Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Planning Board Jan-March Minutes FINAL APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 17,2003 F%;4, Is'PARA, 81h LINE,"INCHES" S/B"ENTRANCES"; PG 5,2ND PARA, Approved January 21,2003 fH LINE, "EAST" S/B"NORTH"; PG 18, 1ST PARA, 5T"LINE,"REG"S/B`-RED"; To Clerk January22,2003 PG 20, V PARA,5"'LINE, "FACE"S/B"PHASE". Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 7, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Witherspoon, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick stated that under New Business he would like to add an appointment to the Urban Development Committee to replace Ms. Patrick. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Lansing Community Micro-Enterprise Fund (LCMF) regarding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the Revolving Loan Pool. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Solid Rock MB Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a church. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 2 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a large room for the worship area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has not seen the interior layout but was sure the applicant could answer the question. James Carter Jr., resident of 2550 Glencove, Holt, stated that the church is looking at changing the functional use of the building to use it as a church. One of the issues was parking. Currently, the parking lot is striped for 71 parking spaces but that could be doubled if the church uses the requirements that the City establishes for parking. It can be changed to horizontal parking. Currently, everything is at 90 degree parking. Inside the building, there are partition walls which can be removed. There are plans that show the walls as partitioned, and can be easily removed to accommodate the full use of the building. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church has been in the Lansing community for over 19 years and originated on the east side off of South Magnolia Street. Approximately 12 years ago, the church relocated to Massachusetts Street off North Grand River, and a large part of the church's congregation is from the east side. The church has been a great pillar to the community and it would only help the area to keep the church located there. Ms. Foster inquired about the number of parking spaces the church currently uses or would need. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church is in the conceptional stage and are looking at pews. If the church was packed, there would be approximately 400 seats. The standard is .8 or 2 people to a car so the church is looking at maybe needing 200 spaces. Currently, the original plan shows that there are approximately 70 to 80 spaces but that is minimal because of it being an office building. There is a little bit more because of busses and special vehicles to come in and maneuver out. Ms. Cordill inquired about the size of the congregation. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the size of the congregation is over 300 people. The church holds multiple services. Unless there is a special function or meeting, there probably would not be more than 150 at a given service. Mr. Ruge inquired about additional church functions. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the normal functions are Wednesday Bible Study Prayer meeting, choir rehearsals and the Church Anniversary along with other special programs. Throughout the year there are 5 programs that are separate from the normal Sunday services. Mr. Ruge inquired about outdoor functions. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that once and a while the church hosts a community gathering. The church has a cookout for the community so that the residents can become acquainted PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 3 with the membership of the church and establish a bond. Mr. Ruge inquired about the attendance for this gathering. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is neighbors who usually walk by, stop, pick up something and communicate. At one setting, there would probably be no more than 100 people. Mr. Ruge inquired about the number of settings. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is like a picnic and continues on from morning until dusk. Mr. Ruge inquired about using a tent or a bar-b-que grill and picnic tables. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is basically a down home bar-b-que. Mr. Ruge inquired about music. Mr. Carter Jr. stated there is no music. It is strictly a bar-b-que. The current location is in a residential area and the church is very courteous to the residents. The church realizes that the space has to be shared and the residents are there all the time. This is their home and is established by the church. Both of the churches in the past have been in residential areas. The church went out of their way to make sure that they did not offend the residents. Mr. Ruge inquired about the number of services on Sunday. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that there is a morning service (Sunday School), afternoon service (11:00 a.m.) and evening service. There are approximately 150 in attendance. There is a television show that is on 2 different channels twice a week. A lot of the members who could not attend view the television show. It is pretty diversified for the congregation. Mr. McConnell inquired about parking and if the church had spoken with the neighborhood businesses regarding piggy back parking. He also inquired about the option of the church to piggy back as far as utilizing these spaces, if this had been reviewed, and would the church be open to the idea. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that this has not been reviewed and that the church would not have a problem with it. Currently, there is a repair garage next to the church and to the right there is another business. He cannot speak for them. He would assume that if the parking spaces were not in service or open on Sunday that the businesses would not mind the church utilizing their parking spaces. The church is not at this point yet and are in the stage of getting a special use. The church has secured financing for the purchase of the building. Mr. Carter Jr. inquired about the City's required parking spaces based on square footage or how many people are in attendance. Mr. Ruff stated that the requirement is based upon the number of seats in the main hall of worship. For parking, it is 1 for every 3 seats or 6 linear feet of pew space. Some architects will count seats as 18 inches. The parking requirements look at 24 inches. If there are 70 spaces on site, that would equate to a maximum linear feet of pew (70 spaces x 3 = number of seats). That would be 210 seats x 2 feet = 420 linear feet of pew space. That is how it would be initially reviewed. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that he is a civil engineer by trade and deals with a lot of site development. Looking at the square footage available for parking, the church would be able to accommodate more than enough for what the City requirements are. Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 4 Foster stated that she would like to see less paving, if possible, and more sharing of pavement with the neighbors so that some of that space can be turned into green space, community garden, etc. rather than a parking lot. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church has no plans of taking the green space on the parcel or surrounding parcel and converting it to a parking lot. That is not the church's nature and being residential, they do not want to impact the residents. With the current square footage and having 3 Unehes entrances into the property, there is a lot where the church can use the existing pavement area to provide for parking. John DeYoung, resident of 610 Shoreline, DeWitt, stated that by profession he is a real estate broker and does quite a bit of leasing of office space, retail space, warehousing, etc. He has been involved in the management of this property for the last 7 years. As an office building in south Lansing, he has experienced some problems with fairly severe vacancies on that side of town. It has gotten a lot worse with the State moving out of Mercantile or Holiday Office Park, Jackson National leaving, etc. There is probably 500,000 square feet of vacant office space just in south Lansing. His point is he does not believe this has been missed in terms of usable office space in that area. Mr. McConnell inquired about Mr. DeYoung representing the seller of the building. Mr. DeYoung stated that he was representing the seller. Mr. Ruff inquired, for recognition purposes, of the audience who was from the congregation of the church. He thanked them for being in attendance this evening. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-12-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. B. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status This is a request by Little Rock Baptist Church for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The church is nonconforming as it is located on a site that is less than two (2) acres in size, does not have frontage on a major or minor arterial, does not comply with the required front yard setbacks and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to add a second story addition to this nonconforming building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the extension and restoration of the nonconforming church building at 433 S. Magnolia. The property is zoned "B" Residential and is regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show that the property has been used as a church at least since 1941. The Assessor's Records shows that the church was built in the early 1930's. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 5 applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing church and utilize the basement for a Sunday school and Fellowship Hall. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the church has always been operating as a church with continuous services. Also, the structure to the north of the existing church is being proposed for a rectory for the church. The use of the structure to the north as a rectory does not change its conforming status as a single family dwelling in the "B" Residential District. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that by reviewing the pictures it looks like the building was originally a two story building. She inquired about the building and if it was originally a church. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know the details and that there was a paragraph at the top of page 2 of the report. "It has been used as a church since at least 1941. It was built in the early 1930s." This was about all the history that could really be found on it. It looks like there was a period of 10 years that cannot be accounted for its use and that was right after it was built. It has been a church now for over 60 years. Ms. Foster stated that it looks like the residential surroundings are two story and that it would not be out of scale with the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the building is currently out of scale with the neighborhood. Pastor Will Stokes, resident of 11298 Old Barn Trail, Eaton Rapids, stated that the church's plans were not to really create more space for the worship service. What the church wanted to do was an upward extension and it would not be too much higher than it is currently. The proposed plan is not to degrade the neighborhood in any way but to improve it. The existing roof is flat and there are a lot of problems with it. What the church would like to do is raise the roof. The house on the east north side belongs to the church and there are no plans to tear down the house but to utilize the space in back of the church for parking. There are not a whole lot of members but the church would like to move the traffic off the streets. The church is trying to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge stated that in reviewing the church's drawings it looks like the church is going to enlarge the windows in the existing part of the building. Pastor Stokes stated that when the building was purchased, the former church had bricked the windows. The church's plan is to remove the bricks and restore the existing windows. The glass is still in the windows behind the wall on the inside so when the bricks are removed, the windows will be returned to their original form. Mr. Ruge inquired about the ramp located on the side of the church. There is a handicap ramp in the front of the church and he was curious about why there would also be a ramp on the side. Pastor Stokes stated that it was for the church to approve whether or not it would be in the front or on the side. There will only be one handicap accessible ramp. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 6 Ruge inquired about which ramp the church had decided on. Pastor Stokes stated the side ramp. This would allow more lawn space in the front and not take away from the view of the front of the building. Mr. Ruff inquired about how the church came upon the number of parking spaces in the drawing, if they were trying to achieve the most parking spaces on site, if the church had a particular number of parking spaces they were trying to achieve or if there was pressure because of the Zoning code to try and get as much on the property as possible. Pastor Stokes stated that currently the church members park in the rear of the church but it is not really a parking lot. The church does not have a large congregation and was trying to find a way to move the cars off the street. The street has always been used for parking. With the number of spaces the church would have (16), this would accommodate all of the congregation's vehicles. In the wintertime it makes it very difficult for people to maneuver if the snow is not removed, and makes it difficult for people to come down the street. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Pastor moving into the house next door to the church or would the house be used for church functions. Pastor Stokes stated that the house would probably be used for church functions, maybe move their offices into it. He did live in the house at one point. The house is used now for members of the congregation until they can get back on their feet. The church would like to use the house for the church offices. Mr. Ruge inquired about the size of the congregation. Pastor Stokes stated approximately 121, with the average service being 50 people. Mr. McConnell inquired about cost of the renovations and if it would be $200,000.00. Pastor Stokes stated it would not cost that much. The church plans to add a roof. It is a basement building with columns and from where the flow should have been, that point and up, is approximately 6 to 7 feet with dead space inbetween it. The building only goes up. The church is estimating approximately $75,000.00 for the project. Mr. McConnell inquired about the secured finances for the project. Pastor Stokes stated pretty much. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-9-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. C. NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status This is a request by Rick Postema on behalf of Tendercare Incorporated nursing home located at 2100 Provincial House Drive, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The nursing home is nonconforming as it is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 7 located in the "A" Residential District, which does not permit nursing homes. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate an additional 30 beds. The facility currently has 120 beds. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquire about any traffic problems on Provincial House Drive. Ms. Stachowiak stated not that she is aware of and the Transportation Office did not know of any problems. Nursing homes typically do not generate a high volume of traffic because their residents do not drive. The majority of the traffic is when there is a shift change which is 2 or 3 times a day. Other than that, it is periodic visitors. Traffic has not been a concern. All the neighbors within 300 feet were notified because of the request being an expansion. Notifying the neighbors would give them an opportunity to comment on the request. The neighborhood organization has commented and their comments will be in the report that goes to Committee next week. Mr. Ruge inquired about the location of the expansion. Ms. Stachowiak stated it would be on the west side of the building. Mr. Ruff stated that under the previous ordinance, prior to 1983, nursing homes were allowed as a special use permit in the "A" residential district. Around 1983, because of the convalescent care and similarities of a more apartment-type building as well as hospital- or commendation-type use, it was moved into the multiple family district. This has been a nursing home since it was built. The City is not aware of any outstanding or long standing complaint problems with the use of the property. Ms. Cordill stated that technically speaking, should the City be expanding a nonconforming use and is there a better zoning classification for this. Mr. Ruff stated that it would be inappropriate for this area to spot zone the request to a multiple family district. This is in a relatively good setting because there are condominiums and apartments nearby. It is closer to the Aurelius Road. The developer of the property, Oliver Soloman, originally owned a lot of the property in that area, and he also developed the subdivision. The nursing home was part of the overall development plan for that entire subdivision. The more intense uses were placed closer to Aurelius Road and the homes were placed further away. Ms. Foster inquired about how close the nursing home would be to the residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the request meets the setback and believes it is 20 feet. It seems that the nursing home's licensing requires that there be no obstructions within 20 feet of the windows in this building. A lot of the people who live here probably have physical limitations and she was not sure if the reason for that is so that there are no barriers if the residents should need to leave in an emergency. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about the zoning of the property and if the Planning Office considered changing the zoning on this property so that it would be conforming to the zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan does not call for it. It calls for residential 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre but that is not enough to get them up to the required zoning to make this a permitted use. Mr. Ruff stated the zoning is "DM-4." Ms. Stachowiak stated "DM-4" is the highest density multiple family district. If the request is zoned so that the nursing home now is compatible with the zoning designation, the nursing home could build some incredible high rise on the site with a huge amount of units. Ms. Foster inquired about the zoning for "DM-1." Ms. Stachowiak stated it would still be nonconforming. Mr. Ruff stated that the engineer has a drawing of the site plan and he will be asked to go through it when the staff have completed their report. The drawing will show things better. David Mancuso, representative of Tendercare, stated that the 20 foot setback is a state regulation. There has to be 20 feet of clear visible space out of the residents' room so that there is no disruption or any obstruction that would make them feel uncomfortable. That is a state regulation that had to be included in the design. Ms. Foster inquired if that would mean that there could not be a green buffer added. Mr. Mancuso stated that it means the buffer would have to be beyond the 20 feet. Ms. Foster inquired about available space beyond the 20 feet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the building was right at the 20 foot setback. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about adding trees in a clearance area. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare is allowed a certain amount of flexibility. Mr. Mancuso stated that there is a need for 30 additional beds and that was the reason Tendercare wanted to add an addition to the facility. Tendercare had purchased additional property a few years ago. Ms. Foster inquired if Tendercare would consider putting in a green wall on the side because of the length and having it so that there are places for plants to grow (i.e. vines), so that it does not look like it is a big wall towards the residences. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare is willing to work with the City to get the property developed. Mr. Ruge stated for clarification that the drawing shows a few trees in the 20 foot zone but those would not be allowed. Applicant stated that there may be trees already there. Applicant stated that for the sake of the drawing there were some bushes shown and they are certainly willing to work out a landscape plan that works both with the clear requirements in front of the windows and with what the State would like to see there. The exact placement has not been worked out and Tendercare would have to work with City staff to develop a plan. Mr. Ruff stated that the rooms are semi-private so there would be 2 beds in a room. If there are windows and there has to be a 20 foot diameter adjacent to those windows, the placement of those windows would be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 9 important as to what landscaping could be put in. Mr. Mancuso stated that the windows occur in a regular pattern just like the rooms. There is room for, depending on what type of landscaping is discussed, landscaping up against the building. If the rooms are next to one another and there are windows in each room, it may be better to place those windows near one another so it opens up more space for additional landscaping. Mr. Ruge inquired about the elevation of the building. Mr. Mancuso stated that it is not fully developed. Ms. Foster inquired about what was on the south side of the building. Mr. Mancuso stated that the addition on the west side works best for Tendercare. When the beds are added, there is also an additional dining area with windows. The outside area will become a courtyard with an access through the existing building off the center court. Operationally, this will be quite a nice place for the residents to go. There will be a gazebo. This has been done in other communities and has worked out very well for the residents and staff. Ideally, this is an area for Tendercare to add. The back part is the existing diningroom service wing where the food services and kitchen area are located. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was an opportunity for Tendercare to discuss with the neighbors and show them the future plans. Mr. Mancuso stated that this was the first opportunity that was available. Mr. Frederick inquired about Tendercare contacting the neighborhood organization. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare had not contacted them yet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office had already sent the neighborhood organization an agency referral, a copy of the plans, and all the information needed. Jeff McMeeken, resident of 3612 Callihan Court, stated that he is right on the residential line with Tendercare, and that he recently purchased his property. He was not aware of the neighborhood organization or any kind of community coming together. He purchased the duplex September 9, 2002 and recently moved in. His concern with the way the facility is now the traffic is not so much a problem but the problem is with the debris in his yard. There is a dumpster behind his shed. Weekly he is pulling out trash and debris all along the side. There is a barrier of trees and he is at the dead end of the street. His fiancee, who works nights, has a hard time sleeping during the day because of the delivery truck traffic. Not knowing this when he was getting into it, he probably would have had a second thought. Mr. Ruff needed clarification of where Mr. McMeeken resides. Mr. McMeeken stated that he resides at the dead end of Callihan Court. He can look out his bedroom window and see the delivery trucks. Mr. Ruff inquired about the dumpster being located off the L-shaped drive. Mr. McMeeken stated that was correct. Mr. Ruff inquired about trash pick PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Pagel 0 up. Mr. McMeeken stated that he was not sure and that his fiancee would know more about it. This is all new to him. Mr. Ruff stated that the truck traffic his fiancee hears is during the day. Mr. McMeeken stated that was correct. Mr. McMeeken stated that if the facility expands and there is a problem currently with debris, he can only see the debris doubling. He has had full bags of trash in his yard. He could have gone to Tendercare and complained but he was not sure how any of this really works. Mr. Ruff stated that he appreciated his comments. Mr. Frederick inquired of Mr. McMeeken about the trash and if he knew it was coming from Tendercare. Mr. McMeeken stated that the debris is shredded papers. He sees the clear plastic bags. When the wind picked up one day, there was a whole bunch of empty trash bags in his yard. He is outside weekly picking up debris. Currently, a lot of the debris is covered in snow. In the spring, he will have a lot of trash removal. He is concerned with Tendercare currenity taking care of their trash and sees more of a problem for the future. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-10-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. D. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2004 This is the time for the public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, to be included in the City's consolidated strategy and plan submission for FY 2004. The City expects to receive approximately $4.022 million in new funding through the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2003 and ending on June 30, 2004. NOTE: The City received an increase of$9,600 in Emergency Shelter grant dollars so all the shelter providers are very pleased to hear this. Doris Witherspoon gave a brief overview. Beverly Wiener, resident of 311 S. Jenison Avenue, stated that all the people present in the audience are people who are benefitting from the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). She is from Haven House, a shelter for homeless families. Haven House receives about $10,000.00 of the ESG PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 11 money of which they really appreciate. It has been an important part of our total budget. As you know, all the non-profits are having a little trouble these days raising money because of the economy. Haven House is really happy to use this funding for some of their operating costs. Haven House serves approximately 100 families a year. They are located in East Lansing but serve the greater Lansing area. A very large portion of these families are from Lansing. The average stay is approximately one month. Haven House's goal is to work closely with the families to get them into housing and work on other underlying issues. Haven House appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Board about what they do and why the Board's approval of the ESG money is so important to them. Peggy Pertner, of the American Red Cross and resident of 1315 Harrington Lane, East Lansing, stated that the American Red Cross is a recipient of the HUD money that comes through the City of Lansing and also Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding. The American Red Cross does very much appreciate receiving funding and is in need of the funding. The American Red Cross has a long term case management program where they work with homeless clients up to two years. They have four case managers who have 18 to 23 cases at any point in time. The ESG funds that they receive are applied towards helping clients with substance abuse treatment if the clients are unable to receive services through a main stream resource. These funds also contributes to the 20% cash match requirement from HUD, which is approximately $60,000.00 a year. Other non-profits share challenges in raising money and the American Red Cross really appreciates the support from the City. Donald Leaf, resident of 2664 Delridge, East Lansing, and Coordinator of Loaves and Fishes Ministries, stated that there is a large constituency here tonight for one grant, at least ESG funds that are a part of the City's program. Loaves and Fishes believes that it is very important in this city and as part of the Lansing's continual care and all of us as part of that continual care try to address the needs of the homeless and the poor people in the community. Loaves and Fishes Ministries have been receiving approximately $10,800.00 of this grant and have used it to primarily to support the utilities and property and liability insurance costs of their three shelters. Those costs have been escalating in recent years and everyone is well aware of that. All one has to do is pay those monthly bills at home to know that the gas, electric, telephone, water and sewage are increasing. These costs are also increasing for their three shelters and ESG funds have been really the only new funding source that has been made available in this community for this kind of expense. He has been the coordinator at Loaves and Fishes for 7 years and as he looks at the other types of funding that has been received, this month he will be hit with two cuts from the State through the State reduction, which is the first round. The other types of grants are not increasing for Loaves and Fishes so the only other alternative it to either find new monies which are in the form of something like ESG fund or to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 12 receive more donations or gifts. These have been hard to get. Loaves and Fishes Ministries has received, along with other non-profits, a reduction in donations and gifts after the September 11, 2001 crisis. So all of the non-profits have been struggling financially to try to keep their heads above water and try to meet those costs incurred whether the doors are open or not. These ESG funds have been very instrumental for them. Loaves and Fishes Ministries spends the funds entirely for utilities and property insurance costs. It is very, very important. Today in the newspaper there were some struggles of the American Red Cross has had and they have had to cut back some programs. This is going to affect homeless and poor people in the community. Other cut backs are coming down the road. Loaves and Fishes Ministries hopes that they can minimize this or they will be forced as shelter and service providers to provide less service to those in the community that are needing them. He could provide the Board with all types of statistics about the homeless and poor people situations in Lansing. After 7 years, Loaves and Fishes Ministries has helped to solve the problem and has really reduced the impact on the community. He is sorry that Loaves and Fishes Ministries has lost the gain. All one has to do is look around to know that as businesses have closed (i.e. Jacobson's, Bill Knapp's Restaurant, K- Mart), all of these businesses are costing jobs in this area and people are finding it harder and harder to find a job that will pay a decent living wage. The State cuts back 5,000 to 7,000 jobs through retirement, replaces 1 out of 4, it is going to hurt somewhere in the economy and those jobs are no longer going to be available. Most of the people coming to the shelter are the marginal people. More and more of the people are working part- time but not making enough money to pay rent and that is why they are on the streets. There has been a lot of money spent in this state over the last 12 years building prisons but someone forgot to talk about what happens when those prisoners are released. They have no income, job or place to go. This has an impact on the shelters and the service programs that are in this community. Loaves and Fishes Ministries is trying to respond to the best that they can with the resources they have. ESG funds have been very, very important in helping Loaves and Fishes Ministries meet some of the inflationary costs that they have been incurring. ESG funds do not go for personnel. Loaves and Fishes Ministries made a decision years ago that this was not the area that they would like to have these funds aimed at. It was only going to go for the utility- and insurance-type costs that they are incurring. It has really been helpful. He thanked the Board for their support and recommendation in hope that the Board will continue to support Loaves and Fishes Ministries in the days ahead. Patty Jongkind, resident of 1809 Osborn Street and Director of Ballentine Stepping Stones, stated that Ballentine Stepping Stones is a transitional housing program for homeless, single mothers with children, and that this is a program of Catholic Social Services St. Vincent Home. She will keep things more simple. She stated that transitional housing is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 13 the next step along the road towards permanent housing for many of their families, particularly women with children who are unable to access permanent housing due to poor credit and rental histories. Ballentine Stepping Stones receives approximately $6,600.00 which is used for insurances and utilities. While this may seem like a small amount to big budgets, to them it is very crucial. The shelters and transitional programs are getting hit hard for a high demand of people who have lost their jobs or are working part-time. These are not folks who are languishing on public assistance. They are people who are trying to work and take care of themselves. Due to the economy and the high cost of housing, they are unable to achieve their goal in permanent housing. Ballentine Stepping Stones appreciates all the assistance that the Board gives them through this funding. Ms. Jongkind thanked the Board for the funds provided. Patrick Patterson, of Volunteers of America (VOA) located at 430 N. Larch, asked for the Board's continued support of funding in this important area. He had a few statistics to present to the Board. He stated that in the last 6 months, from July to December 2002, at the Volunteers of America shelter there were 1,169 men over shelter capacity. The VOA took the folks who stay at the shelter but not in beds and provided a total 1,993 in the last 6 months over capacity for all categories (824 women and children). These were repeat visitors. It averages out to pretty significant number of beds over capacity and tells the VOA quite strongly that the capacity problem is not one that has been solved. There is plenty of shelter to yet be provided that the VOA is not providing to the community. Of the past 6 months, there were 13 days in which the VOA was not over capacity at the shelter. In the men's side, there were 49 days and in the women and children side, approximately 182 days. The VOA estimated that they turned away 63 men because they were not able to provide them shelter and were not able to provide them shelter at any of their colleague agencies that are settled in the City. The VOA provided 824 unique individuals shelter in the last 6 months and it is estimated that the count increased approximately 5% over the last year. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is estimating in the most recent conference, a nationwide increase in homelessness at 18%. He was not exactly sure of what the estimated counts will be for this calendar year for Lansing. He would like to add a few interesting things because of temporily of what is going on in the economy. Despite the period of job loss, there are record numbers of building permits and new houses. The National Association of Realtors reports record levels of refinances, purchase and new home starts in terms of building permits and purchases. What this does is increase the demand for homes and rental units. The impact on the homeless and the marginally homeless, such as programs provided by Ballentine Stepping Stones, is to increase the cost and make it more difficult to get off the streets. People are in an interesting pinch from the economy because typically in recessions, home building and purchases have decreased. The VOA has kind of a strange package because of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 14 stimulus package from the finance side. In terms of Federal Funds of course those are not necessarily increasing as the Board knows. The VOA has lost $65,000.00 in Federal funding for their food stamp program used at the day shelter. The VOA was turned down recently for a VA Homeless Grant which would have been an important increase to services the VOA provides to homeless veterans. The VOA currently has 3 freshly released convicts in their shelter. That does continue to be a burden that the VOA tries to meet and they try to provide merciful services for those folks. There is truly no where for them to go. He thanked the Board for the funds provided. He asked the Board to please do everything they can to help the VOA provide this basic level of human mercy, and support their services for the homeless in the community. The VOA is not getting it all done. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2004 to the next Urban Development Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 28, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of December 3, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of December 3, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Foster, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 1S 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. McConnell had mentioned ID's for the Board and had suggested business cards. Mr. Ruff asked for input from the Board. The current security system of City Hall is still being reviewed. Sometime in the near future there will be a conversion of the gate pass into a different ID system. He hesitates with having new IDs made but could easily have business cards made for the Board. If there are questions about the Board's identity as far as Planning Board activities, then the members would have something available. The incorporation of swipe cards into the ID is currently being reviewed. If this meets with the Board's approval, then he could have 100 cards made for each member. Mr. Ruff stated that the Governor has selected Mayor Dave Hollister for a Department Head position as part of the cabinet and he is planning on resigning close to the State of the City Address. The Mayor's confirmation hearing will be later this month and then the Senate does not come into session until January 21s`. The Planning and Neighborhood Development Director, Dennis Sykes, has joined the Mayor and is on a personal leave of absence from the City offices until the confirmation. The Planning Office will continue to push forward. There is likely to be an interim appointment at least until the elections. What the Planning Office will try to do is keep pressing on in light of Budget, Master Planning and other activities when it comes to improving services to the customers. In the Work Program, the permits have increased dramatically and each one of the building permits is reviewed. The activity has increased. He is grateful to have a full staff which helps. Hopefully reducing some of the information items through internet and GIS, the Planning Office staff will have more opportunities to focus their attention on planning activities and permits, and yet still keep the same hours for permit review, questions and answers. With these being major goals for the Planning Office, the Board will see in the Work Program a number of activities that are available. This past year there was a significant amount of time spent on the Wolverine Pipeline and the Board was a part of it. He completed a FOIA request recently for a banker's box full of paperwork in which he had to sort through the information and then the Law Office had to sort through everything. The Planning Office had estimated over 600 hours of staff time spent. The Planning Office does anticipate the Regional Growth Plan for the Tri- County region to come to conclusion early this calendar year. There is still some unfinished business. He has representatives on the Steering Committee as well as some of the Special Task Committees and again PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 16 takes up some of the staff's time. The Planning Office really hopes to make some significant progress in Master Planning this year. He would like to be able to isolate certain work items that would have to be contracted out. All of those items may not be contracted out at this time but at least isolate those items that contract out the first parts. With contingencies and costs increasing over time, there needs to be some caution used. The Planning Office has submitted some of the year-end accomplishments, and he has tried to include some of those items in the Planning Board packet this evening. There is a zero budget under item number 7 in the packet. It shows where the budget is going as far as work programming. The Board can see some of the things that the Planning Office has done collectively. Ms. Foster inquired about the budget for the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff stated that it has been carried forward. Whether or not it will be carried forward into the next fiscal year, he is not sure. If there is a proposal to nick at it, he will counter with options so that some of the funding can be kept each year, or do some Capital Improvement Funding each year so that the Planning Office can continue contracting out certain things. There may be ways to do it and he really does not want to see it go away. He has concerns. Ms. Foster inquired about the bid for the proposal for the Master Plan and if the Planning Office will continue to review it. Mr. Ruff stated that he sees a bid process (an RFP) to go out for certain services this current fiscal year. As far as whether or not that will include all services, he is not sure. The next internal step is the Planning Office has been trying to finalize the basic text of the Work Program so that now the Planning Office can take and isolate those work program items that can be achieved versus what can be contracted out. Once this is done, then the Planning Office will also try to implement a Steering Committee. This Committee will be able to provide some backing to move forward. Currently, there are a lot of question marks depending upon approach. All the communities are being hit. The Planning Office is very fortunate because it has a fully funded, rainy day, contingency fund, and this is not the only potentially bad year. There is an easy 18 months, 24 months or possibly 36 months that the City could be in this low cycle because of the indicators and yet the Planning Office will continue to do what they have done well in the last decade which is to grow the City. If the City can continue to expand housing opportunities for people and use all the tools available to promote housing within the City, he believes it will go a long way. This year there was not a huge number of houses finalized in the City. Last year there was a large number of increase and this upcoming calendar year there is another group increase because of the permits that were issued and construction that is under way. So the City does anticipate continued growth as was suggested and recommended in the housing study. He believes that the City is making advancements and that it is a matter of continually pressing forward. He appreciates the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 17 Board's support of those activities and the Board is instrumental in what happens with some of these developments and the livability of what it means as far as the quality of life. The Public Service Department, on any major permit in the last year, has been pushing for sidewalks as part of the walkable communities. Sometimes this does not make sense to the developers and property owners, and he has to keep referring them back to the Public Service Department. If the City does not start somewhere then it will not get done. Mr. Ruff anticipates that the Planning Office has a good, talented staff, and that he will continue to give updates monthly on Master Planning and progress. Mr. Ruff stated that he is grateful to have Mr. Frederick back and glad to see that he is up and around. Mr. Frederick stated that it was good to be back. Mr. Ruff introduced Mr. McConnell to Mr. Frederick as the new Board member. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development g. NCU-9-2002,433 S. Magnolia, Class"A" Nonconforming Status (Tabled November 26,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Work Program and Budget for FY 2004 Mr. Ruff stated that he provided a copy of the budget in memo form for the Board and that he did have a substitute page with a minor change to the Work Program that is on pages 4 and 5. Mr. Ruff stated that this current calendar year will be the final year that the City can make any challenge to the census. So this item will partly come PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 18 off the Work Program after next year. Ms. Foster inquired about the City being able to identify all the vacant buildings, and all the lots that are rental properties but are not being kept up to code so that the City can actually do something about it. Mr. Ruff stated that in the City's Code Compliance Office there is a three quarter time funded position that is a rg red tag specialist. When a house is tagged instead of the end result being demolition, there are all these other alternatives besides demolition. This specialist will keep track of those red tagged structures and try to keep them from being red tagged. Typically it is the rental properties that are the most troublesome. Ms. Foster stated that if these buildings are being used as a tax write off or because the property is depreciating more in value, then it does not seem like this is the way it needs to be. Mr. McConnell inquired about available funds for a person or persons, whether non-profit or for profit, to developed those blighted, tagged houses and turn them in to a homeless or a for rent situation. Mr. Ruff stated in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget of$4.2 million, there are programs, and that he can distribute copies of these programs to the Board. There is a brochure that lists all the various programs for rehabilitation (i.e. owner rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation). As long as the property is in an income eligible area, certain amounts of money can be spent per unit to bring them up to code. The City works a lot through non-profits. Currently, there is a waiting list of approximately 1 '/2 years for non-emergency owner occupied dwellings. There is an emergency fund (i.e. furnace quits working, plumbing problems that would create a bad situation and cause a vacancy). It might be good idea to have one of the program people attend the next Urban Development Committee meeting (UDC) for the CDBG funds. Ms. Foster stated that her only comment in the development of the Master Plan is to have someone be designated for Master Plan without additional responsibilities in order for it to be completed. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office has applied in the past 2 to 3 year for additional staff and it has not happened. He believes that it is important for the Planning staff to be the face of the Master Plan so that when people identify with the Master Plan, they see the faces of the staff rather than a consultant 's face. The research information needs to be implemented in the contracts and the meetings. Ms. Foster inquired about the City ordinances and if they will be updated. Mr. Ruff stated that in 1983, there was a complete recodification of the zoning ordinances. Ms. Foster inquired about updating these ordinances since it is now 20 years later. Mr. Ruff stated that there are some ordinances on the list of accomplishing existing goals for housing. Parking is another issue and the City would like to accommodate more landscaping within the parking areas. The City's plan is to look at some of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 19 the housing ordinances to make it easier for people to live in and make improvements to their homes. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to recommend approval of the Work Program and Budget for FY 2004 with the condition that one (1) additional staff member be added to concentrate fully on the Master Plan. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). B. Appointment to the Urban Development Committee (UDC) Mr. Frederick asked Mr. McConnell if he would be willing to work on the Committee. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview of the UDC Committee responsibilities. Ms. Foster stated that since the semester is over, she can go back to the UDC meetings. This would place Ms. Cordill back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meetings. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he is glad to be back. He thanked Ms. Foster for filling in during his absence. He stated that he may be absent from one meeting due to his upcoming surgery. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that this year East Lansing wanted to do some public art downtown and had the community become involved in choosing what that would be. Last summer, the City had the sculptures placed along Washington Avenue and it drew a lot of people. He stated that this would be a good way to get the community involved with downtown, and even to take some ownership of downtown by having some say in what kind of art would be placed downtown. Mr. Ruff stated that the community did have some say in North Lansing's Old Town. The sculpture is going to be replaced at the corner of Turner and Grand River. There used to be a historic fountain located there and it was moved to the Turner-Dodge House. There was art chosen by a community group to replace and refresh the park. The Public Service Department is planning something else for this summer but he has not heard anything yet. Ms. Foster inquired about scenic views. Mr. Ruff stated that the City had a Beautification Committee that was seeking funding for beautification items and that this included transportation corridor items (i.e. entries). The City is thinking of how to complete some of these items. The grant was not approved for the Beautification Committee so the committee fazed out. Ms. Foster inquired of a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 20 way instead of grants if the laws could be changed. Mr. Ruff stated that usually public property is the problem. Mr. Ruge stated that at the Christmas dinner Ms. Cordill's wish was that Oakland and Saginaw Streets could become 2-way streets. The City of Ypsilanti has the same problem. The cross street and Washtenaw Street are the same way and are busy one way arterials carrying east-west traffic. The City of Ypsilanti came up with a 2-face phase plan both short and long term. The short term solution was designed to be implemented immediately without major infrastructure changes (i.e. on street parking, travel lanes). The long term solution would be more towards engineering items (i.e. convert the streets back to 2-way use). He has been on the City of Lansing's streets and these streets are just as busy. It is very doable and the City would need to find the time and energy. Mr. Ruff stated that this would be a Transportation issue (i.e. major corridor traffic calming). Ms. Cordill stated that she had also seen this in the Saginaw area where 1-way streets going through residential areas and that it would diminish the livability and desirability with the heavy traffic passing by. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.010703.wpd Draft to Clerk January 17,2003 Approved 2003 To Clerk 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 7, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Witherspoon, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick stated that under New Business he would like to add an appointment to the Urban Development Committee to replace Ms. Patrick. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Lansing Community Micro-Enterprise Fund (LCMF) regarding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the Revolving Loan Pool. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Solid Rock MB Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a church. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 2 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a large room for the worship area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has not seen the interior layout but was sure the applicant could answer the question. James Carter Jr., resident of 2550 Glencove, Holt, stated that the church is looking at changing the functional use of the building to use it as a church. One of the issues was parking. Currently, the parking lot is striped for 71 parking spaces but that could be doubled if the church uses the requirements that the City establishes for parking. It can be changed to horizontal parking. Currently, everything is at 90 degree parking. Inside the building, there are partition walls which can be removed. There are plans that show the walls as partitioned, and can be easily removed to accommodate the full use of the building. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church has been in the Lansing community for over 19 years and originated on the east side off of South Magnolia Street. Approximately 12 years ago, the church relocated to Massachusetts Street off North Grand River, and a large part of the church's congregation is from the east side. The church has been a great pillar to the community and it would only help the area to keep the church located there. Ms. Foster inquired about the number of parking spaces the church currently uses or would need. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church is in the conceptional stage and are looking at pews. If the church was packed, there would be approximately 400 seats. The standard is .8 or 2 people to a car so the church is looking at maybe needing 200 spaces. Currently, the original plan shows that there are approximately 70 to 80 spaces but that is minimal because of it being an office building. There is a little bit more because of busses and special vehicles to come in and maneuver out. Ms. Cordill inquired about the size of the congregation. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the size of the congregation is over 300 people. The church holds multiple services. Unless there is a special function or meeting, there probably would not be more than 150 at a given service. Mr. Ruge inquired about additional church functions. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the normal functions are Wednesday Bible Study Prayer meeting, choir rehearsals and the Church Anniversary along with other special programs. Throughout the year there are 5 programs that are separate from the normal Sunday services. Mr. Ruge inquired about outdoor functions. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that once and a while the church hosts a community gathering. The church has a cookout for the community so that the residents can become acquainted PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 3 with the membership of the church and establish a bond. Mr. Ruge inquired about the attendance for this gathering. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is neighbors who usually walk by, stop, pick up something and communicate. At one setting, there would probably be no more than 100 people. Mr. Ruge inquired about the number of settings. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is like a picnic and continues on from morning until dusk. Mr. Ruge inquired about using a tent or a bar-b-que grill and picnic tables. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that it is basically a down home bar-b-que. Mr. Ruge inquired about music. Mr. Carter Jr. stated there is no music. It is strictly a bar-b-que. The current location is in a residential area and the church is very courteous to the residents. The church realizes that the space has to be shared and the residents are there all the time. This is their home and is established by the church. Both of the churches in the past have been in residential areas. The church went out of their way to make sure that they did not offend the residents. Mr. Ruge inquired about the number of services on Sunday. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that there is a morning service (Sunday School), afternoon service (11:00 a.m.) and evening service. There are approximately 150 in attendance. There is a television show that is on 2 different channels twice a week. A lot of the members who could not attend view the television show. It is pretty diversified for the congregation. Mr. McConnell inquired about parking and if the church had spoken with the neighborhood businesses regarding piggy back parking. He also inquired about the option of the church to piggy back as far as utilizing these spaces, if this had been reviewed, and would the church be open to the idea. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that this has not been reviewed and that the church would not have a problem with it. Currently, there is a repair garage next to the church and to the right there is another business. He cannot speak for them. He would assume that if the parking spaces were not in service or open on Sunday that the businesses would not mind the church utilizing their parking spaces. The church is not at this point yet and are in the stage of getting a special use. The church has secured financing for the purchase of the building. Mr. Carter Jr. inquired about the City's required parking spaces based on square footage or how many people are in attendance. Mr. Ruff stated that the requirement is based upon the number of seats in the main hall of worship. For parking, it is 1 for every 3 seats or 6 linear feet of pew space. Some architects will count seats as 18 inches. The parking requirements look at 24 inches. If there are 70 spaces on site, that would equate to a maximum linear feet of pew (70 spaces x 3 = number of seats). That would be 210 seats x 2 feet = 420 linear feet of pew space. That is how it would be initially reviewed. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that he is a civil engineer by trade and deals with a lot of site development. Looking at the square footage available for parking, the church would be able to accommodate more than enough for what the City requirements are. Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 4 Foster stated that she would like to see less paving, if possible, and more sharing of pavement with the neighbors so that some of that space can be turned into green space, community garden, etc. rather than a parking lot. Mr. Carter Jr. stated that the church has no plans of taking the green space on the parcel or surrounding parcel and converting it to a parking lot. That is not the church's nature and being residential, they do not want to impact the residents. With the current square footage and having 3 inches into the property, there is a lot where the church can use the existing pavement area to provide for parking. John DeYoung, resident of 610 Shoreline, DeWitt, stated that by profession he is a real estate broker and does quite a bit of leasing of office space, retail space, warehousing, etc. He has been involved in the management of this property for the last 7 years. As an office building in south Lansing, he has experienced some problems with fairly severe vacancies on that side of town. It has gotten a lot worse with the State moving out of Mercantile or Holiday Office Park, Jackson National leaving, etc. There is probably 500,000 square feet of vacant office space just in south Lansing. His point is he does not believe this has been missed in terms of usable office space in that area. Mr. McConnell inquired about Mr. DeYoung representing the seller of the building. Mr. DeYoung stated that he was representing the seller. Mr. Ruff inquired, for recognition purposes, of the audience who was from the congregation of the church. He thanked them for being in attendance this evening. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-12-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. B. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status This is a request by Little Rock Baptist Church for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The church is nonconforming as it is located on a site that is less than two (2) acres in size, does not have frontage on a major or minor arterial, does not comply with the required front yard setbacks and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to add a second story addition to this nonconforming building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the extension and restoration of the nonconforming church building at 433 S. Magnolia. The property is zoned "B" Residential and is regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show that the property has been used as a church at least since 1941. The Assessor's Records shows that the church was built in the early 1930's. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 5 applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing church and utilize the basement for a Sunday school and Fellowship Hall. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the church has always been operating as a church with continuous services. Also, the structure to the north of the existing church is being proposed for a rectory for the church. The use of the structure to the north as a rectory does not change its conforming status as a single family dwelling in the "B" Residential District. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that by reviewing the pictures it looks like the building was originally a two story building. She inquired about the building and if it was originally a church. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know the details and that there was a paragraph at the top of page 2 of the report. "It has been used as a church since at least 1941. It was built in the early 1930s." This was about all the history that could really be found on it. It looks like there was a period of 10 years that cannot be accounted for its use and that was right after it was built. It has been a church now for over 60 years. Ms. Foster stated that it looks like the residential surroundings are two story and that it would not be out of scale with the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the building is currently out of scale with the neighborhood. Pastor Will Stokes, resident of 11298 Old Barn Trail, Eaton Rapids, stated that the church's plans were not to really create more space for the worship service. What the church wanted to do was an upward extension and it would not be too much higher than it is currently. The proposed plan is not to degrade the neighborhood in any way but to improve it. The existing roof is flat and there are a lot of problems with it. What the church would like to do is raise the roof. The house on the east side belongs to the church and there are no plans to tear down the house but to utilize the space in back of the church for parking. There are not a whole lot of members but the church would like to move the traffic off the streets. The church is trying to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge stated that in reviewing the church's drawings it looks like the church is going to enlarge the windows in the existing part of the building. Pastor Stokes stated that when the building was purchased, the former church had bricked the windows. The church's plan is to remove the bricks and restore the existing windows. The glass is still in the windows behind the wall on the inside so when the bricks are removed, the windows will be returned to their original form. Mr. Ruge inquired about the ramp located on the side of the church. There is a handicap ramp in the front of the church and he was curious about why there would also be a ramp on the side. Pastor Stokes stated that it was for the church to approve whether or not it would be in the front or on the side. There will only be one handicap accessible ramp. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 6 Ruge inquired about which ramp the church had decided on. Pastor Stokes stated the side ramp. This would allow more lawn space in the front and not take away from the view of the front of the building. Mr. Ruff inquired about how the church came upon the number of parking spaces in the drawing, if they were trying to achieve the most parking spaces on site, if the church had a particular number of parking spaces they were trying to achieve or if there was pressure because of the Zoning code to try and get as much on the property as.possible. Pastor Stokes stated that currently the church members park in the rear of the church but it is not really a parking lot. The church does not have a large congregation and was trying to find a way to move the cars off the street. The street has always been used for parking. With the number of spaces the church would have (16), this would accommodate all of the congregation's vehicles. In the winter time it makes it very difficult for people to maneuver if the snow is not removed, and makes it difficult for people to come down the street. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Pastor moving into the house next door to the church or would the house be used for church functions. Pastor Stokes stated that the house would probably be used for church functions, maybe move their offices into it. He did live in the house at one point. The house is used now for members of the congregation until they can get back on their feet. The church would like to use the house for the church offices. Mr. Ruge inquired about the size of the congregation. Pastor Stokes stated approximately 121, with the average service being 50 people. Mr. McConnell inquired about cost of the renovations and if it would be $200,000.00. Pastor Stokes stated it would not cost that much. The church plans to add a roof. It is a basement building with columns and from where the flow should have been, that point and up, is approximately 6 to 7 feet with dead space inbetween it. The building only goes up. The church is estimating approximately $75,000.00 for the project. Mr. McConnell inquired about the secured finances for the project. Pastor Stokes stated pretty much. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-9-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. C. NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status This is a request by Rick Postema on behalf of Tendercare Incorporated nursing home located at 2100 Provincial House Drive, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The nursing home is nonconforming as it is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 7 located in the "A" Residential District, which does not permit nursing homes. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate an additional 30 beds. The facility currently has 120 beds. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquire about any traffic problems on Provincial House Drive. Ms. Stachowiak stated not that she is aware of and the Transportation Office did not know of any problems. Nursing homes typically do not generate a high volume of traffic because their residents do not drive. The majority of the traffic is when there is a shift change which is 2 or 3 times a day. Other than that, it is periodic visitors. Traffic has not been a concern. All the neighbors within 300 feet were notified because of the request being an expansion. Notifying the neighbors would give them an opportunity to comment on the request. The neighborhood organization has commented and their comments will be in the report that goes to Committee next week. Mr. Ruge inquired about the location of the expansion. Ms. Stachowiak stated it would be on the west side of the building. Mr. Ruff stated that under the previous ordinance, prior to 1983, nursing homes were allowed as a special use permit in the "A" residential district. Around 1983, because of the convalescent care and similarities of a more apartment-type building as well as hospital- or commendation-type use, it was moved into the multiple family district. This has been a nursing home since it was built. The City is not aware of any outstanding or long standing complaint problems with the use of the property. Ms. Cordill stated that technically speaking, should the City be expanding a nonconforming use and is there a better zoning classification for this. Mr. Ruff stated that it would be inappropriate for this area to spot zone the request to a multiple family district. This is in a relatively good setting because there are condominiums and apartments nearby. It is closer to the Aurelius Road. The developer of the property, Oliver Soloman, originally owned a lot of the property in that area, and he also developed the subdivision. The nursing home was part of the overall development plan for that entire subdivision. The more intense uses were placed closer to Aurelius Road and the homes were placed further away. Ms. Foster inquired about how close the nursing home would be to the residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the request meets the setback and believes it is 20 feet. It seems that the nursing home's licensing requires that there be no obstructions within 20 feet of the windows in this building. A lot of the people who live here probably have physical limitations and she was not sure if the reason for that is so that there are no barriers if the residents should need to leave in an emergency. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about the zoning of the property and if the Planning Office considered changing the zoning on this property so that it would be conforming to the zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan does not call for it. It calls for residential 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre but that is not enough to get them up to the required zoning to make this a permitted use. Mr. Ruff stated the zoning is "DM-4." Ms. Stachowiak stated "DM-4" is the highest density multiple family district. If the request is zoned so that the nursing home now is compatible with the zoning designation, the nursing home could build some incredible high rise on the site with a huge amount of units. Ms. Foster inquired about the zoning for "DM-1." Ms. Stachowiak stated it would still be nonconforming. Mr. Ruff stated that the engineer has a drawing of the site plan and he will be asked to go through it when the staff have completed their report. The drawing will show things better. David Mancuso, representative of Tendercare, stated that the 20 foot setback is a state regulation. There has to be 20 feet of clear visible space out of the residents' room so that there is no disruption or any obstruction that would make them feel uncomfortable. That is a state regulation that had to be included in the design. Ms. Foster inquired if that would mean that there could not be a green buffer added. Mr. Mancuso stated that it means the buffer would have to be beyond the 20 feet. Ms. Foster inquired about available space beyond the 20 feet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the building was right at the 20 foot setback. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about adding trees in a clearance area. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare is allowed a certain amount of flexibility. Mr. Mancuso stated that there is a need for 30 additional beds and that was the reason Tendercare wanted to add an addition to the facility. Tendercare had purchased additional property a few years ago. Ms. Foster inquired if Tendercare would consider putting in a green wall on the side because of the length and having it so that there are places for plants to grow (i.e. vines), so that it does not look like it is a big wall towards the residences. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare is willing to work with the City to get the property developed. Mr. Ruge stated for clarification that the drawing shows a few trees in the 20 foot zone but those would not be allowed. Applicant stated that there may be trees already there. Applicant stated that for the sake of the drawing there were some bushes shown and they are certainly willing to work out a landscape plan that works both with the clear requirements in front of the windows and with what the State would like to see there. The exact placement has not been worked out and Tendercare would have to work with City staff to develop a plan. Mr. Ruff stated that the rooms are semi-private so there would be 2 beds in a room. If there are windows and there has to be a 20 foot diameter adjacent to those windows, the placement of those windows would be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 9 important as to what landscaping could be put in. Mr. Mancuso stated that the windows occur in a regular pattern just like the rooms. There is room for, depending on what type of landscaping is discussed, landscaping up against the building. If the rooms are next to one another and there are windows in each room, it may be better to place those windows near one another so it opens up more space for additional landscaping. Mr. Ruge inquired about the elevation of the building. Mr. Mancuso stated that it is not fully developed. Ms. Foster inquired about what was on the south side of the building. Mr. Mancuso stated that the addition on the west side works best for Tendercare. When the beds are added, there is also an additional dining area with windows. The outside area will become a courtyard with an access through the existing building off the center court. Operationally, this will be quite a nice place for the residents to go. There will be a gazebo. This has been done in other communities and has worked out very well for the residents and staff. Ideally, this is an area for Tendercare to add. The back part is the existing diningroom service wing where the food services and kitchen area are located. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was an opportunity for Tendercare to discuss with the neighbors and show them the future plans. Mr. Mancuso stated that this was the first opportunity that was available. Mr. Frederick inquired about Tendercare contacting the neighborhood organization. Mr. Mancuso stated that Tendercare had not contacted them yet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office had already sent the neighborhood organization an agency referral, a copy of the plans, and all the information needed. Jeff McMeeken, resident of 3612 Callihan Court, stated that he is right on the residential line with Tendercare, and that he recently purchased his property. He was not aware of the neighborhood organization or any kind of community coming together. He purchased the duplex September 9, 2002 and recently moved in. His concern with the way the facility is now the traffic is not so much a problem but the problem is with the debris in his yard. There is a dumpster behind his shed. Weekly he is pulling out trash and debris all along the side. There is a barrier of trees and he is at the dead end of the street. His fiancee, who works nights, has a hard time sleeping during the day because of the delivery truck traffic. Not knowing this when he was getting into it, he probably would have had a second thought. Mr. Ruff needed clarification of where Mr. McMeeken resides. Mr. McMeeken stated that he resides at the dead end of Callihan Court. He can look out his bedroom window and see the delivery trucks. Mr. Ruff inquired about the dumpster being located off the L-shaped drive. Mr. McMeeken stated that was correct. Mr. Ruff inquired about trash pick PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Pagel 0 up. Mr. McMeeken stated that he was not sure and that his fiancee would know more about it. This is all new to him. Mr. Ruff stated that the truck traffic his fiancee hears is during the day. Mr. McMeeken stated that was correct. Mr. McMeeken stated that if the facility expands and there is a problem currently with debris, he can only see the debris doubling. He has had full bags of trash in his yard. He could have gone to Tendercare and complained but he was not sure how any of this really works. Mr. Ruff stated that he appreciated his comments. Mr. Frederick inquired of Mr. McMeeken about the trash and if he knew it was coming from Tendercare. Mr. McMeeken stated that the debris is shredded papers. He sees the clear plastic bags. When the wind picked up one day, there was a whole bunch of empty trash bags in his yard. He is outside weekly picking up debris. Currently, a lot of the debris is covered in snow. In the spring, he will have a lot of trash removal. He is concerned with Tendercare currenity taking care of their trash and sees more of a problem for the future. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-10-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. D. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2004 This is the time for the public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, to be included in the City's consolidated strategy and plan submission for FY 2004. The City expects to receive approximately $4.002 million in new funding through the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2003 and ending on June 30, 2004. NOTE: The City received an increase of$9,600 in Emergency Shelter grant dollars so all the shelter providers are very pleased to hear this. Doris Witherspoon gave a brief overview. Beverly Wiener, resident of 311 S. Jenison Avenue, stated that all the people present in the audience are people who are benefitting from the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). She is from Haven House, a shelter for homeless families. Haven House receives about $10,000.00 of the ESG PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 11 money of which they really appreciate. It has been an important part of our total budget. As you know, all the non-profits are having a little trouble these days raising money because of the economy. Haven House is really happy to use this funding for some of their operating costs. Haven House serves approximately 100 families a year. They are located in East Lansing but serve the greater Lansing area. A very large portion of these families are from Lansing. The average stay is approximately one month. Haven House's goal is to work closely with the families to get them into housing and work on other underlying issues. Haven House appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Board about what they do and why the Board's approval of the ESG money is so important to them. Peggy Perner, of the American Red Cross and resident of 1315 Harrington Lane, East Lansing, stated that the American Red Cross is a recipient of the HUD money that comes through the City of Lansing and also Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding. The American Red Cross does very much appreciate receiving funding and is in need of the funding. The American Red Cross has a long term case management program where they work with homeless clients up to two years. They have four case managers who have 18 to 23 cases at any point in time. The ESG funds that they receive are applied towards helping clients with substance abuse treatment if the clients are unable to receive services through a main stream resource. These funds also contributes to the 20% cash match requirement from HUD, which is approximately $60,000.00 a year. Other non-profits share challenges in raising money and the American Red Cross really appreciates the support from the City. Donald Leaf, resident of 2664 Delridge, East Lansing, and Coordinator of Loaves and Fishes Ministries, stated that there is a large constituency here tonight for one grant, at least ESG funds that are a part of the City's program. Loaves and Fishes believes that it is very important in this city and as part of the Lansing's continual care and all of us as part of that continual care try to address the needs of the homeless and the poor people in the community. Loaves and Fishes Ministries have been receiving approximately $10,800.00 of this grant and have used it to primarily to support the utilities and property and liability insurance costs of their three shelters. Those costs have been escalating in recent years and everyone is well aware of that. All one has to do is pay those monthly bills at home to know that the gas, electric, telephone, water and sewage are increasing. These costs are also increasing for their three shelters and ESG funds have been really the only new funding source that has been made available in this community for this kind of expense. He has been the coordinator at Loaves and Fishes for 7 years and as he looks at the other types of funding that has been received, this month he will be hit with two cuts from the State through the State reduction, which is the first round. The other types of grants are not increasing for Loaves and Fishes so the only other alternative it to either find new monies which are in the form of something like ESG fund or to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 12 receive more donations or gifts. These have been hard to get. Loaves and Fishes Ministries has received, along with other non-profits, a reduction in donations and gifts after the September 11, 2001 crisis. So all of the non-profits have been struggling financially to try to keep their heads above water and try to meet those costs incurred whether the doors are open or not. These ESG funds have been very instrumental for them. Loaves and Fishes Ministries spends the funds entirely for utilities and property insurance costs. It is very, very important. Today in the newspaper there were some struggles of the American Red Cross has had and they have had to cut back some programs. This is going to affect homeless and poor people in the community. Other cut backs are coming down the road. Loaves and Fishes Ministries hopes that they can minimize this or they will be forced as shelter and service providers to provide less service to those in the community that are needing them. He could provide the Board with all types of statistics about the homeless and poor people situations in Lansing. After 7 years, Loaves and Fishes Ministries has helped to solve the problem and has really reduced the impact on the community. He is sorry that Loaves and Fishes Ministries has lost the gain. All one has to do is look around to know that as businesses have closed (i.e. Jacobson's, Bill Knapp's Restaurant, K- Mart), all of these businesses are costing jobs in this area and people are finding it harder and harder to find a job that will pay a decent living wage. The State cuts back 5,000 to 7,000 jobs through retirement, replaces 1 out of 4, it is going to hurt somewhere in the economy and those jobs are no longer going to be available. Most of the people coming to the shelter are the marginal people. More and more of the people are working part- time but not making enough money to pay rent and that is why they are on the streets. There has been a lot of money spent in this state over the last 12 years building prisons but someone forgot to talk about what happens when those prisoners are released. They have no income, job or place to go. This has an impact on the shelters and the service programs that are in this community. Loaves and Fishes Ministries is trying to respond to the best that they can with the resources they have. ESG funds have been very, very important in helping Loaves and Fishes Ministries meet some of the inflationary costs that they have been incurring. ESG funds do not go for personnel. Loaves and Fishes Ministries made a decision years ago that this was not the area that they would like to have these funds aimed at. It was only going to go for the utility- and insurance-type costs that they are incurring. It has really been helpful. He thanked the Board for their support and recommendation in hope that the Board will continue to support Loaves and Fishes Ministries in the days ahead. Patty Jongkind, resident of 1809 Osborn Street and Director of Ballentine Stepping Stones, stated that Ballentine Stepping Stones is a transitional housing program for homeless, single mothers with children, and that this is a program of Catholic Social Services St. Vincent Home. She will keep things more simple. She stated that transitional housing is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 13 the next step along the road towards permanent housing for many of their families, particularly women with children who are unable to access permanent housing due to poor credit and rental histories. Ballentine Stepping Stones receives approximately $6,600.00 which is used for insurances and utilities. While this may seem like a small amount to big budgets, to them it is very crucial. The shelters and transitional programs are getting hit hard for a high demand of people who have lost their jobs or are working part-time. These are not folks who are languishing on public assistance. They are people who are trying to work and take care of themselves. Due to the economy and the high cost of housing, they are unable to achieve their goal in permanent housing. Ballentine Stepping Stones appreciates all the assistance that the Board gives them through this funding. Ms. Jongkind thanked the Board for the funds provided. Patrick Patterson, of Volunteers of America (VOA) located at 430 N. Larch, asked for the Board's continued support of funding in this important area. He had a few statistics to present to the Board. He stated that in the last 6 months, from July to December 2002, at the Volunteers of America shelter there were 1,169 men over shelter capacity. The VOA took the folks who stay at the shelter but not in beds and provided a total 1,993 in the last 6 months over capacity for all categories (824 women and children). These were repeat visitors. It averages out to pretty significant number of beds over capacity and tells the VOA quite strongly that the capacity problem is not one that has been solved. There is plenty of shelter to yet be provided that the VOA is not providing to the community. Of the past 6 months, there were 13 days in which the VOA was not over capacity at the shelter. In the men's side, there were 49 days and in the women and children side, approximately 182 days. The VOA estimated that they turned away 63 men because they were not able to provide them shelter and were not able to provide them shelter at any of their colleague agencies that are settled in the City. The VOA provided 824 unique individuals shelter in the last 6 months and it is estimated that the count increased approximately 5% over the last year. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is estimating in the most recent conference, a nationwide increase in homelessness at 18%. He was not exactly sure of what the estimated counts will be for this calendar year for Lansing. He would like to add a few interesting things because of temporily of what is going on in the economy. Despite the period of job loss, there are record numbers of building permits and new houses. The National Association of Realtors reports record levels of refinances, purchase and new home starts in terms of building permits and purchases. What this does is increase the demand for homes and rental units. The impact on the homeless and the marginally homeless, such as programs provided by Ballentine Stepping Stones, is to increase the cost and make it more difficult to get off the streets. People are in an interesting pinch from the economy because typically in recessions, home building and purchases have decreased. The VOA has kind of a strange package because of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 14 stimulus package from the finance side. In terms of Federal Funds of course those are not necessarily increasing as the Board knows. The VOA has lost $65,000.00 in Federal funding for their food stamp program used at the day shelter. The VOA was turned down recently for a VA Homeless Grant which would have been an important increase to services the VOA provides to homeless veterans. The VOA currently has 3 freshly released convicts in their shelter. That does continue to be a burden that the VOA tries to meet and they try to provide merciful services for those folks. There is truly no where for them to go. He thanked the Board for the funds provided. He asked the Board to please do everything they can to help the VOA provide this basic level of human mercy, and support their services for the homeless in the community. The VOA is not getting it all done. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2004 to the next Urban Development Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 28, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of December 3, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of December 3, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Foster, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 15 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. McConnell had mentioned ID's for the Board and had suggested business cards. Mr. Ruff asked for input from the Board. The current security system of City Hall is still being reviewed. Sometime in the near future there will be a conversion of the gate pass into a different ID system. He hesitates with having new IDs made but could easily have business cards made for the Board. If there are questions about the Board's identity as far as Planning Board activities, then the members would have something available. The incorporation of swipe cards into the ID is currently being reviewed. If this meets with the Board's approval, then he could have 100 cards made for each member. Mr. Ruff stated that the Governor has selected Mayor Dave Hollister for a Department Head position as part of the cabinet and he is planning on resigning close to the State of the City Address. The Mayor's confirmation hearing will be later this month and then the Senate does not come into session until January 21'. The Planning and Neighborhood Development Director, Dennis Sykes, has joined the Mayor and is on a personal leave of absence from the City offices until the confirmation. The Planning Office will continue to push forward. There is likely to be an interim appointment at least until the elections. What the Planning Office will try to do is keep pressing on in light of Budget, Master Planning and other activities when it comes to improving services to the customers. In the Work Program, the permits have increased dramatically and each one of the building permits is reviewed. The activity has increased. He is grateful to have a full staff which helps. Hopefully reducing some of the information items through internet and GIS, the Planning Office staff will have more opportunities to focus their attention on planning activities and permits, and yet still keep the same hours for permit review, questions and answers. With these being major goals for the Planning Office, the Board will see in the Work Program a number of activities that are available. This past year there was a significant amount of time spent on the Wolverine Pipeline and the Board was a part of it. He completed a FOIA request recently for a banker's box full of paperwork in which he had to sort through the information and then the Law Office had to sort through everything. The Planning Office had estimated over 600 hours of staff time spent. The Planning Office does anticipate the Regional Growth Plan for the Tri- County region to come to conclusion early this calendar year. There is still some unfinished business. He has representatives on the Steering Committee as well as some of the Special Task Committees and again PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 16 takes up some of the staff's time. The Planning Office really hopes to make some significant progress in Master Planning this year. He would like to be able to isolate certain work items that would have to be contracted out. All of those items may not be contracted out at this time but at least isolate those items that contract out the first parts. With contingencies and costs increasing over time, there needs to be some caution used. The Planning Office has submitted some of the year-end accomplishments, and he has tried to include some of those items in the Planning Board packet this evening. There is a zero budget under item number 7 in the packet. It shows where the budget is going as far as work programming. The Board can see some of the things that the Planning Office has done collectively. Ms. Foster inquired about the budget for the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff stated that it has been carried forward. Whether or not it will be carried forward into the next fiscal year, he is not sure. If there is a proposal to nick at it, he will counter with options so that some of the funding can be kept each year, or do some Capital Improvement Funding each year so that the Planning Office can continue contracting out certain things. There may be ways to do it and he really does not want to see it go away. He has concerns. Ms. Foster inquired about the bid for the proposal for the Master Plan and if the Planning Office will continue to review it. Mr. Ruff stated that he sees a bid process (an RFP) to go out for certain services this current fiscal year. As far as whether or not that will include all services, he is not sure. The next internal step is the Planning Office has been trying to finalize the basic text of the Work Program so that now the Planning Office can take and isolate those work program items that can be achieved versus what can be contracted out. Once this is done, then the Planning Office will also try to implement a Steering Committee. This Committee will be able to provide some backing to move forward. Currently, there are a lot of question marks depending upon approach. All the communities are being hit. The Planning Office is very fortunate because it has a fully funded, rainy day, contingency fund, and this is not the only potentially bad year. There is an easy 18 months, 24 months or possibly 36 months that the City could be in this low cycle because of the indicators and yet the Planning Office will continue to do what they have done well in the last decade which is to grow the City. If the City can continue to expand housing opportunities for people and use all the tools available to promote housing within the City, he believes it will go a long way. This year there was not a huge number of houses finalized in the City. Last year there was a large number of increase and this upcoming calendar year there is another group increase because of the permits that were issued and construction that is under way. So the City does anticipate continued growth as was suggested and recommended in the housing study. He believes that the City is making advancements and that it is a matter of continually pressing forward. He appreciates the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 17 Board's support of those activities and the Board is instrumental in what happens with some of these developments and the livability of what it means as far as the quality of life. The Public Service Department, on any major permit in the last year, has been pushing for sidewalks as part of the walkable communities. Sometimes this does not make sense to the developers and property owners, and he has to keep referring them back to the Public Service Department. If the City does not start somewhere then it will not get done. Mr. Ruff anticipates that the Planning Office has a good, talented staff, and that he will continue to give updates monthly on Master Planning and progress. Mr. Ruff stated that he is grateful to have Mr. Frederick back and glad to see that he is up and around. Mr. Frederick stated that it was good to be back. Mr. Ruff introduced Mr. McConnell to Mr. Frederick as the new Board member. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F" Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A"Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development g. NCU-9-2002,433 S. Magnolia, Class"A" Nonconforming Status (Tabled November 26,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planninci Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Work Program and Budget for FY 2004 Mr. Ruff stated that he provided a copy of the budget in memo form for the Board and that he did have a substitute page with a minor change to the Work Program that is on pages 4 and 5. Mr. Ruff stated that this current calendar year will be the final year that the City can make any challenge to the census. So this item will partly come PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 18 off the Work Program after next year. Ms. Foster inquired about the City being able to identify all the vacant buildings, and all the lots that are rental properties but are not being kept up to code so that the City can actually do something about it. Mr. Ruff stated that in the City's Code Compliance Office there is a three quarter time funded position that is a reg tag specialist. When a house is tagged instead of the end result being demolition, there are all these other alternatives besides demolition. This specialist will keep track of those red tagged structures and try to keep them from being red tagged. Typically it is the rental properties that are the most troublesome. Ms. Foster stated that if these buildings are being used as a tax write off or because the property is depreciating more in value, then it does not seem like this is the way it needs to be. Mr. McConnell inquired about available funds for a person or persons, whether non-profit or for profit, to developed those blighted, tagged houses and turn them in to a homeless or a for rent situation. Mr. Ruff stated in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget of$4.2 million, there are programs, and that he can distribute copies of these programs to the Board. There is a brochure that lists all the various programs for rehabilitation (i.e. owner rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation). As long as the property is in an income eligible area, certain amounts of money can be spent per unit to bring them up to code. The City works a lot through non-profits. Currently, there is a waiting list of approximately 1 '/2 years for non-emergency owner occupied dwellings. There is an emergency fund (i.e. furnace quits working, plumbing problems that would create a bad situation and cause a vacancy). It might be good idea to have one of the program people attend the next Urban Development Committee meeting (UDC) for the CDBG funds. Ms. Foster stated that her only comment in the development of the Master Plan is to have someone be designated for Master Plan without additional responsibilities in order for it to be completed. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office has applied in the past 2 to 3 year for additional staff and it has not happened. He believes that it is important for the Planning staff to be the face of the Master Plan so that when people identify with the Master Plan, they see the faces of the staff rather than a consultant 's face. The research information needs to be implemented in the contracts and the meetings. Ms. Foster inquired about the City ordinances and if they will be updated. Mr. Ruff stated that in 1983, there was a complete recodification of the zoning ordinances. Ms. Foster inquired about updating these ordinances since it is now 20 years later. Mr. Ruff stated that there are some ordinances on the list of accomplishing existing goals for housing. Parking is another issue and the City would like to accommodate more landscaping within the parking areas. The City's plan is to look at some of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 19 the housing ordinances to make it easier for people to live in and make improvements to their homes. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to recommend approval of the Work Program and Budget for FY 2004 with the condition that one (1) additional staff member be added to concentrate fully on the Master Plan. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). B. Appointment to the Urban Development Committee (UDC) Mr. Frederick asked Mr. McConnell if he would be willing to work on the Committee. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview of the UDC Committee responsibilities. Ms. Foster stated that since the semester is over, she can go back to the UDC meetings. This would place Ms. Cordill back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meetings. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he is glad to be back. He thanked Ms. Foster for filling in during his absence. He stated that he may be absent from one meeting due to his upcoming surgery. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that this year East Lansing wanted to do some public art downtown and had the community become involved in choosing what that would be. Last summer, the City had the sculptures placed along Washington Avenue and it drew a lot of people. He stated that this would be a good way to get the community involved with downtown, and even to take some ownership of downtown by having some say in what kind of art would be placed downtown. Mr. Ruff stated that the community did have some say in North Lansing's Old Town. The sculpture is going to be replaced at the corner of Turner and Grand River. There used to be a historic fountain located there and it was moved to the Turner-Dodge House. There was art chosen by a community group to replace and refresh the park. The Public Service Department is planning something else for this summer but he has not heard anything yet. Ms. Foster inquired about scenic views. Mr. Ruff stated that the City had a Beautification Committee that was seeking funding for beautification items and that this included transportation corridor items (i.e. entries). The City is thinking of how to complete some of these items. The grant was not approved for the Beautification Committee so the committee fazed out. Ms. Foster inquired of a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 20 way instead of grants if the laws could be changed. Mr. Ruff stated that usually public property is the problem. Mr. Ruge stated that at the Christmas dinner Ms. Cordill's wish was that Oakland and Saginaw Streets could become 2-way streets. The City of Ypsilanti has the same problem. The cross street and Washtenaw Street are the same way and are busy one way arterials carrying east-west traffic. The City of Ypsilanti came up with a 2-face plan both short and long term. The short term solution was designed to be implemented immediately without major infrastructure changes (i.e. on street parking, travel lanes). The long term solution would be more towards engineering items (i.e. convert the streets back to 2-way use). He has been on the City of Lansing's streets and these streets are just as busy. It is very doable and the City would need to find the time and energy. Mr. Ruff stated that this would be a Transportation issue (i.e. major corridor traffic calming). Ms. Cordill stated that she had also seen this in the Saginaw area where 1-way streets going through residential areas and that it would diminish the livability and desirability with the heavy traffic passing by. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9.18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.01 0703.wpd PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 5 additional landscaping and screening for the fence next to the fence behind the front of the building. It would help put the building more in character with its commercial setting and realistically restrict all of the storage of vehicles to the fenced in area which would be entirely out of the front yard area. The tow trucks and any towed vehicles would be behind the front line of the building. The company proposed that the storage area be in the very rear of the site. The fence was placed to the front of the property line to secure cars that were for sale. This will not be the situation for this request. These kinds of changes could drastically improve the asthetics. As long as the towed vehicles are not seen that would not be an asthetic issue. Currently the building is surrounded by a compound-type fence and is very uninviting. There could not be any enforcement action without a special land use or major improvements to the property (i.e. building addition). This is an opportunity even though Pryer's Towing is requesting an additional level of use of the property to what is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District. This is also an opportunity to make improvements and to improve the asthetics of the street frontage. The site is not very large or intense but is classified the same as a land use. Ms. Keene stated that her primary concern was what the landscape would like and that the City could do better at enforcing these types of things. Mr. Ruge stated that he would suggest this be an added condition. Ms. Foster inquired about the towing services and if the fence would even be needed. Mr. Ruff stated that the fence would be for security purposes, and that if the company had a tow truck on site, the company would want to secure it. Ms. Foster inquired about the site plan review process and if it would force the issue of breaking up some of the landscaping. Mr. Ruff stated not against another industrial use but up against the street frontage, it certainly would. The parking lot will not be screened for the customers. The idea with the landscaping is to soften the view. The screening would be in the requirement to the storage area. The landscaping could take on two different aspects. Ms. Foster inquired about the ideal curb cut for the site. Mr. Ruff stated that a commercial curb cut would be required and depending on circulation, Pryer's Towing may need to have two of them: one on the east and one on the west sides of the building. Driving around the front of the building and making circulation are not very easy. Commercial curb PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 6 cuts are around 30 feet and are significant for this. This is site specific and the Planning Office would have to work with Pryer's Towing regarding this. Mr. Ruge inquired about the storage/impound area and if it would be screened on all four sides. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the area would have to be completely screened. Mr. McConnell inquired about the screening and buffering and if it would be around the impound area, or around the building and including the front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different areas in the way the recommendation reads. One area that would require screening is the parking area in the front of the property, and is covered under item 4. Under item 7, the screening would be additional to item 4. Mr. McConnell inquired about screening in the form of trees or a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that the entire site is fenced in and if there is no storm water detention required whether it be a detention basin as stated in item 12, then he could see Pryer's Towing keeping the fence around 3 sides of the property, except for the very front, and moving that fence back then providing screening on that fence and using the landscaping for screening in the front. Mr. McConnell inquired about this providing adequate buffering so that the impounded vehicles would not be seen from the street. Mr. Ruff stated that would be correct. Mr. Ruge stated that this would make the site look a lot better than its current state. He is always concerned with issues of fairness with the City. The gentleman from Northside Towing and Service indicated that his company wanted to have their towing business in this similar area but were asked to not be in this area because of it being the "Gateway to the City." He asked Mr. Ruff to address this issue. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different types of businesses that are referenced here: (1) This property is zoned Light Industrial; (2) Northside Towing and Service's property is zoned Heavy Industrial which allows the storage yard by right, not by special land use. There are some zoning code differences. The size of the property of this request is smaller than the site that would have been reviewed by Northside Towing and Service at 2525 N. Grand River. That site was a Light Industrial site and the current location is a Heavy Industrial site. The key here from a zoning standpoint is that this site could be used for a lot of uses that could all appear the same, if properly completed, with none of them being negative to the area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 7 Mr. McConnell inquired about the status of a sign located on the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Pryer's Towing does not have a license for selling vehicles on the site and that the current license is for towing. One of the conditions is that all non-conforming signs be removed including the roof signs. Ms. Foster inquired about a detention basin. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Public Service would make the decision during the site plan review process. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District with the conditions that (1) This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot and will not be used as a salvage yard, (2) The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process, (3) The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material, (4) A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08, (5) All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs, (6) Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater, (7) The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan, (8) The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished, (9) Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site, (10) The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office, (11) The use of cleanable grease traps and catch basins for contaminant run-off, (12) Phytoremediation be used for the detention basin, if required, (13) Vehicles cannot remain on the site for more than 60 days, (14) The improvements be completed within one year from the date of this approval, and (15) Move fence to behind the front line of the building. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Solid Rock MB Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2410 S. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 8 Pennsylvania Avenue for a church. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process; 2. Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about screening and if evergreens would be a preferred option as to a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that there may be a preferred option by the neighbors from a maintenance standpoint. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process, (2) Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density, and (3) Screening of the parking area be provided along Tisdale Avenue. Frederick Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. Ave Keene. Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by Rick Postema on behalf of Tendercare, Incorporated nursing home located at 2100 Provincial House Drive, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The nursing PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 9 home is nonconforming as it is located in the "A" Residential District, which does not permit nursing homes. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate an additional 30 beds in the nursing home. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming building at 2100 Provincial House Drive. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The addition will be design in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical. 2. The west property line will be landscaped with shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office. 3. The provision of an 8 feet wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site. 4. Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance. 5. An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line. 6. Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. 7. The dumpster be moved away from the residents as much as possible. 8. The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed during construction and roots pruned at the disturbance line. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated with item 2 the Committee discussed flowering shrubs to add the interest rather than only shrubs. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Foster stated with item 8 the tree protection fence should be installed before construction. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Pagel 0 Mr. Ruff inquired about the fence and if it was the applicant's proposal not to have a fence. Ms. Foster stated that was correct. Rick Postema, a representative of the architect's office, stated that the issue with the fence is the quality of life of the resident and that Tendercare would like for the residents to view the outdoors. Tendercare is enforced by the Health Department to keep a clear vision area of 20 feet directly in front of the windows. The only way this area can be screened entirely is with a fence because any landscape material would be inside the 20 feet perimeter. His understanding is that the Board is referring to flowering shrubbery and landscaping but not creating a screen more of clumps between the windows. Mr. Ruff stated that was correct. The other issue is that Tendercare would keep the dumpster further away from the resident. His understanding is that the dumpster would be screened in at the current designated dumpster area. Ms. Foster stated that currently the dumpster was moved because of the winter conditions and that it is preferable for the dumpster to stay at this area. Mr. Postema stated that this would be closer to the neighboring residents. Ms. Foster stated that it would be closer to the building. Mr. Ruff stated that this would require a newly designed area for the dumpster. Mr. Postema stated that there was a discussion about eliminating parking because an 8 foot landscape buffer could not be maintained, this proposal creates an 8 foot buffer and does add some parking with less spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was to eliminate enough parking so that the 8 foot buffer could be accommodated. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to modify item 7, and that at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Tendercare indicated that it was their intention to enclose the dumpster with some type of screening. He would like to add to item 7 that the dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed. Ms. Cordill stated that the neighborhood association would be meeting tonight and did not have an opportunity to address this case. When she visited the site, the area to the west is somewhat limited. One of the comments from the communications was that the plan did not indicate how close the dumpster would be to the condominiums to the west, and it was not shown in the drawings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Tendercare would be meeting the required setback of 20 feet and that it is mapped on the plans. Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 11 Cordill inquired about the current setback with the condominiums. Mr. Postema stated that the current building is 43 feet from the property line. Mr. Ruff stated that the condominiums are condensed on the site and were approved for variances for either the front or rear yard setbacks. There should be at least 6 feet on that side and that there would only be approximately 26 feet between the buildings. Mr. Ruge stated that there was a nice line of trees at the property line. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The addition will be design in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical, (2) The west property line will be landscaped to include flowering shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office, (3) The provision of an 8 foot wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site, (4) Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, (5) An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line, (6) Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties, (7) The dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed, (8) The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed before construction with roots pruned at the disturbance line. Frederick Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Maranatha Assemblies of God Church to rezone the property at 927 E. North Street, more specifically described as: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Part of Vacated Alley Described as Commencing at the Northwest PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 12 Corner of Lot 14, Thence North 3.96 Feet, East 132 Feet, South 3.96 Feet, West 132 Feet to the point of beginning; Replat of Block 3 of Ballards Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the construction of a new church building on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The property at 433 S. Magnolia is zoned "B" Residential and is regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show that the property has been used as a church at least since 1941. The Assessor's Records shows that the church was built in the early 1930's. The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing church and utilize the basement for a Sunday school and Fellowship Hall. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the church has always been operating as a church with continuous services. Also, the structure to the north of the existing church is being proposed for a rectory for the church. The use of the structure to the north as a rectory does not change its conforming status as a single family dwelling in the "B" Residential District. The applicant is therefore, requesting a Class A Nonconforming status to allow a second story addition onto the existing church. This is not a matter of rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 13 Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity. 2. No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted. 3. The applicant be required to construct at least 3 on site, hardsurfaced, handicapped parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office. 4. Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines. 5. The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office. 6. All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit. 7. The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about item 3 regarding the parking spaces and if the Board would indicate which 3 spaces would be for handicapped. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office did not know how many handicapped parking spaces the Building Safety Office would require and that it may be based on occupancy. Two parking spaces are required for the home and may only have to construct 4 or 5 parking spaces. No more than 6 parking spaces could be constructed. Ms. Foster stated that the church is constructing parking spaces because the handicapped spaces are needed. Mr. Ruff stated that normally if the Planning Office require, through the zoning code, 150 parking spaces, there would be a barrier free accessibility requirement for maybe 6 barrier free spaces. In this situation, the church cannot place all the parking that is normally required on the site. There will need to be some work done in evaluating the construction plans versus what the City's parking requirement would be and what Building Safety estimates to be the required handicapped spaces. In a reasonable sense, it would be nice if the church would know if there was a need for however many handicapped spaces that the church would provide. If the requirement is 2 spaces and the church needs 3 spaces, it would be better for the church to provide 3 handicapped spaces. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Cordill inquired at the time of the hearing, there would be a removal of the ramp in the front. Mr. Ruff stated that there would only be one ramp. Ms. Cordill stated that the plan showed two ramps. Ms. Stachowiak stated that both ramps were in the plans so the church could choose which ramp to construct. The south side ramp was chosen eliminating the ramp in the front of the church. Mr. Ruff stated that in the motion the Board could recognize that there would only be a ramp on one side of the building. This was accepted by the Board. Ms. Cordill stated that there is definitely potential in the architecture of the building. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity, (2) No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted, (3) The applicant construct a maximum of 6 hardsurfaced parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office, (4) Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines, (5) The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office, (6) All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit, and (7) The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. Note: Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting a Class "A" nonconforming status for substantial renovation to the residential structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue in the "F" Commercial District. The applicant has stated that the structure will continue to be used for a single family home. The property is nonconforming for use since residential is only permitted as a secondary use to a primary commercial use in the "F" District. In addition, Section 1268.06 requires a 20 foot front yard setback in the "F" Commercial District. The subject PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 15 property has a 9 foot front yard setback. Section 1294.11(d) of the Zoning Code restricts restoration of a Class B nonconformity to 35 percent of the fair market value of the structure. According to the Assessor's records, the valuation of the structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue is $16,700. Therefore, the maximum rehabilitation allowed at 35% of the structure, without approval of a Class "A" is $5,845. The applicant intends to invest $22,000 in rehabilitation work to this structure if a Class A nonconformity is approved. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff is recommending approval of the request, with the following conditions: 1. The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', 2. The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's funding of this rehabilitation and if the Historic guidelines would be followed for the restoration. Mr. Ruff stated that this request went through the review process and that he was not sure of the outcome. The environmental reviews go through a process (i.e. check if there is a non-conformity, if the location qualifies for use of CDBG funds) and then the environmental review goes before historic preservation. If there has to be a review for historic preservation purposes, that is done as well. If this review is positive, then the City would use guidelines for the restoration. The specifications would be drawn up in such a way that it would use the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Frederick noted the T1-11 siding and that he would like to add a third condition for the T1-11 to be removed or covered with appropriate matching siding of some sort. Ms. Foster stated that all these renovations should start following the LEAD standards that would be eventually approved by the State. She inquired about how this could be done. Mr. Ruff stated that no more than $22,000.00 can be spent on this rehabilitation even if there are additional repairs needed. Ms. Foster stated that even though the budget may be limited, what might be spent on one type of appliance versus another may in the long run save the City or the resident some money. She was not sure if there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 16 could be an option for energy star rated appliances. Mr. Ruff was not sure. The City should set a standard and be energy efficient. If the Board would like to do this, then a motion would need to be made and the Committee would need to review it. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', (2) The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval, and (3) Remove and/or cover existing T1-11 siding and replace with similar siding to the existing home. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that a revised Planning Board member list had been prepared and given to each member. If the Board could review the information, make any necessary changes, and give the information to the Planning Office, then corrections will be made. Ms. Cordill stated that she would be able to participate on the Urban Development Committee. Ms. Foster added a name correction and stated that Sissi P. Foster would be fine. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 17 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) f. Z-16-2002&PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C"Residential District and 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-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that since he had a handicap permit, he did notice that in general there are not enough handicap parking spaces anymore and asked if it could be addressed. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that at the yellow house on north Cedar Street just south of the Temple Club the truck is back. Ms. Cordill stated with Pryer's Towing Service there was some discussion if a call was made after business hours the employees may bring the towing truck to the employee residence. Mr. Ruff clarified stating that if the employee is on call in this type of business, sometime the employee will take the tow truck home and park it in the driveway. When a call comes in, the employee responds. This is not legal in Lansing. This would be using the employee's property for a non- authorized use. It is not a residential use and does not fit into the home occupation ordinance use for this vehicle. People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated with the operation of a residence. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 18 Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station at the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads has some terrible light pollution associated with their canopy lights under their overhang. The lights shine into the neighbor's window. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board NOTE: CORRECTIONS MADE Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 23, place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 24, "this" s/b "This", "does add some" s/b "eliminates the"; Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 25, "with less spaces" s/b "at the north west corner of the site."; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 6, "dumpster" s/b "addition"; place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 41h para., line 7, "and it was not shown in" s/b "The neighboring residences were not shown on"; Pg. 11, in the motion para., 3rd line, "design" s/b "designed"; Pg. 13, 2nd para., 1st line, add "maximum number of 6 after the word "the" Pg. 13, 2nd para., 2nd line, "which 3 spaces" s/b "how many of those spaces"; Pg. 13, 2nd para., 41h line, "handicapped" s/b "handicapper" Pg. 17, under#11, 2nd para., 2nd line, "towing" s/b "tow"; Pg. 17, under#11, 2nd para., 8th line, "People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated" s/b "People may not park business vehicles not normally associated". PB Minutes.012103.wpd Draft to Clerk January 27, 2003 Approved 2003 To Clerk 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Stanich. C. Excused absences: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Frederick for the next Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Denny's Auto Diagnosis Inc. regarding SLU-10-2002. B. Letter of opposition from GrandRiver & Logan Muffler & Brake regarding SLU-10-2002. C. Letter of opposition from Bohnet Electric Co. regarding SLU-10-2002. D. Letter of opposition from Gormans Market regarding SLU-10-2002. E. Letter of opposition from Hitches-N-More regarding SLU-10-2002. F. Letter of opposition from Christian Kai Nalett regarding SLU-10-2002. G. Letter of opposition from Charlie Taylor regarding SLU-10-2002. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Jeff Finley, Vice President of Northside Towing and Service, located at 226 Russell Street, stated that Northside Towing and Service is another towing firm PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 2 in the area and that the company has been in Lansing since 1967. Northside Towing and Service was located at 205 N. Larch when the City brought in the baseball stadium. At that time, the company was asked to relocate. From his standpoint, Northside Towing and Service and other businesses in the area did a good job for the City. The company left the area and moved on to better things. He stated that in 1994, the company looked at some property located on Logan Street, south of the Grand River. Northside Towing and Service had discussed moving a towing service into that area. Some of the comments given at that time with Grand River Road being the main strip from the airport to the capital, the City wanted to keep it clean. Northside Towing and Service was asked to do other things, and when the company returned at a later date, the request was denied. The company ended up off the beaten path just up the road and hidden back off the road. Other towing services (i.e. Mac's, Bill's Wrecker Service) have been asked and required to do the same thing. Once again in 1994, Northside Towing and Service was asked to relocate because of all the cars and other things that happen in the towing business and the company obliged the City. If the City could do the same in this case, Northside Towing and Service would certainly appreciate it. Dave Schneider, of Pryers Towing and resident of 2416 W. Willow, stated that it is difficult to put people at ease or explain how the company will address the concerns of the people if he is not aware of the information written in the letters of opposition. Pryers Towing would work with the City and do everything possible for the City not to notice the company. Mr. Frederick offered Mr. Schneider some time to review the letters of opposition and would allow Mr. Schneider to give additional comments. Mr. Frederick reviewed the letters of opposition. Mr. Schneider appreciated the concerns of the neighbors. With these concerns all he can do is put the Board and the neighbors at ease. Pryers Towing has every intention of making this a good looking location. The City probably will not notice the company once the trees and bushes are added in the front of the property. To reassure the neighbors, Board and Committees, the City will not allow a business to move to this location and not improve the area. That would be against what the City is trying to do. With the zoning of the property, the company can become a towing company. Pryers Towing has invested in two new trucks within the last six months and has pictures available if the Board would like to review them. By investing this much money into the company, obviously the image of the company is very important. Pryers Towing would like a good place where people can see that it is a good place. This would include a nice looking building, make repairs to the current building, nice signage and screening. If anyone has been by the site lately or since the last occupant, Pryers Towing has made tremendous repairs to the site. Mr. Schneider stated that he owned another business down the road (the car wash at 1811 N. Grand River), and that he wants the area to nice. The old car wash was in disrepair and was demolished. He made a lot of improvements to this site to make it look PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 3 nice for the area, and it really improved the area. This is his only track record and reassurances that he can give. He made improvements to one site, less than one block away, and he does not intend to run a business that looks dilapidated. He stated that with screening, Pryers Towing is more than willing to comply to make the site look nice. Anyone who sees the company's name and the investments made, would see that Pryers Towing desires to have a good looking name. Mr. Schneider stated that Pryers Towing will be an improvement to the area and that the company will continue to work with the City to make the site a better place. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 7, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of January 7, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PG 4, 15t PARA, 8tn LINE, "INCHES" SIB "ENTRANCES"; PG 5, 2ND PARA, 7TH LINE, "EAST" SIB "NORTH"; PG 18, 1ST PARA, 5TH LINE, "REG" SIB "RED"; PG 20, 15t PARA, 5tn LINE, "FACE" SIB "PHASE". Mr. Ruge stated that the minutes expressed much more detail of what happened during the meeting. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Pryer's Towing, L.L.C. to permit a storage yard for towed vehicles at 2621 N. Grand River Avenue. Storage yards are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 4 Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot and will not be used as a salvage yard. 2. The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process. 3. The parking lot is hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. 4. A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08. 5. All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs. 6. Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater. 7. The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan. 8. The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished. 9. Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site. 10. The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruff encouraged that item 3 should read, "The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material." Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Keene inquired about item 4, what it would entail, and how much screening would be required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is 5 shrubs for each 20 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway, and 1 tree for each 30 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway. Ms. Keene inquired about what the landscape would look like. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the trees have to be a minimum of 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting and that the minimum starting size on the shrubs is 24 inches in height and spread. It will not provide a complete screen. Mr. Ruff stated that the most unesthetically things about the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 5 site is the fence right up at the sidewalk, and the very large curb cut which is paved through a large area. With the site, the fence should be relocated behind the front line of the building, place the customer parking in the front with a landscape buffer for the customer parking, and place the additional landscaping and screening for the fence next to the fence behind the front of the building. It would help put the building more in character with its commercial setting and realistically restrict all of the storage of vehicles to the fenced in area which would be entirely out of the front yard area. The tow trucks and any towed vehicles would be behind the front line of the building. The company proposed that the storage area be in the very rear of the site. The fence was place to the front of the property line to secure cars that were for sale. This will not be the situation for this request. These kinds of changes could drastically improve the esthetics. As long as the towed vehicles are not be seen that would not be an esthetic issue. Currently the building is surrounded by a compound-type fence and is very uninviting. There could not be any enforcement action without a special land use or major improvements to the property (i.e. building addition). This is an opportunity even though Pryer's Towing is requesting an additional level of use of the property to what is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District. This is also an opportunity to make improvements and to improve the esthetics of the street frontage. The site is not very large or intense but is classified the same as a land use. Ms. Keene stated that her primary concern was what the landscape would like and that the City could do better at enforcing these types of things. Mr. Ruge stated that he would suggest this be an added condition. Ms. Foster inquired about the towing services and if the fence would even be needed. Mr. Ruff stated that the fence would be for security purposes, and that if the company had a tow truck on site, the company would want to secure it. Ms. Foster inquired about the site plan review process and if it would force the issue of breaking up some of the landscaping. Mr. Ruff stated not against another industrial use but up against the street frontage, it certainly would. The parking lot will not be screened for the customers. The idea with the landscaping is to soften the view. The screening would be in the requirement to the storage area. The landscaping could take on two different aspects. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 6 Ms. Foster inquired about the ideal curb cut for the site. Mr. Ruff stated that a commercial curb cut would be required and depending on circulation, Pryer's Towing made need to have two of them: 1 on the east and 1 on the west sides of the building. Driving around the front of the building and making circulation are not very easy. Commercial curb cuts are around 30 feet and are significant for this. This is site specific and the Planning Office would have to work with Pryer's Towing regarding this. Mr. Ruge inquired about the storage/impound area and if it would be screened on all four sides. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the area would have to be completely screened. Mr. McConnell inquired about the screening and buffering and if it would be around the impound area, or around the building and including the front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different areas in the way the recommendation reads. One area that would require screening is the parking area in the front of the property, and is covered under item 4. Under item 7, the screening would be additional to item 4. Mr. McConnell inquired about screening in the form of trees or a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that the entire site is fenced in and if there is no storm water detention required whether it be a detention basin as stated in item 12, then he could see Pryer's Towing keeping the fence around 3 sides of the property, except for the very front, and moving that fence back then providing screening on that fence and using the landscaping for screening in the front. Mr. McConnell inquired about this providing adequate buffering so that the impounded vehicles would not be seen from the street. Mr. Ruff stated that would be correct. Mr. Ruge stated that this would make the site look a lot been than its current state. He is always concerned with issues of fairness with the City. The gentleman from Northside Towing and Service indicated that his company wanted to have their towing business in this similar area but were asked to not be in this area because of it being the "Gateway to the City." He asked Mr. Ruff to address this issue. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different types of businesses that are referenced here: (1) This property is zoned Light Industrial; (2) Northside Towing and Service's property is zoned Heavy Industrial which allows the storage yard by right, not by special land use. There are some zoning code differences. The size of the property of this request is smaller than the site that would have been PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 7 reviewed by Northside Towing and Service at 2525 N. Grand River. That site was a Light Industrial site and the current location is a Heavy Industrial site. Both sites may allow some salvage operations whereas this would not. The key here from a zoning standpoint is that this site could be used for a lot of uses that could all appear the same, if properly completed, with none of them being negative to the area. Mr. McConnell inquired about the status of a sign located on the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated there Pryer's Towing does not have a license for selling vehicles on the site and that the current license is for towing. One of the conditions is that all non-conforming signs be removed including the roof signs. Ms. Foster inquired about a detention basin. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Public Service would make the decision during the site plan review process. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District with the conditions that (1) This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot and will not be used as a salvage yard, (2) The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process, (3) The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material, (4) A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08, (5) All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs, (6) Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater, (7) The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan, (8) The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished, (9) Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site, (10) The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office, (11) The use of cleanable grease traps and catch basins for contaminant run-off, (12) Phytoremediation be used for the detention basin, if required, (13) Vehicles cannot remain on the site for more than 60 days, (14) The improvements be completed within one year from the date of this approval, and (15) Move fence to behind the front line of the building. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. Aye Foster. Ave McConnell Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 8 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Solid Rock MB Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a church. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process, 2. Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about screening and if evergreens would be a preferred option as to a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that there may be a preferred option by the neighbors from a maintenance standpoint. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process, (2) Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density, and (3) Screening of the parking area be provided along Tisdale Avenue. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Aye Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 9 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by Rick Postema on behalf of Tendercare, Incorporated nursing home located at 2100 Provincial House Drive, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The nursing home is nonconforming as it is located in the "A" Residential District, which does not permit nursing homes. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate an additional 30 beds in the nursing home. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming building at 2100 Provincial House Drive. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The addition will be design in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical. 2. The west property line will be landscaped with shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office. 3. The provision of an 8 feet wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site. 4. Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance. 5. An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line. 6. Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. 7. The dumpster be moved away from the residents as much as possible. 8. The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed during construction and roots pruned at the disturbance line. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Pagel 0 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated with item 2 the Committee discussed flowering shrubs to add the interest rather than only shrubs. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Foster stated with item 8 the tree protection fence should be installed before construction. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Mr. Ruff inquired about the fence and if it was the applicant's proposal not to have a fence. Ms. Foster stated that was correct. Rick Postema, a representative of the architect's office, stated that the issue with the fence is the equality of life of the resident and that Tendercare would like for the residents to view the outdoors. Tendercare is enforced by the Health Department to keep a clear vision area of 20 feet directly in front of the windows. The only way this area can be screened entirely is with a fence because any landscape material would be inside the 20 feet perimeter. His understanding is that the Board is referring to flowering shrubbery and landscaping but not creating a screen more of clumps between the windows. Mr. Ruff stated that was correct. The other issue is that Tendercare would keep the dumpster further away from the resident. His understanding is that the dumpster would be screened in at the current designated dumpster area. Ms. Foster stated that currently the dumpster was moved because of the winter conditions and that it is preferable for the dumpster to stay at this area. Mr. Postema stated that this would be closer to the neighboring residents. Ms. Foster stated that it would be closer to the building. Mr. Ruff stated that this would required a newly designed area for the dumpster. Mr. Postema stated that there was a discussion about eliminating parking because an 8 foot landscape buffer could not be maintained, this proposal creates an 8 foot buffer and does add some parking with less spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was to eliminate enough parking so that the 8 foot buffer could be accommodated. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to modify item 7, and that at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Tendercare indicated that it was their intention to enclose the dumpster with some type of screening. He would like to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 11 add to item 7 that the dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed. Ms. Cordill stated that the neighborhood association would be meeting tonight and did not have an opportunity to address this case. When she visited the site, the area to the west is somewhat limited. One of the comments from the communications was that the plan did not indicate how close the dumpster would be to the condominiums to the west, and it was not shown in the drawings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Tendercare would be meeting the required setback of 20 feet and that it is mapped on the plans. Ms. Cordill inquired about the current setback with the condominiums. Mr. Postema stated that the current building is 43 feet from the property line. Mr. Ruff stated that the condominiums are condensed on the site and were approved for variances for either the front or rear yard setbacks. There should be at least 6 feet on that side and that there would only be approximately 26 feet between the buildings. Mr. Ruge stated that there was a nice line of trees at the property line. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The addition will be design in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical, (2) The west property line will be landscaped to include flowering shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office, (3) The provision of an 8 foot wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site, (4) Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, (5) An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line, (6) Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties, (7) The dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed, (8) The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed before construction with roots pruned at the disturbance line. Frederick . . Aye Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Aye Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 12 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Maranatha Assemblies of God Church to rezone the property at 927 E. North Street, more specifically described as: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Part of Vacated Alley Described as Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Lot 14, Thence North 3.96 Feet, East 132 Feet, South 3.96 Feet, West 132 Feet to the point of beginning; Replat of Block 3 of Ballards Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the construction of a new church building on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Aye Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The property at 433 S. Magnolia is zoned "B" Residential and is regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show that the property has been used as a church at least since 1941. The Assessor's Records shows PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 13 that the church was built in the early 1930's. The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing church and utilize the basement for a Sunday school and Fellowship Hall. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the church has always been operating as a church with continuous services. Also, the structure to the north of the existing church is being proposed for a rectory for the church. The use of the structure to the north as a rectory does not change its conforming status as a single family dwelling in the "B" Residential District. The applicant is therefore, requesting a Class A Nonconforming status to allow a second story addition onto the existing church. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity. 2. No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted. 3. The applicant be required to construct at least 3 on site, hardsurFaced, handicapped parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office. 4. Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines. 5. The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office. 6. All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit. 7. The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about item 3 regarding the parking spaces and if the Board would indicate which 3 spaces would be for handicapped. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office did not know how many handicapped parking spaces the Building Safety Office would require and that it may be based on occupancy. Two parking spaces are required for the home and may only have to construct 4 or 5 parking spaces. No more than 6 parking spaces could be constructed. Ms. Foster stated that the church is constructing parking spaces because the handicapped spaces are needed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Ruff stated that normally if the Planning Office require, through the zoning code, 150 parking spaces, there would be a barrier free accessibility requirement for maybe 6 barrier free spaces. In this situation, the church cannot place all the parking that is normally required on the site. There will need to be some work done in evaluating the construction plans versus what the City's parking requirement would be and what Building Safety estimates to be the required handicapped spaces. In a reasonable sense, it would be nice if the church would know if there was a need for however many handicapped spaces that the church would provide. If the requirement is 2 spaces and the church needs 3 spaces, it would be better for the church to provide 3 handicapped spaces. Ms. Cordill inquired at the time of the hearing, there would be a removal of the ramp in the front. Mr. Ruff stated that there would only be one ramp. Ms. Cordill stated that the plan showed two ramps. Ms. Stachowiak stated that both ramps were in the plans so the church could choose which ramp to construct. The south side ramp was chosen eliminating the ramp in the front of the church. Mr. Ruff stated that in the motion the Board could recognize that there would only be a ramp on one side of the building. This was accepted by the Board. Ms. Cordill stated that there is definitely potential in the architecture of the building. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity, (2) No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted, (3) The applicant construct a maximum of 6 hardsurfaced parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office, (4) Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines, (5) The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office, (6) All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit, and (7) The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. Note: Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . Aye Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 15 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting a Class "A" nonconforming status for substantial renovation to the residential structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue in the "F" Commercial District. The applicant has stated that the structure will continue to be used for a single family home. The property is nonconforming for use since residential is only permitted as a secondary use to a primary commercial use in the "F" District. In addition, Section 1268.06 requires a 20 foot front yard setback in the "F" Commercial District. The subject property has a 9 foot front yard setback. Section 1294.11(d) of the Zoning Code restricts restoration of a Class B nonconformity to 35 percent of the fair market value of the structure. According to the Assessor's records, the valuation of the structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue is $16,700. Therefore, the maximum rehabilitation allowed at 35% of the structure, without approval of a Class "A" is $5,845. The applicant intends to invest $22,000 in rehabilitation work to this structure if a Class A nonconformity is approved. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff is recommending approval of the request, with the following conditions.- 1. The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', 2. The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's funding of this rehabilitation and if the Historic guidelines would be followed for the restoration. Mr. Ruff stated that this request went through the review process and that he was not sure of the outcome. The environmental reviews go through a process (i.e. check if there is a non-conformity, if the location qualifies for use of CDBG funds) and then the environmental review goes before historic preservation. If there has to be a review for historic preservation purposes, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 16 that is done as well. If this review is positive, then the City would use guidelines for the restoration. The specifications would be drawn up in such a way that it would use the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Frederick noted the T1-11 on the siding and that he would like to add a third condition for the T1-11 be removed or covered with appropriate matching siding of some sort. Ms. Foster stated that all these renovations should start following the LEAD standards that would be eventually approved by the State. She inquired about how this could be done. Mr. Ruff stated that no more than $22,000.00 can be spent on this rehabilitation even if there are additional repairs needed. Ms. Foster stated that even though the budget may be limited, what might be spent on one type of appliance versus another may in the long run save the City or the resident some money. She was not sure if there could be an option for energy star rated appliances. Mr. Ruff was not sure. The City should set a standard and be energy efficient. If the Board would like to do this, then a motion would need to be made and the Committee would need to review it. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', (2) The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval, and (3) Remove and/or cover existing T1-11 siding and replace with similar siding to the existing home. Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Aye Keene. Aye Foster. Aye McConnell Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 17 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that a revised Planning Board member list had been prepared and given to each member. If the Board could review the information, make any necessary changes, and give the information to the Planning Office, then corrections will be made. Ms. Cordill stated that she would be able to participate on the Urban Development Committee. Ms. Foster added a name correction and stated that Sissi P. Foster would be fine. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road, Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F" Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development g. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Class"A" Nonconforming Status (Tabled November 26, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour, Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that since he had a handicap permit, he did notice that in general there are not enough handicap parking spaces anymore and asked if it could be addressed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 18 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that at the yellow house on north Cedar Street just south of the Temple Club the truck is back. Ms. Cordill stated with Pryer's Towing Service there was some discussion if a call was made after business hours the employees may bring the towing truck to the employee residence. Mr. Ruff clarified stating that if the employee is on call in this type of business, sometime the employee will take the tow truck home and park it in the driveway. When a call comes in, the employee responds. This is not legal in Lansing. This would be using the employee's property for a non- authorized use. It is not a residential use and does not fit into the home occupation ordinance use for this vehicle. People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated with the operation of a residence. Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station at the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads has some terrible light pollution associated with their canopy lights under their overhang. The lights shine into the neighbor's window. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8.45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.012103.wpd PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 2 One item that complicates the process is that the greater Lansing region has 78 separate units of government, many of which have their own planning and zoning authority. When a regional vision is discussed, it talks about a greatly improved coordination and have the minds of those participating in it. The TCRPC knew starting out that there was already a challenge to be able to achieve along with the goals. As part of this project, the TCRPC seeks to engage: 1) Governments, Citizens and Stakeholder Groups, 2) Seek links to establish a general consensus on a preferred regional vision and continue on to regional growth, 3) Develop techniques and action strategies that local governments could use if the shared vision is reached, and 4) Implement a technique or method to monitor change over time. It has taken the region many years to reach its current level in terms of the kind of roof patterns and developments seen. It would take a number of years to get some of the trends under managed growth. The TCRPC started data collection and mapping as early as 1998, and there was a lot of work done prior to the consultants coming on board. The TCRPC also did some updating on land use information like collecting zoning ordinances and master plans, and placing them in one geographic information system. This is the generalized chart of the project since the consultants have been involved. Even though the TCRPC has gone through the steps, the yellow boxes on the chart indicate the major regional forums that were held at critical phases during the project. TCRPC then reviewed the alternatives and developed a third action plan. The boxes at the bottom were the numerous task forces and committees that were formed. The Planning staff served on the larger stakeholder group, which had ninety people, but was a committee that was to large to do anything. This group was broken down into functional task forces and committees to tackle specific problems. The TCRPC went through its own series of looking at the trends (e.g. population). This was the projection in growth from 1950 to 2000. The TCRPC was being somewhat optimistic regarding the population and increase in the population growth over the next few decades. However, when the TCRPC's growth is reviewed and compared to Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor or Traverse City, the City's projection is quite a bit lower. Growth, in terms of population, is not the problem. It is how the population is distributed which causes concern. Some housing trends were reviewed, in particular, the number of people per household. There was a decline in population per household and therefore even though there is a small population growth, the region still has a demand for housing because of the downward trend in the number of people per household. The TCRPC reviewed a number of trends pertaining to how people were dispersed over the three county region. The population in the urban areas is staying the same. Another way is to review building trends. In 1980, there was only 29% of new housing permits in the rural areas outside the listed governments. In 1998, over half of the building permits PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 3 were in the rural areas. This next graph illustrates the older part of Lansing in 1938 and over the next 40 years. Most is pretty well contained around the inner region. In the last area, there is not nearly as much red as there is green. The reason for this is because a lot of that development now is out in the rural areas. One impact of that is a conversion of a lot of agricultural land in the three county area to other uses, primarily residential. To understand the loss of 120 square miles from 1978 to 1999, it may be helpful to know that a township is about 36 square miles. In Ingham County, for example, there was a loss because of agricultural use of the township. Given those trends and some of the analysis done, Tri-County started reviewing and charting items that were placed into major categories: 1) Build out, with the assumption that there are no significant changes to the existing zoning, and that communities would build out at the densities of the zoning, 2) Trend alternative, with business as usual and no changes, 3) "Wise Growth" alternative, which reviewed the more compact development, and 4) "Wise Growth" scenario using the build out numbers which were much higher. The TCRPC reviewed some computer model techniques and these were some of the maps that were generated and displayed the existing zoning. The same thing applied to the Trend and "Business As Usual" scenarios. The "Wise Growth" scenario was a multi-packed development pattern. Once TCRPC added the different land use scenarios, then an evaluation process was implemented, and it consisted of eight elements: 1) Community Services, 2) Environment, 3) Environmental Justice, 4) Utilities, 5) Cost of Public Services, 6) Transportation, 7) Land Use, and 8) Quality of Life. The TCRPC went through a process at the December forum, where they reviewed the principles (i.e. Trend, Business As Usual) and criteria. The actual participants attended the forums and voted on these criteria. As TCRPC went through the process, the people could then vote. The TCRPC spent several hours reviewing these and discussing the related data that was applied to community service and the data tied to the environmental land pact. Once this was completed, the TCRPC had people vote. When all the information was gathered, 79% of the people preferred the "Wise Growth" scenario, 15% preferred Business As Usual, and 6% did not like either approach. This led to the development of a regional vision based on the input received from different sources (i.e. forms, surveys). The TCRPC developed a regional vision map which displayed allocation of different types of land uses. The yellow areas are areas in which there is existing urban core development. A lot of the strategies and goals that were developed were to ensure the utilization of the infrastructure, existing communities, and encourage redevelopment where necessary. Surrounding this, is a category called Focus Growth Area, which recognizes a need to continue growth in the urban service area. These are existing urban townships and housing communities. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 4 The next area is the Cluster Development Area which allows for development in cluster housing, and is approximately 50% of the land that is not developed but is to be maintained as open space, park or recreational uses. This is the plan with the principles and themes are all in the document that was given to each Board member. The reason this was developed was that TCRPC tried to refine the input so it would reflect what was done on the project. Ms. Keene inquired about other areas of the state and if these areas were successful in implementing a Tri-County regional plan similar to the Lansing area. Mr. Coleman stated that the Southeast Council of Governments, a number of years ago, did a regional plan that was not quite as detailed. The Grand Rapids area has been doing a Blue Print plan on a regional basis. It is more Kent County and the surrounding urbanized area but not multi-county. They are reviewing some of the similar kinds of issues. Ms. Keene inquired about the cooperation from the outlying townships. Mr. Coleman stated that there has been some success in areas. Mr. Rieske inquired about the size of the stakeholder committee. Mr. Coleman stated approximately 90. Ms. Foster inquired about creating a regional zoning map. Mr. Coleman stated that in some parts of the region it may become possible (i.e. Eaton Rapids). Mr. Rieske stated that the map discusses development areas and not what is developed within those areas. The blue area is supposed to be open space, agricultural-type area that is going to be developed in a cluster fashion rather than in a sprawl fashion with a house on every five acres. This does not describe land uses but describes the phasing of the land development. Another part is the white area that reflects agricultural areas. All the agricultural districts within the Tri-County area allow single family houses. There would have to be a text amendment changed to meet the zoning ordinances in order to require large lots. Then non-conformities are being created. Ms. Foster noted that some people would have larger yards than others. There are a lot of farmers out there who plan on selling their land for a retirement fund. If this is a retirement fund, maybe an introduction of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) would help so this land could stay as a farm and other areas could be developed. Mr. Coleman stated that one big hope for preserving agricultural land is more in the area of Purchase Development Rights (PDRs) by a local unit or nonprofit. (TDRs are not allowed in Michigan.) Ms. Cordill stated that trying to overcome the parochial interests especially during times when revenues are low and with what development may occur, the competition must be pretty fierce. She would be interested in knowing how to approach this in terms of implementation. Mr. Coleman stated that the development could not occur without providing sewer and water services. The key is a "425 Agreement" approach that would always be in the best interests of the local governments, in which they sit down, review this plan, and determine where development occurs. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Foster stated that she noticed the TCRPC's areas for preservation and that these areas are pretty broken up. She inquired about reviewing the wildlife aspects of the region so that the City could make space for the wildlife in the plan. Mr. Coleman stated that this is still under consideration. Ms. Foster stated that even as a guideline for what is ideal to try to buy back or create natural corridors for the sake of ecological health and wildlife in the region. Mr. Coleman stated that the TCRPC has a Regional Recreational Committee that is reviewing the extensions of some of the corridors. Mr. Rieske stated that some of the corridors are too narrow, in terms of land mass, to map with the technology currently used to generate the maps. Mr. Coleman stated that on a regional basis, there are maps that show all the bi-paths and rivertrails in the GIS format and are very detailed. 7. RECESS - None. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of February 4, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of February 4, 2003 were APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. Pg. 8, 3`d para., line 4, "promote" s/b "prevent". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Because of only one Committee member in attendance at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, the meeting was adjourned and discussions would follow at the next meeting. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next regular meeting, Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 6 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is working on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and hopefully will have information available to action on at the next meeting. The Planning Office is working on the focus areas to define a process for involving stakeholders and members of the public, and to incorporate the recommendations received from other agencies (i.e. the Southside Summit). The Regional Growth information is also being reviewed. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C"Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he was glad to be back. He thanked the other Board member for their cards that he received for his surgery. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding taxation. She inquired about the information and if it had been reviewed. Mr. Rieske stated that the information had not yet been reviewed. Mr. McConnell thanked Mr. Rieske for the information he received and appreciated the follow-up that was done. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 7 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.021803.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk February 7,2003 PG 8, 3`d PARA.,41h LINE, "PROMOTE" S/B "PREVENT" Approved February 18,2003 To Clerk February 19,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 4, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Vice Chairperson Foster. A. Roll call: Present: Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: Frederick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 21 , 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of January 21, 2002 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 2 Pg. 10, 2"d para., line 23, place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 2"d para., line 24, "this" s/b "This", "does add some" s/b "eliminates the"; Pg. 10, 2"d para., line 25, "with less spaces" s/b "at the north west corner of the site."; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 6, "dumpster" s/b "addition"; place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 7, "and it was not shown in" s/b "The neighboring residences were not shown on"; Pg. 11, in the motion para., 3rd line, "design" s/b "designed"; Pg. 13, 2"d para., 1st line, add "maximum number of 6 after the word "the" Pg. 13, 2"d para., 2"d line, "which 3 spaces" s/b "how many of those spaces"; Pg. 13, 2"d para., 4th line, "handicapped" s/b "handicapper" Pg. 17, under #11, 2"d para., 2"d line, "towing" s/b "tow"; Pg. 17, under#11, 2"d para., 8th line, "People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated" s/b "People may not park business vehicles not normally associated". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Keene reported that Ms. Keene was elected as Chairperson and Ms. Cordill was elected as Vice Chairperson. b. Act-17-2002, 900 Blk W Washtenaw - Butler to MLK, Relocate Utility Easements The applicant, Sam Eyde Construction Company, 2502 Coolidge Road, requests that the City vacate and relocate a utility easement located in the 900-1000 Blk of W. Washtenaw between Butler and M.L. King Jr., Blvd. for the construction of an office development pursuant to the revised Seven Block Area Development Plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 3 The subject segment of W. Washtenaw was vacated by City Council Resolution #328 on July 23, 2001 (Act-28-98), reserving a utility easement running east-west in the Washtenaw ROW. The proposed easement would run north-south, parallel to the west property line along MLK. There were no objections from the various agencies regarding the proposal. Sam Eyde Construction, on behalf of the Seven Block LLC, wishes to construct two office buildings on the site: a three- story building about 45' in height and 150,000 square feet in size, and a two-story building approximately 10,000 square feet in size. These buildings, if constructed, will be connected in middle and straddle the current easement. Relocating the easement as proposed would make it serviceable without disturbing the building. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about the easement and why it was done the way it was shown in the drawing. A discussion ensued regarding the diagrams provided by the applicant. Ms. Foster inquired about the water main and if it would be moved. Mr. Rieske stated that it is at the applicant's expense. The easement currently has a 12 inch sanitary and 12 inch storm sewer. The responses from utilities is to make sure the utilities have addressed the proposal and ultimately are aware of the fact that the utilities will need to be relocated, that an easement has been worked out with the applicant, and that Board of Water and Light and Public Service have done so. The gas line will go inside the easement. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-17-2002, 900 Bilk W Washtenaw - Butler to MILK, Relocate Utility Easements. Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 4 C. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources including Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 2003-2004 Mr. Emil Winnicker presented the information before the Committee and there was a discussion including these points: 1. The dollar figures are estimates until they are approved by Congress and City Council. 2. Revenues are down due to the 2000 Census which reported a population decline. 3. HOME program funds can only be used for housing. 4. CDBG funds two community police officers and temporary help for Kids Camp and the Letts Center. 5. of the Lansing Neighborhood Council allocation is for Neighborhoods `N' Bloom. 6. The HOME program includes a set-aside for the funding of Community Housing Development Organizations (CHODOs), in addition to their project funds. 7. The City administers the program with two rehab agents who qualify applicants & package loans; and four inspectors who write specifications & inspect the work. 8. The typical work on a housing rehab project is about 80% code items and 20-% weatherization & optional items. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources including Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 2003-2004. Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 5 d. Discussion of Capital Improvement Program, 2004-2009 In Committee, Mr. Rieske distributed information including background on the process (11/26/02 UDC packet), the agency CIP requests (1/21/03), and the project types (1/28/03 UDC packet). Committee members offered the following comments: 1. Mr. McConnell asked for additional information about Parks project #7: Basketball repairs at Gier, Marshall, Ormand, & Quentin parks; and tennis court repairs at Kingsley and St. Joseph parks (north 3). Specifically, he asked about the breakdown of expenditures among the parks, and how much is devoted to Letts Community Center. 2. Ms. Cordill asked about sidewalk repair standards. The Committee took no action on this item. e. 2003 Urban Development Committee Meeting Schedule In Committee, the members decided by consensus to approve the 2003 UDC schedule, which calls for meetings on the 41h Tuesday of each month, excluding December. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Ruff had been designated the interim Department Director. Mr. Rieske stated that in the Master Plan, the Planning Office will be reviewing the focus areas that the Mayor had outlined as being the three corridors (South Cedar, South Martin Luther King, and East Grand River). There may be a possibility of rather than suggesting district plans, the Planning Office would look at focus areas. Sometimes the old district plans have large areas with no recommendations pertaining to them. The district plan recommendations focus primarily on the problems within those districts. Why not focus the work on the problem areas instead? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 6 The Planning Office has not gone beyond the discussion stage on this to actually recommend it. It is something that might open the possibility for looking harder at the areas that need to be reviewed and spending less time doing demographics on districts that may have arbitrary boundaries in the first place. Part of the funding for the project has been put on hold, so the Planning Office has approximately $90,000.00 or $95,000.00 in the budget for this year. Funding will need to be added in the following years, rather then having a set amount put aside for the entire duration of the project. This will be reviewed at the time a consultant will be hired, and the Planning Office will probably need to make sure that the Council policy of full funding for the plan will be in place. Mr. Rieske reported there is a Michigan State University (MSU) Urban Planning class that is doing grant writing work to find other funding, if possible, for a portion of the Master Plan (i.e. citizen participation, transportation, parks). The Work Program summaries are virtually completed. The next steps are to convert them to a Power Point presentation, circulate them for review by the Planning & Neighborhood Development Department offices (Code Compliance, Building Safety, Economic Development, Transportation, Development), make any necessary changes, and present them to the administration & City Council. Ms. Keene inquired about a statement regarding the Mayor's three focus areas. Mr. Rieske stated that the Mayor's State of the City Address included three priorities (in addition to the State Police building on the triangle property, Boji project, etc.), and since the Planning Office was considering focus areas, beginning work on these three corridors seemed logical. The Planning Office was not referring to scrapping the City wide plan, but rather identifying focus areas through the public participation process and/or the political process, in which the City would take a more intense Planning approach, with a less detailed approach on those areas in between, which may not actually require such an intense approach. Ms. Keene stated that it would make sense especially if there were limited funds and does not make sense to spread things to thin. Mr. Rieske stated that some of the district boundaries needed to be reviewed anyway. In this way, some of the corridors will be reviewed as well as other areas. Mr. McConnell inquired about the focus areas and if it would be reviewed from a residential or commercial business stand point. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is planning on viewing the land uses on Thursday. Mr. Ruge inquired about the focus areas and if it was from South Martin PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 7 Luther King from the City limit to 1-496 or little hot spots. Mr. Rieske stated that this would be discussed on Thursday. Mr. Ruge inquired about the three corridors and if it included Saginaw Street. Mr. Rieske stated not that he knew of, from the State of the City Address. Ms. Keene stated that she thought that there was some reference to the area by the airport. Mr. Rieske stated that he will review it. Mr. Rieske stated that he would like some input from the Board regarding whether or not to invite Mr. Jon Coleman from Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to a meeting for an update on the Regional Growth project. The Board agreed that it would be a good idea to have an update on the project. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F'Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C" Residential District and 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-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene stated that she took an early retirement from the State of Michigan and that as of last Friday, she was retired. Her office number is no longer operational. Mr. McConnell inquired about further documentation for the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funds. Mr. Rieske stated that he did a follow up with the Parks Department on one item and did not bring it to tonight's meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about next week's Zoning and Ordinance Meeting and if the Committee will meet. Mr. Rieske stated that there will be discussion of draft Zoning text amendments at the Committee meeting and that the amendments may not be ready for final action. Ms. Foster stated that she spoke with a Planning professor regarding billboards and what Lansing would need to do to be rid of them. The professor stated that the City should be able to amend the sign ordinance to say that billboards are not allowed, and to give a 5 to 10 year span for this to happen. Ms. Foster inquired about this and if it would be something that could be added while reviewing the Zoning Code. Ms. Cordill stated that this would also tie into the three corridors that were discussed earlier and that this is part of the image problem. Ms. Foster stated that she was not sure whether the Comprehensive Plan can have entrances to the City called the "Welcome Mat." The areas right as people enter the City have extra things added so that it looks nice and people have a good feeling as they enter the City. Ms. Foster inquired about issues with taxation of the land versus the building. There has been discussion regarding so many vacant buildings in Lansing and that housing is a problem. There are too many landlords with houses that are not up to par. The current taxes promote prevent people from fixing up their homes because the more the homes are fixed the more people will be taxed. If the land was taxed, the people would be getting taxed and if the property is not earning then the people will be getting taxed on the land rather than on the building. This would prevent people from putting money into something that is decent. She was not sure how this would be reviewed. Mr. Rieske stated that it would probably be at the level of the State Legislature. Mr. McConnell inquired about starting at the City Council, City Assessor's Office because they developed the mills in which to tax the property. Ms. Foster stated that she would be interested in knowing. Ms. Foster stated that in the book, Home From Nowhere, chapter 7, there was an article regarding taxation, and why it makes sense to tax the land, not the building. She thought that this may help with the City's vacancy and housing problems. This would eliminate slums and blight. This may force the issue by taxing blight at the same rate as a really nice home. People who have blight will not want to pay for it and will either sell the property or do something about it. Ms. Keene inquired about where this taxation is being done so the Board would have a model or something to review. Mr. Rieske stated that State law limits the amount of taxes being raised, and also specifies how much one can abate taxes and under what conditions. What this would amount to is a 100 percent tax abatement on all buildings and a huge increase in property tax on land. This would require State Legislation because the local legislation is not allowed to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that he would review the article and provide feedback. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 9 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.020403.wpd Draft to Clerk February 7,2003 Approved 2003 To Clerk 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 1 J 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council.Chambers. Lansing City Hafl-,' . .. Tuesday, February 4, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Vice Chairperson Foster. A. Roll call: Present: Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: Frederick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 21, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of January 21, 2002 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 2 Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 23, place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 2"d para., line 24, "this" s/b "This", "does add some" s/b "eliminates the"; Pg. 10, 2"d para., line 25, "with less spaces" s/b "at the north west corner of the site."; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 6, "dumpster" s/b "addition"; place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 7, "and it was not shown in" s/b "The neighboring residences were not shown on"; Pg. 11, in the motion para., 3rd line, "design" s/b "designed"; Pg. 13, 2"d para., 1st line, add "maximum number of 6 after the word "the" Pg. 13, 2nd para., 2nd line, "which 3 spaces" s/b "how many of those spaces"; Pg. 13, 2"d para., 4th line, "handicapped" s/b "handicapper" Pg. 17, under #11, 2"d para., 2"d line, "towing" s/b "tow"; Pg. 17, under #11, 2nd para., 8th line, "People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated" s/b "People may not park business vehicles not normally associated". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Keene stated that Ms. Keene was elected as Chairperson and Ms. Cordill was elected as Vice Chairperson. b. Act-17-2002, 900 Blk W Washtenaw - Butler to MLK, Relocate Utility Easements The applicant, Sam Eyde Construction Company, 2502 Coolidge Road, requests that the City vacate and relocate a utility easement located in the 900-1000 Blk of W. Washtenaw between Butler and M.L. King Jr., Blvd. for the construction of an office development pursuant to the revised Seven Block Area Development Plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 3 The subject segment of W. Washtenaw was vacated by City Council Resolution #328 on July 23, 2001 (Act-28-98), reserving a utility easement running east-west in the Washtenaw ROW. The proposed easement would run north-south, parallel to the west property line along MLK. There were no objections from the various agencies regarding the proposal. Sam Eyde Construction, on behalf of the Seven Block LLC, wishes to construct two office buildings on the site: a three- story building about 45' in height and 150,000 square feet in size, and a two-story building approximately 10,000 square feet in size. These buildings, if constructed, will be connected in middle and straddle the current easement. Relocating the easement as proposed would make it serviceable without disturbing the building. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about the easement and why it was done the way it was shown in the drawing. No one knew the answer. Ms. Foster inquired about the water main and if it would be moved. Mr. Rieske stated that it is at the applicant's expense. The easement currently has a 12 inch sanitary and 12 inch storm sewer. The responses from utilities is to make sure the utilities have addressed the proposal and ultimately are aware of the fact that the utilities will need to be relocated, that an easement has been worked out with the applicant, and that Board of Water and Light and Public Service have done so. The gas line will go inside the easement. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-17-2002, 900 Bilk W Washtenaw - Butler to MILK, Relocate Utility Easements. Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 4 C. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources including Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 2003-2004 Mr. Emil Winnicker presented the information before the Committee and there was a discussion including these points: 1. The dollar figures are estimates until they are approved by Congress and City Council. 2. Revenues are down due to the 2000 Census which reported a population decline. 3. HOME program funds can only be used for housing. 4. CDBG funds two community police officers and temporary help for Kids Camp and the Letts Center. 5. of the Lansing Neighborhood Council allocation is for Neighborhoods `N' Bloom. 6. The HOME program includes a set-aside for the funding of Community Housing Development Organizations (CHODOs), in addition to their project funds. 7. The City administers the program with two rehab agents who qualify applicants & package loans; and four inspectors who write specifications & inspect the work. 8. The typical work on a housing rehab project is about 80% code items and 20-% weatherization & optional items. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources including Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 2003-2004. Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 5 d. Discussion of Capital Improvement Program, 2004-2009 In Committee, Mr. Rieske distributed information including background on the process (11/26/02 UDC packet), the agency CIP requests (1/21/03), and the project types (1/28/03 UDC packet). Committee members offered the following comments: 1. Mr. McConnell asked for additional information about Parks project#7: Basketball repairs at Gier, Marshall, Ormand, & Quentin parks; and tennis court repairs at Kingsley and St. Joseph parks (north 3). Specifically, he asked about the breakdown of expenditures among the parks, and how much is devoted to Letts Community Center. 2. Ms. Cordill asked about sidewalk repair standards. During Committee, no action was taken on this item. e. 2003 Urban Development Committee Meeting Schedule In Committee, the members decided by consensus to approve the 2003 UDC schedule, which calls for meetings on the 41h Tuesday of each month, excluding December. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Ruff had been designated the interim Department Director. Mr. Rieske state with the Master Plan, the Planning Office will be reviewing the focus areas that the Mayor had outlined as being the two corridors (South Cedar and South Martin Luther King along with East Grand River). There may be a possibility of rather than suggesting district plans, the Planning Office would look at focus areas. Sometimes the district plans have vast areas of no recommendations pertaining to these things but only to the problems within those districts. Why not focus on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 6 the problems within the districts? The Planning Office has not gone beyond the discussion stage on this to actually recommend it. It is something that might open the possibility for looking harder at the areas that need to be reviewed and spending less time doing demographics on a district that has artificial boundaries in the first place. The funding for the plan has been put on hold and the authorization has been withdrawn for using the entire amount. The Planning Office has approximately $90,000.00 or $95,000.00 in the budget for this year and will need to be increased in the following years rather then having a set amount put aside for the entire duration of the project. This will be reviewed at the time a consultant will be hired and the Planning Office will need to make sure that the Council policy of full funding for the plan will be in place. Mr. Rieske stated there is a Michigan State University (MSU) Urban Planning class that is doing grant writing work and is helping the City to find other funding, if possible, for a portion of the Master Plan (i.e. citizen participation, transportation, parks). The Work Plan summaries are virtually completed. The next steps are to convert them to a Power Point presentation, circulate for review within the departments (i.e. Code Compliance, Building Safety, Economic Development, Transportation, Development), make any necessary changes, and present them to the administration and City Council. Ms. Keene inquired about a statement regarding the focus on ???? Mr. Rieske stated that in the Mayor's State of the City Address there were three additional priorities (i.e. State Police building on the triangle property, Boji project) corridors. The Planning Office was not referring to scrapping the City wide plan but rather having a situation through the public participation process and/or the political process that would have focus areas that are identified and the City would take a more intense approach at those focus areas with a less detailed approach on those areas in between, which may not actually require an intense approach. Ms. Keene stated that it would make sense especially if there were limited funds and does not make sense to spread things to thin. Mr. Rieske stated that some of the neighborhood boundaries need to be reviewed as a whole. In this way, some of the corridors will be reviewed as well as other areas. Mr. McConnell inquired about the focus areas and if it would be reviewed from a residential or commercial business stand point. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is planning on reviewing land uses on Thursday. Mr. Ruge inquired about the focus areas and if it was from South Martin Luther King from the City limit to 1-496 or little hot spots. Mr. Rieske stated that he did not know yet and that it will be discussed on Thursday. Ms. Cordill inquired about the three corridors (Cedar Street, Martin Luther King Blvd., and East Grand River Ave.). Mr. Ruge inquired about the three corridors and if it included Saginaw Street. Mr. Rieske stated not that he knew from the State of the City Address. Ms. Keene stated that she thought that there was some reference to the area by the airport. Mr. Rieske stated that he will review it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Rieske stated that he would like some input from the Board regarding whether or not to invite Mr. John Coleman to a meeting for an update on the Regional Growth project. The Board agreed that it would be a good idea to have an update on the project. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N. Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E.Grand River, "F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002&PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C"Residential District and 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-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene stated that she took an early retirement from the State of Michigan and that as of last Friday, she was retired. Her office number is no longer operational. Mr. McConnell inquired about further documentation for the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funds. Mr. Rieske stated that he did a follow up with the Parks Department on one item and did not bring it to tonight's meeting. Mr. Ruge inquired about next week's Zoning and Ordinance Meeting and if the Committee will meet. Mr. Rieske stated that there will be discussion of draft Zoning text amendments at the Committee meeting and that the amendments may not be ready for final action. Ms. Foster stated that spoke with her Planning professor regarding bill boards and what Lansing would need to do to be rid of them. The professor stated that the City should be able to amend the sign ordinance to say that bill boards are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 8 not allowed and give a 5 to 10 year span for this to happen. Ms. Foster inquired about this and if it would be something that could be added while reviewing the Zoning Code. Ms. Cordill stated that this would also tie into the three corridors that were discussed earlier and that this is part of the image problem. Ms. Foster stated that she was not sure whether the Comprehensive Plan can have entrances to the City called the "Welcome Mat." The areas right as people enter the City have extra things added so that it looks nice and people have a good feeling as they enter the City. Ms. Foster inquired about issues with taxation of the land versus the building. There has been discussion regarding so many vacant buildings in Lansing and that housing is a problem. There are too many landlords with houses that are not up to par. The current taxes promote people from fixing up their homes because the more the homes are fixed the more people will be taxed. If the land was taxed, the people would be getting taxed and if the property is not earning then the people will be getting taxed on the land rather than on the building. This would prevent people from putting money into something that is decent. She was not sure how this would be reviewed. Mr. Rieske stated that it would probably be at the level of the State Legislature. Mr. McConnell inquired about starting at the City Council, City Assessor's Office because they developed the mills in which to tax the property. Ms. Foster stated that she would be interested in knowing. Ms. Foster stated that in the Home From Nowhere catalog (???), chapter 7, there was an article regarding taxation and why it makes sense to tax the land and not the building. She thought that this may help with the City's vacancy and housing problems. This would eliminate lumps and blight. This may force the issue by taxing blight at the same rate as a really nice home. People who have blight will not want to pay for it and will either sell the property or do something about it. Ms. Keene inquired about where this taxation is being done so the Board would have a model or something to review. Mr. Rieske stated that the State law limits the amount of taxes being raised and the law also specifies how much one can abate taxes and under what conditions. What this would amount to is a 100 percent tax abatement on all buildings and a huge increase in property tax on land. This would required State Legislation because the local legislation is not allowed to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that he would review the article and provide feedback. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.020403.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 27,2003 (listed on the last page) Approved February 4,2003 To Clerk February 7,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Stanich. C. Excused absences: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Frederick for the next Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Denny's Auto Diagnosis Inc. regarding SLU-10-2002. B. Letter of opposition from GrandRiver & Logan Muffler & Brake regarding SLU-10-2002. C. Letter of opposition from Bohnet Electric Co. regarding SLU-10-2002. D. Letter of opposition from Gormans Market regarding SLU-10-2002. E. Letter of opposition from Hitches-N-More regarding SLU-10-2002. F. Letter of opposition from Christian Kai Nalett regarding SLU-10-2002. G. Letter of opposition from Charlie Taylor regarding SLU-10-2002. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Jeff Finley, Vice President of Northside Towing and Service, located at 226 Russell Street, stated that Northside Towing and Service is another towing firm PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 2 in the area and that the company has been in Lansing since 1967. Northside Towing and Service was located at 205 N. Larch when the City brought in the baseball stadium. At that time, the company was asked to relocate. From his standpoint, Northside Towing and Service and other businesses in the area did a good job for the City. The company left the area and moved on to better things. He stated that in 1994, the company looked at some property located on Logan Street, south of Grand River. Northside Towing and Service had discussed moving a towing service into that area. Some of the comments given at that time with Grand River Road being the main strip from the airport to the capital, the City wanted to keep it clean. Northside Towing and Service was asked to do other things, and when the company returned at a later date, the request was denied. The company ended up off the beaten path just up the road and hidden back off the road. Other towing services (i.e. Mac's, Bill's Wrecker Service) have been asked and required to do the same thing. Once again in 1994, Northside Towing and Service was asked to relocate because of all the cars and other things that happen in the towing business and the company obliged the City. If the City could do the same in this case, Northside Towing and Service would certainly appreciate it. Dave Schneider, of Pryers Towing and resident of 2416 W. Willow, stated that it is difficult to put people at ease or explain how the company will address the concerns of the people if he is not aware of the information written in the letters of opposition. Pryers Towing would work with the City and do everything possible for the City not to notice the company. Mr. Frederick offered Mr. Schneider some time to review the letters of opposition and would allow Mr. Schneider to give additional comments. Mr. Frederick reviewed the letters of opposition. Mr. Schneider appreciated the concerns of the neighbors. With these concerns all he can do is put the Board and the neighbors at ease. Pryers Towing has every intention of making this a good looking location. The City probably will not notice the company once the trees and bushes are added in the front of the property. To reassure the neighbors, Board and Committees, the City will not allow a business to move to this location and not improve the area. That would be against what the City is trying to do. With the zoning of the property, the company can become a towing company. Pryers Towing has invested in two new trucks within the last six months and has pictures available if the Board would like to review them. By investing this much money into the company, obviously the image of the company is very important. Pryers Towing would like a good place where people can see that it is a good place. This would include a nice looking building, make repairs to the current building, nice signage and screening. If anyone has been by the site lately or since the last occupant, Pryers Towing has made tremendous repairs to the site. Mr. Schneider stated that he owned another business down the road (the car wash at 1811 N. Grand River), and that he wants the area to nice. The old car wash was in disrepair and was demolished. He made a lot of improvements to this site to make it look nice for the area, and it really improved the area. This is his only track record PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 3 and reassurances that he can give. He made improvements to one site, less than one block away, and he does not intend to run a business that looks dilapidated. He stated that with screening, Pryers Towing is more than willing to comply to make the site look nice. Anyone who sees the company's name and the investments made, would see that Pryers Towing desires to have a good looking name. Mr. Schneider stated that Pryers Towing will be an improvement to the area and that the company will continue to work with the City to make the site a better place. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 7, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of January 7, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PG 4, 15t PARA, 8t" LINE, "INCHES" S/B "ENTRANCES"; PG 5, 2ND PARA, 7T" LINE, "EAST" S/B "NORTH"; PG 18, 1ST PARA, 5T" LINE, "REG" S/B "RED"; PG 20, 1st PARA, 5tn LINE, "FACE" S/B "PHASE". Mr. Ruge stated that the minutes expressed much more detail of what happened during the meeting. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Pryer's Towing, L.L.C. to permit a storage yard for towed vehicles at 2621 N. Grand River Avenue. Storage yards are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 4 and will not be used as a salvage yard. 2. The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process. 3. The parking lot is hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. 4. A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08. 5. All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs. 6. Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater. 7. The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan. 8. The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished. 9. Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site. 10. The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruff encouraged that item 3 should read, "The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material." Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Keene inquired about item 4, what it would entail, and how much screening would be required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is 5 shrubs for each 20 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway, and 1 tree for each 30 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway. Ms. Keene inquired about what the landscape would look like. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the trees have to be a minimum of 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting and that the minimum starting size on the shrubs is 24 inches in height and spread. It will not provide a complete screen. Mr. Ruff stated that the most unasthetically thing about the site is the fence right up at the sidewalk, and the very large curb cut which is paved through a large area. With the site, the fence should be relocated behind the front line of the building, place the customer parking in the front with a landscape buffer for the customer parking, and place the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 5 additional landscaping and screening for the fence next to the fence behind the front of the building. It would help put the building more in character with its commercial setting and realistically restrict all of the storage of vehicles to the fenced in area which would be entirely out of the front yard area. The tow trucks and any towed vehicles would be behind the front line of the building. The company proposed that the storage area be in the very rear of the site. The fence was placed to the front of the property line to secure cars that were for sale. This will not be the situation for this request. These kinds of changes could drastically improve the asthetics. As long as the towed vehicles are not seen that would not be an asthetic issue. Currently the building is surrounded by a compound-type fence and is very uninviting. There could not be any enforcement action without a special land use or major improvements to the property (i.e. building addition). This is an opportunity even though Pryer's Towing is requesting an additional level of use of the property to what is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District. This is also an opportunity to make improvements and to improve the asthetics of the street frontage. The site is not very large or intense but is classified the same as a land use. Ms. Keene stated that her primary concern was what the landscape would like and that the City could do better at enforcing these types of things. Mr. Ruge stated that he would suggest this be an added condition. Ms. Foster inquired about the towing services and if the fence would even be needed. Mr. Ruff stated that the fence would be for security purposes, and that if the company had a tow truck on site, the company would want to secure it. Ms. Foster inquired about the site plan review process and if it would force the issue of breaking up some of the landscaping. Mr. Ruff stated not against another industrial use but up against the street frontage, it certainly would. The parking lot will not be screened for the customers. The idea with the landscaping is to soften the view. The screening would be in the requirement to the storage area. The landscaping could take on two different aspects. Ms. Foster inquired about the ideal curb cut for the site. Mr. Ruff stated that a commercial curb cut would be required and depending on circulation, Pryer's Towing may need to have two of them: one on the east and one on the west sides of the building. Driving around the front of the building and making circulation are not very easy. Commercial curb PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 6 cuts are around 30 feet and are significant for this. This is site specific and the Planning Office would have to work with Pryer's Towing regarding this. Mr. Ruge inquired about the storage/impound area and if it would be screened on all four sides. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the area would have to be completely screened. Mr. McConnell inquired about the screening and buffering and if it would be around the impound area, or around the building and including the front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different areas in the way the recommendation reads. One area that would require screening is the parking area in the front of the property, and is covered under item 4. Under item 7, the screening would be additional to item 4. Mr. McConnell inquired about screening in the form of trees or a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that the entire site is fenced in and if there is no storm water detention required whether it be a detention basin as stated in item 12, then he could see Pryer's Towing keeping the fence around 3 sides of the property, except for the very front, and moving that fence back then providing screening on that fence and using the landscaping for screening in the front. Mr. McConnell inquired about this providing adequate buffering so that the impounded vehicles would not be seen from the street. Mr. Ruff stated that would be correct. Mr. Ruge stated that this would make the site look a lot better than its current state. He is always concerned with issues of fairness with the City. The gentleman from Northside Towing and Service indicated that his company wanted to have their towing business in this similar area but were asked to not be in this area because of it being the "Gateway to the City." He asked Mr. Ruff to address this issue. Mr. Ruff stated that there are two different types of businesses that are referenced here: (1) This property is zoned Light Industrial; (2) Northside Towing and Service's property is zoned Heavy Industrial which allows the storage yard by right, not by special land use. There are some zoning code differences. The size of the property of this request is smaller than the site that would have been reviewed by Northside Towing and Service at 2525 N. Grand River. That site was a Light Industrial site and the current location is a Heavy Industrial site. The key here from a zoning standpoint is that this site could be used for a lot of uses that could all appear the same, if properly completed, with none of them being negative to the area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 7 Mr. McConnell inquired about the status of a sign located on the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Pryer's Towing does not have a license for selling vehicles on the site and that the current license is for towing. One of the conditions is that all non-conforming signs be removed including the roof signs. Ms. Foster inquired about a detention basin. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Public Service would make the decision during the site plan review process. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District with the conditions that (1) This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot and will not be used as a salvage yard, (2) The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process, (3) The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material, (4) A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08, (5) All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs, (6) Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater, (7) The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan, (8) The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished, (9) Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site, (10) The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office, (11) The use of cleanable grease traps and catch basins for contaminant run-off, (12) Phytoremediation be used for the detention basin, if required, (13) Vehicles cannot remain on the site for more than 60 days, (14) The improvements be completed within one year from the date of this approval, and (15) Move fence to behind the front line of the building. Frederick Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Keene. Ave Foster. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Solid Rock MB Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2410 S. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 8 Pennsylvania Avenue for a church. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process; 2. Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about screening and if evergreens would be a preferred option as to a fence. Mr. Ruff stated that there may be a preferred option by the neighbors from a maintenance standpoint. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of SLU-12-2002, 2410 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, New Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity not exceed the available parking spaces and verified through submission of a site plan to be reviewed through the Site Plan Review process, (2) Those portions of the parking areas abutting the side and rear yards of the neighboring houses to be screened with a privacy fence, 6 feet in height, or evergreen plants of comparable height and density, and (3) Screening of the parking area be provided along Tisdale Avenue. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. Ave McConnell Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by Rick Postema on behalf of Tendercare, Incorporated nursing home located at 2100 Provincial House Drive, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The nursing PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 9 home is nonconforming as it is located in the "A" Residential District, which does not permit nursing homes. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate an additional 30 beds in the nursing home. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming building at 2100 Provincial House Drive. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The addition will be design in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical. 2. The west property line will be landscaped with shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office. 3. The provision of an 8 feet wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site. 4. Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance. 5. An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line. 6. Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. 7. The dumpster be moved away from the residents as much as possible. 8. The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed during construction and roots pruned at the disturbance line. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated with item 2 the Committee discussed flowering shrubs to add the interest rather than only shrubs. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Foster stated with item 8 the tree protection fence should be installed before construction. Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Ruff inquired about the fence and if it was the applicant's proposal not to have a fence. Ms. Foster stated that was correct. Rick Postema, a representative of the architect's office, stated that the issue with the fence is the quality of life of the resident and that Tendercare would like for the residents to view the outdoors. Tendercare is enforced by the Health Department to keep a clear vision area of 20 feet directly in front of the windows. The only way this area can be screened entirely is with a fence because any landscape material would be inside the 20 feet perimeter. His understanding is that the Board is referring to flowering shrubbery and landscaping but not creating a screen more of clumps between the windows. Mr. Ruff stated that was correct. The other issue is that Tendercare would keep the dumpster further away from the resident. His understanding is that the dumpster would be screened in at the current designated dumpster area. Ms. Foster stated that currently the dumpster was moved because of the winter conditions and that it is preferable for the dumpster to stay at this area. Mr. Postema stated that this would be closer to the neighboring residents. Ms. Foster stated that it would be closer to the building. Mr. Ruff stated that this would require a newly designed area for the dumpster. Mr. Postema stated that there was a discussion about eliminating parking because an 8 foot landscape buffer could not be maintained. th-is This proposal creates an 8 foot buffer and does add Borne eliminates the parking with less spaces at the north west corner of the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was to eliminate enough parking so that the 8 foot buffer could be accommodated. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to modify item 7, and that at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Tendercare indicated that it was their intention to enclose the dumpster with some type of screening. He would like to add to item 7 that the dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed. Ms. Cordill stated that the neighborhood association would be meeting tonight and did not have an opportunity to address this case. When she visited the site, the area to the west is somewhat limited. One of the comments from the communications was that the plan did not indicate how close the dumpster addition would be to the condominiums to the west. The neighboring residences were not shown on the drawings. Ms. Stachowiak stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 11 that Tendercare would be meeting the required setback of 20 feet and that it is mapped on the plans. Ms. Cordill inquired about the current setback with the condominiums. Mr. Postema stated that the current building is 43 feet from the property line. Mr. Ruff stated that the condominiums are condensed on the site and were approved for variances for either the front or rear yard setbacks. There should be at least 6 feet on that side and that there would only be approximately 26 feet between the buildings. Mr. Ruge stated that there was a nice line of trees at the property line. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-10-2002, 2100 Provincial House Drive, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The addition will be design designed in a manner as to accommodate as much interior landscaping as practical, (2) The west property line will be landscaped to include flowering shrubs and trees in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, or a comparable alternative approved by the Planning Office, (3) The provision of an 8 foot wide landscaped strip abutting all parking along Provincial House Dr. not currently buffered by a berm and the resulting elimination of the proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site, (4) Buffering of the parking area along the east property line in a manner consistent with the planting specifications of section 1290.08 (c) of the Ordinance, (5) An 8-foot wide buffer be preserved along the south property line, (6) Parking lot lighting be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties, (7) The dumpster be moved away from the neighboring residents as much as possible and be enclosed, (8) The limit of disturbance line be set with a tree protection fence installed before construction with roots pruned at the disturbance line. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Maranatha Assemblies of God Church to rezone the property at 927 E. North Street, more specifically described as: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Part of Vacated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 12 Alley Described as Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Lot 14, Thence North 3.96 Feet, East 132 Feet, South 3.96 Feet, West 132 Feet to the point of beginning; Replat of Block 3 of Ballards Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the construction of a new church building on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. Ave Keene. Ave Foster. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The property at 433 S. Magnolia is zoned "B" Residential and is regulated by Section 1248 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show that the property has been used as a church at least since 1941. The Assessor's Records shows that the church was built in the early 1930's. The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing church and utilize the basement for a Sunday school and Fellowship Hall. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the church has always been operating as a church with continuous services. Also, the structure to the north of the existing church is being proposed for a rectory for the church. The use of the structure to the north as a rectory does not change its conforming status as a single family dwelling in the "B" Residential District. The applicant is therefore, requesting a Class A Nonconforming status to allow a second story addition onto the existing church. This is not a matter of rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 13 Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity. 2. No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted. 3. The applicant be required to construct at least 3 on site, hardsurfaced, handicapped parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office. 4. Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines. 5. The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office. 6. All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit. 7. The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about item 3 regarding the maximum number of six parking spaces and if the Board would indicate which 3-spaces how many of those spaces would be for handicapped. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office did not know how many handicapped handicapper parking spaces the Building Safety Office would require and that it may be based on occupancy. Two parking spaces are required for the home and may only have to construct 4 or 5 parking spaces. No more than 6 parking spaces could be constructed. Ms. Foster stated that the church is constructing parking spaces because the handicapped spaces are needed. Mr. Ruff stated that normally if the Planning Office require, through the zoning code, 150 parking spaces, there would be a barrier free accessibility requirement for maybe 6 barrier free spaces. In this situation, the church cannot place all the parking that is normally required on the site. There will need to be some work done in evaluating the construction plans versus what the City's parking requirement would be and what Building Safety estimates to be the required handicapped spaces. In a reasonable sense, it would be nice if the church would know if there was a need for however many handicapped spaces that the church would provide. If the requirement is 2 spaces and the church needs 3 spaces, it would be better for the church to provide 3 handicapped spaces. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Cordill inquired at the time of the hearing, there would be a removal of the ramp in the front. Mr. Ruff stated that there would only be one ramp. Ms. Cordill stated that the plan showed two ramps. Ms. Stachowiak stated that both ramps were in the plans so the church could choose which ramp to construct. The south side ramp was chosen eliminating the ramp in the front of the church. Mr. Ruff stated that in the motion the Board could recognize that there would only be a ramp on one side of the building. This was accepted by the Board. Ms. Cordill stated that there is definitely potential in the architecture of the building. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The seating capacity in the main unit of worship cannot increase beyond its current capacity, (2) No increase in the footprint of the building is permitted, (3) The applicant construct a maximum of 6 hardsurfaced parking spaces, in a location to be approved by the Planning Office, (4) Landscape, screening and buffering in accordance with Section 1290.08 be provided along all lot lines, (5) The property at 429 & 433 S. Magnolia be combined through the Assessor's Office, (6) All site improvements be completed within one year from the date of issuance of a building permit, and (7) The existing vegetation be evaluated for preservation. Note: Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting a Class "A" nonconforming status for substantial renovation to the residential structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue in the "F" Commercial District. The applicant has stated that the structure will continue to be used for a single family home. The property is nonconforming for use since residential is only permitted as a secondary use to a primary commercial use in the "F" District. In addition, Section 1268.06 requires a 20 foot front yard setback in the "F" Commercial District. The subject PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 15 property has a 9 foot front yard setback. Section 1294.11(d) of the Zoning Code restricts restoration of a Class B nonconformity to 35 percent of the fair market value of the structure. According to the Assessor's records, the valuation of the structure at 1102 E. Grand River Avenue is $16,700. Therefore, the maximum rehabilitation allowed at 35% of the structure, without approval of a Class "A" is $5,845. The applicant intends to invest $22,000 in rehabilitation work to this structure if a Class A nonconformity is approved. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff is recommending approval of the request, with the following conditions: 1. The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', 2. The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's funding of this rehabilitation and if the Historic guidelines would be followed for the restoration. Mr. Ruff stated that this request went through the review process and that he was not sure of the outcome. The environmental reviews go through a process (i.e. check if there is a non-conformity, if the location qualifies for use of CDBG funds) and then the environmental review goes before historic preservation. If there has to be a review for historic preservation purposes, that is done as well. If this review is positive, then the City would use guidelines for the restoration. The specifications would be drawn up in such a way that it would use the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Frederick noted the T1-11 siding and that he would like to add a third condition for the T1-11 to be removed or covered with appropriate matching siding of some sort. Ms. Foster stated that all these renovations should start following the LEAD standards that would be eventually approved by the State. She inquired about how this could be done. Mr. Ruff stated that no more than $22,000.00 can be spent on this rehabilitation even if there are additional repairs needed. Ms. Foster stated that even though the budget may be limited, what might be spent on one type of appliance versus another may in the long run save the City or the resident some money. She was not sure if there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 16 could be an option for energy star rated appliances. Mr. Ruff was not sure. The City should set a standard and be energy efficient. If the Board would like to do this, then a motion would need to be made and the Committee would need to review it. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of NCU-1-2003, 1102 E. Grand River, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the conditions that (1) The driveway from the curb to the front of the house be hard surfaced with Portland Concrete or Bituminous Asphalt', (2) The work be completed within 1-year from the date of this approval, and (3) Remove and/or cover existing T1-11 siding and replace with similar siding to the existing home. Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that a revised Planning Board member list had been prepared and given to each member. If the Board could review the information, make any necessary changes, and give the information to the Planning Office, then corrections will be made. Ms. Cordill stated that she would be able to participate on the Urban Development Committee. Ms. Foster added a name correction and stated that Sissi P. Foster would be fine. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 17 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C"Residential District and 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-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that since he had a handicap permit, he did notice that in general there are not enough handicap parking spaces anymore and asked if it could be addressed. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that at the yellow house on north Cedar Street just south of the Temple Club the truck is back. Ms. Cordill stated with Pryer's Towing Service there was some discussion if a call was made after business hours the employees may bring the towing tow truck to the employee residence. Mr. Ruff clarified stating that if the employee is on call in this type of business, sometime the employee will take the tow truck home and park it in the driveway. When a call comes in, the employee responds. This is not legal in Lansing. This would be using the employee's property for a non-authorized use. It is not a residential use and does not fit into the home occupation ordinance use for this vehicle. People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associat People may not park business vehicles not normally associated with the operation of a residence. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 18 Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station at the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads has some terrible light pollution associated with their canopy lights under their overhang. The lights shine into the neighbor's window. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board NOTE: CORRECTIONS MADE Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 23, place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 24, "this" s/b "This", "does add some" s/b "eliminates the"; Pg. 10, 2nd para., line 25, "with less spaces" s/b "at the north west corner of the site."; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 6, "dumpster" s/b "addition"; place a "." at the end of the sentence; Pg. 10, 4th para., line 7, "and it was not shown in" s/b "The neighboring residences were not shown on"; Pg. 11, in the motion para., 3" line, "design" s/b "designed"; Pg. 13, V para., 1st line, add "maximum number of six" after the word "the"; Pg. 13, 3 d para., 2nd line, "which 3 spaces" s/b "how many of those spaces"; Pg. 13, 3`d para., 4th line, "handicapped" s/b "handicapper" Pg. 17, under #11, 2nd para., 2nd line, "towing" s/b "tow"; Pg. 17, under#11, 2nd para., 8th line, "People have businesses where vehicles are not normally associated" s/b "People may not park business vehicles not normally associated". PB Minutes.012103.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 27,2003 (listed on the last page) Approved February 4,2003 To Clerk February 7,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD - - 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall - Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Stanich. C. Excused absences: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Frederick for the next Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Denny's Auto Diagnosis Inc. regarding SLU-10-2002. B. Letter of opposition from GrandRiver & Logan Muffler & Brake regarding SLU-10-2002. C. Letter of opposition from Bohnet Electric Co. regarding SLU-10-2002. D. Letter of opposition from Gormans Market regarding SLU-10-2002. E. Letter of opposition from Hitches-N-More regarding SLU-10-2002. F. Letter of opposition from Christian Kai Nalett regarding SLU-10-2002. G. Letter of opposition from Charlie Taylor regarding SLU-10-2002. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Jeff Finley, Vice President of Northside Towing and Service, located at 226 Russell Street, stated that Northside Towing and Service is another towing firm PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 2 in the area and that the company has been in Lansing since 1967. Northside Towing and Service was located at 205 N. Larch when the City brought in the baseball stadium. At that time, the company was asked to relocate. From his standpoint, Northside Towing and Service and other businesses in the area did a good job for the City. The company left the area and moved on to better things. He stated that in 1994, the company looked at some property located on Logan Street, south of Grand River. Northside Towing and Service had discussed moving a towing service into that area. Some of the comments given at that time with Grand River Road being the main strip from the airport to the capital, the City wanted to keep it clean. Northside Towing and Service was asked to do other things, and when the company returned at a later date, the request was denied. The company ended up off the beaten path just up the road and hidden back off the road. Other towing services (i.e. Mac's, Bill's Wrecker Service) have been asked and required to do the same thing. Once again in 1994, Northside Towing and Service was asked to relocate because of all the cars and other things that happen in the towing business and the company obliged the City. If the City could do the same in this case, Northside Towing and Service would certainly appreciate it. Dave Schneider, of Pryers Towing and resident of 2416 W. Willow, stated that it is difficult to put people at ease or explain how the company will address the concerns of the people if he is not aware of the information written in the letters of opposition. Pryers Towing would work with the City and do everything possible for the City not to notice the company. Mr. Frederick offered Mr. Schneider some time to review the letters of opposition and would allow Mr. Schneider to give additional comments. Mr. Frederick reviewed the letters of opposition. Mr. Schneider appreciated the concerns of the neighbors. With these concerns all he can do is put the Board and the neighbors at ease. Pryers Towing has every intention of making this a good looking location. The City probably will not notice the company once the trees and bushes are added in the front of the property. To reassure the neighbors, Board and Committees, the City will not allow a business to move to this location and not improve the area. That would be against what the City is trying to do. With the zoning of the property, the company can become a towing company. Pryers Towing has invested in two new trucks within the last six months and has pictures available if the Board would like to review them. By investing this much money into the company, obviously the image of the company is very important. Pryers Towing would like a good place where people can see that it is a good place. This would include a nice looking building, make repairs to the current building, nice signage and screening. If anyone has been by the site lately or since the last occupant, Pryers Towing has made tremendous repairs to the site. Mr. Schneider stated that he owned another business down the road (the car wash at 1811 N. Grand River), and that he wants the area to nice. The old car wash was in disrepair and was demolished. He made a lot of improvements to this site to make it look nice for the area, and it really improved the area. This is his only track record PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 3 and reassurances that he can give. He made improvements to one site, less than one block away, and he does not intend to run a business that looks dilapidated. He stated that with screening, Pryers Towing is more than willing to comply to make the site look nice. Anyone who sees the company's name and the investments made, would see that Pryers Towing desires to have a good looking name. Mr. Schneider stated that Pryers Towing will be an improvement to the area and that the company will continue to work with the City to make the site a better place. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 7, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of January 7, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PG 4, 15t PARA, 8th LINE, "INCHES" SIB "ENTRANCES"; PG 5, 2ND PARA, 7TH LINE, "EAST" SIB "NORTH"; PG 18, 1ST PARA, 5TH LINE, "REG" SIB "RED"; PG 20, 1st PARA, 5th LINE, "FACE" SIB "PHASE". Mr. Ruge stated that the minutes expressed much more detail of what happened during the meeting. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Pryer's Towing, L.L.C. to permit a storage yard for towed vehicles at 2621 N. Grand River Avenue. Storage yards are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. This business is strictly to be used as a storage lot PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 21, 2003 Page 4 and will not be used as a salvage yard. 2. The SLU is subject to an approved site plan as approved through the Site Plan Review process. 3. The parking lot is hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. 4. A minimum 8' wide landscape buffer strip along the Grand River Avenue frontage in accordance with Section 1290.08. 5. All signage be in conformance with the sign code, which includes the elimination of the roof sign and elimination of any nonconforming signs. 6. Approval by the Board of Water and Light for any site improvements needed to protect groundwater. 7. The impoundment area be completely screened on all sides of the area as defined on the site plan. 8. The rear building, shown in the impoundment area be demolished. 9. Proper easements be completed, as required by the Public Service Department, for the 15" sanitary sewer that crosses the eastern portion of the site. 10. The condition of the site be reviewed with the yearly renewal of the wrecker licensed issued through the City Clerk's Office. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruff encouraged that item 3 should read, "The parking and storage lot be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous material." Mr. Ruge accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Keene inquired about item 4, what it would entail, and how much screening would be required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is 5 shrubs for each 20 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway, and 1 tree for each 30 linear feet of frontage excluding the driveway. Ms. Keene inquired about what the landscape would look like. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the trees have to be a minimum of 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting and that the minimum starting size on the shrubs is 24 inches in height and spread. It will not provide a complete screen. Mr. Ruff stated that the most unasthetically thing about the site is the fence right up at the sidewalk, and the very large curb cut which is paved through a large area. With the site, the fence should be relocated behind the front line of the building, place the customer parking in the front with a landscape buffer for the customer parking, and place the Approved as written 4-1-03 Draft to Clerk March 20,2003 Approved April 1,2003 To Clerk April 4,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Cordill. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Cordill for this evening's Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Withdrawal letter from Mr. John VanMeeter regarding Z-16-2002. B. Memorandum from Mr. Bill Rieske regarding the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Frederick excused himself from the meeting. Ms. Foster chaired the meeting in his absence. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 18, 2003 Page 2 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of March 4, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (4-0). The minutes of March 4, 2003 were APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. Pg. 2, 1st para., line 4, "622" s/b "620"; Pg. 2, 4t' para., line 2, "street" s/b "strip"; Pg. 2, 4tn para., line 14, delete "behind the property on" and replace with "located at". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-18-2002, 1001 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Francisco and Penny Urbina to rezone the property at 1001 E. Grand River, more specifically described as: The West 44 Feet of the South 7 Rods of Lot 2, Block 1, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the zoning designation of the subject property consistent with it's single family use. Staff recommends approval of Z-18-2002, a request to rezone 1001 E. Grand River Avenue from "F" Commercial to "B" Residential District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of Z-18-2002, 1001 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Foster. . . Ave Keene. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 18, 2003 Page 3 b. Z-1-2003, 622 E. Howe Avenue. "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Parviz Soroushian of DPD, Inc. to rezone the east 10 feet of the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 77 & Lot 78, except the west 40 feet of the north 100 feet thereof, Supervisors Plat of Community Home Sites, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to combine the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue with the commercial property at 2925 N. East Street. The west 8 feet of the 10 foot strip would be used as a landscape buffer and the remaining 2 feet would become part of the parking lot at 2925 N. East Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. Staff believes this request to rezone the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue will result in a reasonable improvement to the property at 2925 N. East Street and at 622 E. Howe Avenue. The land will be used to provide additional space for parking and circulation and would provide space for the required 8 foot landscape, screening and buffering strip where the property abuts the adjacent residential development. Staff believes this to be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff also believes that it would not have any negative impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, nor would it have negative impacts on the environment or on future patterns of development. Staff recommended approval of Z-1-2003, a request to rezone the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-1-2003, East 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue. "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Foster . . Ave Keene. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 18, 2003 Page 4 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Proposed Front Yard Setback Standards Mr. Ruge stated that in Committee, there were some items that the members liked, and there were concerns with some of the other items. He stated that Ms. Stachowiak would make the necessary changes and present them at the next Committee meeting. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 15, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. 124 W. Michigan Avenue, City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E.Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) f. PRD-1-2002, Georgetown 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) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 18, 2003 Page 5 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that last year her class did the City of Lansing. This year her class has done the Logan Center, and a hospital located in Grand Rapids. This presentation will be held on Tuesday, April 22nd, at the Michigan State University International Center at 12:00 p.m. She hopes to have a poster board session that will be open to everyone. Mr. Ruge stated that he will not be able to attend the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee scheduled for April 9t" Ms. Foster stated that she will not be able to attend the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee scheduled for April 91" Ms. Stachowiak inquired about rescheduling the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. The members agreed to meet on April 15t" at 5:30 p.m., prior to the Planning Board meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Stachowiak stated in regards to 1900 S. Cedar Street, the final resolution that was approved by City Council specifically said that "No right turn shall be allowed from the parking lot onto Riley Street and into the adjacent neighborhood." Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office will turn this over to the Transportation Department for enforcement of the requirement. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.031803.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk March 12,2003 Pg.2, 1s'para., line 4, "622"s/b"620"; Pg. 2,4"'para., line 2, "street"s/b"strip"; Approved March 18,2003 Pg.2,4"'para., line 14, delete"behind the property on"and replace with To Clerk March 24,2003 "located at". Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 4, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske, Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene for this evening's Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2003, 622 E. Howe Avenue, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Parviz Soroushian of DPD, Inc. to rezone the east 10 feet of the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 77 & Lot 78, except the west 40 feet of the north 100 feet thereof, Supervisors Plat of Community Home Sites, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to combine the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue with the commercial property at 2925 N. East Street. The west 8 feet of the 10 foot strip would be used as a landscape buffer and the remaining 2 feet would become part of the parking lot at 2925 N. East Street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 2 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a house being located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue, and that the house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is located behind the property of 622 620 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. McConnell inquired about ownership of the properties and if the applicant owned both properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns only the property located at 622 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. Ruge inquired about the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue and if this property wrapped all the way around the property located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct. Mr. Ruge inquired about a screening fence and if it would be on the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fence could be on the property line and that the applicant has not completed the landscape plan. The applicant can use a combination of fencing and plant materials but at a minimum the applicant will need to install all the plant materials with enough to provide the same density and screening affect that a fence would provide. Under the City's standards, if a fence, berm or a wall is installed, it would reduce the amount of plant materials that are required. If no fencing is installed, then more plant materials would be required. Mr. Ruge inquired about the distance from the house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue to the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure. The house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is 12 feet off the future property line. Parviz Soroushian, President of DPD, Inc., owner and applicant of the property, stated that there is a 10 foot street strip which is not maintained at all and is currently a muddy road. The house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue has a fence. The green space would be moved closer to them. There is only a few feet needed to revive this property which has not been rented for three years. It has been a big expense. The building is in very good shape and is made of reinforced concrete. It was a demonstration project for U.S. Department of Energy. It is an energy efficient building. For three years it has remained empty and lack of sufficient parking has been the key reason. Rezoning the property resolves this issue. If one looks at what could be turned into green space and move the parking space, it is a muddy road which is not used at all. As mentioned, this would be an improvement to the whole neighborhood. He really hopes that this would be approved. The house behind the properly-on located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is currently being improved. At this point, the property was recently purchased. It had been red tagged and was not up to code. He is trying to bring it up to standard like the other property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 3 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-1-2003 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. B. Z-18-2002, 1001 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Francisco and Penny Urbina to rezone the property at 1001 E. Grand River, more specifically described as: The West 44 Feet of the South 7 Rods of Lot 2, Block 1, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the zoning designation of the subject property consistent with it's single family use. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated according to the sketch, this is a two family unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a single family unit, and that it is listed in the City Assessor's Office as a single family unit. The applicant also stated that it is a single family unit and it is also listed this way on the application. It may have previously been a two family unit. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-18-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of February 18, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of February 18, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 4 Pg. 2, 2"d para., line 2, "roof" s/b "growth"; Pg. 5, 1s' para., line 11, "bi-paths" s/b "bike paths". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair a. Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW The applicant is interested in acquiring the all excess ROW. There is an abutting property at 913 Leslie. The applicant has indicated that he has talked with the owner of the abutting property, which is in foreclosure, and has no interest in the ROW. Therefore, a letter of interest was not sent to the abutting property owner at 913 Leslie Street. The applicant is currently in negotiations of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. There has been talk with the Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization to use the acquired ROW for a community garden. The Department of Public Service has indicated that from its point of view, the requested portion of the Main Street ROW may be considered surplus. BWL utilities and SBC telephone lines are located between the sidewalk and the curb, indicating no anticipated conflicts with utilities. However, the diagram submitted by the applicant indicates that overhead electric service may stretch across a portion of the subject area. The Transportation Office has recommended that the City retain 15 feet of additional right-of-way on the south side of Main Street. This will allow for any future roadway widening or additional sidewalk needs, provide adequate space for tree planting behind the sidewalk (per Parks Dept. recommendation), and ensure visibility for all transportation modes. The value of the tree removal by the City's Forestry Department on the public parcel (one of the parcels to be purchased) may be a factor in the selling price. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 5 The applicant is in the process of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. Approval of the request could create two buildable parcels in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-16-02, the sale of the south portions of Lots 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23, retaining any portion now utilized as Main Street ROW, plus an additional 16' of land south of and adjacent to the sidewalk, for ROW purposes, for fair market value plus closing costs. Staff further recommends that the City reserve an easement for the overhead electric service if necessary, and that the owner of 913 Leslie Street be given first right of refusal on the southern portion of Lots 15, 16 and 17. In Committee, a formal recommendation could not be given due to lack of a quorum. However, the members present did not wish to detain the case. Mr. Ruge stated that from the curb there is green space, a sidewalk and an additional 15 feet. He inquired about Public Service's recommendations. Mr. Rieske stated that the Public Service Department (PSD) recommendation from the curb line, including the parkway between the sidewalk and the curb line, is 10 feet. The sidewalk would be an additional 5 feet, and then add 1 additional foot. The Transportation office is suggesting that since the City owns the right-of-way, that the City should retain a portion in case widening of the street becomes a necessity. Transportation is suggesting that another 15 feet of the street right-of-way be retained by the City. The Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) recommended that 8 feet be retained by the City. Ms. Foster inquired about the street trees and if there were trees on the frontage of Main Street. Mr. Rieske stated that one tree was removed from the property, and that the City would be responsible for planting any street trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like Transportation is recommending 15 feet from the current right-of-way line, and that Mr. Rieske was stating the applicable right-of-way line is a line one foot to the north of the sidewalk. Mr. Rieske clarified this by stating that the established right-of-way line, in terms of the defacto use of the right-of-way, is one foot off PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 6 of the sidewalk. A discussion ensued about the interpretation of the site plan and the placement of the property line. Mr. Frederick stated that the motion, as stated by Ms. Cordill, included an additional 16 feet of land south of an adjacent sidewalk. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next regular meeting, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske Stated that this morning the CARTS Committee of Tri-County Regional Planning Commission recommended for approval the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan (LRP) draft with the understanding that it is a draft, and that there is a public comment period until March 25, 2003. The LRP goals and objectives may be transferrable to the City in terms of the Master Planning process. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 7 e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A"Residential District to"C"Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Design Standards are now on the internet. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge noted that the parking lot entrance for the Michigan Works building was not built according to the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Rieske stated that he would look into the matter. Mr. Ruge noted that the NCU requirements for the plumbing store located at Lake Lansing Road and New York Avenue have not been met. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. A discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of fines to enforce the requirements of various City land use permits. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.030403.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk March 12,2003 Pg.2, 15`para., line 4, "622"s/b "620"; Pg.2,41'para., line 2, "street"s/b"strip"; Approved March 18,2003 Pg.2,41h para., line 14, delete"behind the property on"and replace with To Clerk March 24,2003 "located at". Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 4, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske, Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene for this evening's Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2003, 622 E. Howe Avenue, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Parviz Soroushian of DPD, Inc. to rezone the east 10 feet of the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 77 & Lot 78, except the west 40 feet of the north 100 feet thereof, Supervisors Plat of Community Home Sites, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to combine the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue with the commercial property at 2925 N. East Street. The west 8 feet of the 10 foot strip would be used as a landscape buffer and the remaining 2 feet would become part of the parking lot at 2925 N. East Street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 2 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a house being located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue, and that the house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is located behind the property of 622 620 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. McConnell inquired about ownership of the properties and if the applicant owned both properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns only the property located at 622 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. Ruge inquired about the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue and if this property wrapped all the way around the property located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct. Mr. Ruge inquired about a screening fence and if it would be on the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fence could be on the property line and that the applicant has not completed the landscape plan. The applicant can use a combination of fencing and plant materials but at a minimum the applicant will need to install all the plant materials with enough to provide the same density and screening affect that a fence would provide. Under the City's standards, if a fence, berm or a wall is installed, it would reduce the amount of plant materials that are required. If no fencing is installed, then more plant materials would be required. Mr. Ruge inquired about the distance from the house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue to the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure. The house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is 12 feet off the future property line. Parviz Soroushian, President of DPD, Inc., owner and applicant of the property, stated that there is a 10 foot street strip which is not maintained at all and is currently a muddy road. The house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue has a fence. The green space would be moved closer to them. There is only a few feet needed to revive this property which has not been rented for three years. It has been a big expense. The building is in very good shape and is made of reinforced concrete. It was a demonstration project for U.S. Department of Energy. It is an energy efficient building. For three years it has remained empty and lack of sufficient parking has been the key reason. Rezoning the property resolves this issue. If one looks at what could be turned into green space and move the parking space, it is a muddy road which is not used at all. As mentioned, this would be an improvement to the whole neighborhood. He really hopes that this would be approved. The house the property located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is currently being improved. At this point, the property was recently purchased. It had been red tagged and was not up to code. He is trying to bring it up to standard like the other property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 3 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-1-2003 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. B. Z-18-2002, 1001 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Francisco and Penny Urbina to rezone the property at 1001 E. Grand River, more specifically described as: The West 44 Feet of the South 7 Rods of Lot 2, Block 1, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the zoning designation of the subject property consistent with it's single family use. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated according to the sketch, this is a two family unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a single family unit, and that it is listed in the City Assessor's Office as a single family unit. The applicant also stated that it is a single family unit and it is also listed this way on the application. It may have previously been a two family unit. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-18-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of February 18, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of February 18, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 4 Pg. 2, 2"d para., line 2, "roof" s/b "growth"; Pg. 5, 1st para., line 11, "bi-paths" s/b "bike paths". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair a. Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW The applicant is interested in acquiring the all excess ROW. There is an abutting property at 913 Leslie. The applicant has indicated that he has talked with the owner of the abutting property, which is in foreclosure, and has no interest in the ROW. Therefore, a letter of interest was not sent to the abutting property owner at 913 Leslie Street. The applicant is currently in negotiations of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. There has been talk with the Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization to use the acquired ROW for a community garden. The Department of Public Service has indicated that from its point of view, the requested portion of the Main Street ROW may be considered surplus. BWL utilities and SBC telephone lines are located between the sidewalk and the curb, indicating no anticipated conflicts with utilities. However, the diagram submitted by the applicant indicates that overhead electric service may stretch across a portion of the subject area. The Transportation Office has recommended that the City retain 15 feet of additional right-of-way on the south side of Main Street. This will allow for any future roadway widening or additional sidewalk needs, provide adequate space for tree planting behind the sidewalk (per Parks Dept. recommendation), and ensure visibility for all transportation modes. The value of the tree removal by the City's Forestry Department on the public parcel (one of the parcels to be purchased) may be a factor in the selling price. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 5 The applicant is in the process of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. Approval of the request could create two buildable parcels in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-16-02, the sale of the south portions of Lots 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23, retaining any portion now utilized as Main Street ROW, plus an additional 16' of land south of and adjacent to the sidewalk, for ROW purposes, for fair market value plus closing costs. Staff further recommends that the City reserve an easement for the overhead electric service if necessary, and that the owner of 913 Leslie Street be given first right of refusal on the southern portion of Lots 15, 16 and 17. In Committee, a formal recommendation could not be given due to lack of a quorum. However, the members present did not wish to detain the case. Mr. Ruge stated that from the curb there is green space, a sidewalk and an additional 15 feet. He inquired about Public Service's recommendations. Mr. Rieske stated that the Public Service Department (PSD) recommendation from the curb line, including the parkway between the sidewalk and the curb line, is 10 feet. The sidewalk would be an additional 5 feet, and then add 1 additional foot. The Transportation office is suggesting that since the City owns the right-of-way, that the City should retain a portion in case widening of the street becomes a necessity. Transportation is suggesting that another 15 feet of the street right-of-way be retained by the City. The Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) recommended that 8 feet be retained by the City. Ms. Foster inquired about the street trees and if there were trees on the frontage of Main Street. Mr. Rieske stated that one tree was removed from the property, and that the City would be responsible for planting any street trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like Transportation is recommending 15 feet from the current right-of-way line, and that Mr. Rieske was stating the applicable right-of-way line is a line one foot to the north of the sidewalk. Mr. Rieske clarified this by stating that the established right-of-way line, in terms of the defacto use of the right-of-way, is one foot off PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 6 of the sidewalk. A discussion ensued about the interpretation of the site plan and the placement of the property line. Mr. Frederick stated that the motion, as stated by Ms. Cordill, included an additional 16 feet of land south of an adjacent sidewalk. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next regular meeting, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske Stated that this morning the CARTS Committee of Tri-County Regional Planning Commission recommended for approval the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan (LRP) draft with the understanding that it is a draft, and that there is a public comment period until March 25, 2003. The LRP goals and objectives may be transferrable to the City in terms of the Master Planning process. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,7"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 7 e. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Design Standards are now on the internet. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge noted that the parking lot entrance for the Michigan Works building was not built according to the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Rieske stated that he would look into the matter. Mr. Ruge noted that the NCU requirements for the plumbing store located at Lake Lansing Road and New York Avenue have not been met. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. A discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of fines to enforce the requirements of various City land use permits. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.030403.wpd Draft to Clerk March 12,2003 Approved 2003 To Clerk 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall ` Tuesday, March 4, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske, Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene for this evening's Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2003, 622 E. Howe Avenue, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Parviz Soroushian of DPD, Inc. to rezone the east 10 feet of the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 77 & Lot 78, except the west 40 feet of the north 100 feet thereof, Supervisors Plat of Community Home Sites, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to combine the east 10 feet of 622 E. Howe Avenue with the commercial property at 2925 N. East Street. The west 8 feet of the 10 foot strip would be used as a landscape buffer and the remaining 2 feet would become part of the parking lot at 2925 N. East Street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 2 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a house being located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue, and that the house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is located behind the property of 622 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. McConnell inquired about ownership of the properties and if the applicant owned both properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns only the property located at 622 E. Howe Avenue. Mr. Ruge inquired about the property at 622 E. Howe Avenue and if this property wrapped all the way around the property located at 620 E. Howe Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct. Mr. Ruge inquired about a screening fence and if it would be on the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fence could be on the property line and that the applicant has not completed the landscape plan. The applicant can use a combination of fencing and plant materials but at a minimum the applicant will need to install all the plant materials with enough to provide the same density and screening affect that a fence would provide. Under the City's standards, if a fence, berm or a wall is installed, it would reduce the amount of plant materials that are required. If no fencing is installed, then more plant materials would be required. Mr. Ruge inquired about the distance from the house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue to the property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure. The house located at 622 E. Howe Avenue is 12 feet off the future property line. Parviz Soroushian, President of DPD, Inc., owner and applicant of the property, stated that there is a 10 foot street which is not maintained at all and is currently a muddy road. The house located at 620 E. Howe Avenue has a fence. The green space would be moved closer to them. There is only a few feet needed to revive this property which has not been rented for three years. It has been a big expense. The building is in very good shape and is made of reinforced concrete. It was a demonstration project for U.S. Department of Energy. It is an energy efficient building. For three years it has remained empty and lack of sufficient parking has been the key reason. Rezoning the property resolves this issue. If one looks at what could be turned into green space and move the parking space, it is a muddy road which is not used at all. As mentioned, this would be an improvement to the whole neighborhood. He really hopes that this would be approved. The house behind the property on 622 E. Howe Avenue is currently being improved. At this point, the property was recently purchased. It had been red tagged and was not up to code. He is trying to bring it up to standard like the other property. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-1-2003 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page e 3 scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. B. Z-18-2002, 1001 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Francisco and Penny Urbina to rezone the property at 1001 E. Grand River, more specifically described as: The West 44 Feet of the South 7 Rods of Lot 2, Block 1, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the zoning designation of the subject property consistent with it's single family use. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated according to the sketch, this is a two family unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a single family unit, and that it is listed in the City Assessor's Office as a single family unit. The applicant also stated that it is a single family unit and it is also listed this way on the application. It may have previously been a two family unit. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-18-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on March 12, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of February 18, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of February 18, 2003 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 4 Pg. 2, 2"d para., line 2, "roof' s/b "growth"; Pg. 5, 15t para., line 11, "bi-paths" s/b "bike paths". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair a. Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW The applicant is interested in acquiring the all excess ROW. There is an abutting property at 913 Leslie. The applicant has indicated that he has talked with the owner of the abutting property, which is in foreclosure, and has no interest in the ROW. Therefore, a letter of interest was not sent to the abutting property owner at 913 Leslie Street. The applicant is currently in negotiations of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. There has been talk with the Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization to use the acquired ROW for a community garden. The Department of Public Service has indicated that from its point of view, the requested portion of the Main Street ROW may be considered surplus. BWL utilities and SBC telephone lines are located between the sidewalk and the curb, indicating no anticipated conflicts with utilities. However, the diagram submitted by the applicant indicates that overhead electric service may stretch across a portion of the subject area. The Transportation Office has recommended that the City retain 15 feet of additional right-of-way on the south side of Main Street. This will allow for any future roadway widening or additional sidewalk needs, provide adequate space for tree planting behind the sidewalk (per Parks Dept. recommendation), and ensure visibility for all transportation modes. The value of the tree removal by the City's Forestry Department on the public parcel (one of the parcels to be purchased) may be a factor in the selling price. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 5 The applicant is in the process of acquiring the property at 913 Leslie Street. Approval of the request could create two buildable parcels in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-16-02, the sale of the south portions of Lots 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23, retaining any portion now utilized as Main Street ROW, plus an additional 16' of land south of and adjacent to the sidewalk, for ROW purposes, for fair market value plus closing costs. Staff further recommends that the City reserve an easement for the overhead electric service if necessary, and that the owner of 913 Leslie Street be given first right of refusal on the southern portion of Lots 15, 16 and 17. In Committee, a formal recommendation could not be given due to lack of a quorum. However, the members present did not wish to detain the case. Mr. Ruge stated that from the curb there is green space, a sidewalk and an additional 15 feet. He inquired about Public Service's recommendations. Mr. Rieske stated that the Public Service Department (PSD) recommendation from the curb line, including the parkway between the sidewalk and the curb line, is 10 feet. The sidewalk would be an additional 5 feet, and then add 1 additional foot. The Transportation office is suggesting that since the City owns the right-of-way, that the City should retain a portion in case widening of the street becomes a necessity. Transportation is suggesting that another 15 feet of the street right-of-way be retained by the City. The Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) recommended that 8 feet be retained by the City. Ms. Foster inquired about the street trees and if there were trees on the frontage of Main Street. Mr. Rieske stated that one tree was removed from the property, and that the City would be responsible for planting any street trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like Transportation is recommending 15 feet from the current right-of-way line, and that Mr. Rieske was stating the applicable right-of-way line is a line one foot to the north of the sidewalk. Mr. Rieske clarified this by stating that the established right-of-way line, in terms of the defacto use of the right-of-way, is one foot off PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 6 of the sidewalk. A discussion ensued about the interpretation of the site plan and the placement of the property line. Mr. Frederick stated that the motion, as stated by Ms. Cordill, included an additional 16 feet of land south of an adjacent sidewalk. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-16-2002, SW Corner Main & Regent, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next regular meeting, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske Stated that this morning the CARTS Committee of Tri-County Regional Planning Commission recommended for approval the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan (LRP) draft with the understanding that it is a draft, and that there is a public comment period until March 25, 2003. The LRP goals and objectives may be transferrable to the City in terms of the Master Planning process. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River, "F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2003 Page 7 e. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F" Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Design Standards are now on the internet. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge noted that the parking lot entrance for the Michigan Works building was not built according to the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Rieske stated that he would look into the matter. Mr. Ruge noted that the NCU requirements for the plumbing store located at Lake Lansing Road and New York Avenue have not been met. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. A discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of fines to enforce the requirements of various City land use permits. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.030403.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk February 28,2003 PG.2,2"1 PARA., LINE 2, "ROOF' S/B"GROWTH" Approved March 4,2003 PG. 5, 15`PARA., LINE 11, "BI-PATHS"S/B "BIKE PATHS" To Clerk March 9,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 1. OPENING SESSION - The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. ; A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Citizens Planner program for Michigan State University (MSU) extension. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future, Mr. Jon Coleman, Executive Director, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Mr. Coleman stated that this presentation is an update on the Regional Growth project. The primary mission of the project was to actively engage the citizens of the region. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) really wanted to make this a project that involved as many people as is practical. The TCRPC has spent a lot of time and effort bringing a fairly diverse group in to a number of regional forums and stakeholder groups. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 2 One item that complicates the process is that the greater Lansing region has 78 separate units of government, many of which have their own planning and zoning authority. When a regional vision is discussed, it talks about a greatly improved coordination and have the minds of those participating in it. The TCRPC knew starting out that there was already a challenge to be able to achieve along with the goals. As part of this project, the TCRPC seeks to engage: 1) Governments, Citizens and Stakeholder Groups, 2) Seek links to establish a general consensus on a preferred regional vision and continue on to regional growth, 3) Develop techniques and action strategies that local governments could use if the shared vision is reached, and 4) Implement a technique or method to monitor change over time. It has taken the region many years to reach its current level in terms of the kind of roof growth patterns and developments seen. It would take a number of years to get some of the trends under managed growth. The TCRPC started data collection and mapping as early as 1998, and there was a lot of work done prior to the consultants coming on board. The TCRPC also did some updating on land use information like collecting zoning ordinances and master plans, and placing them in one geographic information system. This is the generalized chart of the project since the consultants have been involved. Even though the TCRPC has gone through the steps, the yellow boxes on the chart indicate the major regional forums that were held at critical phases during the project. TCRPC then reviewed the alternatives and developed a third action plan. The boxes at the bottom were the numerous task forces and committees that were formed. The Planning staff served on the larger stakeholder group, which had ninety people, but was a committee that was to large to do anything. This group was broken down into functional task forces and committees to tackle specific problems. The TCRPC went through its own series of looking at the trends (e.g. population). This was the projection in growth from 1950 to 2000. The TCRPC was being somewhat optimistic regarding the population and increase in the population growth over the next few decades. However, when the TCRPC's growth is reviewed and compared to Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor or Traverse City, the City's projection is quite a bit lower. Growth, in terms of population, is not the problem. It is how the population is distributed which causes concern. Some housing trends were reviewed, in particular, the number of people per household. There was a decline in population per household and therefore even though there is a small population growth, the region still has a demand for housing because of the downward trend in the number of people per household. The TCRPC reviewed a number of trends pertaining to how people were dispersed over the three county region. The population in the urban areas is staying the same. Another way is to review building trends. In 1980, there was only 29% of new housing permits in the rural areas outside the listed governments. In 1998, over half of the building permits PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 3 were in the rural areas. This next graph illustrates the older part of Lansing in 1938 and over the next 40 years. Most is pretty well contained around the inner region. In the last area, there is not nearly as much red as there is green. The reason for this is because a lot of that development now is out in the rural areas. One impact of that is a conversion of a lot of agricultural land in the three county area to other uses, primarily residential. To understand the loss of 120 square miles from 1978 to 1999, it may be helpful to know that a township is about 36 square miles. In Ingham County, for example, there was a loss because of agricultural use of the township. Given those trends and some of the analysis done, Tri-County started reviewing and charting items that were placed into major categories: 1) Build out, with the assumption that there are no significant changes to the existing zoning, and that communities would build out at the densities of the zoning, 2) Trend alternative, with business as usual and no changes, 3) "Wise Growth" alternative, which reviewed the more compact development, and 4) "Wise Growth" scenario using the build out numbers which were much higher. The TCRPC reviewed some computer model techniques and these were some of the maps that were generated and displayed the existing zoning. The same thing applied to the Trend and "Business As Usual" scenarios. The "Wise Growth" scenario was a multi-packed development pattern. Once TCRPC added the different land use scenarios, then an evaluation process was implemented, and it consisted of eight elements: 1) Community Services, 2) Environment, 3) Environmental Justice, 4) Utilities, 5) Cost of Public Services, 6) Transportation, 7) Land Use, and 8) Quality of Life. The TCRPC went through a process at the December forum, where they reviewed the principles (i.e. Trend, Business As Usual) and criteria. The actual participants attended the forums and voted on these criteria. As TCRPC went through the process, the people could then vote. The TCRPC spent several hours reviewing these and discussing the related data that was applied to community service and the data tied to the environmental land pact. Once this was completed, the TCRPC had people vote. When all the information was gathered, 79% of the people preferred the "Wise Growth" scenario, 15% preferred Business As Usual, and 6% did not like either approach. This led to the development of a regional vision based on the input received from different sources (i.e. forms, surveys). The TCRPC developed a regional vision map which displayed allocation of different types of land uses. The yellow areas are areas in which there is existing urban core development. A lot of the strategies and goals that were developed were to ensure the utilization of the infrastructure, existing communities, and encourage redevelopment where necessary. Surrounding this, is a category called Focus Growth Area, which recognizes a need to continue growth in the urban service area. These are existing urban townships and housing communities. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 4 The next area is the Cluster Development Area which allows for development in cluster housing, and is approximately 50% of the land that is not developed but is to be maintained as open space, park or recreational uses. This is the plan with the principles and themes are all in the document that was given to each Board member. The reason this was developed was that TCRPC tried to refine the input so it would reflect what was done on the project. Ms. Keene inquired about other areas of the state and if these areas were successful in implementing a Tri-County regional plan similar to the Lansing area. Mr. Coleman stated that the Southeast Council of Governments, a number of years ago, did a regional plan that was not quite as detailed. The Grand Rapids area has been doing a Blue Print plan on a regional basis. It is more Kent County and the surrounding urbanized area but not multi-county. They are reviewing some of the similar kinds of issues. Ms. Keene inquired about the cooperation from the outlying townships. Mr. Coleman stated that there has been some success in areas. Mr. Rieske inquired about the size of the stakeholder committee. Mr. Coleman stated approximately 90. Ms. Foster inquired about creating a regional zoning map. Mr. Coleman stated that in some parts of the region it may become possible (i.e. Eaton Rapids). Mr. Rieske stated that the map discusses development areas and not what is developed within those areas. The blue area is supposed to be open space, agricultural-type area that is going to be developed in a cluster fashion rather than in a sprawl fashion with a house on every five acres. This does not describe land uses but describes the phasing of the land development. Another part is the white area that reflects agricultural areas. All the agricultural districts within the Tri-County area allow single family houses. There would have to be a text amendment changed to meet the zoning ordinances in order to require large lots. Then non-conformities are being created. Ms. Foster noted that some people would have larger yards than others. There are a lot of farmers out there who plan on selling their land for a retirement fund. If this is a retirement fund, maybe an introduction of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) would help so this land could stay as a farm and other areas could be developed. Mr. Coleman stated that one big hope for preserving agricultural land is more in the area of Purchase Development Rights (PDRs) by a local unit or nonprofit. (TDRs are not allowed in Michigan.) Ms. Cordill stated that trying to overcome the parochial interests especially during times when revenues are low and with what development may occur, the competition must be pretty fierce. She would be interested in knowing how to approach this in terms of implementation. Mr. Coleman stated that the development could not occur without providing sewer and water services. The key is a "425 Agreement" approach that would always be in the best interests of the local governments, in which they sit down, review this plan, and determine where development occurs. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Foster stated that she noticed the TCRPC's areas for preservation and that these areas are pretty broken up. She inquired about reviewing the wildlife aspects of the region so that the City could make space for the wildlife in the plan. Mr. Coleman stated that this is still under consideration. Ms. Foster stated that even as a guideline for what is ideal to try to buy back or create natural corridors for the sake of ecological health and wildlife in the region. Mr. Coleman stated that the TCRPC has a Regional Recreational Committee that is reviewing the extensions of some of the corridors. Mr. Rieske stated that some of the corridors are too narrow, in terms of land mass, to map with the technology currently used to generate the maps. Mr. Coleman stated that on a regional basis, there are maps that show all the bi-paths bike paths and rivertrails in the GIS format and are very detailed. 7. RECESS - None. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of February 4, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of February 4, 2003 were APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. Pg. 8, 3rd para., line 4, "promote" s/b "prevent". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Because of only one Committee member in attendance at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, the meeting was adjourned and discussions would follow at the next meeting. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next regular meeting, Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 6 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is working on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and hopefully will have information available to action on at the next meeting. The Planning Office is working on the focus areas to define a process for involving stakeholders and members of the public, and to incorporate the recommendations received from other agencies (i.e. the Southside Summit). The Regional Growth information is also being reviewed. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E.Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A" Residential District to"C"Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he was glad to be back. He thanked the other Board member for their cards that he received for his surgery. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding taxation. She inquired about the information and if it had been reviewed. Mr. Rieske stated that the information had not yet been reviewed. Mr. McConnell thanked Mr. Rieske for the information he received and appreciated the follow-up that was done. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 7 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.021803.wpd Draft to Clerk February 28,2003 Approved 2003 To Clerk 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 03 FEB 31 AM 8: 412 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chamb(L%jS� G %i I'1 CLEIRi; Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Citizens Planner program for Michigan State University (MSU) extension. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future, Mr. Jon Coleman, Executive Director, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Mr. Coleman stated that this presentation is an update on the Regional Growth project. The primary mission of the project was to actively engage the citizens of the region. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) really wanted to make this a project that involved as many people as is practical. The TCRPC has spent a lot of time and effort bringing a fairly diverse group in to a number of regional forums and stakeholder groups.