of downtown streets, we are operating at level of service A or B, which translates to minimal delays downtown during peak hours. We will continue to operate at those levels of service should this plan be approved by City Council. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 2 You have received Draft II of the report; the Executive Summary comes from Draft II. Draft III is being worked on right now. It will be the final working copy presented to the Council. If you want more information on the full report, you can go to the City's web site, cityoflansingmi.com, and look under two-way streets, or look under transportation. We are continuing to work with CATA. Today, we had another meeting with them, LCC, MDOT, and all the key stakeholders downtown to make sure they are involved in this process now during the planning phase and during the feasibility phase, and throughout the approval process and into construction, should it be approved. There will be a public hearing on this issue May 7, 2001 before the City Council. It will be open to the public for comment. We are moving this along on the current time frame so we can incorporate it into the Capitol Loop study which is scheduled for construction in 2003 and 2004. They are going into design right now, because it includes Ottawa and Allegan. Our conversion study and the Capitol Loop is mostly made up of Ottawa and Allegan. As they are reconstructed, hopefully, we would have a conversion to two-way if everything is approved by Council. Questions? Ms. Patrick asked, in your initial conversions, did you observe any increase in traffic accidents, either at the early stage of implementation or since conversion? And did you do anything special with signage once the streets were converted? Mr. Silsby said our office is the maintaining agency for accidents in the City, and we haven't had any accidents related to the conversion specifically. Our office had good public involvement and good public recognition process, so there were no conflicts with the conversions. Mr. Ruge asked about cost estimates for the conversion, Mr. Silsby said about $1.7 or $1.8 million for all streets. Mr. Ruff said that cost was for the public improvements. Some private costs are anticipated, for example, with LCC or with other developments along the route; however, the City was the most affected, with the parking ramps, etc. Ms. Keene asked about the completion time frame for the entire project. Mr. Silsby said the Capitol Loop is scheduled for 2003 or 2004 should the two-way conversion be approved and implemented. Ottawa and Allegan would be converted in 2003 or 2004. The timing would be staged so they would not take place all at once. With that, Mr. Silsby concluded his presentation. Chairman Keene, noting for the record that four Board members are now present, returned to 1. B. Excused Absences, and 2. Approval of Agenda. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 3 by Ms. Patrick, to grant Mr. Smith an excused absence; carried; unanimous. The agenda was approved with notations as above. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: April 3, 2001 Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of April 3, 2001 without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee addressed three items at its meeting on April 10, 2001. a. Withdrawal of P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat The applicants submitted a letter indicating that upon further study, they thought it would not be profitable to develop the subdivision, so they requested withdrawal of their application. In Committee, a motion was made and seconded to accept the withdrawal of P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat; unanimous; carried. On a 3-0 vote, the withdrawal was accepted. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to accept the withdrawal of P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous; carried; the withdrawal of P-1-2000, Hidden Gardens Subdivision, Tentative Preliminary Plat was ACCEPTED. b. Z-2-2001, Property West of 524 E. Miller Road, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District This is a request to rezone the vacant lot to the west of 524 E. Miller Rd. (Lot #33) from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial and combine it with the corner property. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a new PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 4 6,900 sq ft commercial building to include Tony's Party Store, which is currently located on the corner property. The proposed building will provide space for an additional tenant. The rezoning of vacant land west of 524 E. Miller Road is in compliance with the Master Plan. No negative impacts on the environment, traffic patterns, or future patterns of development are anticipated as a result of the development of this overall corner property. The Transportation Engineer has stated that there are some improvements that will be made to the site as a result of the proposed changes, i.e., moving the drives farther away from the intersection. The Committee members discussed sidewalks, green space along Cedar Street, and screening and buffering. Ms. Stachowiak said that landscape, screening and buffering is required for the redevelopment of this site. The Committee also considered the location of the sidewalks and location of the dumpster close to the adjacent apartment building. The applicant stated that they could shift the location of the dumpster to the east and/or north. The Committee also suggested that plant materials be placed on the exterior side of the fence. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Z-2-2001, Property West of 524 E. Miller Road, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-2-2001, Property West of 524 E. Miller Road, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge was very concerned about the dumpster location. It is going to be close to the three-story apartment building. A garbage truck coming in at 4 a.m. could disrupt six to eight households. This is a quality-of-life issue that needs to be addressed. People are becoming more aware of the effects of noise pollution on quality of life. Mr. Ruff noted for the Board's information that approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six affirmative votes. We will forward the case with your explanations and concerns. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 5 Frederick . . . . . . . Ave Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion passed unanimously; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six affirmative votes. Z-2-2001 will be referred to the Mayor and City Council with NO RECOMMENDATION although the case will be accompanied by an explanation of the vote. C. Z-4-2001, Aurelius and Cavanaugh Rds., 1902 Cavanaugh Road, "A" Residential to "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts This is a request by Parker Memorial Baptist Church, located at 1902 E. Cavanaugh Road, to rezone several portions of property associated with the church. The church has a printing operation in which they print portions of scripture, new testament and gospels which are distributed worldwide. The proposed 90 ft x 180 ft building will be used as an assembly area where volunteers come in to collate, assemble, box and ship materials. A portion of the building will be used as a gymnasium and work area for some of their publications used in the school. The remaining portion of the gymnasium would be used for a fellowship area for receptions and recreational use. The rear portion of the property was zoned "H" Light Industrial until 1985 when 500 ft of property from Aurelius Road was changed to the "A" Residential District to allow for a garage to be built which is considered an accessory use to the church. The applicant is requesting that the property fronting onto Aurelius Road retain its current residential zoning. The single family home at 4322 Aurelius Road belongs to the church and their assistant pastor lives in the house. The existing garage and the proposed building will then be located in the "H" Light Industrial District. Staff recommends the requested rezonings be approved as described in the report: The property located west of the church at 1836 Aurelius Road, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 527.70 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan, thence West 90.35 ft., thence South 247.50 ft., PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 6 thence East 90.35 ft., thence North 247.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 and property located along the east side of the existing church parking lot, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan, thence West 84.39 ft., thence South 280.5 ft., thence East 84.39 ft., thence North 280.5 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 be rezoned from "A" Residential to "J" Parking District to allow for existing and additional parking for the church; The applicant also proposes to rezone approximately two acres of land located to the south of Parker Memorial Baptist Church, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 280.5 feet South and 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan, thence West 344.9 ft., thence South 257.50 ft., thence East 344.9 ft., thence North 257.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 from "A" Residential to "H" Light Industrial District to allow for the construction of a gymnasium and work area with associated parking. The Committee discussed issues of drainage because a neighbor has problems with rainwater runoff from the property. Some engineering will be required to protect the neighbor's lower-lying property from the runoff. Drainage would have to be contained within the applicant's property through use of a swale or some other mechanism. The Committee members discussed pollution runoff, i.e., gasoline and oil, because this site is very close to Sycamore Creek. Ms. Stachowiak said that Public Service would have to address this issue with a catch basin. Mr. Frederick was concerned with barbed wire. The applicant said that they would not be using barbed wire. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 7 Mr. Ruge did not want truck traffic entering onto Aurelius Road. The applicant said that they would be using the Cavanaugh drive. They have two drives going onto Aurelius Road. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve Z-4-2001, Aurelius and Cavanaugh Rds., 1902 Cavanaugh Road, "A" Residential to "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts. 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 recommend approval of Z-4-2001, Aurelius and Cavanaugh Rds., 1902 Cavanaugh Road, "A" Residential to "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Patrick said she too visited the site. Several items are being stored, a house trailer or a large camping trailer, and also a boat trailer. Does this storage meet code requirements? If the land is rezoned, is this an issue? Mr. Ruff said in the "J" Parking district proposed for the west side of the church and for the extreme east side of the parking lot toward Aurelius, storage of vehicles is not allowed. "J" Parking is a turnover parking area. If there is going to be any storage of vehicles or long-term parking of operable vehicles or trailers, it would have to be done in the proposed industrial district. There is potential that screening could be incorporated, but outside storage of disabled vehicles or junk or debris is not allowed, regardless. Mr. Ruge said he noticed the travel trailer. It is plugged in. It has a water supply from the adjoining building. "It is my guess that they are using that for something." Mr. Ruge's concern in his site visit is that the bus parking lot is not paved. The buses have been leaking fluids onto the ground. The area has an industrial look to it. There are a few houses located there. "I am comfortable with the zoning after visiting the site." Mr. Ruff said the area south of Cavanaugh and west of Aurelius is primarily nonresidential. There are some residential structures, but this is a sand-and-gravel area that has been mined for years. Further south is Standard Supply, a landscape supply-lumber company, and Dean Transportation, and other long-established businesses. Patrick. . .Aye Ruge . Ave Frederick . . Ave Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; motion passed unanimously; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six affirmative votes. Z-4-2001 will be referred to the Mayor and City Council with NO RECOMMENDATION although the case will be accompanied by an explanation of the vote. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 8 Mr. Ruge said that the Committee discussed some changes being made to the Zoning Ordinance. No action was taken. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee - Vice Chairman Ms. Patrick. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 24, 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. Ruff reminded the Board and the public that additional members are needed for the Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeals and Historic District Commission. Mr. Ruff also submitted to the Board a draft letter supporting the two-way street conversion. Last week, Mr. Ruff met with North Lansing-Old Town businesses to discuss the "F-1" traditional commercial district and potential changes to the zoning code, to get their input. Approximately ten to fifteen people were in attendance. Additional meetings will be held with affected business groups throughout the City. We hope to schedule a public hearing for the amendments within a month or two. Ms. Keene asked about the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff said staff is continuing with the first phase. Mr. Rieske would be happy to present a summary at the Urban Development Committee meeting; that way the Board as a whole can be updated as well. It is a large project that will have consultants as well as staff doing work. "We have a limited budget for it, so I need to be careful with our plan of process" as regards work of the consultant and work of staff. This is the most important phase, from a background standpoint. We have been assembling a public participation matrix, trying to establish all the different groups of people from the standpoint of age, society, neighborhoods, business, etc. The matrix will help us make sure we develop the best way to communicate with them. Also, when we get census information, that will help us know where to focus our attention. We want to be inclusive. This phase should be finished this fiscal year so we can assemble RFPs for consultants by June 30, 2001. We need to do some city-wide issues such as environmental issues. We are putting together the program list for public facilities, for circulation, for parks, etc. We will update you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 9 D. Pending Items: Future action required 3. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F" Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ruge asked if bike lanes would be provided for in the Two-Way Street conversion. With energy prices rising, alternate forms of transportation should be encouraged. Bicycling is an inexpensive mode of transportation; it is a healthful form of exercise; it is nonpolluting, and it does not consume fossil fuels. Chairman Keene said the Board has received the draft letter in support of the Two-Way Street conversion. She called for discussion. Mr. Frederick said he is in favor. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded Ms. Patrick to approve the proposed Two-Way Street conversion and convey our support to Mayor Hollister in the form of the letter drafted and presented to us tonight. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said he would like to see a mention of bicycle routes in the letter to emphasize that. Mr. Frederick and Ms. Patrick accepted that as a friendly amendment. Mr. Ruge also wanted City support for private individuals and organizations with funding for costs incurred as a result of the change. If cash-strapped organizations such as LCC are going to be saddled with expenses, I am afraid they won't support it." Mr. Frederick and Ms. Patrick accepted that as a friendly amendment. Chairman Keene summarized that the motion is to endorse and support the proposed Two-Way Street conversion with the letter, the additions having to do with support for encouraging bike lanes and support for assisting in the implementation of the conversion. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous; carried; motion to endorse and support the proposed Two-Way Street conversion with the letter PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 PAGE 10 and the additions supporting the encouragement of bike lanes and supporting assistance in the implementation of the conversion was APPROVED. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Stachowiak said at the last meeting 1060 N. Cedar was mentioned, the yellow house with trucks parked at it. A correction notice has been issued with a compliance date of April 19. Code Compliance will be following up on it. Mr. Frederick said semi-trailers are being stored on S. Cedar near a closed-up restaurant named Stella's. Within the last week, it has turned into a used car lot. It looks professional. Several meetings ago, he mentioned the car-tow business on Cavanaugh at the railroad tracks. Is there a status report? Ms. Stachowiak said they are working on the construction of their new facility. It should not be too much longer, though it has taken longer than expected. Regarding the semi- trailer being stored on S. Cedar, Code Compliance has been in court about this. It is still an issue. They are also aware of the cars being sold at Stella's. Ms. Patrick commented about the front yard parking ordinance going into effect. How many hours can a car be parked? Mr. Ruff was not sure. Mr. Ruge said at 326 Lathrop Street there is a single lot where a house burned down that is being used as a parking lot. The people to the north, 324, should buy the lot so they can park on it legally. They have a one-car garage at 324. What is legal parking when you have a one-car detached garage? Mr. Ruff said in the front yard cars must be on the driveway. Once behind the front line of the house, there are more options. You can expand the driveway behind the house if there is room. You could expand an area next to the existing garage, but it should be hard-surfaced. Limitations include subdivision regulations or deed restrictions. In older neighborhoods with smaller lots, lot coverage must be considered. There is a lot coverage limitation in the Zoning Code so that the entire property cannot be paved over, eliminating green space and causing rain runoff problems. Mr. Ruge said the property has a double-wide curb cut—the two driveways were next to each other. Mr. Ruff said with no principal structure on the adjoining lot, they would only be allowed a 12-foot-wide driveway in the front yard. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:14 p.m. Respect ully submitted James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board Z-2-01 524 E. Miller Rd. page 1 "A"Residential District to "F" Commercial District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Majid Kesto 524 E. Miller Road Lansing, MI 48906 OWNER: Same SUBJECT PROPERTY: Property to be rezoned is a vacant lot west of 524 E. Miller Road EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant lot PROPOSED LAND USE: Combine vacant lot with 524 E. Miller, to redevelop Tony's Party Store and provide additional tenant space. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 66 feet wide x 238 feet deep; 15,708 square feet; (.36 acre) Size of overall property (when combined with 524 E. Miller): 125 feet wide (along Miller Rd.) x 179 feet (along Cedar Street), irregular shape, .85 acre SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S: Multi-Family Residential & Commercial E: Commercial W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: "DM-1" Residential District E: "F" Commercial District W: "A" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area at the southwest corner of Cedar and Miller for commercial land use. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This request is to rezone the vacant lot to the west of 524 E. Miller Rd. (Lot #33) from "A" Residential to "F" Z-2-01 524 E. Miller Rd. Page 2 "A"Residential District to "F" Commercial District Commercial and combine it with the corner property. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a new 6,900 square foot commercial building to include Tony's Party Store, which is currently located on the corner property. The proposed building, as shown on the attached site plan, will provide space for an additional tenant. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: (No response received.) ASSESSOR "Applicant" will have to ask us to combine these lots. CITY ATTORNEY: (No response received.) COMMUNITY POLICING: (No response received.) BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. The project will require compliance with the City of Lansing family of building codes. Contact the Building Safety Office for procedural requirements. BWL: Electric: Approved with conditions - Need detailed service information. Contact Person: Steve Conn 702-6726 System Integrity and Customer Projects: Approved with conditions - Need water service requirements. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 CODE COMPLIANCE: If there are any requirements for site plan development, please notify this office upon approval by City Council. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No response received.) DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: No comment. FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. New building will be required to meet Z-2-01 524 E. Miller Rd. page 3 "A"Residential District to "F" Commercial District current site and code requirements. INGHAM CO DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) LANSING NGHD. COUNCIL: (No response received.) MEDIA ONE: (No response received.) MI DEPT. TRANSPORTATION: (No response received.) PARKS & RECREATION: It does not impact park operations- no comment. PUBLIC SERVICE: Public service has no comments about the rezoning. TRANSPORTATION: There are existing operational issues that can be improved by this redevelopment. While we are generally supportive, the proposed site plan will require several revisions prior to proceeding. Further, pedestrians must be accommodated which may require donation of land for right of way. The developer/architect should begin discussions with our office now to promptly resolve these issues. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Properties to the west are single family residences, zoned "A" Residential. Commercial development zoned "F" Commercial, exists to the north and east. Multiple family development, zoned "DM-1" Residential is located to the south and commercial development, zoned "F" Commercial, is located to the south along Cedar Street. The proposed rezoning of the subject vacant parcel would result in a larger commercially zoned property that would allow for an improved layout to this corner commercial property. The proposed building as shown on the attached site plan, is a single story building, set back further from Miller and Cedar Street, which should be more compatible with commercial development at the other corners of this intersection and more compatible with the homes to the west. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-20 foot buffer, where commercial abuts residential Z-2-01 524 E. Miller Rd. page 4 "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District land use. The proposed site plan shows a 15 foot wide buffer between the rear of the building and west lot line, to include a wood privacy fence and landscaping which will adequately screen the commercial development from the adjacent residence. Landscaping is also shown along the south property line, where it abuts an apartment development. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area at the southwest corner of Cedar and Miller for commercial land use. The proposed rezoning is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC A larger commercially zoned property at this corner would allow for a better layout to a commercial development allowing for better vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The site plan submitted with the application shows 51 parking spaces which meets the parking requirements for a 6,900 square foot building (based on one space per 110 usable square feet with usable area based on 70% of the building). The curb cut closest to the intersection will be closed, which will eliminate the current situation where vehicles enter and exit at a point immediately west of the intersection. The Transportation Engineer commented that a donation of land for right of way to accommodate pedestrians may be required to continue a public sidewalk along Cedar Street, which should be setback from the curb along Cedar for pedestrian safety. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The subject vacant lot, when combined with the property at 524 E. Miller Road, will result in a larger development site, that would allow for better setbacks, adequate parking, and landscape, screening and buffering. No negative impacts on the environment, such as noise, pollution, glare, etc. is anticipated to result from the proposed rezoning. The site plan review process will address the concern expressed by the Planning Board at its public hearing held April 3, 2001 regarding the placement of the dumpster, as to its proximity to the adjacent residential property to the west. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The "F" Commercial District allows for a variety of uses. The applicant proposes to continue the existing business (Tony's party store) at this location. It should be noted that other "principally permitted uses" in the "F" Commercial District include: convenience oriented businesses, business and professional office, motor vehicle Z-2-01 524 E. Miller Rd. page 5 "A"Residential District to "F" Commercial District service station, new or used parking lots. The applicant will retain the existing billboard on site. This is shown on the site plan and should not interfere with circulation. The applicant has indicated that a five year lease remains on the billboard. The combining of the subject vacant lot with the corner commercial property will result in a larger overall development site. A new commercial structure should have a positive impact on future patterns of development in the immediate area. With sufficient landscape, screening and buffering of the property, no negative impact upon residential properties to the west is anticipated. SUMMARY The rezoning of vacant land west of 524 E. Miller Road is in compliance with the Master Plan. No negative impacts on the environment, traffic patterns, or future patterns of development are anticipated as a result of the redevelopment of this overall corner property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to rezone the vacant lot located immediately to the west of 524 E. Miller Road be approved. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner Z-2-01.wpd •' pill Ifl 11 _ L all I#I •t 1 —L?O �. N ~ l41 t 1 1 K .. --- 7 « \,11} to j.Iw48•.t• 1 t :f t�1 43 I * �1t s � 'PA — — — — 1 0 1 u Oil 1 tn: �. •:% O11 zz I t t�� 42 12 0l'► - 13 07t 23 a.I 1 1 OT\ 1,•w•+,•1 ; qS1 �1 III i -- - - — - 1 - 1 - 1 ~L — '' a••' OELLEN Irirnil�swlST. bV1 40 �r JUSTICE SL p �= Ia.r i.. •.. .r u• • nl- w 4 ,r ! raarr OBI Is `I _ t_ t , 0 00/ 3 . ,l V le : • 1 —I_ Y � Ill �t_ 16y ems•/nr VJ2 - ~ I,I-.r• •a 20 Ov rti...•2_. .. ,� ---- --- -- z — '• n i 478 z3 as' •1��1 1 479it �'. 48 o!I AI �qq 0514 1 I 3 101 I p i _ X\ o •Q I 0 Z , oy1 s .z•oil ,11 W o11 O�1 K�—_.•---, Q N! •/w�/IJJ_/LJ,/y�J/ I ' \` •y/_7�y� ——- — — Its -- --- —.._.— — --- — — —MILLER �. YP �� - PC 054.9'T•t. I14 I 10\ Oq1 06, OT O \ /% A% L Q0\ , ;\ 25 26 I 27 0 ze ?w r31 3z 3 4 ••\ ' "f t aI• � 1.1K• � f K • is `rr. •... .,,,�rr. e ` ` gal ,leg v r Ott' •:: IV III.,• �fU/// / /� %///��\ Lp oil 'ri• •rIi 1 i 1• • ,Lq 6 t 4 �� \[ __ �•• LOT Cyr ey NAT 005 • 0 � r ham- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For: Coldwell Banker Commercial Associated Brokers Tony's Party Store 7050 West Saginaw 524 East Miller Road Lansing, Michigan Lansing, Michigan Legal Description: (As Furnished) Lot 33 and Lot 34, except commencing 6.7 feet North of the SW Corner of Lot 34; thence South 6.7 feet to the SW Corner of Lot 34, thence S89'46'E, 181.e6 feet to the SE Corner of Lot 34; thence Northwesterly 71.5 feet along the East line of Lot 34; thence Southwesterly 146 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Supervisor's Plat No. D of Delhi Township, now City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. MILLER ROAD _ CURBy CONC W -7 — WALK OOJ 6h6v.00 24.5- 59.30 X _i4 I m N aG LOT OT # 34 o z # 33 NZN �,, V' 9 � �+Nrf W. (VACANT) i W O O O a� N-:r, BIT INDUS ,24.5! vN O t BITUMINOUS 1 O e- 'r7 BILLBOARD LN O j O NN rd. O t 1 g IRON m EXCEPTION S89*46.'00"E P.0.8. EXCEPTION -6b-:0 �4 S89046'00"E 161.65' 0 Y - Measured Fd. D - Deeded • Found as noted P — Platted PINCH PIPE O Bat Iron k cap #31603 We hereby asrrttlifir� that wa have surveyed the pprnparty herein described; that the buildiniga and ImproTaments as shown are entirely w�ithla the property lines•, and that there are no Tiaible anoroaohments upon the aboTv deeoribed property. except as ahown hereon. 77W 1fI12'PJC ENOINffitWO COMPANY C8O0 North Grand R1Tar Avenue d N. Rh1ta. F.B. & P.L'.. 012034 Laalag Iffohigan 4e90e ey No. 003713 Phone (517) 9 —7111 Date:August. 22. 2000 '1""ON�r1S I�i�Fz'�'� STOfz� •E-Zr LOCAL SHorl'{NC? GEOP`R sT� cxl'� a ���" �MMEFLUAL. GIoSE - I � F GortME�Zcv.L DM-1 Q � n� SIo�TIaL 0 \ F"CAMMERC4AL. NEW _ PROr05CD 61.1I1-ClINGI O DRIVE • G,!100 S,� I c N" LOT PRoPoSpA A RESIDgJ ITIAL `1�J LoT�3 J Z.i �'I F GOMMEpGI/eL 64 • DUMr•rE"- O " rum N cw, 6UFFER� -A° R�I�ENTIf4L. S I T� PLAti! Ire iiol .. 1 S PAR I OM'1 r T1' STOp�,�, 6R000 5TIWART \p Aes.oclales, P. C . L•nr••�y• Arahlt•alur• Looming. Errt Mlahlprn ., . Lrnrinp, Mlahlprn 4lp12 �\ 517•484-7065 FAX:517•482•9345 t t' 4 ► f � ti 1 ME, .a ,ftil`s YY ace. -i f _ ".— >.a L i _. . r � - Z 4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 1 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A"Residential District to "J"Parking GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Terry Baker. P.E. Kater Engineering Associates 2495 Featherstone Drive Lansing, MI 48911 OWNER: Parker Memorial Baptist Church 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. Lansing, MI 48911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The Church building sits on property zoned "B" Residential. There is "J" Parking district zoning to the east and south of the church building. The property east and south of the "J" zoning is "A" residential. The property to the west of the church is also zoned "A" Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: "A" Residential District to "H" Industrial District, "A" Residential District to "J" Parking EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant lot PROPOSED LAND USE: Expand church parking, and erect a 16,200 square foot gymnasium building to the south of the church, to include a print shop. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 434 feet along Cavanaugh Rd. and 267 feet along Aurelius Rd., 505 feet deep (from Cavanaugh Rd.), irregularly shaped. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant land S: Industrial E: Residential W: Vacant land Z4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 2 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A"Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A" Residential District to "J" Parking SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial S: "I" Heavy Industrial District E: "A" Residential District, W: "A" Residential District and "I" Heavy Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area (where the church is located) as Community Facilities. The land to the east, south, and west is designated as Residential 8-14 units/acre. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This is a request by Terry Baker of Kater Engineering Associates, representing Parker Memorial Baptist Church, located at 1902 E. Cavanaugh Road, to rezone several portions of property associated with the church, as shown on the attached site plan. The Associate Pastor, Reverend Greene stated at the April 31 Planning Board public hearing that the church, established in 1976, prints portions of scripture, new testament, and gospels which are distributed worldwide. He also stated that the proposed 90' x 180' building will be used as an assembly area where they have volunteers come in to collate, assemble, box and ship materials. A portion of the building will be used as a gymnasium and work area for some of their publications used in the school. The remaining portion of the gymnasium would be used for as a fellowship area for receptions and recreational use. The rear portion of the property was zoned "H" Light Industrial until 1985 when 500 feet of property from Aurelius Road was changed to the "A" Residential District to allow for a garage to be built which is considered an accessory use to the church. The applicant is requesting that the property fronting onto Aurelius Road retain its current residential zoning since the single family home at 4322 Aurelius Road belongs to the church. The existing garage and the proposed building will then be located in the "H" Light Industrial District. The existing church has been used for school rooms and for printing, according to Rev. Green, but they now need these areas back and want to give them a separate building for the school. Rev. Green stated that a 12" x 17" multilith, plus a small web press is used for the printing operation. Z 4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 3 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A" Residential District to "J"Parking Proposed Rezoning: The areas requested to be rezoned are as follows: The property located west of the church at 1836 Aurelius Road, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 527.70 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 90.35 ft., thence South 247.50 ft., thence East 90.35 ft., thence North 247.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 and property located along the east side of the existing church parking lot, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 84.39 ft., thence South 280.5 ft., thence east 84.39 ft., thence north 280.5 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 from "A" Residential to "J" Parking to allow for existing and additional parking for the church; The applicant also proposes to rezone approximately two acres of land located to the south of Parker Memorial Baptist Church, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 280.5 feet South and 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 344.9 ft., thence South 257.50 ft., thence E PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 east 344.9 ft., Thence North 257.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 from "A" Residential to "H" Light Industrial to allow for the construction of a gymnasium and work area with associated parking. Z 4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 4 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A"Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and AGENCY RESPONSES "A" Residential District to "J" Parkin AMERITECH: (No response received.) ASSESSOR Would the gymnasium and work area be used for private purposes or chu CITY ATTORNEY: (No response received.) COMMUNITY POLICING: (No response received.) BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. BWL: Electric: Approved with comment: need to contact Ron Monroe if upgrading electric service. Contact Person: Ron Monroe 702-6094 Water: Approved with comment: new building will need new water service from Cavanaugh. Also an easement will need new water service from Cavanaugh. Also an easement will be required. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 BWL Well 70-4 is located at 1820 E. Cavanaugh. Any proposed development should include site grading to prevent surface water runoff from entering upon the BWL well site property. Suggest installation of a berm to eliminate runoff potential. Contact Person: Randy Roost 702-6114 CODE COMPLIANCE: Please notify this office of any conditions or requirements if approved by City Council. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No response received.) DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: No comment. FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. Future buildings must meet current codes including required fire flows. Z 4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 5 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A"Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A" Residential District to "J"Parking INGHAM CO DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) LANSING NGHD. COUNCIL: (No response received.) MEDIA ONE: (No response received.) PARKS & RECREATION: No comment- does not impact parks. PUBLIC SERVICE: No comment on the zoning change. We will reserve our comments for the site plan. TRANSPORTATION: The Transportation and Parking Office reserves the opportunity to review and comment on specific site access and egress issues at the time of site plan review. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Property directly to the north, east and west of the church, is comprised of single family homes, and is zoned "A"residential.Vacant land to the north of the church at the northwest corner of Cavanaugh and Aurelius Road is zoned "F" Commercial. The church owns a large piece of vacant open space to the south of the church building, making the overall parcel irregularly shaped. A single family home, that fronts onto Aurelius Road (4332 Aurelius Road) is owned by the church and is on the portion of property proposed to retain its current "A" Residential Zoning. The portion of property currently zoned "I" Heavy Industrial was mined for gravel and sand over the years. A special land use permit and rezoning was obtained in 1985 to continue the gravel operation. The former gravel pit is shown on the proposed site plan as a soccer field,which is in compliance with the required reclaiming of the gravel pit, according to the SLU conditions. The three different sections of the property to be rezoned include: the parcel directly west of the existing church building, currently zoned "A" to be rezoned to "J" Parking for the purpose of creating additional parking closer to the church;the property directly east of the church is currently used for church parking and is zoned "A" Residential, to be rezoned to the "J" Parking District since it is currently being used for parking; and the land directly south of the Church, currently zoned "A" Residential to be rezoned to the "H" Light Industrial District to permit the construction of a 90' x 180' building to allow a variety of activities associated with Parker Memorial Baptist Church. Z4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 6 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A"Residential District to "11" Light Industrial District and "A" Residential District to "J" Parkin Land to the south is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial and a parcel directly to the west is also zoned "I" Heavy Industrial. It is surrounded on at least two sides by other industrial zoning. Staff believes the proposed structure and the requested rezoning is therefore compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Plan designates the area where the church is located as "Community Facilities." A church is considered a community facility that is generally compatible with residential development. The land immediately to the east, south, and west is designated as Residential 8-14 units/acre. Land further to the south is designated as "I" Heavy Industrial. The proposed rezoning is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The proposed 16,200 square foot"gymnasium/work area" building is located behind areas that are zoned residentially. Any access from this building should be directed through similarly zoned property("H" Light Industrial), and not through any residentially zoned land to the east, onto Aurelius Road. Reverend Green pointed out that the church has a drive that comes off their main parking lot that gives access to the garage. The semis would therefore enter "from Cavanaugh, go through the parking lot, swing around and back up to the loading dock." He further added that the church sometimes hauls things into the site from the printer with a utility trailer. A loading dock on the garage facility allows a semi truck (approximately one every two months) to back up and load pallet-sized shipments. Any industrial traffic will therefore be oriented to Cavanaugh and not onto Aurelius Road, through the"A" Residential District.According to the Circulation Map in the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Cavanaugh Road is classified as a collector street, and Aurelius Road is classified as a minor arterial. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Churches are generally regarded as compatible uses in residential zoning districts, provided that any impacts be mitigated through the necessary amount of parking, landscape, screening and buffering, proper drainage, structural setbacks, etc. This development varies from most church developments in that it has a manufacturing (print) component to its operation. Any environmental concerns typical of industrial development will be reviewed and addressed with the proposed development more thoroughly through the site plan review process. A concern was expressed at the public hearing, on behalf of the property owner at 1834 E. Cavanaugh-which exists to the west of the church, regarding runoff onto that property from the church property. The portion of church property to the south of 1834 E. Z4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 7 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A"Residential District to "J"Parking Cavanaugh was mined for sand and gravel under a Special Land Use Permit (SLU-2-85). The adjacent property owner indicated that runoff from filling of the gravel pit on the church property resulted in two-to three-feet of water onto her property resulting in a ponding of water that has been a problem, particularly during the past spring. The issue of drainage and on-site detention will be reviewed by the Public Service Department through the site plan review process. The use of that portion of the site as a soccer field will help to allow for seepage of water, as opposed to impervious material coverage that would add to runoff onto adjacent properties. Remedies to prevent runoff onto adjacent residential properties that front onto Cavanaugh Rd. may include an earth berm, as recommended by the Board of Water and Light to protect their well site, or a swale to direct water away from these properties. Other environmentally related concerns will be addressed through the site plan review process.Additional landscape, screening, and buffering will be required, adequate on-site detention of water, and circulation of church and industrial traffic away from residential properties onto Cavanaugh (as opposed to Aurelius Rd.)will be required through the site plan review process. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The church is located in the 1900 block of E. Cavanaugh Road which includes single family homes along both sides of the street and has property that fronts onto the Aurelius Road that includes single family homes in the 4400 block.Any industrial activity should be oriented away from homes along these two streets. The use of the proposed building for a printing operation, reception hall, gymnasium, etc. should not negatively impact future patterns of development if properly landscaped, screened, and buffered from adjacent residential properties. Any traffic associated with the proposed building must be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer, and should be oriented away from residential areas. SUMMARY The proposed rezonings will bring the existing parking to the east of the church into conformance with how the land is used. The proposed zoning to the west of the church for parking will provide additional parking. The proposed zoning to the "H" Light Industrial District will enable the church to construct a multi-purpose building that will allow a print shop which is considered a light industrial type of use. Site related concerns that include runoff onto adjacent properties, landscape, screening and buffering of the site, ingress/egress of semi-truck traffic into the site will be addressed through the site plan review process. Z 4-01 Parker Memorial Baptist Church: Page 8 1902 E. Cavanaugh Rd. "A" Residential District to "H" Light Industrial District and "A" Residential District to "J" Parkin RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the requested rezonings be approved as described: The property located west of the church at 1836 Aurelius Road, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 527.70 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 90.35 ft., thence South 247.50 ft., thence East 90.35 ft., thence North 247.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 and property located along the eastern side of the existing church parking lot, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 84.39 ft., thence South 280.5 ft., thence east 84.39 ft., thence north 280.5 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 from "A" Residential to "J" Parking to allow for existing and additional parking for the church; The applicant also proposes to rezone approximately two acres of land located to the south of Parker Memorial Baptist Church, more particularly described as: Commencing at a point 280.5 feet South and 183.41 ft. West of the East 1/4 Corner of Section 34, Lansing Twp., City of Lansing, Michigan. Thence West 344.9 ft., thence South 257.50 ft., thence E PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 east 344.9 ft., Thence North 257.50 ft. to the point of beginning. PPN 3301-01-34-426-053 from "A" Residential to "H" Light Industrial to allow for the construction of a gymnasium and work area with associated parking. Respecfully Submitted, Donna Wynant, AICP Senior Planner WAR � i �'•� � �; / 'ice, ISM a WT �.. •,1 I\ •' a 1 � h�-' �i.r•i.. •••••. cWr. w•Iru � .. �• •ta .......... ...,.. mil. l...ww ••••••• IlYlOY • cr ••••r 8 „.• 5 ' M­ .... ... •••••��hUll IYYOM rprrl• ••• • Pl• • ••P• r•• ••• • ,•' i( nlCw.°°° •••• i•••• � p ... A i Al .......,mulml 8 a i ,.,......1 ��Eu.••• •; •.�•iiiii .. t ........... ...... ol.wn. .. ••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• •..••••.•••••.• .® el •"fe :::::::::::::::::::•• [:::::::::•... •• ••...••....• • •••• •••••••• •.• :: Dbb! �. LW 11 •..••••••• .Y u•••• •••••••• •.•.....••� •.•....• •••••••• ..... ......... •..• .. ...... ...... . ....... ....... A. ...... ...... ............ ......... :::• ...... •::::::: r .•• ••• :•..•.•••..•.••.•..•.•.••• I �' 000, ,. a 3 � RESIDENTIAL 0-7 u/ac o D,;; O RESIDENTIAL 8-14 u/ac ' O RESIDENTIAL 15-20 u/ac ..•.... ' O RESIDENTIAL 21 + u/ac !-`•-� ! © PROFESSIONAL OFFICE •lll PARKS P N SPACE/CEMETA EO UTILI •• ' ° i ••••• LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL •�;� I 9= COMMUNITY FACILITIES Al i 0 MIXED USE (COMM/OFF/APT) -- O WAREHOUSE/RESEARCH PARK S SPECIAL LAND USES PI +i f`. 5`►• .a'tt�i` s' .F�fri: a. r s e r� ;ir !: • ri.:4 aa.� C �� _ y"r:� -: •t..,lj y��� ` �•. ';.;,,�7't��.F.ts•k_1;���a. f�'y •rt� o !•t: } � t' •.,�• .. .a,y 1Y" "W r�x,�'*�. , .�'�;'`�, t'y'rY.'�. ,. �' � �S ,1 f �.•. �� ��'�� yet Y':�l-R.�` �Y , . . L' �• 'f'.r"�e: µ, ��� �2 t'l�y'a��lO J 4.5 �� G��•�La����� r��cy"'L�{y2�. •• •� fpk�r.�`���. k- t� 1 1, i >` *l :,r ,��,r+��r �.�'f'ii�r�'.';�'�- .'`t'. `;• i" '�s.t` ,��. ['yj�a s .-rr.`�.. �s . . ,'�"'� I'•:• 3� +;t / 41 a :%P� a •ij '"'fv lr7 a 3 • > +,�.y,}° �•�..Y:i6Yi'j•. y ••'�• 'r.� .1'�•. .y '�"r t• v � .+ >J •ffi �i��+�. j ''Nk.J. e R tI• � � ��';,tr,� ! �j�r }> ��J' '�, .. �:'G'✓ s ,+! P � y,�.Pew �'. �•x = t `. '^'��'l i•yq- t ••�• r� ,_, � wJ. � -N ✓ :�t"-/'_�{�:.a�, .%, 1 �..1J. C �} '.i.�iy�z .tom r� ,^ ;' It i•„ .- � ' +� ';�� e I hf�,.>�, ,�rj� � S/' a.� •{t •vxr C ' .•I� �� ��1 + ^•�tlY� .,�• j•• ,r ,.p a�w F +i�• r• y��ts „ifs. � tkr::,ya � �+:'• s;:�' � ' ,t1cl .`' ;� %Y?r• �� /'�y'S�; Man, •f. *_�.•y^.r �1 _ ', ,,ry� 5:;4•• Kam•,,.i h✓l �: i i. ��� ' •�•.�.'� t c:'+4+' ♦ ',lti� •t .tom �� �t , �' •in. a� ,.. =4AW��'7�• � �'.:��'� .t��a � � ,•�"r':�i.�`.•`•!. (1;,�•�r•vi��7'�:�.� �. .� •� `�� y. .1/,jr �• ij.�•S� :��a two t:,ti��Yiys`r 47 71 � ` : �•�f � � a' ... •.r4Ht1 � J� A. - !.�ftt�,J + '�� � �i.yi v`e �. i'. •J= I •- �� rs ,� ia.'+r•/f,. �� ~��" 1 � AIL.�°ia� 1 , ..,�. I��s-a -• 6 � '-.t �''JM �•+T1'�'y' 'f�•y`y' w. �•' fr�tll� �i�1 ♦'�rs' 'c° ,, "'! � 1 ' I1 �r 3i'r� r AiC7S1�' •• 4•till•• i j( ,�. Z f^rl,t. '1. f ,J> •� . •`ya••r �_ ,c .� �`-' +x � R 'P�..1,r�,• � �,. t J71 �7 :_'.:j'y •, �•�.�:: -y''�> �"��-fr� it.7 .a.�,,.'� pG, "` "r-'j >-i y�� ...._.�...... '� •.. -:., a'i r•t'/i s:� 'r' ^r. „. _�•,x'••r'; s9�Ls V•�pfi fi•,, ,. kFy4 /��', �F,'-'-, lyt'• `ST' �•r - r� i�!•�y!^ f y. I ,� f,,�••ter �1 ft T r 4 1�+ s"�►��i` .. .- i- � .Y� 6. r .)fit q � •f.- t IN. «tea -+• s .,,�, Ott,�. ..i�•+_ • _s.wi 7L d>k, "` '-"'W .. '�"� '. i' y:ws- ..._ 'K��� w'•���: •.. ,fit �: ` . ''n�.r �� �. t..it L• r•�s r...s.f F��ti- ��s;, �'.• � ... .- • —ram_ �'X�"`�C�- _ „'4'i-;--��•• �:Opt f'+7 �. ..v r— -.. ,r M ' a r y' �Sm 9 `r �.�Fy`'� s � ! t e 1 r tj- 0 x � �s j R ._��Y w�., �..71f1•�• li M ?..� � f.• �, s �1.�� __' �•1 ire ■ t ��� { - .ca.*,..,,,,'mac-r:.a rmw'". _. �t .'t•`.J:. y,'tr+t+e 4 _ „ Sft .!� " i�.'h u,,,,p.�rl :�; N..s_r"b�.Y',`T`,{ � ,rt _ 'ya �h4;u"+ a ,.i.;:�,r.a•"'y. '� �_. ... .d"'"�.y c�-• � _. ..fit ,.�cvr+,.� r � �^ �.�„ l a"� p: .. c•3. s �- — .t, I { Sx ,�. - f• ,. a �. � i...: — .. a{• `• Afpa;,a` '.�.r ��" • „ts'°"'•S$naaF `''mot t �' w:�. . t.,Yt. �... i w„�. y.. i."+1x1:k 4,. -ram �' '•"° T •> L. ..V .. s � _ - :i'a j S 1. - � .,.. :s.�.$,:er,. ♦: r 1 y`� a, � ._ a'• ^y. 'T ` - ` - ' vim• _ -_ - W �'d• • PS...r � - . . v� t . ..4rl �� �• y '� '„ e c usy55sa 2%y mot# �,. _ 1 °ems► . ': .r•a -- r.a a F- `r 1" ,;,kLX''Z". .. � _. „_ .. w a APPROVED AS PRINTED MAY 15, 2001 Draft to Clerk 05112001 Approved 05152001 To Clerk 05232001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, May 1, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith. Five members present; one absent; two vacant seats. B. Absences - Ruge. Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence; it was moved and seconded to excuse Mr. Ruge; carried; unanimous. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum to Samuel Quon from Laura Davis regarding phone call from Gregory Byrd concerning NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, Expand Nonconforming Use, in support. B. Letter dated April 23, 2001 to Planning Board from Belinda Fitzpatrick regarding Boys Training School Property, in opposition. C. Memorandum dated May 1, 2001 to the Planning Board from Tom Stanton, 216 Huron Street regarding the BTS Proposal. D. Memorandum dated May 1, 2001, to the Planning Board from Mrs. Earla Gray regarding P-1-2001. She is concerned about safety of the children. E. Letter dated April 26, 2001 to the Planning Office from Shirley Graves regarding P-1-2001. She is concerned about the increased traffic. F. Letter dated May 1, 2001 to the Planning Board from Patricia Blakeslee regarding P-1-2001 and changes it would cause. G. Memorandum dated May 1, 2001 to the Planning Board from Richard A. Cooley, Architect, regarding Z-6-2001. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request by the ADCO Group for a parcel of approximately 24.67 acres located east of Orchard Street, south of Saginaw Street, west of Lansing Catholic Central and north of Eastern High School/Pattengill Middle School. The proposal is to rezone 3.80 acres of the northwest corner of the site to "D-1" Professional Office PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 2 District for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood convenience/retail center, and the remaining 20.87 acres to "DM-1" Residential District for the purpose of developing a mix of single- and multiple-family residential, all owner-occupied units. The property is zoned in part "B" Residential and primarily "C" Residential. The developer intends to implement the BTS plan which was approved by the City Council in 1992. In your packet is a diagram of the Consensus Plan prepared by the BTS Committee and later adopted by the City Council. Beyond that page is a survey of the property showing the area to be rezoned to "D-1" Professional Office and the remaining area to be rezoned to "DM-1". The residential units will all be owner-occupied. The developer has submitted a packet that gives a general idea of the kind of neighborhood developments that they do. It is a traditional neighborhood development which is the reason behind having some of the area rezoned to neighborhood commercial. Typically, with a traditional neighborhood development, there would be some commercial included. The packet also includes a summary of the BTS Consensus Plan. Mr. Frederick inquired about the Community Comment by Brandy K. Buines and removal of the EHS sports field. Mr. Ruff said there are some supplemental practice sports fields in the area that is part of this property. They were there at the time the BTS Plan was created. Some of the fields do exist today, and for the Plan, they have been shifted and changed somewhat. There would be some changes, yes. Mr. Frederick said, so sports fields are there now on land not owned by Eastern, but when the Plan is finished, something will replace them. This is a multi-phase proposal. KHANH PHAM, ADCO GROUP, 21600 NOVI ROAD, NOVI, MICHIGAN. Tonight I am here with our land planner, Jim Eppink, and the president of our company, Adorno Piccinini. When we first looked at this proposal, we had one objective, to try to create a plan consistent with the BTS Consensus Plan. It has been our guide. The next step is a market study, which will validate whether this site can support the BTS Plan proposal of fifteen years ago and what we propose now in 2001. JIM EPPINK, ADCO GROUP. I would like to share with you our goals for the development. We are trying to build a neighborhood, not a conventional subdivision with similar structures unlike a traditional neighborhood. Interpreting from the 1994 plan, we plan to create an extension of the neighborhoods that already exist in Lansing, a block system that integrates with the surrounding community and is not a separate enclave disassociated from the neighborhood. Though cars are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 3 going to be a part of this neighborhood, our focus is going to be on the pedestrian. What is missing from conventional neighborhoods is the ability to walk to work and stores and parks. A few principles that will be used within the neighborhood include the use of mixed-use housing, the use of public open space and the use of neighborhood conveniences. The mix of housing we are not certain of as yet, but certainly there will be some single-family houses and perhaps townhouses, but they will not be all uniform. In suburbia, there is a trend to economic segregation which leads to segregation of the community. We want to build a neighborhood where people can have a starter home, where professionals can live, and retirees too, a neighborhood that truly is a neighborhood with different housing opportunities. Secondly, we will use community open space. Every neighborhood now uses open space, but unfortunately that is left- over space, wetland, or the conjunction of back yards. We will begin the plan by defining the open space, putting the open space out in front where people share it, in vest-pocket parks or a trail system or bike paths. Lastly is the opportunity to tie in neighborhood conveniences such as neighborhood retail. We are not talking about strip plazas but rather something to benefit the new neighborhood and the larger neighborhood as well, the corner store. We have not asked for commercial zoning but rather Professional Office on a small area of 3.8 acres. Developing large amounts of commercial is not possible; also, this is a neighborhood focus. We are here to work with the BTS Committee and the City. KHANH PHAM. We have worked with the BTS Committee and the City starting as early as September of 2000. This whole process of working as developers with staff, community and BTS Committee has been an excellent public-private open process. The Committee told us what they do and do not want, and the City has been an excellent guide. Tonight starts the process. The City still owns the property. The development is a partnership with the City and the community, and the BTS Committee is working with the developer and the City to make this come to fruition. RICK KIBBEY, CHAIRMAN OF BTS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE. After ten years, we have movement, in keeping with the intent of the Plan. This Plan grew out of the community-initiated planning process to determine what the neighborhood wanted to see done with this property. We had many meetings to work this compromise plan. Everybody got something—land for a new school by the School District, land for the hospital to construct educational facilities, green space and trails, and new housing to retain and replace housing and people lost over 20 years. As chair of the BTS Implementation Committee, the Committee has unanimously expressed a conditional approval of this rezoning. If not for time pressure imposed by the City's bridge loan, we would have expected a site plan. Market studies, site studies and traffic studies necessary to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 4 do a site plan have not yet been done. The Committee supported the request based on several factors: (1) The request is not expected to be completed and approved by Council prior to the Committee's review and approval of the site plan, and the rezoning will not be finally approved at Council until the Committee has had its say; and (2) We understand that before final approval can be achieved, a PRD must be reviewed, and a the City must do a final sign-off on the sale of the property; and (3) We are impressed with the developer's team. Both the marketing consultant and the site planning consultant are familiar with the traditional neighborhood development advocated by our Committee. This is a complex proposal. TOM STANTON, 216 HURON STREET, LANSING. I support the proposal. You are being asked to approve the rezoning before submission of the site plan. I hope the site plan and objective of building a traditional neighborhood can drive the zoning process rather than the reverse. We can learn from this as we look to the Master Planning process. Many researchers believe that planning and zoning systems implemented many years ago are responsible for the creation of urban sprawl. I would ask the City to examine these processes to reverse that. I am on the Board at Urban Options and I volunteer there. We hold Sustainable Community dialogues on the first Saturday of the month from 10 a.m. to noon. The BTS project was identified as being important to the community. We have volunteers who provide technical support to the BTS Committee or to the Planning Office and/or Board to provide technical information about sustainable community design and traditional neighborhood design. We work with a class at Michigan State University. The students are building a model of the BTS property. KATHLEEN LANGSCHWAGER, 1328 PROSPECT, LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT. I am going to lay out the truth—I hope you can handle it. The reason the City has this property is because David Hollister and Lynn Martinez went to a committee meeting at the Capitol, took the name of the Lansing School District off and put the City of Lansing's name on. They said there's nothing you can do about it. Another truth: BTS Committee meetings are on Thursday nights when the School District has a Board meeting. I'm sure they meant to tell us, but we have new administration and we have not had any representation. I believe there is nothing we can do about it, but we need the extra room for soccer and softball fields. Eastern shared with the Boys Training School. We need property for a soccer field and for a new school. We need the road running along the property for handicapped parking. We want to work with this Committee, but we've never seen them before; we've never seen the developers. I hope they can take some time and make an appointment with the School PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 5 Board so we can work together on this. It is a bad thing for Lansing to neglect the children. BELINDA FITZPATRICK, 224 S. HOLMES STREET, LANSING. Many members of the east side community know nothing of this Boys Training School Committee. Every slum or deteriorated neighborhood was once someone's vision and was new. Instead of being caught up in this vision of newness, let's restore and renovate the homes on the east side as I have. It is not worth it to lose this recreational property that is used by the community that the City had the option to purchase for $1 for community use. This fact was ignored, and I believe, hidden from us. The soccer field where they want office, commercial, is used by the community. We are going to lose our community gardens. There is a beautiful wetland with wildlife. We are going to lose this for unneeded homes? For unneeded office space? The developer is not following the BTS Plan. I have seen the BTS Plan with drawings of 250 single detached homes on twice as much land as they have. They want to have stacked flats, townhouses, duplexes, owner-occupied. I am a licensed attorney and don't know how deed restrictions can require owner occupancy? We are going to end up with a big mistake, the loss of the heart of our community. This will be a future rental slum. MARTHA KWANT, 421 N. FAIRVIEW, LANSING. I am on the ENO Board, on the Board of Directors for Ferris Development, and I have been attending the BTS Committee meetings for about a year. The neighborhood is nervous about a request that we trust the developer and the City in moving this process along as opposed to having the more tangible market study and site plan. The process has been difficult because the information provided by the developer is not indicative of the time and energy they are going to put in when they know they are going to move forward. We understand that. We have the BTS Study that is very well thought out. A top priority is green space. I am nervous about the compromises. Many years of thought and energy have gone into this, and we should not go too quickly on it. CAROL WOOD, LANSING CITY COUNCILMEMBER, REPRESENTING HAROLD LEEMAN who is ill and unable to be here. Harold is an east sider, a City Councilmember who has worked with the BTS Committee. Over the past several years there have been representatives from neighborhood groups, community gardeners, Lansing School District. This is an ongoing process in which community, City government, Planning, and outside interests such as GM come together to make decisions about their community. As you consider this tonight, please understand the community desire to have a place we can be proud of. As PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 6 a member of City Council, Mr. Leeman pledges that he will continue to monitor the process and keep the community involved. BRIAN SMITH, 1007 WOODBINE, LANSING, CHAIRMAN OF CITIZENS FOR A BETTER LANSING. I grew up on the east side on Foster Avenue. I used BTS as a cut-through when I was late to Pattengill and Eastern. I used to work at BTS softball field for Parks and Rec. I am against this zoning as it stands now. You should wait until you get the market study and site plan. This is one of the last green space natural area settings in the City. I wish we could take our time a little bit more. DAVE MUYLLE, 225 RUMSEY, LANSING. I am a member of the Committee and the representative of the Eastfield Neighborhood. I have letters with signatures. Everyone desperately wants to do the right thing, and everyone has a disparate idea of what that is. The members of the Committee are working very hard to understand all the issues, and also trying to represent the interests of the neighborhoods. Until this evening, I did not realize the difficulty of that. Please read the letter and move forward in a rational way. KHANH PHAM. We are here tonight as part of an ongoing process. We respect the opinions expressed here for and against the rezoning. We want to put the record straight on some things to prevent the project being skewed later on. This will not be a gated community. The streets are open. The School District, although the School Board was not actually present at the Committee, Sam Sinicropi, the Area Director from the School District, has been on the Committee. We have not pushed the School District ourselves, but we thought that through Sam, communication would have been there. This is a community project. We are not excluding or segregating or discriminating against any resident, citizen or potential buyer. Whoever wants to live there, can live there. 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, May 9, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. KATHLEEN LANGSCHWAGER. I would like to have the BTS Committee produce their attendance records, because I don't think we were represented. Chairman Keene referred Ms. Langschwager to Mr. Kibbey. Ms. Langschwager said she would prefer the attendance records were given to Chairman Keene. She believes the School District was not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 7 represented. Mr. Ruff said minutes of all the meetings are available and can be provided to Ms. Langschwager and to the School Board. Ms. Langschwager said she believes they were set on a Thursday night so the Board could not attend. Nancy Erickson has been off the Board for over a year and a half. We want to work with these people too, but I want the truth to be out here and not a bunch of misconceptions. B. NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, Expand Nonconforming Use Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request from the owners of the Deja Vu property at 1000 W. Jolly Road for a Class A Nonconforming Status to ensure that the building can be expanded and if necessary restored and that the nonconforming use can continue. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing building by putting an addition onto the east side of it that is 12 ft x 132 ft., basically, the distance of the existing building extended 12 ft to the east, for an estimated cost of $300,000. The property is currently a Class B Nonconforming Status for both use and parking, which limits the amount of improvements to 35 percent of the building value. The way we figured it is that they had roughly $20,000 to $30,000 left, but by putting $300,000 into it, it well exceeds their limits, so they are requesting a nonconforming status. Section 1296.01(c) of the Zoning Code states that no adult business shall be located within 300 ft of any residentially used or zoned land. This property is well within that distance of residential; in fact, roughly to the east half of its property area is residential. As part of the proposal, they intend to remove the existing ground pole in front of the building. They will use strictly wall signage. In addition to that, they intend to relocate part of the entrance to the building to the east side, which would face the parking lot rather than face the road. That is positive in some respects; in other respects, it is negative. It is negative inasmuch as typically you can't have something like that, especially with the wall signage, facing a residential neighborhood. So there are some issues there, but the general request is for a Class A in order to be able to put an extension onto the east side of the building. They have been working with an ad hoc committee of business owners on the south side. They have agreed to make some changes to the building with regard to the sign and entrance way, and in exchange for that, the business group is working with them on their expansion. Ms. Foster asked what they are going to do with the signage that is on the wall of the building. Ms. Stachowiak said that has not been addressed at all. They show eliminating the ground pole sign. Before they would be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 8 able to put up any additional wall signage, it would have to be in compliance with the Sign Code before we would issue any permits. Mr. Smith said the map shows the east side of the building being zoned "J" and "A", but under General Information, Surrounding Zoning on the East is given as "D-1" Professional and "C" Residential. Why is the difference? Ms. Stachowiak said North and East. To the east, the southernmost parcel directly to the east is zoned "D-1" Professional Office and everything north of that is zoned "C" Residential, so that is correct. Mr. Ruff explained that the "A" District is part of their property. Their building is approximately a foot off that line that divides the "A" from the "F". It runs north and south on the drawing. The "A" area had been approved to be developed with surface parking and landscaped to accommodate that. What is reflected in the adjacent zoning is property that is outside that, the "C" District. There are some duplexes in the "C" District that surrounds the property. There is "D-1" on the extreme south, east of the existing property. JIM ST. JOHN, REPRESENTING Dej& Vu CONSULTING, INC. AS THE CEO. I am here to explain our intentions. We met with the neighborhood committees. One suggestion was that we put in new landscaping. At one meeting, L&L suggested that we move the entrance to the other side. We said if we could expand and rearrange, we would be willing to do that, and take down the sign and wall signage. The building would have nothing on it except for the entrance canopy, and that will be limited to some fiberoptic lighting. That was the intent. Everybody was pleased. It was not my intent to expand the building. It was a desire to work with the neighborhood to make it better to live in. MIKE MARKEY, REPRESENTING KRUGER PROPERTIES. Kruger Properties owns lots 7 and 8 of Delray Manor, due east of this project. Last year we were denied a variance to build on those two lots because there was not enough square footage, even though they are zoned "C" two-family. I mentioned during that meeting for the variance that Deja Vu was not a real good neighbor. Now what they are proposing to do is relocate all of the traffic into the back yard of those properties that front on Delray. Right now they bring the traffic in from Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., and it stays concentrated along that corridor. This would bring it in so that it is directly adjacent to all the back yards that are duplexes, as well as the single families that are across the street. We are adamantly opposed to that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 9 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, May 9, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. P-1-2001, Tentative Preliminary Plat, Wexford Woods This is a request by Mike Markey and Kruger Properties for Tentative Preliminary Plat approval for a subdivision to be known as Wexford Woods. It is located south of Jolly Road, west of Wexford Avenue. It is 7.85 acres in size; Master Plan designation is for single family development of 0-7 dwelling units per acre. They propose 28 single family lots numbered 1 through 28, with one outlot. As proposed, it would have one road leading to the subdivision that would come off Wexford Avenue. We have had a good response to our agency referrals; however, none has been received from Transportation, a very important agency. They will address the transportation issue, the primary concern, judging from the letters we have received. The Public Service Dept. has listed some general utility items they need to have addressed. The property is currently vacant, but it is currently platted. This would be a replat. In order to change an existing plat, a circuit court action is required. The developer has sought the circuit court action; he is in process. The City Attorney's office has received notification of that, as have the neighbors surrounding the development. It is appropriate for the developer to be going through the tentative and eventually preliminary plat stage of this approval while that action is in process. It would only be a concern if we got to the final plat stage and it had not gone through the circuit court. This is quite appropriate, having them applying for tentative preliminary plat approval while they are seeking to vacate the existing plat. The location map in the packet shows a 12-ft sliver at the southeast end of the property that leads to Wexford Avenue. That is part of the existing property to be platted, but it is not included as part of this plat, nor is it part of the vacation of the existing plat. The developer intends to sell it or deed that to one of the adjoining property owners. Such is the case with a 370 ft x 87 ft parcel labeled as Lot 42 at the northeast edge of the site. The developer intends to deed off or split it to the adjoining owners as well. Although those are part of the existing parcel, that is not included as part of the plat. That comment was raised in the City Assessor's referral. We will have a more detailed report for the Zoning and Ordinance meeting next week. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 10 Mr. Smith asked about an increase in traffic of 10-12 percent. It cites that as a statistic, apparently from the Public Service Department. "I would like a better context, if in fact that is correct." What are the traffic rates? Is the increase for a particular time of day? Ms. Stachowiak is awaiting the transportation review to address traffic and road locations, etc. As a general rule, a single family lot generates approximately ten trips a day. A trip is one way. "I can't confirm these statistics." Mr. Frederick asked what the current plat allows to be developed on this property. Ms. Stachowiak said it is currently zoned "A" Residential, 7.85 acres in size and 0-7 units per acre. They are well within those limits. Ms. Foster asked if there are wetlands here. Ms. Stachowiak said that has not been determined. That is a question that MDEQ, which responded on an agency referral, and Public Service had, using aerial photos that show wet areas on site. Whether it is a wetland or a state- regulated wetland is yet to be determined. That has to be figured out before we will make a recommendation. The developer is aware that he needs to do some study and provide some information and possibly obtain a permit from MDEQ to make improvements in that area. MIKE MARKEY, ON BEHALF OF KRUGER PROPERTIES, owner of this property. We proposed 28 single family lots for this 7.85 acres, with a density of about 3.5 units per acre. All of the lot sizes far exceed the minimum requirements according to the City of Lansing subdivision ordinance, as well as the "A" Zoning classification. If we were going with minimums, we would net an extra three lots in this plat. We are excited by this because it is the first "move-up" style subdivision proposed in the City of Lansing in excess of 15-20 years. Our lot sizes are over 7,000 sq ft each; we expect the housing to be marketed in the $100,000-135,000 range. So we are a move-up, not a starter subdivision. The house sizes will be between 1,000 and 1,200 sq ft, and the two-stories between 1,200 and 1,600 sq. ft. It has been a lengthy and expensive process for us to even get this far. To consider a preliminary plat, we have to vacate the existing plat, so we can replat the same ground under the configuration of our proposal. We have to go through a legal process and get a circuit court order allowing that. Everybody has been notified concerning the vacation of the existing plat. We are between 30 and 60 days away from the final wrap up of the lawsuit. We had to notify between 60 and 70 different entities and/or people. We are excited by this because we feel strongly that the time is right for this project. We received a letter dated mid-April from Public Service regarding the wetland; as of April 30 we have made application to MDEQ for a wetlands determination. We don't know how long that will take. Until we get that information back, I do not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 11 see any sense in having it go to the Committee next Wednesday. We are working with Fred White Engineering to have all the information so we can make the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on June 13 and have the information then. Mr. Frederick asked about the current plat. Mr. Markey said any lot of record can only be split four times before it has to be subdivided. The frontage lots originally were approximately 132 ft wide x 700 ft deep. The frontage lots were split off some time ago, and because they are 132 ft wide, in essence they have already been split twice. So by law and subdivision regulations, there would be only two more splits available for the back of each one of those lots. Mr. Ruff added that these are huge lots as platted. The backs of the lots can't be developed without bringing in a road and creating infrastructure for the lots. Mr. Ruff asked about the outlot proposed for storm detention. How would that be maintained? Mr. Markey said he has not communicated with Mr. White regarding how he proposes to do that. JAMES J. JACKSON, 3121 WOODBINE. I live in the Wexford area and I represent the neighborhood association. Our concern is the way it is being replatted. The only entry and exit from this property dead ends right at the driveway of Wexford Elementary School. The Public Service Department said they estimate 10-12 percent increase in traffic. The 10- 12 percent increase coming out at Wexford School causes serious problems. It is a congested area. Wexford is the narrowest street in our subdivision. When a car is parked on Wexford, the buses cannot negotiate a turn out of the driveway of the school parking lot. We believe it is a dangerous mix of pedestrians, student, bus and vehicular traffic. A subdivision would only exacerbate an already-hazardous situation. You should reject this replatting the way it is laid out now. The developer should plan entry-exit at another location than by Wexford School. It is a serious public safety problem left as is. SHIRLEY GRAVES, 5220 WEXFORD RD, LANSING. I back up Mr. Jackson wholeheartedly. I disagree with the platting and with the street. It will come out at Wexford School. I object to the subdivision and mostly to the street. DALE BLAKESLEE, 5117 WEXFORD, LANSING, there since 1979. A fire truck could not get up and down that street any time during school. They would have to go down Wise Road and come back up. It's not feasible. If this is not ready for approval, why are we here? I disagree with it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 12 Mr. Ruff said this is a tentative preliminary plat, part of a process. It is a critical time of investigation, when we learn what the issues are. That is the reason for the public hearing, for getting input from everybody. TRUDIE WILSON, 5230 WEXFORD, LANSING. I agree with the previous comments of objection. I live across from the school and have arrived home many times to find people parked in my driveway waiting to pick up children. I object to this. I sent letters to Councilmembers about my concerns. THOMAS PATRICK, 1320 W. ST. JOSEPH ST., LANSING. The school has some property behind it; maybe additional parking could be constructed there. ANTHONY J. SZILAGYI, 1222 N. HAYFORD, LANSING. I am excited about this project; it allows people to stay in the City of Lansing rather than moving to the suburbs. It provides good, new homes in the City. People are concerned about traffic. The plan is acceptable to the Lansing School District. Regarding access to the proposed subdivision, this access is the safest, best way to facilitate the project. If individuals are misusing the areas on the street, it is an enforcement problem. Abuses should be controlled by enforcement and counteraction of the abuses. MATT MARTIN, 5336 WEXFORD ROAD. I am concerned with the traffic issue. There are wetlands. The safety of children should considered. 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, May 9, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Chairman Keene said the applicant has requested postponement until the June 13, 2001 meeting. People are welcome to attend the May 9, 2001 meeting, though no action will occur on the case until at least June 13. D. Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request to rezone a parcel of land of approximately .43 acres in size, on the corner of Pennsylvania and Jolly Road, the northwest corner, for the purpose of utilizing the existing site and building for a used car sales business. It is a former gas station site. They do not intend to make any changes to the building. This afternoon we received a fax from Richard Cooley, representing the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 13 applicant. He provides a letter and shows where they propose to put some planter boxes. One of the conditions of having a used car business in the "F" Commercial District is that you provide a five-foot buffer strip. The site is 100 percent covered in pavement. They propose in lieu of tearing up pavement and installing traditional landscaping, that they would use these planter boxes. They will submit more detailed information at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. There are contamination issues on site that will have to be dealt with. Mr. Frederick asked about the letter provided by Mr. Cooley about BP- AMOCO saying they may allow removal of the pavement area based on an "approved by them" plan? Is there anyone else who might have some input on removal of the cap over the contaminated area besides BP-AMOCO? Particularly public agencies? Maybe MDEQ? Ms. Stachowiak said if the request is approved, they would have to go through the site plan review process and submit a site plan that met all of our requirements for parking landscape screening, location of garbage, etc., all conditions of having a used car lot in the "F" Commercial District. RICHARD COOLEY, 9290 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. This former gas station property has been vacant and abandoned for about two years now. It is owned by BP-AMOCO. There are many restrictions on the real estate by them. They will not allow any use that allows gas and oil sales, or a convenience store, or any use that remotely resembles competition for the BP-AMOCO station right across the street. There are limited uses for this parcel. The applicant feels his proposal makes a very good adaptive reuse of the property, and is consistent with area land use patterns and will be an excellent use of the "F" Commercial District. I want to state emphatically for the record that the applicant has no intention of erecting a billboard on the property. I will say that before City Council, and put that on the site plan if the rezoning is approved. The applicant wants to do a good job of renovating the property. He has two other business locations in the area, one on Saginaw Highway west of 1-96, there for 16 years. Delta Township is pleased with him as a business location. He has another location in Charlotte that has been there for about two years. The proposed use is appropriate for the property. It will allow the current owner, who is responsible for the contamination, to continue to monitor the contamination through MDEQ permits on the property which has a very limited use potential. There are several monitoring wells on the site, and a couple other wells to measure the build-up of gases or movement of underground contamination. The paving seals the surface of the property; however, recently they have conceded some paving may be removed. They won't allow any removal of concrete, but they may allow removal of some asphalt. We think we can work out a plan concerning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 14 the five-foot buffer strip and landscape and screening and still please BP-AMOCO. We hope the land owner and the City will approve our plan. am putting together a more complete set of exhibits to be presented to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. 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, May 9, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-7-2001, Vacant Land South Side of West Main Street between Max Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211 Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a request by Sherry Ocelnik of Worldwide Real Estate on behalf of General Motors Corporation. The property is a single lot, Lot 5, of Block 204, as shown in the packet. The entire block is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial, except for this lot, which is zoned "B" Residential. The proposal is to rezone that property to "I" Heavy Industrial to be consistent with the rest of the block. The block is vacant but for one house, shown on the location map as 815 Max Avenue. There is a home there. General Motors either owns or is in the process of purchasing that property. According to the application, General Motors has a purchase agreement with the owners of the property that is the subject of this rezoning request. The application indicates the purpose of the rezoning is for future development of a building or parking. They were not definite about their plans. SHERRY OCELNIK, WITH GENERAL MOTORS, REPRESENTING THEM ON THIS PARCEL. Over the years GM has acquired this entire block. At this juncture, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to pick up this additional piece. We have been able to come to terms with Mr. and Mrs. Daniels, owners. We have a period of due diligence, part of which is our ability to change zoning to make this desirable to us. That is our request this evening. We do not currently have a plan to develop this site. It would be in conjunction with our Grand River Assembly Facility and/or some sort of conducive use in the neighborhood or the community of the Greater Lansing area. We don't have anything for submission; we would like to obtain the entire block and have consistent zoning with the remainder. THOMAS DANIEL, 4726 RICHMOND, LANSING. My wife and I own the property. I am concerned that this could be held and rezoned after the date of purchase. We have 180 days before the purchase deadline; that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 16 Room to address NCU-3-2001. In the absence of Mr. Ruge, Mr. Smith was appointed to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: April 17, 2001 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of April 17, 2001 without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of April 17, 2001 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. Foster, Chair. The Committee met this evening. a. NCU-3-2001, 1916 Olds Avenua, Class A Nonconforming Status The Original Church of God, owner, requests Class A Nonconformity status in orde'r to exceed the 35 percent of the valuation of the structure expenditure limit and add a 20' x 30' addition to a nonconforming property. Staff recommends approving the request for a Class A Nonconformity status with conditions. In Committee, it was moved, and seconded to approve NCU-3-2001, 1916 Olds Avenue, Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1. That the minimum number of accessible parking spaces, required per Zoning Ordinance, be provided on-site as necessary. 2. That landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the west, north and east lot lines. 3. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking spaces, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process. 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 with conditions NCU-3-2001, 1916 Olds Avenue, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 15 would be about July 18. It was signed January 19. We have no objection to following through with the rezoning as long as it falls after the purchase. Mr. Ruff said the Daniels have talked with staff; they are concerned about rezoning of the property if GM does not purchase the property. I said we could work with the owners, GM, Planning Board and City Council to move their rezoning through the process to the final City Council action, voting on an ordinance. We could make sure everything coincides satisfactory to everybody. HERMAN GREEN, 1816 W. KALAMAZOO STREET. I own property at 817 Middle Street. My concern is about the zoning. The industry owns quite a bit of property, and we have almost been boxed in. I want to know if there are plans in the near future to square that off. They own south of Williams Street, to Middle Street, and they own that part that they are talking about rezoning. That is leaving us in kind of a sandwich between 1-496 and Olds. With the traffic going through there, if they rezone that and make a parking lot or bring industry in there, it's going to be very hard to keep people in those homes there. Some homes have already been demolished, and some are deteriorated. To keep it up, you have to invest a lot of money in it, but there is no way you can get your money out of it if you sell it to an individual. I was interested in whether you have any information concerning whether they are planning on acquiring that block west of Max Avenue. Mr. Ruff said we don't have any information on that. For the purposes of this rezoning, they own predominantly the entire block except for this one piece. That is why this rezoning is before the Planning Board. We haven't received requests for rezoning Block 203, west of Max Avenue. 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, May 9, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - During the recess, the Zoning and Ordinance met to consider and act on NCU-3-2001, 1916 Olds Avenue, Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recess; carried; unanimous. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet in the Conference PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 17 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . Ave Patrick. . .Ave Smith . Ave Keene . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimously; NCU-3-2001, 1916 Olds Avenue, Class A Nonconforming Status with conditions as follows: 1. That the minimum number of accessible parking spaces, required per Zoning Ordinance, be provided on-site as necessary; 2. That landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the west, north and east lot lines; 3. That all other requirements (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking spaces, etc.) be met through the Site Plan Review process was APPROVED. Mr. Ruff informed Rev. Patrick that the Planning Office can sign the permit tomorrow. b. Historic District Ordinance Amendments Mr. Frederick, who attended the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting when the Historic District Ordinance Amendments were considered, reported. This was the result of much discussion and hard work by Ms. Foster who put in most of the work with changes and comments on the proposed revisions. When we met on April 11, we recommended supporting the Historic District changes, subject to satisfying comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee, as well as comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. The comments are attached, as well as comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends supporting the Historic District Ordinance Amendments, subject to satisfying comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee as well as the comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the Historic District Ordinance Amendments were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 18 Next meeting, Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. a. Act-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel (Lansing Printing Company), Vacate Portion of Beech Street ROW The proposed vacation is located on the east and west sides of Beech Street. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial and mainly surrounded by industrial uses and/or zoned area. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should it have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The extent is vacating a portion of the Beech street ROW on the east and west sides of the street and the remaining 40' ROW will be for the traffic signs and accessibility to the single property owner. On February 27, 2001, the Lansing Planning Board tabled ACT-25-2000 for additional information regarding the vacation of a portion of Beech Street. As you are aware, the original proposal for ACT-25-2000 was to vacate a portion of both sides of Beech Street ROW which would entail granting an easement to the bar owner at 511 E. Hazel Street, since he owns the 33' wide lot at the north end of Beech Street. However, the bar owner was opposed to the easement. The City met with the applicant and other interested parties to discuss other options. Another option proposed included a land swap which would have been an advantage to the bar owner since he would have received more land. However, the bar was opposed to this option because the configuration of the land was not what he expected. Since these options have been explored and the applicant is anxious to start construction of their new building on the east side of the street, they inquired about the possibility of vacating only the east side of Beech Street, resulting in a 14.75' vacation. In this proposal, the bar owner would not be impacted. The applicant has agreed not to park vehicles on Beech Street and accommodate a 5' wide sidewalk. The Planning Office would require that no planting is provided between the sidewalk and the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 19 The proposed vacation of 14.75' would be located only on the east side of Beech Street. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial and mainly surrounded by industrial uses and/or zoned area. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. Due to the past experiences that the City encountered with previous vacations of ROW, it would be advisable to issue a permit, easement or license to the property owner. Staff recommends that the 14.75' vacation be permitted in the Beech Street ROW on the east side only by easement or license, a term no greater than the life of the building. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence regarding the location, character and extent of ACT-25-2000 in accordance with its Act 285 review procedures, that 1. The proposal is in keeping with the industrial character of the area and the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed ROW encroachment is necessary to accommodate the expansion of the Lansing Printing Company. 3. The proposal does not affect the Beech Street roadway or the placement of existing utilities. 4. The proposal would not affect the Beech Street access to the Green House Bar at 511 Hazel Street. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel (Lansing Printing Company) to permit the 14.75' encroachment onto the Beech Street ROW on the east side by easement or license, for a term no greater than the life of the building. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Act-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel (Lansing Printing Company), to permit the 14.75' encroachment onto the Beech Street ROW on the east side by easement or license, for a term no greater than the life of the building. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 20 Mr. Ruff noted that Mr. Rieske worked hard to figure out how to accommodate the development for Lansing Printing and worked to reach agreement with competing interests for access to the roadway. The flexibility of Lansing Printing is also appreciated in the resolution of the issue. Patrick. . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Frederick . .Aye Foster . .Aye Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Act-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel (Lansing Printing Company), to permit the 14.75' encroachment onto the Beech Street ROW on the east side by easement or license, for a term no greater than the life of the building, was APPROVED. b. Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW This item was considered this evening. At the regularly scheduled meeting, a quorum was not available because of the need for Ms. Keene to recuse herself. Peckham is requesting to build a sign for their business in the right-of-way along their property at 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. The proposed sign will provide direction for clients and visitors. Peckham is requesting permission to install a sign in the right-of-way east of 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. The right-of-way is 50' wide by 360' long with newly installed sidewalk, trees, and grass. Existing utilities are found in the right-of-way area. The proposed 4 ft x 10 ft sign would be installed near the northern portion of the right-of-way. An ACT 285 is required to acquire property for a public use. The City's Transportation Office is opposed to any sign in the right-of-way when other alternatives exist. A ground pole sign could be placed on Peckham's property and out of the right-of-way. A sign variance maybe required depending on its size, height, and setback. Two wall signs totaling 300 square feet could also be placed on the building. Staff recommends denying this request to install a 4' x 10' sign in the right-of-way. The applicant has alternative sign options to provide visibility and direction for visitors. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 21 Ms. Keene recused herself from the case due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Patrick participated in her stead. In Committee this evening, the facts and alternatives were discussed and considered, and it was concluded that they wanted to stay with a ground-based sign. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried 2-1 to recommend approving placement of the sign in the right-of- way. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that he based his support for this action on his experience with sign variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He was impressed that the applicants were willing to forego their signage by right, which would be signs on the building itself because of architectural considerations and preferred to put a low ground sign in because of the width of the right-of-way and the driveway and the driveway entrances and because of the placement of the building. They had to make accommodation for a sewer easement or drain easement in the back of the building. They were stuck either with going with this particular sign or with wall signs. This sign is more tasteful. They were also willing to compromise and have the sign moved back as close as they could over their property line, having part of the sign on their property and part on right-of-way. Doing this would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals because if the sign encroached onto their property, they would have to observe setback requirements. A variance sounded like it might be possible, but the earliest it could be heard would be at least six weeks from now. "I chose instead to support allowing the sign to be placed in the right-of-way. I wanted to be sure my logic got included in the record." Mr. Smith said he appreciated Mr. Frederick's comments. He too was impressed by the applicants' willingness to compromise, and also by their presentation and pointing out factors about the architectural features of the building which is unique. Wall signs could have been put on if designed by the architect that might not have destroyed the aesthetic integrity of building, but by and large, the building deserved to not be disturbed by signage. The width of the right-of-way was another issue, as was trees planted having potential for obstructed view, and positioning of the building on the site. Ms. Patrick said she too was impressed with the applicant's due diligence in trying to meet all the City's requirements and moving their plans for the sign several times and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 22 trying to seek alternatives. She voted no because she thought they could pursue having the sign on their own property; however, Mr. Frederick indicated that could not be done soon because of BZA timing. Because of the applicants' location, width of right-of-way, and their attempts to meet all of the City's requirements, she is prepared on the final vote to change her vote to approving it. Ms. Keene said she is on the Board of Directors of Peckham and will not be voting in this matter. Foster . .Ave Patrick. . .Ave Smith. . .Aye Frederick . . Ave Keene . Abstain On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; 1 abstention, carried; Act-1-01, 2511 N. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Peckham Inc., Sign in ROW was APPROVED. Mr. Frederick asked if the matter would be referred to the Mayor and Council with a recommendation of approval, or with no recommendation? Mr. Ruff said because it is an Act 285 Review, four is a majority of the seated board members, so it will be forwarded with a favorable recommendation. C. Act-4-01, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station, Market for Sale. The Lansing Fire Department is requesting authorization to market the property at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. Chief Martin would like the proceeds from the sale to apply toward the marketing of this property and future acquisition. Lansing Police Communication intends to relocate the 911 equipment to the new fire station. The equipment could not be moved on the same schedule as the fire station operation. If the equipment is not relocated before the subject property is sold, then Police Communication needs to consider establishing an ownership, easement, or leasehold interest in the property to secure, service, and gain access to the tower and related equipment. Operation of the 911 tower and equipment is vital in providing emergency communication to protect the health and safety of residents in south Lansing. Once the new fire station is completely occupied, the subject property at 3708 Pleasant Grove will no longer have a public purpose. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 23 The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use for this area as community facility. Community facilities include parkland, churches, hospitals, care centers and other institutions, both public and private. Currently, the property is zoned "A" Residential, which allows one-family dwelling, public park and playground, or family day care home. Uses such as a recreational facility, which is intended to serve the surrounding residential area, or child care facility which meets specific conditions are permitted with a Special Land Use Permit. Another option to market the property is to rezone the property for a use that could utilize the existing building and be compatible with surrounding land uses. Land uses permitted in the "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, and "D-1" Professional Office Zoning Districts would be compatible considering the location and existing land uses. Three parties have expressed interest in purchasing the property to the Planning Office. A site plan from the buyer will be required for City agencies to review and approve. City Council will approve the ultimate sale of the property. Staff recommends approval of Act-4-01, the marketing for sale of the fire station property located at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road (retaining 30' depth along Ferrol and 50' depth along Pleasant Grove for ROW purposes) for uses permitted in the "A" Residential, "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, or "D-1" Professional Office zoning districts. In Committee, it was found that 1. The area is zoned "A" Residential, and residential or office uses would be compatible with the surrounding area. 2. The property is surplus, due to the construction of the new fire station at Pleasant Grove and Jolly. 3. The 911 equipment and tower will be relocated to an alternative site if feasible. If the tower remains on site, then an ownership, easement, or leasehold interest in the tower, supports and equipment will need to be retained to secure, access, and service the tower. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 24 4. Property improvements may be necessary prior to sale to address concerns regarding front yard parking and security of the 911 tower (if it remains on-site). 5. The property may need to be rezoned to "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, or "D-1" Professional Office districts in order to accommodate a specific reuse proposal. 6. A site plan will be required from the buyer for review and approval by City agencies. 7. City Council approval is required for sale of the property. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-4-01, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station, Market for Sale. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve Act-4-01, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station, Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Smith. . .Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . .Aye Patrick. . .Ave Keene . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; Act-4-01, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station, Market for Sale was APPROVED. d. Act-9-01, W End of Kaplan, S. Side (3301-01-05-352-001), Acquire for River Trail The City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation is requesting to acquire property for public recreational use. Mr. Richard Schaefer was in attendance representing the Parks Department. The subject property is just west of adjacent City (BWL) property, just north of the wastewater treatment plant, and south and across the river from Tecumseh Park. The property is irregularly shaped, almost a half an acre in size, and bounded by the Grand River on the northwest and west. It is wooded, with some old concrete rubble that was placed there in the past. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 25 Staff recommends approval of ACT-9-2001, the request to acquire the subject property at the west end of Kaplan for the River Trail. In Committee, it was found that: 1. The acquisition would facilitate future River Trail development, and 2. It would be compatible with the Plan for Development of Lansing's waterfront. 3. There are no adverse impacts associated with acquiring the property for the River Trail. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend adoption of staff's recommendation for approval of Act-9-01, W. End of Kaplan, S. Side (3301-01-05-352-001), Acquire for River Trail. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve Act-9-01, W End of Kaplan, S. Side (3301-01-05-352-001, Acquire for River Trail. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . .Ave Foster •Aye Patrick . Ave Smith .Ave Keene . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously, Act-9-01, W End of Kaplan, S. Side (3301-01-05-352-001, Acquire for River Trail was APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 22, 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 We have budget hearings with City Council coming up this Friday. We expect them to move along well. Because it is a lean budget, there are not many changes, but we do see good things ahead. We are looking at census information, and there is potential for the City to do some conflict resolution concerning associated data, but that can't be done until the census data is released in June. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 26 We have submitted dates to the Mayor's Office for the annual Lugnuts ball game on Tuesday nights. We expect confirmation shortly. 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. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-V Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Ms. Keene said regarding Act-4-2001, she was struck by the view of the sign location, in contrast to the photographs. It is hard to tell from photographs. You get a better sense, viewing it on location. She hopes there is a way we can get better quality photographs. Mr. Ruff said he hopes to get some color photos out to the Board. It is difficult when it is a special production. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith said he has been asked to address a group of retired Kiwanis Club members concerning the Planning Board and what it does, on May 23. He asked for input and ideas. Mr. Ruff offered materials and brochures. Mr. Smith asked about a development on Mt. Hope near Lewton, east of Grand Haven Manor. He recollected the Board's recommendation to retain trees along the edge of the Lewton property and make sure there is good buffering there. They took out all the trees; now it is just open plain. Mr. Ruff said a landscape plan and site plan were received, and both he and Mr. Quon visited the site before any materials were removed. We still have not approved a landscape plan. They just went ahead and removed the trees. Their primary concern was to make the site suitable for their construction activities. When we reviewed the site, we also asked the City Forester to go out on site. It was a wood lot, with depth and length of vegetation. Of the vegetation, there was little of any quality for retention--dead elms, a few live elms, wild roses, and a few red osier dogwood. We have been working with them since then on putting back in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 27 quality plant materials that would help to the greatest extent to provide not only an edge but some depth to the landscaping instead of all lawn around buildings. "I had a conversation with the owner/developer myself out of frustration." Not only did they remove the trees, but they put in a drainage system to help drain the site in preparation for construction, all of this done without an approved site plan. There was damage to City-owned trees south of Lewton School. We discussed those issues, and we are trying to get back a plan that will help. You can't replace wood lots as such, because of the depth, but we can maximize the number and type of landscape with quality materials, canopy and understory materials as well as evergreen materials to try to bring back both height and depth to the buffer. It will take time. The rear of the site was not disturbed to a great extent. They cleared development area and area for storm water detention. We are working on getting other landscape improvements plus buffer depth on the east line. Ms. Keene asked what was their explanation for clearing prior to site plan review, and are there consequences? If there are no consequences, what is to prevent other developers from doing likewise? Mr. Ruff said they had no explanation. We acted in good faith. "I don't believe they acted in good faith." With that, we are working diligently and trying to get a good buffer. We haven't gone looking for penalties at this time. Ms. Foster said we need to do that, to ask for penalties. It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. It is reprehensible. They need to be held accountable for their actions. Mr. Ruff said they did not even ask for forgiveness. Mr. Frederick asked if they need site plan approval? Mr. Ruff said yes, they can't get a building permit until they get site plan approval. Mr. Frederick said it would seem to be appropriate for them to come up with a site plan that rectifies the clear cutting before they get a permit. Mr. Ruff said if they had tried to work around existing vegetation, it would look much the same, based on the materials that were there. Ms. Foster said not only should they fix it, but it should be a priority before they can do anything else, that plantings be replaced with material of the size removed. Even if they were trash trees, that is no reason to remove them. The habitat that was removed, and the land that was drained? That was habitat, identified to be left alone. Mr. Ruff said they did have to implement a storm water management plan. There could have been an edge saved. Ms. Foster said the edge could have taken care of some storm water management but now as a consequence of their actions, they have to do more. "I would like to see some penalties." Mr. Frederick said he came in to the Planning Office for information. He received excellent customer service from both Donna and the Planning receptionist. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 28 Ms. Foster said she will be unable to attend the Zoning and Ordinance May 9 meeting. Ms. Keene said she would attend, though she teaches a class at LCC at 6 p.m. Mr. Rieske said, regarding Act-25-2000, that Doris Witherspoon put in a lot of work on the case, and he wanted to make sure the Board knew that. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick said at irjz� ;deeps' Jiffy Mart property, 4013 Aurelius, A-OK Heating, Cooling and Plumbing has put up a new sign that looks like it is the public right-of-way. There are a lot of signs on Keeps' Jiffy Mart, too. Ms. Patrick said she received a postcard notification on the McDonald's Sign on Cedar Street for a variance. Mr. Ruff said they want to change the changeable copy portion of the sign. They have a nonconforming sign. They can keep that but on the bottom of the sign, where they place letters, they want to change that to an electronic sign, a little smaller. "I can't authorize that because it is a change in the frame face of the sign. They need a variance." There is a fencing and landscaping issue there, too, because they changed the elevation of the site. They have to present a different landscape and buffering plan for that side. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:13 p.m. Respect f II it James A. Ruff, S cretary, Planning Board =05012001 64 ACT-25-2000 619 E. Hazel Street Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: David W. Starr Ledy Design Group 3135 Pine Tree Road Suite C Lansing, MI 48911 REQUESTED ACTION: Partial vacation of Beech Street ROW PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: 21.25' x 198' = 4,207 sq. ft. (E. side of Beech Street) 21.25' x 198' = 4,207 sq. ft. (W. side of Beech Street) APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a vacation of 4,207 sq. ft. of Beech Street Right-of-Way on the east and west sides of the street. EXISTING LAND USE: ROW EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No Change SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: Residential, Interstate 496 S: Residential E: Lansing Printing Company W: Old building/residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "H" Light Industrial W "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Industrial use. ACT-25-2000 619 E. Hazel St Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW Page 2 AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor: See attached. Building: No objection. BWL: See attached. Code Compliance: No response received yet. Consumers Energy: Please reserve easement for utilities (See attached for location of gas main) Development: No comment. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objections. Access to buildings must be provided. Hydrants must remain or be replaced in approved location. Parks & Rec.: No response received yet. Police: No response received yet. Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Public Service: Reducing ROW will reduce snow storage area. Residential properties have sidewalk benefits which they would lose. Public Service recommends vacating ROW to one foot behind sidewalk with utility easements being reserved. Transportation: For all intents and purposes, this section of Beech Street functions as a private road for Lansing Printing and bar customers. Therefore, the entire street should be vacated, put on the tax rolls and maintained by the adjacent property owners. The public 40' section should not be retained without public sidewalks to potential liability issues. ACT-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel St., Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW Page 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION According to the applicant, the Lansing Printing Company wished to build a new building on lots 3 and 4 on the east side of Beech Street while expanding the existing building on the west side of Beech Street. Parking will be expanded on the west side of Beech Street and new parking added on the east side. Lansing Printing Company owns the majority of the adjacent properties in the area. The existing houses are in the process of being demolished to accommodate the expansion. Also, the applicant stated that public utilities will be granted easements for existing lines and equipment (See Exhibit B). Existing roadway and traffic signs will be within 40' ROW. The remaining single property owner (bar) will still have access. According to the applicant, the existing bar (Lot 6, 511 E. Hazel Street) currently has a service entrance from Beech Street along the North 33 feet of Lot 3 (adjacent to the highway right-of- way). In order to maintain access to this service drive, the applicant is proposing to leave 40' of Beech Street ROW to maintain the current street. The vacated portion of the street will allow the new building on lots 3 and 4 to be built closer to the street and allow parking to be expanded closer to the street on the west side of Beech Street. A utility easement will be provided on the west side of Beech Street for the existing utilities. The City granted a license (ACT-5-2000) to the owner of 621 E. Hazel Street to occupy a 1' x 68' encroachment into the Beech Street ROW, fora term no greater than the life of the building. ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). LOCATION: The proposed vacation is located on the east and west sides of Beech Street. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial. The portion of the property requested to be vacated is located on the east and west side of Beech Street, specifically 198', north and south and 21.25', east and west. The resulting legal description is as follows: The West 21.25 Feet of the Beech Street right-of-way lying adjacent to the East lines of Lots 3, 4 & 5 of Block 223; and also the East 21.25 Feet of Beech Street right-of-way lying adjacent to the West lines of Lots 3, 4 & 5 of Block 222, all in the Original Plat of the Town of Michigan, now City of Lansing. Also known as. the East 21.25 feet and the West 21.25 feet of the part of dedicated Beech Street lying North of Hazel Street, and South of the ACT-25-2000. 619 E. Hazel St Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW Page 4 Southerly right-of-way line of the Highway 1-496/South Cedar Street Interchange CHARACTER: The property is mainly surrounded by industrial and residential uses. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. There were several comments received in reference to maintaining the easements. Public Service has concerns regarding the reduction of the location for snow removal. EXTENT: A portion of Beech Street, specifically 21.25' wide by 198' deep on the east and west side of Beech Street is proposed to be vacated. This section of Beech Street abuts the 1-496 expressway. The remaining 40' ROW will be for the traffic signs and accessibility to the single property owner of the bar. OTHER There have been a couple of structures demolished in the area and according to the applicant a couple of additional structures are proposed for demolition. According to the Senior Preservation Planner, the houses proposed for,demolition have no historical significance. A major concern is the maintenance of utility easements in the area. Also, Public Service expressed concerns regarding a location for snow removal. According to the Traffic Engineer, since Beech Street is functioning as a private street, the entire street should be vacated, put on the tax rolls and maintained by the adjacent property owners. The public 40' section should not be retained without public sidewalks to potential liability issues. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider vacating the entire street, reserving easements for utilities and accessibility. However, according to the applicant, there is a 33' wide driveway on the west side of the street towards the end of the street which is used for truck deliveries to the bar. SUMMARY The proposed vacation is located on the east and west sides of Beech Street. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial and mainly surrounded by industrial uses and/or zoned area The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The extent is vacating a portion of the Beech street ROW on the east and west sides of the street and the remaining 40' ROW will be for the traffic signs and accessibility to the single property owner. .l ACT-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel St., Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW Page 5 RECOMMENDATION See addendum to staff report. ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT RE- REVISED - ACT-25, 00, 619 E. Hazel Street, vacate a portion of the east side of Beech Street ROW Please find attached a drawing and explanation of the proposed revision to ACT-25-00, vacation on the east side (only) of Beech Street. On February 27, 2001, the Lansing Planning Board tabled ACT-25-2000 for additional information regarding the vacation of a portion of Beech Street. As you are aware, the original proposal for ACT-25-2000 was to vacate a portion of both sides of Beech Street ROW which would entail granting an easement to the bar owner at 511 E. Hazel Street, since he owns the 33' wide lot at the north end of Beech Street. However, the bar owner was opposed to the easement. The City met with the applicant and other interested parties to discuss other options. Another option proposed included a land swap which would have been an advantage to the bar owner since he would have received more land. However, the bar was opposed to this option because the configuration of the land was not what he expected. Since these options have been explored and the applicant is anxious to start construction of their new building on the east side of the street, they inquired about the possibility of vacating only the east side of Beech Street, resulting in a 14.75' vacation (See attached revised site plan). In this proposal, the bar owner would not be impacted. The applicant has agreed not to park vehicles on Beech Street and accommodate a 5' wide sidewalk. The Planning Office would require that no planting is provided between the sidewalk and the building. Beech Street Right-of-Way 82.5' W. side Beech 41.25' E. side Beech 41.25' Proposed vacation 14 75' Sidewalk 5' Property line 1' Planting strip 5' Roadway width to back of curb 15.5' The revision-was reviewed by City departments most impacted and the comments are listed below: ACT-25-2000, 619 E. Hazel St Vacate a portion of Beech Street ROW Page 6 Assessor: Per telephone conversation with John Grannell, 4/23/01, he foresees no problems with the vacation of the east side only. Building: The Building Safety Office has no objections to the amended proposal to vacate the east side only of Beech Street per the attached. Public Service: See attached. Transportation: No response received yet. The proposed vacation of 14.75' would be located on the east side (only) of Beech Street. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and industrial and mainly surrounded by industrial uses and/or zoned area. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. Due to the past experiences that the City encountered with previous vacations of ROW, it would be advisable to issue a permit, easement or license to the property owner. Recommendation Staff recommends that the 14.75' vacation be permitted in the Beech Street ROW on the east side only by easement or license, a term no greater than the life of the building. Withers n-Act 25-2000 Revised, 61,9 E. Hazel Street From: Dan Danke To: Witherspoon, Doris Date: 4/24/01 11:56AM Subject: Act 25-2000 Revised, 619 E. Hazel Street Utility easements will be needed for utilities in any section of Beech Street that is vacated. This requirement can be deleted if the applicant can demonstrate that there are no utlities in the section to be vacated. Sidewalk infrastructure is difficult to establish, and is even more difficult to re-establish once it has been removed. Public Service cannot recommend the elimination of the sidewalk on the east of Beech Street as proposed in Deawing #1. Public Service is cognizant of the fact that it is difficult to maintain a grass strip 1-foot wide and will allow the applicant to construct a 6-foot wide sidewalk on Beech Street, as proposed in Drawing#2. Public Service has concems about trucks using the proposed truck dock blocking traffic on Beech Street. The footprint of the building located at 521 E. Hazel Street encroaches the Beech Street right-of-way by about one foot. Is it possible to clean up this issue at this time or will that owner need to come in with a separate ACT request? CC: Johnson, Dean; Rieske, Bill ON RAMP FOR I-496 -o- ---------------------------- , I ' -- I --- ' I Id f ' i 1 LI PROPOSED — I BUILDING r—i_Son o. to ' — N f --- 'a I ,q I ■, MAI ■. �T• enrr (J I � 7 STMI 1 I ; = eton euaor.c I � f r W I I I I • Qa I I — / I a■nnr -- HAZEL STREET (82.5' PUBLIC R.0.W.) Ss 1 i M199 ■a. DIG N RAMP FOR I-496 , - .E ------------- - I , I K tom` ----- I ---- Io PROPOSED 1 I BUILDING I so-FT. F.F.- I I I� 1 I I 3 I � I o I ILj w I 0 a 0 la — —— H I T a ' �HI I o ,M r<ow ca.i 1 STORY BLOCK M , I 2 STORY BULDING rW, b BLOCK BUNDMG \`F.F. - 829b1- v � I 1 Qrk now car cowrmx r R comm E gMLX HAZEL STREET (82.5' PUBLIC R.0.W.) ---- --- -- - ---------------- , I ACT-1-2001 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Peckham, Inc. 2822 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Build a sign in the 50' R.O.W. between 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. and curb. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant right-of-way EXISTING ZONING: No Zoning (right-of-way) PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: The R.O.W. is 50' x 360' -- rectangular in shape SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial & warehouse S: Industrial E: Commercial W: Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial & "F" Commercial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "F" Commercial & "G-2" Wholesale W: "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 identifies the land use surrounding this area as industrial and commercial. CASE HISTORY: None SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Peckham is requesting to build a sign for their business in the right-of-way along their property at 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. The proposed sign will provide direction for clients and visitors. Page 1 ACT-1.2001 .. 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: No comment received Assessor: No comments Building Safety: No objections to placing a sign in the proposed location if the company is aware that the sign will need to be moved when widening MLK occurs. I request that the use be reexamined if the company changes hands. I would also suggest two small directional signs be placed at each driveway. BWL: Electric: The sign may be in conflict with electric pole line and may be a safety hazard if clearances are not maintained with ANSI C2- 199707 standard. There is insufficient detail to determine clearances. Water: Approved with the condition Miss Dig System is used to confirm existing water is not in conflict. CATA: No comment received City Attorney: No comment received Consumers Energy: We would like to have the sign placed a minimum of 5' from the gas main. Development: No comment AT&T Cable: No comment received Fire Marshal: No objections Ingham Co. Drain Commissioner: No comment received Transportation Engineer: Put the sign on private property and elevate height of the sign to be viewed above parked vehicles. The Transportation Office prefers that Page 2 ACT-1-2001 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. the sign be installed on private property if at all practical. Police: No comment received Code Compliance: No comment received Public Service: No comment received MDOT: MDOT does not own the right-of-way. Public Service: No comment received Analysis Evaluation Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the use of a public right-of-way be evaluated. Location The subject right-of-way is on the southeast corner of M.L.,King Jr. Boulevard and N. Grand River Avenue, just east of the property 2511 N.-M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. Character The Peckham property is a triangular shaped property bordered by M.L. King Jr. Boulevard on the east, a railroad on the northwesterly side, and the Grand River on the south side. The right-of-way area between the east side of the Peckham property the M.L. King Jr. roadway is 50' wide and 360' feet long. This section of right-of-way has a gradual slope toward M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. Several young trees have been planted on the east side of the sidewalk near the street and grass has been installed on the west side. This section of right-of-way also contains an underground gas line and storm drain. Extent The extent of this request is to install a 10' wide by 4' high sign in the right-of-way to better market the business and provide direction to the site. The proposed sign is to be located in the northern third of the right-of-way between the driveway entrances (see site plan). The Transportation Office is opposed to placing any sign in the right-of-way when other Page 3 ACT-1-2001 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. alternatives are available. They recommend that the sign be placed on Peckham's property. If the proposed sign was on Peckham's property, the Sign Code would require it to setback 5' from the property line. The front yard area from the middle to the north entrance has limited space for a sign because of the existing drive aisle and parking area. Visibility of a ground pole sign in this area could be difficult because of the possibility of cars parking in front of the sign. However, a sign located on Peckham's property near the southern entrance is possible (see site plan). Other Another alternative would be to place wall signs on the building (see photo). Two wall signs with a total area of 300 square feet would be permit on the existing building. This would provide adequate visibility of the business to both north and south bound traffic along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Summary Peckham is requesting permission to install a sign in the right-of-way east of 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. The right-of-way is 50' wide by 360' long with newly installed sidewalk, trees, and grass. Existing utilities are found in the right-of-way area. The proposed 4'x10' sign would be installed near the northern portion of the right-of-way. An ACT 285 is required to acquire property for a public use. The City's Transportation Office is opposed to any sign in the right-of-way when other alternatives exist. A ground pole sign could be placed on Peckham's property and out of the right-of-way. A sign variance maybe required depending on its size, height, and setback. Two wall signs total 300 square feet could also be placed on the building. Recommendation Staff recommends denying this request to install a 4' x 10' sign in the right-of-way. The applicant has alternatives sign options to provide visibility and direction for visitors. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 4 11 R � •-=-„�-�,,,:-��",F„_.-� ��.�'.����'�' 'fir- ` �- - _ 71 - .. r'.> r fir. - .. ♦{ t �`S (y'i f _ Fr' � � ..' .f....•a ....ram, � � *'e.�•�ri? '�P .�t 'a �d"w'SZ�:���-T''°rdy�1� �..0 Lf Lf _ it � , - • . Sl sl \ KH EX C 1�= 51$lM,+ S .\'�•{�y-i DDDp Or - v • \ / i ti SIACC ESSIM !, vlf 11 . v \ f,'RANK[ \ Gno � o 00 - `•" v ,S ..r i o I f0,.M1C/ t.y7 rcr[P $Rr d 't !f PROP. NE.W BUILDING r,A, 835 1$ 'fr p • : 60.553 39 Sit o�'10 wr 7 O C C©- ^� INc 11D1 I ! ti . _ a o:i x 0 \ E ING •1� ""�' a..c, NI V - BI, ING + t ACC[SSIOLL C•0 •�� 66 � ��J �as� --�- $r — \ Y ML KING BLVD NORTH-$OUfM I LILAC O ML KING VD REwsior+s PECKHAM INDUSTRIES I y irru 0.1E tf ® = PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN \ R PFC'KHAM VOCATIONAL INDUSTRI S ALT91L141k"r1vS Cowsout4b {. Aii60 o4s P ^D G 0 F rn z 0 a Z $ y CKMA MILDRED AVE. CYNWOOD AVE. C HOLLYWOOD ST. x MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. O O� a •fir �O COOUDGE O RIVERSIDE CT. y � a D = ^ b RAYMOND DR. _W N Q A 0 �a SPIKES ALLEY n ACT-01-2001 2511 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. NORTH Zoning ILTWOREJ ST. < �p� HOWE A N OR � = F O O z Li W D ,�. c� U DOWNEY ST. P- Ln N sC�e} o W K V O u � IHAI F O s H-Light Ind. L 'H'Light Ind. / C,p Cp -W BYO •G-2• Molesal FSS H•Light Ind. o a F'Com. W G Y Y W Z < J cc J Q Vl u W U y w < a N cr Q 7o-E-S N A . SADIE CT SADIE CT.AVE ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lansing Fire Department REQUESTED ACTION: Market the fire station at 3708 Pleasant Grove for sale EXISTING LAND USE: Fire station EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 172.4' x 330'= 56,892 (1.31 acres) — rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Community Unit Plan & "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "DM-1" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 identifies the land use as a community facility. CASE HISTORY: The fire station at 3708 Pleasant Grove was constructed in 1962. Fire services are being relocated to the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove and Jolly Roads (Act-5-98), for locational, space and layout advantages at the same estimated cost as rehabilitating the old fire station. A 911 radio tower was added to the current location in 1998-99 (Act-10- 98), and is a factor in the disposition of this property. 11PIan-dev\shared1Ac1 285 Re"ews\2001 AcW01ac104101=04 Report.wpd Apnl 20,2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 2 SPECIFIC INFORMATION PROPOSAL: The Lansing Fire Department is requesting authorization to market the property at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. AGENCY RESPONSES Assessor: If sold, forward copy of deed to our office. If surveyed, forward survey to us for our files. Building Safety: The subsequent use of the building may require a certificated of occupancy or a permit to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the Building Code for the new use. BWL: Electric: No comment Water: Approved City Attorney: No comment received Development: Recommend public hearing on sale. Determine need for 911 tower. Recommendation to include use of proceeds from. sale to pay costs associated with selling and marketing property and development of other fire station sites be in any resolution. Specify resale for uses consistent with residential and office zoning districts. Economic Development: EDC is supportive of the proposal. Fire Marshal: No objections, change of occupancy use will require the property to meet current code requirements. Neighborhood Organizations: No comment received Parks and Rec.: No comment. Police: No comment received 11Plan-0ev%share0lAct 285 Re„ews12001 Acts%01act04t01aCt04 Report.wpo April 20,2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 3 Public Service: No comment received Transportation Engineer: The north 30' of the property should be kept to preserve 60' right-of-way along Ferrol Street. The City should keep the east 17' of the property to expand the Right-of-Way to 50' from the center line of Pleasant Grove Road. ANALYSIS Evaluation Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the use of a public facility be evaluated. Location The site is located at 3708 Pleasant Grove, between Holmes and Jolly Roads at the SW corner of Pleasant Grove and Ferrol Street. The property descriptions include portions in the public ROW (30' along Ferrol, and 33' along.Pleasant Grove). On the NW corner of Ferrol, the Pleasant Grove ROW reservation is 50'. Pleasant Grove north of Jolly Road is classified as a collector street. Character The property is rectangular in shape and 1.31 acres in size. Single and multiple family residential uses surround the site. The fire station building is approximately 5,000 square feet in size. Parking is currently on the north side of the property along Ferrol Street. Access to the site is from Pleasant Grove Road and Ferrol Street. Extent The extent of this request is to market the property at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. A new fire station, currently under construction at the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove and Jolly Roads, is replacing this station. Fire personnel and equipment will relocate to the new fire station once the facility is completed. After that, the Lansing Fire Department intends to market the subject property at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. Chief Martin would like the proceeds from the sale to apply toward the marketing of this property and future acquisition. The only equipment in question at this time is the existing 911 equipment and tower. Lansing Police Communication has tentatively decided to relocate the 911 tower and %1PIan-dev\shared\Ad 285 RehewsQ001 AcIsk01act04\O1ac104 Report.wpd April 20.2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 4 equipment to the new fire station. If this equipment is not relocated, then Police Communication needs to consider establishing an easement to access the 911 equipment and for maintenance purposes and signing a long term lease if the property is sold. Maintaining ownership and access to the 911 tower and equipment is vital in providing emergency communication to protect the health and safety of residents in south Lansing. In the event that the subject property can not be sold, another option would be to lease the property. The City would retain ownership of the land, building, and radio tower, and continue to operate the 911 tower and equipment. The building would be leased for a use that would be permitted under the current zoning designation, or rezoned to a zoning designation that would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Possible Alternatives The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use for this area as community facility. Community facilities include: • parkland, • churches, • hospitals, • care centers, and • other institutions, public or private.- The zoning designation is currently "A" Residential, which allows the following uses by right: • A one-family dwelling; • A public park and playground; or • A family day care home. Uses allowed by Special Land Use permit include: • A private club, fraternal organization or lodge hall; • A structure which is used by a governmental entity; • A structure which is owned or operated by a public utility; • A residential care facility for more than six persons, which meets specific conditions; • A recreational facility, which is intended to serve the surrounding residential area; • An off-street surface parking lot; • A planned residential development; and • A child care facility which meets specific conditions. ManEev\shereQUltl 285 Rew ews12001 Acts101act041O18d64 Report.wp0 v Apn1 20.2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 5 Marketing the property for single family use is a possibility, but is not likely due to the existing size of the structure and property. As listed above, there are uses permitted under a Special Land Use permit that are more likely to be feasible due to the existing characteristics of the property. Special Land Uses will require a public hearing and City Council approval. Another option is to rezone the property for a use that could utilize the existing building and be compatible with surrounding land uses. Rezoning the property will need to take into consideration the future impact that the proposed use will have on surrounding land uses, traffic, noise, and other issues associated with a potentially more intensive use. Land uses permitted in the "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, and "D-1" Professional Office Zoning Districts would be compatible considering the location and existing land uses. Reuse Proposals Currently, three parties have expressed interest in purchasing the property to the Planning Office. First is a request by Oscar and Robin Slaton who are interested in purchasing the property for a 24-hour child care facility. Second is a request by Colonial Townhouses Cooperative Inc., to purchase the property to.use as a community building and additional parking. Third is Calvin Lynch who is interested in using the property as his personal residence and office (see attached proposals). Reuse Issues Improvements to the property maybe required in order to make the property marketable. Depending on who is interested in the property there might be concerns regarding access, security, and the condition of existing mechanical and electrical systems, especially if the 911 radio remains on site. Front yard parking is a concern with this property. Currently, parking is in the front yard area between the building and Ferrol Street. Any future use will have to address site improvements such as front yard parking, dumpster screening, and landscaping. The property could potentially be marketed for uses by right or special land use in the "A" Residential District, or rezoned for higher density residential or office uses. A site plan from the buyer will be required for City agencies to review and approve. City Council will review the ultimate sale of the property. Summary Man de%Ashared1Ac1285 Re"ews12001 Actst01act04101ac104 Report.wpd April 20.2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 6 The Lansing Fire Department intends to market the property at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. Chief Martin would like the proceeds from the sale to apply toward the marketing of this property and future acquisition. Lansing Police Communication intends to relocate the 911 equipment to the new fire station. If the equipment is not relocated then Police Communication needs to consider establishing an ownership, easement, or leasehold interest in the property to secure, service, and gain access to the tower and related equipment. Operation of the 911 tower and equipment is vital in providing emergency communication to protect the health and safety of residents in south Lansing. Once the new fire station is completely occupied, the subject property at station at 3708 Pleasant Grove will no longer have a public purpose. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use for this area as community facility. Community facilities include parkland, churches, hospitals, care centers and other institutions, both public and private. Currently, the property is zoned "A" Residential, which allows one-family dwelling, public park and playground, or family day care home. Uses such as a recreational facility, which is intended to serve the surrounding residential area, or child care facility which meets specific conditions are permitted with a Special Land Use Permit. Another option to market the property is to rezone the property for a use that could utilize the existing building and be compatible with surrounding land uses. Land uses permitted in the "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, and "D-1" Professional Office Zoning Districts would be compatible considering the location and existing land uses. Three parties have expressed interest in purchasing the property to the Planning Office. A site plan from the buyer will be required for City agencies to review and approve. City Council will approve the ultimate sale of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Act-4-01, the marketing for sale of the fire station property located at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road (retaining 30' depth along Ferrol and 50' depth along Pleasant Grove for ROW purposes) for uses the are permitted in the "A" 1kPlan-dev\shareMAcl 285 ReviewsQ001 Acls\01ad04101act04 Repon.wpd ~ April 20.2001 ACT-4-2001 3708 Pleasant Grove Road, Market Fire Station for Sale Page 7 Residential, "C" Residential, "DM-1" Residential, or "D-1" Professional Office zoning districts, with the understanding that: • The 911 equipment and tower will be relocated to an alternative site if feasible. If the tower remains on site, then an ownership, easement, or leasehold interest in the tower, supports and equipment will need to be retained to secure, access, and service the tower. • Property improvements may be necessary prior to sale to address concerns regarding front yard parking and security of the 911 tower (if it remains on-site). • The property may need to be rezoned to "C" Residential, "DMA Residential, or "D-1" Professional Office districts in order to accommodate a specific reuse proposal. • A site plan will be required from the buyer for review and approval by City agencies. • City Council approval is required for sale of the property. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner APlandeOShared),Aci 285 ReNews12001 Acts\01ac104\01ac104 Reporl.wpd April 20.2001 ACT-04-2001 3708 Pleasant Road NORTH Vicinity Map HOLMES RD. 0 GLENBROOK DR. 0 SIMKEN DR. z Slte ,, a o FERROL FERROL ST. z GIBSON / �' PLEASANT VIEW AVE. 0 z 0 11LLCREST ST. BERNARD HILLCREST ST. N S. WADSWORTH z w OR. z = z Q z CARVEL N GREENBELT DR. CT. BELT DR. MARY MARY AVE. i y�Y•x,��,R arrwlA. F-.'�,'�'��'`'"� -' - _ "'+�^rac scar' .- ...A f 1! I Imo•���. plil VA :p r � 1 � Y t r� fir e t� rre a', 11'1• -y'z•/a;f�it�.+r� .�a �9 ,� �, .• • - .,a:. ..+^^•'�±'�.'.rl+.!',..� •- .mar ' ,�- .._...u�_,......,.r.....� `Y• ,J, ».r `wJr �i tr"twr!r• "►i:•y r••i..�.—• ~r'.y'TL.�.G"'•"• .�`_•� Y r t 1�*"�•�.� �.y�e `_ •--- -� :. ",• a �'�'�" ,+ � :r'•'•"" �••���•1`- �:i"+ ., p� �� kh�� ` , 1h/ �1 �aa. •r���t.•�__ � �.r. s�;+*�+��. ` .... _ •�.a � jjj/j������ imp/ .err tlL+ * .w�•✓s!�����.r,.iJ{ih•�'rt n�ar_:�Y,tt�k�'"`-r.-.��r..r sa,:-r�B J4'��•�'r�.�I;a+TY=;�nt'�1}`.a/iri(�•.a�w�JF h';•.�Y.ti_r�1•.�{�,n'i tl"�fj4'�!.t�1e.�a,iZ fin '✓r�ra'vvo_r f��rr h'n����A��ut yr+w?��+•iN 4tt•■e,,R`{�J"r•.•... -�pi�.`�At.p.V! , ..ti.•�+; ,IS�p��Mc tf, .��rv, '�2i���i.M1 1`�i;��'la''I;V"r. •. � •, �'.1'J'r�"r��'#:' '♦ a_ y'•!•'�•.'.�!'3'v-1y•��;r1V {lIi'��n•+y•...•re•v rlkC y�.i+ji''T,t'tI•���I'•Li��t .��:���i.iI 4w�f�,r�,•",��i���•�. ' s ��:'• � Aw 1'+r � A � zz - .w� k � �[�,'& �si��'?.`.t�ti-'yh,+ •,a•ft };� Y ,>< �,;�,!}(,}rut -'y��r �•� t' R a (d 'Yi�Y f{ " � •d } ,�' ;,�� ��•rily, „y� R! � 2"��Yrf;'4yy�'b��'�.C'.rfi� a "F '. A y /i �)r •J 'T r: .`i'^,i•+ 'afri_�.' Y} �' r1 ,,.'_°.{j[ �. ^'�y'r Jnt b 4.j +" ;� ;. i�' l T ..• i' ,(}}rr����{{i'C' +• r rj,. �� r to 1 <�i ' fi....Yv... .i'k}, •1} � �{ � � ! l: ,s•� �-••{t �1"1iNY{t.�r�:�''' _ µ�" w��IM�iT.:,i'•si 11'r lr�t�t `• +}. �x ,7.�• r r.i: �$rr. '{: 1•'C�k 4"eK��,'q,{ •*' �i, �il GC%fjl ,a'' '�`-:ei�r„ rtit��6���' '�r�. Yam'"Tn W, �i'' r �.�f' {{i' ,f� i •_ s' rw s-.: .� .f 3•�• A r a , '�f V � t"` '�.ti ita7 s.. t�;+`SL•1t7d,� r f�! .; y k;��; ►. r: ,,�.f�'��• }�r+tl Ste c v�y' xry+ 2� �, r.q �•j �y t,�.�r.)2�t° ...N�ri js y r'^, ..c�. rS+c <litri�nl i� + ��lt�'*��� 410, �`,.ti } '+ 4... r• S�oy��+4r}: ^'"tFar�«"-L�*, till t.! •.�..yy 1 f=r . 1 ryiK} l• .' .•K �tr{yy'[/4 J6'"` Wi .•'JI""'►'1•�'}i' •'�r i4u f:; 'IT4 •. i .'.�Sq :7. 1 +! r•7:' •'� ♦r'..1?.•}W;a [I.. t S+t` ~�' <!.`fr•,C, ..�.1T� ,>. �yrS, siL, .:if`�.4,: �•y 1t�,'•i..f.� .S,u/�i�F :�{• .t i �....•{.:;d,ti 3;;.�y .t'�,•g.��i` ��: tk•{. .�•.y.••.' ��i-c,:e�.t'"4, "'•�"pc >;.. , �. .'�k� .i'.r��`-�.•^J;yj1t;5.,r � S•+'!.+�f.,r.t�e:^I; t ti;1. � ,yJ�r ";.',S'�a3.n.':,�iplt <..#ln•,`.•Fl�,��i ,:r'.r .x:'"d'��".7. � ti.`t'•a ,{ria\ ��t:•yi�,.'�:r�,'y•I.v � t�yqF1ir°,�1 y .r. .�,...�1,�,.i�. C::��'+.,' �h[:t�1�a,':r�'fr+.•s'.Y '�1[a�'� i.. ;.3.1a 'i"?+� •'n ,t}}VV t• < .rrr3•�i v/ { ,1. Wr ,•,4 ',', tiL•, '.;�4�+�+7$;y( •NF Sr •' 1:1 ,.� 1. �.:, .a�..�r,( b ,'U4 � .� .l.- •N'y�{z.�., A�7r.� �,�eyy •��i.. t1��y,\yJ.'�Sr.�[fJ`ti��k`f��,tfs��,:• I,�ll�Tv�''Iq�';,r.�v�(r��.;•rMayl v'.th 'R -�' ti f1,'��•:' r "Yti�� n` •L r , ' ,'C*'F�'.., Nr.1 rrlr "rj'i`�•i4'7'`.Y��:�si.�1l'V7.'+�:>� �Yr' .i�i-71Si..ii ,J.��'�,v ,{. H ,y, 'kj x.'t ,•,ds's �t 1' 4 �W :t sryt'.!hT,•.1c+ l 1jS,+� .i: fC .1 •jr rw:•r• ;:1r.' �: -..� .�' .�li` }� 1.�.r. yY .' tiw•<,. ':l�711'f?i��:�n..';K7�r °^J�3..'rb�� ;'` .�I,:.�n;fir, ^tY� `mil ��i�f.�� ''�:4� ��'*�C,�}'yr 'A..�l..4 jr�ll.r•:•��.ra -r> � ••• :I�- [�� F � ;� I ..,. .,,,z.r!,Y. •N.i,.,s,.r.++kS.a:� �. 1..t..F .'.a,:�•�!'1�r!'.,.ig�f l'�.;1 - A ` .ra�Yi�s'.. tit w ��� ..r. .r>4:•. -�.r7iiJ(t31[?•.-_ 1r _ .>r.. � "i}nn-`r.;�,w.�•w,vy, _ • f i� `y�,,.,,o-i:.ram t N IL or �r � ..i {. �6'( ::�,�,.,1 1�' t�����;_ �1.�y��'�' Gam•��� +•���:..^_..:_•�.....� - _. ..e• �� Y �t',;f: .i� �1 w• t •�. : 'S•'fl art/� 'r,:l.t L+ r` �■•�• '•s-' (•`11. :`It.•• t•{ • �• - •�. ) _a v• ..�' A .o • '� '• >.�-= t '!• p•t [�','1.�`� i• :r �is 11��.�.� 1�,r i ��•. f It• •°., �r;•��•y y1S„1� r L' e: ;P I`•i 1/! I k. r.. ,.�r-`•�1�;��1 e*1 H��L.J1••1� •�•. .•pj.•�� t �.I 00 i11�`•{t 1:�� �I�i tG1 :. ,:,.�1 1! lY•� .���I`\•.. 1..�.!-.+.A f!`` w.+l.c mot' ,� `. r• ..fit .. �� 1 ��;,� ti �' e•_:�z •. 5�•1 ; `;:A`i_. ,J". ,t: i�:: %�' ;. :s:t' 'tr Y ' ` `:SJ,:i;i t 1 i i ,��1*.Y �*svTr'�: `rf rr '` '!{,�pi�^dKY!` '•�L •1 r :Ij,:..'; WsiFi:::j" ./ ��� i i!-}'r:<"!' �''•,-,i`-;•f":..t•,Yy�,�n y•�ft.$"t •.syra,'�-s„�,'tiA �, f y}$ r;s' iF ,.rt�,7�u'y� PA MOP �' ``iE !�C� / t zgt .� r:> , „ vim- , •' 1•.':i':a � 4i Y\ L'-''r :t.T:'^fl•':'4. •, �i+ '., .f`:3;u_a.r •-.v:f •� i. .�ss 9 •!wj` ' ` '�' }lc• i- ::}r� fi' A= 5, •:.�i ...•:.�- ?. .,a►`�-_ t... �� ,i. ,; �:�. •I::.�'��a~,,!��'.3•Jr 3�;.?ti c�41 CI.r'f e1I�' ';�7•:'t�,.•v'�„+D.v�-4•;::,p•;,: �"r y,'.�••}t 4•j}:.J•�:v..c.•yLa`�'�-.'C,,a�I r1r'T1`v:��-.•a..\�'tic`i`.;,`F:.'-��'..�,.i:�i.�..•fsriT.Y}d..t.�'_3'k.r:Y,t'.3-.....■w-:t.r..�y��,..i��.. a',�j:,..<_�S—4,?:i^•'''':v:i uSV�yC�ei:;::•i!.t?;-yti L:..z�!r.t'.r�•'h. ' 1',r a r : - i,>c;!fill tti•+1� '•? -}' "d�,f,.`ia:.k�;10 i..`�--�., -..71% .,� is Yei'Zr :•tiY�wt�_ %�: 'i•sif•�}'�& •,�.r••; a ,� 1,. ;�%11-�•siGw`.e-`,•'ir a. .�ODfjr�7i:,j.++•{:) g:'.j}i,.r::'lr �; :i�q; trr :�/ .C:: r-�d';s�"�� �t ..r y t� Jt�'q;�.i .'1 '� Jy :'•': iL::',^~t.;.l:.o 'i� . ��{ '�~ >I,(•`..r •rC_w}Y as •'a �••.i;s'r 'i-`"- _ _.t`t'�;.• �.. ' `a. h .yrE .may `•`i, , � -���3a�t'�11 YI,� �•�i�k•!�\I(.!�.'��-•.v,J,Y�iC i��'�`{�4�+I��yvj�{\hy�L� _•J'��! ?. ,?7.. �;`;,..�:�:;:Z'itfi� v aY'lt�.. •..,- �i' �'r'}>ii :+��� t.-Y�tW`'''yrt•ct+ 'K'"•Fil'r•. �,'�..:y1Cy .,iNt,{,tl~��i• �Sml.�, ::r` :, 1"' �r C''.-\.'.�ti�j = �7"'+Vt..I;n*'j1R.r?.?•f:j. L. ,•k�.:• \ r1!..'•rt" o :>?L' bt tri7`�•'o-:•yr.i'i' •tsi Jfi� ,�� tt rl � r i.•Jj•Li•� ,$�-�- ;.�Gr •: t 1_ ,r,.�. _� _ :,�.�1 r:.�.?i.,,t �.tkiTt • ;,a:�. .'•..d'+i\y x�ir•�•il.':..t-:?�1'.• + 6•t ,�'7Y.b.♦ _�.7'F "!•, r��a/"7"ri n, f '0. !NS:. 7� ,' -,•i Y"' _ � , ��~��L.��.A1�.,(t�"•"�y�y � 3• � ,_,� £ -�, I `ii7t�i.�.AtPi�+,r" 4SYi4Sq�•o,Pxff^S"^V Yf1� at�'{? y�7 �1 � l a 1•• �.'�a 3 + '��� r • II);• 1:,/�:.il.'•`-. �i..•: t :G - :� %ro.•.�•1.r... •cic^ •. ht•t'•�'.' \: ..��.4t�_.1:.� }I,If7tt f L •1,• •-!t-,� a f, d .�.-�..... i•..•,. .t'S•.�;'::'••�'� k .L•:e�•7f; ",--:'•{ �9�-ii '�(j'.`�. .�:`wry,r J+'•4,� �. ;-',i�• fJ�•; � ... A ,. v �F_� � :f f�4 i..i�♦ l:.r' _'� 4 ��i. 1,- 1 t:.•'�.,r' •=�.='::t y :i•!-.'-`.-�:,C.•}.� t•� �;yl�:�:. :f•�.' a:^:'ii` t'!!� -.i:�r•��. MJ,: C" _ . :tea_:i••�:.lir' 1+,:...�•�t'..r�A,.t..; ;.r. '4'> :+�,,r rt_ 1 4�1.-•�:j•: i-.::t;lri , ;s•. •'� !� .,L1t � ./ • • .:111 1 ( t:.•,g.�,' '`1�:2. �f�'a'�.i•Mwl,:" i1t' �y ,1 t - 45�f1'x 4X 1� � `t. ' y r'✓;?Ff.-Y �.t{ a•+ ` �y � __ram w• .1y{q. ail: r � f C J`�:.•:�. �+ •.• _ �t� 1�� yr'¢f3.$'t yl• L--! '.��.-��� �(�' •T► �+�.��r k :..'1 � c•( ^+,+1•T:i'J=[•L•- - Y�:w� s t 1 � w�,''�� ,i. ,�.bc• -�/chi ��,,J,�'.A�y ,;4'/1•t. fxc,-�.-.','•.:;•!•rT?.41,1�°�j1"1"'L'<3- '�`�#r! r- Ktr� -AL R � 2'<? e .'t�..,� .�[!+�M A,�,7 'vT '�. i s• r-. >�.::' f •�* a: .,i R <1��.' . - ,•= ,•ra _ _ 4, P' � U. - r,�•�i',��-•� '�sri r •,t. .•�.'���,�-' 't�•'L..aS.6 'Yy��+ '�_I t23,.�.:tJfc �y i. l„ .`iii•Sr•(-tC'!+t.i . ;�i sl?'i ,~, i ,n�ttt1►� •C, :';Y •I t.Fi.l.t�/�_, T i r; 1 ._:{ t.r .r:..lr".•t°:[�IIT!tr+�tr�/a�'s a...i r f,;•rlt�:T'� i !1/ �'-1••1 • „4 -.. _ ..... 'i••! tlt:" • (-%ylillt, C-�rjlgil .;t7,`.�/lr i�t#•i i f:i• ,�al.,rt1;�. •i •.:-.il:•,i�ilt� _!i' .:iar�-a it .;.. fn' 'i. .� e- ,;.•;. � s �A,:r{•� tiS�iv�:.:Cr' ^ t•.Y-. .:.�.,�:�f �s �- .S } ti t c : .,•'' " r 1 `t •-:1 �1.• 11 .�r.l'.1-�1►.1"rif`i i .��;,i:•1t t , /w��.+1• ;rs-:.:��-.-!.n.'• -'as.r.,,d,'?- ..�i.• a �.r, , •,: _I T \ t•' - ~11�, .A;/:b #►7_n1- •'!.}ii.�'�{(�i:,(' i�i` irr` •�grrrt: �j lil Ly ,�,.?1... :r..f:,� :i �.1 t , r .i•'i: rtr -� \ `It I iii t ":'_/, - ri'.iiii'r /`i :' a'r .ii, .ri i"iir +i( �`'ii I 1r:`.i+�:ur.r r i !, ,iil.i'i:.•ii iha 4 �r••.ti,"'.y�•_-��-,�yi••/:�!�t+,'R+S+r�-��+n►lik,h�'„�r.,.�:4`1•�w....� .�+•�..•�f•--•F�y�i`-•!.r/5.�1'i•,,..4r..,�•..^.t...�!,�...,.,. .t1 •,r...•ty'!�!'=`' ::v.;;i:s /,::•:i� -4 1: r^.. rr l� •v , C•: se •J. ' J •e3 'n,u..•• y i. '.:- ,Mr•%Y r 1• Ipl:.i i n•1 1'1 •t ,jl`laC1 •',,'� 1 i�•1•''-1 • •��1\.. �'iRal_� i� CiE a ii .,)��� � •IIiI�:y. i••�u r ,�,•i�,..i•-•(*:i=<• yr ••1 -•r:ll�ii^.ii 1 11►.1.y •,[..!:1` L'1 L.1i••/i. It: •�.i i�j I i iy� ,i�i.irl'ri.• 11•1 MNK,e � ° !a.: ,t ''.3t in -.':..;%!r'1•: 'JL '.r:ro,�_>:C.�si'�: �a•:^k:a•:w-•!i•:`.:'a7tx•:••rr;.< •i.T(d.;:.` {'A,;':: ' :r,.-3. y, -;lr.. •':i•.:r. ,as .R .t:� :.t•ic.l:, !..ro .rt� .'y. .f il�"•�i. �i• -!1, t � - a'• .:;�_. _ : .` .n•,q... ,a Xr .•:r.' '_ r' 0..�t}_�_r�,...-di. �'i�7 j,: � id.�i,: -L 7 c r-r,. •-4 °rk:�.- V' y• '�ro�`:ilj' 4a' '„�, 'a- :• i- <'" �'::ii-- i. .`i •4 tira v'a!•- ,�i=�• " ':t'yy�.•='-. •7 A-Rr:', H • �••. n•'1 • Iw u•.t t 1 /.. I r• •• .1 :• .T t • ./ t 1 . :• •� • r:. 1•: I a • I I{ 11� : !r 1. •1•.•. �, ♦I:1^,� /1.1' :l. 1- I11.�•: •1 I.r1 .rlr 1': ., t: •.•{f.•,'�It�•�',1�1'i l:.•i 14 1'�.,.1i+ ' '- r• .I I 1 1 .»:/ (11.Il:l c:l 1 t' l 1 � 1 :.i. ��t� !• 1 1 1 1/ ••1^ lI Y.r S .,yut Pt of-}tJ �tlx,v i i�f�. y.,,AA 1 1: • • 11 III r • 1 1 /'• I • •-11 _ • I M. 1 11 1 Y 1 ' 1•r 1 •1 • 1 41 " t /' ....[. "• r r '. 'I ti w Jv !:' Mom• o•....,... 'ijiwin►�+,,'i'�+liliiil��:/i 1►iiT:1 .�"in 1 i�iSill`•�I'i;i•;I�.,.ri��ra��fii� .••iYi�•!,- •$rsj iyic•.1� ��+.•�i�t/h16r,.+/..+r iii•}ilfi`�ti?1iiN;_JLi11�Y!•(i:5.+.va:.+er:+(•1:••Mi.• q'':y'* i:�•ii�'ri:.vTir'"`.S'i:�+'i i[`::i�I fl i"i`t(J;�?«r u(/•i�lypiliii•i1i:'�ZI1/Ip"r:T'�ili i^rl '-'I'Y••pY� " � 4�: i} iir� wi'i 31i'�:j,• .t�i,.:i.4 'a>>ri' ,��,. ',1'j•��-�`�:s�;r�.•.•�7,^-.P.•�r'+_1�.�I,•,�'.�'rjR�•1•r1''�T.R:^\7fI r:TT.Mr�1MI•.y.�.��.'��•�i,:�7',�•T ti/�� �S�..�Y�r1..1.,Je+�...r��.��4.� .Y t'�: • i7it. i. i+•,t._•.� �.. rb Hf" ! r J u r J 1� r y'!• �i, is •!.-i I :: :�.%*! ?`il rr r/,I �} rl �. �'yr r!�'h. .!7 'i:' S r •I:'I.11;'t�'/? 'f`t'r(:r�i:.:f: I1 r1��rl'.-�i-1:•1,' tiM.•1•�i,1 i:• .ii: :.1'.1''1�:1�,111� !1• ��!rlf ll�••- ''1:II�.i �:111.•i'11:1-'1..`Ir'`4 . ?'��; •r�a'- -"•;; � f■Ir. *n...�'�l.s=-• .•�. +a� 7 1., �r; � .,•,.; 14. .ia�,r r'�•.:t; .�. ety. iJ�,•; � +'fit� , .in. I��r r 1 1� ri �•.. •'.. �.• ° � • d .•� ' r : r.i.•.l '•' :.:,'.. .+: Ii..1. /1 1 . ..ri 1Li:iil�' F a�I 1 . . /I/e 11411 ..n p .:: '�._ .,•r. :r.�{r.•. >wF�.•`.!��y�: ti'�.5��>��1•s;..�.���+:�,. tw\1�1�R:�ti,.Sr,7s�T,t��C��4�t.."<,;,!�!:�7�'."�s.V•�""'/�f ;u+ /• 1 vfiiPa•:If:' -IJ. .,•i!•..Gilt'•• '•••1'� -I:► ,/ •fPu'. iil In .` nliit'•`y: rll�/:ii.••. 'C/t•n:r/�nnlil�a•`'II!t ;�.,.. ,d'.-•-".+?art.s-��G.�/rs•r,,.:,..��A�l.r.-�!:'i'•%...e-:��,-.1•.,.. •.11�J:r},r+!..��.I�l•ti�.,..t....1�•yn:,^:�"�!,'�:.Q.�£Y:{.t}.'.;i4,..,•,.. •< ..-��..-......-r•.,,,.�% •�t` ;•ti I li.- -1 11 r'i •ve•f•i•:rI f -.i,( l.r .1•L:I�r,1�r.j eT •':rt i, vi l.il� t r Ir'/ Ik l;,l:a' ' •11 `y.R i ,.y1�'•,1.1 •jr./f`✓: .�y.6;.J: ',r�rr��.LA3i _ EE:.J.S..,�;• ,•r• •�•• ••. _ '.1; .•;��.i• :;.1:;;:'� „iry' .�+' .!•Ier - ..i• ... .. / .11 Ill�' •`I I•I1,1 11, • +va;;�:at :-.��i1Gj�1��1 � L;If`f�i:rJ�Li 1,�1:}.�;1 'I�Iwt i•,' fill$1 • lle:'i i�yyl u. �fl" ;•t1C?_/ �I.ltitih�r1j•'i Ir/i►1l�ili;yt.�':}If":�•A 71LJ'\a•• .�:%ors;. F •x�:.`►•.: �; QQrf .'vr,:a. ��'•`!� ,., n��,t•.',;.. at;.g:•'iC .'i, r:i., _ -i'� I I: iTl�r)!' :Le �{F�:1�1'•,!,rl`iJ,►S •,�;•I`•rr .�Iw 1 L�°�i�• �.�!`,'IFI'.1,.r` '�1�.1 .il;.{�•Au,y,r �. ilia I r'111�'-i) ;o ri' .irf' ..,,,.,+:_w,r�:•y�� �.•S °. t: .;� :� J6.�' ,•t�- �:t '{� i�, F �'T,. r:�,`;:�(riJ e� c .:'R,nK �i:':ti; "' .,a.{• �:.�f:,,1... �v r ':l l�„T: iS'i�*;11: q/� i���I=t ,IIJ�•�ll�r ri 1�:� 41[/S.Illr;-: Ci4. ��il,i y�•w:�• s i.•v, . I � ,1• � iIt t tt Z MAIN •�' tMt7 }F�5• Y`►r g �� 9_ r t 1, }7. rr I r � . .x a[• � c Zip!- dir'�' a�71 ts,'�G�'� t•• -•� �+'i,t `- 3M �L`i�.. .r^�':fY�,`, ?t i'"t • �. .ri.:'.,:.ti,yp•,'•t r•- ( S r• ,y . . • I.iv':'.�' s.'S. i!/i_I III ,•,fl� / .t 1(11 ;{ •. •1 1• re r t: �]11r11/�It1+,�+'•��;�:.. �'yi�7'.,e�-.sl' ��',�.Jr r.l..t,�':�`'r ,�:{f'•1�4 i1..f,',• ,,1 +., •i 1 • v �:, ••• ; ',V -•il ,rt' •,•.••Y'' 1 Ysyi +� r•.:. y,..• r:.rb' - '\��:�" .�• !i=lam!! .i ' �!'�it{r��:��' ."s"ri�\�.'.. '�'•y,•.�,,• .,, I �r` . .:: .. - � n'�:... 11. •� !_• ter•{- Y _ .i s, S :F YY� `i Fes• r •►•, :i,y�:r. .` Af 'j� 41 J ,L• F ,e 1� /• 'J�",.�' ::fit.. �•sti' •.•!1' ���•: /•%� ��+1�1 �C���,A�' J-•:-.. •�•.J:.ti •t•`I'.:•' - .r. .. '�..;�:%.�,•':.['a +j, kt2:i-%•�.:•��•:%y.: w`•Ci7•��'/-�,•••\fA'i�"+F.L WJ�, f :.'� � ,i. •u' Y %: �..(l•.:ti'i •= t `'sib- rt� "-.,i''.'v;.•}:.�.'�,..ld,.rf..• ,4..;:M r••i4::5n .b.•.i,'.' `r. "'a. �•�, �i.�rSM'•: '�" 'a:•"[:L'. .y'. .w;• !' ... •f:r.` •J•\-A- c;i,_. -d•','i:..r ,G.cK.+• :,ti }L r.r• 'T ''J• i.' -L't• .'�. l ',rr '\ .\ :J.N L"lrr"i.!•: •'f'.1` .4 -') �•-r .f •S•f •''' • i1,1: .JII`�i.i P_Y'�•.'�•'i.^�•:;i:•if•iii:'�• ••i _!;i i•'•�'i•s�,�tl �r r1`.•.1`�i is,�j•'c�►:i•^T:•�.1•li`.1'r-ri:l d-'l!'i i•,i'i.:� 1 ; . ' •�'t :1,�(,1. �nit1• It Ir•e�':''-.l. 't•l � _ .� '1'a�1•rl.`. '�:Ir -..! liay'_I• III`{Y11_1 Y'P'r•11 ' .1 r1 ill���1 i.t, 't. 1 r) ' �i�%,k is+•v'!!�r►::..41 rid�•w�s,,l'.i••rirlin'.if Vl sr�'� ,ii'_.� •.�; _ t: - r rrY-:.y{ ;•yt ,.-• : `L:.w'.•i rl, .+�'•:%•�:•"t C l it rt, :, Ls.' lri •t+'Li�q�gSJ 4• 'r'+ ^a.te r ., i,:� .► tti ",nri. f a .r::s::1•.�' �.i: ',.•is �. - _ '..• •. 1r i�Xi, +�f r�' ,tl 1 1 1 •t•1.1 t .•'. 7 _nt7., _ 1.: 1 ,!•t s _a .•.s 1 �i'�Ilj• 1 •�i �sl Y {�'�la'r�_',Tla`r;,i.:{►•i.:�i'p F�.�_i r L 1,��L �7•� ari ti�� -. ► 1�t •' r r•• rl . r ++� � �� tr;�t {t+.a��t �:�i f. 400 1� ?l'�?h,a n+•it.r`,.,:7•lY' 4 r:�.._/ - 1 r r • • . r.l rI 1••. ��tlwr� -1 r,.-.a+n•���. -r�111'1 .1., '',''r nr.. ,p NrVI WR is tz .. .. •� � ' -' .. :•^ � '.a%14•i�►'•�:.i!,' �:It�r♦`�'•.�,�'-'i' ,� •j_c:l,�..ifl•`L.- ^Zh ..�. ` 5,, �..• , {J�=, �• +;Vet 0: 1.•••. }•,. 4, a t_rl l• • � / t ! .• r I ' :r 1 .. rl r•r nl. ''11 •a r. 1 r• •►.r '�:. ►••+4.;,'•:•,7, l 5' 1:4 a�..• 3 .1 ,'•.'friu• •, 'T -►.f+'. Fiji.< -i•.i• { .•�r if�{.,ii;� yr a �• •n.- Ir r 1, sro.r ^ •r .n r• n..rl •••]PI ! ►.1 __ �Ir..l.:1 I r�..�! .1 Y './,nn hl i�l�r'r .. ,• . � j �t � ( • r r.r 11 r. n _ u I .1 1• u 1..- r r 1 ••^I•.•+1 .�1 1 1 fil !,• 'rl•r t; -:•:yfi' � ': �:+�i i.r l . .' i I Jft�«'I I I'f� ?'�•r� ~"T °;...: _ �I - '�'•i"f 1.».ri..l ,.,,s �].Y.f•.' ;s,. �,r l' 1 .. y � _ v' �Y.,'....•��}'4FalS• i • 11► 1�1ry �l!• :ill '�'il.11r• '7•�•.wi'::� , ' r+ `*q! _11 • 1-i�► 11..`(('1 °I! IrTslt y` y �i liiiyt: �.� ,. •° �� ♦♦{+1.�.�� r,�h.+. 1y17' t ':•r ,r? V^�f �l'r t:^ll^'1 �i."r-...�•.y 1 irs.•:.'i•1 11 • �.• 1I Iltl 1 , t t ,rt •.{w: • :t' :A' / .�'�.e1'.•} r- • � _ '.ti •� ; i.�. :,..�..•J]� '-'� fit. . �1. :t/Md� ..r!ri. l�ooFv:,l{!.-«C.• "3 1 r;-''•.•'r�• , �,.t. ,• : . � :t! •-e;.{�♦ -t:. t. �, n:t : f, Kit' t,; rT`.'�fyl'.?'`'wYti• +-"(`Z',f't '. >.i�"si•;'y' f r� :w,1, -t µ-t r :. r A• .'�t - '�IiBS '� 1 1 M :1 � r'!�'Y 1J,yMJ++.rl.�4 •f,4�•.a4;,]•�.. � •!ti 1:�a•r.•^'•�• i rr i a r',�-' - ' ..�• � 1 1 � 1�, • •! ,� �•1 ice_ Ji��' 1' aY� ? . }.. ' r.7;�'•:=! :`�•IF n ! _•EL_.Irr•+ • ] r.1 1 al ! •7`i 'n._11•+ it'i' n►. iili ul iv ti bii.�'ll.i�''i.k1ir:'t : ,_ •Li�'�t'.,,�,��T��^. . .►�• .•.s►q, '•!'IrE` T t''+."►�lr•!t'i•rr�...r•1..• -`�"J���''f`"[j��,.,I_ !' 's '�f. ? t rl sr ',�, r. 1 �/ , •r •�•li��s��,gpiAr#il {• .•'••r 1 1. �vt.]'� u'ij�,,�'.;Ji-,r.:•1C�:ri�a'.`y�':t• ...�+t A� �f ..� .. .i• .•1 ri w a. s1 •I t ••7't.+••'�! ;'�.. - dl.ilk :-.+'' y •,L s 1',.t.' ' j.,. .f•t. y r "0.,�;::y. I ,�w�. '/kti�1 ( z :�•1r�••ti•T�'Y�';''�", is°4AJt1 s:)."•:�. t .r ' •.{ ,��v,gi.=' ?k•"h.'.�!;►!'?i•':r.is:s � ,a++r!l,.ttjT:fire .� aI t. i�.;'•r•`iia::.rtR{'.�1`yt�.':.HF.+►•'"•.gyyadt�4t .'i%,�',�i'atr�-h:.=•�'r4r{r.u+ s� "t__ � �1�'. ^,; •�+ •• 1_ ► II `�Y'.�I �lt��. r .._f.. •t ' 1•J , +1,�. r) _c•�YAi,i�9 " 1 :•1 1 M� 1 1 • 11 ir' -:'..•v. •; a�: i ..r - :i"tC'i`fiW.� -'b�.�r4 'Iii7•C�: r, '•�•n �r t'iSi��itw(ri�ii,:-• �' -i i'�,;ilr=�• .. ,a y � y �r..e � ,.. - �:_ .:ea+:Tr+-.;4.et'1•!..� .-1 .:;fir• r.. - `r fl1 4Nri•tt.L,'•' I 1 i �r•.1 rl-0 `'4 rfSrS�2�.r`-�3�£S��t(•~'N'. �►: 11 ' •1�•1'l/ 31t1111aA1• .�►1'�'•wY•' �t��l•:11.:1 1.• 1 r�•�'i:•y.11ll! �/11�':�'1C��.3 �iK�.f.'1 .Ip•:±.�•11.�. tl 1� ••�, .•• y 4:✓1 *�;•dcF� ►: Its nrl II r _Iris ]. •� r -�e•ky� �}.c yt.. �(`•1•y - rl r✓ A `� } I' .• :1 r.,l .,1 • VI • n n�1 I�i�r I•� �44�`r-•r•.,.a•-.. ti 1 .".t ] �s7 `�' '`' ,�y a-., L..� .- I / r•.• r l l �r i t-�1�.r.1�,!:..:.K d i � :"s.',lt y��r •••.• _ Wig• '�` _ ?� -t�.��`;s�'l� Jo-' r . ) 1��4i'+.'i_'•1�:-..s sr i � •Lr�1 r i •�Y _ s �'�!' � ,,! }fs'.0 '!It:.} :y�,Vl t•. awl•yqyy// t v 1 7'.7 }•. •s _ f' 3• r• r ii+ t. ,� .+',x('••¢:y74' n. { ., _ `. i`1y,I, ��.r i -��.r���sN11"'sl'=`� _ r r j�,1 r •-i�\.•i;}:��Y,Sf. "<'��;d-.;1.'':1.i ` �'�'! ''ii r�'A _ r. �l.v '•F2♦. i,:?.iT.:!i { 1 � 1i `l k•��.�. -u� '.tlf .4�,+�p 1 1 r:•r r t1�T. 'n t ly tt In /1 •t«{yT-'' r•' s 11 iy' •1 / ,ll •n ••„??„!!!r �r�( i•y41••••rir•, a, '! '' .. -I-rC s; tw ✓ 1� n•r,`F••'as+• � •('^. '!r•nw � ♦ V J.. �o n,w•� •. l•;`t - rlllll 1 1 q •�.�•. ;• r' ilr!'�• 1 i�iil,.1�1,, �•,11!'`i i -::�'� •�^�'•"V••• a a. !, :' :rb:�� c �!wf�-... �,trli_Irl•!tt 11• ..• �''�s�•I�1�2' 1 N i r�� 11•r,•�1-vi�i;�r,. a. Ira F''I• I - 1,1.. R:... �•r•: !'•.' . - '+�-� •+• ..,4^w?`' •. ',Y: : • .,]•. .T 1.f..ti wT_ : r =rt ,;,t, , {-1�'i ••1 1 :n r:r • i:'frlTt /,r�1M�-'' '�• ''��r- 1/.. �:1�1:": ��i'�� � �� :.:r"Y`�4A-�. ��':'�.�y,.-L`;•'.::il,:.!� ' r .f. Y b r\VJ•, t'J•.7�{1.Frt• _C t� f,Il. b t., f{'' t +'{ •.s r:•`. \a { -.r: a.wY4i ,L /i,l. 1 tt t - +� oJ �ti�t rfiC'� alt/r�ar:{iiil Ir !1}ia.fk'Iflri�Tir�bh l:li 'Cl�r 11•iliRs:�`.,11v 1.p J!'tl�!a1 . t 1��,i`•','i pli R�S"`rf:riil�ril::'i{•�:4. '"a'� �R'`�I�Z�1".Ir ... �..:.; 1 aR' a :S ,,�i• fi I �. / • I 1•!•• w ra/' / I Qs r 1 1 , r. r •.'al • r 1 e,r-P;r ,1,�-�t.,r! ;•Fr.?'I:.Iw •y��•,� a.is rt�. �. F.}7!r=Jr �� C,7�T.{�(1�-,�1: •`"y��!'yg[ A4�K. �i� �•��-1.°cg�Vl, '.• (►�.,�-pJTt�isyr'ar{�,�! Jt T'ft 1 /.��I'.1fl�hl if �'[,'.I ,f•fti..'.�, _1'(� Q'1� 1 I .• `. 1• ��` 1 `t { I.1 'i 1rw.; t �I 1- 1 Irll .•a• r! I rn 11 ,1- I�r�'r 11h: .t .. .�- ,• ' '1,�.�t ty/�.\\y�� i�,'�''= 1,sn�^ is\�Il•.111 ii•. rlrp;::'' ,. I r :�^1 .•,+ , rK +•l +..jR'ir. .?5! .i!", �.'%l�hir. .- '�K � �t a 1:,I,.:Jt..,p J w JI' _yd.�.�rl+71t•'t! r ,',.`•., /9..)✓ ' •i' 1 ► 6i.yC'�•^'4.i!':'1j? + �'! .�Ibi+llf: •:::�) :G A'' ��� 11 �5•.+i,' 1,.�'7{'1 .. r��;.�,,,i� ,�y,1.. •.1.. +',\ - .,IC; 4 x?YL 1R. d. �"t; ►1 1:'! '�;'�:i(;��M:•ty• r..• ,;tit `• :••,, `'. y-,t 1• ..i bi. , Rr! y�/wT-,1 �/ r • •'Inn�1• n•1 • n • I~ • • r r 1 rw� TAT li r+:, y� 1• jj r ,� `IIA �ikV�•� fd ► .�'l,10r<f'�,,.�'•./q;?a i f�i i�' �r• 1.1 1.•I• 1 11 � 1 E.1."••• -+' :i• t e '.+ •.. �"__,r��t'1��,,t1tui1 tri P� -t• � . .t >'w }�i r :,. .' .' yj Jr :C 'r:.s• e t •4 "�:7" ah'!�•ILY 'rit%:4"fi�i+ ^T t••n.i/i�r'.•:�.j.y•�!��•'.;aC�•t;'?�. ! •, /:••1••`1 •.� .• r •i}. Ir r��'• 'r. 1• 1 :r ! r n !1 r I 3 tv 1 r 1 a i/ri F. •'j .,tr�tit:l:�Oinit•Nai,-•n. ,!ii '•Gj�1/i�4{�� 4 3'�t:l+4�Sr'�'- • ,,. '�M�'�'K� - - s' '{ . 1. is,��• 1 ��1�. . r::in 1• r•b:r�illr /r Iti':' I�•:n a; n u. 1.+{ r u r r.l r rl, 1 r :D`� S:.• �Ati�waW 4=1,Yt.r i'N1�1� t9f=+s� r',.,':�!l:rllr;•i;t i .1�, ��:4.:�::. ;�$ii c h�. 1.•ti'`J t �{ � .f•-rit ► "`.i•. .s,, .y .-�..: �/,�./ �I� •�, 1 •u� ',�.";J.�..��� �.,'wk�.,,` ,}i J ..b' y4 @ �:•i � �.i:1`:: ;�', .•.�, .:;,:. • ;:, + Ei:i,l�.• i?}i ii.��iaSr•:iir'Ci',ifl�:itr:li7%1 lK;s'r.rill":' "1 tv.? ��;1 1 Ikl h:`i•:11" I i! :•r •:i. t. ..',. K a:aq/. ].. ;�: 4' ,t :y y gqX ,•:{�Lo`t ,.ra �}.�..{ 1� .1" ! ► il/;r,.�f .a/I�.LT:�U(rI,.;41i ,.•i' 1. • (?�•'�' V�i''i t)�•�y r.'.' vv a) 1:;:: ,. ::r' ,iy,,r':!. y .�V,�r�.-.�f.,:i. { ��;;:.. �/,• t t • r.�' .1i3. �� .1+r[•,'-_. .. �, • !S t- � IS�' ••J,'.. t�•,i.ni 91'J i9.1.�r,{',. • +�rt�.+�}'�., a°Yr ,.r,. - •t' •I'�,.L•, r' +i`,• .r�.:•� .i jJl,nr � fi.itKy'!is:jiY: @ fo; :nr1,E bi:1:�a=h'i'.i'`.r • �.y :y.,;j•, ,L:.. ;�..��•+. .�;.,1.'f••.�:..r1C TP'�•' y3_ t..ty. t '7 .. K f.'•.4f.1." 41.�•;;I'-,�11 Ell ls!�.'• 1)I'I I�111!j f'i� tr ' I,nl\�^'/,1�..�1 iif •.1 v.,i..•>�L'- ,+ 'r' r..n:� ray .,Gib;.:..'.,t•.i,• •.'• rr ] •l f 1 / !•+"►r�• -•enrJiS ./ t I t �i ` „:i •' ...�'!. �t .:I• � '� 1 A:y. L 1• 1 +�- 1 ., J ,� 9 na,� i r .�.r• �r :J, t ] t ��' - 11 Cw 1'� 4 ! � 1 i�1 rJ. i�:. t,rra"'{L.It't•�' / s - �I •.! • fr ,tlr 1 l+lsiiwn 7s�.+Y arw•ra::FiftT r,l.rft St'1 r•y rK,+! s y 1 yys,, y �.�y t 1/ r. t •-• ?+� .e 0+r7�1,�43.t��7A'►,�C�.�'��7. rt •+ �At��;']I�'�94�t.�;fivS.,e�,y+f•..y_ .:. .. . 1•. ,,. ,.�s;:C. it ;.' + ' '' �•' ':+•.? f.3.•� ,•,•• ��f �:`G, �Eff`® �i;:; ' n► t adw:► 17ti►•ij� y, 7s{°-w:es: :!tS}!i r- :r,:s,�t/•� . - 1 F + a 1 as y '.Ai}• r:it tl E t . /�'r V:,t;r:' w/ tit j.,,+ ' b r.•i .p. \ 7^:•`:s•.1.: .s,.��:r � yT ti '. •c' f:0�i'''.t. ii'• 1; "•:r.i'►11 �.'.• �sv..[i :.{s n ::t•N:r• ..f ,1• .► ,:/ ] i" `] •f1 1 l•n',+i:j�>._,.j:. 1 11.. rn•t«� •1.:. ' r` ..i'.•;'M•; '� •r' :�'t.+. ,,. 1:•�^i:s �?�'',��• :� a;:sf. '.��, ;p ]%•�, h' .,•'.. a.! :�� I :,•r . . 1► '•'t'k�•.,itr �,1� i„!�� ,•o• • �. t•s.it ` -.3,, 'S• b'x,:�.t r;1.:7. `' t q c.rtv'• i•N L•. t ,.", •SFr i.' �r�.+�� �lr.vA .=:{'r fatl', ;f a yam• Z `;1•'s r; S7►'tYi:� :•raf lr •':r iY•st{ •:r.+ - .4 _.. ..,5.. yl.r•'�: .X•.{wr.M:.�r.�:J):1 des``.. sf!^' :ki-}:.µ,. _ r '' c• +:�(•. :rs .i�if t � ^x1��.iYi��� lr-n'�•;�r�:;.`af;�• '_<ti x ,r- .i` b:- ..• .. ., .i w Y '.�'' Y�s. �1,�f�.'1��•,i,'.;hf R.3•r.l ;r /A L.S^, .. .. , �� .. r, t H� T-4.5•e �'1.. .i ;yv..max., '�.I,Q'rtY),yk ��.i�'` +;.7�•�lr .,�•S'�rr A• \a�lar„Ei.t.+. e.tF i ifs df r�!�•�!•ly�r��`V u'�S �, J fr. y�Fy ;.r..] ... ��` •y : 1 •;�F a �•a �a.:'.i',:•.,i.; t r. �• j.i,�. �i'r':.i�:#'*1T�5 s�i ' ] r. $a' i wr,,h�ls�..�i ,.1���r ,y :r �{••! .t;,+t�•..,;y•. Calvin Lynch 4815 Wainwright Lansing MI 48911 Mr. Sam Quon 316 N. Capitol Ave Suite D 1 Lansing MI 4893 Dear Mr. Quon, I am writing you to express an interest in purchasing Pleasant Grove Fire Station. It is my intention to use the fire station as a personal residence and also move my attorney's office from Meridian Twp into it. Please place me on the mailing fist for any hearings or meetings in regards to this property. Thank you, Ca. Calvin Lynch 3818 Pleasant Grove Road . Lansing, Michigan 48910 . (517) 882-41,- TDD 1-800-649-3777 . FAX (517) 882-2520 October 7, 1999 Tony Benavides - President, City Council 10d'Floor City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Tony: I am writing this letter to you on behalf of the Board of Directors at Colonial Townhouses Cooperative. The purpose of this letter is to express to you the interest that Colonial has in possibly purchasing fire station#6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd., if and when it will be put up for sale. The fire 'ion is located next to our townhouse community. The firehouse would possibly be used as a community building to hold board meetings and neighborhood watch meetings, and the possibility of ditional parking behind the fire station. The purchase of this property would be contingent upon the asking price, any major repairs that are currently needed, and rezoning. If we could have this information sent to us, I would present this to the Board for further consideration. As you may be aware, Colonial Townehouses Cooperative has been a pillar in the Lansing community since the beginning of it's construction in September of 1963, as the first Cooperative to be constructed in the city of Lansing. By purchasing the fire station, Colonial will be assuring the city of Lansing that an improvement will be made to the community since the 36 year history of Colonial Townehouses has been one that has complemented the City of Lansing and assisted it to be a better community for it's people. Any information you could provide to us would be greatly appreciated. We have been made aware that the construction of the new fine station will be starting sometime soon. EOUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Tony Benavides president, City Council October 7, 1999 Page 2 Is there a possibility of Colonial receiving some type of Grant for either the purchase or the repairs? Please let us know. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 393-9514. R tfully, an DeRose esident Manager Colonial Townehouses Cooperative, Inc. P.M. One, Ltd cc: 390.01 BOD Leslie Fabiano Kathy Sinicropi . II+1• 16�•�v 2•O � so V I ESSr--S-oy,' �>c— r qJ 1l 30c n 0 W� 03o/ e,;r Am 0n 4Z n 33Qia/ � pp� �a� wl ' V %j 0 M 2 J I 134y` ��•I 3�1p a 9d' /�o• � I J � 3 \ h �. U N ° 6 n 3("p I 22 v 2071� I FER R OL S T . 703 370� 1705 48 61 J70y - - - - - - - - - - � - .I v /30' 3r 3707 3706 3707 17oy 37og 3709 62 17// 49 E 37.0 , 3711 C Y � I '71= 3712 3713 A `• •'IE' ST•:T + 3715 �� ?7iV 3715 N. O 11 7! 3 7 l 3 y 63 1 -- 50 59 7.21 + H77.7 37.7 6493o7.21 17�3 — I 71s 51 58 37.ty 37.25 4— I So! ?Boo Jeo 65 I rgo3 iBoa 360r J. 1 SOS 57 3goY 8nS (i 0 �� I �e09 1 3g0g ieoy 66 54 5 0 � 1 8!3 3 �� I r/f 1s/v iB'3 0 67 ; Ge c 1 ' �,• 3Bz/ 68 IN 3e1� rr B E R N A R D S T 69 1 O 3B17..... i O o. _ 71 �40 ! V 1 Draft to Clerk 2001 Approved 2001 To Clerk 2001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, April 3, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chairman Frederick in the absence of Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. Four present, two absent, two vacant seats. B. Absences - Ms. Foster on January 23, 2001 requested and was granted an excused absence for April 3, 2001. Ms. Keene on April 3, 2001 requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Ruff said that the Planning Office sent out notices regarding a public hearing originally scheduled for tonight, Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts, postponing the hearing to May. A legal ad was also placed in the newspaper. With that note, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum addressed to the Planning Board dated March 30, 2001 from Bill Rieske RE: Act-0-01 and Act-7-01, Air Rights for Balconies. B. Communication from Joan DeRose, resident manager of Colonial Townhouses regarding Act-4-2001. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-4-2001, Pleasant Grove Fire Station, Market for Sale Mr. Rieske presented the proposal to market the fire station at 3708 Pleasant Grove Road for sale. The property, zoned "A" Residential, is about 1.31 acres in size, rectangular. It is surrounded by residential land uses, and surrounding zoning is also residential. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use as a community facility. Fire station services have been relocated to the southeast comer of Pleasant -Grove and Jolly Roads, which makes this fire station a surplus property. No objections from community agencies have been received. The main PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 PAGE 2 comment received concerned the need for determination on the tower located on the property. Mr. Ruge asked what the building could be used for. Mr. Ruff said that is another purpose for the public hearing, determining the maximum use potential for the property based on location, lot area, surrounding uses, and the master plan, and also determining the uses it could be marketed for. The property is zoned "A" Residential which is what many fire stations would be zoned as a public facility. Single family or similar uses are allowed, or special land uses allowed in the "A" Residential District such as child care facilities. GREG MARTIN, LANSING FIRE CHIEF. In 1995, the City commissioned a Fire Department utilization study that considered fire station locations. The recommendation was that this fire station be relocated from 3708 Pleasant Grove to Pleasant Grove and Jolly, about a mile south. In the latter part of 1997, we commissioned Capitol Consultants to look at all of our facilities in terms of condition and upgrades needed. Study results indicated that Lansing fire stations needed $10.6 million in upgrades and repairs. Lansing voters approved a two-stage $7 million bond proposal. The first stage is the construction of a new Fire Station #6 at Pleasant Grove and Jolly. We are interested in having the City sell the old station and return the proceeds to the Fire Department. The study indicated over $10.6 in needs, so, even with the $7 million'bond approval, we are going to come up short. This will be our first new station or major remodel since 1978. JOAN DE ROSE, 3818 PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, PROPERTY MANAGER FOR COLONIAL TOWNHOUSES. Mr. Rieske just provided Planning Board members with a copy of my letter of October 1999 to Tony Benavides. We wanted to let everybody know we are still interested in possibly purchasing the fire station. ' ROBIN SLATON, 2111 DESOTO DRIVE. I submitted a letter to City Council about a week ago notifying them of my interest in purchasing the Fire Station to tum it into a child care center. It would enhance the City and provide drop-in and back-up care for people who need it. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Frederick announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Act-4-2001, Pleasant Grove Fire Station, Market for Sale. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee for consideration at their meeting to be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. ACT-9-2001 W. End of Kaplan Street, S. Side Acquire for River Trail PPN 3301 05 352 001 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Dept. of Parks and Recreation 318 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48933 REQUESTED ACTION: Acquisition PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE: 19,600 sq. ft., t.45 acres APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation is requesting to acquire property for public recreational use. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: Same SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: Board of Water and Light S: Single Family Residential E Single Family Residential W: Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District S: "A" Residential District E "A" Residential District W: Grand River MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential use. AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor: Record deed if acquired, so the purchase won't get "lost". Building: No objections. ACT-9-2001, W. End of Kaplan, S. side, Acquire for River Trail Page 2 BWL: Electric No conflicts. Contact person: Steve Conn 702- 6726 Water Approved with condition - site would not be able to have water service larger than 02". Contact person: Terry Robison 702-6494 Code Compliance: Property has had maintenance issues in the past. Proper care and maintenance by Parks Department would be appreciated. Development: Survey title commitment available. Establishing value through appraisal. Recommend support subject to final negotiations, clear and warranty deed. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Fire Marshal: No objections or comments. Parks & Rec.: No response received yet. Police: Looks good! PotteNWalsh Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. Public Service: The waste water treatment plant adjoins the property on the south side by the river. Transportation: No comments or requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ANALYSIS The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A 285) ACT-9-2001, W. End of Kaplan, S. side, Acquire for River Trail, Page 3. LOCATION The property is located at the west end of Kaplan Street and more specifically described as: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 5, T4N, R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, thence East 195 feet, thence North 132, thence West to Grand River, thence Southwesterly along Grand River to point of beginning. The property is adjacent to the Grand River, wastewater treatment plant and residential uses. It is vacant land located in the floodway. The Parks Department proposes to acquire the property to connect it with the River Trail. CHARACTER The character of the area is basically a mix of the river, residential and industrial properties. Acquiring the property for the River Trail will not change the character of the area. In fact, it should be an improvement to the area. The applicant has indicated that if the City does not acquire the property for the River Trail, it could possibly be developed in an inappropriate use in conflict with the flood plain. EXTENT The applicant has indicated that the positive impact would include preservation of river frontage, access for River Trail extension to the west and enhancement of the natural use of water frontage. OTHER The Code Compliance Office expressed a concern regarding the maintenance of the property. Approval should be with the condition of regular maintenance of the property. The area has been used as a dumping ground. Leaving it as a natural area could make it susceptible to being a dumping area. If acquired, the property would be maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. Staff would also concur with the responses from the Development Office which is to support the acquisition subject to final negotiations, clear and warranty deed. A map showing the River Trail development and a survey of the property are attached. SUMMARY The location, character and extent of the proposal appears to be reasonable. There are no adverse impacts associated with acquiring the property for the River Trail. ACT-9-2001, W. End of Kaplan, S. side, Acquire for River Trail Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of ACT-9-2001, the request to acquire the subject property at the west end of Kaplan for the River Trail. 1,a.hSl NC,'S R �V�2 TCAIL rxv6LoPM9OT TO p,ITE Ago p6&A Fart. "U dt oho lu 77 r- uN m cods I S ) (� Co L -- � � N 1 1T -.. ACT-9-2001, W. End of Kaplan Street, S. Side NORTH tiL ,o'er 20 7 o f N, 208 201) Ck \ ' e NOTE : SUNSET ST. IS PRIVATE N. OF S. LINE SEC. S 3d .S.Z .7d• nn-- iSz' ,10 F L v 7 ' `d .2W I44.1-hJ- Q CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For: Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Kaplan Street 316 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan Lansing, Michigan Legal Description: (As Furnished) (See Sheet 1 of 2) W. 1/4 CORNER SECTION 5 T4N, R2W I I KAPLAN STREET no TO �.t N 89'2 6'57" E w"XT A" I J k FouNo 53.95' .e STRM r—a�R la.or / / ete.oe• uNE y to Q �\0�C� I G � h a E �' 0 . � ,aj�,• r- I t V"- f0. 45 ACRES M f 19600 SO. FT. I � o VACANT I NO APPARENT UTILITIES Z I / APPROXIMATE 100 / YEAR FLOOD CONTOUR 814.85 8228' J, FWND P.O.B. 112- IRON S.W. CORNER N 89034'51 " E 194. 13' S. 1/4 CORNEf SEC. 5 SOUTH LINE SECTION 5 Lai SECTION 5 T4N, R2W EC R2W O I�LIBER 10, PAGE 43 FOUND -MONUMENT I M IN BRICK PILE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION a B21.2 FIRM PANEL 260090-009B pM MARCH 2, 1981 olto oiN 2 ACT-9-2001, W. End of Kaplar! Street, S. Side, Acquire for River Trail � ✓ z� Co 0 I DEIHM CT Uj v PEMBROKE RD. TRENT �0 o FOREST o C GLEN Z J O a a a 3 � i z �0� POND . . ' . : . Q O Z z m 0 � �� G w z m _A IN Lf HT z - Y K o - 1- 351-001) W XI ING Z LA ROUND / RD. MELVIN KAPLM Z�GJ G . MUSKEGON AVE. OWENS AVE. AUTO AL WEA Y:AR 054 ilu- LI) L ir _T•yma,�yy��/I ��;���,-_,'y .'r��•1 :>' r r •-��*+.. _ i•-m'.� - .'Pd�.S' i-Za ��jj.I '�.-R+7ti!I�,3y� /. 'r ,fit f■ �, ' .,�y.;:'_�'• r'Ptlt 1"ltt no- •rr, j . _ R 139 .... rAt. 425 ie vpp Fog ow &Vtj Am , `� Me OL INCA IK Ira 1w. 0 1 . t z Ed=1 f APPROVED JUNE 5, 2001. P 6 Ln 1.57 Pos 7.02" In the Zoning and Ordinance Draft to Clerk 05252001 Committee, P 6 Ln 2.18 Pos 7.24" In the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Approved 06052001 To Clerk 06132001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, May 15, 2001 _; 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. Six members 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. Mr. Ruff called the members' attention to a Planning Board pending item under Committee of the Whole, an Act 285 review item, Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage, next to the river for RiverTrail Improvements. At the appropriate time, it should be referred to the Urban Development Committee for additional information. With that note, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Addendum to the staff report on Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District. 4. HEARINGS - None 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - KHANH PRAM, ADCO GROUP, 21600 NOVI RD., NOVI, MICHIGAN, here to answer questions and looking forward to a positive recommendation on our rezoning. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: May 1, 2001 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve the minutes of May 1, 2001, without corrections. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of May 1, 2001, were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 2 B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee met on Wednesday, May 9, 2001. a. Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts This is a request by the ADCO Group, Inc. to rezone 24.67 acres of the Boys Training School (BTS) site located east of Orchard Street, south of Saginaw, west of Lansing Catholic Cental High School, and north of eastern High School/Pattengill Middle School. The surrounding land uses consist of residential and educational institutions. The BTS Plan designates the site for mixed owner-occupied residential development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential development, 8-14 dwelling units/acre. The residential development is in compliance with both .he BTS plan and the North-East Comprehensive Plar. A commercial development is not proposed in the BTS Plan; however, in a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), this is a common element. There are no outstanding and/or significant environmental impacts associated with development of the site. Public Services will be addressed in detail in the PRD and site plan review phases of this project. The development of the site will not have an adverse impact on future patterns of development. The market study which is pending will dictate the residential development, and the rezoning request will not be approved by Council until the plan is reviewed and meets all requirements. Mr. Ruge said at first he thought this was putting the cart before the horse, rezoning the property before they tell us how they are going to use it. Because of the situation, the City Council will hold the rezoning request until the plan is reviewed and meets all the requirements. The proposed 3.80 acres for "D-1" Professional Office is for the purpose of a Neighborhood Convenience Center, a common element of a Traditional Neighborhood PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 3 Development. The 20.87 acres is for "DM-1" Residential District for the purpose of developing a mix of single and multiple family residential units. Staff recommends conditional approval of the request by the ADCO Group, Inc. to rezone 24.67 acres of the Boys Training School (BTS) site from "B" and "C" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts. Following the market study and the acceptable development of a TND plan through the PRD process, it may be found that the residential development portion does not require the "DM-1" Residential District. If so, the property can be zoned down to the "C" Residential District. Also, if the site plan review process and the PRD process reveal that the plan is not acceptable for the neighborhood commercial component, then that portion should not be approved by City Council. The applicant has to complete several processes including submission of an application for a PRD, SLU, and Site Plan Review which takes at minimum 90 days. Due to the time constraints involved with this project and the fact that the market study and site plan are not available, staff would recommend conditional approval until all of the requirements have been met. Finally, by virtue of City ownership of the land, an added level of contractual requirement can help ensure the best plan for development. In Committee, it was moved and seconded, to approve Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts, conditioned upon the market study establishing the need for the "DM-1" and "D-1" zoning and conditioned upon completion of the PRD, SLU and site plan review process. Voice vote 3-0, carried; unanimous. 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 Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruff made the point that this is contingent upon all activities coming up being successful. Normally, the Board does not put conditions on rezonings, because the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 4 Zoning Code covers the conditions upon which property can be used. In this case, the condition is not on the rezoning; it is dependent upon those other plans that come up, and would not be attached to the zoning. Basically, it is to affirm what the Board is doing and the intent of how it is doing future actions. Mr. Ruff wanted to express for the record that there is a Planned Residential Development and potentially a Special Land Use, besides site plan review, for this development to come together. There are many contingencies. By moving this forward, it helps set the stage for establishing those things to come. Mr. Frederick said his original motion in Committee, and his support tonight, is contingent upon the marketing study, the site plan review process, the PRD and SLU all coming together to agree with what we believe should be done with the site. We wanted to expedite the process. Time is of the essence. It is appropriate for us to move this along with the understanding that we need to see some other results of other parts of this complex development. We need to see some results before we absolutely make a decision. Mr. Smith asked about a public hearing comment made by Ms. Fitzpatrick. She said she was an attorney and was curious as to whether they could have deed restrictions requiring owner occupancy. "I would like clarification if that was actually something that was intended, and further, if her assertion is correct, that it can't not be enforced if it was intended." Mr. Ruff said the development is meant for ownership, not for rental situations. Mr. Smith said there was discussion of a commercial site, a store, perhaps for groceries. Would this be a chain store, or independently owned? A Quality Dairy? Mr. Ruff said, again, the vision for this is a traditional neighborhood development, a new twist on an old theory of having most things within walking distance so you don't have to drive. With what they are requesting, the "D-V Professional Office District, there can be a planned neighborhood commercial center in association with the neighborhood that is being designed. That would come out in the Planned Residential Development. It is not restricted to a national chain, or a local chain. It does place certain restrictions—no drive-through restaurants. The design has to fit together. In the Zoning Ordinance, there is a whole set of requirements for placing a planned commercial center here. They would have to go through the Special Land Use process to achieve that in this district. Design criteria within the district place additional limitations of use. We would be in the design control portion, not selecting whether it is Quality Dairy or RiteAid, or whatever. Mr. Smith asked what input would neighborhood associations have in controlling what kind of commercial business went in. Mr. Ruff said the BTS Implementation Committee will be reviewing the plans as they are developed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 5 Ms. Foster asked what if the market study is negative? Mr. Ruff said we would expect that the zoning would not get approved. With the cooperation of Councilmember Leeman and others, the property would not be rezoned until everything successfully comes together at the end. If Council approves the rezoning, there are safeguards beyond that—the City still owns the land. If the plans do not come out as expected, the City can rezone the land as it formerly was. Ownership is key. Mr. Ruge said he understood the Eastside Neighborhood Committee was opposed to any increase of commercial uses on Saginaw, but it supports the commercial in this plan because it serves the surrounding area, not as a draw. Do we want to approve this by six votes on the Planning Board? Mr. Ruff said under the old ordinance, a super majority or an extra vote of Council would be necessary to overturn a recommendation by the Planning Board. That has not been the case since the ordinance was recodified. Ms. Patrick said at the public hearing there was a person from the Lansing School Board who said that she did not believe that the school board had been appropriately represented on the BTS Committee, at least not for the last year or 18 months. Has anything been done to resolve that, because of the significant impact that it is going to have? Mr. Ruff said the School District and the School Board have been involved in this process since at least 1988, and recently also. Minutes of the meetings show representation. Ms. Stachowiak said a list has been compiled of all meetings, dates, and representation of the school district. Mr. Ruff said this is the formal implementation committee meeting. We also did a summary of the input that the school district had in the BTS plan that was developed beginning in 1991, and their involvement previous to that. There was a total of 17 or 18 meetings and they were represented by either staff or board membership at half of them at least. Ms. Patrick asked if the City began with any goals as to the range of income for the housing in the area, or is that something the market study is designed to assess? Mr. Ruff said the market study points the pricing and mix of the units. Part of the vision was that this would be a market rate development for east side residents who wish to continue to live on the east side to step up from smaller homes into larger ones in the new development. Foster . . Ave Frederick. . -Ave Patrick. . .Ave Ruge . Ave Smith . . Ave Keene . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Z-5-2001, Boys Training School Property, "B" and "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts was APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 6 b. NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, Expand Non- conforming Use. Several issues need to be resolved. In the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, this Item was TABLED. C. P-1-2001, Tentative Preliminary Plat, Wexford Woods. In the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, at the request of the applicant, this item was TABLED d. Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District. This is a request to rezone the subject corner lot (formerly an Amoco Gas station) from the "E-2" Local Shopping District to the "F" Commercial District to allow for a used car sales business. The rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District is requested to allow the establishment of a used car sales business. The site plan shows improvements to the property at 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, as required in Section 1268.03(g) of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan review process would review the proposal for any additional landscaping required, particularly adjacent to residential development. Staff believes many sites are available throughout Lansing that are currently zoned for used car sales, and that several types of businesses are permitted in the "E-2" Local Shopping District. The Committee discussed the contamination on this property and what could be done since the pavement cannot be disturbed. Mr. Frederick observed that the contamination can be cleaned up, and that over the last two years, this property has been deteriorating. In Committee, it was noted that the rezoning conflicts with the Master Plan because the Master Plan considers that there are many existing used car lots. The conditions on the property that were set by Amoco are self-imposed hardships. Mr. Frederick was not supportive of the rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 7 In Committee, concern was expressed about what else, if anything, would go on this property if the rezoning is denied. Staff addressed the issue of billboards on this property. Staff recommends that the request to rezone property at 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue from "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District be denied. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried 2-1 to approve Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District. Mr. Ruge noted receipt of a communication from staff indicating that the site plan details planter boxes along the south and east property lines, that there is an existing five- foot-tall fence with plastic slats on the north and west property lines. Some of the fence on the west is damaged and needs to be replaced, and landscape screening and a minimum five-foot-wide buffering will be required between the commercial and residential property, specifically to the west and to the north. No buildings, parking, or storage of materials or vehicles is allowed in the buffer strips unless approved by the Planning Office. The property is proposed to require additional buffering along the north and west sides. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Foster asked if AMOCO still owns the site, and if they caused the pollution. They have now vacated the land. Can AMOCO be compelled to clean up the property? Mr. Ruff said the City does not have an ordinance that would require them to clean up the site; the State MDEQ would have to do that. The state has put in place opportunities for clean-up like the revolving funds for brownfield redevelopment that would assist clean-up. The other thing that would keep them from cleaning it up is by rezoning it for a car lot. If it is going to be used, the incentive to clean it up is reduced. Some of their own restrictions are competition-driven. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 8 Mr. Smith asked, regarding the asphalt seal, and "limited removal is proposed to provide the required landscaping along the frontage of the two streets", does that potentially exacerbate the problem of seepage? If asphalt is removed for the required landscaping, is there a potential of increasing whatever seepage is currently going on? Ms. Keene said she was concerned that we do not end up with another situation like Drakes where, because the City has not been aggressive, or has not had the mechanisms in place, could not force clean-up. In Committee, there were lists of other potential uses, but many of them might require removal of some of the concrete, which would discourage other development. She voted to approve, rather than see another Drakes there, though another use would be better. Mr. Ruge was concerned that the property would not be used for anything else and would just become an eyesore. A car lot would be preferable to an empty lot. Land use changes over time. Ten to twenty years ago, there were many used car lots on East Michigan Avenue. It probably won't be there in perpetuity. Mr. Frederick said his comments are not directed to the applicant, but to the owner. If a used car lot is developed, it is a disincentive for rehabilitation. Rehabilitating this gas station is potentially saying we should rehabilitate all abandoned gas stations by turning them into used car lots. Mr. Frederick can't support this because he believes if we do approve this request, it will delay rehabilitation and clean-up of this property much longer than necessary. By letting it sit, BP-AMOCO is at a competitive advantage because they are preventing competition from going in there. There were two gas stations there two years ago; one was BP and one was AMOCO. BP and AMOCO merged; now there is one; and nobody else can put another gas station on the corner, and they don't have to spend any money to clean it up. AMOCO can afford to do it. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan of 1990 on page 47 mentions two problems referring to economic issues. ". . . there is a significant number of car-truck and van dealerships in the southeast area. These businesses present a special problem since they require visibility and space for their inventory. This is in direct conflict with the policy of screening parking lots, which is essentially what a dealership consists of." Another problem is that gas stations are being reused for other purposes and often are poorly designed and inadequately landscaped. The landscape plan presented by the applicant takes that into consideration. It would look better if rezoned but "I still can't support it." Ms. Foster said this would be a band-aid remedy. Making it look better wouldn't cure the other problems. Ms. Patrick said the issue is the effect on the character of the neighborhood. With single-family residential to the north and multi-family on the west, "F" Commercial here would be a commercial site forever. There is commercial farther south on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 9 Pennsylvania. Through our actions rezoning it, we would prematurely turn it into an area for commercial. Mr. Smith said AMOCO should clean up its own mess. Frederick . Nay Patrick .Nay Ruge . Ave Smith . Nay Foster . Nay Keene • Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 4; motion did not carry and was not passed. Z-6-2001, 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District was DENIED. C. Z-7-2001, Vacant Land South Side of West Main Street between Max Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211 The applicant, on behalf of General Motors Corporation, request:, the rezoning of vacant property located on the south side of W. Main Street, Lot 5 of Block 204, from "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211. The intended use of the property is for future industrial development or parking. The proposed zoning and land use are consistent with the Master Plan and surrounding areas to the east and south. To the west is single family residential. Staff recommends approval. In Committee, questions arose about the landscape screening and buffering along the west side of the block. Ms. Stachowiak said that they would have to provide landscape screening and buffering along this area. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Z-7-2001, Vacant Land South Side of West Main Street between Max Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211. 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 10 approve Z-7-2001, Vacant Land South Side of West Main Street between Max Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Smith asked for a better description of the screening and buffering on the west. Ms. Stachowiak said because the right-of-way on Max Avenue is only 50 ft, it is considered adjacent by definition. For a parking area, they would have to do some landscaping and buffer the area from the property lines with trees and shrubbery. Mr. Smith said it is stark. Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Z-7-2001, Vacant Land South Side of West Main Street between Max Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, PPN 3301-20-204-211 was APPROVED. Next meeting, WEdnesday, Jung: 13, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Departr lent Conference Room 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith Chair. The Committee has not met yet this month. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 3. Committee of the Whole - has not met. a. Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage Mr. Ruff said this item was tabled from the Planning Board. He asked that it be removed from the table and referred to the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to remove the item from the table; unanimous; carried. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to refer it to the Urban Development Committee; unanimous; carried. 4. Executive Committee - has not met. C. Report from Planning Manager PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 11 The Chair noticed activity on the 100 Block N. Washington Square Mall. Work is beginning to replace a steam line as well as water lines. There will be demolition work along with that. The second phase will be construction of the new road and parking with landscape improvements and new street furniture. Numerous vaults still existing under the sidewalks are presenting problems. Clay brick accents, planters, street trees and planter bed areas, crosswalks, street furniture and fixtures will be used consistently to set a standard throughout the mall area. The Council wants more work done in the south mail, as well as the north mail. This first block will serve as a model for future development. There will be one lane of traffic in each direction, with 90-degree parking and 40 parking spaces to serve the businesses. One Michigan Avenue Building will have a new canopy entrance. Mr. Ruge asked to see a drawing of the improvements. Ms. Foster asked if using no curbs had been considered. This would help make it a more pedestrian kind of space rather than car space. Mr. Frederick said you could differentiate between street, parking and pedestrian walkway by putting in different color pavement. Ms. Foster said drainage could be diverted into planter beds to reduce storm water management. The planter beds could be linked underground. The first phase will be complete this November. In your packet last month, you noticed photocopied photographs. This packet has color photographs, and a black-and-white photograph. The print shop can digitally copy the photos. The black-and-white is less expensive to reproduce. Mr. Smith said the black-and-white is fine, but with color, from a design perspective, the question is, is color needed? If not, use black-and-white. 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. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. C. Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 12 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith said on May 23, he will be talking to Kiwanis retirees and hopefully recruiting new members. Mr. Frederick said he will be on vacation next week so if there are any meetings, he will need a substitute. Mr. Ruge asked about the two-way street conversion. Mr. Ruff said the request to Council in the current budget was to fund some engineering for the changes. The mayor withdrew that funding request during the budget talks. There are three pairs of one-way streets being discussed. Ottawa-Allegan would not be affected. Since they are state trunk lines and part of the Capitol Loop, there would not be design costs to the City of Lansing. For the Pine-Walnut or the Grand-Capitol conversion, the engineering dollars that would go towards those conversions have not been approved. Ottawa-Allegan would be converted in 2003, right now the others are uncertain. Mr. Ruge said he has been noticing used car lots and buffering. Magic Auto Sales was approved when Helen LeBlanc was on the Board, maybe five years ago. The bumpers of their cars are right up to the sidewalk. How recently were the screening and buffering requirements added into the code? Mr. Ruff said just in the past twelve months. Magic was in before then. Mr. Ruge asked about Toyota taking over the old ABC Warehouse on South Pennsylvania. "It was my understanding that they were supposed to have a buffer, then they had their cars behind the buffer of green grass. They are parking cars in front of their guard rail on the grass. I don't think that is appropriate." About the new Farmer Jack on South Cedar, someone should tell them that the flags are in violation. All the car lots, including used car lots, have them. Mr. Ruff said next week the old Action Auto sign on Grand River at North Street will be removed by the sign contractor that the City employs. It is going to be publicized. Other actions are pending. Ms. Patrick said she attended the Historic District Commission's awards and exhibit for preservation done in the City over the last year. There were two categories. Twenty seven homes and businesses received awards for preservation stewardship. Five candidates were given Excellence in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 2001 PAGE 13 Preservation awards for following national standards in restoring their buildings. It was well done. The Planning Office helped co-sponsor the event, along with the Impression Five Museum. "I would recommend . . . taking a look at the standing exhibit at Impression Five. It is worth it." 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick asked about the AAA Pickup Truck Cap on S. Cedar Street. It looks like it is going to fall over. Ms. Stachowiak said it was passed on to Scott Sanford. She will make inquiry. Mr. Frederick said another potentially dangerous-appearing sign is the Chinese Restaurant next door to Raupp Campfitters on East Michigan Avenue. Mr. Frederick said at the church on Aurelius and Cavanaugh, water was draining into the street. Mr. Ruff's comment was that you can't grade land to channel water into the street. This water was causing a flood that completely crossed the street from one curb to another. "If you get down there, you should be able to see the mud that is washing out." Mr. Frederick said at 4411 Aurelius Road just south of Cavanaugh, there are three new houses. They have paved the driveway and put in a parking pad so they can park in front of the house practically on the front stoop. All three houses are done that way. They appear to be rentals and have stood vacant ever since they have been built. They are finally getting tenants. The tenants have a lot of cars, and they are parking them everywhere. Ms. Foster asked about the trees that have been taken down on W. Mt. Hope. Mr. Ruff said Councilmembers Benavides and Wood met and talked with the developer about hiring a landscape architect to do the design for the landscaping. The site plan is still pending. Mr. Ruff told the Councilmembers that it was the desire of the Planning Board that if there were penalties that could be levied, that would be an appropriate action. We are still investigating that. We are revising the screening and buffering ordinance. When we first proposed the screening and buffering ordinance, posting a performance bond was one of the requirements. In this case, it would have been quite substantial. This may also help precipitate changes to how we handle getting approved plans and getting them properly implemented. We are investigating. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:48 p.m. Res ctfully submitted James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board m n05152001 64 Z-05-01 Boys Training School Site "B" & "C" Residential District to "D-1" Prof. Office and "DM-1" Residential District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: ADCO Group Inc. 21600 Novi Road Suite 700 Novi, MI 48375 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy from the City of Lansing REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "B" & "C" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: "DM-1" Residential District and"D-1" Professional Office District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 24.67 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Lansing School District E: Lansing Catholic Central W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential District S: "B" Residential District = E: "B" Residential District W: "DM-3" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Boys Training School Plan recommends this site for mixed use owner occupied residential development. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request by the ADCO Group, Inc. to rezone 24.67 acres of the Boys Training School (BTS) site located east of Orchard Street, south of Saginaw, west of Lansing Catholic Central High School, and north of Eastern High School/Pattengill Middle School, and more particularly described as: Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1- Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 2. PART OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 15, TOWN 4 NORTH RANGE 2 WEST, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH Y4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; SAID POINT BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAGINAW STREET; THENCE S 01021'25"W 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE S 88044'10"E 816.53 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE S 01042'50"W 938.68 FEET; THENCE N 89000'101IW 1055.47 FEET; THENCE N 01°52'00"E 115.77 FEET; THENCE N 88008'00"W 99.59 FEET; THENCE N 01052'30"E 827.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAGINAW STREET; THENCE S 88°29'30"E 3.86 FEETALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S 88033'00"E 331.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 24.670 ACRES OF LAND AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD PPN 330115126280 from "B" and "C" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts. The applicant proposes to implement the BTS Plan, 1992, which was adopted and approved by City Council. Specifically, the applicant proposes to rezone 3.80 acres at the northwest corner of the site to "D-1" Professional Office District for the purpose of a Neighborhood Convenience Retail Center and the remaining 20.87 acres to"DM-1" Residential District for the purpose of developing a mix of single and multiple family residential units. BACKGROUND: The original property was acquired for the site of the "House of Corrections for Juvenile Offenders" in a time span extending from 1855 to 1901. The 25 acre parcel of the Boys Training School (BTS) site is located east of _ Orchard Street, south of Saginaw, west of-Lansing Catholic Central High School, and north of Eastern High School/Pattengill Middle School. The applicant is proposing a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) for the BTS site. The BTS plan was a result of extensive public participation and dedicated work by the study,committee, Deardorff design group and the City of Lansing Planning Office. The plan provides a means to attract new owner occupied, residential Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Page 3 development that will help revitalize the residential neighborhood; responds to the needs of the participating institutions in the study area and serves as a positive guideline toward the goal of ensuring neighborhood vitality. The BTS Plan was organized into three major sections: PARTI: PRODUCT This section is a summary of the recommended Consensus Plan. The BTS Consensus Plan was organized in five sections: A. Planning Goals and Objectives The goals for the Consensus Plan were formed after reviewing existing planning documents for the area, discussion with the BTS Committee, and interviews with groups and people. B. Analysis Conclusions Goals and objectives can motivate development on a site, but they are dependent upon the physical capabilities the site possesses. The existing features of soil, topography, wetlands, general land use, circulation, vegetation, visual qualities of the site, utilities, zoning and environmental concerns were inventoried and analyzed in respect to their effect upon the study area. C. Consensus Plan Rationale The Consensus Plan is based-on a concept of organizing or structuring the residential neighborhoods, the educational institutions and Sparrow Hospital around a common open space and pedestrian circulation system. D. Elements of the Consensus Plan The basic elements of the Consensus Plan were: 1. Recommended BTS Property Uses 2. Institutional Needs 3. Open Space Framework 4. Preserving Neighborhood Character 5. Estimated Infrastructure Costs/Ownership Concerns Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 4. E. Design Criteria/Standards The design standards included.- 1. Open Space - Buffer setbacks 2. Eastside greenway 3. Storm water retention controls 4. Lighting 5. Signing 6. Residential color guidelines PART If: PROCESS This material documents in more detail the public and institutional participation process that led to the Consensus Plan. Three (3) Public Participation/Workshops formed the three sections of the Process: A. WORKSHOP I - Discusses the creation of the Goals and Objectives List which is used to evaluate future work B. WORKSHOP 11 - Details the site analysis work, alternatives generated in the study process, and the participation format involved in evaluating the alternatives. C. WORKSHOP III - Involves the final presentation of the Consensus Plan and the Residential Development/Play Relocation Option. PART III: PARTICULARS This information includes the technical data, detailed minutes = of all meetings and other supplemental details. The BTS site is being implemented based on the Boys Training School Plan approved by the City Council.The Boys Training School Implementation Committee was recommended by City Council in March 1999. There are 22 committee members and/or alternates consisting of representatives of adjacent neighborhood organizations/watch groups, Sparrow Hospital, Lansing School District, Lansing Catholic Central, Greater Lansing Food Bank, and ex-officio members include: . Planning Board, Lansing Planning Office, Lansing City Council and the Mayor's Office. The purpose of the committee is to review and make recommendations on land use matters requiring Planning Board and/or City Council approval; review RFQ/P(Request for Qualifications/Proposal); make recommendations on the choice of developers for the BTS site and keep apprised of development progress. The committee has been meeting on a monthly basis to implement the BTS plan. Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Page 5 Specifically, the applicant is proposing a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) for the Boys Training School site. A TND, a worldwide concept, would be a new type of development in the Lansing area which mixes residential and commercial development in a neighborhood and of its many positive amenities, encouraging a "walkable" community and open space. The TND will be developed through a Planned Residential Development(PRD). According to Section 1280 of the Zoning Ordinance, a PRD allows flexibility in the regulation of land development; encourages innovation in land uses, design and type of structures constructed to achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land; encourages useful open space and provide better housing development. Through this process, a specific site plan is required. Also, in reference to the commercial component, the applicant is proposing to rezone 3.8 acres of the property to "D-1" Professional Office District, a less intense district that the"F"Commercial District for the purpose of a neighborhood convenience retail center. According to Section 1260.040)of the Zoning District, a neighborhood convenience center is a use allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District with a Special Land Use permit. A neighborhood convenience retail center provides convenience commercial services to the immediate neighborhood with specific conditions. The neighborhood commercial component was not part of the BTS Consensus Plan but it is typical of TND development, therefore, the applicant has requested it. If the plan is not acceptable for the neighborhood commercial component when the plan comes together, then that portion should not be approved. The current zoning of the property is "B"and"C" Residential District and regulated by Sections 1248 and 1250 respectively of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the "B" Residential District is to provide low density, 0-7 du/acre, single family development. The intent of the"C" Residential District is to allow moderate density sing.le and two family development. The proposed rezoning for the residential development is "DM-1" Residential District which is regulated by Section 1252 of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the "DM-1" Residential District is to allow multiple dwelling units at a net density to 19.8 dwelling units per acre. The principal uses allowed in this zoning district also include single family and two family dwellings. Therefore, since the applicant is proposing a mixed use of residential development,with a preliminary target of 250 dwelling units, the"DM-1" Residential was the minimum zoning district that would allow him to accomplish the proposed development. The market study will dictate the final density and type of residential development for the area. Therefore, if the market study and the plans do not require the"DM-1"Residential District, the zoning could be backed down to the "C" Residential District. Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 6. There are several processes that the applicant needs to accomplish in an effort for final approval namely: Rezoning; Planned Residential Development(PRD), Special Land Use (SLU) process and a Site Plan Review process. The City of Lansing currently owns the BTS property and would be responsible for any site plan review approvals on the site. The BTS Committee will also have the opportunity to review the detailed site plan prior to final approval of the rezoning of the site. Therefore, we would not expect City Council approval of the rezoning until the plan comes together. It should also be noted that there is a conditional purchase agreement between the City and the ADCO Group. Listed below is a time frame of activities associated with the Boys Training School site: Activity Time line Deadline for City to purchase BTS site established in State legislation H65222. MARCH 31, 2001 Public Hearing before City Council on the conditional purchase agreement between the City and the January 8, 2001 ADCO Group. City of Lansing accepts $770,000 loan from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation January 16, 2001 to purchase the BTS property. Conditional agreement between the ADCO Group and the City of Lansing approved by City Council. January 16, 2001 Market study expected to be available to the City June 2001 Purchaser, the ADCO Group has six months to remove all contingencies stipulated in the purchase agreement. Deadline: July 16, 2001 Loan of$770,000 to the city needs to be repaid to the State September 1, 2001 AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received at this time. Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Page 7 Assessor: City Assessor records still show this parcel in the name of the State of Michigan. We need to see the deed or land contract transferring it to the ADCO group. BWL: Electric No conflicts Contact person: Steve Conn 702-6726 Water No objections to rezone. Need preliminary water layout. Contact person: Terry Robison 702-6494 Street Lighting Street lighting will be provided if any of the streets are public right-of-way. Contact person: Roger Adsit 702-6085/242-5175 BTS Implementation Committee: No response received at this time. Building Safety: No objections. City Attorney: No response received at this time. Code Compliance: Please notify this office of any site conditions approved by City Council. Notify developers that all rental units F must be registered with the city before occupancy. Please make design sensitive to neighborhood compatibility. Community Comments: I am an Eastern High School Alumni and this would remove the sports field that the students need. Without the sports field, where will softball and cross country track take place?Moving the students to another school _ will greatly harm student moral or spirit because they can't play at their own facilities. I am moving back to Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 8. Lansing so my child can attend Eastern but don't want her at a school. that doesn't have anything on site for her to participate in such as tennis, track and softball. Brandy K. Buines See attached letter from Belinda Fitzpatrick. See attached letter/petition addressing some concerns. See attached letter from Tom Stanton. Consumers Energy: No response received at this time. Development: 1. "DM-1" Residential District will allow the developer to develop the site for residential use pursuant to the density recommended in the BTS Plan. Developer plans a condo site development pursuant to a PRD. 1. The"D-1"Professional Office District is intended to allow for a neighborhood commercial area under a SLU consideration. The BTS Plan does not recommend commercial development at this location. Eastern Neighbors Association (formerly Sparrow Estates): We discussed BTS at our meeting 4/16/01. We had 23 people and no one objected to what they F heard. Of course, they expect some single and duo units. No objections to the "D-1" for a Professional Office District. Eastfied Neighborhood Association: No response received at this time. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received at this time. Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Page 9 Media One: No response received at this time. North Lansing Community Assn.: No response received at this time. Northtown Neighborhood Organization: No response received at this time. Fire Marshal: No objections. Future development may require an increase or addition to current water supply. Oak Park Neighborhood Association: No response received at this time. Parks & Rec.: No response received at this time. Public Service: Public Service reserves comments until site plan process. Trans. Eng.: The Transportation Office reserves the opportunity to make specific site development comments during the preliminary design phase after the rezoning has been completed. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land uses consist of residential and educational institutions. In the BTS Plan,the subject site is designated for residential development compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood which would include mixed owner occupied housing. The proposed residential development concept is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed °D-1" Professional Office District for a Neighborhood Convenience retail center is not addressed in the BTS plan. However, a TND would incorporate residential development and commercial development in a neighborhood setting. The existing larger neighborhood has commercial elements to it including the Michigan Avenue Corridor and Saginaw and Pennsylvania intersection. In many respects, the existing neighborhood to the Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 10. south and east is a traditional neighborhood with all the commercial and institutional components. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The BTS Plan recommends mixed owner occupied residential development. The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential development, 8-14 dwelling units/acre. The proposed residential development and target density concept complies with the Boys Training School Plan and the North East Area Comprehensive Plan. Commercial development for this particular site is not part of BTS plan and would not comply. A commercial use is a typical use for a TND. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC There is no proposal for street access onto Orchard Street or any other residential street. Saginaw Street is proposed to be the main entrance to the site. Therefore, it would be an increase in traffic on Saginaw Street since it will ingress and egress, to and from the subject site. Saginaw Street is considered a principal arterial and should be able to handle the increased traffic. Also, since Saginaw Street is one way eastbound, turning movements would be right-turn in and right turn out which reduces conflict. The design will need to be sensitive to the location of the hill along Saginaw and neighboring streets across Saginaw. Traditionally, - in a TND setting, there is an increase in pedestrian traffic due to a neighborhood center being located within a quarter mile radius, providing a five-minute walk to convenient locations. There will be an increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT An environmental site assessment(ESA)Phase I was completed July 12, 1991 and an update to this ESA on May 28, 1999. Soils and Materials Engineer (SMA) completed a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the BTS site. In general, the property conditions have not changed since the original Phase I ESA completed by SMA. There are no outstanding and/or significant environmental impacts associated with the site. The applicant is aware that any additional environmental study of the property to determine whether it is free of hazardous wastes, environmental toxins and underground tanks would be the sole responsibility of the applicant. Storm water runoff would increase with any Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DMA" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Page 11 development of the area, so the plan will need to account for it as proposed in the BTS plan. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT In reference to the Board of Water and Light utilities, refer to the attached memo dated July 19, 2000. City of Lansing Public Service Department reserves comments until the site plan review process. Public Services will be addressed in detail in the PRD and site plan review phases of this project. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT The Boys Training School Plan, approved by City Council, has been in the working for nearly ten years and is currently in the implementation stage. The Plan was a collaborative work between the neighborhoods, the institutions and the City. As such, comprises were made to achieve goals for each group and there have been comments made that would lead us to believe the Plan was completed in a vacuum. It was not conceived in a vacuum, but when considering the complexity and size of the stakeholders the resulting "consensus plan" would not totally satisfy every interest of each stakeholder. Therefore, it is inevitable to be some dissatisfaction. But, the stakeholder groups have been involved or invited to be involved all the way along from the concept to where we are today, on the cusp of implementing the vision. In fact, portions of the plan have been implemented where Sparrow Hospital and the Lansing School District made agreements for the Health Education component and the LSD obtain the 10 acres south of Orchard Street for sports facility improvements. Positive precedent setting elements include the creation of a Traditional Neighborhood Development and the potential of adding"step-up"residences to the neighborhood, families to support the schools and an environment that takes advantage of this central walkable location. OTHER As quoted from the BTS Plan, (pg. II-10), "It is recommended that the Boys Training School Site- be developed under a Planned Development Concept which emphasizes housing. Office uses could be integrated throughout the development, single family along Orchard Street and a variety of housing on the remaining vacant Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "D-1" Professional Office District Pa a 12. land. Walkways, landscaping, access and building style should be compatible with that of the existing residential structures, Lansing Catholic Central and Lansing school facilities." TNDs have common physical qualities that create hospitable places to live. For example, in a TND, a neighborhood can offer a healthy mix of housing types ranging from single family homes to multiple family and this mix of housing types can offer a range of homes to satisfy varying needs, lifestyles and incomes. According to the Gibbs Planning Group, a commercial development is an integral part of a healthy TND. Providing shopping, jobs and community services within convenient walking distance allows residents to meet some of their daily needs without driving. Open spaces are also important components of a TND. A small corner store also provides another opportunity to meet and greet neighbors, further developing the sense of community. The ADCO group proposes to develop a project true to the principles of a TND and sustainable in the City of Lansing's residential market. The ADCO Group has commissioned Zimmerman/Volk Associates Inc. to conduct a market study to quantify the residential needs for the property. This market study is targeted to be completed by June 2001. The market study will provide: Optimum residential mix for a mixed-use urban infill site; — Optimum unit sizes and prices/rents; Absorption forecasts; and Appropriate amenties. SUMMARY The surrounding land uses consist of residential and educational institutions. In the BTS Plan, the subject site is designated for mixed owner occupied residential development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential development, 8-14 dwelling units/acre. The residential development is in compliance with both the BTS plan and the North East Area Comprehensive Plan. A commercial development is not proposed in the BTS plan, however, in a TND this is a common element. There are no outstanding and/or significant Z-5-01, Boys Training School Site, "B" & "C" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District and "13-1" Professional Office District, Page 13 environmental impacts associated with development of the site. Public Services will be addressed in detail in the PRD and site plan review phases of this project. The development of the site will not have an adverse impact on future patterns of development. Again, it should be noted that the market study will dictate the residential development and the rezoning request will not be approved by Council until the plan is reviewed and meets all requirements. The proposed 3.80 acres for"D-1" Professional Office is for the purpose of a Neighborhood Convenience Center, common element of a Traditional Neighborhood Development and the 20.87 acres for "DM-1" Residential District for the purpose of developing a mix of single and multiple family residential units. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends conditional approval of the request by the ADCO Group, Inc. to rezone 24.67 acres of the Boys Training School (BTS) site located east of Orchard Street, south of Saginaw, west of Lansing Catholic Central High School, and north of Eastern High School/Pattengill Middle School, from "B" and "C" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office and "DM-1" Residential Districts. Following the market study and the acceptable development of a TND plan through the PRD process, it may be found that the residential development portion does not require the "DM-1" Residential District. If so, the property can be zoned down to the "C" Residential District. Also, if the site and PRD process reveals that the plan is not acceptable for the neighborhood commercial component, then that portion should not be approved. The applicant has to complete several processes including submission of an application for a PRD, SLU, and Site Plan Review which takes at minimum 90 days for processing. Due to the time constraints involved with this project and the fact that the market study and site plan are not available, staff would recommend conditional approval until all of the requirements have been met. Finally, by virtue of City ownership of the land, an added level of contractual requirement can help ensure the best plan for development. O. • M. LINK • r. 1 &t4RSHALL FIELD PARKSAGINi t, ��, •�. :S: :ir., .:r: • • •q 1 BOUND OCCUPIED)~ 4irP��Y+ RESIDENTIAL (OWNER AU •.•J +, q • •11 RETENTION(OWNER OCCUPIED) 1` - ����; '�yet .�i'!1 �• •f��l • 1 . e •� • 9io i U �� • 1 a.' ' - -- __ -- ��� 'eel-.!{�s�������•aj•• , • , ��� t� 1 -. M TRACK so TO AND 70071AM RIVER WALK !) •• 'nm • ft �� -.. • je� 1 sc"00L CATHOLIC CENTRAL ARMOR' 119th PARK •f �j•1at„7�•:�ir *-.-_�.�:� - YtL �..t��it•7' • �.:�1�. C •�1�7 •� • t •fie EASMAN HIGH •• S"tt =` •_w (( 1 1 SPARROW HoSprrAL 1 HOLMES CONSENSUS PLAN PlANNING 1 DEVELOPMENT 1 BOYS TRAININGPROPERTY CM 1 FIGIM CONSENSUS GRAPHIC SCALE 1 1-1, • 100 rL ' MItM 1/4 tt19{R SECr1O4 IS Orr CF LANSnG Praurr caNrr•rOecAN NORKASr CO"JER SCCrof IS r r4 K.R2[ Orr O•L.AY57rl, FKh"C"rr.YO.CAN serxxT � uowLw`rrr�t sn.rR ADRnr Lrrt a SECDOr Is JJL99 N.IS Sat4410T alas!' Sae•u•IOT 26 sarr4�DT 7z1J PA Wr PARCa PARr Cr ME ALvifoar 1p Or K mmrmEASr 1/4 Or DC"rKASr 1.4 or r c �Anea.e9LLr A'DT ESr 1/4 OF SECDOv IA raw 4 AIM N. LIE RA7a 1 RESr Orr Or LANSMG.hCM.N r}IOrC1 12'Owl40 Canrr LIO.CAM Apo LC)N'G LK)RE PARDCIAAA f SOWD AS FO[Ori D� k R 7R CONI[IATD At W NORTH 1/4 COINER a SAID SCMN Is;SAID POMr LCR.c LccArro DJO ACFM OM rK ScvrWkr"T-Lr-.Ar LrOE Or S40HAV SIRE[r WMCE 50171'75'w 40.w r[Er 70 rrc PCWr Cr MEOPPAG ACYCt S W44'10'[alaSJ rErT A(Orc SAID M041-Cr- RAr LNr WM E S or4z'SO�r 13&68 rEEr DfCHCE N a9M'101 1055.47 rUf, rNEKE N 0131'00T 11177 rttr rrc/At Naaw'ro"99.59 MT, DA'NO N 0177JO ME SOrDRM,r R ' T e7a.a9 rLEr ro A roar a 04r-a-.Ar LK a SAOIAW SMEtr } rN(NLx S"'JOT IM F Er ACONc SAO R1cNr-Cr-wAr W., rNErRX coNw,. Atac SWRar-or-.Ar tAh(s yC WITCOT JJI.99 rtrr ro D[PONr a BEcww II A1r 0,ACCORDALACT Or IAAD AND I�rMC CF,A y)RL.ECr r0 ALL[AffuCNIS AND R0lrS- welr'13JO�r ualID' SdSSSl7T #Jaw' PAleiT SPLIT POLAANM _ PARr Or Di NORDrKSt 1/4 Or Dt NMrh'EAsr 1/4 Lr X NOID1[ASr 14 Cr D( PT1CY'Cem ZaNNO � NORDDQSr 1/4 Or 9CMN M raw 4 NCRIN.RANCE 7 RESr,Orr or(ANSRrc.NC>fAN jR�ah� CaA`rr,Wwlm AND&DOC MORE PARK ARLr OESOWO AS FOLLOWS. raL g i $0A7 A CC'M fi d COROAD 4 At W MMFM 1/4 CoRfo Cr SAO SECroj Is;sAv PONr etRrc Lourro �S OL DC SCA7MCRLr LK L Cr SACMAW SrRC[r DIENCE 50171'15•w 40.00 r[tr ro THE POW Or BEC:++•4c, WNCE S W44.107E 94.15 FEtr ALO+c SAID RfOrr- 3t Lr-wAr LW-' DENC[S 0131'30)r I M 384.96 rrrr, D[NCT N 6a1s'JO1r 4M CD rrrr Cr SACWA. rSWrt )'W 5 79'JO��S fEEr AL04C SW T RiOIrr Or-AAf L►(; M[HCE CCnllW)NC At"SAA9 MT-Or-MAY LR[S WJ3'00'E M1.99 r[[r ro THE PONr Cr L1 cmym ODNFAW 1e00 ACRES OF LAHO AND EEM SM.ECr t0 ALL CAMOrS AND RKNrs-Or-wAr Cr RECCRO. F MAIM]PAFfCa PART cr D1t AO Nwsr 1/4 Lr W WWWAsr 1/4 Or D[NOMCAsr 1.4 Cr DC tn1 N01WSr 1/4 Cr SECrM 11 TORN 4 AMrK RANGE 1 RESr Orr Cr LANSM eA71AM M59' CONrr WWAN APO BEND 6M PARnQA^r 0(SO9BED AS roLtovs CWKAOA'At W NC1tM 1/4 C'OM,ER Cr SAO SECDdr IS;SLID Pt7Hr OEM LocArr'D O4 D(SCNDIEMr MOrr-Or-wAr LK or SAcwAw smar,' DOrX 50171'75'w 40.D0 ~ AND S M 1470T ALONG SAID"F-Or-wAr LNE 94.15 rrrr r0 rK POnr Or ara c DIEHCE S ea'41'I0T 711.57 rECr AtOrG SARI RRNr-Cr-wAr LnE; D4EMO7 501'47'SOlr fie 6e rar" D1EMT N A9D0'101r 101547 r[Er rlCKE M01'52 OT IIS 77 rar;rxENC.E AaSDO'10b N aanm'0oir l9.5S rEEF' WNCE Av'31'J0r 442w7 r[Er•. DCACL S ea'JS'JOT 430.00 IOS147' aTr rMW ADI 32'30T Je4.99 rrr ro Tw Pow Cr EiEGFmNC CO4rARRHC 10.e70 ACRES a LAAD AHD BEM 9AVCr TO ALL CASL1[NrS AND MOVS-Or-wAr or RtCC" 4nh"r�r[n.•m.RI1lM A[R E rpoc c>o 4ts CN.PK d110 L(218) .8 MON,YA74,rT{/rO[24aJ J.e-16a0 i Rvi41P h1f �' PARCEL_9PLlT . D.I. sro.. .e.N� NL Nr 07571 t 1 WATH28U G H T BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO July 19, 2000 TO: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development ; FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 371-6034 v RE: 25± Acres, Located South of Saginaw Street and East of Pennsylvania Avenue BTS (Boys Training School) Site — City of Lansing is interested in developing this site for residential development in accordance with 1992 BWL plan (approved by City Council). BWL to identify utilities (i.e. water, electric, etc.) that are available to this site. If none available, what will it take to bring utilities to the property line and any associated costs. SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric BWL has electric line on the North side of the site and East side of the site. These lines would be utilized to provide service onto the property. Electric service is available to the proposed site. Any potential costs to a customer cannot be determined until a building site plan is available with electric information required for each unit proposed on the property. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water Water service is available. BWL has a 06" main in Saginaw. Site will require looping. BWL will confirm owners design for fire flow requirements. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 BWL water system will require main installation on Saginaw between Marshall and Clemens for system reinforcement. Please contact Bill Beauchaine (371- 6800) for more information._ Contact Person: Randy Roost 371-6114 STREET LIGHTING No conflicts with street lighting. Contact Person: Roger Adsit 371-6082 _ Mobile Phone 242-5175 07-2000-09.doc April 23, 2001 Belinda Fitzpatrick, EsquireAPR 2 6 2001 224 S. Holmes St. PLANNatv(, Lansing, W 48912-2020 (517) 3 74-6114 Planning/Zoning Board devaray@aol.com City of Lansing Planning Office Dept- of Planning and Neighborhood Development Suite D-1, 316 N. Capitol Ave. Lansing,MI 48933-1236 Dear Planning/Zoning Board, I strongly oppose the requested rezoning of the Site known as the Boys Training School Property. The proposed rezoning is not the highest or best use of the property. Highest and best use should not be solely determined by what will maximize generation of revenue for the city. Highest and best use should optimize the use of the property for the community and the owner. In this case the community and owner are essentially one and the same,because the City has acquired the Property. The highest and best use for this property would be Natural Resources and Recreation_ It should be required as a Park by the Master Plana The community use of this property is and has been essential to the quality of life and hivabdity of the East Side. The property is used by the community on a regular basis for Practice of Soccer and Football,Running,Hiking,Biking Waiking,Dog Walkang,Nature Appreciation, and Community Gardening. These activities are essential to making an area a desirable place to live. In theory the proposed development will revitalize the East Side. I walk the East Side regularly and communicate with many people. From my conversation with many East Side Residents the loss of this community Property will likely have the opposite of the desired effect. It is likely that this development will cause many people to move away from the East Side. The current trend is to move out into the country and to have your own piece of nature. To escape the concrete jungle. To find a natural setting that you can become attached to without concern that it will be taken from your life for development. The trend is to move out into the country only to make it into the city. This property is the natural gem of the East Side. The highest and best use of this property is to stabilize the area by making people secure that their little piece of nature will not be converted into more of the same old same old concrete jungle. We have an abundance of commercial, office and residential property on the East Side. We do not need more of the same. We need our little community natural area. I am concerned that the developer wants to have this property rezoned, before he is required to purchase it. This is because he does not have the market study. He and the chair of the BTS Committee have convinced the committee to support rezoning of this property in order to get the rezoning out of the way. They are setting aside the question, of do they actually support the rezoning of the property, in order to get this step out of the way. They believe they can use their input regarding site plan approval and final sale approval and that they don't need to utilize opposing rezoning as a tool to prevent the property from being developed in a manner undesirable to the community. Incidentally, I believe it is a violation of my and other citizen's Constitutional Right to Equal Protection that the City has given this Committee recognition that gives its voice higher regard than mine or other citizens. The rezoning of the property before purchase or commitment to purchase creates the following potential situation. If the developer does not complete the purchase then we have a piece of property that is under extreme development pressure. The property will be under great pressure to be developed at the highest density allowed under the rezoning. The comer that is currently a Practice Field for Football and Soccer will be under great pressure to be developed as office and commercial. It is downright appalling that the City would allow this Practice Field to be taken from the children. There is also a need for a wetland delineation to be performed. I write the following as one holding a Bachelors in Soil Science from MSU and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. There are State Laws regarding development of wetlands. A rudimentary conclusion was made that the wetlands are not large enough to fall under State Regulation. However,if a formal wetland delineation were performed the conclusion would likely be otherwise. A wetland delineation considers three factors I. Presence of Flora(plants) and Fauna(animals)that are typical of wetlands 2. Soil characteristics indicating that the soil has been anaerobic 3. Actual water saturation of the soil. Visual observation of the site indicates that the soil saturation area may be large enough to qualify this area as a wetland large enough to fall under State Law Wetland Rbgegulation. The wetland area should be down zoned to represent the lack of suitability for building in its location. There is also indication of artesian flow of ground water unto the site. This has the potential to cause problems at the site with wet basements and unstable building foundations. Perhaps the site was not built on in the past, except for in a few areas, where the BTS buildings were, because most Qf the site is not suitable for building. There are many arguments against rezoning of this site pursuant to the pending request. The most persuasive argument is that the property is currently used by the community in a manner contrary to the requested rezoning. ifthis rezoning is granted, and the developer's yet to be completed market study causes him to walk away, we will be left with a poorly zoned piece of property. Granting of the requested rezoning would be a detriment to the current use of the property and a detriment to the future viability of the Fast Side. Sincerely, A51 • Belinda Fitzpatrick;Esquire,Natural Scientist and Fast Side Resident May 1, 2001 Dear Members of the Planning Board, It is our understanding that a proposal to change a portion of the property known as the Boys Training School site (BTS) to commercial zoning will be before you this evening. The residents in our neighborhood,which directly abuts the BTS property on the southern border, have been actively involved with the potential development of this site for over a decade. Several of us participated in a year long process with the city to create a plan that would be the best possible use for the property and be acceptable to adjacent neighborhoods. The genesis of the BTS development began many years ago when, from time to time, a prospective developer would bring a plan to develop parts of the property to the city. Each and every time, the surrounding neighborhoods successfully blocked any proposed development which proposed to alter the current usage as green space and recreational facilities for the area schools. Finally, at the behest of former State Senator Debbie Stabenow, the neighborhoods agreed to participate in a master planning process to determine what kinds of development would be acceptable in the event the State of Michigan ever decided to dispose of the property. The first and overwhelming choice by the affected neighborhoods was that the land would remain urban green space to be enjoyed by the students, families and community surrounding the BTS property. If this was not possible, the planning committee, representing seven or eight neighborhood groups in close proximity of the site, created a master plan that would ensure that the property be developed into single family homes designed to compliment the style of the houses found in the existing neighborhoods, most of which Were-built in the first part of the last century. At no time was the prospect of commercial development along the Saginaw corridor considered desirable or necessary. In fact, those of us who participated in the planning process did so because we were assured by the city that our proactive approach to eventual development of BTS would ensure that commercial development would not be considered if it was not written into the plan. Based on the current negotiations between the BTS Ad Hoc Committee and the proposed developer, it would_appear that some commercial development may be needed to make the project economically viable. This has been described as an "urban village" concept, which would include some professional office space and a cluster of service oriented businesses which would serve the surrounding housing development.This past weekend we met with Rick Kibby and Dave Muylle to discuss the status of this proposal and they confirmed that approximately three and a half acres of the northwest corner of the site was being proposed to be zoned commercial. While we do not oppose commercial development that makes sense for the overall project, we are very concerned about the timing and location of the proposed rezoning. It is imperative that any zoning change not be done on a piecemeal basis but as part of an overall plan. To rezone any part of the BTS property prior to the completion of a marketing study and site plan to determine the feasibility of the housing project and public acceptance of the final plan would be premature and risky. Should the housing component, which, after all, is the major impetus behind the entire development, prove to be financially unfeasible, we would be left with nothing but commercial development along Saginaw, which is exactly what we sought to avoid when we began this process a decade ago. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that the developer would select possibly the best part of the BTS property to be zoned commercial. It makes more sense that this section of the site be reserved for housing since it is adjacent to the Orchard St. neighborhood and directly north of the proposed Pattengill site. A true "urban village" should be integrated into the housing site plan and more centrally accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods it is supposed to serve. In view of these serious concerns, we request that the Planning Board take no action on the rezoning request until such a time a specific site plan is completed and the entire project is ready to move forward. In the event that the proposed development is not economically viable at this time, we propose that the BTS site remain with its current zoning designation pending a future proposal which will expand and enhance the surrounding neighborhoods and will be in keeping with the original plan we all worked so hard with the city to create. After all, the BTS property is one of the last large tracts of urban green space available for development in the City of Lansing. Let's take the time to do it right. Thank you for your consideration. Nam �,�1 �� ,�_�.1. Name e Address V47' 2- �ir�-�_ Address z Z�- Name Namts�g Address Address J,Z Name /1 (ice Name`s /C6 Address it sd 3 l?� ,(, o !jj Address 19 1--� LL�v) Name ba �. . W O" Name 4 Addresses Addres U Name Name Address Address / --s c.c. Council Member Larry Meyer, Chairperson, Planning and Development c.c. Council Member Harold Leeman, First Ward O 5era� e . v z ;Z,,2r u.t3~'1S Prve- Name /4"-- Name -��� � Address KO 7 O y ��e � . Address �� Al Name - Nam Address 1y2 ,) Addressl--� / Name�� �/�� [ O�G'� Name Address Address�- �- - Name � � Name � a/ Address t4 33 � I hQ Address Name AA& ��Sl Name Ic Address / Address a ( 1-42-CQU S U Nam Name Addres �� Address Name— wr,,. / Name Address /Z1/7 V///,e Address Namely ,,-, �� � Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Date: May 1, 2001 To: Lansing Planning Board From: Tom Stanton, 216 Huron St, Lansing Subj: Z-05-01 Request for Rezoning of BTS Property, from The ADCO Group My name is Tom Stanton, and my address is 216 Huron Street in Lansing. I support the request for rezoning the BTS property. I have been attending BTS committee meetings as an observer for about six months now. I am a member of several Lansing area, statewide, and national organizations that have a keen interest in sustainable development. As a member of Urban Options, and the Lansing area Sustainable Community Dialog project, I took a special interest in the BTS property development, because it presents a unique opportunity to apply principles of traditional neighborhood design and walkable communities inside the city of Lansing. I believe the planned development of the BTS site has the potential to become a highly visible, very successful example of these principles. I believe that example of the planned development of the BTS site can go a long way towards helping Lansing to realize the potential of traditional neighborhood design to help combat urban sprawl, reverse urban decay, and promote walkable communities. Urban Options and the Lansing area Sustainable Community Dialog project have volunteered to provide resources to assist the BTS committee in its efforts. We are working with a class from the Lyman Briggs school at Michigan State University and interested citizens to provide reference materials and technical support to the BTS committee as the committee members continue with their deliberations. I understand that the zoning request the city is being asked to consider at this time is somewhat unusual because the request for changed zoning is being advanced prior to the submission of a detailed site plan. Because of the schedule involved in completing the city's rezoning procedures,combined with other activities the ADCO group is completing, it is my understanding that ADCO felt it could not delay this initial rezoning request. Nevertheless, the BTS committee agreed to support the first steps towards implementation of the rezoning request, knowing that the committee and the city will have time later in the process to review and approve the site plan, and another opportunity to review and approve the final contract with-the ADCO group before the development begins. From my viewpoint as an interested observer, I believe that the BTS committee is acting responsibly to try to move this project forward through the various procedural hurdles, while maintaining ample controls and checkpoints to ensure that the development plans will be in concert with the plan for traditional neighborhood development that the BTS committee approved and the city incorporated into the Master Plan many years ago. In Lansing Planning Board May 1, 2001 Page 2 reviewing that plan today, I am very impressed with many of the features that it includes. The BTS Plan was ahead of its time, incorporating many details that must be present in a traditional neighborhood development. Among those features are mixed housing types, clustered housing at the densities needed to achieve walkability, ample green space and community spaces, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and good connections to nearby neighborhoods, parks, and business areas. My own recommendation and desire for action by the planning board and the city's planning and zoning process is for you to proceed according to the process as outlined by the BTS committee: Prepare for approval of the zoning changes that will be needed to accommodate the completed site plan, and be ready to expedite the rezoning approval as needed to meet the developer's timing requirements, once the site plan has been reviewed and approved. My own preference and recommendation would be for all participants to recognize that this proposed development of the BTS site is a truly fantastic opportunity for Lansing to host a very significant traditional neighborhood development. I urge you to make sure that the characteristics of traditional neighborhood design and the BTS consensus plan will drive the planning and zoning process. If the planning and zoning process is allowed to dictate the site design,instead, that could be counterproductive. As traditional neighborhood developments all over the U.S. are continuing to prove, there is a very strong market for these projects. I believe these markets will grow much stronger as more people have the chance to experience these developments for themselves,and as increasing traffic congestion and energy costs accelerate people's interest in walkability and urban villages. The time has come for Lansing to make sure that it is prepared to welcome these developments and that it does not inadvertently discourage them. In that context, I recommend that the city carefully observe these processes in relation to the BTS property, and carefully consider what lessons can be learned and applied to the upcoming Master Planning process. Many researchers have concluded that existing planning and zoning systems have been complicit in the continued growth of urban sprawl, if not even the direct precursor and instigator of sprawl. I believe it is imperative for the city to ensure that its planning and zoning processes will henceforth permit new developments and infill projects that will work to reverse and prevent additional sprawl. Furthermore, the city should identify any systems it has in place that result in subsidies for sprawl, and make sure to neutralize them where they do currently exist. I request that the Planning Board and Planning Division be certain that these factors are carefully considered in the city's Master Planning process. Thank you for considering these thoughts on the pending request for rezoning of the BTS property. T - Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 1 "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Paradise Motors Land Division, LLC 8212 W. Saginaw Hwy. Lansing, MI 48917 OWNER: Amoco Oil Company 4850 East 491h Street MBC I-L Cuyohoga Heights, OH 44125 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. EXISTING ZONING: "E-2" Local Shopping District REQUESTED ZONING: "F" Commercial District EXISTING LAND USE: (Vacant) gas station PROPOSED LAND USE: Convert property to a used car sales business PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 125.67' (along Jolly Rd.) x 148.88' (along Penn. Ave.) 18,710 sq. ft. (.43 acre) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential S: Office E: Commercial (Gas Station) W: Multi-Family Residential SURROUNDINGFZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "F" Commercial E: "E-2" Local Shopping W: "DM-3" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania and Jolly for commercial land use. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This request is to rezone the subject corner lot (formerly an Amoco Gas Station) from the "E-2" Local Shopping District to the "F" Commercial District to allow for a used car sales business. Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 2 "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH.- (No response received.) ASSESSOR Were the underground storage tanks removed? Are the underground storage tanks on the assessment roll? CITY ATTORNEY: (No response received.) COMMUNITY POLICING: (No response received.) BUILDING SAFETY: There are no applicable building code regulations which regulate this proposal. No objections. BWL: Electric: No conflicts. Contact Person: Steve Conn 702-6726 Water: Approved with comment - BWL Water Customer Projects has no request to revamp or replace existing water line. If no action is required by BWL, Water Customer Projects would have no comment. Contact Person: Terry Robison 702-6494 CODE COMPLIANCE: Please let this office know what conditions are placed on site and sign if approved by City Council. CONSUMERS ENERGY: (No response received.) DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: No comment. FIRE MARSHALL: No objections. INGHAM CO DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) LANSING NGHD. COUNCIL: (No response received.) MEDIA ONE: (No response received.) MI DEPT. TRANSPORTATION: (No response received.) Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 3 11E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District PARKS & RECREATION: No comment. Does not impact park operation. PUBLIC SERVICE: Public Service reserves any comments for the site plan process. TRANSPORTATION: (No response received.) Description of Site The property is currently a vacant gas station site on property zoned "E-2" Local Shopping District,18,710 sq. ft. (.43 acre) in size, measuring 125.67' along Jolly Road and 148.88' along Pennsylvania Avenue. According to the applicant, the site has had environmental problems due to underground storage tanks. The applicant has indicated that the "abandoned former corner gas station has limited redevelopment uses due to restrictions by Amoco, the small size of the lot and allowable uses of the "E-2" Zoning". The proposed use of the property is a used car sales lot, which is not permitted in the "E-2" Local Shopping District, but is permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The applicant is therefore requesting the property be rezoned to the "F" Commercial Zoning District. The types of uses permitted in the "E-2" Local Shopping District include the following: 1. Convenience store, bar, tavern... The code defines "Convenience retail store" as an establishment which primarily serves the surrounding neighborhood and includes, but is not limited to, the following: A: Limited service food store; B: Drug store; C: Hardware store; D: Barber and/or beauty shops; E: Laundry or cleaners pickup; F: Watch and shoe repair; G: Jewelry store; H: Florist; I: Gift shop; J: Book store; - K: Clothing store; L: Photographer; M: Tailor, and N: Bakery whose products are sold only on the premises. Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 4 "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District 2. Post Office 3. Motor Vehicle Service Station (Defined: "a motor vehicle service station"means any lot used for supplying gasoline, oil and minor accessories at retail directly to the customer and which performs minor repairs. "Minor repairs"means: engine tune up, alternator or generator replacement, rustproofing, battery replacement, fan belt replacement, radiator hose replacement, radiator repair or replacement, tire repair or replacement, wheel balancing, muffler and exhaust system replacement or front end alignment.') 4. Office (business or professional) 5. Clinic The intent of the F and F-1 Commercial Districts is to allow general retail commercial uses, as opposed to convenience oriented "local shopping district"types of development only. The "F" Commercial District allows used car lots as a "Use Permitted Subject to Special Conditions" per section 1268.03(g): The use of a lot for the sale of new or used automobiles, trailers, boats, farm machinery or equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn furniture or playground equipment or garden supplies shall be permitted in an F or F-1 Commercial District, if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The area of the lot won which the items described in this subsection are located shall be covered with Portland cement or asphaltic concrete. (2) Each point of vehicular ingress and egress to the lot shall be not less than sixty feet from the intersection of any two streets. (3) Any repair or refinishing which is done on the lot shall be done within the confines of an enclosed structure. (4) Lighting shall be directed away from any adjacent Residential District. (5) The portion of the lot on which the items described in this subsection are located shall have a buffer zoned of at least five (5) feet from all lot lines adjacent to the public right of way and any residentially zoned property. The buffer zone shall be landscaped, screened and buffered in accordance with the requirements of sections 1290.08 and 1290.09 of Chapter 1290. ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area at the northwest comer of Pennsylvania and Jolly for commercial land use. S. Pennsylvania Avenue is designated as a principle arterial and Jolly Road is classified as a minor arterial. The "E-2" Local Shopping District is regarded as a commercial zoning district and is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 5 "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north; office, commercial and multiple family development to the south; commercial (gas station) to the east, and multiple family residential development to the west. A proliferation of used car lots have been established along most of Lansing's major and minor arterials and wherever the "F" Commercial Zoning District exists. Many of these have very little to no landscaping, very limited, if any, customer parking, use pennants, banners and other illegal signage to gain visibility. In short, they are not a desirable development, particularly adjacent to residential development. Plenty of used car sales businesses currently exist within Lansing. S. Cedar Street has many used car sales businesses and several other parcels are zoned "F" Commercial to accommodate additional used car sales businesses. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Per section 1268.03(g) of the Zoning Ordinance, each point of vehicular ingress and egress to the lot shall be not less than sixty feet from the intersection of any two streets. The applicant has supplied a site plan that shows the closure of the curb cuts closest to the intersection, and therefore satisfies that requirement. Sidewalks currently exist along the Pennsylvania and Jolly frontages. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The subject property has environmental problems due to the existence of underground storage tanks. Underground wells are monitored by Delta Environmental to ensure that no additional pollution occurs on this site. The applicant has indicated that the asphalt pavement serves to seal the site, which helps to prevent further seepage of pollution into the ground. Limited removal is proposed to provide the required landscaping along the frontage of the two streets. Some landscaping, as shown on the site plan, is proposed to be placed in the above ground planter boxes. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT Staff believes that the "E-2" Local Shopping District allows for a wide variety of commercial uses. The proposed used car sales business would have a negative effect on the adjacent residential uses. OTHER Billboards are permitted in the "F" Commercial District subject to the conditions as listed in Section 1442.22 "Billboards"of the Sign Code. The applicant has indicated that he will not place a billboard on this site. It should be noted that no billboard could meet the locational requirements as stated in Section 1442.22(e): Z-6-01 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. page 6 "Setback. "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District (1) No billboard shall be located within 250 feet of the center of an intersection of two major/principal arterials or minor arterial as defined by the City's Master Plan, as amended from time to time. (2) In those zone districts where permitted, billboards shall not be closer to any residential district than a distance of 200 feet or closer than 200 feet to the nearest property line of any park, library, school, church , historic district or hospital. This distance will be measured from the closest part of the billboard to the nearest district or use referenced here. (3) Billboards must comply with the setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, and no billboard or any portion thereof SUMMARY shall project over the public right of way or public property. The rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District is requested to allow the establishment of a used car sales business. The attached site plan shows improvements to the property at 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, as required in Section 1268.03(g) of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan review process would review the proposal for any additional landscaping required, particularly adjacent to residential development. Staff believes many sites are available throughout Lansing that are currently zoned for used car sales, and that several types of businesses are permitted in the "E-2" Local Shopping District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to rezone property at 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue from "E-2" Local Shopping to "F" Commercial District be denied. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Wynant,=AICP Senior Planner Z-6-01.wpd o° 5- 12- 1958 14 116 • a — — -- — i'v I ° � 2801� a� rls v A 132 ��� \ 1 1 5 o v >- A ( ` x /Y7' � r 29 �j� 119 N � � � 133 �� Q\ 1 14 o �'� b � X ti120, ^ s � 1 ; 3 0 � 134 o q l 13 a > V p 1 121 el 0135 a OUT LOT D \g\ 1 12 ``A v 31 Oq r14 ui \ > 122 y I � o136ary\ � 32 }p� F ` is Q \ 123 ;� g 13 7 �v " L\ 110 ;, o°v QZ " 3 3 \\ ti � c \ \ v 1 . 124 v o 138a�� \�\ 109 o Z 12 5 14 105 1 106 10 1 W i�, �, f1 It 12 35 36 1/2 127 12 C� L i' �' v• •�� iI S.S' eirr � R D go� 90 Joss o In 9/0 ' ^ � •� � Iola I /Iis� � Iola 125" io d0 BO N ry' r07, Ir 0*1 7 \ i ^ - � 1 V 66 67 68 � h �e• _ — — yes. � ti ii e ti y o3 I3 ' 14 W ,s.�' �'�ai•'•At�+��ae<Jv n t fit �`�.`�'r �1'„��t i 'Jiifiw�E.iJF" ..ww� .12--. �• �:1 .. T�� .;•�>>±±'�• Y \ t-may yy u i t�1 �.jyl,r� I t �, .�S�f j+ .+~ I si�� �7'�" 4F�. •t„sjy aii'�•p,,.f c��y.7'� , I . 1: t. MW �W— to aS�r� �kr.. � �ass�xt, �,• � �: t`��''� �z F :lug x�a�• �'��,5 F s 2:' � i.h�Krs fj�,�,f �. d � Jf �!';e'+•� F� '++��M s t�i Y ����4 �..�'� � '�:' t i ,�+}t h �. }��" /(��,�� Y lalfgty.��+��.t'Nyi F�.Sny�i• Y ft4" ` Y �""1,,,.s11�"" .` rsrr���xJt��"�', `3. 1 7 •". � e tt_. _. f '�y. , r �q}.it, 1 �• '- f,. n�:h��7rii� �'io : :j" 1 I tii•N ` I i. 1 k f tr (y ryx I f Y Y IS yR� ` IFS'�j� ,Sr•.I� I � t� '� � �Y S 1 f )' D1 ,.�.� r .•*�5�.,.,+.HYT INS' �.) 01 �. ���' . �•����M t �'i dr. 1 - .�: R, tie �' �4%T ���yl, �•..� o °�j +�,•yyy . 17 F.f�t.4�' qy„y�o.A' �"$uif•'wc1 aC.�"� .a''f �. �.i4 yM'hw yy ����•et��,ri.�..�L�T•''� �^ � r�' � v •g �"°`+ - �r �4+rW&.}.'�L ��' �.c n (•1„ �Y-w r _ ���[Tw 7 34az ti ��r l'y; �7'•� � ���?�4�Lt 3• �:� V.�( ^"L'�.,-S/' Y'���f +�»KEY snw6�{fiY''� .�e�'t .'�i'k'?S ars.-.+� t>-.. Y�,��,.,•!'J.°tr +`�`.- aA�a!�j�w:"�"r•.r� ♦"�r,�- a.Ke�-�s.;t��Cr r".,-.,cr Y'h+' a ' - :.-S ,r�f`"1F•cvt - 7Ls�1� ..._r+ 1"-7- t ", t. ,e._ ...-n/M'yM• .y Y �_ k +,owo:i sw.'c..e.,-.�}�,'�� ry. ,�.af+'+� � +°'. ...,, r k���' A.+ r_-.+airy'• i� 4 [ _ _ } ��' �u,��, �-iG,��.-c.,.•r� �I i ' a. "-'f r.is.��: 3 .-:�4.r .,a A - _ 'teams JML�1�it7if~.}RT� `Y...h"rtSa ��:. Y ~ .+. it ~"fF•�!� mil, � C �'.t< „-aat'-�- ,A: .r . . '�. x Y �'•f L:• 7a �:�. ,bA+N.i"i_ a•.'t�" _'I•� "'5.a3� Z .• j,' y ii .�. � ' ilk ,;�° � t. a*r T �S�i .�:_ :�'� .p 1-f�"r'N' -: r :' a f'A t-`�• 4 Fr rr gr 01 ��. � � a� �;,,.• �: 'Y"-rig wa.-� _ y a �:� ��._ e 05/04f2001 07: 08 517-626-2169 RICHARD COOLEY ,{ �'. PAGE p1 kA �P4 May 3, 2001 To: PLANNING BOARD City of Lansing Sent via FACSIMILE Transmission to 483-6036 Attention: Donna Wynant Re: CASE Number Z -6 .2001 Proposed Re-zoning to "F" Commercial District for: The Northwest Comer of Jolly Road and Pennsylvania Avenue Dear Planning Board Members: Jeff Braatz intends to complete the purchase of the subject property for the :wrpose of converting it for a new business use. He intends to renovate the property and sell rveviously owned vehicles there. The property is a former AMOCO Gas Station and has been � bandoned for approximately 2 years. The site is contaminated and is being monitored, for underground movement of contaminants, with monitoring, vapor extraction, and recovery wells. The status of the property is a concern for Mr. Braatz since BP-AMOCO desires to keep the surface in a "sealed" condition. We are told that BP-AMOCO may allow r.�rnoval of pavement area based on an approved (by them) plan. We are hopeful that the proposed Improvements and Sketch Plan approach for creating a 5 foot wide (minimum) buffer area and landscaping will be satisfactory to both the City of Lansing and to BP-AMOCO. We intend to provide alternative landscape - screening - buffering treatments tnat will be a departure from simply removing 5 feet of paving all along the front of the properr; W create the required 5 foot wide buffer area. These alternative treatments will actually ex.c.eed the standards for buffering in Chapter 1290 of the current Zoning Ordinance. I am confident that, once you have reviewed the facts of this case and ackno ledge the applicant's sincere intentions, you will rdcommerd approval of this zoning district amF•n:ment to the City Council. Thank You for your consideration. Respectfully, Richard A. Coo Landscape Architect 9290 Riverside Drive Grand Ledge, MI 48837 517-626-2341 Attachments: • Reasons for Approval • Exlstlna Site Conditions Plan • Proposed Improvements Plan • Sketch Plan • Sketch Plan Detail 05/04/2001 07: 08 517-626-2169 RICHARD COOLEY PAGE- 02 CASE Number Z-6 -2001 Proposed Re-zoning to'F'Commerclal District: Northwest Comer of Jolty Road and Pennsylvani 9 Avenue APPLICAN75 i2&E:'.—AN.5.;ON5 For APPROVAL • THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 YE,,RS. o THE PROPERTY IS A VISUAL BLIGHT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD 'N ITS PRESENT CONDITION. • THE PROPERTY IS SEVERELY C1EED RESTRICTED, BY THE CURRENT OWNER, FOR POSSIBLE NEW USES: o NO GASOLINE OR OTHER PET�.DLEUM PRODUCT SALES. o NO CONVENIENCE STORE OPERATION. o NO NEW USE WHICH WOULD BE COMPETITION FOR BP-AMOCO STATION ACROSS THE STREET. • USED CAR SALES IS A VERY GOOD ADAPTIVE RE-USE: o CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PATTERN FOR THE AREA. o BP-AMOCO CAN CONTINUE TO EASILY MONITOR THE PROPERTY FOR CHANGES IN THE PATTERN OF CONTAMINATION. o PROPERTY HAS A LIMITED USE POTENTIAL.. • GOOD USE OF THE "F-COMMERCIAL" DISTRICT WITH THE NEW RULES FOR USED CAR SALES. o THE APPLICANT CAN COMPLz' WITH ALL ZONING ORDINA14CE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE AT THIS LOCATION. • APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND .TO ERECT A BILLBOARD ON THE PROPERTY. • THE NEW USE:IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE AND CAN BE ACHIEVED: o . THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO INVEST IN THE PROPERTY. o THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO ESTABLISH A BUSINESS PRESENCE IN THE CITY OF LANSING AT THIS LOCATION. o THE APPLICANT HAS MAIN i A MED A SUCCESSFUL USED CAR SALES BUSINESS LOCATION ON WEST SAGINAW HIGHWAY IN DELTA TOWNSHIP FOR 16 YEARS. o THE APPLICANT HAS MAINTAINED A SUCCESSFUL USED CAR SALES BUSINESS LOCATION IN-CHARLOTTE FOR 2 YEARS. 05/-04/2001 07: 08 517-626-2169 RICHARD COOLEY PAGE 0-, Existing ingle Family House Maple T X. Evergreens • � i I Ex. 5'Chain Link Fence Ex. 30' air Link Fence with Vinyl Screen Slats y/Screen Slats �f EW \ r ' Existing Asphalt Paving \ t f W °p Existing m Esuilding Existing Concrete P,rIving t W Z .w y Existing Concrete Paving Z C Existing Pole W Li40�al 4. iExisting Asphalt Paving 0 xisting A ' 1 a.k04K AWN s JOLLY ROAD ® OBSERVATION WELL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL Z O RECOVERY WELL 0 30 60 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS at: 5020 S. Pennsylvania Ave. in Lansing, MI Gr Scale In FEET (ExI�W S&° �P PMV/d•d by D•Jta Erwirnnw+rr" .a� hic Consultants, Inc.,File Name 30603SV, 3-20-2001) stw*t 1 Case#Z-6-2001 M 05/04i2001 07:08 517-626-2169 RICHARD COOLEY PAGE 04 ADD New Asphalt Paving. W z W RE-SURFACE entire paved area Q with new Asphalt wearing course. z C m Existing :•� w m :3 Building co a m ADD 5' Planter Box over Z Existing Concrete Paving. a m � � E H E m REMOVE Existing Asphalt Paving. m v H Install Landscaping. o ADD Planter Box with Sign over ~ o m Existing Asphalt Paving. ' �4ADD e REMOVE Existing Asphalt Paving ; Install Landscaping. 5'Planter Box over isting Concrete Paving. ... - - f 1 e JOLLYROAD REMOVE Driveways and r eplace with New Curb, Sidett,alk,and lawn area, as shown. Proposed IMPROVEMENTS (, WOR04 &AM) . 5020 S.Pennsylvania Avenue Lansing,MI Proposed Re-zoning-'F'Commercial District Proposed Adaptive Re-Use: Used Car Sales Proparod by. O 30 60 Richard A. Godley May 1, 2001 Landscape Architect&Planner 9290 RWrslde Drfve, SuWe L Grand Ledge P'>I .4e837-9?73 Orophic 5co1e In FEET wmet Z Case 0 Z-6 -2001 S S• SS S S' •■� �� ■• y port!IX • IMP AD t M"r ' • yi �4G7 i��',►'.,71�• �� .�:'•- '. 'r(�<-;'�J •• � �, � L Ion � �/ : +I �• � � i i I s \ 1 1 • r r r 11 _ 05iO4/2001 07: 08 517-626-2169 RICHARD COOLEY -- - - - PAGE 06 mug (r COV�'z. a A �cc, w�sewn , AT.-AW-66, -� Cross Section -A-A' Sketch flan 1.Detal l 5020 S. Pennsylvania Avenue i rinsing,MI See Sketch Plan, Sheet 3 .: Proposed Re-zoning-T'Cornavircial District O 5 do Proposed Adaptive Re-Use: Us.%J( ar Sales Pr"red by. MEIN== R1char-d A. Cooley May 1, 2001 Gr ophic Sw=W in FEET Landscape Architect&Pt3nner 9290 Riverside Drive, 5uft L GroM Ledge MI 48837-9273 5T7-626-23 41 sheet 4 Case N Z-6-2001 Z-7-01 Rezone from "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District page 1 Vacant property, south side of W Main Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER: General Motors Corporation Attn: Sherry Ocelnik Worldwide Real Estate 200 Renaissance Center Tower 200, 38th Floor Detroit, MI 48265 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Purchase agreement between General Motors Corporation and current owners, Thomas and Othressa E. Daniel. REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone vacant property from "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District. EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential District. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land. PPN 3301-20-204-211 PROPOSED LAND USE: Future development or parking. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE 37' x 116' = 4,292 sq. ft. (0.0985 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Main Street and 1-496 ROW S: Residential & Vacant E: General Motors Plant W: Residential • F SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Unzoned ROW S: "I" Heavy Industrial District E: "I" Heavy Industrial District W: "B" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Comprehensive Plan, as amended 1990, designates the area along the north face of Block 204 as park and open space, and the remaining area of the block as industrial use. Main Street is a minor arterial which runs one way, west-to-east. Martin Luther King Blvd. is a major arterial that runs one way, north-to-south. Z-7-01 "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District page 2 Vacant property, south side of W Main Street APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This request is to rezone vacant property located on the south side of W. Main Street from "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District. The applicant intends to use the property for future industrial development or parking. Background Information and Description of Site The subject property is located on the south side of W. Main Street. All lots within the block, surrounding the subject property, are owned or under contract by General Motors Corporation. The block is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial with the exception of the subject property which is zoned "B" Residential District. A residential structure remains at 815 Max Avenue, on Lot 9 of Block 204. AGENCY REFERRALS: (No response received at this time) Ameritech: (No response received at this time) Assessor: No comment Attorney: (No response received at this time) Building Safety: (No response received at this time) BWL: Electric: No apparent conflicts Water: No comment on rezone Street Lighting: No conflicts with street lighting Code Compliance: (No response received at this time) Consumers Energy: (No response received at this time) Development: No comment. s EDC: I have reviewed the agency referral information sheet regarding case Z-07-01, rezoning from "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial for the General Motors Corporation. The EDC is supportive of the request for the request and believes that the requested zoning is consistent with that of surrounding property and land uses. (Tracy L. Carney-Miller) Fire: (No response received at this time) Lansing Neighborhood (No response received at this time) Council: MDOT: No comment (Susan Hall) Police: (No response received at this time) Public Service: Public Service reserves comment for the site plan process Z-7-01 "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District page 3 Vacant property, south side of W. Main Street Transportation: No comments or requirements at this time. The TPO reserves the opportunity to make comments during the plan review process ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The applicant's request to rezone Lot 5 of Block 204, from "B" Residential to "I" Heavy Industrial District, is consistent with properties within the block and surrounding area to the east and south. Block 204 is vacant land with the exception of Lot 9, 815 Max Avenue, which has a residential structure, ca. 1910, which the applicant indicates will be demolished or made available for sale and relocation. Properties to the west of Block 204 are zoned "B" Residential District. The structures are residential in character. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The applicant has indicated the property will be used for future development and/or parking. No impact is anticipated in vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns; however the appropriate agencies have reserved the right to review these issues during the Site Plan Review process. Main Street is a minor arterial which runs one way, west-to-east. Martin Luther King Blvd. is a major arterial that runs one way, north-to-south. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The subject property is not in the flood plain. The future development of the site may have additional environmental impact. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The request for rezoning will have an impact on future patterns of development which is consistent with the Master Plan. SUMMARY The applicant, on behalf of General Motors Corporation, requests the rezoning of vacant property located on the south side of W. Main Street, Lot 5 of Block 204, from "B" Residential District to "I" Heavy Industrial District. The intended use of the property is for future industrial development or parking. The proposed zoning and land use are consistent with the Master flan and surrounding areas to the east and south. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. aAZ-07-01 fe.wplsc s Z-7-01. Vacant Land South Side of W. Main Street NORTH ti �-rIAL W MAINto � REs1� /vts /lv'FA /vis IV// l.1oI 27� 77' 1 46 ; a 6 5 2 I 7 1 6 ; 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 O a I s T 4 0 ti ; M N p Q �� ♦ 0) o — 1 C Q 12 /7/ ^ � 8 II 0y �- SV 10 2 13 /G/ : � > m 03/ 9 DI 1-X o./ ! a P/ 11 �� � 14 /S/ ma 10 � 13 - -- IYO.J /JAe- ID T T -� r o ° 14 22 1 20 1 118 17 1 1 ti 19 118 17 ( 16 115 I J 0 11 I0 I I ti + 1 vh I /Yt /•/!L /'!OB WILLIAM • v I Z r.-4 1 SO 15 17 , 16 ( 15 I I � 2 � 16 - � I �-,IP� - I I 114 1�13 .F- - — - - -I 14 113 - - - - � 5 4 3 a) 17 u 3 e H 18 I 4 n: �' 18 - 4- Z 0 --4 19 ® 5 19 O 5 a a 1 4- co I s — -4p0�, L _zo ! _s m 21 12 1 11 X 21 I t— _7 - (n -T T I- 8.. - --� Q 22 -•I 12 11 I v �- — — 8 - 24 23 22 - - - 6 7 10 24 10 GL, 0LDS 8 � �i(n ,� �. iP Q r/�$#'• f pr r 'Cs fl er+ kt�i t rla }'°�,'t' k +rt+•Q' ty ! i'*`i' a /y`!a it .' 7"r lh�� `` � Yla+1.•� S �'h � f����i �1!•'�' �g�.� 5 4+r � ,+„ y�su s61�G1�br:�r �,J' j 'lit„]7/'�y,�d. Y .�_r�,y r.• % n *�1�' + � ;:•.rd���.'Ai�'s'•"F •� �'�'s • t '�� rti r rvwC �'d +"� ,icy '+�e�-1C.:t� 1 :;t�'• ! :�- 1 C„��yarp•. �.1��.+,'•a.' •ti.y fii +� , y C' sf�`�,r. T S h 6 �,r � ✓' 7 �"~-�L„r ,�� f'rf 3�(p� �' �` ,_�S` i r"[` �,+•`.��Ct. +- R,1 S , r.ti�_ 3. " �vt � 1��•./��Y ..`. S'__". 4 "44f t� k t i aka sa4Y �� �. r •(Fr+ ,• �fi�/ � +{ : t ''{SF � y ., ry'i�t � \\\ r''jtt ^�{[ 1,{ •, 1 . fie:• e y D�sr"? '�� r 1 f .�t;. a t � �1ajr� � �a��,% � r'• '1,'�7�` �"�y���S>j' •�� -`� t r ��" fit'#S .'"� '�;' '^lyd• ;�! '�" "'1ir{+y�y'i��,�*'k r�� �t r.+i�� ,age `y1ec�,c.`i�� .''li'r�e9-�:d���rrr�4 � Z..1 � ` �! "# 'Jaw,F, ,y ♦ �s Sul - '"t";, a t •� 9t� � ,y� �i -/ � rr �� �" `y!� � �� �. �i 1�. + a"'Y n • "C � +` ♦ 1 '� � �YY��yy� �!�ljjyy$$�•r�[ r� C�� �Y;: ta1aA'. i�y i e •* 'Yif �?' .ti� t :f� (M Ay�">,�'p` ��� {,+1` �y ,i•`�"`l ,���•/Q Y�� .Ta,___7— ��4���Y�• ••fMl �'�•Y.R r' +� r�'i�kL,� .r•,f�K •�+';r�'�+t'�i'6i t � /OVr7,. `.ti,• �71W+• ", �,i�t��tr`�',c�*'�' �tt.�' t '''L`- t�aa,� '� r{;` � i,+�'��ytaaf�`��' �,p �7Filz"�i� la^�•i e .I�+.'Y37� '1ii "�w�'�,�tf;•�i'{.,�^f-��',y t.,.i,ir s�t�.'.��p i.. .. ��4 �' {��'+1t"��t�t�j'�1�:>., i. y S Am -•y`' td} a T�, �� �� i."r -�' U�1 �,.., t� �'e�� 111JS 4 :�'1�,k > �' .a s F!jjj t F t of � � _�° N•' �'� S. 4,a �WS� time 'PGK•1�t,�, +�r•tn+�i. ���1• .•.�.�..r.wR+. ....w..•�.— �� ,r,.,'. II n7�.1 t "A t?t® * 7lR`9 �,���- Yr #, +'�� - r"+"�-�'..—..n•.rwetW�� F4 l i�•...�a'+C�n( �. `. i '� 'z' "�a'fr V.- `k. I a l..."1"'•r7[1 Ir �! :�•a -{!. nL '^h4...t. i t r,}`�• �y.'c ,srK,. "5"t""•'t .w � r.i t34�,1i: i. r �f'T.k r �T 7v�I j'`� rfa+l��k �r. �e:.A:�� �ii:i� ^�•;.5„ �+' ,m'"..,,- �lr rN � x � 'xi �..��.+,�' b ; r! f t•���ti a 'K�hlit��irin�1 of '�:i.'"ts;a, 2."po._ f r r-•; +'+��refi' i '.?► qF '; ��� t.Y' 1 '.a,4 r��r t'n ��yti, Sy�� ,� Sty y + �'•� aft �• f1 c.• 33 � �t' i' r. ^`",.Z; ►wk' �' .�f"1{,. 'ir"1�-Ci YYa F`. �.{Y tL- .tt .%a,a, a. >r .;F } �rfauW— ,�� .�++ •,'.f� 4 {':� .�, f{��a _ y:}:'�Y��Ysaa�il Ip�• rr,,,, C •��"�J `* ,r,rt�,�;v.,.✓• � ��Fl`,i., •:�••• .,F f ,. 1 , F^�6� k6Y r yyt�`�� � �' !' ,E�}j/r'�lj�� y'4�+rl�", a' '"� .� r � �i;:. .. '_ 7�;7' � ---.... .- �{ ik.��'""�t j5•.IY� � rr -:�"... y ��f:/.��at i�/ter t''"Qf � �"" � `r' ��� •�"' • �. - .. -.- I��•a'^s''°`.,ykA"F +-,�,t5�r�' '�f�.t' �+ •�@°��,�1'�! Y,+ • •S�,i�.,��-w .. +� c k- .xi: � t .. ij•'L��t"`'Ci�j"`I'+S'�+yMrt�tl�.�a .�~���d�l',��G - a y r '. ti'F' kR ,'3a vy. +>• .. "' i>., x.t .,sG r•15 ,i,v . ITZt. F APPROVED JUNE 19, 2001 with corrections Pg 28 Ln 8.03" Pos. 1.5"as follows Draft to Clerk 06182001 6. tThat subsequent to this project a moratorium be placed on building within the Approved 06192001 Grand River Park until the completion of a park Master Plan involving To Clerk 06222001 the park users and the community. ThiS Feeemmemdatiam was 8P.PlFaved by a unenim9eus Yete. Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, June 5, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Foster, Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. Six members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - None. F. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator; and Donna Wynant, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Ms. Stachowiak requested, at the discretion of the Board, that action be taken either by Committee of the Whole or the Zoning and Ordinance Committee on the four NCU cases, NCU-5-2001, NCU-6-2001, NCU-7-2001, and NCU-8-2001. Her preference was Committee of the Whole, so that the entire Board could hear the report. With those remarks, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. E-mail message dated June 5, 2001 from Fire Chief Greg Martin to Mr. Rieske and Ms. Wynant regarding questions of Ms. Loretta Stanaway about Fire Department responses for a new fire station at the former Richter's site. B. Message from Ms. Loretta Stanaway concerning a new fire station at the former Richter's site. 4. HEARINGS - C. ACT-12-2001, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Market Fire Station for Sale Ms. Wynant presented the case, a request to market for sale the fire station at 5550 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. The second public hearing tonight, Act-1 3-2001, concerns acquisition of property located at 4801 S. Cedar Street for a new fire station. The property at 5550 S. Pennsylvania Avenue is about .6 acre in size, with 100 feet of frontage onto Pennsylvania and 261 feet of depth. This fire station is part of the Fire Department's facility renovation. They would like to market this station for sale. Surrounding properties to the north and south are predominantly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 2 commercial across the street. To the west is residential, with accompanying zonings, "G-2" Wholesale to the north and south; to the east is light industrial zoning; to the west is single family zoning. The Master Plan designates this area for commercial land use. Comments received from agencies and departments concerned future use of the building. The Fire Department would use funds from the sale of the station to build and/or repair fire stations. Ms. Foster asked the age of the building. It was built in 1962. CHIEF GREG MARTIN, LANSING FIRE DEPARTMENT. We want to sell the station and use the funds to renovate another fire station. In 1998, the voters passed a two-part bond issue of$7 million dollars. We are thankful to have that funding. Our engineering study at the time indicated we would need about $10.5 million in 1998 dollars to renovate stations. The structure is sound, but it has lived out its usefulness as a fire station. The height of the truck bay is inadequate for some of our equipment, as well as the physical space. Right now we have a fire engine and ambulance station there. Given the growth in that section of town, we wanted a station with more resources farther south. There is a radio tower on site. As part of the sale agreement, we would want to continue to use that for a period of time until we could relocate it or make other arrangements. Lansing and county-wide communities are in the midst of a police and fire radio study. If we were to switch Lansing Police Department to an 800 MHZ system, that tower would not be necessary in its present form. If we were to sell it before that issue is resolved, we would have to lease it back. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. ACT-13-2001, 4801 S. Cedar Street, Acquire for Fire Station Ms. Wynant presented the case, located at 4801 S. Cedar Street, formerly Richter's Gardens. The building will be cleared from the site for redevelopment for a fire station. The property, zoned "F" Commercial, is approximately 1.7 acres in size, so it is larger than the site on S. Pennsylvania. The surrounding land uses include commercial development to the north and to the south; to the east is residential and across the street is office and commercial development. The Master Plan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 3 designates this portion of S. Cedar for commercial development. Responses from various agencies and departments include a comment by the Transportation Engineer that this site would provide an excellent centrally-located site for the Fire Station; however, special consideration must be given to traffic conditions along Cedar Street. Specialized traffic signal preemption and an emergency traffic signal would be required in order to allow for expeditious emergency vehicle flow. Part of the report includes the application which indicates that this is part of the Fire Department's facility renovation project. This proposal would allow for more Fire Department resources to be located in S. Lansing. It would improve fire and emergency service protection for the south side of Lansing. The attached location map shows commercial zoning with parking zoning district around the commercial district on site. That has served as more of a buffer around the commercial zoning districts since residential zoning is located to the east. Any structure would have to be located within the "F" Commercial District. Mr. Smith asked about the communication which does not indicate the sender. Mr. Ruff said it came from Ms. Stanaway. Mr. Smith wondered about the "cons" in light of the glowing recommendation from the Transportation Engineer. Mr. Ruge asked if the Fire Department is considering the other property owned by Wolverine? He also asked about screening and buffering next to the residential area. Does the City require itself to screen and buffer? Ms. Wynant said most definitely, screening and buffering, privacy fencing and landscaping. A minimum five-foot strip would be required, and across from residential we would look at additional materials, more landscaping that would go beyond the five-foot strip. There is residential development to the east. Across the street is AutoZone, and to the south is commercial. Mr. Ruge asked about the vehicle access off Lewis Street onto this parcel. Would that be closed? Ms. Wynant said we have not as yet received a site plan, but we would look at those things. CHIEF GREG MARTIN, LANSING FIRE DEPARTMENT. This particular site has a number of advantages, and there are a couple challenges also. Advantages include the ability to station more equipment in the south part of Lansing. This site in particular is of a size that we think we could use a design similar to the new station at Pleasant Grove and Jolly. Challenges include traffic—Cedar is a busy street. There are ways to control our access onto Cedar to make it safe and not impede response or endanger citizens. Three basic approaches include: (1) hard-wire a switch, either from a traffic signal in front of the station, or from that intersection to a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 4 timed button in the fire station which would then configure the signal for a 30- or 40-second time for fire vehicles to access Cedar; (2) use traffic pre- emption equipment. On a City-wide basis that would be very expensive, but it would be feasible to equip that one intersection. The Transportation Engineer says it could be done for about $5,000 for that intersection. To the public it would look like a white strobe light that flashes at a specific frequency on top of the engine. That trips a sensor that would cycle the traffic signal in specific ways, so that fire equipment could get through the intersection. We have a grant application in to do that City-wide. Referencing my e-mail to Mr. Rieske and Ms. Wynant concerning service area boundaries on a fire call, we use overlapping station areas to respond to a structure fire. You would not have just one station respond. Typically, we would send three engines and a ladder truck and a command unit as well as a paramedic ambulance to a fire scene. For planning purposes, we use a computer model that utilizes a conservative approach. Response area would include a four-minute circle around the area. For insurance purposes, we are rated using a five-minute benchmark. In Lansing, we try to use a four-minute circle. Reasons for this include age of the housing stock and industrial applications. The quicker the response, the smaller the fire. For national standards for a typical residential fire, you would like to get a dozen fire fighters there in about ten minutes. We are under that standard. In terms of medical response for basic life support, you want to be in the four- to five-minute range, and for advanced life support, in the eight-minute range. We see this as a viable location. Compared to the current location, basic road miles are increased. Another question concerned the number of calls per year. Estimates are based on about 4,500 emergency responses per year out of this station. Differentiating between call or incident, and a run (response from a vehicle), for example, on many types of medical calls, a fire engine will also go along with the ambulances. That is two vehicles responding on one incident. The current station, Station #4, is one of our busier stations. It is understandable why we want to move more resources south. This facility would give us the ability to put a ladder truck in the south end. Mr. Smith asked how do you determine response times when you say it is four minutes. Are you using a model based on distance and speed, or do you have data based on actual runs? Chief Martin said the time of alarm to the time on-scene. There are a couple ways to look at it. One would be an average response time. If many calls are concentrated in an area, you may get there quickly. The averages are important, but you also need to look at what percentage of your area you can cover in four PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 5 minutes. Mr. Ruff said, for benefit of the public as well as the Board, you mentioned that this site is not definite. Chief Martin said we hold a stop watch against computer models regarding response times. We check times against the computer. Usually times are better than computer predictions. Ms. Foster asked how response times are affected by rush hour, and traffic back-ups. Chief Martin said computer modeling is affected by traffic. It utilizes a conservative approach to reflect peak numbers of vehicles per hour. "But we do have lights and sirens." So it is not like sitting and waiting through several changes of the traffic signal. Mr. Ruge asked about the 4,500 responses. Chief Martin said that is a projection for 2001. If three vehicles go every time to every incident, you would have 1,500 responses (incidents). Mr. Ruge also asked about a site owned by Wolverine Development on S. Cedar. Chief Martin said he had not seen the site. Regarding the Richter's site, would you continue the access to Lewis Street? Chief Martin said we would try to do a design similar to Pleasant Grove and Jolly, with drive-through truck bays. If the station can set back far enough from Cedar, smaller vehicles like ambulances can back in without impeding traffic. We have that problem from time to time at the S. Pennsylvania site. Mr. Ruge said fire trucks are noisy vehicles. The Chief agreed. Mr. Ruge said noise at 3 a.m. could be disruptive for residents on Lewis and other streets. Chief Martin said to some extent they have that now, with east-west traffic on Jolly and north-south traffic on Cedar. LORETTA STANAWAY, 546 ARMSTRONG, LANSING. I have no quarrel with the idea of the fire station being relocated from S. Pennsylvania, nor with the concept of building a new, modern facility that can serve the needs of the community better. I voted for the bond issue. I do have a problem with the potential location of the new facility at the Richter's Gardens site. I live in the area on Armstrong. I hear sirens at my residence from day to day. If I lived next door to the station, I would hear them much louder. I have looked into some things. (Read letters concerning the Richter's Gardens site and the vacant Wolverine Development site.) You have a fiduciary duty to look at the best interests of the taxpayer and look long and hard and not rubber stamp this and take time to look at other options. You have an even stronger responsibility to the citizens to decrease response times or to keep it equal to present times. CHIEF MARTIN. Looking at it as a service area, you are going to cover a much greater area from the Richter site. This location will not reduce or PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 6 negate fire or medical response. Lease may be a viable option. Typically the City has not leased property. The site may be a little narrow. Certainly we are going to look at it. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Keene declared the hearing closed. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. PRD-1-2001, Edgewood Villas, 19-plus acres, 1000-1200 Block Edgewood Blvd., Planned Residential Development Ms. Wynant presented the case, a Planned Residential Development of 19-plus acres. The applicant, A&S Development of Winter Park, Florida has a purchase contract. The owner is Walter Neller Enterprises, Lansing. The PRD would allow the construction of 150 townhouses to be located on a wooded site in the 1000-1200 block of Edgewood Blvd. Frontage along Edgewood Blvd. is 928 feet. Depth varies. Along the east property line, it is 865 feet; along the west property line it is 1039 feet. Currently it is zoned "DM-1", a low density multiple family zoning district. Surrounding properties include a single family residential neighborhood to the north; to the south is vacant land; to the east and west is multiple family residential. The Master Plan for the area designates the site for medium density residential, 14 to 20 dwelling units per acre. A proposed site plan has been submitted. On the preceding page is additional information concerning the PRD. They propose 20 one-bedroom units, 90 two-bedroom units, and 40 three-bedroom units for a gross density of 7.89 units per acre. The assessor, commenting regarding Georgetown Blvd. which ends at the western property line of the site, felt it would be important for Georgetown Blvd. to connect to Edgewood Blvd. This would remove any detrimental effects of having the road end abruptly at this parcel. Lansing School District generally supported residential construction. Transportation Engineer indicated that the development should be designed to accommodate buses for student pick-up and drop-off and possibly CATA. Regarding the property, "DM-1" allows for low-density multiple family development. If the parcel has more than six acres, when there is more than one structure, it goes through the Planned Residential Development process. Intent is to encourage innovation in design, and to maintain, preserve, and enhance special features of the land. It is a wooded site with a regulated wetland along the north property line, and a drain PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 7 running along the north property line. Two other sites are designated as regulated wetlands. Along the southwest corner is a nonregulated wetland. Public Service e-mailed a response recently, saying this wetland does not appear to have an outlet, so the developer's engineer should investigate this wetland to reduce flooding hazards. Mr. Smith asked if these would be rental units or owner-occupied? Ms. Wynant said they would be rental units. Ms. Foster asked who would be reviewing the site plan? Ms. Wynant said it would be reviewed by her, Public Service Dept., Transportation Engineer, City Forester, CATA and others. Ms. Foster said the parking situation does not appear workable. You have to back out of each of these parking areas, and there is no other option. The tot play area is nice, but it is not close to any of the buildings. The nature trails are nice amenities but without any way of getting to them. MAURIE MAHIEU, VICE PRESIDENT, WOLVERINE ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, MASON. We have been employed by the owner to do the preliminary site plan for Edgewood Villas. The site has both regulated and nonregulated wetlands which we are trying to preserve, except for the nonregulated wetland which would be used as a nature trail, and for siltation and water retention before entering the city drain at Georgetown Blvd. The area to the north is a drain with standing water. We have not done any detailed engineering plans on this as yet. This is a preliminary plan and we will be working with the City. We are trying to keep one covered parking carport per unit and additional parking for visitors or additional cars per unit. We have tried to add amenities such as sports play area, basketball court, and walking areas. We have not addressed landscaping. Upon entry, we will try to get more landscaping, so you do not immediately see a dumpster or parking areas. During site plan review, we will do detailed drawings to show these things. Mr. Ruge asked if it is possible to connect Georgetown so that there is not a dead end there? Mr. Mahieu deferred to the Walter Neller representative. RONALD KREGEL, VICE PRESIDENT, WALTER NELLER ENTERPRISES. When the Smokler development was built, which was the first one along there, the City required that it be built as a boulevard, called Edgewood at the time. The City's plans were to extend that in both directions, to then-Logan, now Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., and back to Washington. The cooperatives in the south part of Lansing filed federal PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 8 suit, Judge Noel Fox advocates for about ten years or so, and finally as a settlement seeking to block the people in the Smokler development but supported by other cooperatives in South Lansing in the lawsuit sought to block the connection both coming east to Washington, and west. The settlement then, when the federal government, to the surprise of the City and to us, allowed us to encroach upon the 1-96 right-of-way with a two- lane that was built. We were able to make the connection south of the Smokler development. I can't recall whether the settlement in Judge Fox's case would have specifically banned a connection at Georgetown, but certainly that was the whole issue of the case. I don't think that is in the cards to connect. It was a long drawn-out process. Ms. Foster asked, about the townhouses, are they going to be for rent? Is there ever a thought of those going for ownership? Mr. Mahieu did not know. 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, June 13, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) JERRY HEATHCOTE, 4011 HARTFORD RD, LANSING. Regarding the MSU Women's Crew Building and proposal regarding the Grand River Park, I have communicated with the Urban Development Committee. I have been the most active rower in Lansing for the past decade and have spent much time in the Grand River Park and on the water in a rowing shell. Most of this time I was a member of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club, which has private use of a boathouse located in the park. The current agreements between the City of Lansing and both boathouses in the park expire April 30, 2003. 1 feel this proposal, the Women's Crew proposal, should not be put on a fast track but should be studied and go through a rigid process before being approved or denied. Other ideas of Lansing residents regarding this topic should be heard. There are many more issues involved in this park, and the issues involving the private entities located within the park should be dealt with first before the MSU Women's Crew program is even considered. The MSU Women's Crew proposes an additional boathouse to be built which is private, with only MSU rowing coaches to have unlimited access to the facility. I feel the current issues regarding the Grand River Park are as follows: (1) Is additional boathouse space desirable and/or needed for this park? (2) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 9 Unlimited access to the current facilities by Lansing area residents that wish to use boats, oars and the shelter for rowing purposes. This unlimited access currently does not exist in either boathouse. In fact, the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club and MSU have denied access to rowers in the community. As there are no other clubs or boathouses in the area, this effectively gives the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club a monopoly on riverfront boat storage. I feel there are issues regarding the river boat Princess in terms of peak load parking that also should be addressed. Basically, I feel that the main issue here is whether or not an additional boathouse is appropriate for this park. It should be remembered that this is a park for green space first, and to have the boathouse located in this park is a privilege. I have seen and been inside both boathouses at the park. There is sufficient space to store all the boats and oars at the present time. In fact, the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club boathouse is only half full. I have also recently been informed that there is a proposal to double the size of the parking lot in this park. Again, as a frequent user of this park, I feel this too is unnecessary and detrimental to the park. Finally, I feel that the whole rowing community should have been aware of this proposal and allowed to have input. I have contacted by mail MSU, namely, Charles J. Reid, Director of Land Management, to discuss other ideas and options regarding this topic. To date, I have had no response. Again, finally, at the last Park Board meeting, which I have been attending for a year, this is the first time this topic has been brought up. It is very suspicious that some items were changed in the agenda in terms of location and time, and I think there was not enough discussion on this topic. There are a couple of new Park Board members on the Board, and one of them was trying to discuss this issue after the Park Board voted on this issue. I think it is very suspicious. Thanks for your time. STEVE WEBSTER, VICE PRESIDENT, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. Here to talk about Act-11-2001, the MSU Women's Crew boathouse expansion. Joining me today in the audience are two coaches of the MSU crew program, our land manager, Charles Reid, and Bruce Miller of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club. We are available for questions. We are proud of the opportunity to bring this facility to the river front. It is a nationally-ranked program. It is a wonderful addition from our standpoint to be able to bring a world-class facility to this world-class city. Women's and men's crews put this city in a very special category of cities around the country that have this kind of program available. We would love to partner with the men's crew club as well, and have a special relation with the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 10 BRUCE MILLER, 726 TOURAINE, EAST LANSING, MEMBER OF LANSING OAR AND PADDLE CLUB and a rower for 12 years. The Lansing Oar and Paddle Club is open to anybody in the community who wants to come down and learn how to row. We have never prevented anyone from joining the club. This evening we have a second session of our annual Learn to Row program which lasts for eight weeks in the summer. This year 25 to 30 people will take part in the program. It is advertised every year in the Parks Department Bulletin of summer programs. We are cooperative with the MSU Women's varsity program. We have a good rowing community and it is open to the public, contrary to what Mr. Heathcote says. The club has some problems with Mr. Heathcote, but those are between Mr. Heathcote and the club. Mr. Ruge asked how many boats do you store in your building? Mr. Miller said about 18 to 20. Eight of those are single boats, owned by private individuals. The club owns another eight or ten single boats, plus three doubles and two fours. The total value of the club-owned equipment is in excess of$70,000. This is not money raised from members. Bob Riden, who lived in Lansing across from the boathouse, upon his death left a trust for the development of rowing in Lansing. With that money, we put a big addition onto the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club and bought a lot of equipment. When the quonset but burned down that the men's program and women's program used to occupy when they were still clubs, they got some insurance on the boats, but the building was gone. Lansing Oar and Paddle Club contributed $20,000 to MSU to build what is now the MSU crew boathouse. Mr. Ruge asked how many boats could be accommodated? Mr. Miller said that would depend on the boat. A single rowing shell is 27 ft long; a double is 30 ft; a four is 40 ft, and an eight is 60 ft long. There is no space in our boathouse that could accommodate the eight or ten eights needed for the MSU Women's Crew team, lots of fours and some doubles and singles. They fill up the space that they now share with the men's club program. Ms. Foster asked what would be the cost for a private individual to come in and row. Mr. Miller said for the eight week Learn To Row program for three sessions a week, Tuesday and Thursday evening and Saturday morning, 24 sessions, the total charge is $75. That is break-even. We pay MSU rowers to coach. If you had your own boat and were an accomplished rower, you would pay the base fee of$195 for the whole year. You would pay $50 for the rack space to store your boat there, and $25 for the privilege of having a key to come and go whenever you PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 11 wanted. As rates go for rowing clubs around the country, that is very cheap. Mr. Miller said if you don't have your own boat, $195 is it. RON VAN ZEE, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, FERRIS DEVELOPMENT. I am here for questions regarding NCU-5-2001, NCU-6-2001, NCU-7-2001, and NCU-8-2001. MURDOCK JEMERSON, DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION. I am here to answer questions regarding the MSU Boat Club. 6. RECESS for five minutes. 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: May 15, 2001 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of May 15, 2001 with corrections as follows: Regarding NCU-2-2001, P 6 Ln 1.57 Pos 7.02" In the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, this item was TABLED. Regarding P-1-2001, P 6 Ln 2.18 Pos 7.24" In the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, this Item was TABLED. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; with those corrections, the minutes of May 15, 2001, were APPROVED. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole to take up four NCU items; unanimous; carried. 1. Committee of the Whole - Mr. Frederick, Chairman Ms. Stachowiak stated that these four NCU cases are all very similar, requests from the same applicant. She reviewed common elements. The applicant is Ferris Development, working in conjunction with the Planning and Development Department on residential development projects. All the properties are zoned "DM-3" Residential; they are all nonconforming for setbacks, and three of the four are nonconforming for lot coverage. Ferris Development would like to put a certain amount of funds into these. Because they are nonconforming, they are limited to 35 percent of the market value of the building. The amount of money Ferris Development wants to invest is under the 35 percent mark. They could proceed right now. The reason they are seeking the Class A Nonconforming designation is so that they have future options to invest more money, or as they get into the project and they find more repairs necessary, they will have the option of having the 35 percent cap lifted. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 12 a. NCU-5-2001, 303 N. Pennsylvania, Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, noting that thirty five percent of the repairs comes to $26,250, and the estimated cost of the repairs is $26,100. The survey included in the packet that illustrates the nonconformities associated with this property, four in number, namely, total lot coverage that is limited to 60 percent including pavement and structures; and three setback issues. One is the front yard setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. The minimum requirement is 20 feet for the average setback within 180 feet. The average setback is within that 20 feet. They currently have a two foot setback. Along Vine Street, that house currently encroaches 4.2 feet, actually, into the road right-of-way. It overlaps the property line. They have applied for an Act 285 Review and are working with Mr. Rieske to go through that process. The NCU is a separate issue. In addition, along the west (rear) property line, a minimum of 30 feet is required. They have 14 feet. These are the nonconformities associated with this property. We are recommending approval for several reasons; one, by reducing it from a two-unit to a single-family, it is brought further into compliance with the ordinance; two, it will be an improvement not only to this property but also to the neighborhood to have Ferris Development rehabilitate the building. Mr. Ruge asked if the property has two driveways. Ms. Stachowiak said yes, the property was a two-unit. It is a small lot, and that was the only way they could park the number of vehicles. After the conversion to single-family, they will need room to park two vehicles. That is another nonconformity associated with the property, but again, by reducing the parcel to a single-family, it is being brought further into compliance by reducing the number of vehicles that are parked on-site as well as the number of required parking spaces. Mr. Ruge asked if it is possible to get rid of one of the driveways. Ms. Stachowiak said the Planning Board could place the condition, depending on which one. There is eight feet between the house and the property line on the north side of the site. It is tight. On the west side, there is 29 ft, which is tight to try to squeeze in two vehicles without one extending into the road right-of-way. The front yard is in the road right-of-way because the house PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 13 encroaches. Mr. Ruff said on the west side of the house, realistically, two vehicles could not be parked between there and the sidewalk. The north side, being narrow, is not a good location to try to pack two vehicles between the two houses. Concerning front yard setbacks, all the houses along here set close to the road. Along Pennsylvania, they are nonconforming because the average setback is within the 20 feet. If the average setback is 2 ft, that part would be nonconforming, but the property still would not be conforming because of two other reasons, (1) because of the rear yard setback of 14 ft from the required 30, and (2) because of lot coverage. Mr. Ruge asked if Ferris Development intends to rent, or sell. Mr. Van Zee said it will be a rental property, with five bedrooms. Ferris Development is making a major commitment in this area. We have offers to purchase about 21 properties, over 100 units. Ferris Development contributed very heavily in the Seven Block Development Area. We are trying to do the same type of thing in this area. Typically, on a property like this, we spend about $70,000 up to $125,0004130,000 for the duplexes and fourplexes that we rehab. On the west property line, we propose to remove that back portion, a garage with a living area above. We are trying to get a little more space on the back for parking and/or green space. Mr. Frederick asked, about the Act 285 review, if this NCU would be contingent upon the Act 285 review being recommended. Ms. Stachowiak said they are two separate issues. Mr. Ruff said the Act 285 would formalize the encroachment and provide a remedy for the title issue. In the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve NCU-5-2001, 303 N. Pennsylvania, Class A Nonconforming Status. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All (6) ; Nays: None (0); motion carried unanimously; NCU-5-2001, 303 N. Pennsylvania, Class A Nonconforming Status was recommended to be APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 14 g. NCU-6-2001, 819 Vine Street, Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a five-unit structure that Ferris Development intends to rehabilitate, leaving it at five units. Thirty five percent of the value of the building comes to $30,800, and the current estimated cost of repairs is $25,900. They are well within the range. Issues associated with this case are lot coverage and setbacks. Again, the Board is referred to the survey included in the packet. Because of the number of units and number of bedrooms in each unit, seven parking spaces are needed. The survey illustrates the parking spaces. Lot coverage is an issue. They far exceed the 60 percent; they are around 70 percent lot coverage. Setbacks are another issue. The survey shows a 15.5 ft setback off Vine Street, measured to the house. There is a porch in front that has a five-foot setback. Minimum required setback would be 20 feet, so that is a nonconformity. The other nonconformity is the front yard along Haag Street. Currently they have a ten- foot setback in that area; again, the minimum required is 20 feet. There is also a side yard setback along the east property line; the five-foot minimum is 10 percent of the lot width, which is just under six feet, since there is 59.5 ft of lot width. We are recommending approval because it is an improvement to the property, as well as to the area. Mr. Ruge asked about configuration. Mr. Van Zee said there are four one-bedroom units, two on the first floor, two on the second floor, and a lower level efficiency unit located in the basement; however, it does have second means of egress out of the living area and the bedroom area. It will meet all conditions of the building code and Code Compliance when it is done. Originally, it was a six-unit, with the sixth unit having no second means of egress. We are eliminating that sixth unit. In the Committee of the Whole, Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve NCU-6-2001, 819 Vine Street, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 15 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All (6) ; Nays: None (0); motion carried unanimously; NCU-6-2001, 819 Vine Street, Class A Nonconforming Status was recommended to be APPROVED. C. NCU-7-2001, 811 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a two-unit structure in the "DM-3" District. It will remain a two-unit structure. Thirty five percent of the value is $13,125; estimated cost of repairs is $12,900. Again, the Board is referred to the survey included in the packet. Because this is a two-unit with each dwelling unit having two or more bedrooms, four parking spaces are required. The property has more than enough room in the back yard to accommodate the parking spaces. Lot coverage is not an issue with this case. The issue with this one is the side yard setback, with 3.5 feet. The required side yard setback is 10 percent of the lot width, which is 49.5 feet. They would require just under 5 feet. We are recommending that this be approved. Again, it would be a major improvement to the property as well as the area. In the Committee of the Whole, Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve NCU-7-2001, 811 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All (6) ; Nays: None (0); motion carried unanimously; NCU-7-2001, 811 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status was recommended to be APPROVED. d. NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case, a four-unit structure in the "DM-3" District. Thirty five percent of the value of the structure comes to $22,715. The current estimated cost of repairs is $21,200. The survey illustrates the required number of parking spaces based on the units and bedrooms contained in the building. Lot coverage is an issue with this request, as well as front yard setbacks. The setback at 25.2 ft would actually be in compliance with the requirement, but again, as in the previous case, setback is measured to the porch. It is an eight-foot porch, so with the minimum being PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 16 20 ft., this setback is not in compliance. There is the front yard setback issue as well as the lot coverage issue, but again, we are recommending approval. It is an improvement to the area. For this particular one, I would recommend that approval be conditioned upon hard-surfacing the parking area. Mr. Ruge said he was concerned about hard-surfacing the parking because this means the entire lot. That would cause a lot of run-off. Ms. Stachowiak said the parking area exists now, to serve the existing four units. It is just another nonconformity. The Board could approve that to allow the nonconformity to remain. The standard in the ordinance is that parking areas be hard-surfaced. To bring it up to code, that is why the recommendation is being made. Mr. Ruff said the code allows alternative surfaces to be approved administratively so that the Board's approval would not be required. Options include some kind of a surface so there would not be ruts in the yard, etc. My recommendation would be if there were an alternative approved, that it would have to be contained in some sort of an edge. A couple options are possible. Since this is a four-unit, that four of the spaces be concrete, and that the other be left gravel, or something like that, to try to reduce the amount of lot coverage. The width of the lot also almost dictates coverage of the full width except for vehicle overhang. Ms. Foster said she supported Mr. Ruge in that respect because he has a good point regarding run-off. She suggested brick or pavers or any other surface rather than concrete, to deal with the water. Concrete would add to the storm water management problem. Mr. Ruge suggested adding a condition for a surface that would eliminate the problem with ruts and mud but to have as much porous surface as possible. Mr. Frederick asked if there is an alternative to run-off control—a water retention area or other run-off management tool. Mr. Ruff said a combination of things could be done here—have the driveway surfaced and parking spaces in grass pavers with spaces demarcated—to minimize the use of nonporous surfaces in development of the parking area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 17 In the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status with the condition that the driveway and parking lot be hard-surfaced but with the impervious part of the driveway kept to a minimum. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All (6) ; Nays: None (0); motion carried unanimously; NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status with the condition that the driveway and parking lot be hard-surfaced but with the impervious part of the driveway kept to a minimum was recommended to be APPROVED. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Committee of the Whole do now rise; unanimous; carried. Chairman Keene resumed, calling for the report of the Committee of the Whole. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick. The Committee of the Whole addressed four items, requests for nonconforming status. The Committee moved to approve all nonconformities. The final one, NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status, had one condition attached, that the driveway and parking lot be hard-surfaced but with the impervious part of the driveway kept to a minimum. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve NCU-5-2001, 303 N. Pennsylvania, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Foster . . Aye Frederick. . .Ave Patrick. . .Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Aye Keene Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-5-2001, 303 N. Pennsylvania, Class A Nonconforming Status was APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve NCU-6-2001, 819 Vine Street, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 18 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . Aye Foster . . Aye Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-6-2001, 819 Vine Street, Class A Nonconforming Status was APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of NCU-7-2001, 811 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Patrick. . .Aye Ruge. . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-7-2001, 811 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status was APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend that NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status be approved with the aforementioned condition. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick. . .Aye Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-8-2001, 833 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status with the condition that the driveway and parking lot be hard-surfaced but with the impervious part of the driveway kept to a minimum was APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. Next meeting, Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chairman. The Urban Development Committee met on May 22 and took up the following. a. Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Court, Acquisition for River Frontage Dick Schaefer represented the Parks and Recreation Department which was requesting authorization to acquire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 19 the property at 125 Cottage Street for RiverTrail development. The property contains a 2-story structure, ca. 1908, and extends to the center line of Cottage Court, which is a privately-owned street. On March 6, 2001, the Planning Board tabled Act-24-00 due to questions and concerns regarding the potential demolition or relocation of this historic resource and its association with Lansing's automobile heritage. The Board referred the case to the Urban Development Committee for further information. The assessed value of the property is $13,500. The purchase price of the property is estimated to be approximately $37,000. The acquisition would be through funds approved by Council, either through Park millage funds and/or park acquisition funds. The Parks Department requires the removal of the building to accommodate the future extension of the River Trail, due to the narrow space (approximately 6 ft.) between the west edge of the house and the river bank edge. The Parks and Recreation Department has neither the funds to preserve, rehabilitate or maintain the structure for a restroom or interpretive center (staffed or unstaffed). The Department has no anticipated uses for the building, nor did the River Point Neighborhood Organization have funds in its budget to assist either with the moving or rehabilitating of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Revised): 1. 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. Market the structure for relocation to a nearby property to cluster the remaining residential structures in the blocks west of S. Washington Ave or within the River Point neighborhood. The City could PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 20 subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. 4. Mothball the building during the marketing process. 5. In the event the structure is removed, redevelopment of the site would need to accommodate the 10-inch sewer under Cottage Ave. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-24-00 in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The subject property is located along the east bank of the Grand River, and its acquisition for RiverTrail development has a public purpose in accordance with the Plan for Development of Lansing's Waterfront, dated February, 1974. 2. The house at 125 Cottage Avenue is considered historically significant due to the River Point neighborhood's connection to the automobile industry, and could be preserved as an historical resource. 3. The City currently lacks the funds to maintain the building as a public facility. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of the revised staff recommendation for Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Avenue, Acquisition for River Frontage. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval of Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Avenue, Acquisition for River Frontage with the five points in the revised staff recommendation. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick. . .Aye Ruge. . . Aye Keene. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-24-2000, 125 Cottage Avenue, Acquisition for River Frontage with five points in the revised staff recommendation as follows: 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 21 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. Market the structure for relocation to a nearby property to cluster the remaining residential structures in the blocks west of S. Washington Ave or within the River Point neighborhood. The City could subsidize the relocation with avoided demolition costs. 4. Mothball the building during the marketing process. 5. In the event the structure is removed, redevelopment of the site would need to accommodate the 10-inch sewer under Cottage Ave was APPROVED. 2. Act-10-2001, 925 Stanley St. (PPN 3301-08-351-006) Enlarge Cellular Tower Use Doris Witherspoon presented the case. Steve Baker, American Tower Corp., spoke on behalf of the applicant. Dick Schaefer represented the Parks and Recreation Department. The American Tower Corporation requests permission to expand the compound (leased) area surrounding the existing wireless telecommunications facility in West Side Park, 925 Stanley Street. American Tower currently subleases the existing tower from Verizon (SLU-9-96, BZA 3423.96, and ACT-23-96). This request for an expanded area would be an agreement directly between American Tower and the City. The proposed expansion to the north and west will provide additional ground space for anticipated future co-locators at this site. The proposal parallels the City's desire to minimize the proliferation of telecommunications towers by fully utilizing the existing tower infrastructure. The expansion of a cellular tower should not have any adverse impact on the surrounding area. The expansion of the existing tower will eliminate the need for additional towers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 22 Staff recommends approval, reserving the appropriate easements, provided that a 6-foot-tall privacy fence is erected and landscape, screening and buffering along the east side of the proposed leased area is provided. The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-10-2001 in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that the proposal will have a negligible impact on the use and appearance of the West Side Park, and the proposal parallels the City's desire to minimize the proliferation of telecommunications towers by fully utilizing the existing tower infrastructure. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-10-2001, 925 Stanley St. (PPN 3301-08-351-006), Enlarge Cellular Tower Use reserving appropriate easements, provided that the applicant furnish and install a 6-foot-tall privacy fence, and provide landscaping, screening and buffering, with site plan approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval of Act-10-2001, 925 Stanley Street, Enlarge Cellular Tower Use with conditions as above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Ms. Foster asked if a monopole currently exists there and is it going to be expanded? Mr. Rieske said a monopole currently exists, and there will not be a second pole added. Equipment will be added to allow more co-location on the existing tower. The applicant would sublease to additional co-locators. Ms. Foster also asked about the fence—why is such a large area fenced. Mr. Rieske said the fenced-in area will be reserved for use by the applicant. Mr. Ruff said, typically, in development of these sites with multiple tenants, they need their own equipment, switching and fiber optics structure. They have a low-maintenance area around the equipment which would include up to a foot thick gravel surface in the compound area. This was deemed an appropriate area for erection of this tower because of complications in supplying wireless facilities on the west side of Lansing along Saginaw. There were complications involving the GM facility and residential area. Mr. Ruff would not recommend that it be understood from the report that the expansion of this existing tower would eliminate the need for additional towers that could be constructed citywide. It should say that it would reduce the need for additional towers. "If you would so amend the report, I would appreciate it." Typically, that is how those are improved, monopoles with antennae arrays 10 to 15 feet apart. A 150-foot-tall pole could handle three or four different providers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 23 Ms. Foster said a large oak tree is growing near the proposed fence area. "I would like to see if possible a tree-protection fence outside the drip line of the oak tree before the construction of the fence to protect the tree. I would like to add that as a condition." The friendly amendment was acceptable to both maker and second. AMY MILLER, AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION. Staff was excellent in providing answers to the Board members. Typically, we do provide gravel, which we are in this case, within the compound area. We have no objections to providing the protection fencing around the drip line of the oak tree to preserve that nice amenity to the park. We would request approval. Foster . . Aye Frederick. . .Aye Patrick. . .Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-10-2001, 925 Stanley Street, Enlarge Cellular Tower Use, reserving appropriate easements, with conditions that 1. A 6-foot-tall privacy fence is erected, and 2. Landscape, screening and buffering along the east side of the proposed leased area is provided, and 3. A tree-protection fence outside the drip line of the 30-inch oak tree is constructed to protect the tree before the construction of the six-foot-tall privacy fence for the equipment area was APPROVED. C. Act-11-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), Lease for MSU Women's Crew Facility The Committee reviewed this at the May 22 meeting when it was tabled for more information. Consequently, the Committee met prior to tonight's meeting to reconsider the item. Michigan State University is requesting a long term lease to build a 150' x 60' pole type structure on City park land for the purposes of providing training and boat storage space for MSU Women's Crew Program. The request is to construct a 9,000 sq ft varsity women's crew team facility at the east end of Grand River Park. Grand River Park is currently used for boating and fishing, open space, and the City's tree nursery, and is currently the site of several private or nonprofit boating uses including the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUKE 5, 2001 PAGE 24 Lansing Boat Club, the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club, MSU Men's Crew Club and the "Michigan Princess" steamboat. Grand River Park, due to its location and river frontage, is the best available setting in the Lansing area for the sport of rowing, and the proposed Women's Club Team facility will expand the current boating uses of the park. The MSU Women's Crew Team currently rents space in the Men's Crew Club facility within Grand River Park, and the proposed Women's Crew Team facility would open up space in the existing Men's Crew Club facility to enhance its operations and current community outreach programs. Crew lessons are already available in Grand River Park to Lansing residents through the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Program, and from the MSU Men's Crew Club. The Parks Board, at its meeting on May 16, 2001, recommended approval of the proposed project, provided that Michigan State University as a result of the proposed facility, provide additional outreach activities to the Lansing community. The Parks and Recreation Department supports the proposed request to construct MSU Women's Crew Team facility at the east end of Grand River Park. The final proposal will be subject to the City's site plan review process. A survey and appraisal of the site may be needed to determine the value of the license agreement. Terms and conditions of the license agreement are to be determined by Parks and Recreation. Proceeds from the proposed development will be deposited in the Parkland Acquisition and Development Fund in accordance with Council Resolution #569 of 1999. Revised staff recommendations are as follows: Staff recommends approval of Act-11-01, in that the City enter into a license agreement with MSU to authorize the construction of the MSU Women's Crew facility in Grand River Park with the license terms and conditions to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 25 determined by Parks and Recreation with the following conditions: 1. The new facility should be located east of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club's boat house as requested by the applicant and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Landscaping should be installed to screen both MSU crew facilities and to provide erosion control along the riverbank. 3. Ample space should be reserved for the development of the River Trail at the proposed site. In Committee this evening, it was moved and seconded to approve the staff recommendations with the following additional conditions: 4. That meaningful outreach programs be conducted by MSU to introduce and encourage the sport of boating. This would be for the citizens and residents of Lansing; 5. That the City receive fair market value, cash or in- kind services in consideration for the license, and that subsequent to this project a moratorium be placed on building within the Grand River Park until the completion of a park Master Plan involving the park users and the community. This recommendation was approved by a unanimous vote. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to approve Act-11-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), Lease for MSU Women's Crew Facility with conditions as outlined above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick asked who is responsible for seeing that these conditions are met. "The reason why I ask is because the last proposal we had from MSU, which we did subsequently approve, was the development of the expansion of the University Club on Forest Avenue. One of the conditions was that traffic directional signs be placed in appropriate parts of the City that would direct traffic away from going down Forest Road towards Aurelius and also prevent traffic from going into the residential areas. They did a good job of keeping the trucks out. Occasionally we saw some, but rarely. The motel portion of the development is now open and functioning, but I haven't seen any traffic direction signs go up, and I think that might be a good question to have Michigan State PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 26 address, especially when considering that we are setting conditions here tonight to ensure that they do meet all the conditions." Mr. Ruff said responsibility would be through our office and coordinated by Mr. Gift. Mr. Frederick said MSU needs to be reminded. Mr. Ruge asked if another dock would be added and if additional parking would be required. Mr. Rieske said he understood that only the same docks as before would be used. Mr. Bruce Miller said new activity would occur here; they are simply moving to a building 150 yards to the east. Parking has not been a problem in the last five years, and parking requirements would be the same. Mr. Ruge asked what are lease rates for the three entities. Mr. Murdock Jemerson, Director, Parks and Recreation, said the lease agreement with the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club is $1 for a five-year period; the lease agreement with the Lansing Boat Club is currently expired, and we are working on a year-to-year lease. J & K Steamline, Michigan Princess has a lease different from the others. They are a profit-making organization, and we do have a different schedule of payment dependent upon how many days of activities the different boats have, the Michigan Princess, Princess Laura, and the Spirit of Lansing. How we set their rate depends on their program. It is $200 per year for the operation of the Spirit of Lansing, $390 per year for Princess Laura, and the Michigan Princess between May 1 and November 1, $195 per week when that operates. It is weather dependent. At the end of the year we tally up and bill the company at that time. The MSU Men's Crew Club lease is $1 per year. It expires April 30, 2003. Ms. Foster said she was concerned about the location of the proposed MSU Women's Crew boat house from a sustainability point of view. It is more than doubled. The amount of asphalt added is larger than the amount of building. Why is that? If you take a footprint of the amount of asphalt being added, it is greater than the footprint of the building. Mr. Chuck Reid, Land Management of MSU, said what you are referring to is what was in your packet. Mr. Jemerson provided an updated version which is just a simple gravel in-and-out of each end of the building, so it drastically reduces any driveway requirements. There is no asphalt involved. Ms. Foster asked if there is a reason, from a sustainability point, why it cannot be next to the men's so that they use the same existing path already. It would be closer to everything and would have less of an impact. Mr. Jemerson said the existing building, the Men's Crew Club, is not properly oriented. If MSU had to do it over again, it would be turned so that when the boats come in, they can go in directly. That's what is being considered in this presentation at this location, so that vehicles can come in with their boats, drive in, and drive out, and it is an easier orientation for the maneuvering of those boats. Ms. Foster asked, instead of building a new building, is it possible to redesign the men's building, so that you can fit them both into one, and therefore save costs? Mr. Jemerson said we considered that option. This option by far is best. You have two different sports, with the crew club, and the women's varsity sport. They are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 27 separate. Mr. Steve Webster said the primary problem is that it is built on a slope, plus the narrowness of the park; also the road is hemmed in by the railroad track. There is a delta of property bordered by river and railroad track and boat house. It doesn't allow enough space. Ms. Foster asked about the design of the building, with a metal roof. What kind of a design is it going to be? (Mr. Reid provided a picture.) Mr. Smith commented for the record. "I am voting to support this, but . . . with certain reservations. I voiced some of those earlier this evening and I want to be on the record for one thing that concerned me. This is a very small park, and adding another facility in there further cramps the space that is already here; however, Mr. Jemerson from Parks and Recreation has made the point that this is a park that is primarily devoted to the boating recreation for the City. Considering that is primarily its use, I can understand the use and placement of the facilities; however, this park at this point does not have a master plan governing it. Hence, the one recommendation that after this project there be no other facilities located in this park until such time as there is a master plan for it. The other part of this that leaves me a little uneasy is it would be very easy for the perception on the part of the public that this is principally being used for private interests, more specifically, just the interests of MSU. They are promising that there will be a significant outreach program that they will participate in, and Mr. Jemerson of the Parks Department is also assuring us that it will be an inclusive effort, that it will reach citizens of Lansing regardless of their economic status. It does concern me that when the Oar and Paddle Club talks about a $195 annual membership, many people in the City who might want to be involved in boating but may not be able to meet those kinds of costs. I do hope that outreach efforts are sincere and inclusive and that people of this city know that they have a place in that park, that it is not exclusively for MSU's private or exclusive use. Ms. Foster said she is very concerned about the private-public thing. Before we approve this, can we see an outreach program developed? Is that unreasonable to ask? An outreach program could take years to work out. Mr. Frederick proposed asking MSU to prepare an outreach program plan and bring it to us in three or six or nine months and present it to us and to Parks at a future meeting. Mr. Jemerson said the Park Board had similar concerns. The Park Board as part of its recommendation said MSU must return to the Board with a beginning draft of the outreach plan. They too will be monitoring MSU outreach. Mr. Webster said in working with youth in varsity sports it must be done in accordance with NCAA rules and Michigan High School Athletic Association rules. Rules are unbelievably complex. Mr. Frederick said the outreach program should be directed not just at school-age users but for all citizens of Lansing. Mr. Jemerson said he is enthusiastic about the program and about the outreach program, which could begin with swimming, canoeing, row boating—opening up the shore line to the citizens. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 28 Ms. Foster made a motion that we table this until the Planning Board sees a general draft of their public use and outreach program. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Ruge agreed with the above concerns, that Lansing citizens should get benefits out of this, rather than just a few people. The Lansing Oar and Paddle Club enriches us, and we should try to spread this out to as many people as possible. He supports the motion, and hopes good things come of it. Mr. Ruff asked about the time frame for developing the outreach program. Mr. Jemerson said the Park Board in their recommendation said that they would like to see a draft by their meeting on June 20. MSU representatives indicated they were awaiting input from Parks and Planning representatives and from high school and university representatives. Mr. Ruff asked that Mr. Jemerson keep him informed as to their progress so that he could keep the Planning Board informed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . . Ave Smith . . Ave Foster . . Nay Keene. . . Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 1; carried; Act-1 1-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), Lease for MSU Women's Crew Facility with conditions that 1. The new facility should be located east of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club's boat house as requested by the applicant and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Landscaping should be installed to screen both MSU crew facilities and to provide erosion control along the riverbank. 3. Ample space should be reserved for the development of the River Trail at the proposed site. 4. That meaningful outreach programs be conducted by MSU to introduce and encourage the sport of boating. This would be for the citizens and residents of Lansing; 5. That the City receive fair market value, cash or in-kind services, in consideration for the license, and 6. tThat subsequent to this project a moratorium be placed on building within the Grand River Park until the completion of a park Master Plan involving the park users and the community. This recommendation was approved by a tin vote. was APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room C. Report from Planning Manager PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 29 Mr. Ruff said the Board will be receiving an intentional housing development, a planned residential development focusing on the environment and green space provisions of a self-determined program of people in ownership. About fifty of these developments are in development around the country. A group from Ann Arbor as well as locally have a purchase agreement for property in Mr. Frederick's area, the Delaney property, a 20-plus acre piece of property which is narrow and deep. It runs near Provincial House off Aurelius Road, all the way to Stoneleigh. The most recent development in the area was Hospice House on the old gravel pit site. It will be coming as a planned residential development. They will be looking at green space court surrounded by homes that would be either detached or attached, but the program being set up by those owning and living there. It fits in well with our Planned Residential Development with the exception that the design is usually done partly after the fact. Our PRD requirements are that the design be very solid up front. We talked about the use of building envelope areas and unit spatial areas and designated green areas, parking, landscaping. It is geared toward the way the Board looks at PRDs. It will be an exciting project to see. Mr. Ruge asked if it is the type of development that has a common area for eating. Mr. Ruff said it is a possibility. Donna Wynant is the planner working with this development. Mr. Frederick said the property comes right to his property. He asked for information concerning intentional housing. The other thing is attending a Lugnuts game. There is competition for tickets. There may be potential for eight tickets on June 25. "1 will keep you informed." 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-V 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. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-V Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 30 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith asked when is Drake's going down. Mr. Ruff said we are pressing for bids through the Purchasing Office. Specs are done, and we are trying to get bidders now. Ms. Patrick said about the property at Jolly and Pennsylvania that we have discussed before, the vacant station. A dozen or so barrels showed up there. "Are you aware of that?" Mr. Ruff said when they extract soil or water from test wells, they have to contain the material. It may be that is why they are there. Mr. Frederick said the big pile of dirt he complained about is gone, and the barrels are there now. Ms. Keene said the fence is collapsing, and there is a couch back there that should be removed. Ms. Foster asked what is happening with the trees that were taken down. Mr. Ruff said he is having a meeting with Dennis Reenders, the developer of the site. There have been other meetings with councilmembers and an attorney from Reenders. Mr. Ruff will find out more. We have asked that they hire a landscape architect to help design the landscaping for the facility. They are complaining about everybody's water coming to their site. They bought it that way. Ms. Foster asked about levying penalties. Mr. Ruff said that is under investigation. They do not have a building permit as yet. "I am not inclined to approve a building permit until we have an approved site plan." Mr. Smith asked if they do not get their building permit, and they do not finish their project, what obligation are they under to put the land back in reasonable shape. Can that be enforced? Mr. Ruff said he did not know that they were under written obligation to do so. They would have to return it to where soil erosion control measures were adequately handled. That would not include putting trees back. Ms. Foster asked if they are going to leave, don't they have to have the same amount of water leaving the site as it originally had? Without the trees, they are going to have more run off. Mr. Ruff said there are riparian rules that are enforceable through civil courts. Mr. Ruge asked about the sculpture on 100 Block North Washington Square. Mr. Ruff said it will be crated and stored and relocated, hopefully at a performing arts facility. Mr. Ruge said the clock at Michigan and Grand is looking a little shabby. It has graffiti on it. It has rust stains coming down from the top. It is not looking too sharp right now. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 2001 PAGE 31 Ms. Foster asked about the clean-up of the AMOCO station. Mr. Ruff said as long as they continue to meet the requirements for clean-up or containment, there is not a definitive order that says they have to clean it up. It is possible to clean it up, or to contain it. Mr. Ruff's understanding is that they are containing it. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:38 p.m. Respectful y submitted James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board =06052001 65 APPROVED JULY 3,2001 as written. Draft to Clerk 06/18/01 Approved 07/03/01 To Clerk 07/18/01 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Foster, Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. Six members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - None. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Rieske said the Urban Development Committee met prior to the Planning Board meeting tonight and has a report on Act-11- 2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), MSU Women's Varsity Crew Team Facility. With that revision, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Letter to the Planning Board from Dan Stouffer, a parent and taxpayer, regarding the proposal relating to the Mid-Michigan Public School Academy, in opposition. 4. HEARINGS - Amendments to Planning and Zoning Code, Sections: • 1268.03, "F" and "F-1" Commercial Districts • 1272.03, "G-2" Wholesale District • 1274.03, "H" Light Industrial District • 1276.03, "1" Heavy Industrial District • 1278.04, "J" Parking District • 1290.08, Landscape, Screening and Buffering of the Planning and Zoning Code Ms. Stachowiak presented the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that deal with landscape, screening and buffering. They are minimal, basically amending sections of the "F" and "F-1" Commercial Districts, "G-2" Wholesale District, "H" Light Industrial District, "I" Heavy Industrial District, and "J" Parking District, because in each of those districts, lots used for the sale or lease of new or used automobiles and other equipment are uses permitted subject to special conditions. One of those conditions has to do with landscape, screening and buffering. At present, a minimum buffer strip of 5 feet. We propose to change that to 8 feet, where the area of buffer strip is adjacent to the public right-of-way, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 2 excluding approved driveways, of course. It would remain at 5 feet from the other lot lines on the property. That is basically the same amendment to Section 1290.08, which is the general section in the Landscape, Screening and Buffering ordinance that sets the minimum standards. Another part of the amendments concerns the way it reads right now. It says it shall be a minimum width of five feet, "but in no case shall it be greater than 20 feet." That could be interpreted to read that it cannot be more than 20 feet. To clean up the language, we want to change that to "In no case shall it be required to be more than 20 feet." The only other proposal is a new paragraph at the end of Section 1290.08 that would set some general minimum standards for plant materials. It says that all required buffer areas shall contain at least four (4) shrubs for each twenty (20) linear feet, or fraction of buffer area. In addition, at least one (1) tree for each thirty (30) linear feet, or fraction of buffer area shall be provided. Right now, the ordinance requires a landscape, screening and buffering plan, but it doesn't set any standards on how many trees, shrubs, or what it must contain. It is arbitrary when it comes to what we are going to require. This sets a minimum standard that can be presented to an applicant preparing a plan. We would like to make other amendments to the Landscape, Screening and Buffering ordinance and get parking lot landscaping. The way it is written right now, it exempts industrial areas from having to do that. The reason for presenting this now rather than at the first hearing of the month is because Council would like to see us move forward on this right now. We are seeing many used car lots, and it would be good to get some better standards than what we have right now. It may take time to get some of the detailed changes we want to make. Ms. Foster asked about eight feet from the public right-of-way, and only five feet from the residential area. Why isn't that eight? Ms. Stachowiak said we felt it was important to have some more buffer area out by the street for a better appearance and to move the parking area back farther. Ms. Foster asked if the public right-of-way includes utility rights-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak said they can put landscaping in utility rights-of-way. Ms. Foster said concerning shrubs, what size, type, native varieties? Minimum sizes would guarantee the plants would survive. Ms. Stachowiak said we could put some standards in if that is what the Board wants, minimum starting sizes, etc. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Smith asked about lighting being directed away from residential districts. Could language be added to state "Lighting shall be directed downward rather than upward." Urban areas already have too much light pollution. People like to see the stars. Ms. Stachowiak said that is covered in another section of the ordinance, the off-street parking section that states all lighting used to illuminate any off-street parking areas shall be so installed as to be confined within and directed onto the parking area only. It is redundant, because it is covered in another section. In site plan review, we always put that as a condition on the approval, that the lighting has to be shielded from adjacent properties, and directed downward. Ms. Foster asked about point (1), "shall be covered with Portland cement or asphaltic concrete." Could it be pervious pavement materials, brick or concrete pavers that would allow for some storm water management issues? Mr. Ruff said we could discuss that with Public Service. Used car lots sometimes have vehicles that drip fluids. Also, we could deal with the surfacing in the parking section so that alternative surfaces may be allowed and we could have consistent language. Using what is in the parking section might be better. Ms. Foster said with regard to four shrubs every twenty feet, four might be too sparse. Five would be better, and trees every 30 feet, maybe every 25 feet would be better and more dense. Mr. Ruff said caution is needed, because screening is intended to soften the view, not totally screen the view. Mr. Ruge asked when is action requested? Ms. Stachowiak said she would make changes, based on tonight's discussion, and present it to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee's next meeting. 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, July 11, 2001, in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) MIKE GREEN, 2124 LYMAN, LANSING, REPRESENTING THE MID- MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY concerning moving a public school to 4000 North Grand River. I was unable to attend the most recent Zoning and Ordinance Committee. I have been involved with the Mid-Michigan Public School Academy from its inception five years ago. It is a public school chartered by Central Michigan University, currently located on the campus of the former Lansing School for the Blind. We house about 644 students, grades K-8, through several buildings there. We have an excellent curriculum focused on traditional academics and the arts as well as character building. We have PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 4 outgrown our location, a reason why we are seeking a new building. We provide transportation through Dean Transportation. One problem with the present facility is the rent—we do not own it, and we would like to. Logistically, it is difficult to transport students between classes and classroom buildings. It is a successful school, well-run, with devoted and dedicated parents. We are looking for 450-500 students. We moved from K-5 to K-8, and anticipate going to K-12. We need to move to a new facility; this would be ideal for us in terms of housing students in one main building on seven acres. Sherry Gill and Dan Quisenberry are with me. With respect to the letter you received from Dan Stouffer, Dan is a dedicated parent. His major concern is that he lives across the street from the present location, and it's easy for his children to cross the street to the school. I am on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Michigan Public School Academy. SHERRY GILL, 3625 ARAGON DRIVE, LANSING; BOARD PRESIDENT OF MID-MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY, here tonight to encourage you to support the zoning of the property at 4000 N. Grand River. We have been at 730 W. Maple for five years. We have been assessing lease payments v. owning our own building. Financially, it would be wise for us to make the move. Our students are in several buildings, and we want them to be in one building. We are a public school, fully compliant with state and federal regulations, providing a high-quality education. We ask that you support us. DAN QUISENBERRY, 215 S. WASHINGTON SQ., STE. 210, PRESIDENT OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMIES. I am here tonight as a resource representing a trade association perspective, all 185 charter schools in the state. These are public schools, in compliance with the laws. Transportation is an option the school chooses to do. A charter school must provide its own transportation, or depend on parents to do that. SAM EYDE, 2800 BRYON CIRCLE, LANSING. I am the owner of the property, and I attended the Committee meeting. It is a good location for a charter school. If you have questions, I am here to answer them. JERRY HEATHCOTE, 4011 HARTFORD RD, LANSING. I am here to talk about the Grand River Park and the MSU Women's Crew proposal. I dropped off to each of the members two pages of my concerns. I did bring an aerial photograph of the park so you can see where they are proposing to put the buildings. I have been attending the Park Board meetings for about a year now. I have waited patiently for the Boat House to be brought up. It was not brought up until May 16. 1 find it suspicious that the item has been put on the fast track with almost no public input. I feel that the Park Board and this Planning Board have been given false and misleading information by the MSU people, with most of MSU's answers to questions always being vague and misleading. Everything PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 5 that the MSU people are asking for already exists in the park. There is enough boathouse space for all boats for everyone. One for all age groups. MSU wants to do outreach. That is a misnomer. I have been rowing here for the past decade, and these rowing organizations have done very little to almost nothing for high school rowing. What we need in Lansing is a free-standing rowing program not dependent on MSU or anyone else. Finally, at the last Planning Board meeting, it was represented by Bruce Miller of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club that it is open to everyone. I went down to the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club and asked if I could join the club. Bruce Miller turned me away. He also told this Board that the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club "has problems with Mr. Heathcote." I would like to know what these so-called problems are. I feel that this Board has a duty to deal with the issues of unlimited access to the existing facilities before any vote on any proposed additional facility. The very people that say that they want to do outreach are turning people away. Usually, by this time of year, I would have had about 60 rowing workouts on the Grand River. To date, I have had none. Also, I want it to be known that this Lansing Oar and Paddle Club is controlled by people that don't even live in Lansing. Their nonelected steering committee consists of people from East Lansing, Okemos, Williamston and Holt. I would ask that you please deal with these Lansing Oar and Paddle Club issues before any voting on the MSU proposal. Also, I feel that Murdock Jemerson, Director of Parks and Recreation, has been partial to MSU on this topic, where in actual fact, he should be in the middle if there are two opposing viewpoints, getting input from both sides. Finally, I did walk around the Waverly Hills neighborhood in Lansing Township and also to a limited extent to the Main Street in Lansing. Almost everyone who was home signed a petition against this proposed boathouse. Maybe one-third of the people were home. I have about 50 signatures and addresses. I think it is clear that the people of Lansing do not want an additional boathouse facility taking up more green space in this park. There has not been adequate input in terms of different possibilities. Seeing no one wishing to comment further, Chairman Keene declared the Comments from the Audience section closed. Chairman Keene asked about the Board being provided with more information concerning the charter school matter. Mr. Ruge said we were going to suggest taking it up in the Committee of the Whole. 6. RECESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 6 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: June 5, 2001 Mr. Rieske said on P. 28, in point No. 5 of conditions, That the City receive fair market value, cash or in-kind services in consideration for the license, and, then it should be point No. 6, a new paragraph, "That . . . ." This is a new item, No. 6 of 6 items in the recommendation. Also, in point No. 5, That the City receive fair market value, cash or in- kind services, there should be a comma between services and in consideration. At the end of now-point No. 6, strike the sentence " " Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of June 5, 2001 with corrections as above. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; with those corrections by Mr. Rieske, the minutes of June 5, 2001, were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 2. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met on June 13, 2001. a. NCU-4-2001, 1121 Pulaski St., Class A Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting Class "A" Nonconforming status for the property at 1121 Pulaski Street. There is some dispute by the applicant, but the City considers the use of the building as a 3-unit to be an illegal nonconformity. Based upon Section 1294.04(c) of the Zoning Code, the building as a 2-unit residence is a Class B, Group 3 nonconformity. If the building is converted to a single- family, it would be considered conforming and would not require Class A status. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed conversion of the three (3) unit dwelling into a 2-unit dwelling will create traffic, pollution or parking problems for the area in which it is located. Staff recommends approving the request for a Class A Nonconformity status with the following conditions: 1. The building is converted from a three-unit into a single- or two-unit residential building. 2. That the minimum number of accessible parking spaces, required by the Zoning Ordinance, be provided on site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 7 3. The driveway and required parking spaces are hard- surfaced. 4. Landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the west, north and east lot lines. 5. All Housing Code requirements be completed prior to occupancy. 6. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking spaces, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process. The Committee members discussed the discontinuance of the third unit in the building since it was a matter of contention between the applicant and the City. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve NCU-4-2001, 1121 Pulaski St., Class A Nonconforming Status with a change to Condition No. 3, that the driveway be hard-surfaced, possibly with pavers, and the parking area to be a pervious surface. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve NCU-4-2001, 1121 Pulaski St., Class A Nonconforming Status with conditions as above, including a change to Condition No. 3, that the driveway be hard-surfaced, possibly with pavers, and the parking area to be a pervious surface. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked if the applicant is still disputing the third unit. Ms. Stachowiak has received no communications from the applicant since the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge said is pervious really a word? Ms. Stachowiak said pervious really is a word, most briefly meaning not impervious, but it should have said "the parking area to be a porous surface." Foster . . Ave Frederick. . .Ave Patrick. . .Ave Ruge. . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . Ave On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: All (6), Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, NCU-4-2001, 1121 Pulaski St., Class A Nonconforming Status with six conditions as follows: 1. The building is converted from a three-unit into a single- or two-unit residential building. 2. That the minimum number of accessible parking spaces, required by the Zoning Ordinance, be provided on site. 3. The driveway and required parking spaces be hard-surfaced, possibly with pavers, the parking area be a porous surface. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 8 4. Landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the west, north and east lot lines. 5. All Housing Code requirements be completed prior to occupancy. 6. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking spaces, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process was APPROVED. b. PRD-1-2001, Edgewood Villas, 19-plus acres, 1000-1200 Block Edgewood Blvd., Planned Residential Development Donna Wynant presented the case. The applicant proposes to construct a 150-unit Townhouse Development. A multiple family development in the "DM-1" Residential District on a parcel six acres or more in size is required to obtain a PRD. This was tabled in Committee. TABLED. C. LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District TABLED. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to remove LUR-1-2001 from the table; carried; unanimous. LUR-1-2001 was removed from the table. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to refer the item to the Committee of the Whole. Carried unanimous; LUR-1-2001 was referred to the Committee of the Whole. d. P-1-2001, Tentative Preliminary Plat, Wexford Woods. The proprietor, Markey Associates, requested a second extension filing deadline from June 22, 2001 to July 30, 2001. The Committee accepted the request for the extension. On a voice vote 3-0, carried; unanimous; in Committee the extension was APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, July 11, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 9 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Smith, Chairman. This is an issue that has been considered in a previous meeting and in fact was voted on in the June 5 meeting of the Planning Board. The difficulty arose when it was pointed out that proper notice was not given for the UDC meeting held on June 5, prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. Therefore, that nullified the vote that was taken on June 5. To solve the problem, another UDC meeting on this issue was held prior to this evening's Planning Board meeting, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Proper notice was given for this evening's meeting, and one of the principal individuals who was concerned that he had not been able to attend the prior meeting of June 5 because of failure of notification was able to attend this evening, and was able to comment. a. Act-1 1-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), MSU Women's Varsity Crew Team Facility It is not necessary to reiterate all the particulars of this case, other than to say that it was discussed again this evening. Another vote was taken in Committee, and the decision was unanimous with conditions as on page 28 of the June 5, 2001 minutes. These are the same conditions cited when the matter was voted on in the June 5 meeting, as follows: 1. The new facility should be located east of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club's boat house as requested by the applicant and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Landscaping should be installed to screen both MSU crew facilities and to provide erosion control along the riverbank. 3. Ample space should be reserved for the development of the River Trail at the proposed site. 4. That meaningful outreach programs be conducted by MSU to introduce and encourage the sport of boating. This would be for the citizens and residents of Lansing. 5. That the City receive fair market value, cash or in- kind services in consideration for the license, and 6. That subsequent to this project a moratorium be placed on building within Grand River Park until the completion of a park Master Plan involving the park users and the community is done. With those conditions, in Committee, the recommendation was unanimously approved this evening. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 10 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve Act-11-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), MSU Women's Varsity Crew Team Facility with six conditions as listed above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Foster asked if the design will be changed from that shown the Planning Board. Mr. Smith said there was no further discussion of that. Mr. Frederick said Mr. Heathcote's correspondence, especially his point #2, where he was told by Mr. Bruce Miller that he was not allowed to join the club, nor would he ever be allowed, was that discussed in the meeting, and was there any confirmation of this by Mr. Miller? Mr. Smith said there was some discussion of this issue, the dispute between Mr. Miller and Mr. Heathcote regarding disputed payment for membership. Ms. Keene said she specifically asked Mr. Heathcote about that. He said it was June of last year when he was told he was delinquent in paying his dues. He believed the real reason he was denied membership was that because he had called into question some of the financial activities of the Oar and Paddle Club. "I essentially got the feeling that he was on the outs with maybe some of the people who were in charge of or a member of a particular board that was in charge. I did recall Mr. Bruce Miller, who was here for our last meeting, indicating on the record, that Mr. Heathcote had not been allowed membership." He again seemed to indicate that it was a personal manner between Mr. Heathcote and members, but during our meeting this evening, I specifically asked Mr. Heathcote were there other City of Lansing residents who were members, and he said there were indeed other citizens who were members, but he did indicate that there were a number of members who were from other surrounding cities. "I wanted to make sure there wasn't some blanket policy where City residents weren't being allowed to participate in the club." Mr. Frederick summarized the issue as one that does not address itself to our authority. Mr. Smith said that contention for membership in the Oar and Paddle Club has no bearing on MSU's proposal. Mr. Heathcote's biggest grievance has more to do with the Oar and Paddle Club. Mr. Frederick was concerned with a potential appearance of exclusivity of two organizations there now and soon a third if we again support the motion. "I wanted to make sure that there shouldn't be closed access or the appearance of closed access to essentially what is public property. I am satisfied that does not exist." Ms. Foster said at the last vote she voted against it for two reasons, one of which was the outreach, the fact that MSU said they will do outreach, but it seemed like it was a political problem for it to happen any time in the near future. Point No. 5 seems to address that, "That the City receive fair market value, cash or in-kind services in consideration for the license. . . ." Is it possible to amend it and say within the first year, within two years, something so that if there are political problems that don't let outreach PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 11 happen, that they know there is a deadline of two years to resolve them? Mr. Ruff said it would be a license similar to a lease, on a year-to-year basis. Ms. Keene said our information at the meeting tonight was that the license was for ten years. Mr. Ruff said when the license is drafted, the services or cash could be received on a yearly basis. MSU has assured Mr. Ruff that they have a team ready to work on this program and they wanted to make sure they had the proper City staff available, as well as others such as high school groups, the school district, etc. to meet to be able to lay out the program. Mr. Rieske said that it was his understanding that on May 11 this group has already met and discussed "Girl Power", mentoring with Women's Crew Members. The Men's Crew Club and Lansing School District would work on an intro to competitive rowing program, which already exists, but this effort would amplify that program. The Lansing Oar and Paddle Club will be dovetailing into this with more open houses that will be meeting throughout the summer. Ms. Foster said her second concern is the building. The one proposed was basically a warehouse with a metal roof, and painted green. This is public property, and if we put a building in there, it is going to be there for a long time. It needs to look like a building that is going to be there for a long time, not something that we are going to regret seeing for the next thirty years. "One of my concerns was to see if it was possible to get the building so it doesn't have that warehouse look." Mr. Smith said he did send a letter to Mr. Adado and the City Council outlining his concerns with this proposal. "What do you do if after a reasonable amount of time it seems apparent that the outreach program is not working, how would the City of Lansing seek redress?" There should be some contractual language in the licensing agreement which would allow the City to review the agreement annually and adjust it as necessary, and that if the outreach program did not work, the City could then charge a more realistic licensing fee to compensate for the loss of value that the City might not receive if the outreach program did not work. Also, Mr. Smith was concerned with the warehouse appearance of the building. MSU presented examples of crew facilities, one proposed at the University of Wisconsin (cost $6.2 million), and the other currently existing at the University of Michigan (cost $1.2 million). The one proposed at MSU is $350,000. Funding is supposed to come from private donations, not from MSU's general fund (taxpayer dollars). They may have limitations imposed by financial resources as to what the building can or cannot look like architecturally. Nonetheless, the comparison exhibits a distinct difference. Architecturally, it would be nice to see a more aesthetically appealing building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 12 Mr. Frederick said it reminded him of the building just put up at the corner of Forest and Farm Lane for horses. When this goes to the City Council, please indicate Mr. Frederick's support that if this is for MSU and for MSU students to use, and MSU isn't contributing any money out of their largesse, perhaps they should reconsider their commitment to women's sports. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Smith sent him a copy of his letter to City Council. The letter was included with other documents in the letter to the Mayor. It went to the Council through the Mayor. We prefer that it go through the administration to Council so that the Mayor may comment as well. Mr. Ruff said the Wisconsin facility was much larger, and the U of M facility was directly on the water, so that the building could be entered from the water, and the boats did not have to be carried out of the water. "If you would want to make it a condition of this Board, I would recommend that instead of it being a tag- along condition, that you make it a condition of this Board that the exterior of the building be of a character befitting its use or that it look like other park buildings or they use a more permanent exterior such as brick." Mr. Smith appreciated the clarification on procedure. He wants to be on record as being favorably disposed toward approval with reservations. In the letter, he wants to encourage questions before any final approval is given. Concerning the exterior, it is difficult to dictate a term to an architect. "It could be corrugated metal, and it could be a fantastic-looking building with some imagination." Mr. Frederick said we don't have to be concerned where the resources are coming from. This is an MSU-supported sport. MSU should contribute whatever it takes to make that building look aesthetically pleasing. "I am very comfortable making a condition that doesn't have anything to do with how much it is going to cost. That is their problem. Mr. Smith said it depends upon taste and imagination. It would be nice if MSU contributed some money, but almost every university in the state is raising tuition rates in double digits. Mr. Frederick said there is money to be had. Ms. Foster made a motion to add a condition that the building architecture be appropriate for a public park building, be aesthetically pleasing and designed for permanence as determined by the Park Board. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Smith and Ms. Patrick. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick. . .Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . Ave Keene. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-11-2001, Grand River Park (PPN 3301-19-276-002), MSU Women's Varsity Crew Team Facility with seven conditions as follows PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 13 1. The new facility should be located east of the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club's boat house as requested by the applicant and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Landscaping should be installed to screen both MSU crew facilities and to provide erosion control along the riverbank. 3. Ample space should be reserved for the development of the River Trail at the proposed site. 4. That meaningful outreach programs be conducted by MSU to introduce and encourage the sport of boating. This would be for the citizens and residents of Lansing. 5. That the City receive fair market value, cash or in-kind services in consideration for the license, and 6. The building architecture should be appropriate for a public park building, be aesthetically pleasing, and designed for permanence as determined by the Park Board 7. That subsequent to this project a moratorium be placed on building within Grand River Park until the completion of a park Master Plan involving the park users and the community is done. was APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 26, 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, carried; unanimous. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. 1. LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Ruge presented the report. By the time school starts, the Mid-Michigan Public School Academy wants to be in a new building at the site of their choice. In the Light Industrial District, our zoning code does not define charter schools. The code would allow a vocational school or a trade school in an "H" Light Industrial District. By reference it would allow a high school or a junior college or a community college. This charter school is a K-8 school. Mr. Ruff said when the code was revised in 1983, it split out high schools from grade schools and middle schools (grades K-8 or K-9 depending on nomenclature). It put all elementary or middle schools in the lower density districts PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 14 such as "A" Residential Districts, and it put high schools out of the "A" Residential District and into the "DM" Districts, the higher density residential districts. It was a good theory, but in practice it put all the existing Lansing high schools into nonconformity. The other aspect of the ordinance that is a problem is that with the advent of charter schools and the greater use of private or parochial schools since 1983, schools span the grades differently. Rather than the elementary, middle and high schools in the public school system, charter schools are an entity unto themselves without multiple buildings throughout an entire system. They may have K-12, or K-9, or K-10. There is not a single zoning district that can handle that situation. In 1983 the charter school situation did not exist. This property is on a major arterial, it is large, set back, built as an office building, but here we are also evaluating the zoning ordinance and whether or not to allow it as a land use that is similar to other land uses allowed in the district. There is some precedent, but not time enough to amend the code to allow the use. Spot zoning would not be appropriate either. This seems the best and fastest avenue to accommodate the petitioner, and allow some review of schools. Mr. Frederick said his concern was that the intent of the ordinance was to protect K-8 children from typical commercial and industrial activities they would be exposed to. At that time, there was some testimony suggesting that the intent of the ordinance was to keep large high schools or community colleges out of residential neighborhoods because of the noise and traffic issue. We asked that a charter school representative present information. Is this more like a community college or a high school? Can they again address us? The other thing is an interpretation from staff that a school like this is not intended to be placed in a residential neighborhood because of traffic. If a charter school like this is indeed like a high school or a high-traffic- generating school, then it would probably be appropriate to be at this location because it has access to the arterial. Mr. Ruff said this is not a neighborhood school. It will have 450-500 students drawn from the whole community. Associated traffic would be more like a high school than a neighborhood elementary school. Mr. Frederick said with high traffic volumes, it would be appropriate for it to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 15 placed near a major arterial. Mr. Ruge said we are being asked to give an interpretation of the ordinance that this use is similar to other uses allowed in this area. This is a K-8 school similar to a private school, but it does receive public funds even though it is not run by the school district. We can't look just at this property and this use, we also have to interpret the ordinance for future use. Mr. Ruff said it does not matter what group makes the request. It could be a magnet school. If you make a finding that a situation, even though it is zoned light industrial, is adequate in size, and has adequate circulation space for entry and exit, you can specify criteria. This would also give us direction for code amendments to make these variations of schools fit within the zoning code. Industrial character has changed dramatically with just-in-time delivery of pre- assembled modules from other suppliers. One of the most difficult aspects is associated truck traffic. Mr. Ruge said educational facilities would be a use permitted subject to special conditions, and the conditions for vocational and trade school are that they be located on a principal arterial and have access to it. Ms. Foster said to prevent a use from locating next to a school and generating toxic fumes, would it appropriate to stipulate that air quality be checked annually? Mr. Ruff said we aren't looking at a special land use that can be conditioned. We are looking at a use that is not recognized in this section of the code and seeing if it is relatively similar to those already allowed. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge wanted to add some findings to the motion. This is similar to a high school in several ways. The student body is larger than a typical elementary school; it generates more traffic, the campus size is larger, it is located on a principal arterial and not within the confines of an industrial park PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 16 On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: All (6); Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District with findings of similarities to a high school as follows I. The student body is larger than a typical elementary school; 2. It generates more traffic; 3. The campus size is larger, and 4. It is located on a principal arterial and not within the confines of an industrial park was APPROVED. There being no other items for consideration by the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, that the Committee do rise; carried; unanimous. 3. Committee of the Whole Report, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. a. LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District The Committee moved to approve LUR-1-2001 with findings. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Patrick. . .Aye Ruge. . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in an "H" Light Industrial District with findings of similarities to a high school as follows I. The student body is larger than a typical elementary school; 2. It generates more traffic; 3. The campus size is larger, and 4. It is located on a principal arterial and not within the confines of an industrial park was APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 17 C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Frederick asked about signage at the new facility at MSU, the development center adjacent to the University Club. They heard our question. Mr. Gift called me, saying they are doing landscaping and making a signage plan for that whole area of campus that will be consistent and conforming to the requirement that traffic be directed to the east end of Forest Road. With the hotel facility that has been developed there, their brochures and materials do not show Forest going west. Within two months, he would expect something more accomplished there. Regarding tickets for Lugnuts games, Mr. Ruff expects we will be able to go to a Saturday evening game, July 14. If you would like a ticket for June 25, 1 need to know tonight. That would be with the Traffic Board. Otherwise, we do have seats available not in the suite, on Saturday, July 14. Mr. Ruff announced that Louise Christian is retiring from City employment. There will be a small observance in her honor from 1-2 p.m. Friday, June 22, 2001. 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. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) e. NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, Expand Nonconforming Use(Tabled May 9, 2001) f. P-1-2001, Tentative Preliminary Plat, Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) g. PRD-1-2001, Edgewood Villas, 19-plus acres, 1000-1200 Block Edgewood Blvd., Planned Residential Development h. LUR-1-2001, 4000 N. Grand River, Charter School in"H" Light Industrial District 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole Chairman Keene noted that Item h. has been attended to and can be removed from Pending items. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 18 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster said the LEEDS standards are being adopted by many states. They are sustainable standards for construction. How would Lansing start adopting these as guidelines for buildings that need to become more energy efficient. Mr. Ruff said we are obligated by the state of Michigan which is adopting international codes which have some of those standards in them. The state is dictating that we need to adopt those. We have adopted certain segments. Ms. Patrick said that the acronym is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Board formally convey its appreciation to Louise; Voice vote; carried; unanimous. Mr. Ruge said when work is done in his neighborhood and sidewalks are torn up, it is replaced with asphalt, rather than concrete. Mr. Ruff said the contractor will do a temporary fix such as asphalt, another contractor will place concrete after the work is entirely complete. Mr. Ruge said there has been an asphalt patch in the 1500 block of Michigan Avenue and another on Clippert Street for several months. Mr. Ruge said two or three people in his neighborhood who don't want to mow grass are covering their front yards with mulch. One house sits up on a hill, and the mulch is slipping down to the sidewalk, half covering it. Mr. Ruff said it may be addressed in the housing code. Also, does a house need to have a sidewalk leading to the front door? Mr. Ruff said that too would be in the housing code. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick said that the code prohibits barbed wire in most cases. The new truck business going in on Aurelius near the church at Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads has a chain link fence with barbed wire running all around it. CATA has razor wire on the fence around their retention pond. Ms. Patrick said she has received comments from the south end regarding distracting light in the north-facing window of Best Video, a video business south of Farmer Jack. It is a strobe light, there day and night. From a distance, it has the appearance of an emergency vehicle. Mr. Ruff said it is illegal. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:20 p.m. Respectful submitted James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board