Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Planning Board Jul-Sept Minutes FINAL Draft to Clerk August 28,2003 Approved September 3,2003 To Clerk September 10,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting `-` - LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers - Lansing City Hall Tuesday, August 5, 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: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Keene for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Shirley Graves regarding PRD-2-2003. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District and Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request to rezone the property at 1100 Lake Lansing Road and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOTS 7 & 8, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. The purpose of this rezoning is to bring the plumbing and heating business at this location into compliance with the zoning ordinance; AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 2 LOT 9, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION & COM 125.3 FT S 49DEG 13MIN W OF NW COR WIELAND PARK SUB, TH S 49DEG 13MIN W 50 FT TO NE COR BLACKWOOD SUB, S 14DEG 40MIN E 100.15 FT, E PAR L WITH DAVID ST 47.5 FT, N 15DEG 22MIN W 133.8 FT TO BEG; SEC 3 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize these properties for offices to support his plumbing and heating business. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Code Compliance comment regarding outside storage of materials and if it could take place in the proposed "G-2" Wholesale District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would not be allowed in the "G-2" district. Like "F" Commercial, the applicant could have an outdoor display of products that are for sale but not outdoor storage of materials (i.e. contractor materials). At a minimum, the property would have to be completely screened from view of the neighbors. In the past, there has been outside storage at this location and it has been a Code Compliance issue. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board looked at this property a few years ago as an NCU, and one of the conditions of the NCU was the parking in the front and to the side of the building was to be terminated. Ms. Stachowiak stated that he was correct. Front yard parking has been a Code Compliance issue. In some of these instances not only is it front yard parking but it is also considered parking in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge inquired about all the parcels being combined into one parcel. Ms. Stachowiak stated it could be done either way. The parcels could be kept separate by the Zoning District or combined into one. It does not make a difference from a zoning standpoint. Ms. Foster inquired about the Board receiving a site plan to review the combined area. Ms. Stachowiak asked the applicant to provide the Board with a more refined site plan. Mr. Ruge inquired about buffering between the residential areas and the "G-2" property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the Board approved the requests, minimum buffering requirements would apply. Mr. Paul Wiegman, owner of the properties, stated that when the building was purchased, vehicle parking was in the front. Now he is asking for parking to be in the rear area. When he purchased the property located at 1110 Lake Lansing Road, there were snakes and broken windows, and the house had been condemned. He has put $65,000 into PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 3 repairs on the property and now it is breathtaking. The house has been brought up to code for office use, and there was a six foot fence installed around the property. He has spoken with the neighbors and complied with their requests. He plans on having a lawn across the front and the back of the property. Shrubs will be planted. He would gladly turn the current parking area in the front into a lawn if the rear area could be used for parking. Ms. Foster inquired about an increase in staff or parking. Mr. Wiegman stated that currently the company is down three people, and that the company will not be larger than nine employees. There will only be three vehicles left on the site after the end of the work day. Ms. Susan Snook, resident of 1117 Lake Lansing Road, stated that she and her neighbors oppose this request because of hazards with traffic and parking on the sidewalks. There are children in the area and because of issues with parking, the children cannot walk on the sidewalk in that area. There are also two residents who are confined to wheelchairs. There have been near accidents because of the way people park, and these people have no regard for the neighborhood. Two weeks ago, a semi was unloading in the turn lane on Lake Lansing Road. The neighbors do not want things like this happening in the area. At one time, an employee of the company was driving while intoxicated and struck a fire hydrant located on the corner of New York and David. The neighbors do not want to have this type of behavior in the neighborhood. Driving situations are already dangerous. Mr. Frederick inquired about the petition. Ms. Snook stated that she had copies available for the Board. Ms. Foster asked if the company had taken care of the problem with sidewalk parking, and if there was a solution that was acceptable to her and the neighbors in regards to the entrance and exit into the interior parking area. Ms. Snook stated that it is still causing way more traffic within the area than what is capable of being handled. Mr. McConnell asked Ms. Snook if there had been a change in the pattern of parking and how long she had lived at her current address. Ms. Snook stated that there has been no change and that she has lived at this address for six years. Mr. Daniel Palacios, resident of 1910 New York Avenue, stated that there has been an increase in transients as a result of this business. They steal the scrap metal, copper and other materials that are left behind the building in storage. When they do not buy the metal or cannot get into the yard, they start roaming into the neighbors' homes and yards. He has to deal with this all the time and has personally caught people going into the yards and homes. He does not see where this will decrease in the near future and does not know what can be done to keep this from happening. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 4 There is also a problem with traffic on the corner. In the mornings when people are entering and exiting, it becomes rough in that corner area. There is a lot of traffic and it becomes crowded and congested. The residents are trying to keep their area a neighborhood because it was meant to be a neighborhood and not businesses. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Palacios if he had police reports of the incidents that occurred in the neighborhood. Mr. Palacios stated that the residents did not make any comparative references. The residents would call the police, the police would show up and sometimes speak directly to him. Otherwise, the police would not speak to him if they caught people in the act of stealing. Ms. Cindy Brush, resident of 1116 David Street, stated that the neighborhood is a second generation neighborhood and that she has concerns regarding the property previously being a gas station. She was not sure about the environmental conditions of the gas storage tanks. There are lots of children in this area who ride their bikes and she would ask City Council to take this into consideration. She has a 4 year old son and she does not want to see him get hurt. Lake Lansing Road is very congested. Mr. Chuck Tate, resident of 1411 New York and an employee of J&J Plumbing and Heating, stated that parking is an atrocity but is one of the issues that is trying to be resolved through the rezoning. By turning the lot next door into a parking lot, there are plans to move the trucks away from the building and into a safer area. This will not stop the party store parking unless the lot is turned into a green space. With ingress and egress, the plans would be to have a driveway at one end of the property and another driveway at the opposite end of the property exiting onto Lake Lansing Road. This would alleviate some of the traffic congestion near the corner. He stated that there are concerns about the safety of the children in the area. There has been only one accident where an employee backed out and bumped into a parked car. Deliveries are made in the parking lot. There was an incident about a week ago or so ago where a condenser was unloaded, and that took about ten minutes. When unloading materials, this generally happens. Ms. Foster inquired about the truck traffic generated from the business. Mr. Tate stated that the employees are there between 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. and are gone for the entire day. Occasionally, the service guys are back once or twice during the middle of the day. There would be a total of 18 vehicles. Mr. Ruge inquired about turning the lot to the east into a parking lot and if it was possible to close off that driveway and use the Lake Lansing Road exit to access the back of the building. Mr. Tate stated that it would certainly be a possibility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Ruge inquired about the "G-2" zoning. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster inquired about the Comprehensive Plan and spot zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would apply and that it becomes difficult for staff to support the request because of conflicts with the Master Plan. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-6-2003 and Z-7-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. B. Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MLK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District This is a request by Lansing Housing Commission to rezone the property at 3117 S. MLK Blvd., more specifically described as: COM INTN E LINE S LOGAN STIM-99 & S LINE LOGANCREST SUB, TH E 936.2 FT, S 245 FT TO N LINE SOUTHLAND PLAZA SUB, W 515 FT, N 95 FT, W 150 FT, N 100 FT, W 2 70.1 FT TO E LINE M-99, NW'LY 50.01 FT TO BEG; SEC 29 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a 30-unit senior housing development on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that there is no connection from this property to the rest of the neighborhood, and inquired about the possibility of access via sidewalk that would run to Washington Avenue. She stated that the residents would have to walk in the street because there is no sidewalk. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is proposing a street connection into the development which would connect to Southland Avenue. This is where the access would be located. Ms. Cordill asked for verification of the access location on Southland Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated it is the highlighted area. Ms. Foster stated that the only sidewalk available is the one to MLK Blvd. and then the residents have to return this way. The sidewalk does not go all the way around the block. Mr. Stuchill stated that the Housing office has been looking at the situation for quite a while and has had the application in with MSHDA for tax credit financing. The Housing office purchased the property for housing for the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 6 residents who were displaced by Oliver Towers. The senior citizens will be given first priority for housing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-8-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. C. PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 14 acre parcel located south of Moffitt Street, east of Pleasant Grove and west of Hughes Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 35 detached single family residential site condominium units on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that having the right access to the community makes the development a part of the community. The community would have a private park which can remain as a private park. The goal is to have access to the rest of the community so that the residents can become a part of the community rather than being isolated. Ms. Stachowiak stated that when Mr. Markey gives his presentation maybe this could be addressed at that time. Ms. Cordill inquired about how the residents of the community would have access to the private park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a 10 foot strip that expands to the southern-most road, running parallel to Moffitt Street. She stated that the applicant has allowed for the one access and that there may be potential for more than one access point, if necessary. Mr. Markey may address this issue in his presentation. Mr. Mike Markey, of Markey Associates, 1400 Silverwood, Okemos, gave an overview of the proposed development. Ms. Foster inquired about walking access to the streets. Mr. Markey stated that there will be sidewalks throughout the project. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there has been a lot of discussion with the Code Compliance Office. The issue that arose was maintenance and who would be in charge of maintaining the common area space. Mr. Markey stated that there is a big difference between a neighborhood association and a condominium association. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 7 Mr. McConnell inquired about Markey Associates being in charge of the association dues and what issues would be taken care of (i.e. upkeep, snow removal, grass). Mr. Markey stated that the condominium association will own the common areas and the individual home owners will pay a monthly fee to maintain those common areas. Those common areas currently are legal and defined as private parks and would be the responsibility of the condominium association. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Markey to be more specific. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the roads are proposed to be public roads, so the City would be responsible for maintaining them. If the roads were private, then the association would be responsible for hiring a contractor to plow the snow in the winter time and to mow the grass. The condominium association would be responsible for contracting with a landscape company to mow the common areas. In terms of snow removal, it will be spelled out in the condominium documents as to who is responsible for removing snow from the sidewalks and it can be something that the owners within the development collectively decide, out of their fees, to hire someone to shovel snow off the sidewalks. Or, it can be like a subdivision where each individual property owner is responsible for doing it themselves. This development is proposed to be a public road which means the sidewalks would be in the right-of-way and then the City Sidewalk Ordinance will kick in. Each unit will then be responsible for its own maintenance. Mr. McConnell inquired about a proposed price for the condominiums. Mr. Markey stated that the price point on the finished units that will be single family homes will range between $125,000 to $150,000. As the development progresses, the prices will increase. Mr. Ruge inquired about the width of the streets. Mr. Markey stated that the street coming onto Moffitt Street, curb face to curb face, is 31 feet and the same for Hughes Road. This is the standard for what the City of Lansing utilizes for the straight way. Mr. Ruge inquired about how wide the lots would be that are attached to Hughes Road and Moffitt Street. Mr. Markey brought the large plan forward for the Board members to review. Mr. Markey stated that the lots are at least 70 feet in width at the building line. Mr. Ruge stated that the lots along Moffitt Street appear to be 50 feet in width. Mr. Markey stated that the width of the lot is 50 feet, with 31 feet curb face to curb face. Mr. Ruge expressed his concerns about buffering for the residents on both sides of the street. Mr. Markey was certain that something could be accomplished for this. Ms. Cordill stated that the lots were small. Ms. Cinamint Harris, resident of 5512 Hughes Road, stated that the new road will be between her house and her neighbor's house. She PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 8 would prefer the access area to be on Pleasant Grove Road. She has concerns with the wildlife in the area. Mr. William Rogers, resident of 5522 Hughes Road, stated that he objects to the proposed development because of traffic issues. There are no sidewalks at that end of the street. Ms. Nicole McGary, resident of 1930 Moffitt Street, stated that there is currently a traffic issue when traveling on Hughes Road. Her street does not have a lot of these issues because it is a dead end street. She would recommend the access be on Pleasant Grove Road. Having this development in the area would increase property values. She inquired about the private park entrance. Ms. Foster stated that currently a person would have to walk around the block to find the entrance and that it would be nice to have the entrance available to everyone. Ms. McGary inquired about the park being open to the neighborhood. Ms. Foster stated that the area would be a private park and that is why she inquired about the condominiums becoming a part of the community. Ms. Foster was not sure of how much public access would be allowed. Ms. McGary stated that it would be nice to have a park in this area. Mr. Michael Abbott, resident of 5419 Hughes Road, stated that he has lived in this area for over 18 years. He has been to City Council asking for stop signs to be placed on Moffitt Road because he was tired of people speeding at 55 mph or more on Hughes and Jolly Roads, and Hughes and MLK Blvd. The road is always torn up and this development would add extra traffic on the road. In 18 years he has yet to see anything other than pot holes in the road. He is opposed to the development. He had concerns with privacy and the wildlife in the area. He enjoys the outside view of deer and turkey roaming the area. He stated that there needs to be a stop sign to slow down the traffic. This is not a good area to add more traffic because it is currently at a constant steady pace. Mr. Abbott also stated that there is an easement on the east side of Hughes Road that is 18 feet wide, and is for a single unit. Now there is discussion about a multi-unit going in. His property extends all the way to the park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property is zoned single family and the most anyone could have on the property is one house. Nothing can be placed on the 18' wide strip of property. The applicant would have to go before the Board and City Council to have approval for a planned residential development. Mr. Frederick asked for this request to be forwarded to the appropriate department for investigation. Ms. Stachowiak stated she would do it. Ms. Ila M. Farlin, resident of 5513 Hughes Road, stated that the road to the new development would be right next to her property. She is a senior citizen who moved to this area for retirement. She does not mind the condominiums but would appreciate it if the access would not be placed PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 9 next to her property. She has had several people ride up into her yard every winter and almost killed her little tree in the front yard. It is hard for her to cross the street to get to her mailbox. If the traffic were to increase, the situation would become worse. Mr. Mike Mercer, representative of 5440 Hughes Road, stated that what he is hearing are concerns with the development overcrowding the neighborhood. He inquired about a traffic study. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the City's Transportation Department that would require a traffic study if the number of units would have a negative impact on the streets in this area. A study has not been ordered at this point. Mr. Don Jones, resident of 2109 Moffitt Street, stated that he believes the concerns with the traffic can be resolved by curb and re-gutter, resurfacing the road, and having stop signs placed at all the entrances to the subdivision. Ms. Cindy Slocum, resident of 2103 Moffitt Street, stated that the entrance would be next to her house. She also enjoys the wildlife in the area. She inquired about the entrance to the subdivision. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the entrance would be a standard street with typical curb and gutter constructed to the City's specifications. In terms of any entrance way, the Planning Office has not been presented with a site plan. Ms. Slocum inquired about a fence around the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a fence is not required and would be strictly up to the developers. Mr. Ruge asked if a fence would be placed around the development. Mr. Markey stated that there are no plans for a fence at this point, and if the people would let him know what they want then he could do it. Mr. Ruge inquired about access to Pleasant Grove Road and if Mr. Markey could share the thought process in determining the access that was chosen. Mr. Markey stated that with the proximity to Moffitt Street that empties onto Pleasant Grove Road, his understanding from the Planning Office and the Transportation Department was that the distance would be too close. There are criteria about how close a street/intersection should be. There has been discussion about the curb and lack of enforcement with speeding on Hughes Road. Pleasant Grove Road is a 4-lane major arterial. Pleasant Grove Road has had a worse corroded angle for ingress and egress then anything ever seen on Hughes Road. A lot of this on Hughes Road has to do with enforcement of existing laws and traffic calming measures. It is a race track and it will be that way whether this development goes through or not. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-3-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 10 D. PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.85 acre parcel located on the west side of Wexford Road, 495 feet from W. Jolly Road. The applicant proposes to construct 9 detached single family residential condominium units on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the benefits of having public versus private streets going into the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the streets are dedicated to the public, they have to be constructed to the City's street standards. If the streets are private, the requirements may be relaxed some. The development will be servicing 9 units, and the residents may prefer to have it as a private drive. Mr. Ruge inquired about the access area and the size of the sidewalks by Wexford Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Markey Associates may have purchased the vacant lot listed as 062. Mr. Anthony J. Szilagyi, representative of Markey Associates, stated that the development is a middle income opportunity for residents. Many residents enjoy viewing the wetlands and the wildlife. This is an opportunity for people who seek to live in this type of environment. Most people look outside the City for these types of opportunities. This is the ideal environment geared towards enjoying wildlife outside the windows. The property can be purchased at a very reasonable price. With regards to the traffic and the location, ingress and egress has to be moved down slightly to address the property concerns. Ms. Foster inquired about public access to the wetland. Mr. Szilagyi stated that there is some room to create a walkway. Ms. Foster inquired about mailboxes. Mr. Markey stated that this would be up to the Post Office. Mr. Ruge inquired about the wetlands towards the north and if they would be left in their natural state. Mr. Markey stated that under the current zoning, the balance will be left in its natural state. Ms. Cordill inquired about the residents of the units to the west and how they would access the area without walking on the street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that area would be a common space and the residents who live back there would have access to it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Foster inquired about the benefits of the private/public street. Ms. Cordill asked Mr. Markey why the company was pursuing a private street for this development. Mr. Markey stated that the other development seemed to make more sense to construct public roads and have the City care for them. He stated that what the company foresees with this development is to have the roads maintained by the condominium association rather than the City because of the unique characteristics of the pond. The pond is not small and is just under 3 acres. This is a large body of water. The company seeks to have this as a private development. Mr. McConnell asked if these condos would be standing alone. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these units are detached single family units. Mr. Markey stated the only reason why these are condominium developments is because of the legal requirements to re-plat the land. The flexibility of not having to go through the subdivision act through the State of Michigan allows the company to have this development done a whole lot quicker than the old fashioned subdivision plat. Mr. McConnell inquired about the price of the condos. Mr. Markey stated these would be a little bit higher, between $150,000 to $175,000. Ms. Teresa Lauderdale, resident of 5210 Wexford Road, stated that she has lived in the area since last year. She stated that Wexford Road is the main access area for her subdivision. This road is much busier than what she thought it would be when she purchased her home. When school is in session, the road is busier. There is not very much property for parents to park. There is a small driveway to the school where the parents park. Cars are always parked on both sides of the street when parents pick up their children. A lot of times her driveway is blocked. There are kids walking down the street all the time. Drivers do not do the speed limit and cars are zooming down the road. She is concerned about the new development because this would bring more traffic. She is concerned about the safety of the kids. She is totally opposed to having the driveway for the new subdivision on Wexford Road. Ms. Trudy Wilson, resident of 5230 Wexford Road, stated that she has lived on Wexford Road since 1984. She shares the same concerns about the traffic and safety of the children. She also has concerns about the water tables and flooding. She inquired about the access area to the new subdivision and if there was a park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is only one entrance/exit area and there is a park. Ms. Foster inquired about the area for the public to use. Ms. Wilson stated that the area is a swamp and various things have been dumped there. She asked if it would be cleaned up. She asked if this was Phase I for development of the property and if there would be another phase. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is it for the development and that there would be 9 units. Ms. Wilson stated that she is happy with increasing property values but asked what would happen if the properties do not sell. She asked about the properties PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 12 becoming rental units. She asked about the new units, and if they would become rental units if they did not sell. Mr. Frederick stated that would be up to Mr. Markey. Mr. Glen Gruenvell, resident of 5140 Wexford Road, stated that he has lived in the area for over 7 years. He inquired about the wetlands. It is a dump in that area and it needs a lot of cleanup. He would not want to have that when he looks out his back window. With the elementary school, the road is very busy. There are a lot of kids running around on the street. This development will add more traffic and more vehicles speeding. He asked for a copy of the plans. Some of the members of the audience asked for copies of the plans. The Board members offered their plans to them. Mr. Gruenvell asked about the time frame of the development. Mr. Frederick gave a brief overview of the application process and stated that it takes approximately 3 months. Mr. Frederick stated that for the record, he received a letter of opposition from Ms. Shirley Graves, resident of 5220 Wexford Road. Mr. Markey clarified that the access area is 60 x 72 plus 60 feet south of her property and that her property would not be a corner lot. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-3-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of July 15, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of July 15, 2003 were APPROVED w/ CORRECTIONS. Pg. 9, 2nd para., line 1, delete "to the east". PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 13 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair Ms. Cordill stated that the July meeting had been cancelled. Next meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 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 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office had been asked by City Council to postpone the hearing for PRD-2-2003. It will be held at the next meeting. 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling -junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003 & June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20,2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20,2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17,2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 14 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill stated that she has concerns about the access area for the Victoria Woods Condominiums (PRD-3-2003) and if there was a more definitive way of saying that it would not work. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City's Transportation Engineers would be more qualified to make that decision and that the department has not yet commented on it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would ask them to specifically comment on the access issue. Ms. Cordill stated that residents did not object to the development but were more concerned about the traffic. Ms. Foster inquired about traffic calming measures for this area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council has placed a moratorium on allowing the Transportation Department to do any more traffic calming measures in the City. The Transportation Department cannot do anything about it. However, it can be passed on to the Police Department for increased enforcement in that area. Ms. Foster inquired about who made up the Executive Committee. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, and the Chairs of the two Committees. Ms. Stachowiak gave an update on all the pending enforcement issues. Mr. McConnell stated that he brought up a code enforcement issue at the last meeting regarding Padnos Iron & Metal Company on Willow Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a restriction for this site. The materials stored within 20 feet of the fence shall not exceed the height of the fence. Once they are passed 20 feet of the fence, they can go as high as they want in a heavy industrial district. Mr. McConnell stated that if the recyclable materials are in the middle of their lot then they can go as high as they want. Ms. Foster inquired about billboards. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be taken up at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Foster inquired about the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Rieske still plans to continue with it. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick inquired about the tree trimming business on the north side of Jolly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 5, 2003 Page 15 Road, east of Waverly Road. The owner has two or three lots. One of the lots is fenced with a chain link fence and has the whole length of the fence covered with cheap banners advertising his business. Most of the yard is filled with cut wood that is split and stacked. While Mr. Frederick was there, a motorcycle patrol officer was giving the owner grief. Mr. McConnell inquired about a tree trimming type-business next door to Bill Gill Cleaners. The owner uproots tree trunks and houses all his trucks in his garage. This is a business at his residence. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.080503.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk July 21,2003 PG 9,2"d PARA., 15'LINE, DELETE "to the east' Approved August 5,2003 To Clerk August 7, 2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Foster, Ruge, McConnell, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of July 1, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of July 1, 2003 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 2 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-4-2003, 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, Rezoning from "DM-4" Residential, "A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-1" & "A" Residential Districts This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 6 through 14, inclusive, and the west 66 feet of Lot 15 of Brierley Hill, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-4" Residential,"A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-1" & "A" Residential Districts. Lots 6, 7 and 8 at the west end of the site would be rezoned to "A" Residential and the remainder of the property would be rezoned to "DM-1" Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to demolish the existing adult care facility building on the subject property and construct 60 units of multiple family residential. Staff recommended approval of Z-4-2003, 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, Rezoning from "DM-4" Residential, "A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-1" & "A" Residential Districts. 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-4-2003, 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, Rezoning from "DM-4" Residential, "A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-1" & "A" Residential Districts. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Aye Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-5-2003, Northeast Corner of S. MIL King Jr. Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., Rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District and "J" Parking District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 3 This is a request by Allan and Melissa Randt to rezone the property located at the northeast corner of S. ML King Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., more specifically described as: LOT 38 DEKAU HEIGHTS from "D-1" Professional Office District to "F" Commercial District, and the property, more specifically described as: COM 183 FT N & 33 FT E OF SW SEC CORM TH N 60 FT, S 88DEG 30MIN E 182.4 FT, S 43DEG E 32.8 FT TO PT 239.4 FT TO BEG; SEC 5 T3N R2W from "D-1" Professional Office to "J" Parking. If approved, the applicant intends to use the properties in combination with the adjoining commercial property to the north, for parking and potential future expansion. Staff recommended approval of Z-5-2003, Northeast Corner of S. ML King Jr. Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., Rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District and "J" Parking 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-5-2003, Northeast Corner of S. ML King Jr. Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., Rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District and "J" Parking District. Frederick Aye Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. LS-22-2002, 6222 Marywood Avenue, Lot Split Variance This is a request for a lot split by Warren Tanner. The applicant is proposing to split the property at 6222 Marywood Avenue into two parcels, resulting in the following legal descriptions: THE NORTH 43 FEET OF LOT 61, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 4 COUNTY, MICHIGAN. THE SOUTH 6.4 FEET OF LOT 61, AND THE NORTH 36.6 FEET OF LOT 62, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. The resulting parcels, as described above, would be 43 feet in width by 192.33 feet in depth, which exceeds the maximum allowable width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 set forth in Section 1236.07 (d) of the Subdivision Regulations. Both lots would have a width to depth ratio of approximately 1:4.5 and would be less than the minimum width requirement of 60 feet. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the Subdivision Regulations is requested. As described in the staff report: a reasonable practical difficulty could not be discerned that differentiates this request from any other; the current parcel is already smaller than a quarter of the lots on the street; the variance would result in lots that are significantly narrower than any other on the street; and the proposed lot widths would be incompatible with most contemporary housing designs. Correspondingly, staff does not recommend approval of a variance for LS-22-2003, 6222 Marywood Avenue. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge asked how this case was different from the lot split case on Palmer Street that was recommended for approval by the Planning Board. Ms. Stachowiak stated that with the Palmer case, there were other lots on the street that were comparable to what the applicant had requested. She stated that with this case, these would be the two smallest lots on Marywood Street. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to deny LS-22-2002, 6222 Marywood Avenue, Lot Split Variance. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 5 Next meeting, Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Act-14-2002, NW Corner Allegan & Capitol Ave., Convey E-W Alley The Michigan Senate has requested that the City of Lansing transfer legal title of an E-W alley which is located south of the Farnum Building at 123 W. Allegan, for the redevelopment of its parking lot along Capitol Avenue. This case was considered at the June 24, 2003 Urban Development Committee meeting, at which Dan Brocklehurst, of the State Senate, spoke on behalf of the proposal. The subject alley is approximately 1 V x 165' in size, too narrow for many of the City's service vehicles. The alley runs south of& behind the Farnum Bldg. (State Senate), Karoub Bldg., & Capitol Hall Bldg. (Beaner's) along Allegan Street. The City does not have clear title to the property. Since the alley was deeded to the City, rather than being platted, it can be conveyed in part or in its entirety. The applicant proposes to re-design the parking to increase the number of spaces. Gated access drives would be located at both Capitol Avenue and the N-S alley. The area behind the Karoub Building rear entrance and under the existing fire escape on the Capitol Hall Building would not be included in the parking area, and access easements would be provided to the building owners. The Building Safety Office will require an access easement and the installation of fire safety improvements on the Karoub Building. The BWL will require an easement for (or the relocation of) an electric service duct to the neighboring building west of the Capitol Hall Building, with restrictions on structures. Staff recommended approval of Act-14-02, the conveyance of the subject E-W alley located south of the Farnum, Karoub, and Capitol Hall buildings (100 Blk W Allegan) for a nominal price, with conditions. The Committee members desired documentation on the efforts to request and receive comments on the recommendation from the adjacent property owners, and thus delayed reporting this case for Board action until these efforts were completed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 6 The Committee found, based on its review of the location, character, and extent of this proposal, in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The subject alley is too narrow for servicing by City vehicles. 2. Transfer of legal title of the subject alley would have the following benefits: a) relinquish the City from the responsibility of maintaining the alley, b) remove one curb cut on Capitol Avenue side and thus help eliminate traffic confusion, c) restrict delivery trucks in the public alley, and d) enhance both visual and physical appearance by allowing the applicant to provide more efficient parking spaces. 3. Fire protection to the buildings can be provided by accessing the Senate parking lot, rather than the proposed alley. 4. City's public purpose for the subject alley can be protected with a utility easement for the electric service duct. 5. The ingress & egress concerns regarding the adjacent buildings can be addressed by providing easements to the property owners. 6. The Building Code concerns can be addressed through the access easements and the installation of fire safety measures, which would be necessitated as a result of this proposal. 7. The proposed conveyance appears to be consistent with the land use in the area, and compatible with the Central Lansing & River Island Comprehensive Plans. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Rieske noted that Shane Silsby, Transportation & Parking Manager, had requested the easement area be extended approximately 5' west of the Karoub Building's rear entrance. A friendly amendment was made to the motion to reflect his recommendation and was incorporated in the conditions listed in the motion. Ms. Foster inquired about the possible use of permeable pavement to reduce runoff. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Public Service Department requires an impervious surface. She also noted that landscaping, screening, and buffering will be required according to the new ordinance, and this project will be subject to site plan review. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 7 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-14- 2002, the conveyance of the City's interest in the subject E-W alley located south of the Farnum, Karoub, and Capitol Hall buildings (100 Blk W Allegan) for a nominal price, with the conditions that 1) The State Senate provide an access easement (at least 10' in width, extending 5' west of the Karoub Building door) immediately behind the Karoub & Capitol Hall Buildings within the alley, for the benefit of the owners & users of those buildings, and keep the easement area clear of obstructions, 2) The applicant provide the City with utility easements, or relocate utilities as appropriate, 3) The applicant ensure that necessary measures are taken at the Karoub Building to meet local building code requirements, including the installation of fire shutter on the exterior of each windows facing the alley and installation of sprinkler protection on the interior window face of these windows, to be implemented when during the course of making improvements to the parking area, 4) The parking lot be subject to the City's site plan review procedures, and 5) The applicant provide landscaping features along Capitol Avenue to screen the parked vehicles. Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . Ave Foster. Ave McConnell Ave Keene Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS. Next meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 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 thanked Ms. Foster for the LA445 Class posters. He stated that some of them have been posed on the walls at the office. Mr. Rieske also stated that the code enforcement items are being tracked by Ms. Stachowiak. 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 July 15, 2003 Page 8 e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj.Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling-junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003&June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20, 2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20, 2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17, 2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns(July 1,2003) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that the Senate Alley could be surfaced with pervious asphalt. Mr. Ruge stated that there was an article in one of the planner magazines about a certain percentage of a municipality being covered by trees. He inquired about whether or not the City has any tree canopy goals. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not aware of any, except for the street trees that the City Forester requires through site plan review. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to require trees within parking lots. Ms. Foster stated that the City could track the tree canopy coverage in the City on its GIS system. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Foster stated that there is a house in the 900 block of W. Ionia Street that does not have a roof. Mr. McConnell stated that Padnos Steel Salvage, next to DeLuca's on Willow, has scraps piled approximately two to three times the height of the fence. He also stated that the fence is chain link without any slats to provide screening. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no screening requirement. However, it is not legal to have scrap piled higher than the fence. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Frederick stated that Wild Side Tatoo has a homemade sign near TV53 on Pennsylvania. Ms. Cordill stated that there are no street signs at the intersection to the east of Washington and Miller, and that there should be larger signs for larger intersections. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.071503.wpd Approved as written 7-15-03 Draft to Clerk July 3,2003 Approved July 15,2003 To Clerk July 18,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, July 1, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:14 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, McConnell, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Foster. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-4-2003, 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, "DM-4" Residential,"A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-2" & "A" Residential Districts This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 6 through 14, inclusive, and the west 66 feet of Lot 15 of Brierley Hill, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan rezoned to "A" Residential and the remainder of the property would be rezoned to "DM-2" Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to demolish the existing adult care facility building on the subject property and construct a 60 unit, multiple family residential development. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the density calculation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be at the density of 16.3 units per acre. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Carey Haller, representative of Ferris Development, located at 820 N. Capitol Avenue, stated that the company is planning on rezoning based on neighborhood meetings. The company could build a 60 unit building as it is currently zoned on the west end of the property. The neighbors had requested that Ferris Development move the apartment buildings more towards the commercial area on Martin Luther King Blvd. as opposed to building the apartments next to the existing single family homes. Mr. McConnell inquired about the apartments being single family. Ms. Haller stated what Ferris Development was proposing was 25 2-bedroom units, 25 3-bedroom units, 7 1-bedroom units, and 3 4-bedroom units, totaling 60 units. Mr. McConnell inquired about the apartments being subsidized housing. Ms. Haller stated that the apartments would be affordable housing and that 60% of area immediate income will be the people who will be eligible for living in those units. Ms. Cordill inquired about Ferris Development managing the property. Ms. Haller stated that Ferris Development is planning on managing the property with in-house management. Ms. Cordill inquired about how many units would be allowed in the "DM-4" Residential District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the "DM-4" district is the most dense multiple family zoning district and would allow up to 87.3 units per acre. Ms. Cordill inquired about the expected height of the apartments. Ms. Haller stated that Ferris Development is planning to build two buildings with 2-stories and one building would be a 3-story. Ms. Avis Allman, resident of 1418 Mary Avenue, asked for clarification of which portion of the property would be residential. Ms. Stachowiak stated that west end of the property would be residential. Mr. Randy Keyes, resident of 1228 Pierce, stated that his property abuts the property. He presented the Board with two letters for the record. He stated that he appreciates Ferris Development not going to the extreme amount of density and that they are will to work with the neighborhood. He would like to continue this relationship and that accountability is a good thing. With the residents who are along the property line, the old Lindell sewer system is currently used for water drain off and that the Board of Water and Light has assumed responsibility of it. He and the neighbors wanted to make sure that the back yards would continue to drain and that Ferris Development make accommodations for it. The neighborhood would like a berm around the outside of the property along with a privacy fence, and to limit the development to 60 units maximum. The neighborhood does not want a huge apartment complex and have at least two residential homes built and sold on the end. If PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 3 Ferris Development were to sell the property in the future, this would prohibit another developer from building more apartments on the property. He appreciated Ferris Development's willingness to work with the neighborhood. Ms. Susan Gann, resident of 1302 Mary Avenue, stated that she would like to see the Board approve the rezoning. She would like to see Ferris Development build the apartments on the east end of the property. With the apartments being across the street from her home, she did not want them to bring down the value of her home or other homes in the area. If Ferris Development built homes across the street, it would help to maintain the value of the homes in the area. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:27 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Mr. John Anderson, resident of 1318 Pierce Road, stated that his property abuts the nursing home, and that Ferris Development agreed to build a PVC fence around the property. Mr. McConnell asked the applicant to return to the podium. He stated that even though Ferris Development is trying to improve the neighborhood, sometimes residents view this as a negative to the area as far as bring the property value down. He asked Ms. Haller if there were plans for buffering and a privacy fence. Ms. Haller stated that most of Ferris Development's properties are fenced as a courtesy to the neighbors. It helps to keep the property looking nice. Ferris Developments does have plans to berm and fence the back portion of the property. If it is in the budget, Ferris Development is considering a wrought iron fence in the front of the property. Ms. Cordill stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for low density, 0-7 dwelling units per acre. She asked the applicant if Ferris Development considered rezoning to a lower density. Ms. Haller stated that if Ferris Development goes beyond 60 units, then it becomes a non-economically feasible project. Ferris Development has considered the down zoning and has gone as low as they could to keep it as a feasible project. Ms. Shelly Keyes, resident of 1228 Pierce Road, stated that she has appreciated Ferris Development's approach and that they have been very responsive to her emails. She stated that she and her husband support this request. This development would add a buffer along with the two added houses. She does not want the property to remain vacant. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the Zoning Ordinance for property drainage. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief explanation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 4 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-4-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. B. Z-5-2003, Northeast Corner of S. MIL King Jr. Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District and "J" Parking District This is a request by Allan and Melissa Randt to rezone the property located at the northeast corner of S. ML King Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., more specifically described as: LOT 38 DEKAU HEIGHTS from "D-1" Professional Office District to "F" Commercial District, and the property, more specifically described as: COM 183 FT N & 33 FT E OF SW SEC CORM TH N 60 FT, S 88DEG 30MIN E 182.4 FT, S 43DEG E 32.8 FT TO PT 239.4 FT TO BEG; SEC 5 T3N R2W from "D-1" Professional Office to "J" Parking. If approved, the applicant intends to use the properties in combination with the adjoining commercial property to the north, for parking and potential future expansion. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the driveway on Grovenburg Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant intends to remove the wrap around driveway and construct another parking area further south. There are future plans of expanding the building. Both driveways will be eliminated with the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Ruge asked if the parking lot could be placed on the far south end of the property against the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did mention it to the applicant and that there were reasons the applicant chose not to (i.e. sewer changes and leave the property to the north freed up for future expansion of the building). Melissa and Allan Randt, applicants, stated that in the Planning Board packet there should have been a plan for existing vegetation along the south property line that would border the residential lots along Miller Road. Mrs. Randt stated that they met with surrounding property owners and that the property owners wanted to see the vegetation remain along with a privacy fence. The current plan is to keep the existing vegetation and have the privacy fence on the inside of the property line. The plan is to rezone the southern most lot for "J" Parking District. The property does need to tie into the City's sewer system. There are two buildings on their PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 5 property that do not tie into the City's sewer system and it is very critical that this be done. The parking lot was arranged so that the company could have sewer outlets and also have access to the sewer line through the parking lot. Mr. Randt stated that when the road was established, there was no main City sewer line that went to either of their buildings. The existing house on the property is on a septic system that the company would like to demolish. The other two buildings are also on a septic system because there was no main sewer line in the City right-of- way. By purchasing and rezoning the property to the south, the company can eliminate the septic lines and tanks and tie the buildings into the main City sewer system on Grovenburg Road. The vacant parcel that the company would like to rezone to "J" Parking District, there is a City sewer line tap that the company can tie into and go across the properties. Without purchasing the property, the company cannot tie into the City sewer system. Mrs. Randt stated that the company will incur the expense to hook up into the City sewer system and that the company needs additional employee parking. With the retail business, there may be a future expansion to the south on the property to be rezoned to "F" Commercial District. With the current parking situation, the company is trying to make available the employee parking because of deliveries. The second building is rented to Aquarius Pools and they have deliveries. They are very busy with pool installations. This would help to ease the congestion in the parking lot for the customers. Mr. McConnell inquired about ownership of the Aquarius Pools' building. Mrs. Randt stated that the does own the building, 6071 S. Martin Luther King Blvd. Mr. McConnell inquired about shared parking. Mrs. Randt stated that parking is shared. Mr. McConnell inquired about Aquarius Pools also receiving additional parking. Mrs. Randt stated that Aquarius Pools could use the additional parking for their employees, mainly in the summertime when contractors are installing the pools. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-4-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. C. LS-22-2002, 6222 Marywood Avenue This is a request for a lot split request by Warren Tanner. The applicant is proposing to split the property at 6222 Marywood Avenue into two parcels, resulting in the following legal descriptions: THE NORTH 43 FEET OF LOT 61, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. THE SOUTH 6.4 FEET OF LOT 61, AND THE NORTH 36.6 FEET OF LOT 62, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 6 The resulting parcels, as described above, would be 43 feet in width by 192.33 feet in depth, which exceeds the maximum allowable width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 set forth in Section 1236.07 (d) of the Subdivision Regulations. Both lots would have a width to depth ratio of approximately 1:4.5 and would be less than the minimum width requirement of 60 feet. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the Subdivision Regulations is requested. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that the neighborhood has a mixture of lot sizes and inquired about other lots in the neighborhood that are narrow like the parcels being proposed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these lots would be the two smallest lots on the street. The request is for 43 feet and would be approximately 6 feet smaller than the other lots on the street. Mr. McConnell inquired about the width of the parcels. Ms. Stachowiak stated 60 feet is the requirement. Mr. Warren Tanner, resident of 11900 Holt Road, Diamondale, and the applicant, stated that Marywood Avenue has been a down scale neighborhood for many years. In the past few years, there have been new homes built in the neighborhood. This street is beginning to gain momentum. The house on the north lot is in very poor condition. What he would propose to do is build a house on each lot, approximately 24 feet by 40 feet. He would build the houses close to the property lines, which would leave over 28 feet in between the houses for the driveways. He stated that he is a licensed builder. If approved, he would start construction right away. This would be a great asset to the neighborhood. Mr. McConnell inquired about the medium price range of the homes in the neighborhood, and what the proposed price would be of the new homes. Mr. Tanner stated that the average throughout the neighborhood would be approximately $60,000 to $65,000. The new homes would be simply built houses with a value of approximately $80,000 to $85,000. Ms. Cordill inquired about each house having its own driveway. Mr. Tanner stated that each house would have its own driveway. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred LS-22-2002 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 7 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of June 3, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 3, 2003 were APPROVED. Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of June 17, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 17, 2003 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Foster, Vice Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park The applicant requests that the City accept the donation of an undeveloped parcel as an extension to Maguire Park. The property is rectangular, and measures 200' x 700' (3.21 acres). It is located in the 100-year flood plain, and zoned `I' Heavy Industrial. It lies west of the current Maguire Park, which was recently acquired as part of the RiverTrail South project (Act-12-03), east of industrial & residential areas, and north of residential & commercial uses. The applicant proposes to use this property: as a green space buffer between industrial land uses to the west and Sycamore Creek; and for future extension of River Trail South. The adjoining property to the east, Maguire Park, was donated by the applicant to the City in 2002 (Act-12-02), and dedicated for Park use. The current request would be an expansion to the original donation. A land division to accommodate this donation was recently approved under LS-17-03. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 8 The Park Board, at its meeting on April 16, 2003, recommended by resolution that the City accept the donation of this property and to dedicate it for Park use. Staff recommended approval of Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park, the donation of property adjoining Maguire Park, with the conditions recommended by the Park Board (clear & marketable title, a warranty deed, and an acceptable environmental assessment) and its dedication for park use. 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 Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . Ave McConnell . Ave Cordill. . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery The applicant requests that the City accept the donation of an undeveloped parcel located west of and adjacent to North Cemetery, for the purpose of expanding the cemetery to provide cremation sites. The Future Land Use Map designates the area for professional office purposes. The site is not of sufficient size to accommodate an office development, but could be combined with the property to the west and developed for office uses. The site is somewhat hilly, and offers a pleasantly wooded setting. There is a steep grade change between the site and the adjacent cemetery. The topography may lend itself more to cemetery use than for a professional office. Its use for cemetery purposes would be consistent with the existing character of the area, would not significantly impact the the Master Plan's future land use pattern, and would offer a public benefit in its use as a cemetery. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 9 Staff recommended approval of Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery, the donation of property adjoining North Cemetery for cemetery purposes, with the conditions recommended by the Park Board (clear & marketable title, a warranty deed, and an acceptable environmental assessment). In Committee, the request was tabled and an additional meeting was scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on July 1, 2003, in the City Council Conference Room, 101h Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of considering this matter. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Keene stated that in Committee this evening, Ms. Tonya Moore, a representative of the Parks Department, was in attendance and presented a cost analysis for acquisition fees to the Committee members. In Committee this evening, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Rieske stated that there were certain factors that would provide the basis for set of findings: 1. Topography would lend itself to cremation sites. 2. The property is adjacent to the North Cemetery. 3. The community character. 4. Public purpose identified by the Parks Board. Mr. Ruge inquired about dedicated cemetery property and if it is the same as dedicated park property. Ms. Tonya Moore stated that it is like dedicated park property where it would have to go to the vote of the people for disposal. She suggested obtaining the City Attorney's opinion regarding the matter. Mr. Ruge inquired about cremation sites and if they are the same size as burial plots or smaller. Ms. Moore stated that the plots are smaller, 3 feet by 3 feet. The grave marker is approximately 2 feet and would have a little bit of buffer on each side. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery. Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 10 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, July 29, 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling -junk in rear yard (May 20,2003 &June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20, 2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20, 2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors(June 17, 2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1, 2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1, 2003) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that when he visited the property on Grovenburg Road, the Quality Dairy has two dumpsters along the road and they appear to partially be in the right-of-way. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Ruge stated that he would not be able to attend the Zoning and Ordinance Committee scheduled for July 9th and asked someone else to stand in for him. Ms. Keene stated that she would be able to attend the meeting. Ms. Cordill inquired about a follow-up list regarding the Board Member Code Enforcement issues. Mr. McConnell asked if there was a way to track the issues. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a recommendation made for each item to be included in the agenda listed as a pending item. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office will address the tracking issues and report back to the Board. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick inquired about code requirements for lawns. He saw a yard that only had dirt. The kids ride a four wheeler on the property and they have totally destroyed the lawn. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.070103.wpd Draft to Clerk July 3,2003 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, July 1, 2003 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:14 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, McConnell, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Foster. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-4-2003, 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, "DM-4" Residential,"A" Residential & "J" Parking Districts to "DM-2" & "A" Residential Districts This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 1129 & 1313 Mary Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 6 through 14, inclusive, and the west 66 feet of Lot 15 of Brierley Hill, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan rezoned to "A" Residential and the remainder of the property would be rezoned to "DM-2" Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to demolish the existing adult care facility building on the subject property and construct a 60 unit, multiple family residential development. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the density calculation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be at the density of 16.3 units per acre. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Carey Haller, representative of Ferris Development, located at 820 N. Capitol Avenue, stated that the company is planning on rezoning based on neighborhood meetings. The company could build a 60 unit building as it is currently zoned on the west end of the property. The neighbors had requested that Ferris Development move the apartment buildings more towards the commercial area on Martin Luther King Blvd. as opposed to building the apartments next to the existing single family homes. Mr. McConnell inquired about the apartments being single family. Ms. Haller stated what Ferris Development was proposing was 25 2-bedroom units, 25 3-bedroom units, 7 1-bedroom units, and 3 4-bedroom units, totaling 60 units. Mr. McConnell inquired about the apartments being subsidized housing. Ms. Haller stated that the apartments would be affordable housing and that 60% of area immediate income will be the people who will be eligible for living in those units. Ms. Cordill inquired about Ferris Development managing the property. Ms. Haller stated that Ferris Development is planning on managing the property with in-house management. Ms. Cordill inquired about how many units would be allowed in the "DM-4" Residential District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the "DM-4" district is the most dense multiple family zoning district and would allow up to 87.3 units per acre. Ms. Cordill inquired about the expected height of the apartments. Ms. Haller stated that Ferris Development is planning to build two buildings with 2-stories and one building would be a 3-story. Ms. Avis Allman, resident of 1418 Mary Avenue, asked for clarification of which portion of the property would be residential. Ms. Stachowiak stated that west end of the property would be residential. Mr. Randy Keyes, resident of 1228 Pierce, stated that his property abuts the property. He presented the Board with two letters for the record. He stated that he appreciates Ferris Development not going to the extreme amount of density and that they are will to work with the neighborhood. He would like to continue this relationship and that accountability is a good thing. With the residents who are along the property line, the old Lindell sewer system is currently used for water drain off and that the Board of Water and Light has assumed responsibility of it. He and the neighbors wanted to make sure that the back yards would continue to drain and that Ferris Development make accommodations for it. The neighborhood would like a berm around the outside of the property along with a privacy fence, and to limit the development to 60 units maximum. The neighborhood does not want a huge apartment complex and have at least two residential homes built and sold on the end. If PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 3 Ferris Development were to sell the property in the future, this would prohibit another developer from building more apartments on the property. He appreciated Ferris Development's willingness to work with the neighborhood. Ms. Susan Gann, resident of 1302 Mary Avenue, stated that she would like to see the Board approve the rezoning. She would like to see Ferris Development build the apartments on the east end of the property. With the apartments being across the street from her home, she did not want them to bring down the value of her home or other homes in the area. If Ferris Development built homes across the street, it would help to maintain the value of the homes in the area. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:27 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Mr. John Anderson, resident of 1318 Pierce Road, stated that his property abuts the nursing home, and that Ferris Development agreed to build a PVC fence around the property. Mr. McConnell asked the applicant to return to the podium. He stated that even though Ferris Development is trying to improve the neighborhood, sometimes residents view this as a negative to the area as far as bring the property value down. He asked Ms. Haller if there were plans for buffering and a privacy fence. Ms. Haller stated that most of Ferris Development's properties are fenced as a courtesy to the neighbors. It helps to keep the property looking nice. Ferris Developments does have plans to berm and fence the back portion of the property. If it is in the budget, Ferris Development is considering a wrought iron fence in the front of the property. Ms. Cordill stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for low density, 0-7 dwelling units per acre. She asked the applicant if Ferris Development considered rezoning to a lower density. Ms. Haller stated that if Ferris Development goes beyond 60 units, then it becomes a non-economically feasible project. Ferris Development has considered the down zoning and has gone as low as they could to keep it as a feasible project. Ms. Shelly Keyes, resident of 1228 Pierce Road, stated that she has appreciated Ferris Development's approach and that they have been very responsive to her emails. She stated that she and her husband support this request. This development would add a buffer along with the two added houses. She does not want the property to remain vacant. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the Zoning Ordinance for property drainage. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief explanation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 4 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-4-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. B. Z-5-2003, Northeast Corner of S. MIL King Jr. Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District and "J" Parking District This is a request by Allan and Melissa Randt to rezone the property located at the northeast corner of S. ML King Blvd. and Grovenburg Rd., more specifically described as: LOT 38 DEKAU HEIGHTS from "D-1" Professional Office District to "F" Commercial District, and the property, more specifically described as: COM 183 FT N & 33 FT E OF SW SEC CORM TH N 60 FT, S 88DEG 30MIN E 182.4 FT, S 43DEG E 32.8 FT TO PT 239.4 FT TO BEG; SEC 5 T3N R2W from "D-1" Professional Office to "J" Parking. If approved, the applicant intends to use the properties in combination with the adjoining commercial property to the north, for parking and potential future expansion. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the driveway on Grovenburg Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant intends to remove the wrap around driveway and construct another parking area further south. There are future plans of expanding the building. Both driveways will be eliminated with the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Ruge asked if the parking lot could be placed on the far south end of the property against the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did mention it to the applicant and that there were reasons the applicant chose not to (i.e. sewer changes and leave the property to the north freed up for future expansion of the building). Melissa and Allan Randt, applicants, stated that in the Planning Board packet there should have been a plan for existing vegetation along the south property line that would border the residential lots along Miller Road. Mrs. Randt stated that they met with surrounding property owners and that the property owners wanted to see the vegetation remain along with a privacy fence. The current plan is to keep the existing vegetation and have the privacy fence on the inside of the property line. The plan is to rezone the southern most lot for "J" Parking District. The property does need to tie into the City's sewer system. There are two buildings on their PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 5 property that do not tie into the City's sewer system and it is very critical that this be done. The parking lot was arranged so that the company could have sewer outlets and also have access to the sewer line through the parking lot. Mr. Randt stated that when the road was established, there was no main City sewer line that went to either of their buildings. The existing house on the property is on a septic system that the company would like to demolish. The other two buildings are also on a septic system because there was no main sewer line in the City right-of- way. By purchasing and rezoning the property to the south, the company can eliminate the septic lines and tanks and tie the buildings into the main City sewer system on Grovenburg Road. The vacant parcel that the company would like to rezone to "J" Parking District, there is a City sewer line tap that the company can tie into and go across the properties. Without purchasing the property, the company cannot tie into the City sewer system. Mrs. Randt stated that the company will incur the expense to hook up into the City sewer system and that the company needs additional employee parking. With the retail business, there may be a future expansion to the south on the property to be rezoned to "F" Commercial District. With the current parking situation, the company is trying to make available the employee parking because of deliveries. The second building is rented to Aquarius Pools and they have deliveries. They are very busy with pool installations. This would help to ease the congestion in the parking lot for the customers. Mr. McConnell inquired about ownership of the Aquarius Pools' building. Mrs. Randt stated that the does own the building, 6071 S. Martin Luther King Blvd. Mr. McConnell inquired about shared parking. Mrs. Randt stated that parking is shared. Mr. McConnell inquired about Aquarius Pools also receiving additional parking. Mrs. Randt stated that Aquarius Pools could use the additional parking for their employees, mainly in the summertime when contractors are installing the pools. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-4-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. C. LS-22-2002, 6222 Marywood Avenue This is a request for a lot split request by Warren Tanner. The applicant is proposing to split the property at 6222 Marywood Avenue into two parcels, resulting in the following legal descriptions: THE NORTH 43 FEET OF LOT 61, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. THE SOUTH 6.4 FEET OF LOT 61, AND THE NORTH 36.6 FEET OF LOT 62, MARYWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 6 The resulting parcels, as described above, would be 43 feet in width by 192.33 feet in depth, which exceeds the maximum allowable width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 set forth in Section 1236.07 (d) of the Subdivision Regulations. Both lots would have a width to depth ratio of approximately 1:4.5 and would be less than the minimum width requirement of 60 feet. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the Subdivision Regulations is requested. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that the neighborhood has a mixture of lot sizes and inquired about other lots in the neighborhood that are narrow like the parcels being proposed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these lots would be the two smallest lots on the street. The request is for 43 feet and would be approximately 6 feet smaller than the other lots on the street. Mr. McConnell inquired about the width of the parcels. Ms. Stachowiak stated 60 feet is the requirement. Mr. Warren Tanner, resident of 11900 Holt Road, Diamondale, and the applicant, stated that Marywood Avenue has been a down scale neighborhood for many years. In the past few years, there have been new homes built in the neighborhood. This street is beginning to gain momentum. The house on the north lot is in very poor condition. What he would propose to do is build a house on each lot, approximately 24 feet by 40 feet. He would build the houses close to the property lines, which would leave over 28 feet in between the houses for the driveways. He stated that he is a licensed builder. If approved, he would start construction right away. This would be a great asset to the neighborhood. Mr. McConnell inquired about the medium price range of the homes in the neighborhood, and what the proposed price would be of the new homes. Mr. Tanner stated that the average throughout the neighborhood would be approximately $60,000 to $65,000. The new homes would be simply built houses with a value of approximately $80,000 to $85,000. Ms. Cordill inquired about each house having its own driveway. Mr. Tanner stated that each house would have its own driveway. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred LS-22-2002 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 9, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 7 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of June 3, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 3, 2003 were APPROVED. Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of June 17, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of June 17, 2003 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Foster, Vice Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park The applicant requests that the City accept the donation of an undeveloped parcel as an extension to Maguire Park. The property is rectangular, and measures 200' x 700' (3.21 acres). It is located in the 100-year flood plain, and zoned `I' Heavy Industrial. It lies west of the current Maguire Park, which was recently acquired as part of the RiverTrail South project (Act-12-03), east of industrial & residential areas, and north of residential & commercial uses. The applicant proposes to use this property: as a green space buffer between industrial land uses to the west and Sycamore Creek; and for future extension of River Trail South. The adjoining property to the east, Maguire Park, was donated by the applicant to the City in 2002 (Act-12-02), and dedicated for Park use. The current request would be an expansion to the original donation. A land division to accommodate this donation was recently approved under LS-17-03. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 8 The Park Board, at its meeting on April 16, 2003, recommended by resolution that the City accept the donation of this property and to dedicate it for Park use. Staff recommended approval of Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park, the donation of property adjoining Maguire Park, with the conditions recommended by the Park Board (clear & marketable title, a warranty deed, and an acceptable environmental assessment) and its dedication for park use. 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 Act-6-2003, 317' N of 1835 E. Jolly, Donation for Maguire Park. Frederick . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . Aye Keene Ave McConnell . . Aye Cordill. Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery The applicant requests that the City accept the donation of an undeveloped parcel located west of and adjacent to North Cemetery, for the purpose of expanding the cemetery to provide cremation sites. The Future Land Use Map designates the area for professional office purposes. The site is not of sufficient size to accommodate an office development, but could be combined with the property to the west and developed for office uses. The site is somewhat hilly, and offers a pleasantly wooded setting. There is a steep grade change between the site and the adjacent cemetery. The topography may lend itself more to cemetery use than for a professional office. Its use for cemetery purposes would be consistent with the existing character of the area, would not significantly impact the the Master Plan's future land use pattern, and would offer a public benefit in its use as a cemetery. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 9 Staff recommended approval of Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery, the donation of property adjoining North Cemetery for cemetery purposes, with the conditions recommended by the Park Board (clear & marketable title, a warranty deed, and an acceptable environmental assessment). In Committee, the request was tabled and an additional meeting was scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on July 1, 2003, in the City Council Conference Room, 101h Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of considering this matter. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Keene stated that in Committee this evening, Ms. Tonya Moore, a representative of the Parks Department, was in attendance and presented a cost analysis for acquisition fees to the Committee members. In Committee this evening, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Rieske stated that there were certain factors that would provide the basis for set of findings: 1. Topography would lend itself to cremation sites. 2. The property is adjacent to the North Cemetery. 3. The community character. 4. Public purpose identified by the Parks Board. Mr. Ruge inquired about dedicated cemetery property and if it is the same as dedicated park property. Ms. Tonya Moore stated that it is like dedicated park property where it would have to go to the vote of the people for disposal. She suggested obtaining the City Attorney's opinion regarding the matter. Mr. Ruge inquired about cremation sites and if they are the same size as burial plots or smaller. Ms. Moore stated that the plots are smaller, 3 feet by 3 feet. The grave marker is approximately 2 feet and would have a little bit of buffer on each side. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-7-2003, E. Miller Rd., Lot 48 Richfield Park, Donation for North Cemetery. Frederick Ave Ruge. Aye Keene Ave McConnell Ave Cord i l 1. Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 10 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, July 29, 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling-junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003 &June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20, 2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20, 2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling -handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17,2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1, 2003) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that when he visited the property on Grovenburg Road, the Quality Dairy has two dumpsters along the road and they appear to partially be in the right-of-way. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Ruge stated that he would not be able to attend the Zoning and Ordinance Committee scheduled for July 9th and asked someone else to stand in for him. Ms. Keene stated that she would be able to attend the meeting. Ms. Cordill inquired about a follow-up list regarding the Board Member Code Enforcement issues. Mr. McConnell asked if there was a way to track the issues. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a recommendation made for each item to be included in the agenda listed as a pending item. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office will address the tracking issues and report back to the Board. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick inquired about code requirements for lawns. He saw a yard that only had dirt. The kids ride a four wheeler on the property and they have totally destroyed the lawn. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.070103.wpd Draft to Clerk September 11,2003 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, August 19, 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, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Wynant. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letters of opposition from the following residents regarding PRD-2-2003: 1. Tom & Kay Bellgowan, 3217 Westwood Avenue 2. William R. Montague, no address given 3. John M. Jenks, Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association 4. Dorothy Suky, 1806 Shady Oak Lane 5. Robert E. Moss, no address given 6. Calab & Cindy Hodges, no address given 7. Bert & Donna Carter, 3122 Westwood Avenue 8. Lee Mason, 3204 Westwood Avenue 8. Daniel G. & Kathryn M. Thelen, 3000 Westwood Avenue 9. Kenneth & Viola Verhougstraite, no address given 10. Marjorie Ringle, 3309 Westwood Avenue (2 letters) Ms. Stachowiak stated that this afternoon Ms. Wynant received more letters of opposition from the following residents: 12. Roy D. & Patricia L. Jones, 1608 Biltmore Blvd. 13. Richard A. Wallace, 3118 Westwood 14. Neshehice & Janis Sverns, 3017 Westwood Avenue 15. Brian Yuston, 3119 Westwood Avenue 16. Michaelle Torrez, 3229 Westwood Avenue Mr. Frederick stated that these letters will become an official part of the record, and will be included in the staff report for the Committee meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-2-2003, Giving Tree Care Housing, Vacant parcel at the north end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Robert Bower for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 5.57 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 13 condominium units on the property, consisting of six duplex units and one single family unit. A 6- bed residential care facility is also proposed for the subject property. Ms. Wynant gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Mr. Robert Bower, Director of Giving Tree Farm, located at 15433 Turner Road, gave a brief overview of the proposed development. Ms. Foster inquired about the height of the berm along the railway. Mr. Bower stated that there is currently a berm of approximately 8 feet in height along the north property line. Ms. Foster inquired about raising the height of the berm to 10 feet. Mr. Bower stated that it could be raised. One of the concerns has been the clearing of the area where the care home is being built. It had to be cleared for drainage purposes so there would be swales leading to the catch basin. One of the features of the neighborhood is the mature oak trees. None of these trees on the 7 acres have been or will be disturbed by this development. The cleared area was primarily uncontrolled brush, and trees that have grown over generations and have not been maintained. Ms. Keene asked for some background information regarding Giving Tree Farm, and inquired about owning and properly managing the residential program as well as the condominiums. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm is a state incorporated licensed 501 C3 Christian organization that provides services to developmentally disabled people, a 22 acre farm in DeWitt Township, and certified organic grower of garden produce. Much of their ability to be supported by operational funds is derived from selling organic produce throughout the area. The proposed development with the care home came about by a $120,000 grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank, plus additional financing that was received from the Michigan Housing Trust Fund. For the condominium development, there is financing available to Giving Tree Farm through Standard Federal Bank as well as financing through Enterprise Mortgage of Lansing. The company will not be building units as spec units and will not build 13 units and then try to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 3 sell them. The company will build units as there are potential buyers available. Once the units are built, the buyers will finance them. When the units are completed, both local and state laws require a condominium association that will be formed that would have legal by-laws that would be adhered to for the management and upkeep of the complex and the common areas. Approximately one acre, on the far west end of the property, would be donated to the Lansing Parks Department. Approximately two acres at the far east end of the property would be proposed as an arboretum and would become a common element that the association would be responsible for the upkeep. This is typical for a condominium association. The residents would meet to determine how the acreage would be used and how it would be maintained. Ms. Keene inquired about when Giving Tree Farm became incorporated. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm was incorporated in 1991. Currently, Giving Tree Farm has 22 acres. There are disabled people throughout the greater Lansing area who are transported to the farm. There are job training programs available. Giving Tree Farm is also affiliated with another non-profit organization, Community Based Interventions, who administratively has over 7 years of experience in providing services to disabled people. Community Based Interventions will do the day-to-day management of the care home, with the home being owned by Giving Tree Farm. As a certified organic grower, Giving Tree Farm provides its own means of support. There are 7 green houses besides the seasonal produce. Giving Tree Farm also receives grant funding, and funding through other organizations and individuals. Approximately 50 percent of the operational funding comes from what is derived through the work. Ms. Keene inquired about Giving Tree Farm's involvement in the management of the condominiums. Mr. Bower stated that the management of the condominiums will not be the responsibility of Giving Tree Farm. Giving Tree Farm is the developer who will build and sell the units. With condominium development, the residents will be responsible for the units and everything inside the structure. Everything outside the structure is a common element which would be the responsibility of the association. The association would be responsible for the ground maintenance and street clearing. Mr. Bower stated that there was a concern raised regarding the complex being turned into a rental complex. In order to receive financing for a condominium development, the underwriter requires that at least 80 percent of the units be owner occupied. Giving Tree Farm is proposing a maximum of 13 units. Outside the first spec unit that would be built, the additional units would be built as there are buyers made available. Currently, there are 4 conditional purchases based upon approval. Typically, a developer will build the units as there are potential buyers, and may build a spec unit which may be sold later. The developer will not build the entire complex and then try to sell the units. Ms. Keene asked about Mr. Bower's involvement. Mr. Bower PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 4 stated that once all 13 units were built, it would then be the responsibility of the association and the owners to maintain. Giving Tree Farm is the owner of the care home, and will still be a part of the neighborhood and the association as one member. Including the care home, there will be 14 units. Giving Tree Farm would still have a voting membership as one of the members of the condominium association. Ms. Foster inquired about the prices of the units. Mr. Bower stated that the price range would be between $130,000 to 140,000 and that Giving Tree Farm will be applying for the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Grant. This would be for moderate income families. Potentially, there could be up to a $20,000 subsidy if the grant is received. The Federal Home Loan Bank would require that all the units be owner occupied and have a five year retention agreement. Ms. Foster inquired about the arboretum and if there would be public access to it. Mr. Bower stated that there would be access. There was an informal meeting with the Lansing Parks Department approximately two week ago and one of the items of discussion was the possibility of tying in the arboretum with a pedestrian walkway that would lead into the one acre adjacent to Horsebrook Park. Currently, Giving Tree Farm has an affiliation with the Horticulture Department at Michigan State University (MSU). MSU has expressed some interest with this becoming a project for interns who would devise a site plan and be involved in the planning of the arboretum (i.e. trees, flowers, bushes). This would provide a pedestrian walkway through the acreage that would be accessible to everyone. Ms. Foster inquired about the recreational area on the opposite side of the park. Mr. Bower stated that parcel would be dedicated to the Lansing Parks Department and would be owned and maintained by the department. This would provide the public with additional accessibility to Horsebrook Park. The only accessibility to Horsebrook Park right now is off of Grand River Avenue. Mr. McConnell inquired about owner occupancy. Mr. Bower stated that minimally under financing and the conditions associated with the condominium development, at least 80 percent will be owner occupied. Mr. Bower stated that it is not the desire of Giving Tree Farm to have any type of rental units. All the units will be for sale. The first unit will be available on site and there will be advertising to sell the units. He understands the concerns of the neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm is also a property owner in this neighborhood. He stated that there have been a lot of misgivings and inappropriate statements from even neighbors about bringing in a group of retards. He takes great offense to these types of statements. He represents, through Giving Tree Farm, the most repressed minority in this country today. The way he has been treated by a City Council member from the fourth ward as well as other people has not taken into consideration the issues that are at hand. Giving Tree Farm is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 5 trying to create something where there is residential occupancy. The area residents have interpreted this as being their personal property. There have been individuals who have mowed and used the property as their own and this creates concerns when proposing a development. Giving Tree Farm is not trying to do things haphazardly. Giving Tree Farm will be a part of the community. With the residents coming into the group home, one of the first things that happens is the families will do a site visit prior to the placement of their family member. It is in the best interest of Giving Tree Farm to have a clean, well kept and beautiful neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm wants to have a group home that is in a typical residential neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm does not want to be isolated by rentals or anything distracting. Disabled people have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. Mr. McConnell inquired about the moderate rate of $130,000 to $140,000 and if the units could be available at a lower price. Mr. Bower stated that with the current real estate market in the Lansing area for a home, it is difficult to find a home less than $100,000. This development would be within a moderate price range. Anything between $100,000 to $150,000 would be considered a moderate price range nowadays. As far as affordability, this is one of the things that the Federal Home Loan Bank Grant could play a part in. If there is an opportunity to subsidize through a grant, then it does become something that is more affordable for more people. Mr. McConnell inquired about a draft of the by-laws of the association. Mr. Bower stated that he does not have a copy available at this time and that it would have to be in place before the development is completed. This is something that would involve the residents because there can be specifics relating to what the owner of the units would desire to have for this area, especially in the use of common elements. Mr. McConnell inquired about the proposed association fees. Mr. Bower stated that the fees would be determined by the residential needs (i.e. street clearing, lawn mowing), and that he is not aware of any association fee less than $100.00. The owners can take a direct role in soliciting from area contractors what would be the best deal for the upkeep. Mr. McConnell inquired about Giving Tree Farm meeting with the surrounding residents and Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, and addressing and possibly resolving the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Bower stated that in February when Giving Tree Farm received the approval from the City of Lansing for the care home, he contacted Mr. McDaniels and informed him of the approval for the construction of the care home which would occur sometime in the spring. He also faxed to Mr. McDaniels a copy of the tentative site plan of the condominium development and indicated that he would be very happy to meet with the neighborhood to discuss concerns or issues. He received no reply. Approximately three PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 6 weeks ago, there was a neighborhood meeting that involved Council Member Smith. He would have been very happy to attend. If Council Member Smith is planning to do a visit with fellow Council Members to the neighborhood, he would be happy to give a tour of the 7 acre site, including pointing out some existing sites that are very clear examples of City ordinance violations. He has been open to a meeting but has not received a response from anyone. Ms. Cordill inquired about the price ranges of the existing homes in this area. Mr. Bower stated that the price ranges, according to the market study that was done, would be somewhere in the low to upper $100,000 range. The top range would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $170,000 to $180,000. Ms. Cordill inquired about when Giving Tree Farm would pull out of the picture. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm will not run a rental complex. As the individuals purchase the homes, they will then be responsible for the homes. The only thing that Giving Tree Farm would have an invested interest in beyond the selling of the units would be the care home, which Giving Tree Farm would manage and provide support to. Because Giving Tree Farm is a part of the complex, it would also be a part of the condominium association and would have direct input on how the common areas are managed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she and Ms. Wynant attended the neighborhood meeting and were told that Mr. Bower was not invited. Ms. Stachowiak and Ms. Wynant tried to the best of their ability to answer all of the neighbors' concerns. Mr. McConnell inquired about financing through Enterprise Mortgage and stated that it sounds like a conflict of interest. Mr. Frederick stated that this was beyond the scope of the authority of the Planning Board, and is probably not a topic that needs to be discussed tonight. The Planning Board has the authority to review the layout and how the PRD is planned under the City ordinance. He stated that he does not know of anything in the City ordinance that allows the Board to get into financing and conflicts of interest. This would be something for another Board or entity to address rather than the Planning Board. Ms. Geneva Smith, Fourth Ward City Council Member, stated to Mr. Bower to be a man about himself, and if he has a problem with her, he needs to go directly to her. She has 36 letters in hand and stated that apparently the Board did not receive all of them. There was a petition with 200 signatures forwarded to the Board from her constituents. Mr. Frederick stated that one copy was provided and that it will be passed out at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. The Board members will have an opportunity to review it. Ms. Smith stated that she wanted to give the Board copies of the letters that she has because some of them PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 7 were not listed with the other communications. She wanted to be sure that the Board had copies of all the letters. In response to Mr. Bower not being invited to the neighborhood meeting, she stated that he was not invited because her constituents did not want him at the meeting. The meeting was a business meeting. She is here as a Fourth Ward Council Member because she supports her constituents. If that makes her a bad person, then she is a bad person because she cares about the Fourth Ward. She cares about her constituents and she will have more to say when this case goes before City Council. Ms. Smith turned to Mr. Bower and stated that as for him, he did not even know her. Mr. Frederick immediately directed Ms. Smith to address only the Board with her concerns. Mr. Lee Mason, resident 3204 Westwood and a member of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that he owns two parcels of property in the neighborhood. He takes exception to the fact that the neighbors have been characterized this evening as persons who throw trash around the neighborhood. The residents are very proud of their neighborhood and that is why they are here. Shady Oaks came before the Board several years ago with major concerns with the development going into the area. There has been discussion regarding traffic, environmental impact, and the possibility of the development ending up as low income housing. The neighbors are concerned because they take great pride in their neighborhood and have worked very hard and diligently. Traffic and the environmental impact are major concerns. There has been discussion about constructing a barrier. Currently, there are over 35 trains passing through this area during the week, and even though he lives in the middle of the block he still hears the air planes. This is an impact on the community that has not been there before. The neighbors have worked to improve the community. If housing is added for people and there are concerns about the people, who would want to live 20 feet from the railroad tracks? He hears the trains and stated that is inhumane. There are a lot of abandoned houses in the City that can be repaired to increase the housing in the City. This is ludicrous and does not make any sense at all to him. The message that is being sent to the general public is that there are no concerns for the people. This is like putting up something less than a camp. Mr. Mike Gorman, resident of 3233 Westwood, stated that this housing, if approved, will surely turn into rentals. Mr. Bower calls them condominiums but they are duplexes. They are owner occupied for a short time or maybe a second time. They will eventually turn into rentals and it will not take long. The neighbors chose to live in this area because they like it. They have the means to move outside the City but they love the neighborhood. They do not want to see this neighborhood converted to a high turnover situation. He encouraged the Board members to view the site and see where these homes would be crammed. From him to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 8 Board members, is the distance where the trains pass by. There are 10 trains a day that pass through at 40 mph. He does not believe that Mr. Bower has a permit to operate a land fill. He demolished the woods, placed it in a pile and buried it. He is not sure of who oversees this type of work. The retention pond has been done the same way. It was dug, filled with brush and buried. This has created dangerous sink holes around the area. One of the City's big objectives is to decrease the number of rental houses and increase home ownership. This will initially be home ownership, but will turn into rentals. Ms. Traci Gorman, 3233 Westwood Avenue, stated that she has heard Mr. Bower's proposal and plans, and that it sounds pretty good. The reality is that some of the work (i.e. site preparation) has not been adequately handled. She inquired about the City inspectors for this proposal because some of the work has already been done and is substandard. She asked about who was watching the hen house because there is a fox around. She asked the Board to review the site. She stated that Mr. Bower has cleared the land, substandardly dug the trenches and filled in the area with brush and covered it. There are sink holes. He has done the same thing with the berm. The question was raised about the height of the berm. The berm will end up settling because there are brush and dead trees underneath. The area is not safe. Her husband brought a stick to their home that he stuck into the ground 5 feet. Granted it is private land and technically they are not supposed to be there. If some of the residents are walking around the site, they could step into a 5 foot sink hole and not be able to get out. She stated that Mr. Bower contacted Jim McDaniels of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association. Mr. McDaniels has resigned from the association and that is why there were no returned phone calls. There was information stating that Mr. Bower was making promises on this association that he cannot keep. The individual who purchases the condo can turn around and sell the home to someone else. Eventually the trains will drive residents away and the homes will become rentals. She stated that Mr. Bower is making promises that he cannot keep. The by-laws are not in place. Mr. Howard Jones, resident of 426 W. Barnes Avenue and a Community Activist in the City for many years, stated that one of his primary concerns has always been the well being of the neighborhoods. He has visited the Shady Oak area and has seen the results of Mr. Bower's work so far. He stated that Mr. Bower has created an ugly scar in the landscape which encourages the runoff of mud. This is certainly not healthy for the neighbors. He noticed that all the trees had been cleared towards the railroad, eliminating the sound buffer. If Mr. Bower was so concerned about the trees, then why did he not go in and remove the trees that were indecent? The Board needs to look at the whole City. There are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 9 500 units that are red tagged. Why not give some of the concerns to those units in the City? They would supply a lot of housing for people. The City has all kinds of housing programs that people can latch onto. The City does not need a developer from DeWitt Township coming into the City and making money off of the people in the City. He is tired of it. If Mr. Bower's employment is checked, probably none of his employees live in the City. The City is allowing contractors and developers to come into the City and develop the properties. There is an unemployment problem in the City and it should be addressed by the Board. He stated that Mr. Bower has made some very inappropriate comments about the neighborhood. He has visited the neighborhood and spoken with the residents, and has not heard any disparaging comments about who will be living in the Giving Tree units. He stated that Mr. Bower owes the residents an apology. The audience began to clap and Mr. Frederick stated that there will be no applauding. Mr. Jones continued saying the Board should think about what their job is as members of the Planning Board (i.e. Is it to create a more wholesome city? Or, is it simply a conduit through which the developers come to the City, are patted on the back, and then say here is another development down the drain and move onto the next project.) Mr. Rod Shangle, resident of 3203 Westwood Avenue and Secretary of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that he would like to commend Mr. Bower for the fine job that he does as the Giving Tree Farm in DeWitt, and for a great job he will be doing for the house located at the end of Westwood Avenue. This is credit that he deserves because Mr. Bower has been doing this for 12 years. He asked about Mr. Bower's qualifications for the new development. Everyone did not come here to fight a war with Mr. Bower. What he came for was to get information from Mr. Bower regarding the development. What he has heard was attacks on the neighborhood, and this is not what the Board or the Planning Committee want to hear. What people want to hear are Mr. Bower's plans for the neighborhood. When he hears words like "conceivably," "possibly," and "Well, it's up to the owners," he has to ask himself if Mr. Bower is really ready to answer the kind of questions that the Planning Department should be asking. He would like to ask Mr. Bower the same questions, and if Mr. Bower is really ready to put in a quality development like this. This development already has had several of the City ordinances broken by Mr. Bower and his crew. He does not want to go into the details because that is not what the Board wants to hear. He asked the Board if Mr. Bower was really ready to conceivably build a berm large enough to block the noise from 35 trains per week, 25-35 ingoing and outgoing planes from Capital City Airport with an additional plan of 25-35 more planes in the middle of the night, according to Mr. Dan Otto, developer from the airport. He asked what kind of conditions the residents would be living under with these types of noise conditions. He also asked about the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 10 recommendation put forth by PM Environmental, Inc. that Mr. Bower has also reported in the information given to the Board in terms of more soil testing and possibly putting in a well to test the soil. The soil at one time had been contaminated. He has not seen anything anywhere regarding this testing nor any information regarding hazardous materials. This site at one time was a dump by the State Health Department. He is not sure if Mr. Bower is ready for this, and stated that is a issue for the Board to decide. Ms. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that Lansing is her town and that it is not a group of neighborhoods. The City is one unit. She took an interest in this development because of phone calls she received. She visited the neighborhood and had meetings with two of the homeowners. When she approached the neighborhood, she saw the beautiful trees, the peacefulness, and the almost tranquility of country without gutters. One of the residents she visited pointed out where the structure for the post trauma residents would be. She stated that no one has ever had a problem with the units being placed in there because of the fact that it would be a post trauma structure. This was not a problem for the neighbors. The problem is that Mr. Bower wants to develop 13 condominiums. She walked to the edge of the owner's property and viewed the site. The site is not a very large piece of property. She saw the train tracks and stated that when the trains pass through, they rumble. The sound barrier is gone. There were residents who stated that they never had a vibration before but since the barrier has been removed, there are vibrations in the homes. She stated that a lot of things in this neighborhood are being lost and cannot be measured. It is the whole destruction of the ambiance and the livability of the neighborhood which is what is needed in the City of Lansing. This is the key. She did not hear any derogatory remark from the neighborhood residents regarding the units having individuals with closed trauma head injuries. The neighborhood needs to be saved for the residents. Mr. Scott Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he has lived on Shady Oak Lane for 20 years and has concerns with the development. The berm is 8 feet tall and the trains are a bit taller so the berm is not hiding anything and is not stopping the noise. The trees have been cut so thin and one can still see the train to the left. With the sharp increase in traffic on Westwood Ave and the surrounding streets, he was given a number of 140 additional trips up and down Westwood Avenue. Westwood Avenue is not a typical Lansing street. There are dozens of children living on and in the surrounding area who belong to families that moved to the neighborhood solely to have a quiet and safe place for their children to play and grow up. Should this development be approved, with equal trips for every Westwood unit, the increase at Grand River and Westwood would be 30 percent. Like Mr. Bower stated, there would be a trail leading to the park, the children would play in the park. The reality is that not all of the children will play in the park. They want to ride their PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 11 bikes up and down the street. The children would have to cross Westwood Avenue to get to the walkway. At the area of Shady Oak Lane and Westwood Avenue, there would be a 77 percent increase of traffic at this intersection. He stated that the proposed development would severely harm the safety of the streets, integrity of the community and stability of the neighborhood. He asked for City Council to preserve the beauty of the neighborhood, and focus on the quality and stability of the communities rather than the quantity of the people living in them. Mr. Brian Hustead, resident of 3119 Westwood Avenue, stated that he opposes the development. He had a copy of the development plan that showed a recreational and nature area. He stated that it was a little misleading. The pedestrian area that runs into the nature area realistically ends at the edge of what is the creek bed for the drainage area. The only way to reach the proposed park area access is to cross the creek bed, which at most times is 3 to 4 inches of water. There is a lot of mud. He does not see a proposal for a bridge to connect the park to the adjoining areas. Currently, the area north of the park way is a boggy area and is real slippery. Unless the area is very well landscaped and completely renovated, it would not be able to be termed a nature area that would be usable by the people. It is a true nature area that could be dangerous. With the recreational area on the east side of the property, he stated that there was to be an access. The plan does not reflect an access area and he does not see where there could be one. The berm has been in several discussions with the result ending in 1 to 2 rows of trees as a buffer zone. That buffer zone will not be enough to cut down the noise of the trains and planes, and would not be high enough. The train bed is quite higher than the berm. He asked about how this berm could already be established if it has to be approved before it is installed. He is finding more and more distress in what Mr. Bower is stating. His understanding is that the Giving Tree Farms acquired this property through a real low cost purchase. So the motive with this development comes down to what Mr. Bower said about building and selling the units. It is a profit motive. It is not to build the community. Mr. Bower has a fine non-profit organization but it is going for a profit purpose to help support that particular organization. Ms. Betty Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that her residence directly abuts the new building. Since the trees and brush have been removed, there is so much more vibration from the trains that the residents feel. The trains go very fast in this area. There are other condominium developments in the City that are built next to the railroad tracks. The only difference is that the trains go slower in the downtown area. As soon as the trains pass Logan and MLK Blvd., they speed up. She feels a lot of vibration in her home and the basement and kitchen floor PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 12 shake when a trains passes by. During the night, her son's car alarm goes off because there is so much vibration from the train. She lives next door to the newly constructed closed head trauma unit (to the north), and there will be 13 more units built closer to the train tracks. Someone will probably purchase one of those units and once they feel the vibrations from the trains, may not stay very long. If there is a commitment of 5 years, people may not want to take the penalty and back out. The people will be so close to the vibrations. With everything being demolished, there is not a sound barrier like there should be. If new trees are planted, they may not stop the vibrations for those units who are right next to the railroad tracks. Residents will probably move out and the units will sell for less each time they are resold. She is opposed to all of those units being constructed between the residential neighborhood and the railroad tracks. She does not believe that this is a good place for people to live especially those residents who would have to pay approximately $1,200 a month for their house payment. Ms. Marilyn Shaver, resident of 3211 Westwood Avenue, stated that the sounds of the train are making her crazy. She cares for her mother in her home, and her mom is up 5 to 6 times per night. The minute she tries to go to sleep, here comes the trains and the horns are so loud. She lives approximately 10 houses from the end of the street, and she cannot imagine that anyone could live in a condominium at the end of her street and be able to sleep, arise the next day, and function properly because of the amount of stress from the sounds of the train. She is very sad about having condominiums on the end of her peaceful street. She prayed 15 years ago to live in the country setting of the City. It is the most beautiful street. She has 6 deer that walk through her back yard. She has birds that fly by and salmon that swim up the stream. There is no way the animals will be passing through her back yard when construction begins. She lives in the City and pays taxes. Mr. Bower does not live in the City of Lansing and does not pay City taxes. She believes that the residents should have the say in whether or not there should be 12 units at the end of the street. The residents have paid their dues. They support the City, vote in the City and live in the City. When Mr. Bower speaks about the garbage being dumped on the property, she stated that people dump leaves on the property that are biodegradable and it breaks down. There are good worms for fishing. She does not know anything about tires or barrels being on the property. She has a business and had to lock the dumpsters because people were dumping their trash in it. Maybe people drive to the end, see the open lot and decide to dump there. She doubts very much that any of the people in the neighborhood would dump garbage on the property, other than the biodegradable leaves. She stated that the development does not need a park and that the City has donated the property behind her back yard as a park. People come with their kids and fly kites, play baseball, etc. There is plenty of time and space. It is nice and generous that Mr. Bower wants to give the residents a park, but there is no need for another park. Those condominiums are not worth PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 13 $130,000 because nobody in their right mind would move to this area and live with this kind of noise. If the condominiums are constructed, the neighbors will question whether or not they to live in that beautiful, peaceful and quiet neighborhood. She hopes the Board will take into consideration the residents. Mr. Tom Bellgowan, resident of 3217 Westwood Avenue, stated that he has live at this residence for approximately 43 years. He knows what is in the area. When Mr. Bower speaks about the park land, he has mowed that park land for better than 36 years, and now Mr. Bower wants to join into it. He would like to talk with the Park Commissioner himself because Mr. Bower does not know the property that the residents are talking about. Mr. Bower has spoken about the congestion that will occur on Westwood Avenue. All the people enter and exit the area via Westwood Avenue. Mr. Bower has spoken about 7 streets getting to Grand River Avenue. If people exit the condominium site, they will drive right straight up Westwood Avenue. Very few people will turn on Shady Oak Lane because of the 2 stops that would be made before Grand River Avenue and MLK Blvd. Westwood Avenue only has one stop. This will cause a traffic situation that the residents do not want. There was a meeting in his back and his house is approximately 1,200 feet from the railroad tracks. A gentleman was trying to speak when a train passed by. After the train passed, he finished his point and sat down. There was a young couple sitting at the table who lived on Shady Oak Lane, and when the trains pass by they do not talk to one another because they cannot hear what the other person is saying. This couple lives approximately 600 feet from the railroad tracks. Mr. Bower would like to construct condominiums about 250 feet or less from the railroad tracks. These units will turn into rentals. There is no question about it. Mr. Jeffrey Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he has lived in the area for 20 years, and that his property abuts the proposed development. Because of the construction of the new building, his house was shaken enough to where a gas line was ruptured. He had to have Consumers Energy come out and check the line, and then he had to repair it. He also has had water pipes shaken to where he had to also repair them. The residents never considered the woods as theirs. They considered them as God's as all lands are. The residents wanted to keep it that way. The woods were one of the main things that brought the residents to live there. When the first demolition of the woods was done without a permit, it devastated the neighborhood. He believes that other things have been avoided. Mr. Bower has been doing some construction on weekends in which he was to have a special permit. He did not have one, and the residents called the police and tried to get in contact with some other authorities to stop the construction. To keep the integrity of the neighborhood and keep the current residents, he is totally opposed to the development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 19, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that she understands both sides of the issue especially when people are attached to something that is a part of their heart and soul but they do not hold a title. She stated that if her information is correct regarding the price paid for the property, she does not believe that the developer has an investment backed expectation that would require the Board to give him any breaks. She believes that in this situation the Board needs to put the neighborhood and established homeowners first. The residents can see where this development will lead —to the degradation of the neighborhood. Once the condominiums are constructed, there will not be an incentive to maintain them economically which is why buildings become rentals. Given the situation, if breaks are given regarding the law then the Board will be headed in a bad direction for the neighborhood. She stated that the property should have been purchased by the City because of the stabilizing factor that it gave to the neighborhood. The best thing that could be done at this point is to make attempts to re-establish a wood lot that would act as a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. She is opposed to the development. Mr. Ken Kline, resident of 1700 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he is opposed to the development, and that the trees that were cleared from the site, as Mr. Bower stated, grew for generations and generations. These trees do serve a purpose and no berm can replace them. He was offended by Mr. Bower's statement regarding someone's comments on retards. He does not believe it happened. Everything about the development is all wrong. Mr. Paul Richards, resident of 3020 Westwood Avenue, stated that he is opposed to the development and that it does not go well with the neighborhood. If the developer wants to do something for the benefit of the City with contributing to the low income housing where these homes are red-tagged, why hasn't he contacted the City? He is not sure whether or not the developer contacted the City. He asked why the developer has not taken it upon himself to put money into these tagged homes. The buildings are there, and the developer can help re-build them and enhance the neighborhood. He does not believe that an additional park is needed at the end of Westwood Avenue. Currently, the neighborhood has a park that has been redone and the residents have easy access to it. The streets are considered a part of the park. It is a beautiful area and a great place to live. He has been there since 1993, and does not want to leave. His family likes staying in the City of Lansing. He has lived in many cities over his life and the City is very beautiful. He enjoys the City, and when people talk bad about it, he quickly retorts that they have not stepped foot in Lansing. It is a beautiful City, and he believes that it should be kept this way. He stated that a proposed development like this at the end of Westwood Avenue will not enhance the City. He believes it would be a degradation of the City. He encouraged the Board to view the neighborhood. There is not much land and the development would be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 15 very close to what the neighbors have already discussed. It is not a very desirable place. In time, the developer will not sit on a board or have anyone at a board meeting on a monthly basis voting to keep things going. He does not see it happening. Once the site is developed, people will be gone, money will be made and the developer will move on to his next development. Ms. Michaille Torez, resident of 3229 Westwood Avenue, stated that she is very opposed to the development. There are risks involved with the trains. A few years ago she had a large breed dog that ran over to the area by the trains and was decapitated. This should say how fast the trains travel. It could have been a child. This is a very dangerous place for have family dwellings, and to think that Mr. Bower will receive that much money for the units and have people living in the units and pay monthly payments, is ridiculous. The residents know that these units will become rentals. This is not good. She stated that Mr. Bower mentioned a retention pond that will catch the run off water in the area. The Reynolds drains are behind her house, and she stated that the City has not found the old Township drain that carries all of the water from this neighborhood. The old Township drain could not be found where it ran into the Reynolds drain. Part of the drain was found but the rest could not be found. The blue prints are no longer available. All of the run off water goes into her property and the drain is actually under her house. There is a big drain problem at the end of the street and she thinks it should be closely reviewed. Maybe the old Township drain could be found where it meets the Reynolds drain. If the retention pond that Mr. Bower built for all the run off water does not hold, she believes it will run into the Reynolds drain and run down her street into her property. This should be carefully reviewed before anymore construction takes place because there has been enough destruction. She believes there will be sewer problems because the neighborhood already has them. She faxed a copy of her letter to the Drain Commissioner for their review. Mr. Tim Ellis, owner of Delta Builders, stated that he currently owns property along Grand River Avenue and that he is also the builder of the home that is currently being constructed. He is amazed at how the residents speak ill of their neighborhood. The trains and planes have been passing by for years. The changes that have taken place were going to take place whether it was Mr. Bower or another developer. This property is prime land for development. He currently serves on the Tri-County Planning Board and Tri County is looking for ways to build in the City of Lansing and the surrounding areas rather than having urban sprawl. He stated that the neighbors do not want a development in their back yards. He appreciates that. Unfortunately, the land has to be developed in areas that are available with sewer and water. This is the preferred thing. With regard to the neighbors' questions and problems about Mr. Bower's construction so far, burying trees in berms is common practice. It happens PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 16 everyday in every development. The trees will deteriorate very, very slow. The way the property was compacted on top of those trees, it will deteriorate even slower. With regards to construction workers working on the weekends, his workers have every right to work on the weekends. He contacted the Building Department the following Monday after the complaints came through, and the Lansing Police Department met his crew at the site. All the problems were resolved. Unfortunately, things were not resolved favorably to him, so on Monday he contacted the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's Office indicated that his crews are more than welcome to work on the weekends even without a permit as long as the police do not feel that the residents are causing enough noise to be a Disturbing of the Peace violator. He did file for a permit. With regards to other things taking place on the site, Mr. Bower mentioned about trash being dumped onto the site. Mr. Bower did not claim that the trash belonged to the neighbors. He just stated that the site was a dumping ground. For someone to pick on Mr. Bower is not quite fair. If it is not Mr. Bower building this project, it will be someone else. If anyone has any questions for him, they are more than welcome to contact him. He met with some of the residents in the neighborhood. With regards to Mr. Bower having the knowledge and the ability to develop this site, sure Mr. Bower will have it because he backs Mr. Bower. He will be there to make sure that Mr. Bower does things correctly. He stated that he has been a developing land for 30 years. People in the City and the surrounding areas know him. Mr. Bower will not do something that is not fair to the neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-2-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 17 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Paul Wiegman to rezone the property at 1100 Lake Lansing Rd. and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOTS 7 & 8, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. The purpose of this rezoning is to bring the plumbing and heating business at this location into compliance with the zoning ordinance. AND This is a request by Paul Wiegman to rezone the property at 1110 Lake Lansing Rd. and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOT 9, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION & COM 125.3 FT S 49DEG 13MIN W OF NW COR WIELAND PARK SUB, TH S 49DEG 13MIN W 50 FT TO NE COR BLACKWOOD SUB, S 14DEG 40MIN E 100.15 FT, E PAR L WITH DAVID ST 47.5 FT, N 15DEG 22MIN W 133.8 FT TO BEG; SEC 3 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize these properties for offices and associated parking to support his plumbing and heating business located at 1100 Lake Lansing Road. The request to rezone the property at 1100 and 1110 Lake Lansing Road is inconsistent with the Northeast Comprehensive Plan. The request is also inconsistent with the surrounding residential land use patterns in the area. In addition, land zoned for businesses exist throughout the north side of Lansing that would be better suited to the needs of the applicant's business. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 18 Staff recommended denial of Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District, AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated that she drove by the site today and there were tires and stuff stacked up in the rear. It is a really major impact on the people next door. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been like this all the way around. This was one of the things that was taken into consideration and the recommendation was that this site has been a constant code enforcement problem. The Code Compliance Office is on top of the situation. By rezoning the property, it would become legal. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend denial of Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. B. Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MILK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District This is a request by the Lansing Housing Commission to rezone the property at 3117 S. MLK Blvd., more specifically described as: COM INTN E LINE S LOGAN ST/M-99 & S LINE LOGANCREST SUB, TH E 936.2 FT, S 245 FT TO N LINE SOUTHLAND PLAZA SUB, W 515 FT, N 95 FT, W 150 FT, N 100 FT, W 270.1 FT TO E LINE M-99, NW'LY 50.01 FT TO BEG; SEC 29 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 19 from "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a 30-unit senior housing development on the subject property. The City of Lansing acquired the subject property on behalf of the applicant for the purpose of redeveloping the site for senior housing. The proposal will bring the property further into compliance with the master plan designation for medium density residential development. The five, one-story buildings, with a total of 30 rental units, will result in a density of 8.1 du/acre. The proposed zoning classification will function as a transition between the commercial land use to the south and the single family residential land use to the north. While the area is predominantly single-family residential, with proper landscaping and buffering, the proposed development would retain the residential character of the neighborhood, and would be consistent with the development pattern in the area. Staff recommended approval of Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MLK from "A" Residential to"DM-1" Residential based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated that she would like to add a friendly recommendation that sidewalks be added so that residents can access Southland Avenue. There is a place where the building splits half way through the site and she believes it would be a good place for a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MILK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District with the condition that a sidewalk be added throughout the development. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 20 C. PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 14 acre parcel located south of Moffitt Street, east of Pleasant Grove and west of Hughes Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 35 detached single family residential site condominium units on the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Planned Residential Development of 35 single-family dwelling units on a 14 acre site. The location of the site is south of Moffitt Street and west of Hughes Avenue. The areas surrounding the site are comprised of low density single family residential uses. A utility right-of-way is directly to the south of the site. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan depicts future use of the site as Low Density Residential of up to 7 dwelling units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop residential uses at a density below this level, i.e. 2.5 units/acre. The density of the neighboring developments to the east and north is 5.8 and 7.26 units per acre, respectively. With respect to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the PRD is essentially a mechanism for enabling development to occur in a manner that is sensitive to the natural and physical features of the site. By clustering development, a PRD offers a means of preserving significant natural features of the site and achieving more open space. Section 1280.05 (e) of the design standards for a PRD requires open space is to be provided in an evenly distributed manner and natural features to be preserved when practical. Furthermore, the plan is capable of meeting the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance and can be accommodated with existing public facilities and infrastructure. Traffic volumes in the immediate area will increase as a result of the development and therefore, traffic control/calming mechanism might be necessary at its entrances. It is recommended that these improvements be provided at the applicant's expense. In addition, should the City Transportation Office require an impact study for the increased traffic volumes, the applicant will have to provide that information to the City. The Transportation Office is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 21 considering whether an access to Pleasant Grove would be appropriate. Staff recommended approval of PRD-3-2003 with the following conditions: a. Enhance entry drives with boulevards and landscaping features. b. Install traffic calming devices at various points in the interior roadways. Additional access through Pleasant Grove Road should be assessed in accordance with the Traffic Engineer. C. Sidewalks should be designed to integrate the development with the surrounding neighborhood and to provide access to the private park. d. An inventory be conducted of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6" including location and common name. The developer should preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. e. The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible. Coniferous trees be planted in those setback areas lacking trees that abut adjoining residential structures; trees will be planted no less than 15 feet on center and at least 8 feet in height at the time of planting. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Markey had provided a blue print that shows the location of the pedestrian walkways and they are designated in blue so one can see how they will be incorporated into the development to access the park and Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Markey has added pathways between some of the lots on Pleasant Grove Road and that will create a nice circular walk for the residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since the interior streets have sidewalks, it will provide good access to the neighborhood. This will have a continuous pathway system throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 22 PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue with the conditions that: 1) Enhance entry drives with boulevards and landscaping features, 2) Install traffic calming devices at various points in the interior roadways. Additional access through Pleasant Grove Road should be assessed in coordination with the Traffic Engineer, 3) Sidewalks should be designed to integrate the development with the surrounding neighborhood and to provide access to the private park, 4) The developer conduct an inventory of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6" including location and common name. The developer should preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. Trees with a diameter of more than 6" that are removed are to be replaced with trees that are at least 2 inches in caliper at the time of planting and are of a species that has been approved by the Lansing Forester, 5) The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation as much as possible. Coniferous trees be planted in those setback areas lacking trees that abut adjoining residential structures; trees will be planted no less than 15 feet on center and at least 8 feet in height at the time of planting, 6) Barrier-free pedestrian pathways be provided between lots 5 and 6, 16 and 17 and between lots 33 and 34, and 7) The applicant work with the surrounding residents to develop a landscape buffering plan for those areas where the development is directly adjacent to existing houses in the area. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. D. PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.85 acre parcel located on the west side of Wexford Road, 495 feet from W. Jolly Road. The applicant proposes to construct 9 detached single family residential condominium units on the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Planned Residential Development for 9 single-family dwelling units on a 7.85 acre site. The location of the site is on Wexford Road between Jolly and Miller Roads. The surrounding areas are comprised of low density single family residential uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 23 The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan depicts the future use of the site as Low Density Residential, up to 7 dwelling units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop residential uses at a density significantly below this level, i.e. 4.3 units/acre (1.2 units/acre factoring wetlands). The proposal reflects structures that are similar in size to those in the surrounding area. A variety of wetlands and woodlands present on the site seems adequate on its periphery to provide a buffer around the site. However, the existing trees should be preserved as much as possible. The plan complies with the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance and can be accommodated with existing public facilities and infrastructure. Staff recommended approval of PRD-4-2003 with the following conditions: a. An enhanced entry drive with a landscaped boulevard be provided at the intersection with Wexford Road. b. Provide a better circulation design at the west end of the private road, possibly a cul-de-sac, to allow ample maneuvering radius for emergency vehicles, private vehicles, etc. C. Retention basins be designed to create aesthetically pleasing features through the use of gentler grades, natural landscaping, and engineered to facilitate wellhead protection. d. Hard-surfaced pedestrian circulation system be designed that integrates the residential structures to natural features, recreational facilities and neighboring areas. e. An inventory be conducted of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6", including location and common name. The existing trees should be preserved and be incorporated into the development as much as possible. f. The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible. 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 24 PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly with the conditions that: 1) An enhanced entry drive with a landscaped boulevard be provided at the intersection with Wexford Road, 2) Provide a circulation design at the west end of the private road to allow ample maneuvering radii for emergency vehicles, private vehicles, etc., 3) Retention basins be designed to create aesthetically pleasing features through the use of gentler grades, natural landscaping, and engineered to facilitate wellhead protection, 4) Hard-surfaced pedestrian circulation system be designed that integrates the residential structures to natural features, recreational facilities and neighboring areas, 5) The developer conduct an inventory of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6", including location and common name. The existing trees should be preserved and be incorporated into the development as much as possible, 6) The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible, 7) The road be dedicated to the public, 8) The width of the road be reduced to 24 feet, if acceptable to the City Transportation Engineer, and 9) The existing maple tree on the southeast corner of the lot be preserved, and protected by a tree fence in a location acceptable to the City Forester. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 25 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling -junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003 & June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20, 2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20, 2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17,2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns(July 1,2003) i. Homemade sign,Wild Side Tatoo located on Pennsylvania Avenue (July 15, 2003) j. No street signs at intersection east of Washington and Miller(July 15, 2003) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. McConnell asked that his code enforcement violations from the August 5th meeting be listed on the agenda. Ms. Keene stated that the MSU Women's Crew Facility has not fulfilled its conditions of approval. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that there is a huge garage located at 4831 Eastlawn Drive. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 26 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.081903.doc Approved as written 9-3-03 Draft to Clerk Auqust 28,2003 Approved September 3,2003 To Clerk September 10,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, August 5, 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: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Keene for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the-agegda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). ' 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Shirley Graves regarding PRD-2-2003.= r 4. HEARINGS A. Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District and Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request to rezone the property at 1100 Lake Lansing Road and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOTS 7& 8, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. The purpose of this rezoning is to bring the plumbing and heating business at this location into compliance with the zoning ordinance; AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August S, 2003 Page 2 LOT 9, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION & COM 125.3 FT S 49DEG 13MIN W OF NW COR WIELAND PARK SUB, TH S 49DEG 13MIN W 50 FT TO NE COR BLACKWOOD SUB, S 14DEG 40MIN E 100.15 FT, E PAR L WITH DAVID ST 47.5 FT, N 15DEG 22MIN W 133.8 FT TO BEG; SEC 3 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize these properties for offices to support his plumbing and heating business. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Code Compliance comment regarding outside storage of materials and if it could take place in the proposed "G-2" Wholesale District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would not be allowed in the "G-2" district. Like "F" Commercial, the applicant could have an outdoor display of products that are for sale but not outdoor storage of materials (i.e. contractor materials). At a minimum, the property would have to be completely screened from view of the neighbors. In the past, there has been outside storage at this location and it has been a Code Compliance issue. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board looked at this property a few years ago as an NCU, and one of the conditions of the NCU was the parking in the front and to the side of the building was to be terminated. Ms. Stachowiak stated that he was correct. Front yard parking has been a Code Compliance issue. In some of these instances not only is it front yard parking but it is also considered parking in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge inquired about all the parcels being combined into one parcel. Ms. Stachowiak stated it could be done either way. The parcels could be kept separate by the Zoning District or combined into one. It does not make a difference from a zoning standpoint. Ms. Foster inquired about the Board receiving a site plan to review the combined area. Ms. Stachowiak asked the applicant to provide the Board with a more refined site plan. Mr. Ruge inquired about buffering between the residential areas and the "G-2" property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the Board approved the requests, minimum buffering requirements would apply. Mr. Paul Wiegman, owner of the properties, stated that when the building was purchased, vehicle parking was in the front. Now he is asking for parking to be in the rear area. When he purchased the property located at 1110 Lake Lansing Road, there were snakes and broken windows, and the house had been condemned. He has put $65,000 into PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 3 repairs on the property and now it is breathtaking. The house has been brought up to code for office use, and there was a six foot fence installed around the property. He has spoken with the neighbors and complied with their requests. He plans on having a lawn across the front and the back of the property. Shrubs will be planted. He would gladly turn the current parking area in the front into a lawn if the rear area could be used for parking. Ms. Foster inquired about an increase in staff or parking. Mr. Wiegman stated that currently the company is down three people, and that the company will not be larger than nine employees. There will only be three vehicles left on the site after the end of the work day. Ms. Susan Snook, resident of 1117 Lake Lansing Road, stated that she and her neighbors oppose this request because of hazards with traffic and parking on the sidewalks. There are children in the area and because of issues with parking, the children cannot walk on the sidewalk in that area. There are also two residents who are confined to wheelchairs. There have been near accidents because of the way people park, and these people have no regard for the neighborhood. Two weeks ago, a semi was unloading in the turn lane on Lake Lansing Road. The neighbors do not want things like this happening in the area. At one time, an employee of the company was driving while intoxicated and struck a fire hydrant located on the corner of New York and David. The neighbors do not want to have this type of behavior in the neighborhood. Driving situations are already dangerous. Mr. Frederick inquired about the petition. Ms. Snook stated that she had copies available for the Board. Ms. Foster asked if the company had taken care of the problem with sidewalk parking, and if there was a solution that was acceptable to her and the neighbors in regards to the entrance and exit into the interior parking area. Ms. Snook stated that it is still causing way more traffic within the area than what is capable of being handled. Mr. McConnell asked Ms. Snook if there had been a change in the pattern of parking and how long she had lived at her current address. Ms. Snook stated that there has been no change and that she has lived at this address for six years. Mr. Daniel Palacios, resident of 1910 New York Avenue, stated that there has been an increase in transients as a result of this business. They steal the scrap metal, copper and other materials that are left behind the building in storage. When they do not buy the metal or cannot get into the yard, they start roaming into the neighbors' homes and yards. He has to deal with this all the time and has personally caught people going into the yards and homes. He does not see where this will decrease in the near future and does not know what can be done to keep this from happening. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 4 There is also a problem with traffic on the corner. In the mornings when people are entering and exiting, it becomes rough in that corner area. There is a lot of traffic and it becomes crowded and congested. The residents are trying to keep their area a neighborhood because it was meant to be a neighborhood and not businesses. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Palacios if he had police reports of the incidents that occurred in the neighborhood. Mr. Palacios stated that the residents did not make any comparative references. The residents would call the police, the police would show up and sometimes speak directly to him. Otherwise, the police would not speak to him if they caught people in the act of stealing. Ms. Cindy Brush, resident of 1116 David Street, stated that the neighborhood is a second generation neighborhood and that she has concerns regarding the property previously being a gas station. She was not sure about the environmental conditions of the gas storage tanks. There are lots of children in this area who ride their bikes and she would ask City Council to take this into consideration. She has a 4 year old son and she does not want to see him get hurt. Lake Lansing Road is very congested. Mr. Chuck Tate, resident of 1411 New York and an employee of AJ Plumbing and Heating, stated that parking is an atrocity but is one of the issues that is trying to be resolved through the rezoning. By turning the lot next door into a parking lot, there are plans to move the trucks away from the building and into a safer area. This will not stop the party store parking unless the lot is turned into a green space. With ingress and egress, the plans would be to have a driveway at one end of the property and another driveway at the opposite end of the property exiting onto Lake Lansing Road. This would alleviate some of the traffic congestion near the corner. He stated that there are concerns about the safety of the children in the area. There has been only one accident where an employee backed out and bumped into a parked car. Deliveries are made in the parking lot. There was an incident about a week ago or so ago where a condenser was unloaded, and that took about ten minutes. When unloading materials, this generally happens. Ms. Foster inquired about the truck traffic generated from the business. Mr. Tate stated that the employees are there between 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. and are gone for the entire day. Occasionally, the service guys are back once or twice during the middle of the day. There would be a total of 18 vehicles. Mr. Ruge inquired about turning the lot to the east into a parking lot and if it was possible to close off that driveway and use the Lake Lansing Road exit to access the back of the building. Mr. Tate stated that it would certainly be a possibility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Ruge inquired about the "G-2" zoning. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster inquired about the Comprehensive Plan and spot zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would apply and that it becomes difficult for staff to support the request because of conflicts with the Master Plan. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-6-2003 and Z-7-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. B. Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MLK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District This is a request by Lansing Housing Commission to rezone the property at 3117 S. MLK Blvd., more specifically described as: COM INTN E LINE S LOGAN ST/M-99 & S LINE LOGANCREST SUB, TH E 936.2 FT, S 245 FT TO N LINE SOUTHLAND PLAZA SUB, W 515 FT, N 95 FT, W 150 FT, N 100 FT, W 270.1 FT TO E LINE M-99, NW'LY 50.01 FT TO BEG; SEC 29 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a 30-unit senior housing development on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that there is no connection from this property to the rest of the neighborhood, and inquired about the possibility of access via sidewalk that would run to Washington Avenue. She stated that the residents would have to walk in the street because there is no sidewalk. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is proposing a street connection into the development which would connect to Southland Avenue. This is where the access would be located. Ms. Cordill asked for verification of the access location on Southland Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated it is the highlighted area. Ms. Foster stated that the only sidewalk available is the one to MLK Blvd. and then the residents have to return this way. The sidewalk does not go all the way around the block. Mr. Stuchill stated that the Housing office has been looking at the situation for quite a while and has had the application in with MSHDA for tax credit financing. The Housing office purchased the property for housing for the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 6 residents who were displaced by Oliver Towers. The senior citizens will be given first priority for housing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-8-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. C. PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 14 acre parcel located south of Moffitt Street, east of Pleasant Grove and west of Hughes Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 35 detached single family residential site condominium units on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that having the right access to the community makes the development a part of the community. The community would have a private park which can remain as a private park. The goal is to have access to the rest of the community so that the residents can become a part of the community rather than being isolated. Ms. Stachowiak stated that when Mr. Markey gives his presentation maybe this could be addressed at that time. Ms. Cordill inquired about how the residents of the community would have access to the private park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a 10 foot strip that expands to the southern-most road, running parallel to Moffitt Street. She stated that the applicant has allowed for the one access and that there may be potential for more than one access point, if necessary. Mr. Markey may address this issue in his presentation. Mr. Mike Markey, of Markey Associates, 1400 Silverwood, Okemos, gave an overview of the proposed development. Ms. Foster inquired about walking access to the streets. Mr. Markey stated that there will be sidewalks throughout the project. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there has been a lot of discussion with the Code Compliance Office. The issue that arose was maintenance and who would be in charge of maintaining the common area space. Mr. Markey stated that there is a big difference between a neighborhood association and a condominium association. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 7 Mr. McConnell inquired about Markey Associates being in charge of the association dues and what issues would be taken care of (i.e. upkeep, snow removal, grass). Mr. Markey stated that the condominium association will own the common areas and the individual home owners will pay a monthly fee to maintain those common areas. Those common areas currently are legal and defined as private parks and would be the responsibility of the condominium association. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Markey to be more specific. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the roads are proposed to be public roads, so the City would be responsible for maintaining them. If the roads were private, then the association would be responsible for hiring a contractor to plow the snow in the winter time and to mow the grass. The condominium association would be responsible for contracting with a landscape company to mow the common areas. In terms of snow removal, it will be spelled out in the condominium documents as to who is responsible for removing snow from the sidewalks and it can be something that the owners within the development collectively decide, out of their fees, to hire someone to shovel snow off the sidewalks. Or, it can be like a subdivision where each individual property owner is responsible for doing it themselves. This development is proposed to be a public road which means the sidewalks would be in the right-of-way and then the City Sidewalk Ordinance will kick in. Each unit will then be responsible for its own maintenance. Mr. McConnell inquired about a proposed price for the condominiums. Mr. Markey stated that the price point on the finished units that will be single family homes will range between $125,000 to $150,000. As the development progresses, the prices will increase. Mr. Ruge inquired about the width of the streets. Mr. Markey stated that the street coming onto Moffitt Street, curb face to curb face, is 31 feet and the same for Hughes Road. This is the standard for what the City of Lansing utilizes for the straight way. Mr. Ruge inquired about how wide the lots would be that are attached to Hughes Road and Moffitt Street. Mr. Markey brought the large plan forward for the Board members to review. Mr. Markey stated that the lots are at least 70 feet in width at the building line. Mr. Ruge stated that the lots along Moffitt Street appear to be 50 feet in width. Mr. Markey stated that the width of the lot is 50 feet, with 31 feet curb face to curb face. Mr. Ruge expressed his concerns about buffering for the residents on both sides of the street. Mr. Markey was certain that something could be accomplished for this. Ms. Cordill stated that the lots were small. Ms. Cinamint Harris, resident of 5512 Hughes Road, stated that the new road will be between her house and her neighbor's house. She PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 8 would prefer the access area to be on Pleasant Grove Road. She has concerns with the wildlife in the area. Mr. William Rogers, resident of 5522 Hughes Road, stated that he objects to the proposed development because of traffic issues. There are no sidewalks at that end of the street. Ms. Nicole McGary, resident of 1930 Moffitt Street, stated that there is currently a traffic issue when traveling on Hughes Road. Her street does not have a lot of these issues because it is a dead end street. She would recommend the access be on Pleasant Grove Road. Having this development in the area would increase property values. She inquired about the private park entrance. Ms. Foster stated that currently a person would have to walk around the block to find the entrance and that it would be nice to have the entrance available to everyone. Ms. McGary inquired about the park being open to the neighborhood. Ms. Foster stated that the area would be a private park and that is why she inquired about the condominiums becoming a part of the community. Ms. Foster was not sure of how much public access would be allowed. Ms. McGary stated that it would be nice to have a park in this area. Mr. Michael Abbott, resident of 5419 Hughes Road, stated that he has lived in this area for over 18 years. He has been to City Council asking for stop signs to be placed on Moffitt Road because he was tired of people speeding at 55 mph or more on Hughes and Jolly Roads, and Hughes and MLK Blvd. The road is always torn up and this development would add extra traffic on the road. In 18 years he has yet to see anything other than pot holes in the road. He is opposed to the development. He had concerns with privacy and the wildlife in the area. He enjoys the outside view of deer and turkey roaming the area. He stated that there needs to be a stop sign to slow down the traffic. This is not a good area to add more traffic because it is currently at a constant steady pace. Mr. Abbott also stated that there is an easement on the east side of Hughes Road that is 18 feet wide, and is for a single unit. Now there is discussion about a multi-unit going in. His property extends all the way to the park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property is zoned single family and the most anyone could have on the property is one house. Nothing can be placed on the 18' wide strip of property. The applicant would have to go before the Board and City Council to have approval for a planned residential development. Mr. Frederick asked for this request to be forwarded to the appropriate department for investigation. Ms. Stachowiak stated she would do it. Ms. Ila M. Farlin, resident of 5513 Hughes Road, stated that the road to the new development would be right next to her property. She is a senior citizen who moved to this area for retirement. She does not mind the condominiums but would appreciate it if the access would not be placed PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 9 next to her property. She has had several people ride up into her yard every winter and almost killed her little tree in the front yard. It is hard for her to cross the street to get to her mailbox. If the traffic were to increase, the situation would become worse. Mr. Mike Mercer, representative of 5440 Hughes Road, stated that what he is hearing are concerns with the development overcrowding the neighborhood. He inquired about a traffic study. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the City's Transportation Department that would require a traffic study if the number of units would have a negative impact on the streets in this area. A study has not been ordered at this point. Mr. Don Jones, resident of 2109 Moffitt Street, stated that he believes the concerns with the traffic can be resolved by curb and re-gutter, resurfacing the road, and having stop signs placed at all the entrances to the subdivision. Ms. Cindy Slocum, resident of 2103 Moffitt Street, stated that the entrance would be next to her house. She also enjoys the wildlife in the area. She inquired about the entrance to the subdivision. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the entrance would be a standard street with typical curb and gutter constructed to the City's specifications. In terms of any entrance way, the Planning Office has not been presented with a site plan. Ms. Slocum inquired about a fence around the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a fence is not required and would be strictly up to the developers. Mr. Ruge asked if a fence would be placed around the development. Mr. Markey stated that there are no plans for a fence at this point, and if the people would let him know what they want then he could do it. Mr. Ruge inquired about access to Pleasant Grove Road and if Mr. Markey could share the thought process in determining the access that was chosen. Mr. Markey stated that with the proximity to Moffitt Street that empties onto Pleasant Grove Road, his understanding from the Planning Office and the Transportation Department was that the distance would be too close. There are criteria about how close a street/intersection should be. There has been discussion about the curb and lack of enforcement with speeding on Hughes Road. Pleasant Grove Road is a 4-lane major arterial. Pleasant Grove Road has had a worse corroded angle for ingress and egress then anything ever seen on Hughes Road. A lot of this on Hughes Road has to do with enforcement of existing laws and traffic calming measures. It is a race track and it will be that way whether this development goes through or not. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-3-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 2003. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 10 D. PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.85 acre parcel located on the west side of Wexford Road, 495 feet from W. Jolly Road. The applicant proposes to construct 9 detached single family residential condominium units on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the benefits of having public versus private streets going into the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the streets are dedicated to the public, they have to be constructed to the City's street standards. If the streets are private, the requirements may be relaxed some. The development will be servicing 9 units, and the residents may prefer to have it as a private drive. Mr. Ruge inquired about the access area and the size of the sidewalks by Wexford Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Markey Associates may have purchased the vacant lot listed as 062. Mr. Anthony J. Szilagyi, representative of Markey Associates, stated that the development is a middle income opportunity for residents. Many residents enjoy viewing the wetlands and the wildlife. This is an opportunity for people who seek to live in this type of environment. Most people look outside the City for these types of opportunities. This is the ideal environment geared towards enjoying wildlife outside the windows. The property can be purchased at a very reasonable price. With regards to the traffic and the location, ingress and egress has to be moved down slightly to address the property concerns. Ms. Foster inquired about public access to the wetland. Mr. Szilagyi stated that there is some room to create a walkway. Ms. Foster inquired about mailboxes. Mr. Markey stated that this would be up to the Post Office. Mr. Ruge inquired about the wetlands towards the north and if they would be left in their natural state. Mr. Markey stated that under the current zoning, the balance will be left in its natural state. Ms. Cordill inquired about the residents of the units to the west and how they would access the area without walking on the street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that area would be a common space and the residents who live back there would have access to it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Foster inquired about the benefits of the private/public street. Ms. Cordill asked Mr. Markey why the company was pursuing a private street for this development. Mr. Markey stated that the other development seemed to make more sense to construct public roads and have the City care for them. He stated that what the company foresees with this development is to have the roads maintained by the condominium association rather than the City because of the unique characteristics of the pond. The pond is not small and is just under 3 acres. This is a large body of water. The company seeks to have this as a private development. Mr. McConnell asked if these condos would be standing alone. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these units are detached single family units. Mr. Markey stated the only reason why these are condominium developments is because of the legal requirements to re-plat the land. The flexibility of not having to go through the subdivision act through the State of Michigan allows the company to have this development done a whole lot quicker than the old fashioned subdivision plat. Mr. McConnell inquired about the price of the condos. Mr. Markey stated these would be a little bit higher, between $150,000 to $175,000. Ms. Teresa Lauderdale, resident of 5210 Wexford Road, stated that she has lived in the area since last year. She stated that Wexford Road is the main access area for her subdivision. This road is much busier than what she thought it would be when she purchased her home. When school is in session, the road is busier. There is not very much property for parents to park. There is a small driveway to the school where the parents park. Cars are always parked on both sides of the street when parents pick up their children. A lot of times her driveway is blocked. There are kids walking down the street all the time. Drivers do not do the speed limit and cars are zooming down the road. She is concerned about the new development because this would bring more traffic. She is concerned about the safety of the kids. She is totally opposed to having the driveway for the new subdivision on Wexford Road. Ms. Trudy Wilson, resident of 5230 Wexford Road, stated that she has lived on Wexford Road since 1984. She shares the same concerns about the traffic and safety of the children. She also has concerns about the water tables and flooding. She inquired about the access area to the new subdivision and if there was a park. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is only one entrance/exit area and there is a park. Ms. Foster inquired about the area for the public to use. Ms. Wilson stated that the area is a swamp and various things have been dumped there. She asked if it would be cleaned up. She asked if this was Phase I for development of the property and if there would be another phase. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is it for the development and that there would be 9 units. Ms. Wilson stated that she is happy with increasing property values but asked what would happen if the properties do not sell. She asked about the properties PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5 2003 Page 12 becoming rental units. She asked about the new units, and if they would become rental units if they did not sell. Mr. Frederick stated that would be up to Mr. Markey. Mr. Glen Gruenvell, resident of 5140 Wexford Road, stated that he has lived in the area for over 7 years. He inquired about the wetlands. It is a dump in that area and it needs a lot of cleanup. He would not want to have that when he looks out his back window. With the elementary school, the road is very busy. There are a lot of kids running around on the street. This development will add more traffic and more vehicles speeding. He asked for a copy of the plans. Some of the members of the audience asked for copies of the plans. The Board members offered their plans to them. Mr. Gruenvell asked about the time frame of the development. Mr. Frederick gave a brief overview of the application process and stated that it takes approximately 3 months. Mr. Frederick stated that for the record, he received a letter of opposition from Ms. Shirley Graves, resident of 5220 Wexford Road. Mr. Markey clarified that the access area is 60 x 72 plus 60 feet south of her property and that her property would not be a corner lot. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-3-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 13, 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of July 15, 2003 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of July 15, 2003 were APPROVED w/ CORRECTIONS. Pg. 9, 2"d para., line 1, delete "to the east". PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 13 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair Ms. Cordill stated that the July meeting had been cancelled. Next meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 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 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office had been asked by City Council to postpone the hearing for PRD-2-2003. It will be held at the next meeting. 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling -junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003 &June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20,2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20, 2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK Blvd.- landscaping& buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17,2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 14 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill stated that she has concerns about the access area for the Victoria Woods Condominiums (PRD-3-2003) and if there was a more definitive way of saying that it would not work. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City's Transportation Engineers would be more qualified to make that decision and that the department has not yet commented on it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would ask them to specifically comment on the access issue. Ms. Cordill stated that residents did not object to the development but were more concerned about the traffic. Ms. Foster inquired about traffic calming measures for this area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council has placed a moratorium on allowing the Transportation Department to do any more traffic calming measures in the City. The Transportation Department cannot do anything about it. However, it can be passed on to the Police Department for increased enforcement in that area. Ms. Foster inquired about who made up the Executive Committee. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, and the Chairs of the two Committees. Ms. Stachowiak gave an update on all the pending enforcement issues. Mr. McConnell stated that he brought up a code enforcement issue at the last meeting regarding Padnos Iron & Metal Company on Willow Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a restriction for this site. The materials stored within 20 feet of the fence shall not exceed the height of the fence. Once they are passed 20 feet of the fence, they can go as high as they want in a heavy industrial district. Mr. McConnell stated that if the recyclable materials are in the middle of their lot then they can go as high as they want. Ms. Foster inquired about billboards. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be taken up at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Foster inquired about the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Rieske still plans to continue with it. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick inquired about the tree trimming business on the north side of Jolly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 5, 2003 Page 15 Road, east of Waverly Road. The owner has two or three lots. One of the lots is fenced with a chain link fence and has the whole length of the fence covered with cheap banners advertising his business. Most of the yard is filled with cut wood that is split and stacked. While Mr. Frederick was there, a motorcycle patrol officer was giving the owner grief. Mr. McConnell inquired about a tree trimming type-business next door to Bill Gill Cleaners. The owner uproots tree trunks and houses all his trucks in his garage. This is a business at his residence. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.080503.doc Draft to Clerk September 23,2003 Approved October 7,2003 To Clerk October 14,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, September 16, 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, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Ruge, McConnell. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Rod Shangle, resident of 3203 Westwood Avenue, stated that he attended a Committee meeting last Wednesday. He inquired about the motion to move the garages from the front of the building to the side. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was on the list of conditions. He inquired about having a boulevard type of entrance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was also listed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16 2003 Page 2 He was not sure with the recommendations as to whether or not the developer has either the resources or the qualifications to do it. He asked the Planning Board to take this into consideration when it comes time to vote on the case. Mr. Bob Taylor, resident of 4233 Driftwood Drive, DeWitt, stated that he provided the members of the Planning Commission with an aerial photograph and thought it would be helpful for deliberations. He stated that there is a concern that this request would start a cavalcade of rezonings to commercial on this block. He is talking about rezoning a very small portion of this block. He stated that it may be contrary to the vision of the River Vista plan. However, these are arterial roads and will continue to be for quite some time. There are roughly 40,000 vehicles a day at the intersection, and he does not see residential going on this corner. He would like to see a very large mixed use development that would include some commercial (i.e. Starbucks). National tenants are not interested in the corner, and that is why the residents are trying to do a small scale neighborhood service-type project here. People have approached the neighbors to do much larger projects and take houses from Center Street. This is not the neighbors' wish, and he is only here to represent the owners on the corner. When he first made the application, he was told that "E-2" would be consistent with the corner uses. He stated that the Planner did not review the Comprehensive Plan at that time. It was a snapshot view of the uses in the surrounding area. There are quite a few mixed uses in the area. It is not fair to the owners of these properties to not be able to utilize their property. The home is not conducive for a single family residential use. The owner would like to be able to utilize his property and realize the economic gain from it which in turn would provide the City with some tax base. There are no curb cut provisions on Oakland from the State Highway Department. This limits the other uses on the site as well. Even though "E-2" does allow service stations, the reality is that there is no interest in the site without the ingress/egress from Oakland. This will be a neighborhood type service establishment and that is how it would be marketed. He is available to answer questions if there are any from the Board. Mr. Robert Bower, Co-Founder and Director of Giving Tree Farm, stated that he submitted the site plan for the proposed PRD-2-2003. He stated that the proposed project fits in to what the City has deemed to be the appropriate use of this property. It is zoned residential, and has been undeveloped and unmanaged. The Master Plan for the City is very clear that it is deemed to be used for limited residential development. The concerns that have been raised by various individuals have not been substantiated by any official source. It is true that he is not a professional developer but he has surrounded himself with a team of professionals that include Mr. Fred White (long time engineer of Fred White Engineering Company), Mr. Russ Peabody (architect of The Peabody Group), Mr. Tim Ellis (developer and builder for 30 years in the Greater Lansing area, served on the Tri-County Planning Board & the Delta Township 25 year Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 3 Committee), Mr. Roy Elsworth (professional realtor for 15 years), and Ms. Cindy Race (mortgage finance person of Enterprise Mortgage Corporation). He believes that the plan is a good one and that it encompasses what the City requested of him 2 years ago. He asked for the Board's approval so that construction could begin this year. Mr. Jim McDaniels, resident of 1732 Shady Oak Lane, inquired about the recommendation before the Board regarding the garages and if the garages would go on the side of the homes if approved. Ms. Foster stated that the plan reads that the residential units will be designed so that the garages do not extend closer to the street than the front of the house. They can be on the front and may be placed on the side as well. Mr. McDaniels stated that his primary goal is to make sure that the development is one that fits in with the neighborhood in the long term. The location of the land is in an area that very few residents would want to move to. This does not mean that there is not people in the City that do. Personally he believes that one can look throughout the City of Lansing without being handed a study and see the "property value" of homes along railroad tracks. This is a neighborhood that is quiet, and he is concerned about growth in the area. He was made aware by the owner and his real estate agent that there would be one home and 4 condominiums constructed on the site. Obviously, this is not the case. His history has been one of trust but it seems that he has not been told 100 percent of the facts. When he sees this many units going in with garages on the front next to a set of railroad tracks, he is really concerned. He does not believe that whether property can or cannot be developed is in the best interest of the City. He asked the Board to seriously consider moving the garages to the side. It would make the front of the homes more appealing and would to some extent reduce the plot by a couple of units. This would be more suited for the neighborhood for the long term home ownership type of people that the City is looking for. Home ownership is the key, not renters. His understanding is that in the long term some of these homes may be rented. Giving Tree Farm has the option to do whatever they want once these homes are built. He asked the Board to consider the long term effects of having units that could become rentals and potentially degrade the neighborhood in the future. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval —August 19, 2003 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Paqe 4 Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of August 19, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of August 19, 2003 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Foster, Vice Chair a. PRD-2-2003, Giving Tree Care Housing, Vacant parcel at the north end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Robert Bower for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 5.57 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 13 residential condominium units on a 7.13 acre site, 1.6 of which are to be donated to the City for park purposes, consisting of six duplex units and one single family unit. The overall density of the proposed development (with the residential care facility) is 1.96 units per acre, which is well below the allowed density of 7 units per acre in the "A" Residential District which is well under a third of the density allowed according to the Northeast Comprehensive Plan. A 6-bed residential care facility is also proposed for the subject property. Staff recommended approval of PRD-2-2003, Giving Tree Care Housing, vacant parcel at the north end of Westwood Avenue with the following conditions: 1. The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood, which would be hardsurfaced but without curb and gutter and without sidewalks. 2. That no "hammer head" turnarounds be designed into the south end of the development to allow maneuvering of public services vehicles, but instead establish a service agreement to the satisfaction with the Public Service Department for public service vehicles to turn around at the end of the private street in the cul-de-sac. 3. Increased height to the berm with an additional row of conifers to better screen views and buffer sounds of the train. 4. A 8 foot tall cyclone fence along the north property line along the railroad and the railroad spur be installed. 5. A fence be installed around the detention pond to reduce this an attractive nuisance to small children. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16 2003 Page 5 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood, which means hardsurfacing but without curb and gutter; 2.. That no "hammer head" turnarounds be designed into the south end of the development to allow maneuvering of public services vehicles, but instead establish a service agreement to the satisfaction with the Public Service Department for public service vehicles to turn around at the end of the private street in the cul-de-sac; 3. Increase the height of the berm to 10 feet to the point of clearing with an additional row of conifers to screen views and buffer sounds of the train; 4. A 8 foot tall cyclone fence along the entire length of the active portion of the railroad be installed; 5. A raised crosswalk connecting the open space to the east and the park to the west be provided to serve as a pedestrian crossing as well as a traffic calming devise; 6. The residential units be designed so that the garages do not project closer to the street than the front of the houses; 7. Barrier-free pathways be provided to connect the open space/arboretum, park and Westwood neighborhood to the condo development; 8. Dust and dirt from the development be controlled during construction, including street cleaning as necessary; 9. The applicant work with the City Forester to preserve as many of the mature trees on the site as possible; 10. As least 2-3 deciduous trees be planted behind each condo unit, excluding the use of ash trees; 11. A landscaped boulevard entrance to the site be provided; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill stated that the proposed development actually has a lower density than the neighborhood. She inquired about detached units being considered instead of duplex units. Ms. Stachowiak stated that detached units could be done. Originally, when the plat came through the Planning Office a couple of years back this was requested. What is nice about this development is that it is clustered together at the end of Westwood Avenue. Before, when it was PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16 2003 Page 6 detached units, the cul-de-sac was a lot longer and the units were spread out further. It took away most of the open space and would have resulted in a lot more clearing of the land than what has been done so far and what will be done to serve this development. This really clusters it so that there is a great deal of open space left over. This meets what the PRD's section of the ordinance is trying to achieve and staff is supportive of the way the developer has designed the site. Ms. Cordill was wondering with that amount of investment if someone would want to go into a duplex-type building as opposed to a detached unit. She appreciates the open spaces being preserved. She inquired about single family dwellings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these are 2-bedroom units so the target population sales are mostly empty nesters or young professionals. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a lot of open space left, and that it is a very nice development. He agrees that the design would be better if the garages were not built any further outward than the front of the building. This would detract more from the development more than the fact that it is a duplex. With sound proofing techniques these days, one really does not hear the neighbors. Ms. Cordill inquired about addressing the developer on this issue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the developer is asking for duplexes. In a single family attached development, the Board would be looking at a subdivision as opposed to a planned residential development like the one proposed. Ms. Cordill stated that she understands the value of clustering the development and that it is a lower density. Approximately 40 units could be constructed and have consistent density with the rest of the neighborhood. The one thing that stood out was that the units were duplex styled buildings and not detached. She believes that the garages should be recessed. Ms. Foster stated that she would like to modify condition 6 because it only addresses the fact that the garages do not project any closer to the street. She stated that the condition should read: "The residential units will be designed so that the garages do not face the street or where that is not possible, do not project closer to the street than the front of the houses." She had reviewed the layout and the shared driveway can be between 2 of the units throughout and there would be 3 units that would not have the sharing possibility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 7 These units could have the garages in the front. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Cordill stated that there was a concern with a residential development regarding utilities being buried and that there would not be light poles. She remembered one of the utilities commenting on above or below ground, and her concern is that the utilities be below ground. Also, she stated that classic lighting should be proposed. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene stated that she is concerned about the potential of this development becoming rental property. This proposal is consistent with the Master Plan and that is what the Board has to review. She stated that it is not inevitable that these units become rental properties. She is supportive of the request. However, there are reservations. Ms. Foster stated that 80% have to be owner occupied and that the units cannot be rentals. Mr. Frederick stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has asked the Planning Office to review the number of rentals with the Marquette Condos, and also for the Transportation Department to review the cut through traffic that he had noticed when he was viewing the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Wynant was reviewing the rentals of Marquette Condos, and that it appears they may be in violation of the State statute. This is something that the County would enforce in this case. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of PRD-2-2003, Giving Tree Care Housing, Vacant parcel at the north end of Westwood Avenue with the following conditions: 1) The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood, which means hardsurfacing but without curb and gutter, 2) That no "hammer head" turnarounds be designed into the south end of the development to allow maneuvering of public services vehicles, but instead establish a service agreement to the satisfaction with the Public Service Department for public service vehicles to turn around at the end of the private street in the cul-de-sac, 3) Increase the height of the berm to 10 feet to the point of clearing with an additional row of conifers to screen views and buffer sounds of the train, 4) A 8 foot tall cyclone fence along the entire length of the active portion of the railroad be installed, 5) A raised crosswalk connecting the open space to the east and the park to the west be provided to serve as a pedestrian crossing as well as a traffic calming devise, 6) The residential units be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 8 designed so that the garages do not face the street or where not possible, they do not project closer to the street than the front of the houses, 7) Barrier-free pathways be provided to connect the open space/arboretum, park and Westwood neighborhood to the condo development, 8) Dust and dirt from the development be controlled during construction, including street cleaning as necessary, 9) The applicant work with the City Forester to preserve as many of the mature trees on the site as possible, 10) As least 2-3 deciduous trees be planted behind each condo unit, excluding the use of ash trees, 11) A landscaped boulevard entrance to the site be provided, 12) That the utilities be buried as opposed to being above ground utilities, and 13) That classic lighting be used throughout the development. Frederick . Ave Foster. . Ave Keene . Ave Cordill . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. b. Z-9-2003, Southwest Corner, N. Cedar & E. Oakland, "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District This is a request by Robert Taylor on behalf of the owners, George Bettman and Norm Spalding, to rezone the property at the southwest corner of N. Cedar Street and E. Oakland Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 19; also commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 16, thence north 49.6 feet, southwesterly to a point 4.6 feet north of southwest corner Lot 16, south 4.6 feet, east to beginning; and the north 3 rods of Lot 20, Block 21, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District. If approved, the applicant intends to develop the site for undetermined commercial uses. The requested rezoning is contrary to future land use pattern being advanced in the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the request could have a negative impact on future land use patterns in the area by encouraging other types of development in the area, similar to that proposed with this rezoning. Therefore, the findings contained in this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 9 report do not support a positive recommendation for this request. Staff recommended denial of Z-9-03, Southwest Corner, N. Cedar & E. Oakland, "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend denial of Z-9-2003, Southwest Corner, N. Cedar & E. Oakland, "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIAL. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the present Board members have recommended this case for denial. However, because this is a rezoning request, it takes 6 votes of the Planning Board to make a formal recommendation. Therefore, this vote will be forwarded to City Council as action taken and not as a formal recommendation. C. Z-10-2003, 302 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Fred Hammond to rezone the property at 302 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: The east 22 feet of the west 46 feet of the north 100 feet of Lot 2, Block 13, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize the entire second floor and half of the first floor of the building at 302 E. Grand River for loft apartments and the remainder of the first floor area for professional office or light retail uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 10 The request to rezone the property at 302 E. Grand River Avenue from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District for mixed uses of residential/office/retail space is consistent with the land use goals of the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan for the Old Town Area. Furthermore, the request is consistent with the land use patterns in the area and no negative impacts on vehicular/pedestrian circulation; future patterns of development; or the environment are anticipated to result from this request. Staff recommended approval of Z-10-2003, 302 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill stated that she was not sure if the formal definition of loft apartments and that she has always thought of them as old warehouse buildings or factories that were turned over to residential developers. Ms. Keene stated that it could also be called a walk up flat. Ms. Foster stated that she was concerned with the applicant discussing with the railroad the possibility of purchasing this piece of property. She recommended that the City keep the railroad property as a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Frederick stated that he raised this issue in the Committee meeting, and that he thought it should be used for public transportation from downtown Lansing to the airport. Ms. Foster stated that the railway does not need to be split up in tiny pieces. Mr. Frederick stated that a combined soft tire public transportation and pedestrian walkway would be really nice along this area. If the airport is truly concerned about getting passengers, this would be an ideal thing for them to consider regardless of how much money it would cost. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of Z-10-2003, 302 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the case was approved but without formal recommendation. C. LS-24-2003, 1204 Cleveland & 1307 E. Grand River This is a lot split request by Ronald Sible. The applicant is proposing to split off the east 49 feet of the property at 1204 Cleveland and combine it with the property at 1307 E. Grand River, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 1204 Cleveland Lot 21, the west 56.06 feet of Lots 19 and 20 and the west 21 feet of Lot 22, Otto's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1307 E. Grand River Lot 23, the east 14 feet of Lot 22 and the east 49 feet of Lots 19 and 20, Otto's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the property at 1204 Cleveland would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 3.3 and 1307 E. Grand River would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 3.8. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. The proposed split will create lots that are deeper than the other lots in the immediate area of the subject property. However, there are no significant concerns or adverse impacts anticipated on the property or the surrounding area as a result of this request, particularly since the subject lots will continue to be 2 of the largest lots on the street. Typically, the concern with lot splits is creating lots that are smaller than other lots in the area. In this case, the proposed split will actually eliminate an irregularly shaped lot. The property 1204 Cleveland is currently an L-shaped lot. The proposed split would create two rectangular lots which is far more desirable. Staff recommended approval of LS -24-2003, 1204 Cleveland & 1307 E. Grand River. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 12 Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of LS-24- 2003, 1204 Cleveland & 1307 E. Grand River. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Aye Keene Aye Cordill Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. Ordinance Amendment - Proposed Kennel Standards Mr. Frederick stated that the absent Board members are not aware of the changes in the language. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the Board preferred to wait until the next meeting when all the members would be present that would be fine. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to table the Ordinance Amendment - Proposed Kennel Standards. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Next meeting, Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, September 23, 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 Ms. Stachowiak stated that Z-5-1998, under Zoning and Ordinance Committee pending items, will be off the agenda. She is also working on removing items 1 c and 1 d from the agenda. All three cases should hopefully be off the agenda by the next meeting. She stated that the pending Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports were updated this afternoon. Some of the requests have been resolved and will be removed from the list. There were a few more requests presented during the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 13 and were added to the list. The Board members will see some changes to the list at the next meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that Wild Side Tatoo did lower their sign, and suspects that this item will probably be removed. 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1, 2003) d. Code requirements regarding lawns(July 1,2003) e. Padnos Iron&Metal-scraps piled 2-3 time the height of the fence (July 15, 2003) f. Wild Side Tatoo located on Pennsylvania Avenue- homemade sign (July 15,2003) g. No street signs at intersection east of Washington and Miller(July 15, 2003) h. Jolly&Waverly Roads-tree trimming business(August 5, 2003) i. Next door to Bill Gill Cleaners-tree trimming business (August 5,2003 j. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19,2003) Ms. Stachowiak stated that Z-5-1998 has been withdrawn from the Pending Items list, and that Z-1-1998 will also be withdrawn as soon as the applicant sends in a withdrawal letter. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers Mr. Frederick recommended that election of officers take place when all of the Board members are present. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to table the Election of Officers. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 14 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting last week the Apostolic Tower of Power Temple, located at Mt. Hope Avenue and Fletcher Street, was approved for a variance for the 20 feet usage of the parking lot. He stated that the Polish hall was concerned that their liquor license would be affected because they were applying for a day license to serve alcoholic beverages at their annual fund raiser. On the application from the Liquor Control Commission was a new question regarding whether or not they obtained permission from any church or school within a 500 foot radius to be granted this day license to be able to serve alcohol. Again the Polish hall was concerned that the church would not grant approval of their request. However, they did not contact the church so Mr. Frederick asked Bishop Edwards if he would grant the hall permission. Bishop Edwards stated that he would be glad to give them permission and that it was not a problem. Mr. Frederick stated that there were several other schools and churches within the 500 foot radius. The outcome was the variance was approved. City Council had tabled the special land use until the variance for parking was approved. The next step is City Council. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that she had spoken with the people from the Michigan Fitness Council. They are located in Okemos and are eager to move into Lansing. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about the size of the business. Ms. Foster stated that she was not sure. Ms. Foster inquired about the Master Plan process. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Rieske could provide a more accurate update. She stated that she would ask him to provide an update at the next Urban Development meeting and then it can be reported to the Board. Ms. Foster inquired about billboard issues. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no new cases for the October 7tn Planning Board meeting, so this would be a good time to discuss billboards. Mr. Ruff would like for the Board members to focus on the parking issues as a priority. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the parking and billboard issues could be discussed at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for October 15tn Mr. Frederick stated that he would like some information regarding traffic calming and walkable communities. A good example of this is Dunkel Road because there are no sidewalks. Ms. Keene stated that Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue are another example. Ms. Foster stated that these issues are in the Master Plan. Ms. Cordill stated that Saginaw Street, Grand River Avenue, and Oakland Avenue are issues again regarding two-way traffic. Her daughter attends Fairview Elementary School and is between two of these streets. Her PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 16, 2003 Page 15 house is approximately one mile from the school and the walk from her house to the school is not the most hospitable. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a speedway through this area. Mr. Frederick stated there is a new bill being introduced in the Legislature that would require communities to install some sort of pedestrian ease of access for students who attend school as a result of the young lady who was killed in Delta Township, at Waverly Road and St. Joseph Street, as she was walking to school. Making some of these streets more pedestrian friendly is going to be a lot cheaper than building a bunch of walk overs. Ms. Stachowiak stated that part of the problem with Oakland Avenue and Saginaw Street is that they are State trunk lines. The City is limited to what can be done except to make request and include recommendations in the Master Plan. When reconstruction projects occur, it is taken into consideration what the community has in the Master Plan. If it is in the Master Plan, it will be reviewed thoroughly. This is a tool to make it happen. Ms. Cordill stated that it is ironic when you drive past Okemos High School and she cannot see how any student can walk to the school's location. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this will be a big topic of discussion in the Master Plan. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Keene stated that her neighbor, in the 1100 block of Genesee, requested a variance to build a garage, and it was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He laid the foundation and has not done any more work to it. She stated that it has been at least 2 '/2 years and is now starting to deteriorate. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have a building inspector look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.091603.doc Draft to Clerk September 23,2003 Approved October 7,2003 To Clerk October 14,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting . LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers. Lansing City Hall Wednesday, September 3, 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, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: Cordill. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Cordill. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-9-2003, Southwest Corner, N. Cedar & E. Oakland, "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District This is a request by Robert Taylor on behalf of the owners, George Bettman and Norm Spalding, to rezone the property at the southwest corner of N. Cedar Street and E. Oakland Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 19; also commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 16, thence north 49.6 feet, southwesterly to a point 4.6 feet north of southwest corner Lot 16, south 4.6 feet, east to beginning; and the north 3 rods of Lot 20, Block 21, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District. If approved, the applicant intends to develop the site for undetermined commercial uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. George Beckman, resident of 821 N. Cedar Street, stated that he is the co-owner of the property and that he owns the lot to the north. Mr. Norm Spalding owns the lot to the south. He stated that the slope of the property is not an issue as it primarily affects the property to the west, rather than his property, and that he is not sure at this point if he would lease the space in his commercial building or sell it outright. Mr. Joel Smith, resident of 806 N. Cedar Street, stated that the area should remain primarily residential and that he is opposed to this request. Ms. JoAnne Bump, stated that her father owns the property directly to the west of the applicant's property and that her father has been unable to sell the property with the residential zoning. Her father needs the money to pay for his own care. She also stated that this area is not suitable for residential development, particularly since it is located 500 feet from a junkyard. She spoke in favor of the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-9-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 2003. B. Z-10-2003, 302 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Fred Hammond to rezone the property at 302 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: The east 22 feet of the west 46 feet of the north 100 feet of Lot 2, Block 13, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize the entire second floor and half of the first floor of the building at 302 E. Grand River for loft apartments and the remainder of the first floor area for professional office or light retail uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Keene inquired about the two tabled cases (Z-1-98 & Z-5-98) that are similar to what the applicant is requesting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. Mr. Fred Hammond, resident of 111 E. Grand River, stated that he is working with the railroad to use the abandoned right-of-way that is directly west of his building for parking. He also stated that he could lease parking spaces from the City to his residential tenants, and that the rent for his PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 3 apartments would be approximately $1,000 per month, with single professionals as the target population. He spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Linda Sutton, Director of the Old Town Main Street Program located at 1232 Turner Street, stated that she receives approximately 5 calls/emails every week from people who are looking for apartments in the Old Town area, and that the average lease is approximately $900 a month. She stated that the applicant's request is another example of the positive mixed use development which Old Town is looking for. She spoke in favor of the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-10-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 2003. C. LS-24-2003, 1204 Cleveland & 1307 E. Grand River This is a lot split request by Ronald Sible. The applicant is proposing to split off the east 49 feet of the property at 1204 Cleveland and combine it with the property at 1307 E. Grand River, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 1204 Cleveland Lot 21, the west 56.06 feet of Lots 19 and 20 and the west 21 feet of Lot 22, Otto's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1307 E. Grand River Lot 23, the east 14 feet of Lot 22 and the east 49 feet of Lots 19 and 20, Otto's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the property at 1204 Cleveland would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 3.3 and 1307 E. Grand River would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 3.8. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ron Sible, resident of 1309 E. Grand River, spoke in favor of the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred LS-24-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 2003. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 4 D. Ordinance Amendment - Proposed Kennel Standards Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. The proposed changes to the definition of a kennel essentially eliminate the statement "for commercial purposes". In addition, the proposed language would prohibit certain types of dangerous and loud animals in residential districts and would restrict the number of animals that a single household could keep as pets. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Ordinance Amendment - Proposed Kennel Standards to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — August 5, 2003 Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of August 5, 2003 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of August 5, 2003 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair a. Act-9-2003, Between 439 & 501 N. Clemens Street, Sale of 5' Strip (South 5') This is a request by the City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation Department to sell a 5' strip of land to the adjacent property owner to the south, 439 N. Clemens Street, to eliminate an encroachment into a 15' wide PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 5 walkway owned by the City of Lansing and managed by the Parks & Recreation Dept. It should be noted that this is not dedicated park land. The property is located between 439 and 501 N. Clemens Street on the west side of the street. The subject property is 5' x 137.2' rectangular portion of a walkway (15' wide) that runs perpendicular to Clemens at the intersection of Clemens and Fernwood. The residential character of the area will not change as a result of the Act 285 to sell a 5' strip of parcel. The Parks Department wishes to eliminate the encroachment onto city property and maintain the integrity of the city walkway into the park land. The Parks Board passed a resolution to support the disposal of the southern five (5) feet of the subject property in order to eliminate the encroachment onto City property and install a fence on the back (west) property line. Also, the five feet is appropriate and the adjacent property owner (439 N. Clemens) would still be able to meet the minimum setback requirements for a detached garage. The location, character and extent appear to be reasonable. Staff recommended approval of Act-9-2003, Between 439 & 501 N. Clemens Street, Sale of 5' Strip (South 5'). In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster inquired about the location of the fence. Ms. Witherspoon stated that the fence would be 5 feet from the park's property line. Ms. Foster inquired about the garage and if it was built afterwards. Ms. Witherspoon stated that the building permit was approved based on the information that was provided. The information did not indicate that this was Park property. Mr. Frederick stated that the City might have a bit of responsibility here because the Building Inspector should have caught the error. However, the City cannot go out and inspect every site plan for every application for a building permit. The inspector can go out and inspect afterwards to make sure that the plan is being adhered to. Ms. Foster stated that it is hard to look at the property and know exactly where the property boundary is. The Board has to rely on the surveys. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 6 Mr. McConnell stated that the Parks Department had been maintaining this piece of property for some time and that it does not necessarily need the land for park usage. It was maintained because of it being City property. He stated that it would relieve the Parks Department from having to mow the grass and maintain it. Mr. Murdock Jemerson, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, stated that the original permit was pulled in 1996 because of some siding work being done. The original permit for the building was in 1944 to 1945. He stated that we are not talking about dedicated park property. It is not that type of an issue. If it were, it would be handled differently. The Parks Department was asked to become involved with this property because it does provide a thoroughfare through the park. This is not dedicated park land. This type of a solution is a lot easier to handle. If it were dedicated park land, the Parks Department would be putting it up for a vote of the people. The Parks Department is trying to resolve the issue. Ten feet is more than enough space for a thoroughfare to the park. The Parks Department would like to see this issue resolved. Mr. Ruge inquired about whether or not the Parks Department would be doing improvements. Mr. Jemerson stated that the Parks Department does intend to put up a fence and that the fence line would be maintained by the Parks Department. Mr. Ruge inquired about how park land becomes dedicated, and asked about the last time the City actually dedicated any park land. Mr. Jemerson stated that 114 parks were recently dedicated. The Parks Department has been going through the process of dealing with the issue of dedicated parks ever since the issue of the Genesee parcel. There are three different ways: 1) When property is referred to the Parks Department, it could be contained within a deed restriction that the property be used for park purposes. Therefore, it is dedicated park property. Dedicated is a legal term that deals with property issues; 2) There is dedication by way of City Council where a piece of property comes to the Parks Department and if it fits within the Master Plan of the department, than he would make a recommendation to the Mayor. Then it would be passed on to City Council and would be voted on for "park purposes"; 3) It could also be dedicated through the Master Plan process of the City. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 7 He stated that each year by ordinance, the Mayor has to present to City Council a list of City properties. This listing of park properties was sent because of the Genesee Park parcel issue. He wanted to be certain that everyone knew which parcels were City dedicated park lands by way of the deed or referral. The last time a list like this appeared in the City Council proceedings was in July of 1981. The list was a classification of parks but it was perceived as dedicated park lands. The Parks Department made sure that a list was put together to present to City Council that was voted on as dedicated parks. There are 114 dedicated parks totaling 2,332 acres of land. Mr. Ruge inquired about one of the dedicated parks being Grand River Park. Mr. Jemerson stated that Grand River Park is a dedicated park. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of Act-9-2003, Between 439 & 501 N. Clemens Street, Sale of 5' Strip (South 5'). Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave McConnell . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-10-03, Kingsley Ct./Riddle, Sale of two parcels This is a request by the City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation Department to sell two parcels, A & B , of land at Kingsley Ct. & Riddle Street. Parcel A: A property owner has expressed an interest in purchasing this parcel. Parcel B: This parcel would be distributed to the adjacent property owners at 1139 Kingsley Ct. and 1138 W. Kalamazoo Street. It should be noted that these parcels are not dedicated park land but managed by the Parks Department. Staff recommended approval of Act-10-03, Kingsley Ct./Riddle, sale of two parcels. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 8 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster asked if there was a park nearby. Mr. Jemerson stated that right across the street is Letts Community Center. Ms. Foster inquired about the strip of land. Ms. Witherspoon stated that strip of land is Parcel C. Mr. Ruge inquired about Parcel A, and asked who would be interested in purchasing the parcel except for the person who has an adjacent piece of property. Ms. Witherspoon stated that there is someone interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Foster inquired about the selling price of the property. Mr. Jemerson stated that he was not sure if an appraisal had been done and does not have that information with him. He stated that he could quickly obtain a copy for the Board. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of Act Act-10-03, Kingsley Ct./Riddle, Sale of two parcels. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 23, 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 9 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge -wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1,2003) e. Padnos Iron& Metal-scraps piled 2-3 time the height of the fence(July 15, 2003) f. Homemade sign,Wild Side Tatoo located on Pennsylvania Avenue (July 15, 2003) g. No street signs at intersection east of Washington and Miller(July 15,2003) h. Jolly&Waverly Roads-Tree trimming business (August 5,2003) i. Tree trimming business next door to Bill Gill Cleaners(August 5, 2003) Mr. Ruge stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee items are pretty stale. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she sent letters to PRD-2-2001 and SLU-8-2001, and the applicants will not withdraw their requests. At this point, she stated that the cases are so old that it would not even seem fair to move forward and act on the cases again. She will check with Mr. Ruff about removing the cases from the table and report back at the next meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON- None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene inquired about Board elections in September. Ms. Stachowiak stated she would look into the matter. Mr. McConnell inquired about Mr. Joel Smith wanting to do the commercial building on Cedar and Oakland Streets. He stated that Mr. Smith and other area residents had petitioned the Planning Department in a similar situation for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 10 rezoning, and asked if there was a way to research this to see if it was declined for a similar rezoning. Mr. Smith lives across the street. Another party on the same street or adjacent also petitioned the Planning Department/Planning Board for a similar rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it can be researched. This parcel right at the corner was also requested for rezoning not to long ago. The request was denied. The applicant's lot, which is currently under conservation, was also requested for rezoning to "F" Commercial and was denied. Now the applicant is requesting an "E-2" rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would research the matter. Ms. Foster inquired about property being on sale for 15 years as residential and if the request to rezone to commercial was denied, would the Board be making that property useless. Ms. Stachowiak stated that other requests of a similar nature have been denied. Mr. Frederick stated that it would be a taking if the Board made it for the property owner to have no value at all in the land. This issue is that the owners cannot sell the property for what they believe it is worth. It means that the owners got stuck with something that does not have as much value as they would like for it to have. The Board is available to make sure the Comprehensive Plan is followed so that the Board does not do something that would make the property useless. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge inquired about the Quality Dairy dumpster on Grovenburg Road (item 5c, under pending). Mr. Frederick stated that Cedar and Oakland Streets need new street signs because they are not readable. Mr. Frederick inquired about Pryer's Towing and that one of the conditions was for the business to have a sign on the roof. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a time frame was given to bring all the items in compliance. The fence has been moved back but Pryer's has not taken down the old sign. Mr. Frederick stated that the landscaping and buffering has not been done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. Mr. Frederick inquired about the southeast corner of North Grand River Avenue and Sadie Court, across from Hart Trust. There are shipping containers and semi trailers being stored on the vacant lot on the corner. He assumes that this is storage material from the Hickory Woods Apartments that currently are being constructed. He stated that there is trash everywhere and that it looks like the construction dumpsters have not been emptied since construction began. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 3, 2003 Page 11 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.090303.doc Approved as written 9-16-03 Draft to Clerk September 11,2003 Approved September 16,2003 To Clerk September 17,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, August 19, 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, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Wynant. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letters of opposition from the following residents regarding PRD-2-2003: 1. Tom & Kay Bellgowan, 3217 Westwood Avenue 2. William R. Montague, no address given 3. John M. Jenks, Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association 4. Dorothy Suky, 1806 Shady Oak Lane 5. Robert E. Moss, no address given 6. Calab & Cindy Hodges, no address given 7. Bert & Donna Carter, 3122 Westwood Avenue 8. Lee Mason, 3204 Westwood Avenue 8. Daniel G. & Kathryn M. Thelen, 3000 Westwood Avenue 9. Kenneth & Viola Verhougstraite, no address given 10. Marjorie Ringle, 3309 Westwood Avenue (2 letters) Ms. Stachowiak stated that this afternoon Ms. Wynant received more letters of opposition from the following residents: 12. Roy D. & Patricia L. Jones, 1608 Biltmore Blvd. 13. Richard A. Wallace, 3118 Westwood 14. Neshehice & Janis Sverns, 3017 Westwood Avenue 15. Brian Yuston, 3119 Westwood Avenue 16. Michaelle Torrez, 3229 Westwood Avenue Mr. Frederick stated that these letters will become an official part of the record, and will be included in the staff report for the Committee meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-2-2003, Giving Tree Care Housing, Vacant parcel at the north end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Robert Bower for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 5.57 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 13 condominium units on the property, consisting of six duplex units and one single family unit. A 6- bed residential care facility is also proposed for the subject property. Ms. Wynant gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Mr. Robert Bower, Director of Giving Tree Farm, located at 15433 Turner Road, gave a brief overview of the proposed development. Ms. Foster inquired about the height of the berm along the railway. Mr. Bower stated that there is currently a berm of approximately 8 feet in height along the north property line. Ms. Foster inquired about raising the height of the berm to 10 feet. Mr. Bower stated that it could be raised. One of the concerns has been the clearing of the area where the care home is being built. It had to be cleared for drainage purposes so there would be swales leading to the catch basin. One of the features of the neighborhood is the mature oak trees. None of these trees on the 7 acres have been or will be disturbed by this development. The cleared area was primarily uncontrolled brush, and trees that have grown over generations and have not been maintained. Ms. Keene asked for some background information regarding Giving Tree Farm, and inquired about owning and properly managing the residential program as well as the condominiums. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm is a state incorporated licensed 501 C3 Christian organization that provides services to developmentally disabled people, a 22 acre farm in DeWitt Township, and certified organic grower of garden produce. Much of their ability to be supported by operational funds is derived from selling organic produce throughout the area. The proposed development with the care home came about by a $120,000 grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank, plus additional financing that was received from the Michigan Housing Trust Fund. For the condominium development, there is financing available to Giving Tree Farm through Standard Federal Bank as well as financing through Enterprise Mortgage of Lansing. The company will not be building units as spec units and will not build 13 units and then try to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 3 sell them. The company will build units as there are potential buyers available. Once the units are built, the buyers will finance them. When the units are completed, both local and state laws require a condominium association that will be formed that would have legal by-laws that would be adhered to for the management and upkeep of the complex and the common areas. Approximately one acre, on the far west end of the property, would be donated to the Lansing Parks Department. Approximately two acres at the far east end of the property would be proposed as an arboretum and would become a common element that the association would be responsible for the upkeep. This is typical for a condominium association. The residents would meet to determine how the acreage would be used and how it would be maintained. Ms. Keene inquired about when Giving Tree Farm became incorporated. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm was incorporated in 1991. Currently, Giving Tree Farm has 22 acres. There are disabled people throughout the greater Lansing area who are transported to the farm. There are job training programs available. Giving Tree Farm is also affiliated with another non-profit organization, Community Based Interventions, who administratively has over 7 years of experience in providing services to disabled people. Community Based Interventions will do the day-to-day management of the care home, with the home being owned by Giving Tree Farm. As a certified organic grower, Giving Tree Farm provides its own means of support. There are 7 green houses besides the seasonal produce. Giving Tree Farm also receives grant funding, and funding through other organizations and individuals. Approximately 50 percent of the operational funding comes from what is derived through the work. Ms. Keene inquired about Giving Tree Farm's involvement in the management of the condominiums. Mr. Bower stated that the management of the condominiums will not be the responsibility of Giving Tree Farm. Giving Tree Farm is the developer who will build and sell the units. With condominium development, the residents will be responsible for the units and everything inside the structure. Everything outside the structure is a common element which would be the responsibility of the association. The association would be responsible for the ground maintenance and street clearing. Mr. Bower stated that there was a concern raised regarding the complex being turned into a rental complex. In order to receive financing for a condominium development, the underwriter requires that at least 80 percent of the units be owner occupied. Giving Tree Farm is proposing a maximum of 13 units. Outside the first spec unit that would be built, the additional units would be built as there are buyers made available. Currently, there are 4 conditional purchases based upon approval. Typically, a developer will build the units as there are potential buyers, and may build a spec unit which may be sold later. The developer will not build the entire complex and then try to sell the units. Ms. Keene asked about Mr. Bower's involvement. Mr. Bower PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 4 stated that once all 13 units were built, it would then be the responsibility of the association and the owners to maintain. Giving Tree Farm is the owner of the care home, and will still be a part of the neighborhood and the association as one member. Including the care home, there will be 14 units. Giving Tree Farm would still have a voting membership as one of the members of the condominium association. Ms. Foster inquired about the prices of the units. Mr. Bower stated that the price range would be between $130,000 to 140,000 and that Giving Tree Farm will be applying for the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Grant. This would be for moderate income families. Potentially, there could be up to a $20,000 subsidy if the grant is received. The Federal Home Loan Bank would require that all the units be owner occupied and have a five year retention agreement. Ms. Foster inquired about the arboretum and if there would be public access to it. Mr. Bower stated that there would be access. There was an informal meeting with the Lansing Parks Department approximately two week ago and one of the items of discussion was the possibility of tying in the arboretum with a pedestrian walkway that would lead into the one acre adjacent to Horsebrook Park. Currently, Giving Tree Farm has an affiliation with the Horticulture Department at Michigan State University (MSU). MSU has expressed some interest with this becoming a project for interns who would devise a site plan and be involved in the planning of the arboretum (i.e. trees, flowers, bushes). This would provide a pedestrian walkway through the acreage that would be accessible to everyone. Ms. Foster inquired about the recreational area on the opposite side of the park. Mr. Bower stated that parcel would be dedicated to the Lansing Parks Department and would be owned and maintained by the department. This would provide the public with additional accessibility to Horsebrook Park. The only accessibility to Horsebrook Park right now is off of Grand River Avenue. Mr. McConnell inquired about owner occupancy. Mr. Bower stated that minimally under financing and the conditions associated with the condominium development, at least 80 percent will be owner occupied. Mr. Bower stated that it is not the desire of Giving Tree Farm to have any type of rental units. All the units will be for sale. The first unit will be available on site and there will be advertising to sell the units. He understands the concerns of the neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm is also a property owner in this neighborhood. He stated that there have been a lot of misgivings and inappropriate statements from even neighbors about bringing in a group of retards. He takes great offense to these types of statements. He represents, through Giving Tree Farm, the most repressed minority in this country today. The way he has been treated by a City Council member from the fourth ward as well as other people has not taken into consideration the issues that are at hand. Giving Tree Farm is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 5 trying to create something where there is residential occupancy. The area residents have interpreted this as being their personal property. There have been individuals who have mowed and used the property as their own and this creates concerns when proposing a development. Giving Tree Farm is not trying to do things haphazardly. Giving Tree Farm will be a part of the community. With the residents coming into the group home, one of the first things that happens is the families will do a site visit prior to the placement of their family member. It is in the best interest of Giving Tree Farm to have a clean, well kept and beautiful neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm wants to have a group home that is in a typical residential neighborhood. Giving Tree Farm does not want to be isolated by rentals or anything distracting. Disabled people have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. Mr. McConnell inquired about the moderate rate of $130,000 to $140,000 and if the units could be available at a lower price. Mr. Bower stated that with the current real estate market in the Lansing area for a home, it is difficult to find a home less than $100,000. This development would be within a moderate price range. Anything between $100,000 to $150,000 would be considered a moderate price range nowadays. As far as affordability, this is one of the things that the Federal Home Loan Bank Grant could play a part in. If there is an opportunity to subsidize through a grant, then it does become something that is more affordable for more people. Mr. McConnell inquired about a draft of the by-laws of the association. Mr. Bower stated that he does not have a copy available at this time and that it would have to be in place before the development is completed. This is something that would involve the residents because there can be specifics relating to what the owner of the units would desire to have for this area, especially in the use of common elements. Mr. McConnell inquired about the proposed association fees. Mr. Bower stated that the fees would be determined by the residential needs (i.e. street clearing, lawn mowing), and that he is not aware of any association fee less than $100.00. The owners can take a direct role in soliciting from area contractors what would be the best deal for the upkeep. Mr. McConnell inquired about Giving Tree Farm meeting with the surrounding residents and Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, and addressing and possibly resolving the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Bower stated that in February when Giving Tree Farm received the approval from the City of Lansing for the care home, he contacted Mr. McDaniels and informed him of the approval for the construction of the care home which would occur sometime in the spring. He also faxed to Mr. McDaniels a copy of the tentative site plan of the condominium development and indicated that he would be very happy to meet with the neighborhood to discuss concerns or issues. He received no reply. Approximately three PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 6 weeks ago, there was a neighborhood meeting that involved Council Member Smith. He would have been very happy to attend. If Council Member Smith is planning to do a visit with fellow Council Members to the neighborhood, he would be happy to give a tour of the 7 acre site, including pointing out some existing sites that are very clear examples of City ordinance violations. He has been open to a meeting but has not received a response from anyone. Ms. Cordill inquired about the price ranges of the existing homes in this area. Mr. Bower stated that the price ranges, according to the market study that was done, would be somewhere in the low to upper $100,000 range. The top range would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $170,000 to $180,000. Ms. Cordill inquired about when Giving Tree Farm would pull out of the picture. Mr. Bower stated that Giving Tree Farm will not run a rental complex. As the individuals purchase the homes, they will then be responsible for the homes. The only thing that Giving Tree Farm would have an invested interest in beyond the selling of the units would be the care home, which Giving Tree Farm would manage and provide support to. Because Giving Tree Farm is a part of the complex, it would also be a part of the condominium association and would have direct input on how the common areas are managed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she and Ms. Wynant attended the neighborhood meeting and were told that Mr. Bower was not invited. Ms. Stachowiak and Ms. Wynant tried to the best of their ability to answer all of the neighbors' concerns. Mr. McConnell inquired about financing through Enterprise Mortgage and stated that it sounds like a conflict of interest. Mr. Frederick stated that this was beyond the scope of the authority of the Planning Board, and is probably not a topic that needs to be discussed tonight. The Planning Board has the authority to review the layout and how the PRD is planned under the City ordinance. He stated that he does not know of anything in the City ordinance that allows the Board to get into financing and conflicts of interest. This would be something for another Board or entity to address rather than the Planning Board. Ms. Geneva Smith, Fourth Ward City Council Member, stated to Mr. Bower to be a man about himself, and if he has a problem with her, he needs to go directly to her. She has 36 letters in hand and stated that apparently the Board did not receive all of them. There was a petition with 200 signatures forwarded to the Board from her constituents. Mr. Frederick stated that one copy was provided and that it will be passed out at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. The Board members will have an opportunity to review it. Ms. Smith stated that she wanted to give the Board copies of the letters that she has because some of them PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 7 were not listed with the other communications. She wanted to be sure that the Board had copies of all the letters. In response to Mr. Bower not being invited to the neighborhood meeting, she stated that he was not invited because her constituents did not want him at the meeting. The meeting was a business meeting. She is here as a Fourth Ward Council Member because she supports her constituents. If that makes her a bad person, then she is a bad person because she cares about the Fourth Ward. She cares about her constituents and she will have more to say when this case goes before City Council. Ms. Smith turned to Mr. Bower and stated that as for him, he did not even know her. Mr. Frederick immediately directed Ms. Smith to address only the Board with her concerns. Mr. Lee Mason, resident 3204 Westwood and a member of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that he owns two parcels of property in the neighborhood. He takes exception to the fact that the neighbors have been characterized this evening as persons who throw trash around the neighborhood. The residents are very proud of their neighborhood and that is why they are here. Shady Oaks came before the Board several years ago with major concerns with the development going into the area. There has been discussion regarding traffic, environmental impact, and the possibility of the development ending up as low income housing. The neighbors are concerned because they take great pride in their neighborhood and have worked very hard and diligently. Traffic and the environmental impact are major concerns. There has been discussion about constructing a barrier. Currently, there are over 35 trains passing through this area during the week, and even though he lives in the middle of the block he still hears the air planes. This is an impact on the community that has not been there before. The neighbors have worked to improve the community. If housing is added for people and there are concerns about the people, who would want to live 20 feet from the railroad tracks? He hears the trains and stated that is inhumane. There are a lot of abandoned houses in the City that can be repaired to increase the housing in the City. This is ludicrous and does not make any sense at all to him. The message that is being sent to the general public is that there are no concerns for the people. This is like putting up something less than a camp. Mr. Mike Gorman, resident of 3233 Westwood, stated that this housing, if approved, will surely turn into rentals. Mr. Bower calls them condominiums but they are duplexes. They are owner occupied for a short time or maybe a second time. They will eventually turn into rentals and it will not take long. The neighbors chose to live in this area because they like it. They have the means to move outside the City but they love the neighborhood. They do not want to see this neighborhood converted to a high turnover situation. He encouraged the Board members to view the site and see where these homes would be crammed. From him to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 8 Board members, is the distance where the trains pass by. There are 10 trains a day that pass through at 40 mph. He does not believe that Mr. Bower has a permit to operate a land fill. He demolished the woods, placed it in a pile and buried it. He is not sure of who oversees this type of work. The retention pond has been done the same way. It was dug, filled with brush and buried. This has created dangerous sink holes around the area. One of the City's big objectives is to decrease the number of rental houses and increase home ownership. This will initially be home ownership, but will turn into rentals. Ms. Traci Gorman, 3233 Westwood Avenue, stated that she has heard Mr. Bower's proposal and plans, and that it sounds pretty good. The reality is that some of the work (i.e. site preparation) has not been adequately handled. She inquired about the City inspectors for this proposal because some of the work has already been done and is substandard. She asked about who was watching the hen house because there is a fox around. She asked the Board to review the site. She stated that Mr. Bower has cleared the land, substandardly dug the trenches and filled in the area with brush and covered it. There are sink holes. He has done the same thing with the berm. The question was raised about the height of the berm. The berm will end up settling because there are brush and dead trees underneath. The area is not safe. Her husband brought a stick to their home that he stuck into the ground 5 feet. Granted it is private land and technically they are not supposed to be there. If some of the residents are walking around the site, they could step into a 5 foot sink hole and not be able to get out. She stated that Mr. Bower contacted Jim McDaniels of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association. Mr. McDaniels has resigned from the association and that is why there were no returned phone calls. There was information stating that Mr. Bower was making promises on this association that he cannot keep. The individual who purchases the condo can turn around and sell the home to someone else. Eventually the trains will drive residents away and the homes will become rentals. She stated that Mr. Bower is making promises that he cannot keep. The by-laws are not in place. Mr. Howard Jones, resident of 426 W. Barnes Avenue and a Community Activist in the City for many years, stated that one of his primary concerns has always been the well being of the neighborhoods. He has visited the Shady Oak area and has seen the results of Mr. Bower's work so far. He stated that Mr. Bower has created an ugly scar in the landscape which encourages the runoff of mud. This is certainly not healthy for the neighbors. He noticed that all the trees had been cleared towards the railroad, eliminating the sound buffer. If Mr. Bower was so concerned about the trees, then why did he not go in and remove the trees that were indecent? The Board needs to look at the whole City. There are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 9 500 units that are red tagged. Why not give some of the concerns to those units in the City? They would supply a lot of housing for people. The City has all kinds of housing programs that people can latch onto. The City does not need a developer from DeWitt Township coming into the City and making money off of the people in the City. He is tired of it. If Mr. Bower's employment is checked, probably none of his employees live in the City. The City is allowing contractors and developers to come into the City and develop the properties. There is an unemployment problem in the City and it should be addressed by the Board. He stated that Mr. Bower has made some very inappropriate comments about the neighborhood. He has visited the neighborhood and spoken with the residents, and has not heard any disparaging comments about who will be living in the Giving Tree units. He stated that Mr. Bower owes the residents an apology. The audience began to clap and Mr. Frederick stated that there will be no applauding. Mr. Jones continued saying the Board should think about what their job is as members of the Planning Board (i.e. Is it to create a more wholesome city? Or, is it simply a conduit through which the developers come to the City, are patted on the back, and then say here is another development down the drain and move onto the next project.) Mr. Rod Shangle, resident of 3203 Westwood Avenue and Secretary of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that he would like to commend Mr. Bower for the fine job that he does as the Giving Tree Farm in DeWitt, and for a great job he will be doing for the house located at the end of Westwood Avenue. This is credit that he deserves because Mr. Bower has been doing this for 12 years. He asked about Mr. Bower's qualifications for the new development. Everyone did not come here to fight a war with Mr. Bower. What he came for was to get information from Mr. Bower regarding the development. What he has heard was attacks on the neighborhood, and this is not what the Board or the Planning Committee want to hear. What people want to hear are Mr. Bower's plans for the neighborhood. When he hears words like "conceivably," "possibly," and 'Well, it's up to the owners," he has to ask himself if Mr. Bower is really ready to answer the kind of questions that the Planning Department should be asking. He would like to ask Mr. Bower the same questions, and if Mr. Bower is really ready to put in a quality development like this. This development already has had several of the City ordinances broken by Mr. Bower and his crew. He does not want to go into the details because that is not what the Board wants to hear. He asked the Board if Mr. Bower was really ready to conceivably build a berm large enough to block the noise from 35 trains per week, 25-35 ingoing and outgoing planes from Capital City Airport with an additional plan of 25-35 more planes in the middle of the night, according to Mr. Dan Otto, developer from the airport. He asked what kind of conditions the residents would be living under with these types of noise conditions. He also asked about the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 10 recommendation put forth by PM Environmental, Inc. that Mr. Bower has also reported in the information given to the Board in terms of more soil testing and possibly putting in a well to test the soil. The soil at one time had been contaminated. He has not seen anything anywhere regarding this testing nor any information regarding hazardous materials. This site at one time was a dump by the State Health Department. He is not sure if Mr. Bower is ready for this, and stated that is a issue for the Board to decide. Ms. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that Lansing is her town and that it is not a group of neighborhoods. The City is one unit. She took an interest in this development because of phone calls she received. She visited the neighborhood and had meetings with two of the homeowners. When she approached the neighborhood, she saw the beautiful trees, the peacefulness, and the almost tranquility of country without gutters. One of the residents she visited pointed out where the structure for the post trauma residents would be. She stated that no one has ever had a problem with the units being placed in there because of the fact that it would be a post trauma structure. This was not a problem for the neighbors. The problem is that Mr. Bower wants to develop 13 condominiums. She walked to the edge of the owner's property and viewed the site. The site is not a very large piece of property. She saw the train tracks and stated that when the trains pass through, they rumble. The sound barrier is gone. There were residents who stated that they never had a vibration before but since the barrier has been removed, there are vibrations in the homes. She stated that a lot of things in this neighborhood are being lost and cannot be measured. It is the whole destruction of the ambiance and the livability of the neighborhood which is what is needed in the City of Lansing. This is the key. She did not hear any derogatory remark from the neighborhood residents regarding the units having individuals with closed trauma head injuries. The neighborhood needs to be saved for the residents. Mr. Scott Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he has lived on Shady Oak Lane for 20 years and has concerns with the development. The berm is 8 feet tall and the trains are a bit taller so the berm is not hiding anything and is not stopping the noise. The trees have been cut so thin and one can still see the train to the left. With the sharp increase in traffic on Westwood Ave and the surrounding streets, he was given a number of 140 additional trips up and down Westwood Avenue. Westwood Avenue is not a typical Lansing street. There are dozens of children living on and in the surrounding area who belong to families that moved to the neighborhood solely to have a quiet and safe place for their children to play and grow up. Should this development be approved, with equal trips for every Westwood unit, the increase at Grand River and Westwood would be 30 percent. Like Mr. Bower stated, there would be a trail leading to the park, the children would play in the park. The reality is that not all of the children will play in the park. They want to ride their PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 11 bikes up and down the street. The children would have to cross Westwood Avenue to get to the walkway. At the area of Shady Oak Lane and Westwood Avenue, there would be a 77 percent increase of traffic at this intersection. He stated that the proposed development would severely harm the safety of the streets, integrity of the community and stability of the neighborhood. He asked for City Council to preserve the beauty of the neighborhood, and focus on the quality and stability of the communities rather than the quantity of the people living in them. Mr. Brian Hustead, resident of 3119 Westwood Avenue, stated that he opposes the development. He had a copy of the development plan that showed a recreational and nature area. He stated that it was a little misleading. The pedestrian area that runs into the nature area realistically ends at the edge of what is the creek bed for the drainage area. The only way to reach the proposed park area access is to cross the creek bed, which at most times is 3 to 4 inches of water. There is a lot of mud. He does not see a proposal for a bridge to connect the park to the adjoining areas. Currently, the area north of the park way is a boggy area and is real slippery. Unless the area is very well landscaped and completely renovated, it would not be able to be termed a nature area that would be usable by the people. It is a true nature area that could be dangerous. With the recreational area on the east side of the property, he stated that there was to be an access. The plan does not reflect an access area and he does not see where there could be one. The berm has been in several discussions with the result ending in 1 to 2 rows of trees as a buffer zone. That buffer zone will not be enough to cut down the noise of the trains and planes, and would not be high enough. The train bed is quite higher than the berm. He asked about how this berm could already be established if it has to be approved before it is installed. He is finding more and more distress in what Mr. Bower is stating. His understanding is that the Giving Tree Farms acquired this property through a real low cost purchase. So the motive with this development comes down to what Mr. Bower said about building and selling the units. It is a profit motive. It is not to build the community. Mr. Bower has a fine non-profit organization but it is going for a profit purpose to help support that particular organization. Ms. Betty Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that her residence directly abuts the new building. Since the trees and brush have been removed, there is so much more vibration from the trains that the residents feel. The trains go very fast in this area. There are other condominium developments in the City that are built next to the railroad tracks. The only difference is that the trains go slower in the downtown area. As soon as the trains pass Logan and MLK Blvd., they speed up. She feels a lot of vibration in her home and the basement and kitchen floor PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 19, 2003 Page 12 shake when a trains passes by. During the night, her son's car alarm goes off because there is so much vibration from the train. She lives next door to the newly constructed closed head trauma unit (to the north), and there will be 13 more units built closer to the train tracks. Someone will probably purchase one of those units and once they feel the vibrations from the trains, may not stay very long. If there is a commitment of 5 years, people may not want to take the penalty and back out. The people will be so close to the vibrations. With everything being demolished, there is not a sound barrier like there should be. If new trees are planted, they may not stop the vibrations for those units who are right next to the railroad tracks. Residents will probably move out and the units will sell for less each time they are resold. She is opposed to all of those units being constructed between the residential neighborhood and the railroad tracks. She does not believe that this is a good place for people to live especially those residents who would have to pay approximately $1,200 a month for their house payment. Ms. Marilyn Shaver, resident of 3211 Westwood Avenue, stated that the sounds of the train are making her crazy. She cares for her mother in her home, and her mom is up 5 to 6 times per night. The minute she tries to go to sleep, here comes the trains and the horns are so loud. She lives approximately 10 houses from the end of the street, and she cannot imagine that anyone could live in a condominium at the end of her street and be able to sleep, arise the next day, and function properly because of the amount of stress from the sounds of the train. She is very sad about having condominiums on the end of her peaceful street. She prayed 15 years ago to live in the country setting of the City. It is the most beautiful street. She has 6 deer that walk through her back yard. She has birds that fly by and salmon that swim up the stream. There is no way the animals will be passing through her back yard when construction begins. She lives in the City and pays taxes. Mr. Bower does not live in the City of Lansing and does not pay City taxes. She believes that the residents should have the say in whether or not there should be 12 units at the end of the street. The residents have paid their dues. They support the City, vote in the City and live in the City. When Mr. Bower speaks about the garbage being dumped on the property, she stated that people dump leaves on the property that are biodegradable and it breaks down. There are good worms for fishing. She does not know anything about tires or barrels being on the property. She has a business and had to lock the dumpsters because people were dumping their trash in it. Maybe people drive to the end, see the open lot and decide to dump there. She doubts very much that any of the people in the neighborhood would dump garbage on the property, other than the biodegradable leaves. She stated that the development does not need a park and that the City has donated the property behind her back yard as a park. People come with their kids and fly kites, play baseball, etc. There is plenty of time and space. It is nice and generous that Mr. Bower wants to give the residents a park, but there is no need for another park. Those condominiums are not worth PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 13 $130,000 because nobody in their right mind would move to this area and live with this kind of noise. If the condominiums are constructed, the neighbors will question whether or not they to live in that beautiful, peaceful and quiet neighborhood. She hopes the Board will take into consideration the residents. Mr. Tom Bellgowan, resident of 3217 Westwood Avenue, stated that he has live at this residence for approximately 43 years. He knows what is in the area. When Mr. Bower speaks about the park land, he has mowed that park land for better than 36 years, and now Mr. Bower wants to join into it. He would like to talk with the Park Commissioner himself because Mr. Bower does not know the property that the residents are talking about. Mr. Bower has spoken about the congestion that will occur on Westwood Avenue. All the people enter and exit the area via Westwood Avenue. Mr. Bower has spoken about 7 streets getting to Grand River Avenue. If people exit the condominium site, they will drive right straight up Westwood Avenue. Very few people will turn on Shady Oak Lane because of the 2 stops that would be made before Grand River Avenue and MLK Blvd. Westwood Avenue only has one stop. This will cause a traffic situation that the residents do not want. There was a meeting in his back and his house is approximately 1,200 feet from the railroad tracks. A gentleman was trying to speak when a train passed by. After the train passed, he finished his point and sat down. There was a young couple sitting at the table who lived on Shady Oak Lane, and when the trains pass by they do not talk to one another because they cannot hear what the other person is saying. This couple lives approximately 600 feet from the railroad tracks. Mr. Bower would like to construct condominiums about 250 feet or less from the railroad tracks. These units will turn into rentals. There is no question about it. Mr. Jeffrey Bedard, resident of 1818 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he has lived in the area for 20 years, and that his property abuts the proposed development. Because of the construction of the new building, his house was shaken enough to where a gas line was ruptured. He had to have Consumers Energy come out and check the line, and then he had to repair it. He also has had water pipes shaken to where he had to also repair them. The residents never considered the woods as theirs. They considered them as God's as all lands are. The residents wanted to keep it that way. The woods were one of the main things that brought the residents to live there. When the first demolition of the woods was done without a permit, it devastated the neighborhood. He believes that other things have been avoided. Mr. Bower has been doing some construction on weekends in which he was to have a special permit. He did not have one, and the residents called the police and tried to get in contact with some other authorities to stop the construction. To keep the integrity of the neighborhood and keep the current residents, he is totally opposed to the development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that she understands both sides of the issue especially when people are attached to something that is a part of their heart and soul but they do not hold a title. She stated that if her information is correct regarding the price paid for the property, she does not believe that the developer has an investment backed expectation that would require the Board to give him any breaks. She believes that in this situation the Board needs to put the neighborhood and established homeowners first. The residents can see where this development will lead —to the degradation of the neighborhood. Once the condominiums are constructed, there will not be an incentive to maintain them economically which is why buildings become rentals. Given the situation, if breaks are given regarding the law then the Board will be headed in a bad direction for the neighborhood. She stated that the property should have been purchased by the City because of the stabilizing factor that it gave to the neighborhood. The best thing that could be done at this point is to make attempts to re-establish a wood lot that would act as a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. She is opposed to the development. Mr. Ken Kline, resident of 1700 Shady Oak Lane, stated that he is opposed to the development, and that the trees that were cleared from the site, as Mr. Bower stated, grew for generations and generations. These trees do serve a purpose and no berm can replace them. He was offended by Mr. Bower's statement regarding someone's comments on retards. He does not believe it happened. Everything about the development is all wrong. Mr. Paul Richards, resident of 3020 Westwood Avenue, stated that he is opposed to the development and that it does not go well with the neighborhood. If the developer wants to do something for the benefit of the City with contributing to the low income housing where these homes are red-tagged, why hasn't he contacted the City? He is not sure whether or not the developer contacted the City. He asked why the developer has not taken it upon himself to put money into these tagged homes. The buildings are there, and the developer can help re-build them and enhance the neighborhood. He does not believe that an additional park is needed at the end of Westwood Avenue. Currently, the neighborhood has a park that has been redone and the residents have easy access to it. The streets are considered a part of the park. It is a beautiful area and a great place to live. He has been there since 1993, and does not want to leave. His family likes staying in the City of Lansing. He has lived in many cities over his life and the City is very beautiful. He enjoys the City, and when people talk bad about it, he quickly retorts that they have not stepped foot in Lansing. It is a beautiful City, and he believes that it should be kept this way. He stated that a proposed development like this at the end of Westwood Avenue will not enhance the City. He believes it would be a degradation of the City. He encouraged the Board to view the neighborhood. There is not much land and the development would be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 15 very close to what the neighbors have already discussed. It is not a very desirable place. In time, the developer will not sit on a board or have anyone at a board meeting on a monthly basis voting to keep things going. He does not see it happening. Once the site is developed, people will be gone, money will be made and the developer will move on to his next development. Ms. Michaille Torez, resident of 3229 Westwood Avenue, stated that she is very opposed to the development. There are risks involved with the trains. A few years ago she had a large breed dog that ran over to the area by the trains and was decapitated. This should say how fast the trains travel. It could have been a child. This is a very dangerous place for have family dwellings, and to think that Mr. Bower will receive that much money for the units and have people living in the units and pay monthly payments, is ridiculous. The residents know that these units will become rentals. This is not good. She stated that Mr. Bower mentioned a retention pond that will catch the run off water in the area. The Reynolds drains are behind her house, and she stated that the City has not found the old Township drain that carries all of the water from this neighborhood. The old Township drain could not be found where it ran into the Reynolds drain. Part of the drain was found but the rest could not be found. The blue prints are no longer available. All of the run off water goes into her property and the drain is actually under her house. There is a big drain problem at the end of the street and she thinks it should be closely reviewed. Maybe the old Township drain could be found where it meets the Reynolds drain. If the retention pond that Mr. Bower built for all the run off water does not hold, she believes it will run into the Reynolds drain and run down her street into her property. This should be carefully reviewed before anymore construction takes place because there has been enough destruction. She believes there will be sewer problems because the neighborhood already has them. She faxed a copy of her letter to the Drain Commissioner for their review. Mr. Tim Ellis, owner of Delta Builders, stated that he currently owns property along Grand River Avenue and that he is also the builder of the home that is currently being constructed. He is amazed at how the residents speak ill of their neighborhood. The trains and planes have been passing by for years. The changes that have taken place were going to take place whether it was Mr. Bower or another developer. This property is prime land for development. He currently serves on the Tri-County Planning Board and Tri County is looking for ways to build in the City of Lansing and the surrounding areas rather than having urban sprawl. He stated that the neighbors do not want a development in their back yards. He appreciates that. Unfortunately, the land has to be developed in areas that are available with sewer and water. This is the preferred thing. With regard to the neighbors' questions and problems about Mr. Bower's construction so far, burying trees in berms is common practice. It happens PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 16 everyday in every development. The trees will deteriorate very, very slow. The way the property was compacted on top of those trees, it will deteriorate even slower. With regards to construction workers working on the weekends, his workers have every right to work on the weekends. He contacted the Building Department the following Monday after the complaints came through, and the Lansing Police Department met his crew at the site. All the problems were resolved. Unfortunately, things were not resolved favorably to him, so on Monday he contacted the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's Office indicated that his crews are more than welcome to work on the weekends even without a permit as long as the police do not feel that the residents are causing enough noise to be a Disturbing of the Peace violator. He did file for a permit. With regards to other things taking place on the site, Mr. Bower mentioned about trash being dumped onto the site. Mr. Bower did not claim that the trash belonged to the neighbors. He just stated that the site was a dumping ground. For someone to pick on Mr. Bower is not quite fair. If it is not Mr. Bower building this project, it will be someone else. If anyone has any questions for him, they are more than welcome to contact him. He met with some of the residents in the neighborhood. With regards to Mr. Bower having the knowledge and the ability to develop this site, sure Mr. Bower will have it because he backs Mr. Bower. He will be there to make sure that Mr. Bower does things correctly. He stated that he has been a developing land for 30 years. People in the City and the surrounding areas know him. Mr. Bower will not do something that is not fair to the neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred PRD-2-2003 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 10, 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 17 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Paul Wiegman to rezone the property at 1100 Lake Lansing Rd. and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOTS 7 & 8, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. The purpose of this rezoning is to bring the plumbing and heating business at this location into compliance with the zoning ordinance. AND This is a request by Paul Wiegman to rezone the property at 1110 Lake Lansing Rd. and the parcel directly east of this address, more specifically described as: LOT 9, BLACKWOOD SUBDIVISION & COM 125.3 FT S 49DEG 13MIN W OF NW COR WIELAND PARK SUB, TH S 49DEG 13MIN W 50 FT TO NE COR BLACKWOOD SUB, S 14DEG 40MIN E 100.15 FT, E PAR L WITH DAVID ST 47.5 FT, N 15DEG 22MIN W 133.8 FT TO BEG; SEC 3 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize these properties for offices and associated parking to support his plumbing and heating business located at 1100 Lake Lansing Road. The request to rezone the property at 1100 and 1110 Lake Lansing Road is inconsistent with the Northeast Comprehensive Plan. The request is also inconsistent with the surrounding residential land use patterns in the area. In addition, land zoned for businesses exist throughout the north side of Lansing that would be better suited to the needs of the applicant's business. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 18 Staff recommended denial of Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District, AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated that she drove by the site today and there were tires and stuff stacked up in the rear. It is a really major impact on the people next door. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been like this all the way around. This was one of the things that was taken into consideration and the recommendation was that this site has been a constant code enforcement problem. The Code Compliance Office is on top of the situation. By rezoning the property, it would become legal. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend denial of Z-6-2003, 1100 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District AND Z-7-2003, 1110 Lake Lansing Road, "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. B. Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MILK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District This is a request by the Lansing Housing Commission to rezone the property at 3117 S. MLK Blvd., more specifically described as: COM INTN E LINE S LOGAN ST/M-99 & S LINE LOGANCREST SUB, TH E 936.2 FT, S 245 FT TO N LINE SOUTHLAND PLAZA SUB, W 515 FT, N 95 FT, W 150 FT, N 100 FT, W 270.1 FT TO E LINE M-99, NW'L Y 50.01 FT TO BEG; SEC 29 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 19 from "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a 30-unit senior housing development on the subject property. The City of Lansing acquired the subject property on behalf of the applicant for the purpose of redeveloping the site for senior housing. The proposal will bring the property further into compliance with the master plan designation for medium density residential development. The five, one-story buildings, with a total of 30 rental units, will result in a density of 8.1 du/acre. The proposed zoning classification will function as a transition between the commercial land use to the south and the single family residential land use to the north. While the area is predominantly single-family residential, with proper landscaping and buffering, the proposed development would retain the residential character of the neighborhood, and would be consistent with the development pattern in the area. Staff recommended approval of Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MLK from "A" Residential to"DM-1" Residential based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Foster stated that she would like to add a friendly recommendation that sidewalks be added so that residents can access Southland Avenue. There is a place where the building splits half way through the site and she believes it would be a good place for a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-8-2003, 3117 S. MLK Blvd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District with the condition that a sidewalk be added throughout the development. Frederick .Ave Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 20 C. PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 14 acre parcel located south of Moffitt Street, east of Pleasant Grove and west of Hughes Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 35 detached single family residential site condominium units on the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Planned Residential Development of 35 single-family dwelling units on a 14 acre site. The location of the site is south of Moffitt Street and west of Hughes Avenue. The areas surrounding the site are comprised of low density single family residential uses. A utility right-of-way is directly to the south of the site. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan depicts future use of the site as Low Density Residential of up to 7 dwelling units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop residential uses at a density below this level, i.e. 2.5 units/acre. The density of the neighboring developments to the east and north is 5.8 and 7.26 units per acre, respectively. With respect to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the PRD is essentially a mechanism for enabling development to occur in a manner that is sensitive to the natural and physical features of the site. By clustering development, a PRD offers a means of preserving significant natural features of the site and achieving more open space. Section 1280.05 (e) of the design standards for a PRD requires open space is to be provided in an evenly distributed manner and natural features to be preserved when practical. Furthermore, the plan is capable of meeting the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance and can be accommodated with existing public facilities and infrastructure. Traffic volumes in the immediate area will increase as a result of the development and therefore, traffic control/calming mechanism might be necessary at its entrances. It is recommended that these improvements be provided at the applicant's expense. In addition, should the City Transportation Office require an impact study for the increased traffic volumes, the applicant will have to provide that information to the City. The Transportation Office is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 21 considering whether an access to Pleasant Grove would be appropriate. Staff recommended approval of PRD-3-2003 with the following conditions: a. Enhance entry drives with boulevards and landscaping features. b. Install traffic calming devices at various points in the interior roadways. Additional access through Pleasant Grove Road should be assessed in accordance with the Traffic Engineer. C. Sidewalks should be designed to integrate the development with the surrounding neighborhood and to provide access to the private park. d. An inventory be conducted of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6" including location and common name. The developer should preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. e. The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible. Coniferous trees be planted in those setback areas lacking trees that abut adjoining residential structures; trees will be planted no less than 15 feet on center and at least 8 feet in height at the time of planting. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Markey had provided a blue print that shows the location of the pedestrian walkways and they are designated in blue so one can see how they will be incorporated into the development to access the park and Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Markey has added pathways between some of the lots on Pleasant Grove Road and that will create a nice circular walk for the residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since the interior streets have sidewalks, it will provide good access to the neighborhood. This will have a continuous pathway system throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 22 PRD-3-2003, "Victoria Woods" Site Condominiums, East of Pleasant Grove, South of Moffitt & West of Hughes Avenue with the conditions that: 1) Enhance entry drives with boulevards and landscaping features, 2) Install traffic calming devices at various points in the interior roadways. Additional access through Pleasant Grove Road should be assessed in coordination with the Traffic Engineer, 3) Sidewalks should be designed to integrate the development with the surrounding neighborhood and to provide access to the private park, 4) The developer conduct an inventory of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6" including location and common name. The developer should preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. Trees with a diameter of more than 6" that are removed are to be replaced with trees that are at least 2 inches in caliper at the time of planting and are of a species that has been approved by the Lansing Forester, 5) The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation as much as possible. Coniferous trees be planted in those setback areas lacking trees that abut adjoining residential structures; trees will be planted no less than 15 feet on center and at least 8 feet in height at the time of planting, 6) Barrier-free pedestrian pathways be provided between lots 5 and 6, 16 and 17 and between lots 33 and 34, and 7) The applicant work with the surrounding residents to develop a landscape buffering plan for those areas where the development is directly adjacent to existing houses in the area. Frederick .Ave Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. D. PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly This is a request by Markey Associates for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.85 acre parcel located on the west side of Wexford Road, 495 feet from W. Jolly Road. The applicant proposes to construct 9 detached single family residential condominium units on the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Planned Residential Development for 9 single-family dwelling units on a 7.85 acre site. The location of the site is on Wexford Road between Jolly and Miller Roads. The surrounding areas are comprised of low density single family residential uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 23 The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan depicts the future use of the site as Low Density Residential, up to 7 dwelling units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop residential uses at a density significantly below this level, i.e. 4.3 units/acre (1.2 units/acre factoring wetlands). The proposal reflects structures that are similar in size to those in the surrounding area. A variety of wetlands and woodlands present on the site seems adequate on its periphery to provide a buffer around the site. However, the existing trees should be preserved as much as possible. The plan complies with the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance and can be accommodated with existing public facilities and infrastructure. Staff recommended approval of PRD-4-2003 with the following conditions: a. An enhanced entry drive with a landscaped boulevard be provided at the intersection with Wexford Road. b. Provide a better circulation design at the west end of the private road, possibly a cul-de-sac, to allow ample maneuvering radius for emergency vehicles, private vehicles, etc. C. Retention basins be designed to create aesthetically pleasing features through the use of gentler grades, natural landscaping, and engineered to facilitate wellhead protection. d. Hard-surfaced pedestrian circulation system be designed that integrates the residential structures to natural features, recreational facilities and neighboring areas. e. An inventory be conducted of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6", including location and common name. The existing trees should be preserved and be incorporated into the development as much as possible. f. The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible. 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19, 2003 Page 24 PRD-4-2003, "Wexford Woods" Site Condominiums, West side of Wexford Road, South of W. Jolly with the conditions that: 1) An enhanced entry drive with a landscaped boulevard be provided at the intersection with Wexford Road, 2) Provide a circulation design at the west end of the private road to allow ample maneuvering radii for emergency vehicles, private vehicles, etc., 3) Retention basins be designed to create aesthetically pleasing features through the use of gentler grades, natural landscaping, and engineered to facilitate wellhead protection, 4) Hard-surfaced pedestrian circulation system be designed that integrates the residential structures to natural features, recreational facilities and neighboring areas, 5) The developer conduct an inventory of all existing trees on the site with a diameter of at least 6", including location and common name. The existing trees should be preserved and be incorporated into the development as much as possible, 6) The abutting residential uses be screened by landscape buffers, utilizing existing natural vegetation, as much as possible, 7) The road be dedicated to the public, 8) The width of the road be reduced to 24 feet, if acceptable to the City Transportation Engineer, and 9) The existing maple tree on the southeast corner of the lot be preserved, and protected by a tree fence in a location acceptable to the City Forester. Frederick .Ave Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19 2003 Page 25 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) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. 108 Kipling -junk in rear yard (May 20, 2003 &June 17, 2003) b. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) C. Saginaw Street-sewer separation project(May 20, 2003) d. Saginaw Street becoming a 2-way street(May 20,2003) e. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) f. 235 Kipling-handy man business at home&closet doors (June 17,2003) g. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) h. Code requirements regarding lawns (July 1,2003) i. Homemade sign,Wild Side Tatoo located on Pennsylvania Avenue (July 15, 2003) j. No street signs at intersection east of Washington and Miller(July 15, 2003) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. McConnell asked that his code enforcement violations from the August 5th meeting be listed on the agenda. Ms. Keene stated that the MSU Women's Crew Facility has not fulfilled its conditions of approval. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that there is a huge garage located at 4831 Eastlawn Drive. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 19 2003 Page 26 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.081903.doc