Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Planning Board July-Sept Minutes FINAL Corrections: Page 6:there was no voting (it was added); Page 7: where it says Draft to Clerk 072001 "Planning Board Action on the motion" it says "moved by Mr. Smith,seconded by Approved 07172001 by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of Act-15-01" it does not mention anything To Clerk 08082001 about easements or a license,the applicant applied for a vacation; Page 11: under small letter"c", it indicates Mr.Smith is the chair of COW and Mr. Frederick is; Page 13: second full line from the bottom a word that is not recognized, it should be alignment. APPROVED W/CORRECTIONS ON JULY 17,2001. Minutes of the Regular Meeting c LANSING PLANNING BOARD t=3 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue r..� Tuesday, July 3, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Foster, Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Smith. Five members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - One (Ms. Patrick asked for an excused absence. Motion made by Frederick, supported by Foster. Approved.) C. Introductions. William Rieske, Principal Planner, introduced Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Moved by Mr. Ruge, supported by Mr. Smith. Motion carried. 3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Memorandum by Fire Chief Martin asking for a motion to table Act-13-01. b. Flyer for Lugnuts game 4. HEARINGS - a. Z-10-01, 722 West Saginaw Street, Rezoning from "F" Commercial to "C" Residential District. Sue Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request from Lawrence Park, owner of 722 W. Saginaw Street, to rezone the property from "F" Commercial to "C" Residential. The property currently contains a two-unit residential structure which is permitted in the "C" Residential District. What the applicant would like to do is zone the property for what it is currently being used as, in order to bring it into compliance with the zoning. Nothing is proposed to change as far as the use of the property or anything physical on the property. The property is surrounded on the north and west by "C" Residential and has one lot zoned "F" Commercial to its east. It is surrounded on three sides by "C" Residential. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 2 Mr. Ruge asked if Lansing Auto Supply is next door? Sue Stachowiak replied "yes". Mr. Ruge asked what uses are in the block between Chicago and Wisconsin? Sue Stachowiak stated that it is a mixture of commercial and residential. She said that she would provide that information at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Foster asked why the property was zoned "F" if it has been used for residential? Sue Stachowiak stated that the property directly east is zoned "F" because it is, of course, a business, but why this property was zoned "F" is unknown. Ms. Keene closed the hearing. This case was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for its meeting on July 11th at four o'clock p.m. in the conference room at the Planning Department, 316 N. Capitol Ave. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) TODD COCKRIN, 419 S. WASHINGTON PRESIDENT OF THE FIRE FIGHTER LOCAL 421, concerning Act-12-01, the sale or impending sale of Fire Station #4 on Pennsylvania Ave. We, the Lansing fire fighters are opposed to this plan. We think it is premature at this time since there has not been any acquisition of property for a new Station #4. We also feel that there are pieces of this puzzle that the Planning Board might not be aware of. It is the Chief's plan to close Station #4 and move it closer to Station #9 which is located on Glendale and at that point, close Station #9 and combine the two Stations. We are vehemently opposed to this. We believe it comes down to a matter of response time for those areas. The chief will tell you that we meet the ISO's standards, and that's one of the reasons that our insurance rates are as good as they are in Lansing, but he will also tell you that this will not hurt our response time. Currently we meet those standards by a great deal. We can respond, for the most part, anywhere in the city in three to four minutes. We believe that with the closing of these two stations, building a new station, and eliminating #9 station would, indeed, hurt our response times. The bond that was passed by the citizens of Lansing was to building new stations and repair existing stations. As you our aware, the old #10 station on Pleasant Grove and Farrow has been closed and a new station has been built at the corner of Pleasant Grove and Jolly. It is a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 3 beautiful facility, but it was simply one station for another. Thank you very much for your time. LORETTA STANAWAY, 546 ARMSTRONG RD. I am here also to speak about Act-12-01 and Act-13-01. 1 feel as the firefighters do, that closing station #4 and relocating it to the Richter's site is a very dangerous and unwise choice by virtue of the fact that, whatever the chief says, in reality, it would increase response times as the union president just mentioned. Typical response times for the majority of the runs that station currently makes are south of its present location, and they typically can get to most places in two and a half to three, three and a half minutes. You will hear Chief Martin talk repeatedly about four minute circles, however, that represents an increase over what they currently are running. There are safety concerns also in front of Richter's. That is the busiest site that he could possible come up with, within the region of that service area, to put a new fire station. There is a tremendous amount of traffic, it's very dense and very heavy at most times of the day. The Cedar and Jolly intersection is one of the top two busiest intersections in the city and one of the top two most accident prone in the city. Also, the Richter site represents an extremely high cost, especially compared to other options that are available. Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration is liability. We live in a very litigious society. If this board and the City Council choose to go ahead and put a new fire station at the Richter's Garden site after being repeatedly advised about the safety issues, the very first time there is an accident involving a city vehicle, whether it was caused by or involved in, I can just see the lawyers popping out of the woodwork. The City would have a hard time defending a liability claim if if ignores the warnings that it is a very risky place to put a station. There is nothing that says that all three of the new stations the Chief wants to build, need to be a large, or as expansive in green space or be drive-through facilities. This is just a choice that he has made. The public has had no input on this, the firefighters have had no input on this. You are driving up your costs for purchasing property and your costs for building a site based on the assumption that these need to all be the same build, and that is not a valid assumption. As I asked during the Urban Development Committee meeting last Tuesday, and got no answer or response from Chief Martin, I am wondering why he would be putting this plan of his into motion. It is apparent that he has a plan to reduce the number of fire stations from nine down to six, thereby, increasing response times. This would be a viable option if the city was in dire financial straits, which is not the case. The city is sitting on a rainy-day fund of untold proportions and there is no financial need to reduce these the number of stations at the cost of public property and people's lives. I also want to question why station four would be going on the market before a new site has been secured, when station six's old site just went on the market in May. This is one man's vision driving the whole process and the public has had no input in this. When they hear what the plan is, I have a strong hunch that they are going to be very, very much against PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 4 his proposal to close stations, relocate stations and increase response time throughout the city. Thank you. JERRY DUNN, A RESIDENT OF THE CITY AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF LOCAL 421. Regarding Act-12-01, the sale of Fire Station # 4. The current station was built in 1965, which makes it 36 years old. It is a structure made of brick, mortar and reinforcement rod. I would think it should last more than 36 years. Most wood frame houses do much better than that. Its location appears to be rather well situated, considering its proximity to 1-96 as well as Jolly and Cedar. It is a direct route to Edgewood which is one of the areas that is becoming more built up and demanding more of our responses. Our codes are increasingly requiring sprinkler systems, which means that many of the new structures that are going in, the commercial structures, are less likely to require a full response. Our population for residential is decreasing, yet we are talking about building huge stations. Just to purchase the land even before building begins would be several hundred thousand dollars which possibly might be better suited being put into existing stations at a reduced rate. I hope that you will deliberate and make the best possible decision, as though it were your own money that you were spending. Thank you. Seeing no one wishing to comment further, Chairperson Keene declared the comments from the audience section closed. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: June 19th 2001 Moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Mr. Ruge. Motion carried, minutes approved. APPROVED B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. a. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be on July 11th, 2001 at 4pm, 316 N. Capitol Ave. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. a. Act 12-01 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. Marketing of the fire station for sale. Mr. Smith read from the Urban Development Committee Report. Donna Wynant presented the case. Fire Chief Martin was present on behalf of the Fire Department. The Fire Department is requesting permission to market the existing fire station at 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. Both the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 5 building and the site are too small for current needs and alternate sites are being considered. According to a recent appraisal the value of the property is estimated at $375,000. The chief recommends that the proceeds from the sale be applied to the marketing of this property and future property acquisition. The south-east area comprehensive plan designates this area for commercial land use property zone G2 wholesale and J parking. Property measure 100.4 ft wide along Pennsylvania by 261.85 ft deep and is 26,195 sq ft, approximately .06 acres in size. 911 emergency tower is located on the site and arrangements for final location must be considered. City Council is responsible for final decisions regarding sale of the property. The next comment in light of the comments that were made earlier this evening is germane: no one at the June 51h 2001 Planning Board public hearing or at the June 261h 2001 Urban Development Committee meeting spoke against this proposal. Staff recommends approval of Act-12-01, the marketing and sale of the fire station property located at 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave., for uses that are permitted in the "G-2" Wholesale District. Committee found based on its review of the location character and extent of that Act-12-01 in accordance with Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1) The fire station is too small for current needs, 2) The property will be surplus due to the anticipated construction of the new fire station on the south side of Lansing. The city will not cease operations at the present location until fire protection services can be provided at another location. 3) The 911 tower will be relocated to an alternate site if feasible. If the tower remains on site then an ownership usement or leasehold interest in the tower supports and equipment will need to be retained to secure access and service the tower. 4) A site plan will be required from the buyer for review and approval by city agencies. 5) City council approval is required for sale of the property. It was moved by Ms. Keene, seconded by Ms. Patrick to recommend approval of Act-12-01 for fair market value provided that if the 911 equipment tower remain on site then PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 6 an ownership, easement or leasehold interest in the tower, supports and equipment shall be retained to secure access in service to the tower. On a voice vote the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 1 so move this evening. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve Act 12-01. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. Foster said Chief Martin said that station had outlived its usefulness as a fire station. How has it outlived its usefulness? Is it too small for the trucks, or not enough, you know . . . what is it about it that's not useful? Mr. Smith said I understood that one reason they wanted to move is to be able to accommodate some of the newer ladder trucks which are longer, and the idea of having a drive through apparently allows greater access egress and ingress. Also, the situation of where the trucks have to back into the site, where they have to pull out onto Pennsylvania Ave. and back into the building. Ms. Foster said I do have a "sideways" concern in that the fire trucks are getting longer, I don't know whether they need to be, but it's also forcing increases in some of the radiuses for the city streets and things, so do we need to go in the direction of larger trucks? Mr. Rieske said it was also said at the public hearing on June 5th that although the structure is sound, the height of the truck bay is inadequate for some of the equipment, so as well as the physical space, so there is not just the length of the truck issue that he was citing, but also the height of the truck. Mr. Ruge said with the president of the fire fighters union, it sounds to me like there is going to be some discussion with the fire chief about his plan for reconstructing our facility, so I'm just wondering if it might be prudent for us to table this and let them sort this out, because I don't think this is a priority. They're not going to sell the station while before they built the other one or before they've found a place to put it, so I would suggest that we table this and let the people who know what they are doing sort this out and then come back to us. So I'll make a motion to do that. Motion made by Mr. Ruge, supported by Ms. Foster to table. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith .Ave Ruge. . . Ave Keene . Nay Foster . . Ave On a voice vote, the motion carried 4-1. TABLED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 7 b. Act-13-01, 4801 S. Cedar There was a letter and packet this evening from Mr. Martin requesting that this be tabled, and I would move that it be tabled this evening. Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Ruge to table Act-13-01. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . Aye On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. TABLED. C. Act-15-01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW corner of Vine & Penn (PPN 3301-01-15-152-162), Encroachment into Vine St. ROW. Doris Witherspoon presented the case. Ferris Development is converting this two unit structure into a single family dwelling and request that the city vacate 4.2 plus or minus feet of the Vine Street right of way to accommodate an encroachment by a property located at 303 N. Penn. Ave. A Classing non-conformity NCU-5-01 was approved for this property by the Planning Board on June 5th 2001. The structure located at 303 N. Penn. Ave., was built in 1917, and encroaches 4.2 plus or minus feet into the Vine St. right of way. The property at 303 N. Penn is zoned "DM-3" Residential District and is regulated by Section 1256 of the Zoning Code. Approval would authorize the encroachment and help the future owners obtain financing to purchase the property. The staff recommends that the existing encroachment be permitted into the Vine St. right of way by easement or license. In committee the finding was based on its review of location, character and extent of Act 15-01 in accordance with the Act 285 review procedures, that the renovation of the structure at 303 N. Penn. will benefit the community, and that authorizing the encroachment will help future home owners to obtain financing to purchase the property. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 8 It was moved by Ms. Patrick and seconded by Mr. Smith to approve Act-15-01 to authorize the 4.2 foot encroachment into the right of way on a voice vote the motion carried unanimously 3-0 and I so move. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Smith made the motion; seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of Act- 15-01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW corner of Vine & Penn (PPN 3301-01-15-152- 162), encroachment into Vine St. ROW by easement or license. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . • Ave Foster . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; d. Act-16-01, 1149 S. Washington Ave., Projecting Sign into the Washington Ave. ROW Mr. Rieske presented the case. Mark Ritzenhein, representing owner Stephen P. Wolenski request authorization for use of air rights over the sidewalk on the S. Washington Ave. to install a projecting, brushed stainless- steel sculptural sign fabricated to represent a musical tuning fork on the front facade of the corner building of 1149 S. Washington Ave. The sign proposed is approximately 5 ft. 6 in. long, 20 in. wide, and would project 4 ft. from the wall and the bottom of the sign would be 11 ft. over the right of way. Under the current sign ordinance the applicant would be permitted two wall signs and two ground pole signs since the property faces S. Wash. Ave., which is a minor arterial. However, in this case, the setback requirements for ground pole cannot be met. The subject building currently has a frontage of 21.8 ft which would permit a total of 49 sq. ft. of building sign area. In addition to the review under the act 285 section 14.213 the sign code only permits projecting sign when the ground pole sign cannot be used. The property at 1149 S. Washington Ave. is located in the Riverpoint neighborhood commercial area outside the capital central district. The building is located on a corner lot and was constructed out to the property line. There is no parking on site and no access available for a ground pole PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 9 sign. Sign code regulates signs on private property, and Act 285 review with City Council authorization is required for signs which project into city right of way except in the Capital City Center District. The transportation office has indicated that the minimum clearance should be 10 ft. above grade and preferably 12 ft. for objects or structures over the right of way; therefore, the minimum requirement is met. Staff recommends approval of act 1601, authorized by a license agreement to move rights over the sidewalk at 1149 S. Washington Ave. to install a projecting hand-brushed stainless-steel sculptural sign providing that: 1) The sign shall not be less than 10 ft above grade nor extend more than 4 ft into the S. Washington right of way, 2) The applicant shall ensure that the sign will not cause undue glare outside the applicant's property; 3) The installation of the sign is accomplished in such a manner as to minimize the impact of historic materials, be supported in the mortar and not the brick, and the design of the building between the upper windows and above the fascia board over the entrace; 4) Public service may require the sign to be moved for street, sidewalk and utility construction; and 5) The method of sign attachment shall be reviewed by the Building Safety and be installed by a licensed contractor. The committee found based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-16-01 in accordance with its Act285 review procedure that: a. The proposed projecting sign meets the dimensional requirements, the sign code and the minimum clearance requirement for projections over the sidewalk, and, b. The site has no room for the ground pole sign and a projecting sign is justified under the sign ordinance. It was moved by Ms. Keene, seconded by Mike Smith to recommend Act-16-01, 1149 S. Washington Ave. and on a voice vote the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 10 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said in these pictures that we have in our report I notice that there is a tuning fork on the front of this building. Mr. Smith said it was a mock-up. Mr. Ruge said I was wondering how you were going to enforce your condition about putting bolts in the mortar if the sign was already up there, but I guess it's not. Okay. The part of the building looks a million times better than it used to. Ms. Foster said is this going to be lit at night? Mr. Smith said I don't believe so, no. Mr. Smith made the motion; seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of Act- 16-01, 1149 S. Washington Ave. (PPN-3301-21-257-985), Projecting Sing in Washington Square Avenue ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Ave Keene Foster . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act 16-01 1149 S. Washington Ave. with five conditions as follows: 1) The sign shall not be less than 10 ft above grade nor extend more than 4 ft into the S. Washington right of way. 2) The applicant shall ensure that the sign will not cause undue glare outside the applicant's property. 3) The installation of the sign is accomplished in such a manner as to minimize the impact of historic materials, be supported in the mortar and not the brick, and the design of the building between the upper windows and above the fascia board over the entrance. 4) Public service may require the sign to be moved for street, sidewalk and utility construction. 5) The method of sign attachment shall be reviewed by the [?] building safety and be installed by a licensed contractor. The committee found based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act 16-01 in accordance with its Act 285 review procedure that Mr. Smith said the only other point: there was a comment taken at the end of the UDC meeting by Mr. Jerry Heathcote regarding Act 11-01. He was concerned that the parks board's recommendation was not reflected in the draft license agreement. This was for the women's crew facility, and Mr. Rieske said that he would notify the parks director of PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 11 the city attorney's office. He also made a point that the city doesn't have to lease MSU separate facilities, they could be combined into one. Mr. Rieske said just on one thing. The night of the UDC meeting, I sent an e-mail to the parks director and the city attorney about that language in the draft lease. Mr. Frederick said I saw or read in the LSJ, 2 days after our meeting, comments that there was money received, that there should be money available from MSU and I noticed that there was a report from the MSU trustees were addressing the issue of a $236 or $238 thousand dollar contract being left to a company in Bay City to build a particular facility, that it was under consideration, so I'm curious. We heard testimony that the $350,000 was all raised outside of MSU, so I was kind of surprised to see my comments had gotten such quick attention that they had taken care of it. Mr. Smith said I suspect it wasn't anything that I did, but it appears that there is more money in that project available than we were led to believe, so perhaps they could address the aesthetics of the structure in the second plan review process. Next meeting, Tuesday, July 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. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. fie Frederick, Chairman. a. SLU-4-2001, 1601 East Cavanaugh Sue Stachowiak presented the report. The applicant for this project is John LeFevre of Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber. She explained that this request deals with construction in the 100 year floodplain, and therefore, a public hearing is not required, just strictly the approval of the planning board and then on to city council for there approval also. The way the ordinance is written there is a whole separate chapter in here on floor plan regulation. The two criteria is approval by the public service dept. and approval by MDEQ, and both of those entities have approved this project. The permit in fact from MDEQ for the cut and fill work has already been issued. A copy of the permit is in the packet, and they have determined that no further permits are required because the repulse buildings will be elevated above the flood plain, the 100 year flood plain. Public Service has reviewed the project in its entirety and has PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 12 granted the approval. Staff is recommending that it be approved, with the condition that the project complies with the requirements of the City Engineer and Public Service Department, compliance with requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality and compliance with requirements of all of the responding agencies. Ms. Foster stated that the map indicates that the flood line is now going to be moved closer to the lake. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the 100 year floodplain as shown on the FIRM maps will not change. Mr. LeFevre stated that this property has been mined as a gravel pit for 10 or 15 years prior to the Parks Department buying it. He said the actual foot print and the landscape is is completely different than when it was mapped as a flood plain many years ago. After the Parks Department bought it, there has been a lot of earthwork on the property for this will be the third summer now trying to re-landscape and make it usable as a park, and the footprint of the flood plain will be dramatically different than what it is, or what it was before. He said that the structures that have been submitted for building permit are simple cement block buildings with concrete floors. Mr. LeFevre stated that the sole purpose of filling the area was not to get the elevation for the building, but to create plateaus and useable space so it can be developed as a park. Mr. Ruge asked Mr. LeFevre why they do not just have the flood plain map revised so that they would not need this special land use? Mr. LeVevre said that the timing of that process can take anywhere from 18 months to 2 '/ years and given the nature of the facilities and what the use of the property is going to be, it was not worth that effort. Mr. Ruge made a motion to approve SLU-4-2001 with the following conditions, 1) Compliance with requirements of the city engineer and public service department. 2) Compliance with requirements of the dept. of environmental quality, and PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 13 3) Compliance with requirements of all other responding agencies. It's moved by Mr. Ruge supported by Ms. Keene for approval with conditions of SLU-4-2001. Motion Carries. 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. 3b. Committee of the Whole Report, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. a. The committee met and discussed special language for 2001 to early development in a flood plain in Hawk Island Park 160 Cavanaugh Rd. The committee moved to support the commission, and I so move tonight. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Foster to approve SLU-4-2001 with 3 conditions: 1) Compliance with requirements of the city engineer and public service department. 2) Compliance with requirements of the dept. of environmental quality, and 3) Compliance with requirements of all other responding agencies. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; SLU-4-2001,early development in a flood plain in Hawk Island Park 160 Cavanaugh Rd. was APPROVED. C. Report from Planning Manager A couple of things that I wanted to draw your attention to. One is this communication about the Lugnuts tickets. This is an opportunity for board members and their guests. There's a request to RSVP to the planning office by July 9th, which is Monday. The phone number is 483-4066. Secondly, you have in your packet a regional vote choices for our future project information. This provides basic information regarding the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 14 Regional Growth Plan B conducted by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, and it's a major project. It involves 78 government and a whole lot of work. They will be having some community forums, town hall forums. The second page provides a registration form to attend these town hall forums. There is one in each county, one in Mason, one in Charlotte, one in St. Johns, and then one for the urbanized Lansing/East Lansing area at the Lansing Center on July 26t'. So, hopefully you received these in the mail previously, directly from Tri-County. You are invited to attend. Please RSVP to them. I think it's a very important project and will have a lot of impact on our master plan. The one thing about regional plans in Michigan particularly is there is very little implementation except through aliment alignment by the local governments to the regional plan, so it's important that the regional plan be right in the first place. We had an urban development committee meeting planned prior to this meeting, and the city attorney was not able to respond in a way that we could hold that meeting regarding act 14. We may be looking at a special meeting prior to the planning board meeting on the 17tt', at 6:30. 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 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-14-01, Capital Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34&35, Assessors Plat#9(Tabled June 26, 2001) b. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 8. NEW BUSINESS - None 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 15 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster said she will be out of town starting July 15" and be back August 3`d Also, she said the semester starts August 27`h and she will not be able to attend the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Meetings. Chairperson Keene said we do not have to make any decision tonight, because we may have to do some switching again. The Committee has met as long as she can remember at the same time, and she doesn't want to change the meeting time. Mr. Ruge said at the last meeting he questioned the validity of the word "pervious." He looked it up in the dictionary and it says something like "allows passage through." Mr. Frederick questioned the work over at the used-car lot at the BP Amoco property on Pennsylvania and Jolly and wondered if they had to pull a permit and display it, because they certainly aren't displaying a permit. Ms. Stachowiak said according to what she has been told, what they are doing is they've brought in some equipment to clean up the property, clean up the contamination. Mr. Frederick said he was kind of surprised at that because what they are doing looks exactly like the plan that they presented to us. They're cutting out the pavement and backhoed down about 2 or 3 feet into the earth. They've been going at it pretty heavy duty. I understood that there was an agreement with the DEQ that they would not break the seal of pavement anywhere over that property because the contamination crude has spread to the west and tot he north and also to the south onto the public right of way on Jolly. Mr. Smith asked about the project that's going on next to Lewton School on Mt. Hope, the one where we have the problem with them taking down the trees. He noticed the other day they were working on that property and wondered if it has been given the go ahead and have they submitted a site plan? Ms. Stachowiak said yes, it has not been given the go ahead but they can move a little dirt, the issue is that they can't destroy any more trees right now. Ms. Foster said I guess the issue of punishing them has still not been decided or has it? Ms. Stachowiak said probably not. There is nothing that says that you can't tear down trees on your own property. There was a condition in the approval that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Page 16 they would have to return the lot to a wood lot condition, but there is nothing that says that they had to keep those trees. Some of them were fairly diseased. Ms. Foster said that we have to make sure that it is returned to a wooded lot. Ms. Stachowiak said that's why the landscape plan has not gotten approved. We've kept sending it back to them telling them it's deficient. What they are proposing will not return the lot to a wooded lot condition, and that's why this is taking so long to get a landscape plan approved. Ms. Foster said on this one, I thought we sent them to the city arborist, if not the city forester. She thought that was one of the conditions. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:10 p.m. Respe tfully submitted ames A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board mn070301.wpd 65 Approved August 7,2001 with no corrections. Draft to Clerk July 25,2001 Approved August 7,2001 To Clerk August 23,2001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, July 17, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Frederick. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. Four members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - Foster (previously excused) and Keene (Ms. Keene asked for an excused absence. Motion made by Ruge, supported by Smith. Approved). C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Planning Manager, introduced William Rieske, Principal Planner, and Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Moved by Mr. Ruge, supported by Ms. Patrick. Motion carried. 3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Tri-county Regional Planning Commission Mr. Rieske explained that the Tri-county Regional Planning Commission is engaged in a major project called "Regional Growth, Choices for Our Future." As part of this they will be conducting Town Hall Forums next week. Mr. Rieske explained when and where the meetings will be held. 4. HEARINGS - a. Act-18-01, Vacate Butler between Allegan and Ottawa Bill Rieske presented the case. This is a request by the State of Michigan Department of Management and Budget to vacate Butler Blvd. between Allegan and Ottawa and to remove parking. They are planning to create a pedestrian walkway and landscaping which will unify the new Hall of Justice that is under construction with the Vietnam Memorial, on the other side of Butler, and the State Capitol Building. Butler Street in the project area is closed off right now due to construction, so we know the project area and have felt some of the impact already. To the north, the land uses are residences and offices. To the south is the Seven Block Renaissance Area. To the east is current parking for State Offices and to the west is the Hall of Justice under construction right now. The street is PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 2 currently unzoned right-of-way. Surrounding the property on the north is "DM-3" Multi-family Residential, "D-1" Professional Office and "C" Residential. On the south side, the zoning is "D-1" Office, "A" Single Family and "C" Two Family Residential. On the east side the zoning is "DM-3" Multifamily Residential and to the west is "C" Two Family Residential. The designation for this location in the River Island Area Master Plan is for use as a government office, so this proposal is in conformance in the Master Plan in that it connects the government facilities. The applicant is present, Adrian Cazal, Department of Management and Budget. Mr. Ruge asked that the site plan be explained. He said it does not connect with what he sees them building there. He said it looks like there is a parking ramp along Martin Luther King Blvd. Mr. Rieske said Mr. Cazel is planning a presentation of the site plan. Mr. Frederick asked if there has been a study on traffic flow? It is real crazy down there right now, it is real difficult to get around and he wonders how this is going to affect traffic with the one way streets down there. Mr. Rieske said referrals have been sent to the Traffic Engineer and have not yet received a response. The referrals were requested of a number of agencies in the hopes of a quick response, but a lot of them have not responded as of yet. The responses are expected before the committee meeting. ADRIAN CAZAL, STATE OF MI, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. He said they are applying to vacate Butler street for three reasons. One is that it deals with safety. This goes along with their proposal last year. What they would like to do is have the students and employees only cross one street, that being Allegan Street. Approximately 500,000 children a year with their chaperones come and visit the State Capitol, and for safety reasons they would like to close Butler Street, therefore allowing the one cross of Allegan Street. That way, they can get from the Hall of Justice all the way to the State Capitol on a single pathway that would adjoin the whole complex. There are also approximately 900 State Employees, five days a week, which roughly equals 234,000 State Employees a year. The new Hall of Justice will add the employees to about 400 employees when that is complete, as well as the increase of visitors. Again it is safety and only having to cross one street. The second point of this is the greening of the area. They want to continue to green their area and enhance the appearance to allow for walking and leisure spaces, not only for employees but the PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 3 neighborhoods. This new closing will give somewhat of a park feel to give a gathering area for neighbors and visitors, as well as the employees. In this area they will be hiring a professional gardener that will be doing the landscaping so the landscaping and planting beds will not die off. They are going to take a lot of time and consideration. They want to make sure this is an appealing area. The State will be incorporating flowers and trees to beautify the area. They also plan on partnering with the neighborhoods as they have done in the past with the parking project between Allegan and Kalamazoo. This closure will not only benefit the state employees but also the residents of the neighborhoods. The vacating of this area will also allow, in that complex, the Vietnam Memorial. As sacred as that memorial is going to be, they want to allow a place for solitude and reflectance. The third aspect of this is for the State to be good neighbors, not only to the City of Lansing, but also to the neighborhoods. About a year ago, they came to the Planning Board and made promises about working with not only the city government but the neighborhoods, and he thinks they have done a good job with incorporating the neighborhoods input and working with them on the current parking that was mentioned earlier between Kalamazoo and Allegan. The State wants a consistent look for the entire complex and mall and they will be looking for input from the neighborhood associations. They want to continue to be the good neighbors that they promised they would be last year and deal with an issue that they think that would help beautify not only the complex as well as the neighborhood areas. They are going out of their way to reach out to the neighborhoods to make sure that they are happy. Just recently, they finished a project over at the Women's Club (former YWCA Site). There were neighbors complaining that the parking lot and surrounding area was not very appealing to the eye, so they listened to their input, and have since finished re-landscaping and putting up the safety fences they requested. Mr. Ruge said he would like to start by saying that he had noticed the Women's Club project and it is much more attractive than it was before. It was really a step in the right direction. His other question was that he was hoping that Mr. Cazel could explain the site plan for them. The site plan is very small and it is hard to read what the buildings are. Mr. Ruge said he is impressed with this. He is concerned that they will be losing a lot of the parking that they have had in the past. The dirt lot where the Hall of Justice is now, it looks like some of the parking that was east of Butler will be used for green space which is great, but what are you going to do with the cars? Mr. Cazel said they have increased some of the parking with the reconfiguration between Allegan and Kalamazoo. They have gained some parking. Their main priority was the safety and environment. They PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 4 have also moved a lot of the State vehicles out of that, meaning the ones that are in State use for the departments. They did an inventory, which showed roughly 10,700+ parking needs that they have on a daily basis. What they will have when it is all done is roughly 11,000 parking spots. They will have increased needs with the parking they are losing. They partnered with the City of Lansing and a lot of their parking needs to correlate with them gaining access on some of the parking over at the church on MLK, as well as Lot 15 across from the Lugnut Field. Parking is very sensitive and they made sure that no one would go without parking. Mr. Frederick commented that the construction that is going on right now is quite extensive but at the intersection, Washtenaw and Walnut, there is part of a parking lot that is being built and one of them looks like it is finished. The construction guys have the entire access across Walnut blocked off and you have to climb over fences to get across. Once you come down from the Library and Historical Museum going east toward downtown, you are trapped. On the way back, it is difficult to go across the street and it gets a little bit hazardous there. If more accommodations could be made for pedestrians throughout the area it would be appreciated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT LOU ADADO. Council Member Wood asked that he make a comment regarding this matter. As some of you know, Ms. Wood is a west side resident and she has been in contact with the Genessee Neighborhood Association and she wanted him to relay the message that the Neighborhood Association is in favor of the project. She wanted him to relay that they found the State to be cooperative and alert to their needs and they would endorse vacating Butler Street in order to accommodate the needs that are being requested here tonight. Seeing no one else wishing to comment further, Vice-Chairperson Frederick declared the public hearing closed and referred it to the Urban Development Committee to meet on July 24, 2001 at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave. in the Planning Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) LOU ADADO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION. Soon there will be a request from Vic Izzo to allow him to have outdoor liquor service on Washington Avenue. He is already serving food out there. He is a member of the MLBA. He has a good record with the Liquor Control Commission, and as the Assistant Director of the Association he would encourage the Planning Board to allow Mr. Izzo to do that. One thing that makes Mr. Izzo unique compared to other licenses that have outdoor service is that he PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 5 resides above the establishment, so he is there pretty much 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Mr. Izzo runs a good operation and he would encourage the Planning Board to allow the outdoor service permit. It is something that is not uncommon throughout the state and as they get more and more into regulating the indoor air quality, outdoor permits and outdoor facilities will be more commonplace. He would encourage the Planning Board to approve the request. Seeing no one wishing to comment further, Vice-Chairperson Frederick declared the comments from the audience section closed. 6. RECESS (Urban Development Committee to meet for the purpose of taking Act- 14-01 off the Table and refer it to the Committee of the Whole.) The Urban Development Committee convened at 7:32. Mr. Smith, chair declared the Urban Development Committee in session. The item they discussed was Act-14-01, Capitol Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 and 35, Assessor's Plat #9, Easement for access and parking. Mr. Frederick moved, supported by Ms. Patrick to raise from the table Act-14-01, Capitol Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 and 35, Assessor's Plat#9, Easement for access and parking. Motion carried. Mr. Ruge moved; Supported by Ms. Patrick to refer Act-14-01, Capitol Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 and 35, Assessor's Plat #9, Easement for access and parking to the Committee of the Whole for discussion later in the meeting. Motion carried. The Urban Development Committee Adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Chairman Frederick declared the Planning Board meeting back in session. 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: July 3, 2001 Moved by Mr. Ruge, supported by Ms. Patrick. Motion carried, minutes approved with corrections as follows: Mr. Ruge has some concerns about the minutes. First, page 6. On the bottom of the page where it says "motion by Mr. Ruge, supported by Ms. Foster to table", there is no indication that we actually voted. The same thing where it says "moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Ruge to table." Next, on page 7 under where it says "Planning Board Action on the motion," it says "Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of Act-15-01", but it does not mention anything PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 6 about an easement or a license. The applicant applied for a vacation. There needs to be mention somehow that what we were approving was an easement or a license. Then, on page 11 under small letter "c," it indicates that he is chairman of the COW and he believes that Mr. Frederick is the Chairman. Then on page 13 the second full line from the bottom in the middle of the line there is a word that he does not recognize. Mr. Ruff said alignment? B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. a. Z-10-01, 722 W. Saginaw St., "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. Mr. Ruge presented the report. The purpose for the rezoning is to bring the existing duplex into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses and the Master Plan. No additional impacts are anticipated on the environment or vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The staff recommended approval. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve Z-10-01, 722 W. Saginaw St., "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Ave Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. b. NCU-9-01, 119 Elm Street, Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Ruge presented the report. The applicant requests Class A Nonconforming Status to conduct substantial rehabilitation of the residential structure in the "DM-4" Residential District. The structure will be used for a single family home. The property is nonconforming due to front yard and side yard setbacks. The Zoning Code restricts repairs/restoration of a Class "B" Nonconformity to 35% of the fair market value of the structure. The ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. On this property the front yard setback is approximately 17 feet. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 7 The ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width. The lot width is 33 feet, therefore, the minimum required side yard setback is 3.25 feet. The side yard setback is 2.8 feet at its nearest point. The minimum side yard setback for a garage is 3 feet and the existing garage is located on the property line. The subject property appears to be in compliance with the minimum two parking spaces for a one-family dwelling unit. The valuation of the structure is $52,200 according to the assessors office. A nonconforming structure is limited 35% investment (in this case it would be $18,270). The applicant intends to invest $100,000 to rehabilitate this structure if the Class A Nonconformity is approved. The ordinance sets forth the criteria for evaluating the Class A Nonconforming Status Proposal. Elm Street is considered a local street. There are two parking spaces accessed off of Elm Street with one driveway on the west side of the building. Activities associated with the single family structure will not generate any more smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise than the level associated with the uses permitted by the right in a "DM-4" Residential District. The parking requirements appear to have been met. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: a. The two spaces available on site must be confirmed in writing, meeting the minimum number of parking spaces required by Section 1286.01; and, b. That the driveway be resurfaced. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve NCU-9-01, 119 Elm Street, Class A Nonconforming Status, with conditions as recommended by staff. a. The two spaces available on site must be confirmed in writing, meeting the minimum number of parking spaces required by Section 1286.01; and, b. That the driveway be resurfaced. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 8 C. NCU-10-01, 814 E. Shiawassee, Class A Nonconforming Status. Mr. Ruge presented the case. The applicant requests Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The property currently maintains Class "B" nonconforming status due to setbacks and lot coverage. The applicant proposes to convert the existing two unit structure to a single family home. The amount of repairs is restricted to $6,965, and the estimated cost of repairs is $85,000. The applicant requires Class "A" nonconforming status to spend the additional funds on the structure. The structure was built in 1922 and is zoned "DM- 3" Residential. The applicant is in the process of purchasing the adjacent property on the corner of Shiawassee and Haag Ct. This purchase will increase the lot area to 4,495 sq. ft. The roof is to be replaced as well as the front porch. There is no proposed expansion to the structure. The current structure and pavement does not meet setback regulations, or lot coverage regulations for the "DM-3" Residential District. Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the criteria for evaluating Class A proposals. This is a residential property, therefore, access to a residential street is permitted. Activities associated with the structure and its rehabilitation will not cause pollution. Parking requirements of two spaces can be met, though ordinance requires that the parking drive be paved with concrete or asphalt. The conversion of this unit to a single family home would be an improvement. The staff recommends approval. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-10-01, 814 E. Shiawassee Street, Class A Nonconforming Status. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Ave Patrick. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 9 d. NCU-11-01, 317 Haag Court, Class A nonconforming status. Presented by Mr. Ruge. The applicant is requesting Class A nonconforming status for the property located at 317 Haag Court, so that the existing 2 unit structure may be converted to a single family home. The cost of repairs is limited to $6,475, while the estimated cost of repairs is $75,000. A Class A nonconformity status change is required to spend the additional funds. The structure was built in 1912 and zoned "DM-3" residential. In addition to the conversion from 2 to 1 units, the porch is being replaced and the structure is being rehabilitated. The current structure does not meet setback requirements for front and side yards, nor does it meet lot coverage requirements for "DM-3" Residential. This proposal meets the requirements as stated in Section 1294.04(d). Staff recommends approval. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve NCU-11-01, 317 Haag Court, Class A Nonconforming Status. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Ave Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. e. NCU-13-01, 324 Haag Court, Class A Nonconforming Status. Mr. Ruge presented. The applicant requests a Class A nonconforming status. The property is currently Class "B" nonconformity due to setbacks and lot coverage in a "DM-3" Residential District. The applicant wishes to spend $75,000 on the property where expenditure is currently restricted to $5,950. A Class A nonconforming is needed to allow the additional expenditure of funds on the property's rehabilitation. The structure was built in 1885 and is zoned "DM-3" Residential. There is no proposed expansion to the current structure. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 10 This proposal meets the requirements as stated in Section 1294.04(d). Staff recommends approval. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-13-01, 324 Haag Court, Class A Nonconforming Status. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. f. PRD-1-01, Edgewood Villas Presented by Mr. Ruge. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the original plan, particularly with parking lot dead ends, landscaping and placement of the "tot-lot". The applicant revised accordingly and everyone on the committee was pleased with the extent and readiness of their response. There will be 150 townhouse units at 7.89 units per acre. The revised plan offers 357 parking spaces compared with the original proposal of 302 spaces. A PRD is required whenever more than one building is constructed on a parcel over six acres in size. The applicant proposes to construct 150 townhouses on the 19.26 acre parcel. There will be a total of 19 buildings containing 20 one-bedroom units, 90 two-bedroom units, and 40 three-bedroom units for a total of 150 dwelling units at a gross density of 8.4 units per acre. Staff recommends approval of the Planned Residential Development for the construction of the proposed townhouse development as revised. The applicant indicated that they would be trying to save as many existing trees as possible. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 11 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve PRD-1-01, Edgewood Villas, with conditions: a. Consider a turnaround to Georgetown Blvd. to avoid a boulevard that dead ends into this development. b. Design sidewalks to continuously connect to buildings and to all open space areas. C. Provide additional landscape, screening and buffering to better screen townhouses along the west and east property lines. d. Provide for at least 200 shade trees outside of the wetland areas. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. g. Ordinance Amendments. The ordinance amendments include expansion of the required buffer area for display lots that involve new or used cars, trailers, etc. It also amends the general landscape screening and buffering ordinance as well as setting minimum standards for landscaping with types, numbers and sizes for shrubs and trees. This is a partial amendment to the screening and buffering requirements. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the Ordinance amendments. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be on Wednesday August 15th, 2001 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave. Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 12 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. Next meeting, Tuesday, July 24th, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to dissolve to the Committee of the Whole, carried; unanimous. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chairman. a. ACT-14-01, Capital Area United Way (CAUW), 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 & 35 Assessor's Plat#9, Easement for access and parking. Mr. Rieske presented. The applicant requests continued use of City property west of 1309 W. Washtenaw (a parking lot). They propose to sell the building and would like to be able to assign this property to the buyer of the building. The city purchased lots 34 and 35 west of the CAUW so that parking could be retained by the United Way building, known as the Community Nursery. The property is zoned "B" Residential, under which a nursery is permitted. Ultimately, the nursery building is located in a park and thus has pedestrian access, but it doesn't have parking or automobile access, and that is the issue the applicants are seeking to address. Some solutions that were considered include a possible easement or license; however, both have problems of their own that need to be addressed. The problem with a license is that the applicant is desiring something that runs with the land (continuous permission with the land) for parking. A license does not provide that. Therefore the applicant is looking for a permanent easement, and that was outside the scope of the initial study. The applicant is requesting that this move forward from the Planning Board. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board affirm the notion that the parking lot does serve this community nursery and is specific to the property. Moreover, staff suggests that the Parks Board take care of the details of the method of conveyance. General discussion ensued. Mr. Frederick asked how this situation had come about to begin with. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Rieske referred the question to Tanya Moore from the Parks and Rec. Dept. Ms. Moore said in essence that there is no clear record of how this came about. There was some concern over the expedience of the process, yet in the end, Mr. Ruff's concern that the Board's opinion might unduly influence the Park's opinion caused the committee to refer the matter to the UDC. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Patrick to refer Act-14-01 back to the Urban Development Committee. Motion carried. b. ACT-20-01, 1145 S. Washington Ave., Outdoor Seating in Right-of-Way. Presented by Mr. Rieske. The applicants request authorization to use public right-of-way for customer seating in front of 1145 S. Washington Ave. utilizing an 11.5 ft. by 20.5 ft. area. This area would be marked off in a semi- permanent fashion, through the use of 36" posts and chains, directly across from the entrance of the existing establishment (restaurant/ pub) with a seven foot walkway between the two. The sidewalk is 18.5 ft. in width. Due to the nature of the request, an Act 285 Review is needed. The applicants have already applied for and received a permit from the Department of Public Service. They also applied for a liquor license so that they may serve drinks in this area as well. Approval of the latter, in particular, is subject to approval of Act-20-01. The request is straightforward and similar to past requests (800 blk. of E. Michigan, Moriarty's as well as 600 blk. of E. Michigan, the 621 Club). In both of these previous cases, approval was granted. Staff recommends approval. Jim Ruff explained the Act 285 process which requires that certain basic criteria be met. Mr. Frederick indicated that there was at least one fundamental difference between this case and those previous ones. Most notably, in those earlier cases, one entered and exited the sidewalk area from the establishment PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 14 itself, whereas the 1145 S. Washington proposal has the chained off area separate from the establishment entirely. Mr. Ruff responded that, as far as zoning was involved, they were not so concerned with the placement of the right-of- way tables in relation to the building, provided the establishment meets any and all Liquor Control requirements. Mr. Ruge indicated that the local establishment, Kelly's, has a similar setup with tables away from the edifice itself, and are likewise serving alcohol. Ms. Patrick asked if there had been any response from the neighborhood, to which Mr. Frederick replied in the affirmative, saying that the Riverpoint Neighborhood was in support of the proposal. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Mr. Ruge to approve Act-20-01, 1145 S. Washington, outdoor seating in the right-of-way with the six conditions written in the staff report. Motion carried. There being no other items for consideration by the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, that the Committee do rise; carried; unanimous. 3b. Committee of the Whole Report, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. a. ACT-14-01, Capital Area United Way (CAUW), 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 & 35 Assessor's Plat#9, Easement for access and parking. Referred to UDC unanimously. b. ACT-20-01, 1145 S. Washington Ave., Outdoor Seating in Right-of-Way. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve Act-20-01 concurring with the Committee of the Whole. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 15 On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; ACT-20-01, 1145 S. Washington Ave., Outdoor Seating in Right-of-Way, with conditions: APPROVED C. Report from Planning Manager Bids were to be opened on Drake's demolition contract. Once a contractor is chosen, a date will be affirmed for its removal. Also, the For Sale sign at Bad Habits is new. This is in reference to abuse of banner type signs that have been used in the past. 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-14-01, Capital Area united Way, 1300 Blk.W.Washtenaw, Lots 34&35 Assessor's Plat#9 (Tabled June 26,2001) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-12-01, 5550 S. Pennsylvania- Market Fire Station for Salem (tabled July 3, 2001) b. Act-13-01,4801 S. Cedar Street,Acquire for Fire Station (tabled July 3,2001). 8. NEW BUSINESS - None 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith reported that on the SW. corner of Viking and Dunlap when you are driving east there's a hedge on private land as well as a city tree in the right-of- way, both of which dangerously obstruct view in certain directions. Ms. Patrick reminded everyone that she would not be present on the 241h of JUly for the UDC meeting and requests a substitute. PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 17, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Ruge commented on the maintenance of the mall near L.C.C. He also wondered about the necessity of sidewalks in front of homes. Mr. Ruff indicated that there was no zoning or building code requiring a front walk (from porch to curb). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick commented on the quality of the sign in front of the Lansing Hospice on Stoneleigh. Apparently the construction sign had been turned into a permanent sign. Mr. Rieske asked if the chair had appointed a replacement or successor for the UDC, to which Mr. Frederick replied in the negative. Mr. Frederick then asked for a volunteer. Mr. Rieske indicated that the next meeting should convene a half an hour earlier (3:30 p.m.) to comply with the Transportation Engineer's schedule (in regards to Act-8-01, vacation of Duvernay). Mr. Frederick indicated that "they" could assume that the "three amigos" (Mr. Smith, Mr. Ruge, and Mr. Frederick) would be present for the UDC meeting on the 24`h of July, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:15 p.m. Respectf Ily sub fitted James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board =07172001 Correction was made on Page 16, paragraph 6.". . .property will fall through Draft to Clerk Auctsut 30,2001 then they are no where if we vote on the Approved September 5,2001 motion that is on the floor." To Clerk September 10,2001 Minutes approved w/corrections on September 5, 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, August 7, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Frederick. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Patrick, Ruge, Smith, Keene. Five members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - Foster (previously excused) C. Introductions. William Rieske, Principal Planner introduced Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Mr. Ruge to approve the agenda as printed. On a Voice Vote, motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Memo regarding a special meeting for the Tri-County Regional Growth Planning Commission featuring Dan Burden, President of Walkable Communities, Inc. b. Letter from the Old Everett Neighborhood Association, signed by Emly Horne in response to the Planning Department Agency Referral Sheet, re: Z-3-01 , a public hearing this evening. C. Letters and Petition in opposition to Z-3-01 . 4. HEARINGS - a. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Development Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request for a planned residential development in the southwest area of the city. The entire proposed development consists of 107 acres, 15.57 of which are in the city. The remaining 91+ acres are in Windsor Township. There will be a total of 239 single family, detached site condominium units, 41 of which will be in the city. Ms. Stachowiak drew the Boards attention to the diagram in the packet that shows the general layout of the entire development. She explained that this is a site condominium project and there are no proposed changes to the zoning PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 2 designation. There are still some issues that have not been resolved, primarily regarding drainage and access. The applicant did supply some recorded easements yesterday that we have been trying to get straightened out with the Assessors Office and with the City Attorneys office in regards to whether or not they have legal access to Old Farm Lane Road, which is the road that stubs west of the subject property. However, there are two properties in between and we want to make sure that they have legal rights to these properties. The development is designed like a subdivision plat although it is intended to be a site condominium project. There are building lines shown within each of the 41 units and the proposed building setbacks, as shown on the plan, will comply with all of our setback restrictions. The developers are proposing a detention basin, and we are still waiting on comments from Public Service with regard to those and any other utility issues. Also, there are 2.25 acres of open space areas proposed for the 15 acres that are in the city and those will be under the control of the Condominium Association which as established in the by-laws contained in the master deed. There is no formal recommendation this evening but assuming we have these issues resolved in time for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Meeting next week, we will be able to supply a recommendation. Mr. Frederick asked if there have been any meetings with Windsor Township. He also asked if the Township's zoning requirements will conflict with the City's requirements. Ms. Stachowiak said that the roadway will be 66 feet wide throughout the entire development, which is consistent with our standard as well as the township's standards for local roads. All units throughout the development are proposed to be at least 6000 square feet, which complies with our standard. The design appears to be common through the township and the city part of the development. A copy of the plat was sent to Windsor Township, the Eaton County Drain Commissioners office as well as Eaton County School District since the area involved overlaps a couple different, not only counties, but townships as well as school districts. We are waiting on agency referrals to come back from most of those agencies. Ms. Stachowiak met with the applicant about ten (10) days ago and asked if they had formally submitted their request to Windsor Township and their answer was that they had not, but it is the cities understanding that several months ago, they had an informational meeting with some residents in the area and it is her understanding that there were some township officials at that meeting, so they are aware of the development. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Ruge questioned the 66 foot wide street? Ms. Stachawiak said the right-of-way is 66 feet wide, however, the street itself would not be 66-feet wide. Mr. Ruge asked if there will be sidewalks? Ms. Stachowiak said that there will have to be because the developer intends for the streets to be public streets. Mr. Ruge asked why this is going to be a condo instead of a regular subdivision. Ms. Stachowiak speculated that part of it was that they have open space areas, and the condominium association is a good way of handling their maintenance and ownership in the future. In addition, through the condominium documents, they can place greater controls on the development of the property, which they cannot necessarily do with a plat. With a plat there can be deed restrictions, but they are difficult to enforce. She has not specifically asked the applicant why they chose to do a condominium development, but those, as well as other design issues, are generally the reasons why developers do condominiums rather than plats. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Code Compliance comment that they have had some enforcement problems with Brentwood Condos and asked what this was all about. Ms. Stachowiak said it appears that there was a problem with the common areas not being maintained and the condominium association not being active in that area. Condo associations do not have a right to dissolve such their association because the master deed is a legal document that must be followed. In this case, they have had problems with the common areas not being maintained and they have had difficulty getting in touch with somebody who is a member of the association. Mr. Ruge asked how we avoid this problem with this condo association. Ms. Stachowiak said she would need to talk to the code compliance office and see how they have dealt with the Brentwood condo issues. ABDUL MUHAMMAD, DETROIT) MICHIGAN, OWNER. He stated that everything that has been said is pretty accurate. As far as why they are going to do condos versus single family is exactly what Ms. Stachowiak said in that they will have greater control over both the design and the common areas. He also said that the PRD process is faster than the plat process. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 4 b. Z-3-2001, 4720 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request to rezone the east 183 feet of 4720 S. Cedar Street from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial. The remainder of the 313 total length of the property would remain "A" Residential. There is quite a lengthy rezoning history for this property which is spelled out in the staff report. Since 1994, this is the sixth rezoning request for this property. The first one was withdrawn before council had a chance to take action on it. One of them was when the east 183 feet of the property was officially rezoned from "A" to "D-1" Professional Office. The most recent request was considered by the Planning Board on January 12, 1999. At that time, the Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the request to rezone this 183 feet from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-2" Local Shopping District and the city council denied the request. Therefore, the property remains partially zoned "D-1" Professional Office and partially zoned "A" Residential. The applicant would like to rezone that "D-1" portion to "F" Commercial for an undetermined future commercial use. There is a certificate of survey in the packet that shows the property dimension, however, there is no site plan showing the construction of a future building on this property. The packet of the communications that was presented to the Board includes the agency referral from the neighborhood association expressing opposition to the request and one letter of support from Wolverine Development which owns the McDonald's property that is directly north of this parcel. In addition, there is a letter of opposition from Mr. Edward Benson which was submitted to the City Council, the City Council President as well as the Director of the Planning Department. There is also a petition from residents within the general vicinity of the subject property opposing this request. She mapped out each of the addresses on the petition because when a petition is submitted in opposition to a rezoning, if the owners of 20% of the properties within a 100 foot radius of the property to be rezoned have signed the petition it is considered a protest petition. Ms. Stachowiak stated that what has been submitted is a valid protest petition. What that means is that when it gets to the City Council, it requires a super majority in order to approve the rezoning rather than a simple majority. One of the issues that she wanted to talk about this evening is contained in the staff report on page 3, Comments from the City Attorney which were received last week. He states that: "Notwithstanding the council PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 5 committee's report to determine/consider this rezoning the Planning Board must also make its initial determination of whether (1) the rezoning was previously acted upon and (2) if so, has there been a significant change in circumstances from prior requests that warrant a change in zoning. If this threshold, change of circumstances is met then the changes should be articulated." In other words, if the Planning Board feels that they have already acted on this request, and nothing has changed since its initial decision, then they need to report that back to council. If it is felt that there has been a change in circumstances that would warrant a second review, then it can proceed to consider the rezoning. This request was submitted several months ago and it has been in Development and Planning Committee because they have been trying to determine if they feel that circumstances have changed enough to warrant another review of this proposal and based on the letter submitted by the applicant, Chris Baryames, they felt that there had been enough changes to reconsider the request. They listed four: 1) tearing down and rebuilding of the McDonald's Property directly north, 2) the Richter's Garden going out of business directly across the street, 3) after it was not rezoned in 1998 the property still remains on the market for sale as "D-1" Professional Office, they have not been able to make use of it as "D-1" and, 4) the site has been vacant since 1999 after the abandoned house on it was demolished. Based on those four circumstances the Development and Planning Committee, with concurrence by City Council, felt that the request could be reconsidered. However, the City Attorney is saying that the Planning Board also needs to make that determination. It is not a determination that the board needs to make tonight. It can be something that is referred to the Zoning & Ordinance Committee at their meeting next week. Ms. Keene asked if it makes a difference if the Planning Board voted for approval last time it was requested to be rezoned to "E-2" Local Shopping District whereas now the request is for "F" Commercial. Ms. Stachowiak said that is correct, but in the past, item #3 on page 2 under case history, there was a 1996 request where the applicant was asking to rezone the east 183 feet of the property from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial. Mr. Frederick said that assuming that a decision is not made tonight regarding the change in circumstances, would it be possible to have a copy of the minutes from the meeting on January 12, 1999 meeting and the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting so we can review them. Ms. Stachowiak said yes. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 6 JANICE SCOTT, 400 COX BLVD. The property she owns backs up to the property in question. As previously mentioned, this is the sixth time she has been here in opposition to this rezoning. They have not changed their minds. Nothing has changed as far as Richter's going out of business or the McDonald's remodeling. This does not change their position to not have another commercial business in their backyards. She suggested that the Board get in touch with Jim Ruff or Sandy Allen and find out some of the problems that they have experienced on Cox Blvd. with the rebuilding of the McDonalds. They have had nothing but problems and they do not want another business in their backyards causing the same problems, such as loud noises and traffic. The traffic at that corner is terrible as it is, and to put another business on that corner only two blocks from Jolly would make it worse. You cannot even turn down that street or get out of that street between 4pm and 6pm. They do not want another business in their back yards or in these peoples front yards that are going to be facing this business. These kinds of business do not have any respect for the neighbors. There is trash, people climbing over the fence and a lack of privacy now with McDonalds. We allowed them to rezone it to "D-1" Professional and they are not advertising it as such. She said that she cannot believe the Planning Board is even allowing this. She also said that there is probably not anybody in this room that would want something like this in their back yards. HARRY HILL, 328 SYRINGA. Mr. Hill expressed his concerns with regard to this request: 1) safety and 2) impact on the residential area. The volume of traffic on South Cedar near Syringa is very, very high. A couple years ago, when this was up for rezoning, he did a little survey to determine the traffic volume and because of the short notice, he did not have time to resurvey the traffic pattern. On Cedar, between Cavanaugh and Jolly, there is a high accident rate because of the traffic. It is a problem and a danger. During the rush hours, you cannot get on Cedar from Syringa unless you are turning right and someone stops and lets you out. Near the Cedar/Syringa intersection, there are two extremely high volume businesses: Auto Zone and McDonalds. Sometime you ought to stop by those lots and watch the cars going in and out, particularly during the business hours. Again it is very dangerous. Some people use Syringa as a by-pass to get from Cedar during the rush hours around to Jolly so they can circumvent the Jolly/Cedar intersection and they go through our neighborhood. A high volume commercial business would alter the integrity and character of the neighborhood. This is a stable neighborhood. It has a low crime rate and is enjoyable to live there, but if there was another business that was zoned other than Professional PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 7 Office, say commercial, this would add additional traffic and create some of the other problems associated with a commercial business. They get a lot of wind blow wrappers, noise, odors and traffic congestion from the businesses. He would like the Planning Board to support maintaining the integrity and character of the Syringa Drive Area. CHRIS BARYAMES, SR., 1731 NOTTINGHAM RD. Mr. Baryames stated that he is here tonight to talk with the Planning Board about the property at 4720 S. Cedar Street in Lansing. On May 1, 1997, the Community Planning Service approved the zoning classification to become "F" Commercial. In keeping with this approval, there needs to be approval from the Planning Board and this is why he is here. The entire property was reclassified "F" Commercial by the Committee and he just wants the front 113 feet to be rezoned that way. The back 113 feet where the people are living to remain Residential. This would have the property blend with the businesses that are already there, such as the recently remodeled McDonalds and the other commercial properties that extend along Cedar Street from Willoughby Rd. to almost Michigan Avenue. It is not reasonable that all of these properties have the "F" Commercial classification and this property does not. He asks that the Planning Board follow the lead of the Community Planning Services Committee and approve the "F" Commercial classification tonight, if possible, so that this property can be developed in a way that would blend with the other commercial businesses all the way up and down S. Cedar Street. As a life long resident of Lansing, his heart is in keeping Lansing a viable city. EMLY HORNE, PRESIDENT OF OLD EVERETT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. At their meeting on July 26, the Old Everett Neighborhood Association voted to oppose the rezoning of 4720 S. Cedar Street from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial. Some of their concerns have been stated by previous speakers but she will repeat them quickly. They include: 1) safety and traffic problems. Residents are not able to ingress and egress their subdivision due to traffic backups that sometimes extend to Potter Street; 2) the changing of this neighborhood if this is rezoned. There is a doctor's office and an insurance building between Cloverland and Syringa, and these buildings are of the same style and are one story high. They want to maintain this type of style and character for this area because this is one of our newest subdivisions in the Old Everett Neighborhood area. The South Side Summit report discussion from the Physical Development Committee states that the citizens of the south side do not want vacant property to be rezoned to a higher usage unless a marketing study has been done or an economic study, especially if it is near or adjacent to residential properties. The PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 8 sign that has been on the property just states that it is for sale, and does not state that it is zoned for "D-1" Professional Office, so people who are going by this area on Cedar Street do not know what this is zoned for. Since they have Professional Office between Cloverland and Syringa, it would be nice to retain this character and have property remain "D-1". 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None 6. RECESS (Zoning and Ordinance Committee to meet regarding NCU-14-01 and NCU-15-01)) Mr. Ruge suggested that it may be more expedient if they handled these matters in the Committee of the Whole, particularly since there are only two members of the Zoning & Ordinance Committee present. He asked that they be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruge moved; supported by Mr. Frederick to consider NCU-14-01 and NCU- 15-01 in the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Vote, motion carried (5-0). 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: July 17, 2001 Moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Patrick, to approve the minutes of July 17, 2001. On a Voice Vote, motion carried, the Minutes of July 17, 2001 were APPROVED B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be on Wednesday August 15th, 2001 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave. Conference Room. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. a. Act-8-01, Duvernay Dr., Dovers Crossing, Vacate ROW Mr. Smith presented this case. DTN Management requests that the City of Lansing vacate the Duvernay Street ROW in Dover's Crossing to alleviate a shortage of tenant and visitor's parking in the immediate area. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 9 Duvernay is a platted north/south street which runs up the middle of the Dover's Crossing complex. The roadway is 615 foot in length, 36 feet in width from curb to curb with a 66 foot ROW with no city street trees. An additional 80 feet ROW exists on the north end of Duvernay Drive making the overall size 615 feet and 66 feet wide. Cars parallel park along both sides of the street, parallel spaces are required to be at least 20' by 8', which in this case would leave 20 feet of width for traffic with parking on both sides of the street. Cars can legally park along the street by day but are ticketed for over night parking. The required number of spaces based on a mix of Dover's Crossings 528 dwelling units is 1,007. Based on a review of aerial photos, 125 parking spaces in excess of code requirements. Excess parking exists near the corner of Bell Chase and Jolly while deficiencies exist in centrally located parking. The proposed vacation will provide approximately 35-37 parallel parking spaces. The same area, if redeveloped for 90 degree parking which would result in approximately 74 parking spaces, albeit at significant cost. The Fire Marshall has determined that either configuration will allow access for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Easements are needed for any utilities that exist. The Committee found based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-8-01 in accordance with its Act 285 review procedures, that: 1 . Duvernay Drive is in the interior of the Dover's Crossing development, and is not necessary to be retained as street. 2. The vacation of Duvernay Drive will provide additional centrally located parking to the Dover's Crossing Development. 3. Either parking configuration (parallel as proposed or 90 degree as recommended by staff), will result in sufficient aisle space of emergency vehicles. 4. Site Plan Review will be required due to the creation of the parking lot. 5. The extension of Duvernay Drive into the Trappers Cove Development will not be necessary. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Pagel 0 In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Act-8-01, the Vacation of Duvernay Drive in its current condition, retaining all applicable utilities easements, and provided that a site plan be submitted through the site plan review process including review and approval by the Fire Marshall. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve Act-8-01, Duvernay Dr., Dover's Crossing, Repave then Vacate ROW with the conditions outlined in Mr. Smiths report. Frederick . Ave Smith .Ave Ruge . Ave Patrick . Ave Keene . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS b. Act-18-01, Butler St., Allegan to Ottawa, Vacate ROW Mr. Smith presented the case. The State of Michigan Department of Management and Budget requests that the city vacate Butler Blvd. including utility easements between Allegan and Ottawa Streets. The State proposes to create a landscaped pedestrian walkway which will unify the new Hall of Justice, which is currently under construction, west of Butler, with the proposed Vietnam Veterans' Memorial on the east side of Butler, and the State Capitol to the east. The State will discuss the design with the surrounding neighborhoods. One neighborhood organization, Genessee Neighborhood Association, has spoken in favor of the proposal. Land uses to the north are residences and offices, while to the south is the old Seven Block Renaissance Area. To the east is current parking for State Offices and to the west is the Hall of Justice. This proposal is in conformance with the River Island Area Comprehensive Plan in that it connects the government facilities. The project is also in conformance with the Capitol Loop Plan, a design concept PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 11 prepared for the State of Michigan and the City of Lansing regarding the State complex and its approaches. Butler Blvd. between Allegan and Ottawa is eliminated in this concept. Butler Street is currently closed off in the project area due to the construction of the Hall of Justice, so some of the circulation impacts of the project are already being felt. According to the Transportation Engineer, reasonable circulation is feasible under one way street patterns on Allegan and Ottawa Streets, or in the event that the two streets are converted to two way. The city has a large sewer pipe recently relocated into the Butler Street ROW from the Hall of Justice Property. AT&T has broadband equipment in the ROW, the removal of which would affect 608 homes. The Board of Water and Light also has a water main and street lighting in the subject area. These utilities will need to either be retained in the existing easements or relocated into new easements. Easements will not be a problem, according to Mr. Mosher from the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, provided that any unnecessary easement are eliminated. The Committee found, based on its review of location, character and extent of Act-18-01 in accordance with Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The proposed project is in conformance with the River Island Comprehensive Plan and the Capitol Loop Plan from 1990. 2. The proposal will permanently remove N-S vehicular traffic on Butler, but the Transportation Engineer has determined that the traffic pattern is workable. This is confirmed by the experience of Butler's temporary closure during the construction of the Hall of Justice. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of Act-18-01, Butler Street, Allegan to Ottawa, Vacate ROW, with conditions: a. The existing fire hydrant be retained. b. All utility wires be installed underground. C. The City, as part of MDOT's "Capital Loop Project", may construct a sanitary sewer, approximately 25 feet deep, in the Butler's Street ROW, between Ottawa PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 12 Street and Allegan Street targeted for construction in 2004 and 2005. d. Butler Street shall not be vacated until appropriate easements, acceptable to the City Engineer, are granted by the State for the relocated City owned sanitary and storm sewers along the westerly (M.L. King Blvd.) and northerly (Ottawa St.) proportions of the "Hall of Justice" property. e. The State work with the surrounding neighborhoods on design issues. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve Act-18-01 , to recommend approval of Act-18-01 , Butler Street, Allegan to Ottawa, Vacate ROW with the conditions noted above. Ms. Keene said the motion is amended. Frederick . Ave Smith .Ave Ruge . Ave Patrick . Ave Keene . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED w/the following CONDITIONS. a. The existing fire hydrant be retained. b. All utility wires be installed underground. C. The City, as part of MDOT's "Capital Loop Project", may construct a sanitary sewer, approximately 25 feet deep, in the Butler's Street ROW, between Ottawa Street and Allegan Street targeted for construction in 2004 and 2005. d. Butler Street shall not be vacated until appropriate easements, acceptable to the City Engineer, are granted by the State for the relocated City owned sanitary and storm sewers along the westerly (M.L. King Blvd.) and northerly (Ottawa St.) proportions of the "Hall of Justice" property. e. The State work with the surrounding neighborhoods on design issues. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 13 C. Act-14-01, Capitol Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 & 35, Assessors Plat #9, Easement for access and parking. Mr. Smith presented the case. The Urban Development Committee met on June 26, 2001 and again on July 24, 2001 to discuss this case. Mr. John Fifarek and Robert Burnig were present on behalf of the request. Tanya Moore was present on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Fifarek, on behalf of the Capital Area United Way, requests an easement for access and parking for the CAUW building in Kingsley Park in the 1300 Block of W. Washtenaw. CAUW owns the property at 1309 W. Washtenaw, which is lots 32 and 33, Assessors Plat No. 9, which has been known for years as the Community Nursery with frontage, ingress, egress and parking were off of Washtenaw Street. The CAUW property originally fronted on Washtenaw, having its parking ingress and egress on Washtenaw Street. Around 1977, the 1300 block of West Washtenaw for purposes of the Kingsley Park project, including Riddle School, and vacated in 1981. In 1976, the City had purchased lots 34 and 35 of Assessor's Plat No. 9 (the subject property), being the two lots immediately to the west of the CAUW properties so that parking ingress and egress remained for the CAUW property. This parking has been predominately used by the Community Nursery, however the title to the subject property has remained with the City of Lansing. The subject property, and the property at 1309 W. Washtenaw, are zoned "B" Residential District and regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. They are surrounded by residentially zoned properties. The Parks Board met on July 18, 2001 , and recommended that "the parcel of property (the subject property) be submitted for approval for an easement within the current zoning of "B" Residential to meet the intended use as a day care center and would be subject to change if the zoning intended use of this parcel is changed." PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 14 The Committee found, based on its review of location, character and extent of Act-14-01 in accordance with the Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The subject site is now designated park land. 2. The subject property was acquired and developed to provide parking for the Community Nursery building and other park users. 3. The development and use of the subject property as parking preceded the designation of the subject property as "Parks and Open Space" in the River Island Area Comprehensive Plan (adopted in October, 1978) and as a designated park in City Council's Designation of Parkland resolution adopted on June 22, 1981. 4. The property is zoned "B" Residential District and regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. An easement or license for access and parking should not have any adverse impact o the residential character of the area. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Planning Board concur with the Parks Board's July 18, 2001 action, and recommend approval of Act-14-01, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, with modification, for the conveyance by license or easement, or other appropriate conveyance as deemed appropriate by the City Attorney, over Lots 34 & 35 Assessor's Plat #9, retaining all necessary utility easements, with the following conditions: • the subject site remains designated park land; • the current zoning designation ("B" Residential) of the building at 1309 W. Washtenaw (east of and adjacent to the subject property), and its use as a day care facility be retained; • the pavement for the existing driveway, which extends beyond the south property line may be retained for the duration of its useful life, at which time the encroachment shall be removed; • the two sheds which encroach approximately five (5) feet onto City property (Lot 34) may be retained for the duration of their useful lives, at which time they shall be removed at the applicant's sole expense; • no further structural development be permitted on the subject property; PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 15 • new and subsequent owners of 1309 W. Washtenaw shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the subject area; and • the applicant may, at its expense, install utilities, such as lighting and phone, on or above the subject property, subject to administrative site plan review. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Frederick to approve Act-14-01, Capitol Area United Way, 1300 Blk. W. Washtenaw, Lots 34 & 35, Assessor's Plat #9, Easement for access and parking with the conditions outlined in Mr. Smiths report. Mr. Ruge said it appears that the City made an agreement with the applicant at the time that Washtenaw was vacated that they could have access to a city street over city property. This is really just following through on that agreement. JOHN FIFAREK, REPRESENTATIVE FOR CAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY. When looking at the recommendation there are a couple of things that he wishes that he would.consider. There is the language in there, "easement, license or other appropriate conveyance", he thinks what was attempted to do at that point in time and that the general discussion was that an easement would be the most appropriate between the easement and the license but not to disregard the possibility if it was o.k. with the City Attorney and City Council to give them the deed to that property. So if there can be some reliance to that as well. The second bullet point that has the condition that it be used as a day care facility. They would request that it be removed from the Planning Boards decision. As mentioned before, there is a buyer for the property. Like any buyer they want to make sure that they have ingress and egress as the future may come about. They have been told with that restriction they will not go forward with the sale as presently contemplated. What would be acceptable that it be consistent with the requirements of the applicable Zoning Ordinance. He thinks that is only fair and it be treated just like any other party or property owner in the community. The other point is on the fifth bullet point where it says "no further structural development be permitted on the property". Again, he requests that it not be included but rather any development or improvements with the property would have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Codes. He does not think this should be restricted or the new purchaser be restricted from making any improvements to that parcel. The long and short of it is, we as the United Way think they have a deal that is beneficial to the United Way but also to the community and that this building will be used. The purchaser has indicated that it will be used as a day care but we prefer that it not be restricted as this and leaving us all open for reconsideration some time in the future. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 16 Ms. Keene said this will need to be referred back to the Committee for its input at this point in terms of whether we want to go forward tonight or take some time to consider these comments by the applicant. Mr. Ruge said it is his memory that on a couple of these things that the use be restricted to a day care facility. He believes that this is what the Park's Board recommended and that is why the language was put in there. He feels that we should follow the Park's Board recommendation and that if they want to go back to the Park's Board and get a clarification he would be willing to hold this and reconsider it, but he does not think he would be willing to pass something that was different from the Park's Board recommendation. General discussion ensued regarding whether to table this and take it back to the Committee or move on this tonight. Also discussion ensued on the issue of amending the conditions regarding the day care center and the restrictions on the building. Ms. Keene said she would like to have a motion to table or vote this up or down. Is there a motion to table until there is further clarification from the Parks Board. Mr. Ruge said it is his understanding that the applicant would like this acted upon this evening and not tabled. That would be his feeling. Mr. Frederick said he heard the applicant say that if this is moved on with the conditions as outlined in the report that the sale of this property will fall through then they are no where if we There as not way to vote on the motion that is on the floor. If this is tabled the result is the same. Mr. Ruge said he agrees with him, but he can ask the applicant and he said he did not want this tabled. Ms. Keene asked the applicant if this is what he wants. Mr. Fifarek said he was told to get a decision one way or another and he may be able to convince Council to amend the recommendation because the school if this goes forward needs to open up in the month of September and there has been some discussion of a short term lease so they can start doing things before hand but when the purchaser heard of these restrictions, they said they are not going to spend any money or do anything of that nature. All he is doing is begging the Board to understand what those concerns are, if he can't convince the Board otherwise, maybe the next body he can. If this is not closed this month they are right are they were a year ago with a vacant property and no use for it. Mr. Ruge said on the applicant's other concerns, the Committee discussed the license, easement and other conveyance and personally he would be uncomfortable directing the City Attorney what way to allow them to use the parking lot. He thinks that should be left up to the discression of the City Attorney. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Rieske said the Park's Board meets again this month, assuming that they meet at their regular meeting time. If this was compatible with the motion, say the current zoning designation will remain with the building and its use as a day care center or other uses in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and approved by the Parks Board. . . If that was added it would give the Parks Board some leeway as to the use of the property and may accommodate some of the applicants concern and still move this forward without messing this up entirely. Mr. Smith said he would find that a good compromise. Mr. Frederick agreed to that amendment as well. Mr. Ruge said he would like to address the applicants third point also. The condition that no further structural development be permitted. Unfortunately he does not remember the discussion on that and he does not remember where that came from and he is hoping someone is able to fill him in on that point. Mr. Rieske said he knows that the provision is in there because the city owns the property and it is for the city to determine what changes go on there not to permit the applicant to go and just construct some building there. Mr. Ruge asked if this was the applicant's property or the parking lot. Mr. Rieske said the subject property is the parking lot. Mr. Ruge said this is not saying that can't put a shed on their own property. Mr. Rieske said we can put in parentheses the lots 34 and 35 and just so that becomes crystal clear. Mr. Ruge said Lot 32 and 33 are the ones owned by the applicant. Mr. Frederick said that he would accept that amendment. Mr. Smith concurred. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Ave Patrick. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED w/the AMENDED CONDITIONS. • the subject site remains designated park land; • the current zoning designation ("B" Residential) of the building at 1309 W. Washtenaw (east of and adjacent to the subject property), and its use as a day care facility be retained (amendment: the current zoning designation will remain with the building and its PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 18 use as a day care center or other uses in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and approved by the Parks Board); • the pavement for the existing driveway, which extends beyond the south property line may be retained for the duration of its useful life, at which time the encroachment shall be removed; • the two sheds which encroach approximately five (5) feet onto City property (Lot 34) may be retained for the duration of their useful lives, at which time they shall be removed at the applicant's sole expense; • no further structural development be permitted on the subject property (amendment: Lots 34 & 35); • new and subsequent owners of 1309 W. Washtenaw shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the subject area; and • the applicant may, at its expense, install utilities, such as lighting and phone, on or above the subject property, subject to administrative site plan review. Ms. Keene said she needs to leave at this time, and requested an excused absence for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Ruge moved; supported by Mr. Smith to grant Ms. Keene's request. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Frederick took over as chair for the remainder of the Planning Board Meeting. d. Act-17-01, South Sheridan Rd. at Turner Street, Easement for sidewalk. Mr. Smith presented the case. This was taken up at the Urban Development Committee prior to the Planning Board meeting this evening. The City of Lansing Public Service Department requests easement to maintain the existing sidewalk at the southwest (321 W. Sheridan Road) and southeast (3520 N. Turner Street) corners of Sheridan Road and Turner Street. The City of Lansing Public Service Department is proposing to widen the turn radius at the southwest and southeast corners of Sheridan Road and Turner Street. Widening the turn radius will encroach into the existing sidewalk area. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 19 Therefore, easements onto private property are necessary to maintain the sidewalk network at this intersection. Currently the south side of Sheridan has curb, gutter and sidewalk. The corners have a short radius, which requires vehicles to make tighter turns. Road improvements to Sheridan Road are underway between Turner Street and East Street. Future road improvements along Sheridan Road toward Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. are scheduled for Spring 2002. Staff recommended of Act-17-01, South Side Sheridan Road at Turner Street, Easement for sidewalk. In Committee it was found, based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-17-01 in accordance with Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The proposed easements are located on the southern corners at the intersection of Turner Street and Sheridan Road. 2. The corners at Sheridan Road and Turner Street only allow for short turning radii. 3. Easements are necessary to relocate the sidewalk network onto private property to allow the widening of Sheridan Road and Turner Street, which would improve the turning radius for trucks. 4. Letters have been sent to property owners. Authorization through an easement agreement between the property owners and the City will be required to establish the proposed easements. 5. An easement or purchase of the property will be required to use the property for a public purpose. Public Service would prefer an easement agreement to purchasing the property. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Planning Board approve Act-17-01 , South Sheridan Road at Turner Street, Easement for Sidewalk. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Patrick to recommend approval of Act-17-01, South Side Sheridan Rd. at Turner St., Easement for sidewalk. Mr. Ruge said the Assessors Office suggested that the City purchase this property. General discussion ensued whether to acquire easements, or the outright purchasing of property. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 20 Mr. Ruge suggested that the Board recommend both alternatives, easement or purchase, for flexibility. Mr. Smith said that is fine. Ms. Patrick concurred. Mr. Frederick said the motion to approve is amended. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . .Ave Ruge . Ave Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED AS AMENDED. e. Act-19-01, S. Cedar at Just-A-Mere, Vacate, Realign Just-A-Mere Drain Mr. Smith presented the case. The applicant, Gordon Long, is requesting a vacation of part of the Just-A-Mere drain from Georgia Street to a point south of S. Cedar ROW. Vacating this portion of the drain should not affect is compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Any resulting drainage lines would not be visible from surrounding land uses and be incidental to the principle land uses on the applicant's site. The existing segment to be vacated is an 8 inch field tile. The exact age, location, and condition is unknown. The line is considered to be inadequate to meet the needs of the applicant's development. An alternate would be appropriately sized to meet the needs of surrounding land uses and the proposed development of the site. The design of the alternate segment would be required to meet the current municipal and County Drain Commissioner standards. Vacating of this segment of the Just-A-Mere drain should, therefore, have a positive impact on existing and future development by upgrading a substandard segment of the system, resulting in enhanced capacity and reliability. There will be no appreciable change in the impacts on the environment associated with vacating this segment of the drain. All storm water in the vicinity will continue to be discharged into the existing drainage system and received by the same county drain, irrespective of the drainage route employed at the applicant's site. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 21 In Committee it was found based on its review of the location, character and extent of Act-19-01 in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The overall impact of vacating the Just-A-Mere drain segment should be positive, resulting in the upgrading of a substandard segment of the system by improving flow and reliability. 2. The proper location of the alternate drain would be subject to local standards and the City Engineer's approval. 3. No negative impacts on the existing or future character of the area could be discerned. 4. The proposal is consistent with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Planning Board approve Act-19-01 , S. Cedar at Just-A- Mere, Vacate and Realign Just-A-Mere Drain with the conditions that were outlined in the staff recommendations: 1 . The applicant provide Title Commitment and obtain releases from all other entities having a legal interest in the easement area to be vacated, prior to vacating the drain. 2. The vacation of the Just-A-Mere drain shall not be executed until such time that the portion of the drain not abandoned is redirected to a new public storm sewer system in Georgia Street. 3. The physical piping and appurtenances shall be abandoned by the applicant at his expense. This shall be witnessed by the Public Service Department. 4. The applicant shall construct a manhole on the Just- A-Mere drain near the east property line at a site approved by the City Engineer. 5. The applicant will be responsible for placing a bulkhead for the drain at the west property line. 6. The applicant shall protect the Just-A-Mere drain during construction until the drain has been officially abandoned. 7. All work associated with the Just-A-Mere drain shall be permitted and inspected by the Public Service Department. 8. The applicant construct a 24 inch storm sewer to outlet to the Pawlowski Creek detention area, in accordance with Ingham County Drain Commission requirements. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 22 PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Mr. Smith made a motion; seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend approval of Act-19- 01 , S. Cedar at Just-A-Mere, Vacate, Realign Just-A-Mere Drain with conditions. Frederick . . Ave Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS. Mr. Frederick appointed Mr. Ruge as chair for the Committee of the Whole. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to dissolve to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried unanimous (4-0). 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge, Chairman. a. NCU-14-017 516 W. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for a Class A Nonconforming Status for the property at 516 W. Saginaw Street. There is a drawing in the packet attached to the staff report that depicts the layout of the lot. The portion from the north line of the building going over to N. Pine Street is zoned "J" Parking and the remainder of the property is zoned "F" Commercial. There are four nonconformities with regard to this property. One of these is the use. The building is completely residential and in the "F" Commercial District, residential is only permitted as a secondary use to Commercial and there are no commercial uses on this property. Lot area is another nonconformity. Residential uses in the "F" Commercial district have to meet the lot area requirements of the "DM-3" District, which would be 29,900 sq. ft. and this lot is deficient 13,478.12 ft. from that requirement. The other nonconformity is the front yard setback. A 20 foot front yard setback is required and this building has a 19.2 setback. The final nonconformity is parking. The Zoning Code requires a total of 35 parking spaces for this property and the applicant can provide 23 parking spaces. To rectify this problem, what the applicant is going to do, and we have made this a condition of the recommendation to approve, is to have a lease agreement to limit one parking space per unit. She understands they will all be one bedroom units. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 23 The applicant is requesting the Class A for the purpose of repairing/rehabilitating the building in excess of 35% of its value. Staff is recommending approval with Five Conditions, which are: • The Class "A" meets all conditions required by agencies referred; • The applicant implements a lease agreement limiting the parking to one space per unit; • Compliance with the minimum dimensional requirements for the layout of the parking area contained in Chapter 1284; • The parking area is hard surfaced; and • The improvements are completed within one year from the date of approval of this request. Mr. Frederick said this was something that has been apparent for quite some time. The Zoning Ordinance that requires these NCU's seem to retard development or improvement of deteriorating properties. He is told that Ferris Development does good job and is doing tremendous work in the city to rehabilitate a lot of deteriorated properties. He is in favor of this and recommends that staff take a look at all these NCU's and see if there is some way to change the Zoning Ordinance to make this process a little bit easier because as happy as he is to improve a deteriorating building it would be much more efficient if we did not have to hear the case in the first place, and just get the building improved. Ms. Stachowiak said that she will discuss it with the Planning Manager. Mr. Smith asked a question about the paved area extending over the applicants lot line to the north. Ms. Stachowiak said it overlaps the property along Pine Street to the north, however, Ferris Development will only be able to use what is within their property lines. If there is a problem with the overlapping pavement, it is a private matter between the two property owners. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. VanZee had any comments. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 24 Mr. VanZee said this is a project that is out of the area of the previous projects, but they feel that this is an area that needs a lot of work. This is the same corner that Quality Dairy is on and there have been problems in this area. They want to go in and invest a considerable amount of money to upgrade these 23 units and screen the clientele very carefully so that they can upgrade the property and the area. Ferris's office is located at 820 N. Capitol which is not very far from 516 W. Saginaw and they want to improve the entire area if possible. Mr. Ruge asked about the situation with the lot to the north. Mr. VanZee said that at one time, 516 W. Saginaw and the property along N. Pine had the same owner. Ferris Development is currently trying to acquire that property. They have not purchased the other property, but they are in negotiations and hope to acquire it. They are not sure whether they will rehab that property or take it down to provide more parking. One thing they have noticed during the acquisition process for 516 W. Saginaw is that the parking lot is never full. Most of those people use bus transportation or walk to their place of business. A lot of the clientele will remain there, the ones that qualify for low to moderate income housing. Those that are over qualified or those that cannot prove that they have income for those units will not be able to stay. Mr. Ruge said if they are unsuccessful in purchasing the property to the north, do they plan to put a separation between that property and Ferris' property? Mr. VanZee said they surely can. Between the adjacent properties to the north, and to the east they are planning on putting a privacy fence. They are also working with the Quality Dairy Store to fence that property in. They did not propose anything between the house on N. Pine because they are trying to purchase that property and they did not want to put up a fence and then have to take it down if they do acquire it because it will become part of the 516 property. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-14-01 , 516 W. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Status with five conditions as listed in the staff report. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 25 Mr. Ruge asked if the city requires a privacy fence around this property. Ms. Stachowiak said no, since there is nothing really changing on the site that necessitates the screening other than that they are doing rehabilitation to the existing structure. They are not proposing any additional pavement, just some striping. Mr. VanZee said that they will be resurfacing the parking area. They are not going to expand it. They will provide adequate striping and bumper stops for each space. Ms. Stachowiak said the city would not normally require screening in a case like this. The property is zoned "J" Parking, the property to the north has a great deal of pavement in its backyard and typically they would not require this, but that does not mean that the Planning Board cannot require it as part of its approval. Mr. VanZee said they are installing the fence because it will look nicer around that area and screen the area residents from the apartment building and because there has been some history with the lower fence such as people throwing trash over the fence and so they are putting in a six foot fence to try to contain everything in the property. They also will have a screened dumpster in the area, which will be away from the back property line so that it will not interfere with the neighbors in that area. Mr. Ruge said he noticed that the property abuts to at least four other residential properties. He would ask, especially since the applicant is going to do it anyway that there be a condition that a six foot privacy fence be put around the property. Mr. Frederick accepted that amendment. Ms. Patrick asked why they can't use some kind of green buffering rather than a fence. Ms. Stachowiak said they would not have any place to put green space along the north property line and still comply with the requirements for a two-way parking layout. She also said that she is not sure how the fence is going to work PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 26 along the north property line because there are restrictions on fencing in the front yard and the front yard is determined by the location of the structure. She asked that the motion read "A six foot privacy fence be installed around property in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements." Mr. Frederick accepted the wording of the motion as recommended by Ms. Stachowiak. Mr. VanZee said the existing asphalt goes right against the building all the way around, and they are going to remove some of the asphalt to allow for a three foot landscape buffer around the building. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). b. NCU-15-01, 901-909 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development. This is one parcel with two structures addressed as 901 & 909 Vine St. The property is zoned "DM-3" Residential and is 19,145 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting the Class A so that they can put money into the property for repairs and rehabilitation in excess of 35% of the value of the buildings. The nonconformity in this case is strictly side yard setbacks on either side of the site (the east and west sides). The required side yard setbacks for both sides of the property is 13.25 feet and on one side they have approximately 8 feet and the other side they have 3 feet at its nearest point. Those are the only nonconformities associated with this property. The applicant recently combined the two lots at 901 and 909 Vine, on our recommendation, because in order to meet their parking requirement for the nine bedroom building they would need to have parking spaces on the adjoining lot. The "DM-3" District permits more than one structure on a lot that is less than 3 acres. There are two diagrams in the packet, one labeled existing and one labeled proposed. The proposed layout is a much better situation than what currently exists. One of the curb cuts will be shut off and there will be more green space on the property from what exists now. It is a much better situation all the way around. The only nonconformity in this case is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 27 side yard setbacks. The front and rear yards are in compliance with the ordinance. The Staff is recommending approval of this case with four conditions: 1. The driveway and parking areas be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt. 2. The dumpster area should be properly screened. 3. The applicant complies with the minimum design standards for parking spaces. 4. The site improvements are completed within one year from the date of this approval. Mr. Ruge said that there is going to be a lot of activity in the parking lot with eleven units. He stated that the parking area should be screened from the adjacent properties. Ms. Stachowiak said there is a fence shown on the plan. Mr. VanZee said it is relatively new. It is a chain link fence that surrounds the property, half way back on the east side, all the way across the north side and back up to the building on the west side that has been put in within the past two years. Ms. Stachowiak said that in terms of screening, there are no plant materials. Mr. VanZee said there is a barrier with a fence. There is quite a drop off at the back of this property line onto the adjacent property line. The previous owners of this were having problems with people just crossing the lots, which is why the fence was put up, however there is no screening. Mr. Ruge said his other concern is the placement of the dumpster because the noise from emptying them tends to disturb people. He does not know if he sees a better place to put the dumpster. Mr. VanZee said they try to keep them in an area where it is easy for the truck to access. Mr. Frederick made the motion; seconded by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-15-01, 901-909 Vine Street, Class A Nonconformity with the four conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Ruge said he just asked that they also require screening of the parking lot, because he is concerned about head lights and things of this nature. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 28 Mr. Frederick said he would accept that as a friendly amendment. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). There being no other items for consideration by the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the Committee do rise; carried; unanimous. 3b. Committee of the Whole Report, Mr. Frederick, Chairman. a. NCU-14-01, 516 W. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Ruge presented the case. This is a 23 unit apartment building. It was moved, supported and carried unanimously to approve NCU-14-01 with the following conditions: 1 . The Class "A" meets all conditions required by agencies referred. 2. The applicant implements a lease agreement limiting the parking to one space per unit. 3. Compliance with the minimum dimensional requirements for the layout of the parking area contained in Chapter 1284. 4. The parking area be hard surfaced. 5. The improvements be completed within one year from the date of approval of this request. 6. The property be screened by a privacy fence. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: It was moved by Mr. Ruge, supported by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-14-01, 516 W. Saginaw, Class A Nonconforming Status, with conditions as noted above. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Aye Ruge. . . Aye Patrick. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 29 b. NCU-15-01, 901-909 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status Mr. Ruge presented the case. This request involves two buildings, one with 9 units and one with two units at 901 and 909 Vine Street. It was moved, supported and carried unanimously to approve with the following conditions: a. The driveway/parking area be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt. b. The dumpster area should be property screened. C. The applicant must meet the minimum design standards for parking spaces as specified in Section 1284.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. d. All improvements to the site must be completed within one year from the date of this approval. e. The parking lot be screened from adjacent properties. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: It was moved by Mr. Ruge, supported by Mr. Smith to approve NCU-15-01, 901-909 Vine St., Class A Nonconforming Status, with conditions as noted above. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . .Ave Ruge. . . Ave Patrick. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. 3. Executive Committee - none C. Report from Planning Manager - none. 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) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 30 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-12-01, 5550 S. Pennsylvania- Market Fire Station for Salem (tabled July 3, 2001) b. Act-13-01,4801 S. Cedar Street,Acquire for Fire Station (tabled July 3,2001). 8. NEW BUSINESS - Mr. Frederick said that Ms. Foster has job commitments and she will not be able to meet with the Zoning & Ordinance Committee. Therefore, someone needs to volunteer to be on both or change members. Ms. Patrick suggested that there is a rotation so that each of the Urban Development Committee takes a turn to ensure a quorum. Mr. Frederick concurred. General discussion ensued regarding schedules for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Patrick volunteered to attend the August 15, 2001 meeting, since she would be attending any way regarding one of the issues being presented. Mr. Ruge said he was concerned about a possible conflict of interest. He said he did not know the issue, but he wondered if she would be presenting as a citizen or a board member. Ms. Patrick said if she was present as a guest she would be presenting some historical information for the education of the Committee. If she is one the committee she will share that information with the Committee, as opposed to advocating. General discussion ensued regarding the above issue. Ms. Patrick will serve on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee on a temporary basis for the August 15, 2001 meeting. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2001 Page 31 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge asked if the Zoning & Ordinance Committee can get some guidance on what would constitute a significant change in regards to Z-3-2001. Ms. Stachowiak said that there are some other documents with regard to the action the Development and Planning Committee took in making a determination on whether there has been a change and that will all be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Ruge said a month or two ago he mentioned to Mr. Ruff about all the asphalt patches that he sees on the sidewalks in his neighborhood and was concerned that they were going to stay there. He is happy to report that they are all gone. Mr. Frederick said he had a comment as a board member and not a chairperson. He reported that Bill's Heavy Duty Wrecker Service has moved. They are gone. He does not know where they went. It could be bad news wherever they went, but it was like it popped up like a mushroom and it just disappeared. There is a big pile of sand there now. Mr. Frederick said the wrecker business name is Bill's Heavy Duty Wrecker. It was on Cavanaugh near the main drain. They used to be over on W. Hodge Ave. and caused a lot of mess. Ms. Stachowiak said that they were to supposed to have a new site in one of the industrial parks. Ms. Patrick asked if there has been anything sent to the neighborhood group, if there is a neighborhood group, regarding Crystal Woods. She pointed out that here was nothing listed under the references. Ms. Stachowiak said that she does not believe there are any neighborhood organizations in that area, but will check to make sure. Ms. Patrick said her second request is that notification of all future meetings be given to the individuals that sent letters regarding Z-3-01. Ms. Stachowiak asked if Ms. Patrick meant everyone who signed the petition. Ms. Patrick said just the people who wrote letters. Ms. Stachowiak said that they will be notified. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:14 p.m. Respectf Ily submitted A14 James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board mn080701.wpd Approved w/out corrections September 18,2001 Draft to Clerk September 13,2001 Approved September, 18,2001 To Clerk September 28,2001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers - Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, September 5, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Patrick, Ruge, Keene. Five members present; two vacant seats. B. Absences - Smith (Moved by Ruge; Seconded by Frederick to excuse Mr. Smith. Motion carried.) C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager introduced Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator, and John Hodges, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. It was moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda with corrections. On a Voice Vote, motion carried unanimously (5-0). Election of Officer's was added to the Agenda under New Business. 3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter from Louie Boji stating that he is withdrawing Z-12-2001. Mr. Ruff stated that since this case was being withdrawn and possibly re-applied for by the property owner, it would be best if anyone was here to speak on this case, to do so under the "Comments from the Audience" portion of the agenda. b. Letter from the Boys Training School Advisory implementation Committee. C. Lansing School District Letter regarding the BTS Plan. 4. HEARINGS - a. Z-11-2001, 3535 W. Mt. Hope, "F" Commercial & "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional Office. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Clark Construction Company, the applicant and owner of this property. Currently, there are three zoning designations on the property including "F" Commercial, "J" Parking and "A" Residential. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property in its entirety to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to use the existing building, which is formerly the Elks Club Building for an office use and also to, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 2 sometime in the future, be able to construct another office building on the property. The site plan is showing 39,000 sq. ft. for the new building. The reason the owner and engineer are concentrating on usable floor area is because their focus was on how much usable floor they could have and still comply with the parking requirements. They determined that if they stayed within 39,000 sq. ft. of usable floor area, they would have adequate parking for another office building on the site. At this time, the applicant's primary purpose is to convert the existing building to office space and to have a uniform zoning designation of "D-1" Professional Office. The requested zoning also provides a more appropriate buffer between the mobile home park to the east and the Condo development to the west. Some of the agency referrals that have come back indicate that comments will be provided during the site plan review stage since the construction of the new office building is off in the future. DAVID COLEMAN, ATTORNEY FOR CLARK CONSTRUCTION. Mr. Coleman stated that he is available to answer any questions the Board might have regarding this case. TED TERZINE, JR., 3502 MUIRFIELD. Mr. Terzine asked where the second building is going to be built. He said that they were told that nothing would ever be built on the vacant land behind the existing building since that is the way it was given to the city or the Elks Club. Ms. Stachowiak said that the future building will be south of the existing building, approximately half way between the existing building and the south edge of the property. Mr. Terzine asked if they are going to build it where the parking lot is now? Ms. Stachowiak said that it is south of the existing parking lot. General discussion ensued regarding the site and the new building. Mr. Terzine said he does not mind the Elks Club building being fixed up for offices, however, he said that he is not sure about the other building. He stated that if they could at least leave the grass area there, that would be the best way to handle it. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 3 b. Z-12-2001, 3318, 3320, 3330 and part of 3312/3314 Cedar and 405 E. Holmes, "E-2" Local Shopping District and "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District John Hodges presented the case. He stated that essentially this was a rezoning of several properties from "E-2" Local Shopping District and "J" Parking District to the "F" Commercial District. The property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Holmes and Cedar. As Mr. Ruff has mentioned, the applicant has submitted a letter dated August 30, 2001 withdrawing his rezoning request. C. Z-13-2001, 516 W. Saginaw St., "F" Commercial & "J" Parking to "DM-3" Residential District Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property at 516 W. Saginaw Street. The Planning Board approved a Class A Nonconforming Use request for this property at its first meeting in August. Currently, the property is nonconforming for use, setback and parking. In order to obtain financing for the rehabilitation project, the property has to be entirely in compliance with the ordinance, not just have a Class A Nonconforming Status. The applicant is trying to get rid of all the nonconformities and one of the major ones is the use. The property is zoned "F" Commercial and "J" Parking. The entire building is in the "F" Commercial District except the north 4.2 feet which extends into the "J" Parking District. The request is to rezone the south 137 x 64.08 feet from "F" and "J" to "DM-3" Residential. One of the reasons the applicant chose to request "DM-3" is because there is "DM-3" zoning directly adjacent to this property to the east so it will not be spot zoning. The applicant intends to rehabilitate the structure, continue using it for 23 one-bedroom units and restrict the parking to one parking space per unit, however, they cannot obtain financing as long as there are nonconformities that would prevent the structure from being rebuilt if it were destroyed. In addition to the rezoning, the applicant is also petitioning the Board of Zoning Appeals for several variances. They are requesting variances from the requirements of the "DM-3" District for front yard setback, lot coverage, parking and lot area. Those variances, if granted by the BZA, will be useless unless the zoning is approved. Therefore, the applicant is asking the BZA to condition the approval of these variances on the rezoning going through. If the rezoning and the variance requests are approved, the property would be in complete compliance with the ordinance and the City could issue a letter to Ferris Development that if the building burns down, it can be rebuilt in accordance with the approvals that have been granted. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 4 Mr. Ruge asked why they are not rezoning the entire property to "DM-3" instead of leaving the parking area zoned "J"? Ms. Stachowiak said the reason they are not requesting that all of the "J" parking area be rezoned is because parking is not permitted in the front yard in the "DM-3" district. Mr. Ruff said normally the City does not run into these types of issues and it is not their preferred way of doing things because there is no addition going on this building, it is an existing situation. He explained that Ferris Development is using tax credit financing and they need assurances that their tax credits would be continued for the length of the tax credit purpose. Whereas, if it were normal financing, that usually is not the issue. RON VANZEE, FERRIS DEVELOPMENT. Mr. VanZee said that the Planning and Neighborhood Development staff has guided them through this quite carefully and has done a great job of presenting the case. He told the Board that they intend to completely rehabilitate this building and bring it up to Ferris Development's housing standards. Mr. Ruge asked if there has been any progress or change regarding the purchase of the house that is adjacent to the subject property. Mr. VanZee said he has not made any more progress regarding the purchase of the adjoining land. Right now, the only thing they could do with this building is tear it down because it requires four parking spaces and as it stands, there are only six more spaces available in that area. d. PRD-3-01, Cohousing Development Corp., Planned Residential Development, 3721 Aurelius Road John Hodges presented the case. This an application by Cohousing Development Corporation of Ann Arbor requesting a Planned Residential Development to construct an 86 unit site condominium development on the site of 3721 Aurelius, which is on the east side of Aurelius about a quarter of a mile north of Cavanaugh. The land use pattern is primarily single family residential. The character of the area is more of a mixed use variety. There are condominiums, multi-family as well as single family in the surrounding area. The area is designated on the master plan for low density residential development, 71 units per acre. The applicant is proposing, with the 86 units, a gross density of 3.66 units per acre which is consistent with the future land use plan. This is somewhat of a unique type of development which is called a Cohousing development and part of PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 5 the process is that the residents of the site participate in the design of the development. Therefore, the applicants only have the concept plans at this point, and not the details of the exact type of structures, location and size at this time. Part of the cohousing process also embraces creating a quality livable environment through clustered housing as well as a more pedestrian, family environment. In this particular development there will be no roads immediately around the homes and the residents will have to walk to the parking areas. The applicant is also not sure of whether the homes will be attached or detached. The applicants, in their initial conversation, said that at least, initially the idea is to have a 14 unit attached condominium development towards the front of the development and then there would two other 36 unit developments, one that would be located centrally and the other that would be further to the east. They have a three cluster development. Mr. Ruge asked if the staff is aware of any other cohousing projects. Mr. Hodges said he has not had any first hand experience, but the developer has mentioned that they are involved in a similar development in Ann Arbor. Ms. Keene asked about the current stage of development for the project in Ann Arbor. JOHN LINDEBERG, PARTNER, COHOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Mr. Lindeberg stated that he lives in a cohousing project and was one of the developers of the project four years ago. The kind of features that Mr. Hodges described that would characterize the one that they are talking about on the Aurelius Road site are consistent with the one that is in Ann Arbor. He would be willing to show slides if desired, but it is a 40 unit development, situated on about approximately 10 acres of built area and another 10 acres of woods. They have parking on the periphery and have identified and isolated significant amounts of green space. They clustered the development of the housing in a five acre area and provided an opportunity for a very child friendly atmosphere. There is significant demand for the new cohousing project in Ann Arbor and it is now deep into the architectural design stage. There are three people in their company, the owner of the construction company that built the one he is presently living in as well as the founder of his community and himself. There is a wide range of experience in this and they are getting into a much larger national network. For instance, the architects they are working with have done 25 or 30 of these around the country. They were looking for urban property close to the boundaries of East Lansing and also the Campus and they were looking for a site within an existing PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 6 neighborhood close to the kinds of amenities that are there, like the Potter Park Zoo, and the other kinds of features that are attractive to people when they think of moving into a neighborhood. He said that it is an absolutely stunning site from the perspective of having wooded, natural areas available within an urban setting. He reviewed the conceptual plan and pointed out that the wetland areas would be preserved. There are three different development clusters that they are proposing. Two that are very similar to the ones that were described and the other that is called a pocket community that has some of the same aspects of an intentional community with some shared green space in the middle. This would be a traditional Cohousing Development with walking paths and pedestrian movement through the communities. There is an elementary school nearby which is an important feature of the property. They have a less detailed application than the Board might normally expect, however, it has been their hope that in return for providing an innovative approach that has been proven elsewhere, that there could be some flexibility in providing detailed plans for the exact building footprints. They are attempting to identify important core aspects of the project that they hope will provide the Board with a good understanding and a commitment on their behalf to do certain things within certain envelopes such as not constructing more than 86 units of development. They are going to commit to leaving 'Y' acres of undeveloped area and green space and they will provide 172 parking spaces. He understands that the Board does not have familiarity or experience with this type of development, however, there has been considerable success with creating vibrant communities within a larger community. They have met on several occasions with the neighborhood group. Their understanding is that in the packet that was provided, there was a letter from the local neighborhood association president indicating that the neighborhood organization is not opposed to this project and his understanding is that with this particular neighborhood organization, it is unheard of to get an endorsement. They do not want to be an isolated island, but integrated within the fabric of that community and help that community to be dynamic and vibrant. They believe that it will not be a threat to the local neighborhood housing and real estate values and that they will be a positive addition area. Mr. Ruff said that Lansing has had standard types of residential development such as apartments, mobile home parks or typical subdivisions where the developer clears the land and the only thing the residents get to choose is the home style and the lot. The innovativeness of this concept of people gathering and designing their community, how they want it to look, not only in the design of their own home, but also in designing what they want to look at out their front door is a step in the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 7 right direction. By saving much of the green space, the developer could actually obtain density bonuses, yet their proposal is to be at a density that would be equivalent to platting the land (3.5 units per acre). The developer is proposing an owner occupied, family oriented development. The staff has been trying to get enough detail on the development to comply with the PRD requirements and still allow the developer options within certain envelope areas. The necessary details include how much buffer area is provided, how wide is the street, where would buildings most likely be located in the area. The idea would be that there is some flexibility in design so that it would not require going all the way through the PRD process again. If some changes were necessary, the PRD could be amended, otherwise it would proceed through the site plan review process. From a planning standpoint and an administration standpoint, the staff is enjoying the difference in the concept and the preservation of green space, wetlands, trails and those types of things, that you do not typically see with a standard development. Ms. Keene said she can appreciate the concept of the owners participating with the development, but she is curious about the development that the developer lives in and the others that are in the process. How long from start to finish do these projects take and have you had any that have been started and then abandoned? Mr. John Lindeberg said the first development they did themselves and about 15 families formed the first core group that bought the first piece of property. From a cohousing perspective, the property on Aurelius Road is wonderful. Once they find the property, it is necessary to put together a core group of people to provide enough initial inertia so that if they put together a design, it has their credibility within the larger group. His partner that is with them tonight, Gene Townsend, is a member of the core group in Lansing that want to live there and be part of the co- developers. It requires 10-15 families to establish a core group. In Ann Arbor it took 3 months to put together the first 10-15 families. Once that happened, they started the architectural design and site design. He stated that they have put together more design than they normally would, but they recognize that they had to provide something to work with the city. He said that the expectation is that later this year, they will have a big enough core group to start the actual design process. Once that is started, they will be talking with staff about site design issues and will provide hard drawings. Right now they have a purchase agreement on the property and what they are trying to do is seek a sense from this group and the council as to whether this is wanted within the city of Lansing. It does not make a lot of sense to buy the property and find out that this is not consistent with the city's vision. Mr. Lindeberg said that it PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 8 will probably take 3-4 years. They are not in the position to necessarily do all three phases at the same time. They want to let one group do their thing, go through the planning process and get into the construction phase before they start planning with the second group. Mr. Ruge said he noticed that they had access onto Callihan Ct. He said that this is great, however, a lot of people who live on dead end streets like their streets to be dead ends because they don't like the traffic. He asked if they have talked to the neighbors about this? Mr. Lindeberg said they realize that people who live on the end of a cul-de-sac would like to keep it that way. It is very clear that they would like to keep most of the traffic on Aurelius, but it is likely that fire officials are not going to allow only one entrance and exit for a community of this size. ROD BISHNER, 2225 LUWANNA DR. Mr. Bishner said that the development is very impressive and nice. He also said that one of the reasons that he and his wife moved into that neighborhood was the field that backs up to their property. That field has been fallow for at least 12 years and probably longer. There are a number of different species of wild life on the property including Fox, Badger and White Tail Deer. It has become a habitat that is supporting that ecosystem. He feels that this land should remain a natural habitat. He said that some consideration should be given to looking at the property as a natural ecosystem. DR. SAM RIFFLE, 2424 ARTISAN. Dr. Riffle said that he is here on behalf of himself and his wife, Dr. Angela Riffle. He stated that he was very pleased to see that the development plan really considers green space and quality living within the development, however, they are also concerned about what affect this will have on the surrounding environments. The neighborhood is a very quiet, low traffic area with mostly single family dwellings and it has attracted and continues to attract stable families that stay for a long time. He said they are concerned about what affects this development might have on the traffic and noise levels in the area. Dr. Riffle said that he and his wife are strongly opposed to any type of multi-family dwellings that would come in and increase traffic. He stated that if there is to be any development, there should be consideration given to plans that are consistent with the low traffic, low noise, family oriented neighborhood that attracts and keeps families in the city of Lansing. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 9 JULIE BISHER, 2225 LUWANA DR. Her husband spoke regarding their property backing up to the open area. She just wanted to reiterate the wildlife that lives there. Every year they have deer that come in with their fawns and eat off the apple trees. She asked the Board to think of the wildlife. PHYLLIS DARLING, 3706 STONELEIGH. Ms. Darling said that her property abuts the wetland area. She stated that from the plans that she has seen, the wetland area would remain, which would mean that this development would not come up to her property. Her concern is the wildlife because there are a lot of deer in the area and it would be terrible to ruin their home. In addition, she expressed a concern regarding the access that they are considering off of Stoneleigh Drive. She does not think that there is enough room to put a street in the area and is concerned about the access since there are a lot of children that play in the area. JEAN EGGEMIER, 3610-12 CALLIHAN. Ms. Eggemier said that she lives in the duplex on the road that the applicant is considering as an access point. She said that on the west side of Callihan the buildings are all duplexes with quite a few families and children living in them. She expressed concerned about the destruction that the new development will cause during the three years of development. She does not want to see this development become a detriment to renting their property. Ms. Eggemier asked what the cost of these units would be? Mr. Lindeberg said it all depends on what the individual members desire. He said that the range of cost that have occurred at other places is $100,000 to $250,000 depending on the size. DIANE WATERS, 2107 PROVINCIAL HOUSE DR. She and her husband have lived in their home for 13 years and the developer is quite correct, it is a beautiful area there. It is hard to describe, you are in the city but you are not. There is a lot of trees, vegetation and wildlife in the area. They are concerned about the impact that this development is going to have on their quality of life. They are concerned about increase traffic flow on their road. She is also interested to know where their parking lots are going to be? Are they parking lots or garages? Mr. John Lindeberg said the parking is clustered around the periphery. Typically, they would provide one covered space, either garage or carport per unit and provide additional spaces to comply with code requirements. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 10 Ms. Waters said her concern would be what kind of vegetation buffers are going to be in between the parking lots and the existing homes. She appreciates that they do not want parking up near the houses, but they do not want to overlook parking lots either. Ms. Keene said that Ms. Waters could attend the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Meeting and have some of those questions answered. Ms. Waters said that it is a very intriguing idea and it is something they would be interested in, but they are concerned about the impact that this development is going to have on the existing neighborhood. RONALD E. BROWN, 2429 ARTISON DR. He is also a building contractor, so he is not opposed to this development, but he is concerned with the type of development it will be, as far as the multi-family compared to the surrounding single family area. His concerns are with the traffic flow. Also, the effect that it will have on the values of the other homes in the neighborhood. MARK WATERS, 2107 PROVINCIAL HOUSE. He is the President of the Manhattan Condominium Association and looking at the plans, one of the buildings does present a question to him, where they are talking about the 800-1200 sq. ft. units. He said that it seems the developers are looking at smaller units and he asked what target market this will fit in with. Mr. Waters said that to have a development come in and say they do not want to show very much planning or detail, causes concern. Aurelius is very busy street and they would end up going back through Provincial House and through the neighborhoods and it would increase traffic with multiple different access points. He is not opposed to it but just has some concerns, especially since they have not presented much information. Mr. Frederick said he would like to point out to the Board members and staff that he lives directly adjacent to the development and to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, he is going to request that he be recused from any decision in the matter. He realizes that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would be short one person, at least for this case, and he would like to suggest that someone fill in for him on this decision. Ms. Keene said she sees no reason why they should not recuse Mr. Frederick and when they get to the portion of the meeting on Committee Reports they will discuss a replacement for him at the meeting. Ms. Keene closed the public hearing. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None 6. RECESS - 5 minute recess was taken PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 11 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: August 7, 2001 Moved by Mr. Frederick, supported by Ms. Foster, to approve the minutes of August 7, 2001 w/ corrections. Mr. Frederick said on page 16, sixth paragraph down that starts with "Mr. Frederick said. . ." The second sentence says "There is not way to vote. . " he is not sure that he said that, but he is not sure what he said. He would like to ask that the Secretary review that part of the tape and see if he said "no way", rather than "not way". He thinks it is just a typo. On a Voice Vote, motion carried, the Minutes of August 7, 2001 were APPROVED w/ CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Ruge, Chairman. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be on Wednesday September 12, 2001 at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave. Conference Room. Mr. Keene said with regard to PRD-3-01, Mr. Frederick does not wish to participate, and if the committee can consider this items first, Ms. Keene can fill in at the meeting. Ms. Stachowiak said also Ms. Foster will not be at that meeting so she is not sure if Ms. Patrick was planning on attending that meeting also, if so there may be four members. Ms. Patrick said she had not planned on being there. Mr. Frederick said he would be there but just join the meeting after Ms. Keene leaves. Mr. Ruge said if Ms. Keene leaves, then only Mr. Frederick and himself would be there because Ms. Foster would not be there. Mr. Ruff said there are some options that they will have to discuss because there is a conflict. Ms. Keene said she cannot be there after 5:15pm and she is not willing to volunteer Mr. Smith. Ms. Patrick said she would volunteer to be there if Mr. Smith cannot attend. She would like to talk with the Zoning Administrator after the meeting. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. Ms. Patrick said that as the Vice Chair she would like the Board to know that they did not meet the last week of August. The meeting was canceled. The next meeting is, Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 12 The focus of this meeting will be the Master Plan. 3. Committee of the Whole - None 4. Executive Committee - none C. Report from Planning Manager - Mr. Ruff said there are a few items. It is his understanding that the Mayor will be recommending a name for Board Membership. There are three Boards with vacancies and hopefully there will be one new member for each. There is a dramatic need in the HDC where there are six vacancies and there are four vacancies on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Hopefully within a month there will be a confirmation of one person. A little more conversation is needed with the prospective applicant. Second, the Boys Training School Implementation Committee did make a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council and gave a favorable recommendation but with a number of concerns and conditions. The concerns/conditions have been also relayed to the developer and the Board should expect a PRD and a Special Land Use application hopefully soon. Mr. Ruff said that he appreciates that he has a staff that can fill in for him when he is absence. The other item would be the Board elections for Chair and Vice Chair. This should really take place this evening, but if the Board wishes to defer it until the next meeting, that should be fine. This should have been on the agenda. 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) 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-2-01,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) h. Z-3-01, 4720 S.Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office to"F"Commercial (Tabled August 15,2001) i. SLU-3-01, Cavanaugh west of Aurelius (Tabled August 15, 2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj.Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2001, Page 13 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-12-01, 5550 S. Pennsylvania- Market Fire Station for Salem(tabled July 3, 2001) b. Act-13-01,4801 S. Cedar Street,Acquire for Fire Station (tabled July 3,2001). 8. NEW BUSINESS - 1 . Election of Officers Ms. Keene said she would prefer to wait until next meeting. Mr. Frederick moved to address the election of officers at the next regular Planning Board meeting; Supported by Ms. Foster. On a Voice Vote, motion carried (5-0). 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge said he is leaving town on September 14 and asked for an excused absence for the next meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, supported by Ms. Foster to excuse Mr. Ruge for the next meeting. On a Voice Vote, motion carried (5-0). Ms. Patrick asked Ms. Stachowiak if she had the neighborhood letter that was referenced. Ms. Stachowiak said it is contained in the comment section under the Agency Referrals in the PRD. The 3rd page of the Staff Report under FVNA. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:45 p.m. A 4% , bmitted Secretary, Planning Board mn090501 Approved 10/02/01 w/one correction. Adding the word Draft to Clerk September 27,2001 "Excused" before Section 1, Letter B "Absences"for Mr. Ruge. Approved October 2,2001 To Clerk October 25,2001 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, September 18, 2001 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keene. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Patrick, Smith, Keene. Five members present; two vacant seats. B. Excused Absences - Ruge C. Introductions. Jim Ruff, Planning Manager introduced Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator, and John Hodges, Senior Planner. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Ms. Patrick asked that during the recess the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meet and also there is a correction. Under the business Section, it reads "the next meeting is on Wednesday, October 10th" that should read the next meeting is on Tuesday October 91h. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is a problem with that day. Mr. Ruff said just to note, Wednesday at the top is a typographic error and it is his understanding that it is probable that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would recess for a moment to refer PRD-3-01 to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration this evening. It was moved by Ms. Foster, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve the agenda with corrections. On a Voice Vote, motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Regarding Z-3-01: Letter from Josh McFee giving his opinion on why the applicant is having problems marketing the property. b. Regarding Z-3-01: Letter from Pat Hutchens, Realtor from Tommy Raines. This is a recommendation to maintain the current zoning of the property. C. Letter from Marjorie Morden regarding the rezoning of Cedar Street/Syringa Drive Property. 4. HEARINGS - none PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 2 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - HARRY HILL, 328 SYRINGA DR. He is here to discuss some traffic issues regarding the zoning of Z-3-01. He has some information that he put together the last time the zoning was present before the Board. He has recently received some information that he requested. Basically there is not a big change in traffic patterns. The accident rates remain the same with the exception of the mid block near Syringa, these are Cavanaugh/Cedar and Jolly/Cedar intersections. For a small side street there are a large number of accidents. When you look at the total number of accidents on the seven (7) intersections between Cavanaugh and Jolly excluding Cavanaugh and Jolly, there are as many accidents on Syringa as there are on all the other intersections combined. There are 28 for all the other intersections and 24 for Syringa. Since 1995, that is the statistics for that. In terms of traffic, Syringa Drive is not a square corner, it has an offset to Cedar. What he did about a month ago, he counted some cars entering and exiting McDonalds Restaurant and also Auto Zone and every 14 seconds during the noon hour a car either enters the parking lot at McDonald's or exits. Over at Auto Zone it is every 35 seconds, so there is quite a congested corner there. Also for several days he counted traffic for the noon hour and also after work the 5-6 time period. During the noon hour every 1.4 seconds a car goes down Cedar Street and during the 5:00 business period it is 1.2 seconds. So, basically every time you blink your eyes a car is going by on Cedar. That is a high volume and there are a lot of people going into McDonalds and coming out and the same with Auto Zone. This brings up the fact that there is a lot of back up of traffic. It is very common for traffic to back up even to McDonald's which is several blocks away from the intersection of Jolly and Cedar. It backs up traffic and therefore it causes congestion and also they use Syringa Drive to bypass this intersection. So, additional commercial development there would cause additional burden on the traffic and increase the accident rates and also this high intensity, high volume business would not be appropriate for a neighborhood and also surrounding businesses. Therefore, he hopes that the Planning Board would support maintaining the current zoning of that property. ED BENSON, 214 CLOVERLAND. This is one street South of Syringa. The previous speaker has done a very good job of documenting why they feel the way they do. They don't have the statistics as a group but obviously he has done a masterful job of it. Indeed there is a lot of cutting through the neighborhood during peak periods of traffic, mornings and afternoons. It is during those times that they get the full brunt of the cut throughs. They as a neighborhood group submitted a petition that contained seventy-six signatures in opposition for the request for a rezoning. They respectfully hold the Board to consider that petition as a very serious request from a small but very viable neighborhood. They have noted a lot of speeding through and cutting through as indicated before, increased volume, noise, including motor cycles. They know PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 3 that there has been no particular marketing of the property per se. Recently there has been a sign that it is commercially zoned, and he does not believe that is necessarily correct, but even with that there has not been an increase of marketing of that property. They therefore, respectfully request that the current zoning, Professional, be retained. SANDY ALLEN, 2"d WARD COUNCIL MEMBER. This zoning request has been before the council a number of times in the past four or five years. Of course, originally, Mr. Hacker owned the property and he wanted it zoned commercial and the Planning Board in its wisdom did not see fit to zone it commercial. The Council in its wisdom decided that "A" Residential probably was not appropriate but neither was commercial, so they recommended on their own that it be rezoned "D-1" Professional. That is appropriate for that area. On the corner of Cloverland and Cedar Street there is a doctors office and an insurance office, so there are several offices around there. Now, as you know, Cedar Street is full of used car lots, if you use the zoning of "E-2" you are prohibiting car lots, but you are allowing a restaurant, a fast food place and this is far to intense for that area. She does feel that the "D-1" Professional if marketed properly could be sold. What bothers her further is that the current applicant purchased the property with the current zoning of "D-1" Professional knowing the history of this property. So, she does not know what that says other than if you buy a property and are aware of what the zoning is you do not speculate on the premise that the Planning Board will rezone it. That disturbs her. As Mr. Benson said, the neighbors signed petitions that were submitted to the Planning Board stating that the neighbors feel that this is properly zoned "D-1" Professional. She would urge the Planning Board to take stock in what the neighbors are saying, recognize the history of the property and continue to have this zoning "D-1" Professional and not send it back to the council with a recommendation of "E-2". JACK MCPHEE, 325 SYRINGA. This is the property that immediately adjoins the property in question. To summarize the letter the Board received, it indicates why the marketing of this property has maybe gone off track. He questions the owner's intentions. The Board is being asked to night to render a recommendation on the rezoning application of this property. Whether or not significant changes have occurred since the applicants last request for rezoning has driven much of the discussion of the current application. He does not believe that the applicant sufficiently supported the Zoning and Ordinance Committee last week nor would be able to before this Board tonight. This case that significant changes furthering his request have occurred since the last rezoning, however, he does believe a significant change has taken place in relation to his application that is both negative and unfavorable to his cause. Unlike the applicant's previous request, his current application includes no site development plan or proposal to support a zoning change. In line with the surrounding neighbors, as you have already heard, this change is very significant and a cause for great concern. It would appear that the applicant is hoping that the City Council will give him a blank check at the expense of the neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 4 So, tonight he implores this Board to do two things: 1) recommend to the City Council that they reject Mr. Baryames' rezoning application because the only really significant change is unfavorable to supporting it and 2) send a strong message to City Council that you do not recommend any more intense zoning than the current "D-1" Professional Office because it is not right for our city officials to line the pockets of one land owner while devouring the properties of the surrounding owners. Please do the right thing. CHRIS BARYAMES, JR., OWNER of 4720 S. CEDAR. First, he would like to take the time out to have the thoughts and prayers for all the victims and the problems that are going on in New York. He would also like to wish his wife a happy birthday. This property here at 4720 S. Cedar Street has been up for rezoning before. There has been a comprehensive plan done and it is recommended that this be zoned commercial. He does have this plan with him and he would like to read some excerpts from that. People have come up and three out of the four have talked about the traffic. He had the same problem with a piece of property out in Okemos, it is a Kinkos in Okemos that is just before Marsh Road. This property went in front of Meridan Township for variances and they have passed. Yes, the neighbors came out and appealed it, and it went to court three times in Lansing and was finally taken to the Michigan Supreme Court and they would not look at it. This is the same type of situation. The people that fought this for three and half years now to use that facility. This is an example where this property has 130 feet buffer between the neighborhood. The property is 313 feet from Cedar Street and the zoning request that he has presented is 183 feet, so there is a 130 feet from the back property line to the first residential house. If you look up and down Cedar Street everything is commercial. From Mt. Hope all the way down. There are two lots that Mrs. Allen stated, there are two because they have been there all these years. This property is sitting there vacant because he can't sell it. He is not trying to market commercial. He changed real estate companies. He works with Vlahakis Real Estate Company now and their name is Vlahakis Commercial Investments. He is in the real estate business himself. They have people call and complain about the property and in the real estate business when people are interested in a piece of property they put in an offer. They never put in an offer for the full price that someone is asking. But, all this talk tonight that he is marketing the property wrong. He has had no offers and it has been up for sale for 2 1/2 years. He would like to give some excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan, this is referring to the traffic. The plan says "at the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the professional Planning Staff and the Planning Board of the City of Lansing recommend the future land use for this block face as commercial." This is clearly reflected in the proposed land use plan of the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lansing. Therefore, it was clearly anticipated and planned for, but the block face between Potter Street and Syringa Street be redeveloped for commercial land use purposes. Additionally, based on most traffic volume information that came from the city of Lansing, Syringa Drive has a PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 5 current 24 hour traffic volume of 575 vehicle trips per day on a 24 hours basis, 26 foot wide pavement. This is well below the capacity for a local residential street. By way of comparison, South Cedar Street between Mt. Hope and Jolly Road carries 32,000 vehicles. "The recommendations from this study based on the review of all available information of field checking and site requests it was recommended of Community Planning Services that 4720 S. Cedar Street be rezoned in the following manner." The S. Cedar Street frontage be rezoned to "F" Commercial to the depth of approximately 183 feet. "That is exactly the footage that his property is." This recommendation is based on the following rational. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Lansing recommends this block face for Commercial land use to a depth consistent with existing commercial uses on S. Cedar Street. So, this property has been in rezoning this many times because nothing has happened on this property. Nobody wants to put professional office on a property that is not accessible to high rises. If you look around on Creyts Road off 496, it is booming professional office. If you look at Okemos Road on 96 it is all Professional Office. That is where it is moving. That is why this property is up for rezoning, because nothing can be done with it. He asks that the Planning Board recommend approval of this and move this process ahead. He put this application in back in February of this year, there was snow on the ground and there is almost snow on the ground again. He doesn't know if he should say this, but Ms. Patrick here on the Board lives right across the street and she headed the last petitions to not get this property rezoned and he asks the Board that her opinions not be heard because she has a conflict of interest. But once again people are talking traffic, traffic, traffic. Kinkos is a perfect example. Let's move this process along and please ask approval of this request. JANICE SCOTT, 400 COX BLVD. The back of her property actually backs up to the property in question. One thing that has been mentioned is how this has been marketed. Never ever has there been a sign on that property advertising it as Professional Office. The sign that continues there, just because somebodies name is commercial in their business, how does that sound to people. That says to people who goes by that it is commercial. The other reason that bothers her as far as a commercial business down there is because she lives right behind McDonalds and since they rebuilt and before they rebuilt they have had nothing but problems. They had no respect for the neighborhood. They are still fighting with them. She does not want anybody in her backyard that is commercial with the noise, the traffic, the trash trucks at 4:30-5:OOam, the traffic at all hours of the night. They don't even know what is going in there. There are no plans. This is just ridiculous that this is allowed to be brought back up again these 6 or 7 times. The neighbors don't want it there as you can clearly see from petitions and everybody that has spoken here tonight and maybe if Mr. Baryames would like to advertise it as what it is he might have had some bites on it. If you can't sell it that way maybe it needs to be changed back to residential and a house can go there. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 6 RONALD E BROWN, ARTISAN DRIVE. He is speaking on PRD-3-01. He gave the board a letter regarding this case as well. His background is a building contractor. He relocated from Traverse City about three years, so he has been on both sides of these meetings and issues. The biggest concern that he has is that this type of development and impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. What you have if you look at this property and go north, south, east or west, the majority of the homes there are traditional, single family residents. He thinks that a lot of the neighbors are upset about this type of development and he said the developer has mentioned something about checking with the neighborhood associations and things like that, but he does not know of any formal neighborhood associations in the surrounding areas, Artison, Stoneleigh and Luwanna Drive. Those are the families, houses and properties that are going to be most affected by this type of development, so he would like to see more into it and checking with the neighbors as far as how it will impact them. He has been one of the organizers of the annual block party and it has grown in the last three years and it has been a stable community but the people that he talked to recently in the neighborhood feel that they are helpless in stopping any type of development. He is not really against it being developed because he is a building contractor, but he thinks that the development should take into consideration the surrounding neighborhoods because most of the people he has talked to the reaction to this type of deal is to sell their houses. He has talked to two or three people and he thinks in the letter he brought his property abuts up to that property and that is his action. He has seen that development originally presented here. They had some nice color charts and there were some large buildings and it was laid out pretty nice and he went to the Zoning meeting last week and that had all changed. The buildings where gone, there were 4 -6 unit condos or something like that. That is the other thing he's looking at. Is this developer trying to adjust to make it fit in or are they not just concrete plans and before this is approved he would like to see more concrete plans in place and do some checking with the neighborhood people, like a town hall meeting. The more you can get the people involved the more this will be accepted. That is what he is trying to keep, the existing people are there to actually become part of the development and part of that community rather than put a big development in the middle and everybody else just spread out and you have these families leaving and property values going down. RODGER JOHNSON, 2428 ARTISAN. His property does abut to the planned development there. He has not lived in a rose color world where he did not believe that it would not be developed, but he is concerned about what type of development is there. If it is something that turns out to be very highly populated, he does have a concern that it will affect all the property values along that line. There are a number of properties impacted by that. The other thing is unfortunately he has not been able to be here for the other meetings, but it is his PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 7 understanding that at this point, the development is planned in such a way that the outlet from the development will end up on the existing residential street rather than out on Aurelius Road. The existing residential streets are designed in such a way that they were intended to be for a small development area. They are not wide streets, they are not streets that go any place particularly, any of the streets in the back of their development if you want to get to Aurelius Road you have to follow around some curves and corner in order to get there. He thinks it was laid out intentionally to prevent a large traffic flow through the area and it has been used through the years. He is one of the original people in that development there on Artisan Drive and one of the few that still remains. It has had a small history of small children, young families. The families have never had to worry about whether the kids where going to wander out into heavy traffic because it receives one car every half hour, that is what the maximum would be. His concern would be what it would do to the traffic in the existing developments, not only on Artisan, but Luwanna Drive and the other streets back in there and again, they are concerned about the property values if it turns out to be high density housing. BILL KINLEY, DEVELOPER. He thinks that they have addressed these issues that were brought up in those meetings and he is available to answer questions from the Planning Board and hopes they can address all the neighborhood concerns. To restate, they had a neighborhood association meeting, the name escapes him. One of their members attended that meeting and that has been a month ago. They definitely would like to meet with any neighborhood group, whether it is formal or informal to describe what the development will consist of and they definitely want to be a neighborhood asset. Cohousing communities are known for being very well integrated into the neighborhoods in which they are located. The density that they proposed here is far less than the allowable density for this general type of use and it is very much in what the density of the single family neighborhoods surrounding that. He believes they have 86 units total proposed for the 23.5 acres, which as this kind of built out residential development is considered very low in keeping with the density of a single family neighborhood. He would like to meet with anybody who is interested afterwards and he would like to address one issue that came up. He talked with Mr. Hodges briefly before this meeting and he might want to explain the same thing, but he had a concern in their last small sub committee meeting a week ago as how they would handle the private road. The main entrance is on Aurelius, there is a secondary egress on this site to the side that exists now, but it definitely does not funnel all the traffic out and he would be interested in going over those plans with anyone who is interested. The issue of the private road and all the commonly owned facilities on the site will be very well addressed by a higherarcheal condominium association. It is commonly done. The attorney that we have doing the condominium documents has done this in other previous associations and basically to address Mr. Hodges concern, there will be one community PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 8 association that covers the entire site with the three neighborhoods within that site having their own condominium association. He talked with Mr. Hodges and compared it with the relationship between the City of Lansing and the State of Michigan, consider the State of Michigan the entire site and each of the three neighborhoods within that site would be a city of Lansing, city of Okemos and City of East Lansing. It is all very well addressed legally and he thinks it will elay the concern that there is not a sole responsible party for all the commonly held elements. So, he would very much appreciate the Board's support. He will be available during the considerations if there are any questions he will address them. 6. RECESS - There was a very brief Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting during this time to discuss PRD-3-01. Mr. Frederick reminded the Board that he has recused himself from this case so he will not be able to attend the Z&O Committee and suggested that Ms. Keene appoint someone to fill in for him. Ms. Keene appointed herself to take Mr. Frederick's place. In Committee: (Patrick, Keene and Foster) a. PRD-3-01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3721 Aurelius Rd. Ms. Patrick made the motion; seconded by Ms. Keene to remove PRD-3- 01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3721 Aurelius Rd. from the table. On a Voice Vote, the motion passed (3-0). M. Keene made the motion; seconded by Ms. Patrick to refer PRD-3-01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3721 Aurelius Rd. to the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Vote, the motion passed (3-0). The Committee adjourned. 7. BUSINESS A. Minutes for Approval: September 5, 2001 Moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Patrick, to approve the minutes of September 5, 2001. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 9 On a Voice Vote, motion carried, the Minutes of September 5, 2001 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports Ms. Patrick made the motion; seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 1. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chairman. a. PRD-3-01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3721 Aurelius Rd. Mr. Hodges presented the case. At the last Board meeting this matter was tabled and it was brought up in discussion at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. At that time a revised plan was presented and discussed. The outcome of that discussion was that the information was still insufficient and so they did a quick review in accordance with the ordinance. As a result the applicant had expressed his desire to prepare a revised plan that met the concerns and have that submitted by this noon. With the Board's packet the revised plan is included. On the staff report the summary, analysis of site plan provisions and the recommended action. Essentially, the plan meets the criteria for the Planned Residential Development standards of the ordinance. With respect to the site plan standards, what is required, the revised site plan seems to supply sufficient detail to do an analysis in respect to the general systems. Some of the main concerns were the circulation and how that was going to work, an idea of the different types of housing that may occur would have adequate setbacks, that there would be an adequate internal circulation system for pedestrians as well as vehicles, provisions for safety vehicles, etc. Looking at this plan, it does appear to meet the criteria of the ordinance for a development plan and discussing this with the applicant they had expressed their inability to provide a definitive plan of the development due to the nature of this particular proposal, but what was resolved is that there are three development areas in the plan. The development, as long as the standards were adhered to, certain deviations in terms of the general layout of those structures would be acceptable and still be in conformance of the plan provided PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 10 that certain criteria could be observed. These include: # of housing units within any of the three development areas could not increase, the boundaries of the development area remain unaltered, the location of the road and associated infrastructure within the ROW could not appreciably change and the areas outside of the development area remain in the site condominium plan as condo space. In addition, consideration of another condition would be that any of the area that is outside of these defined development areas would be established in the site condominium development as common open space. So, by essentially not changing the number, the overall density, and the number of units in the development area does not increase that this plan would meet the criteria if the structures and configurations should change. They are showing a number of duplex, threeplex and quadplex units and single family detached dwellings and the final outcome could be a variety of any of those housing types. Any of these would equally fit within the criteria of the ordinance and in general the concept of being able to cluster the development in this manner has certain advantages that would support their recommendation for approval. The ability to cluster the units and relatively low density proposed does result in a significant amount of open space that will be retained. There are some unique natural features on this site. This would appear to be a good way to make sure that those are maintained. In comparison, a contemporary means through a platting process to get a comparable number of units they would substantially loose pretty much all of the natural features and maybe with the exception of the wetland area and it would be probable that it be converted into a detention area. There was also some design issues that may merit some attention. The layout was good, but the layout for the pedestrians, if you notice that there is a walkway that connects to the major streets, Aurelius and Callahan Court. It ends in the middle of the eastern most development and he thinks it would be appropriate to continue that walkway at least to end of the cul-de-sac and the end of that road. As discussed, he has added some connection to Stonleigh Drive so that there could be adequate circulation to other points within the neighborhood in general and it would be important to maintain that. The applicant's were concerned about not degrading the character of this natural area. It would be recommended that a system be in place to accommodate pedestrians on an all season basis. He thinks it could be PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 11 reasonably achieved without significant degrading of that area and therefore it is recommended that a surfaced trail extend from the cul-de-sac to the Stoneleigh Dr. that would be asphalt or concrete. As a result of reviewing the criteria and the site plan conditions it is recommended that this plan be approved subject to a number of conditions: • the number of housing units within any of the development areas do not increase; • the boundaries of the development areas remain unaltered; • the location of the road and associated infrastructure within the ROW do not appreciatiably change; • the areas outside the development area remain in the site condominium plans as common space; • the property not be divided into separate parcels; (this issue was in relation to the potential problem, as the applicant discussed, having multiple developments that would be sharing some common improvements in particular the private road, but as he mentioned that the approach would be under one condo ownership and may be several site condo associations representing the individual phases. That type of mechanism would still provide for an overall association responsible for the maintenance of the shared common improvements and the concern about a private road is no longer a factor.); • the proper sidewalks be constructed along the entire frontage of Aurelius Road and Stoneleigh Drive; • sidewalk extend to the end of the private road; • a walkway between the private road and Stoneleigh Drive be constructed of either asphalt or concrete; and • site plan review of the development phases. Ms. Foster said the staff is recommending an asphalt connector between the turn around and Stoneleigh Drive? Saying that it is going through a wetland, she would like to know why? Would a wood chip path do as well? Mr. Hodges said the other thing is that as far as use by bicycles it would not be as accessible for them and also it does not PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 12 serve as well on an all weather basis. He does not think it would hold up. The wood chips going down into the soils, he thinks there needs to be something with a better base to it. He thinks it can be done without moving the vegetation. He thinks they need something that is a little more substantial and that it would be a significant linkage to the school and other facilities. Ms. Patrick said she was at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee when there was some discussion and it is covered in the minutes from September 5, 2001 that the applicant has proposed an exit from Callahan Court. She is wondering if that is in conflict with the staff's recommendation of the boundaries not being changed. Also, the applicant made a statement that it is likely that fire officials are not going to allow one entrance and exit for a community of this size meaning Aurelius Road. There are no comments from the Fire Department is that in the staff's opinion the case? Is there going to have to be two exits and is that the best second exit to have? Mr. Hodges said they certainly do strive to have more than one access to the development should that be blocked for any reason, so having more than one, he is not sure that it would be mandatory for a cul-de-sac of this length but it would certainly be advisable. These are common concerns of abutting properties when they are expanding on a development, but their intent is to promote internal circulation as development occur that they also be part of those internal residential areas and that they expand their local internal street network as part of a process. He thinks that is the intent, that Court was a stup street rather than a cul-de-sac. The design was meant to end at the property line for the intent that they expand for the next phase of development. Ms. Keene said with all due respect Mr. Hodges, she does not feel comfortable taking action on this tonight because they got a revised plan when they walked into the Z&O Committee meeting last Wednesday and again tonight another revised plan with a fairly substantial staff report as well and she does not believe she has heard anyone from the Board necessarily that they are not comfortable or they aren't disposed to approving the plan, but as a Board member she would feel more comfortable if she had a more adequate opportunity to actually take a close look at the PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 13 revised plan, carefully read the staff report before she goes forward with this. She is going to move to table this and hopefully vote on this at the next Planning Board Meeting on October 2, 2001. She would feel more comfortable after she has adequately reviewed this information. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded Ms. Patrick to table PRD-3-01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3720 Aurelius Rd. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried (5-0). TABLED. Ms. Keene moved, seconded by Ms. Patrick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a Voice Vote, the motion carried (6-0). 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Frederick reported. a. Z-13-2001, 516 W. Saginaw Street, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-3" Residential District The applicant, Ferris Development, is requesting rezoning in order to receive financing. The financiers want to be assured that if this multiple family housing unit the applicant is restoring is destroyed that it will be rebuilt under current zoning again for multiple family housing. Under the current zoning if it did burn or was destroyed it could not be redeveloped and not only is that not satisfactory for the financiers it is not something that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would want to see. It was agreed that what is currently being used as residential turned into commercial. The applicant requests rezoning of the south 137' x 64.08' of the property at 516 Saginaw from "F" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-3" Residential District. A Class A Nonconformity was approved but it was not satisfactory to the financiers. The applicant has also applied for variances with the Board of Zoning Appeals under appeal number BZA-3640.01 to bring the property up to compliance with the zoning code. He attended the BZA meeting last week and they did vote to approve contingent upon the approval of the Planning Board and the City Council of the rezoning. The variances will be granted if everything flows through properly. The proposed zoning and existing land use are compatible with the surrounding area. There are no proposed changes to the existing land use which is currently a 23 one-bedroom PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 14 residential unit. There is no impact anticipated on vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. No environmental impact is anticipated and no impact is anticipated on future patterns of development for this area. Mr. Ruge inquired about obtaining a lot that is currently not being used just to the north adjoining the property for additional parking, which was the point of the variances and Mr. VanZee, representative of Ferris Development, stated they were unable to come to agreement with the property owner for something that was within their budget so they were unable to obtain that additional piece of property, although they did express a desire to do so and he believes they will continue to try. Mr. Ruge also expressed a concern about the lack of landscaping. Ferris agreed to do as much as possible with the limited space that they have and will work with staff on that. The Committee voted unanimously to approve Z-13-2001, 516 W. Saginaw Street, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-3" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve Z-13-2001, 516 W. Saginaw Street, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking to "DM-3" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Patrick. . .Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED. Mr. Ruff said the rezoning will be passed along to City Council with this vote, yet because it lacks six (6) affirmative votes it will not go with an official recommendation, but all the information will be passed along to City Council. b. NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, Expand Nonconforming Use The applicant, MCI Limited, represented by Mr. Jim St. John proposes to expand the existing nonconforming use by constructing an addition to the west side of the building. The addition measures 14' x 136' which would add an additional 1,904 sq. ft. to the building. It is estimating to cost $300,000. Currently the property has Class B Nonconforming Status for both use and parking which limits the amount of building PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 15 improvements to 35% of the building value, which was assessed at $157,589 in 1984. Evaluation for the building improvements for the building since 1984 total $24,000 which equals 15% of the total value leaving them 20% or $31,156 of the total for future improvements. Thus, in order to improve the structure for the projected cost of $300,000, the applicant is seeking Class A nonconforming status. The applicant originally planned to remove the existing ground pole sign and install a fascia sign on the east side of the building. This was changed because it would face adjacent residential properties and would not be allowed. The applicant agreed to relocated the primary entrance and the sign to the west side of the building. Section 1296.01(c) of the City of Lansing Planning and Zoning Code states that no adult business shall be located within 300 feet of any residentially used or zoned land. This is why the business is not conforming, so the purpose of this request is to allow for the extension and restoration of the nonconforming use. The request involves a nonresidential use located on a local street and the Transportation Engineer reports a negative impact. This request involves a nonresidential use which is not located on a local street, and no transportation impact is anticipated. The activities association with the nonconformity must not generated smoke, air pollution, etc. and the activities association with this nonconformity do not. So the second item of the code is met. The nonconformity does not meet one or more of the parking requirements and according to the Lansing Fire Inspector, the existing facility, not including the book store, contains 3,855 sq. ft. of usable floor space and has a maximum occupancy load of 257 people. Planning Staff determined that 86 parking spaces are required plus an additional 21 for the existing book store. The total parking requirement is 107 spaces. With the revised plan it would require 24 parking spaces. That is 88 parking spaces plus 24 parking spaces be required for the book store for 112 required and the site plan shows 122 parking spaces so that requirement is met. In 1992, the property was issued a special land use allowing for 72 off street parking spaces in the "A" Residential District PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 16 east of the building facility. The approval of this SLU was subject to several conditions, one of which declares "No expansion or change which increases the intensity of the building will be endorsed or encouraged." So, the proposed expansion then is in violation of the Planning Board's recommendation and council actions in SLU-20-91. Therefore, the Board cannot approve the expansion. The applicant would need to make a request to the City Council, in writing that this condition or for SLU-20-91 be revised or eliminated. In Committee they considered the request and determined: 1 . That if the existing ground pole sign was removed, that all wall signs would meet sign code requirements, including the prohibition of wall signs on the east side of the building. 2. That the maintenance of the existing landscaping be continued. 3. That the building be painted a neutral beige or tan color. 4. Completion to the improvements or changes be completed one year from the date of this approval. 5. That this would not increase the intensity of use of the nonconformity. Therefore, with the conditions above, the Board does have the authority to approve this NCU as requested with the addition. Mr. Frederick moved to approve NCU-2-2001 with the conditions listed above. What they determined was that this does not increase the intensity of the use and therefore allows for them to make this approval. In other words, they did not approve the proposed plan, but what they did was by putting the conditions on it, it limits the use to improve the condition of the site, rehabilitate it, encourage and in fact require the applicant to improve the building and maintain existing improvements and again, to reduce the signage and reduce the effect that this business has on the surrounding residential neighborhood. He would like to point out that one resident did testify that the Deja Vu has been a good neighbor and did not expect them to be anything different because of this. So, they thought they had the authority to go ahead with these conditions that were put on it to not increase the intensity. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 17 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve NCU-2-2001, 1000 W. Jolly, Deja Vu, as modified Class A Nonconforming Use with the conditions set out in the staff report. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Patrick. . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; APPROVED as MODIFIED w/CONDITIONS. C. Z-3-01, 4720 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial This is a request by Mr. Chris Baryames, Jr. to rezone the east 183 feet of the property located at 4720 S. Cedar from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial. The west 130 feet is proposed to remain "A" Residential. CASE HISTORY: On January 17, 1994, the Planning Board voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend denial of Z-5-94, a request to rezone the subject property from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial. January 15, 1995, the Planning Board voted unanimously 6-0 to recommend denial of Z-11-95, a request to rezone the subject property from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial. The Planning Board vote on May 21, 1996, voted unanimously 6- 0 to recommend approval of Z-4-96 to rezone the property from "A" Residential. The petition was to rezone only the east 183 feet of the property to "F" Commercial. City Council denied the request. The Planning Board on February 4, 1997 voted 2-4, failing to recommend approval of the request to rezone the east 183 feet of the subject property from "A" Residential to "D-1". However, it was this action that brought the property to its current "D-1" Professional Office zoning because the City Council approved this zoning on May 19, 1997. On January 12, 1999, the Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of Z-13-98 to rezone the east 183 feet from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-2" Local Shopping District. City Council denied this request and the applicant is again now before us asking for "F" Commercial District again. This is again another unusual situation, at least in his experience. The Planning Board is being asked to determine whether or PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 18 not the rezoning previously acted upon and if there is a significant change in circumstances from prior requests that warrant the change in the zoning. If this change of circumstances is met, the changes should be articulated. The applicant provided a letter, June 4, 2001, listing the four items that he considers the changes in circumstances. They are: • After the property was not rezoned in 1998, it remained on the market for sale as "D-1" Professional Office. • The site has been vacant since 1999 after the vacant house was demolished. • Richter's Garden Center, located directly across the street, closed its doors in the Fall, 2000. • The McDonald's restaurant which abuts the property directly to the north was demolished and rebuilt in March, 2001. Also, the applicant states that his proposal is for commercial use and un-specified rather than a Coney Island Restaurant as he previously proposed. Based on this letter, the Development and Planning Committee of the City Council determined that enough changes have occurred in the area of rezoning that warrant another review of the case. There was discussion about the significant change. Two of the members agreed that there were not enough changes from the previous request to warrant another review. One member dissented citing a change that there is a proposed use in the previous request for rezoning and on this application there is no proposed use at all and the descending member, Ms. Patrick, said the request should be reconsidered and should also base the current zoning is in compliance with the Master Plan. Both Mr. Ruge and Mr. Frederick believe that the previous zoning "E-2" that was recommended by the Board when this was last looked at is also in compliance with the Master Plan. Also, Ms. Patrick wanted to know if there has been an increase in traffic in the area and Mr. Ruge asked to be provided with the traffic information. He does not know if that information is available tonight. Ms. Stachowiak said she did get some information from the Transportation Engineer. Basically what he said was that the previous information they provided PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 19 for past requests is still valid. In the staff report there is some information in regard to traffic counts specifically along Syringa. What he added to that is that "Syringa is developed as a residential street, however, there is a component of cut through traffic that bypasses the traffic operation at Cedar and Jolly during peak hours. The levels of cut through traffic is undetermined but estimated to be 75 to 150 vehicles between 4-6pm which is the peak traffic hour of the day." He then goes on to say that commercial frontage and the associated traffic activities are to be expected along Cedar Street although a driver can not be prohibited on Syringa it should be strongly discouraged. Mr. Ruge is not present tonight but Ms. Patrick did ask for that information. Is that satisfactory? Ms. Patrick said with what they heard tonight yes. Therefore, the Committee moved that there has been no significant change and that they where also informed that they could recommend to City Council what their feeling was on this and moved to pass along to City Council the Planning Board's previous recommendation to rezone the property to "E-2" as in their previous review of this application. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Smith said he needs some clarification on "E-2", what it actually covers. Mr. Ruff said "E-2" is considered a Local Shopping District that basically allows more convenience type commercial uses and it does not allow motor vehicle sales or that type of outdoor display sales. Those are primary differences from the "F" Commercial that the "E-2" allows all of the things office zoning allows plus a step up to local commercial type uses (gas stations, convenience stores, Quality Dairy, etc.). Mr. Smith said conceivably they would generate as much traffic as if it were a building or business in "F" Commercial. Mr. Ruff said it is a form of commercial zoning, but does not quite have all the same uses as "F" Commercial. "F" Commercial allows comparison retail like the big box type things, regional type things. This site is not large enough to handle those type of uses, but "F" Commercial allows by special condition a display for motor vehicle sales and other types of outdoor display sales. Mr. Smith said in effect the "E-2" could still generate as much traffic as if it were "F". PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 20 Mr. Ruff said correct and typically have similar hours as a use that would be in that district which they can't restrict in any zoning district, but in that fashion they could have similar characteristics as commercial. Mr. Frederick said he and Mr. Ruge were both on the Planning Board when they addressed this last. The applicant requested a rezoning to "F" Commercial and at that time they felt that "F" Commercial was too intense and the initial information was to deny the request outright, but Mr. Baryames indicated that he planned to put a restaurant on it and because they felt that the Master Plan allowed, in fact, recommended that this property be commercial and that an "E-2" would allow a restaurant, which would agree with Mr. Baryames plans, and since he was not proposing to rezone the whole piece of property but only the 183 feet from the back which would allow a significant buffer between the property and the residential area to the west of it that they felt that "E-2" was an appropriate rezoning at that point. That is why at that time, they recommended to City Council that it become "E-2". They also understood at the time, which still exists, if it was rezoned from "D-1" Professional to "E- 2" and Mr. Baryames changed his mind and did not want to put a Coney Island in he could put in anything that he chose by right in that particular zone. While they took Mr. Baryames indicates to put in a Coney Island we knew that plans change and they made their prime decision based on the fact that the rezoning to "E-2" was appropriate basically for anything that could be placed on that piece of property that would be within the "E-2" definition. They did not vote in favor of it because they thought Mr. Baryames would put a restaurant in. He had not presented the Board with a plan at that time, he had just said that is what he wanted to put in at that time. They knew they could not put any restrictions on rezoning anyway so "E-2" was appropriately felt and would allow Mr. Baryames to enjoy the pleasure of this property even if that would include simply selling it or anything else that the "E-2" would allow. That is essentially why the "E-2" was recommended. Ms. Foster said talking about the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the area go to 14D-1" and "E-2". Are the "E-2" uses pushing the recommendations of the comprehensive plan? It just seems like everything goes up by a degree so is "E-2" almost to the edge where this neighborhood could handle that or is "D-1" a lesser development. What is the Comprehensive Plan? What guidelines do they have? Ms. Stachowiak said the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial. Ms. Foster said even with all those residential areas that are on that road? Mr. Ruff said the Comprehensive Plan as developed does recommend for commercial use. At least the frontage of this property. It is a little deeper than adjoining property that have frontage on Cedar Street and that is why the depth is only equal to that of the adjacent properties. Even though the depth of the property is greater than the adjacent properties the depth of the commercial zoning or the office zoning at present only goes back to the frontage line that the other properties represent so that the west 130 feet for residential purposes or zoning. So, the Master Plan represents it that way. Now, as a PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 21 point of clarification, commercial uses include office uses so it is somewhat a pyramid of uses in the zoning code to certain points. So, office uses are allowed in commercial districts but commercial uses are not allowed in an office. Ms. Patrick stated. First with respect to any possible conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest that was alledged this evening. She does want to remind the Board that on the evening of the public hearing of this case, she disclosed the proximity of her home to the property and indicated that she had factual knowledge of the case because of the number of rezoning applications that there has been over the time she has lived there. She has lived in the neighborhood for 28 years. She has been very scrupulous about maintaining her position as a Board member in providing information to the board because of her knowledge of the property. She does represent the second ward, that was her charge when appointed and so she is expected to be more knowledgeable about the properties in her.area. To provide factual information to the Board, to provide factual information to the neighbors about the process. If you were on the Board you could imagine, if not how difficult it would be to find out some of this information so she has provided that to the neighbors and when she would ask questions that she could not answer, either because her knowledge or she did not feel she should, she passed them on to staff. She believes some of these individuals in her neighborhood have contacted Mr. Ruff and Ms. Stachowiak. Beyond that, she would ask if questioned, that while the Board has talked about what has changed since the last time, her understanding, and if she is wrong please correct her, is that the Board has been charged by the City Attorney to determine that if there has been a significant change in circumstances from prior requests that would warrant a change in zoning, not a change in what the last Board or some previous Board thought the zoning should be, but whether or not it warranted a change in the current zoning and she thinks that on the Zoning Ordinance Committee they agreed that there has been a significant change. Whether it was presented by the applicant or anybody else that would warrant a change in the current zoning. But as far as the issue that the Board has been recently discussing, which is what zoning designations are compatible with the Master Plan, she thinks that has been adequately addressed, but that is a preliminary screening measure that needs to be gone through when the Board is looking at a case. The next level of screening to determine whether this property is being proposed for an important zoning is what the impact will be on the street, the surrounding property and the neighborhood and any businesses that surround the property and she thinks that is what has been looked at intensely tonight. It is difficult sitting up here to hear emotional appeals based on "I had a feeling that it would have this potential impact", everyone has experienced that, however, what the neighbors have done is they have attempted to the extent that they can to extract factual information which has led them to indicate that they believe that the "D-1" zoning, which they had agreed to a number of years ago is business friendly and not too intense to maintain the character and quality of the neighborhood behind it. So, that is where she is coming from and she thought some of those remarks would be helpful. Mr. Frederick said he has to support Ms. Patrick in her claim to address conflict of interest and he has appreciated her experience with this issue. She was not with the PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 22 Board in 1998-99 when they last addressed this and he has not detected one slight of iota of conflict in any of her behavior and he appreciates everything that she said in the Zoning Ordinance Meeting, and she has been through this whole thing with them (Mr. Ruge and himself) and he appreciates her comments tonight and they do not come from any conflict at all, but knowledge and experience only. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to pass on information to City Council that the Planning Board finds no significant changes to the circumstances that would require that the Planning Board change it's previous recommendation and further pass along that the previous recommendation to rezone to "E-2" should be considered by City Council. Ms. Patrick asked if this is a two part question. Mr. Ruff said the motion was made in one part so if the motion fails as a standard motion then another motion could be made to divide it or make another type of motion. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Nav Patrick. . .Nav Smith . . Na Keene . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 3; does not carry; MOTION FAILED. Ms. Foster made a motion; seconded by Mr. Smith that there were no changes of circumstances that would require a change to the zoning. Mr. Frederick said his clarification is that the significant change simply to determine whether the rezoning should be acted upon whether it is appropriate or not takes up the second half of his motion. So is the Board just determining whether or not there are significant circumstances? Mr. Ruff said it could be phrased that way as well. Ms. Patrick mentioned her comments about her difference of opinion as to whether there be a significant change of circumstance that would warrant unchanged zoning and as he believes Mr. Frederick's first part of the recommendation was that since the last rezoning request and the last recommendation to the Planning Board there has not been a significant change in circumstances. Mr. Frederick said that wasn't the intent of his motion because now that he looks and listens to Ms. Foster's motion it meets what he intended to say. Ms. Foster said her reason for making this is that she is not comfortable with putting forward that this could go to a "E-2" zoning. Right now it is at "D-1". Ms. Keene said the intent of her motion is to simply . . .Ms. Foster said state that there was not enough. . . Ms. Keene continued significant change for the Planning Board to review this again PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 23 and Ms. Foster would like to end it there without any more discussion on whether it should be "E-2" or anything else. Is that Ms. Foster's intent. Ms. Foster said yes. Mr. Smith said his understanding and the reason he is supporting this is he does not think that there should be a change in the zoning as it currently exists. Mr. Ruff said it is a motion basically to deny the request. Ms. Keene said a motion to deny the request. Mr. Ruff said in effect finding that there is no change in circumstances they are required to change to the rezoning. Ms. Keene said they don't want the "E-2" in there. Just say there has not been enough change to even review it again. Mr. Frederick said when he and Mr. Ruge supported the recommendation to "E-2" what they were instructed by staff was that they could forward to the City Council a recommendation that they look at a particular rezoning. Not that they were recommending it be that, but that they are recommending that they take notice of that. That is what the intent of the previous motion was. But they were indeed finding exactly what Ms. Foster's motion stated, but they did two parts. They weren't making a recommendation that the zoning become "E-2", they were recommending that the City Council take notice that they had not changed their opinion from the previous request for rezoning in 1999. That does not carry the strength of a recommendation that it be "E-2" but that they consider the previous recommendation. It was never an intent to be a recommendation. They did not feel they had the authority whether or not there was a significant change or not, whether that gave them the authority to recommend a rezoning but they could pass that along to City Council to look at. General discussion ensued regarding the motion and the zoning of "E-2". Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Patrick. . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimously MOTION PASSED. Z-3-01 will go with the 5-0 vote and information to not recommend the rezoning. Mr. Frederick said his next order of business is to announce when the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting was to take place. It was Ms. Foster, himself and Mr. Ruge understanding that they would change it to Tuesday and now there is a problem with that. He asked Ms .Stachowiak to address this. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is a conflict with the Building Board of Appeals on the same day. She was told by the Building Safety Office that those meeting frequently last past 4:00, in fact, last month the meeting went until 6:OOpm. So, they suggested that it would not be available at 4:00 immediately following there meeting. The only other time PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 24 of the week that there is nothing in there at 4:00 is on Monday's. But one of the options that was talked about was switching a member for the remainder of the year and keeping the meetings on Wednesdays. Mr. Frederick asked if there could be another location? Mr. Ruff said they would have to check other offices where there are conference rooms available. Convenience might not be quite the same and from the standpoint of getting into the meeting they could check. They only have one conference room of sufficient size to handle those types of meetings. There are other conference rooms though in City Hall. Mr. Frederick said he knows that Mr. Ruge is planning to meet on Tuesday and Ms. Foster still has the conflict if we meet in Wednesday so if they do decide to meet on Wednesday someone will need to notify Mr. Ruge. General discussion ensued regarding the next Zoning and Ordinance meeting. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at 4:00pm, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chairman. The next meeting is, Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. The focus of this meeting will be the Master Plan. 3. Committee of the Whole - Mr. Smith, Chairman a. PRD-3-01, Planned Residential Development, 23.49 acres at 3720 Aurelius Rd. This was tabled in Committee of the Whole. 4. Executive Committee - none Ms. Keene said on the part about the Committee Members. They are electing officers tonight. With that perhaps the problem might be solved. Mr. Ruff said also at last night's City Council meeting there was a recommendation by the Mayor for a new Planning Board member. So, hopefully in the next couple of weeks, the Development and Planning Committee can meet and make a recommendation with regard to this person. If they do, the following Monday, this person would be approved and sworn in. That does not mean they will be ready for a Zoning and Ordinance meeting but hopefully by the second meeting of October there will be a member to help with some of this jostling around. He believes the person is quite familiar with the Planning Commission activities. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 25 C. Report from Planning Manager - Last night at City Council the council adopted a resolution recommending granting or approval of the preliminary plan for the BTS Residential/Commercial Development with the conditions and comments that were generated by the BTS Implementation Committee and so that is very favorable and the Board should expect in a short time the application for the PRD and possible a Special Land Use. They would first need to prepare a site plan and submit that. The City Council did recently approve some Act 285's that Planning Board has taken action upon previously one of which he will mention, the MSU Women's Varsity Crew Facility and they have a Committee of persons and organizations and are developing those community programs. Girls outreach program working through an existing young girl mentoring program, boys programs, elementary programs, high school type programs that will meet the criteria of competition and MHSAA and the NCAA. So, they are progressing on that and he will try to let the Board know further information on these programs. It is his understanding that the Crew of Women's Varsity has is now up from 80 to 100 participants and it is a significant program that is growing and fitting into that part from the recreation stand point. Mr. Smith said he would be curious to know if they are including the YMCA in this since the one in the city is going to be moving into a sports complex near there. Mr. Ruff said that is a good suggestion, he is not sure but he can suggest that to Mr. Webster. Ms. Patrick said she saw some of that on their television and there was some concern about the long term needs that would be posed for this facility on public park and one of the Council persons indicted that 10 years does seem a long time, but it is negotiable and there is no current plan for this pack and when one is developed it would take 5-10 years to develop both the plan and the dollars to implement that plan so at least 1 or 2 council people indicated that they felt that a ten year lease is still relatively short term for them and the positives on it were keeping a varsity team there. Mr. Ruff said otherwise he is trying to do interviews and wrap up the processes for both a secretary for the Planning office as well as a Senior Planner. The process is almost complete for the Secretary, there is only interviews to do there and advertising has taken place for the Senior Planner position. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 26 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. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods(Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-01,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood(Tabled August 15, 2001) g. SLU-3-01, Cavanaugh west of Aurelius(Tabled August 15,2001) h. Z-11-01,3535 W. Mt. Hope,"F"Commercial, "J"Parking and"A"Residential to "D-1" Professional Office(Tabled September 12,2001) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) C. Discussion of Comprehensive Planning Process. 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-12-01, 5550 S. Pennsylvania- Market Fire Station for Salem (tabled July 3, 2001) b. Act-13-01,4801 S. Cedar Street,Acquire for Fire Station (tabled July 3,2001). 8. NEW BUSINESS - 1. Election of Officers Mr. Ruff said he would like to have nominations for the Chair of the Planning Board for this coming year. Ms. Keene made the motion; seconded by Mr. Smith to nominate Mr. Frederick for Chair of the Planning Board. On a Voice Vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Frederick said he would like to first say thank you very much and he hopes he can do as well as Ms. Keene did this past year. He then proceeded to ask for nominations for the position of Vice Chair. Ms. Keene made the motion; seconded by Ms. Patrick to nominate Mr. Smith as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. On a Voice Vote; the motion passed unanimously. Chair - Mr. Andrew Frederick Vice Chair - Mr. Michael Smith PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 27 Mr. Ruff said the next then is for the Board Member to call and tell Mr. Frederick what their desire is for Committee assignments and at the next meeting (October 2, 2001) make an appointment for Committee Members. So, if Committee members would relay information as to Committee desires he would make those appointments for the next meeting. Mr. Frederick gave everyone his phone number and asked Ms. Stachowiak to contact Mr. Ruge and inform him of this. He also asked if anyone would like to give this information to him tonight. There is the Zoning Ordinance Committee and Urban Development Committee and also the Board of Zoning Appeals. He has served on that for a long time and has enjoyed it, but if there is someone else who has an interest he certainly would not feel bad in giving it up and let someone else have the benefit of meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals and see the planning process from a slightly different perspective. The Zoning Board of Appeals, he forget exactly how it is referenced, but their decision is final and can only be appealed to the Circuit Court, so when you make a decision on the Zoning Board of Appeals there is something different to consider because rather than the decision like the Board makes with a recommendation to the City Council, when the Board of Zoning Appeals makes a decision it is final. The applicant walks out with the decision in hand and they can either accept or take it to a higher court. That does put a little different slant to things and he did enjoy that slant. Certainly he would encourage someone else to take over on that. Those are the three appointments, the two Committees and that position. Also he has been warned that the next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals has 13 cases. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith said he is happy to see that Drake's is gone. Mr. Ruff said the Building Safety Office, Jack Nelson, Manager and the Staff did a considerable amount of work in that area and received considerable support from the administration and the City Council and they hope that they can get further along in that because that property is available for redevelopment. Mr. Smith also asked about the development going in on Mt. Hope by Lewton's School, where they had the difficulty in them taking down the trees and that. He sees that they are actually constructing buildings on that property now. What is the status? He is assuming they came in with a site plan that was approved. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 28 Mr. Ruff said they met on site and came to an agreement on an additional number of trees that would be used on the site to help create more of a canopy than was proposed in the plan even to the argument of the landscape company that thought some of the trees would be too close together. Also, they are straightening out some lighting issues and they expect that with some additional berming and the additional tree cover there should be a good setting. A wood lot can not be replaced with the quantity of buildings and parking. They did reduce the amount of asphalt surface in their final plan and pulled the parking lot away from the street on Lewton so that it was away another 16 feet and put it much further away than it was previously and gave more room to handle grades and add trees. They had conifers and canopy trees. They are doubling the number of trees that were on there originally. They did save some groupings of trees that were, in his opinion, worth saving. There were a lot of larger trees that were dead and there was occasional black cherry and groupings of other trees that could be kept in areas and they tried to create more of those areas with new plantings as well so they would have grouping of trees as well as some spread out through the area. Hopefully it will help start filling it in, but it will take years to do that. He told them he could either plant a lot more small trees or they could spend the money on some larger significant trees if they did not want to plant them so close together. He said they could always cut one out if the have too. Ms. Foster said is the City Forester get involved with the plant selection. She just had a major educational session with the City Forester and a lot of things that she was not aware of as to the types of trees he knew. Mr. Ruff said he can, but usually just works on the street trees. If he is asked to do other things he will go out with them and talk about other varieties and other issues with trees. General discussion ensued regarding landscaping. Ms. Patrick said she noticed at the bottom of her agenda they have a request to call Louise Christian and so she asked if she is enjoying her retirement. Mr. Ruff said he will make sure that Elissa is addressed there, there were a few problems with the Agenda and we will make sure it is done correctly. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - Mr. Frederick said at Jolly and Batterfield there is no house number. It is the house on the SW corner of Jolly and Batterfield. Mr. Ruff said this is the house that had all the cars in the front yard before. Mr. Frederick said still has. Mr. Frederick said he has counted as many as 11 cars in there. The reason he brought it up again was a concern was addressed to him again today by someone who lives in that neighborhood. Mr. Ruff said he would check on the status of that. PLANNING BOARD MEETING REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, Page 29 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board =091801