Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 Planning Board Oct-Dec Minutes FINAL Draft to Clerk October 7,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, October 1, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Cordill, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Ruff stated to please note under Committee Reports, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has been cancelled for October 9th. Any items that will be considered, including SLU-9-2002, will be considered during the Planning Board meeting of October 15th at the recess. Mr. Ruff distributed an additional communication to be added to the agenda. The communication was dated for today from the Lansing City Council regarding SLU-6-2002. It stated that at the September 30, 2002 regularly scheduled Lansing City Council meeting, the City Council recessed the public hearing. It was requested by City Council that the Planning Board clarify its reasons for the previous action on the matter of SLU-6-2002. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Mr. Mark S. Ritzenhein regarding SLU-9-2002 B. Letter regarding Local Initiatives Support Corporation's (LISC) proposal for continued funding for FY 2003-2004 CDBG Program C. Letter from Lansing City Council referring SLU-6-2002 to the Planning Board requesting clarification Mr. Ruff explained the previous action on SLU-6-2002 for 300 Elvin Court (a request to have a surface parking lot by Sparrow Health System on the Marshall Street Armory site). The request came before City Council with a Planning Board recommendation that was based upon a motion to approve but the motion did not pass because it was a 3-3 vote. The City Council has asked for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 2 additional clarification as to the Board members reasons. As such, Mr. Ruff tried to give the Board members advance notice if they needed to prepare to enumerate it. He would like to entertain and document those reasons. With a motion, the Board can forward these reasons to City Council for their next meeting on Monday, October 7tn Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:07 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Foster had a nay vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) the parking lot was not harmonious to the residential character of the surrounding area, (2) The parking lot was not an improvement to the existing grassy field, (3) There was no concrete assurance by the owner that the parking lot would be returned to a grassy field. Ms. Keene had a nay vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) 600+ space parking lot was not harmonious with the character of the adjacent properties and the surrounding area, (2) 600+ parking spaces changes the essential character of the surrounding area, (3) 600+ parking spaces interferes with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties, (4) 600+ parking spaces does not improve the use and character of the property under the consideration and the surrounding area, and it is not in keeping with the natural environment of the lot, (5) It is unclear whether the use presents environmental hazards but 600+ parking spaces has the potential to negatively impact safety or welfare of persons in the area because of increased vehicular traffic, (6) Special Land Use would apparently be serviced by a Sparrow shuttle, so public services would not be impacted, (7) 600 + parking spaces granted through the special land use would place increased demands on the neighborhood streets, (8) She was not sure if the special land use was consistent with zoning and the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff assured her that it was. (9) She was not sure whether the special land use met dimensional requirements. Mr. Ruff assured her that it did meet the requirements. She stated that the special land use would place too much of a burden on the surrounding property owners. She stated that the special land use plan was probably the most workable and expeditious plan for Sparrow but the neighbors' enjoyment of their property should not be sacrificed for Sparrow's convenience. Because of the burden the special land use would place upon the residents, she stated that Sparrow should explore other options. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Frederick had an aye vote. His explanation was as follows: (1) Parking lots are allowed as long as they meet the 9 criteria under special land use. As a Board, they evaluated special land uses for parking lots in the past and have a lot of them. He did not believe that this was an unusual request and so he evaluated it in that light looking at the 9 criteria. (2) He believed that Sparrow Hospital addressed all of the alternatives and had reasonable explanations as to why there were no other reasonable alternatives. (3) He believed the proposal with the conditions that the Board had set, met all the standards and criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. He was concerned with Standard #3 which is if the special land use interferes with the general enjoyment of the adjacent property. He believed that under special land uses that this was always a possibility. He believed that because of the temporary nature of the lot and the conditions that the Board placed in the motion, it would not adversely affect the adjacent property especially because of the temporary nature. (4) Zoning was developed for the public good. This was his understanding of zoning for quite some time and that the public good can be interpreted by more than the immediately surrounding residents of a special land use than is being requested for a particular parcel. In this case, he believed that currently and for the next 18 months, a lot of the public will be inconvenienced whether there is a parking lot there or not until Sparrow is able to construct their parking structure that they intend to resolve the current parking problem. He looked at this more broadly especially at how it would affect any of the alternatives. Not having a parking lot at all would affect patients of the hospital and he believed that in this case, a far greater number of the public would be adversely affected if Sparrow was not able to develop their lot in a particular area. Ms. Patrick had an aye vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) Sparrow was requesting a special land use in order to constrict its parking to adjacent properties by building a permanent parking ramp. (2) Sparrow has in the City used the special land use for temporary parking in the past and have a record of restoring the property. She specifically asked the military if they would agree to allow Sparrow to restore the property and have received on the record an affirmative "Yes, they would." (3) The Board delayed their decision, and asked Sparrow to pursue other alternatives that had been presented to them by residents of the City. Sparrow did pursue these alternatives and found that they were not as workable as the proposal that they put forward. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Ruge had a nay vote. His explanation was as follows: (1) At the time it appeared that Sparrow had an opportunity to get some parking on an already established parking lot at the Prudden site. He thought that developing another parking lot was unnecessary and was not needed. It was his understanding that Sparrow Hospital was unable to work out an arrangement with the owner of the Prudden site so it was no longer viable. He believed that for temporary parking at that Armory site, there is nothing wrong with it. The site was used for a lot of different things (i.e. as a staging area when Sparrow was constructing their other parking ramp). Ms. Cordill had an aye vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) Sparrow was pursuing a long-term solution to their parking needs therefore limiting parking in neighborhoods. Sparrow has had a record of working with the City in temporary parking lots before and restoring them. She was interested in whether Sparrow could pursue other options. The May-Prudden lot seemed to fit a profile. However, that did not come to pass. (2) She believed reasonable measures were taken in pursuing alternatives. (3) She believed that there was reasonable assurance from the military that they would allow Sparrow to return the lot to its original state. (4) She believed that Sparrow had gone to great lengths in the design of it as well as how they would restore it including dealing with contamination. Sparrow would even embellish the landscaping. It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Ms. Patrick to communicate these comments to City Council. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Frederick stated that SLU-9-2002 had been rescheduled and will be held at the October 15th Planning Board meeting. However, a legal ad was printed in the Lansing State Journal for the meeting this evening so the Board will accept public comments. Seeing no one wishing to speak on these matters, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-9-2002 to the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., 120 E. Michigan Ave., City Council Chambers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 5 B. FY 2004 Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS) The City of Lansing is currently engaged in the process of developing its Annual Update for the Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS) for 2004. The City is required to submit annually the Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission to receive funding for Federally funded housing assistance programs. The submission of this plan will satisfy the minimum statutory requirements for three (3) Community Planning and Development formula programs for which the City is eligible: CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), ESG (Emergency Shelter Grants) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships). Consolidating the submission requirements offers the City a better chance to shape the various programs into effective coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies. Also, it creates the opportunity for strategic planning and citizen participation to take place in a comprehensive context and reduce duplication of effort at the local level. This document is also part of the budget process. Beverly Wiener, resident of 311 S. Jenison, Director of Haven House (Emergency Shelter for families with children) and an active member of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (group of people involved with homeless issues, i.e. mental health, public health, substance abuse), stated that Haven House had been receiving ESG (Emergency Shelter Grants) funds and believes that it is very important that Haven House continues to receive these funds. They appreciated the allocation of these funds in the past. They are seeing numbers of homeless individuals and families rise in the community as the economy climbs, people become laid off from work, hours are cut back, or having difficulty making rent payments. They are certainly expecting to be very busy the next year or two. There is a real shortage of affordable housing for low income persons in the community. Many people who used to be on public assistance are working now, and people who are working or were working if they have any increase in their wages it always seems to go with increased rent. Haven House is seeing the rental market tightening up. So if there is anything the City can do in terms of rehabilitating housing or supporting the construction of low cost housing, any little bit would help. Another thing Haven House is seeing is that some of the ESG money is going towards services to help homeless people (i.e. making sure people remain in housing, assisting with budgeting and money management, learning how to work with the landlord in a cooperative way and solving problems, keeping the property safe from trash, and all the things to help people who need to stay in their house and pay their rent). Haven House has provided some services for homeless people for up to 6 months or even longer. Up to 2 years in a couple of cases to help those who need the extra help to become good tenants and possibly and hopefully at some point be able to purchase a home. She thanked the Board for their past support and the Board will probably hear from Haven House next year. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 6 Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that one of the things that she has taken an interest in is.red-tagged houses and the make safe or demolish houses. It seems that there is a practice of requiring a transfer of ownership before the improvement funds are made available for the houses. She has attended some of the demolition meetings where people are told that if they cannot afford to fix their property, it was recommended that they sell their property to a non-profit organization. One of the reasons why the non-profit organizations can afford to fix the properties is because they receive the grants. There are times where people often buy these houses, not as rentals or to make money, but to fix them and have people live in them. The money should be able to go directly to the current owner and not require it to be . transferred to the non-profits before the grant money is made available to fix the houses. A lot of times when people buy a house to repair it, they are on a learning curve. It would be beneficial to use funds to have people available to maybe in the non-profit to assist the current owner who wants to repair the property and possibly have the non-profit be a facilitator of assisting the owner who does want to fix the property and not have this system where people are backed into the corner and telling them their house is going to be torn down, red-tagged and possibly a $500.00 a day fine. The only way out of it is to sell the property to one of the non-profits. She believes that it makes the non-profits look bad. There are civil right arguments that can be made about red-tagging houses and putting up a make safe and demolish list and pressuring people to sell their property to someone else. If the owner wants to fix up the property and the only thing that stands in the way is the funds, give the funds to help the owner. She is also concerned with the strategic plan is she believes that part of the money goes to the Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC). She would need to check into this. She is concerned with what is going on with the neighborhood associations because they can be very good things for the community. She has seen a lot of people turned off by attending the neighborhood association meetings. Having the code officers attending and taking notes on who to go after, drives people away. She believes that funds should not be used to facilitate this. Even the instance of the ENO and the parking lot issue, there has become a division about ENO not representing the community. They need to be careful about not being used by someone's political agenda. When using Federal funding, there are requirements under governmental law that it cannot be used for political purposes. She believes that there is a good legal argument that it is a violation of Federal law for the neighborhood organizations to be used in a political manner. She believes that this needs to be guarded. It is really difficult because the people want the neighborhood organizations to be active and need to have Code Compliance which drives people away when people feel like it is a tell all, turn your neighborhood neighbor in session. She believes that the neighborhood associations should be watching out for one another and not watching each other. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 7 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on these matters, Mr. Frederick closed the public hearing section for FY 2004 Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS). 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Jeanne Carey, resident of 803 N. Magnolia Avenue, stated that she does strategic planning and long range forecasting. The World Futures Society requested that she become a professional member of their organization. She wanted to give comments on SLU-6-02. She is concerned with some of the conversations and discussions that she has heard. Looking at this from a global picture, in some of the points by the person who outlined the criteria that the Board needed to review when looking at land use. By making it a great job of going bullet by bullet and outlining the information that she has seen that was submitted to her office and is a matter of public record, does not answer those questions. Her property value has doubled in 4 years and she does not anticipate that it will continue to double or grow if you choose to allow this to move forward. She believes that there are questions regarding the practices that have been done and the procedures that have been followed in terms of things with City Council. She is concerned with whether or not this fits in with the overall strategic planning for the City of Lansing. Today in the Lansing State Journal she quoted an article about why people move (more quietness and open space). Based upon where she lives the proposed parking lot dust, smog and noise would be carried to her property by the prevailing winds. She made statements about the financial loss to city based upon estimated property values if this is approved. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that one of the reasons why she chose to live in Lansing was because she did not want to contribute to urban sprawl. Buying an older home and repairing it had been a dream of hers. She lives in Lansing out of choice. One of the things that has made Lansing liveable for her on the eastside was having the green space. She takes a walk with her dog starting over by Sparrow Hospital. She then walks to the high school property and back behind to the green space that is behind the houses and continues to the Armory. She watches the people out in the field playing with their dogs and then returns home. She questions whether or not she should move out to the country and build a house out on the farm in order to have a place where she can walk without having to deal with traffic, exhaust, and to have a beautiful surrounding in which to live. People need to appreciate that the green space is what draws the people into the City. She referred to the Lansing State Journal article for the top reasons being the quietness and more open space. With the procedures, they need to be followed. She is not comfortable with what the City Council has done because the Board has not really given them a formal recommendation for approval or denial. Basically what the Board had was a (3-3) vote. There is a solid legal argument that this proposal remained stuck with the Planning Board which is a typical political strategy for stopping something that needs to be stopped. The Board is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 8 supposed to be a watchdog for the community. The number one war to be won is for people to realize that green space, recreational space, and civic space are needed within the City of Lansing in order to make Lansing the choice for a place to live. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. During this time, the Urban Development Committee met to discuss ACT-1 5-2002. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of September 17, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0), the minutes of September 17, 2002 were PAGE 7, LINE 6, REMOVE "FERRIS DEV.", ADD THE WORD WERE PAGE 10, PARA 2, LINE 3, REMOVE THE WORDS "TO TIGHT MOVEMENTS" APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair The next meeting schedule for Tuesday, October 9, 2002 has been cancelled. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. ACT-12-2002, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer This is request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Dept. to extend the River Trail along or near Sycamore Creek, from Potter Park, along Aurelius Rd., to the western edge of the Mt. Hope Cemetery, to Scott Woods Park, to Hawk Island County Park, to Biggie Munn Park, to Kenneth A. Hope Soccer Complex to the south city limits at 1-96. The six (6) easements and/or fee simple acquisitions are for properties located along the Sycamore Creek between Cavanaugh and Jolly roads. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 9 The project is subject to the Act 285 Review because it involves the construction or authorization of a park or other public way, and because it involves the acquisition of property. This case was presented at the August 20, 2002 Planning Board meeting, and at a September 17, 2002 public hearing before the Board. Virtually all public comments received were in support of the project. During the August 20 presentation, the Board did receive a negative comment pertaining to concerns about safety, signage, and maintenance. The safety concern was addressed by the LPD at the September 17 public hearing. Mr. Dorland stated that additional funds from the Park millage will be devoted to maintenance and signage. Written comments received from seventeen (17) people have all been in support of the project. A discussion ensued about the Aurelius Road segment of the project. A concern was raised that the non-motorized trail along Aurelius should include more of a buffer from the roadway, using additional space, or landscaping, or both. Mr. Rieske noted that funds for this project are from MDOT, their use is limited to within the right-of-way, and no funds are available at this time for tree planting or landscaping. This does not preclude adding landscaping or street trees after the Aurelius Road work is completed. Staff recommends approval of Act-12-02, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer Complex, including the acquisition of the six (6) subject parcels and the proposed route. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The proposed project is supported by the Plan for Development of Lansing's Waterfront, Goals and Objectives for the Twenty First Century and the Southeast Area Comprehensive Development Plan, the Parks and Recreation 5-year Master Plan, and the principles of the Regional Growth project. 2. The route is appropriate, although the Aurelius Road stretch veers from the River somewhat. A more direct connection between Mt. Hope and Potter Park (along Red Cedar/Sycamore Creek) would be desirable, albeit at greater expense. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 10 3. The project coordinates with on-road non-motorized route network via Aurelius Road. 4. The proposed alternate routes are appropriate to the project if they become available. 5. The proposed acquisitions are necessary and adequate for trail purposes and would also assist in the preserving the waterfront from development. 6. Additional property acquisition may be desirable to preserve the quality of the natural area. 7. Overpasses are proposed as preferable to at-grade crossings, but there may be limited potential for below-grade crossings due to water level. In Committee, it was recommended to approve ACT-12- 2002, the RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer Complex, to include the following actions: 1. Approve the project (route, alternate route, and tentative route). 2. Approve properties proposed for acquisition along the route. 3. Recommend that these properties be dedicated as parkland. 4. Approve properties along alternate route and tentative route (in Delhi) as necessary, pending Parks Board and Planning Board verification that they are compatible with this project. 5. Require site plan coordination with utilities (e.g. Public Service, BWL). 6. Recommend tree planting and landscaping along Aurelius. and further recommended that the following issues be explored in design and engineering of the south extension: 1. Acquisition of all the flood plain area located within the properties to be acquired; 2. An alternate route extending through the natural area between Potter Park and Mt. Hope Rd. be evaluated; 3. The use of underpasses be considered for road crossings in areas where the existing topography is favorable. On a voice vote, it carried unanimously. Mr. Ruge stated that he is much in favor of the RiverTrail but there is one part in particular that he does not like. It is the part between Kalamazoo as it runs between the river and alongside the exit ramp on the expressway. It is noisy but goes into a beautiful part of the RiverTrail so he is willing grit his teeth and bear it through this terrible part of the RiverTrail. It should have been placed on the other side of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 11 the river away from the road to get to the beautiful part that is quiet, shady and nice. This is what he is afraid that this Aurelius Road area will be like. It will be hot and noisy with cars passing. He is very hesitant to vote for this part. If the Aurelius Road section could be taken out, he would do it. He stated that what may happen is the same thing that happened to his connection to Cooley Gardens which he thought was so important. It was a great idea and anyone who wants to go to Cooley Gardens can take the sidewalk through the hot and baking, hard and harsh parking lots and walk to it. Which he believes is not the solution. He will vote for it but have it reflect on record that he did not believe the Aurelius Road part is what the RiverTrail should be. He hopes that it can be fixed. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-12-2002, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer to include the following actions: (1) Approve the project (route, alternate route, and tentative route), (2) Approve properties proposed for acquisition along the route, (3) Recommend that these properties be dedicated as parkland, (4) Approve properties along alternate route and tentative route (in Delhi) as necessary, pending Parks Board and Planning Board verification that they are compatible with this project (5) Require site plan coordination with utilities (e.g. Public Service, BWL), (6) Recommend tree planting and landscaping along Aurelius. Further to include the design and engineering issues of: (1) Acquisition of all the flood plain area located within the properties to be acquired, (2) An alternate route extending through the natural area between Potter Park and Mt. Hope Rd. be evaluated, and (3) The use of underpasses be considered for road crossings in areas where the existing topography is favorable. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . .Ave Keene. . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Rum. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-15-2002, Grovenburg & Georgetown, Vacate 5' strip of Georgetown ROW Applicant was requesting that the City vacate a 5 foot strip of the Georgetown ROW. Mr. Holbert stated that his property is actually 3 feet beyond the exisiting fence. He proposed to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 12 move the existing fence to the new property line if his request was approved. Their primary purpose was to (a) stop motorists to cut through the property from Georgetown to Grovenburg Road or vice versa; (b) to protect their trailer from being too close to the current fence and being subjected to vandalism; and c) to continue to maintain (mowing grass) the ROW which he said he'd been doing for the past 13 years. The applicants stated that they had many instances when their trailer had been vandalized in the past with motorcycles and snow mobiles and he also mentioned some of the youngsters coming down through that area just using the space between their property and the guard rail to pass through to the back. Their intention is to move the fence 8 feet from its current location (owner claims the property line is still 3 feet south from the fence, plus the 5 feet vacated ROW) in order for their trailer to be a few feet away from the fence; and the moved fence will block the passage way (the gap between the fence and guard rail) from motorcyclist and snow-mobiles to run through the property. Applicant will use cyclone wire for fence to maintain their view to Edgewood and Georgetown Blvd. The request to vacate 5 feet of ROW at 6327 Grovenburg Road will not significantly change the neighborhood character. However, vacation of a ROW should be based far beyond the applicant's personal desire and how it is going to affect existing and future land configuration and utility services in the area. It also would affect pedestrian traffic access through that area. There seems to be no problem from the environmental, transportation and circulation, and development point of view, but certainly for the overall land configuration on the block where this property is located. The additional 5 feet piece of land will not provide a guarantee to the applicant of preventing neighbors to cut through his property, nor will it stop vandalism of their trailer (which it appears is already inside the existing fence). In terms of location, character, and extent, the proposal does not provide sufficient reason to merit an approval as is. Rather, the approval will generally result in an abrupt change in land configuration (at least in the map) and a precedence for property owners to request the same. Based on the given information, staff is recommending that Act-15-02 be denied as it can possibly have a negative impact on land use pattern. Approving the request would only mean submitting to the applicant's personal desire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 13 which does not benefit the community but only the applicant's. Neither should this request become a precedent to future requests that does not support general benefit to the community as a whole. It appears that vacating the ROW is not the ultimate solution to problems that the applicants contend. Other viable alternatives include: 1. The City could relocate the guard rail located along the east side of Grovenburg northward toward the applicant's south property line, and the applicant could move his fence 3 feet to where exactly his property line should be. This would completely close the gap so that motorcyclists and snowmobilers could not cut through the property. A separate gap (standard 5' wide) could be created for pedestrian access closer to the cul-de-sac. 2. The applicant could install a privacy fence on the area where the trailer is parked. Maximum height is 4 feet high the same as the applicant intended to do with the request. These two alternatives are complementary, so either one could be implemented. In Committee, it was recommended that the applicant be offered the first alternative. In addition, a third recommendation was given that if this request is approved by Council and the City did not take prompt action on closing the gap by winter season that the property owner be allowed to put up some kind of a temporary fence or barrier that would close the gap until the City could extend the guardrail. A specified date of February 2003 was given. In Committee, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request to vacate the ROW and recommend to City Council the alternatives given. On a voice vote, it carried unanimously. Mr. Ruge stated that he visited the site and he can see why the applicant is having problems. When the area was reconstructed, there was no thought put into where the pedestrians would walk. There were no provisions for pedestrians. At the end of the cul-de-sac, there is no sidewalk. People go the easiest way. He believes that it is a good idea to extend the guardrail over to the light pole and have an opening in the guardrail for people to pass through. Maybe sidewalks should be installed so that people know where to walk. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Foster stated that the applicant has maintained the green space for the past 13 years and inquired if the City could help in some way, maybe speak with the hardware store to plant a buffer that would protect the property. Some type of buffer that does not need to be trimmed or maintained. Ms. Cordill inquired about the property owner being receptive to the notion. Ms. Foster stated that instead of the applicant moving the fence, maybe he could install the plantings. The applicant did not agree with this. Since the Board was denying the applicant's request to give him the extra land, and he has maintained the property, it seemed like a nice gesture in return for what he has done. Mr. Ruge stated that the nice gesture may not be appreciated. By reading of the minutes, the applicant likes to look out onto Edgewood Blvd. Mr. Ruff stated that it becomes less of a hiding place when it is all open. Mr. Rieske stated that this request was first presented to City Council and then was directed to the Planning Department with a request to process an ACT 285 review. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend denial of Act-1 5-2002, Grovenburg & Georgetown, Vacate 5' strip of Georgetown ROW with further recommendations to City Council with an amendment to have the City install landscaping or landscape could be added to guide pedestrian traffic away from the applicant's property. Frederick . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster Ave Keene. Ave Patrick . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 3. Committee of the Whole - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 15 4. Executive Committee - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff discussed the November 5th meeting. The Planning Office had received a request from the City Clerk's office to either relocate the Planning Board Meeting from City Council Chambers or it was suggested by staff to change the date of the meeting. The Board discussed and chose to relocate the place of the meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that with the Wolverine Pipeline, the City went to Circuit Court to prevent construction of the pipeline. 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. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planninq Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene inquired about the American Eagle property located on Oakland between Cedar and Larch Streets. Mr. Ruff stated that it was placed to meet setback requirements, to continue operating while in the current building, and to organize parking in the present location. The owner is planning on removing the old American Eagle building and have parking on that site. The site plan calls for landscaping and a retention basin on the residential side along Ash Street. Ms. Keene was concerned that it would not look pleasant so close to the street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 16 Ms. Foster inquired about not having design limitations and wondered about changing the ordinance to prevent some of the terrible designs because the City's laws currently do not reflect some of the issues. Mr. Ruff stated that there is an amendment in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee regarding housing setbacks and he believes that this is the first place. He stated that it is workable to get those design criteria satisfactory to the proper wording because there are so many areas of interpretation when it comes to using the word "compatible". He stated that steps need to be taken to try and make it work. Ms. Foster inquired about how to start the process regarding commercial changes. Mr. Ruff stated to do an ordinance amendment and have it taken up with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Cordill stated that she attended a Preservation Conference. There are Secretary of Interior Guidelines that can be reviewed and done for design controls. She emphasized that it is a careful line. She stated that in a way it is almost easier to do commercial changes than industrial. Mr. Ruge inquired about Neogen's parking lot in the back of a house on Pennsylvania Street. There was still parking in the front of the house. Mr. Ruge stated that he has been driving recently down Kalamazoo Street passed the State Library and mentioned that the State of Michigan wanted to surface a gravel parking lot. He stated that there were trees going in two directions through the parking lot and that there are trees all along the sidewalks. It is a nice looking parking lot now. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.1001 02.wpd Approved as written 10-15-02 Draft to Clerk October 7,2002 Approved October 15,2002 To Clerk October 17, 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, October 1, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Cordill, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Ruff stated to please note under Committee Reports, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has been cancelled for October 9'. Any items that will be considered, including SLU-9-2002, will be considered during the Planning Board meeting of October 15`" at the recess. Mr. Ruff distributed an additional communication to be added to the agenda. The communication was dated for today from the Lansing City Council regarding SLU-6-2002. It stated that at the September 30, 2002 regularly scheduled Lansing City Council meeting, the City Council recessed the public hearing. It was requested by City Council that the Planning Board clarify its reasons for the previous action on the matter of SLU-6-2002. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Mr. Mark S. Ritzenhein regarding SLU-9-2002 B. Letter regarding Local Initiatives Support Corporation's (LISC) proposal for continued funding for FY 2003-2004 CDBG Program C. Letter from Lansing City Council referring SLU-6-2002 to the Planning Board requesting clarification Mr. Ruff explained the previous action on SLU-6-2002 for 300 Elvin Court (a request to have a surface parking lot by Sparrow Health System on the Marshall Street Armory site). The request came before City Council with a Planning Board recommendation that was based upon a motion to approve but the motion did not pass because it was a 3-3 vote. The City Council has asked for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 2 additional clarification as to the Board members reasons. As such, Mr. Ruff tried to give the Board members advance notice if they needed to prepare to enumerate it. He would like to entertain and document those reasons. With a motion, the Board can forward these reasons to City Council for their next meeting on Monday, October 71n Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:07 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Foster had a nay vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) the parking lot was not harmonious to the residential character of the surrounding area, (2) The parking lot was not an improvement to the existing grassy field, (3) There was no concrete assurance by the owner that the parking lot would be returned to a grassy field. Ms. Keene had a nay vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) 600+ space parking lot was not harmonious with the character of the adjacent properties and the surrounding area, (2) 600+ parking spaces changes the essential character of the surrounding area, (3) 600+ parking spaces interferes with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties, (4) 600+ parking spaces does not improve the use and character of the property under the consideration and the surrounding area, and it is not in keeping with the natural environment of the lot, (5) It is unclear whether the use presents environmental hazards but 600+ parking spaces has the potential to negatively impact safety or welfare of persons in the area because of increased vehicular traffic, (6) Special Land Use would apparently be serviced by a Sparrow shuttle, so public services would not be impacted, (7) 600 + parking spaces granted through the special land use would place increased demands on the neighborhood streets, (8) She was not sure if the special land use was consistent with zoning and the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff assured her that it was. (9) She was not sure whether the special land use met dimensional requirements. Mr. Ruff assured her that it did meet the requirements. She stated that the special land use would place too much of a burden on the surrounding property owners. She stated that the special land use plan was probably the most workable and expeditious plan for Sparrow but the neighbors' enjoyment of their property should not be sacrificed for Sparrow's convenience. Because of the burden the special land use would place upon the residents, she stated that Sparrow should explore other options. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Frederick had an aye vote. His explanation was as follows: (1) Parking lots are allowed as long as they meet the 9 criteria under special land use. As a Board, they evaluated special land uses for parking lots in the past and have a lot of them. He did not believe that this was an unusual request and so he evaluated it in that light looking at the 9 criteria. (2) He believed that Sparrow Hospital addressed all of the alternatives and had reasonable explanations as to why there were no other reasonable alternatives. (3) He believed the proposal with the conditions that the Board had set, met all the standards and criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. He was concerned with Standard #3 which is if the special land use interferes with the general enjoyment of the adjacent property. He believed that under special land uses that this was always a possibility. He believed that because of the temporary nature of the lot and the conditions that the Board placed in the motion, it would not adversely affect the adjacent property especially because of the temporary nature. (4) Zoning was developed for the public good. This was his understanding of zoning for quite some time and that the public good can be interpreted by more than the immediately surrounding residents of a special land use than is being requested for a particular parcel. In this case, he believed that currently and for the next 18 months, a lot of the public will be inconvenienced whether there is a parking lot there or not until Sparrow is able to construct their parking structure that they intend to resolve the current parking problem. He looked at this more broadly especially at how it would affect any of the alternatives. Not having a parking lot at all would affect patients of the hospital and he believed that in this case, a far greater number of the public would be adversely affected if Sparrow was not able to develop their lot in a particular area. Ms. Patrick had an aye vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) Sparrow was requesting a special land use in order to constrict its parking to adjacent properties by building a permanent parking ramp. (2) Sparrow has in the City used the special land use for temporary parking in the past and have a record of restoring the property. She specifically asked the military if they would agree to allow Sparrow to restore the property and have received on the record an affirmative "Yes, they would." (3) The Board delayed their decision, and asked Sparrow to pursue other alternatives that had been presented to them by residents of the City. Sparrow did pursue these alternatives and found that they were not as workable as the proposal that they put forward. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Ruge had a nay vote. His explanation was as follows: (1) At the time it appeared that Sparrow had an opportunity to get some parking on an already established parking lot at the Prudden site. He thought that developing another parking lot was unnecessary and was not needed. It was his understanding that Sparrow Hospital was unable to work out an arrangement with the owner of the Prudden site so it was no longer viable. He believed that for temporary parking at that Armory site, there is nothing wrong with it. The site was used for a lot of different things (i.e. as a staging area when Sparrow was constructing their other parking ramp). Ms. Cordill had an aye vote. Her explanation was as follows: (1) Sparrow was pursuing a long-term solution to their parking needs therefore limiting parking in neighborhoods. Sparrow has had a record of working with the City in temporary parking lots before and restoring them. She was interested in whether Sparrow could pursue other options. The May-Prudden lot seemed to fit a profile. However, that did not come to pass. (2) She believed reasonable measures were taken in pursuing alternatives. (3) She believed that there was reasonable assurance from the military that they would allow Sparrow to return the lot to its original state. (4) She believed that Sparrow had gone to great lengths in the design of it as well as how they would restore it including dealing with contamination. Sparrow would even embellish the landscaping. It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Ms. Patrick to communicate these comments to City Council. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Frederick stated that SLU-9-2002 had been rescheduled and will be held at the October 151h Planning Board meeting. However, a legal ad was printed in the Lansing State Journal for the meeting this evening so the Board will accept public comments. Seeing no one wishing to speak on these matters, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-9-2002 to the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., 120 E. Michigan Ave., City Council Chambers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 5 B. FY 2004 Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS) The City of Lansing is currently engaged in the process of developing its Annual Update for the Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS) for 2004. The City is required to submit annually the Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission to receive funding for Federally funded housing assistance programs. The submission of this plan will satisfy the minimum statutory requirements for three (3) Community Planning and Development formula programs for which the City is eligible: CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), ESG (Emergency Shelter Grants) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships). Consolidating the submission requirements offers the City a better chance to shape the various programs into effective coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies. Also, it creates the opportunity for strategic planning and citizen participation to take place in a comprehensive context and reduce duplication of effort at the local level. This document is also part of the budget process. Beverly Wiener, resident of 311 S. Jenison, Director of Haven House (Emergency Shelter for families with children) and an active member of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (group of people involved with homeless issues, i.e. mental health, public health, substance abuse), stated that Haven House had been receiving ESG (Emergency Shelter Grants) funds and believes that it is very important that Haven House continues to receive these funds. They appreciated the allocation of these funds in the past. They are seeing numbers of homeless individuals and families rise in the community as the economy climbs, people become laid off from work, hours are cut back, or having difficulty making rent payments. They are certainly expecting to be very busy the next year or two. There is a real shortage of affordable housing for low income persons in the community. Many people who used to be on public assistance are working now, and people who are working or were working if they have any increase in their wages it always seems to go with increased rent. Haven House is seeing the rental market tightening up. So if there is anything the City can do in terms of rehabilitating housing or supporting the construction of low cost housing, any little bit would help. Another thing Haven House is seeing is that some of the ESG money is going towards services to help homeless people (i.e. making sure people remain in housing, assisting with budgeting and money management, learning how to work with the landlord in a cooperative way and solving problems, keeping the property safe from trash, and all the things to help people who need to stay in their house and pay their rent). Haven House has provided some services for homeless people for up to 6 months or even longer. Up to 2 years in a couple of cases to help those who need the extra help to become good tenants and possibly and hopefully at some point be able to purchase a home. She thanked the Board for their past support and the Board will probably hear from Haven House next year. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 6 Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that one of the things that she has taken an interest in is red-tagged houses and the make safe or demolish houses. It seems that there is a practice of requiring a transfer of ownership before the improvement funds are made available for the houses. She has attended some of the demolition meetings where people are told that if they cannot afford to fix their property, it was recommended that they sell their property to a non-profit organization. One of the reasons why the non-profit organizations can afford to fix the properties is because they receive the grants. There are times where people often buy these houses, not as rentals or to make money, but to fix them and have people live in them. The money should be able to go directly to the current owner and not require it to be transferred to the non-profits before the grant money is made available to fix the houses. A lot of times when people buy a house to repair it, they are on a learning curve. It would be beneficial to use funds to have people available to maybe in the non-profit to assist the current owner who wants to repair the property and possibly have the non-profit be a facilitator of assisting the owner who does want to fix the property and not have this system where people are backed into the corner and telling them their house is going to be torn down, red-tagged and possibly a $500.00 a day fine. The only way out of it is to sell the property to one of the non-profits. She believes that it makes the non-profits look bad. There are civil right arguments that can be made about red-tagging houses and putting up a make safe and demolish list and pressuring people to sell their property to someone else. If the owner wants to fix up the property and the only thing that stands in the way is the funds, give the funds to help the owner. She is also concerned with the strategic plan is she believes that part of the money goes to the Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC). She would need to check into this. She is concerned with what is going on with the neighborhood associations because they can be very good things for the community. She has seen a lot of people turned off by attending the neighborhood association meetings. Having the code officers attending and taking notes on who to go after, drives people away. She believes that funds should not be used to facilitate this. Even the instance of the ENO and the parking lot issue, there has become a division about ENO not representing the community. They need to be careful about not being used by someone's political agenda. When using Federal funding, there are requirements under governmental law that it cannot be used for political purposes. She believes that there is a good legal argument that it is a violation of Federal law for the neighborhood organizations to be used in a political manner. She believes that this needs to be guarded. It is really difficult because the people want the neighborhood organizations to be active and need to have Code Compliance which drives people away when people feel like it is a tell all, turn your neighborhood neighbor in session. She believes that the neighborhood associations should be watching out for one another and not watching each other. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 7 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on these matters, Mr. Frederick closed the public hearing section for FY 2004 Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS). 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Jeanne Carey, resident of 803 N. Magnolia Avenue, stated that she does strategic planning and long range forecasting. The World Futures Society requested that she become a professional member of their organization. She wanted to give comments on SLU-6-02. She is concerned with some of the conversations and discussions that she has heard. Looking at this from a global picture, in some of the points by the person who outlined the criteria that the Board needed to review when looking at land use. By making it a great job of going bullet by bullet and outlining the information that she has seen that was submitted to her office and is a matter of public record, does not answer those questions. Her property value has doubled in 4 years and she does not anticipate that it will continue to double or grow if you choose to allow this to move forward. She believes that there are questions regarding the practices that have been done and the procedures that have been followed in terms of things with City Council. She is concerned with whether or not this fits in with the overall strategic planning for the City of Lansing. Today in the Lansing State Journal she quoted an article about why people move (more quietness and open space). Based upon where she lives the proposed parking lot dust, smog and noise would be carried to her property by the prevailing winds. She made statements about the financial loss to city based upon estimated property values if this is approved. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that one of the reasons why she chose to live in Lansing was because she did not want to contribute to urban sprawl. Buying an older home and repairing it had been a dream of hers. She lives in Lansing out of choice. One of the things that has made Lansing liveable for her on the eastside was having the green space. She takes a walk with her dog starting over by Sparrow Hospital. She then walks to the high school property and back behind to the green space that is behind the houses and continues to the Armory. She watches the people out in the field playing with their dogs and then returns home. She questions whether or not she should move out to the country and build a house out on the farm in order to have a place where she can walk without having to deal with traffic, exhaust, and to have a beautiful surrounding in which to live. People need to appreciate that the green space is what draws the people into the City. She referred to the Lansing State Journal article for the top reasons being the quietness and more open space. With the procedures, they need to be followed. She is not comfortable with what the City Council has done because the Board has not really given them a formal recommendation for approval or denial. Basically what the Board had was a (3-3) vote. There is a solid legal argument that this proposal remained stuck with the Planning Board which is a typical political strategy for stopping something that needs to be stopped. The Board is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 8 supposed to be a watchdog for the community. The number one war to be won is for people to realize that green space, recreational space, and civic space are needed within the City of Lansing in order to make Lansing the choice for a place to live. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. During this time, the Urban Development Committee met to discuss ACT-1 5-2002. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of September 17, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0), the minutes of September 17, 2002 were PAGE 7, LINE 6, REMOVE "FERRIS DEV.", ADD THE WORD WERE PAGE 10, PARA 2, LINE 3, REMOVE THE WORDS "TO TIGHT MOVEMENTS" APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair The next meeting schedule for Tuesday, October 9, 2002 has been cancelled. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. ACT-12-2002, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer This is request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Dept. to extend the River Trail along or near Sycamore Creek, from Potter Park, along Aurelius Rd., to the western edge of the Mt. Hope Cemetery, to Scott Woods Park, to Hawk Island County Park, to Biggie Munn Park, to Kenneth A. Hope Soccer Complex to the south city limits at 1-96. The six (6) easements and/or fee simple acquisitions are for properties located along the Sycamore Creek between Cavanaugh and Jolly roads. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 9 The project is subject to the Act 285 Review because it involves the construction or authorization of a park or other public way, and because it involves the acquisition of property. This case was presented at the August 20, 2002 Planning Board meeting, and at a September 17, 2002 public hearing before the Board. Virtually all public comments received were in support of the project. During the August 20 presentation, the Board did receive a negative comment pertaining to concerns about safety, signage, and maintenance. The safety concern was addressed by the LPD at the September 17 public hearing. Mr. Dorland stated that additional funds from the Park millage will be devoted to maintenance and signage. Written comments received from seventeen (17) people have all been in support of the project. A discussion ensued about the Aurelius Road segment of the project. A concern was raised that the non-motorized trail along Aurelius should include more of a buffer from the roadway, using additional space, or landscaping, or both. Mr. Rieske noted that funds for this project are from MDOT, their use is limited to within the right-of-way, and no funds are available at this time for tree planting or landscaping. This does not preclude adding landscaping or street trees after the Aurelius Road work is completed. Staff recommends approval of Act-12-02, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer Complex, including the acquisition of the six (6) subject parcels and the proposed route. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal in accordance with its Act 285 Review procedures, that: 1. The proposed project is supported by the Plan for Development of Lansing's Waterfront, Goals and Objectives for the Twenty First Century and the Southeast Area Comprehensive Development Plan, the Parks and Recreation 5-year Master Plan, and the principles of the Regional Growth project. 2. The route is appropriate, although the Aurelius Road stretch veers from the River somewhat. A more direct connection between Mt. Hope and Potter Park (along Red Cedar/Sycamore Creek) would be desirable, albeit at greater expense. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 10 3. The project coordinates with on-road non-motorized route network via Aurelius Road. 4. The proposed alternate routes are appropriate to the project if they become available. 5. The proposed acquisitions are necessary and adequate for trail purposes and would also assist in the preserving the waterfront from development. 6. Additional property acquisition may be desirable to preserve the quality of the natural area. 7. Overpasses are proposed as preferable to at-grade crossings, but there may be limited potential for below-grade crossings due to water level. In Committee, it was recommended to approve ACT-12- 2002, the RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer Complex, to include the following actions: 1. Approve the project (route, alternate route, and tentative route). 2. Approve properties proposed for acquisition along the route. 3. Recommend that these properties be dedicated as parkland. 4. Approve properties along alternate route and tentative route (in Delhi) as necessary, pending Parks Board and Planning Board verification that they are compatible with this project. 5. Require site plan coordination with utilities (e.g. Public Service, BWL). 6. Recommend tree planting and landscaping along Aurelius. and further recommended that the following issues be explored in design and engineering of the south extension: 1. Acquisition of all the flood plain area located within the properties to be acquired; 2. An alternate route extending through the natural area between Potter Park and Mt. Hope Rd. be evaluated; 3. The use of underpasses be considered for road crossings in areas where the existing topography is favorable. On a voice vote, it carried unanimously. Mr. Ruge stated that he is much in favor of the RiverTrail but there is one part in particular that he does not like. It is the part between Kalamazoo as it runs between the river and alongside the exit ramp on the expressway. It is noisy but goes into a beautiful part of the RiverTrail so he is willing grit his teeth and bear it through this terrible part of the RiverTrail. It should have been placed on the other side of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 11 the river away from the road to get to the beautiful part that is quiet, shady and nice. This is what he is afraid that this Aurelius Road area will be like. It will be hot and noisy with cars passing. He is very hesitant to vote for this part. If the Aurelius Road section could be taken out, he would do it. He stated that what may happen is the same thing that happened to his connection to Cooley Gardens which he thought was so important. It was a great idea and anyone who wants to go to Cooley Gardens can take the sidewalk through the hot and baking, hard and harsh parking lots and walk to it. Which he believes is not the solution. He will vote for it but have it reflect on record that he did not believe the Aurelius Road part is what the RiverTrail should be. He hopes that it can be fixed. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-12-2002, RiverTrail South Extension from Potter Park to Hope Soccer to include the following actions: (1) Approve the project (route, alternate route, and tentative route), (2) Approve properties proposed for acquisition along the route, (3) Recommend that these properties be dedicated as parkland, (4) Approve properties along alternate route and tentative route (in Delhi) as necessary, pending Parks Board and Planning Board verification that they are compatible with this project (5) Require site plan coordination with utilities (e.g. Public Service, BWL), (6) Recommend tree planting and landscaping along Aurelius. Further to include the design and engineering issues of: (1) Acquisition of all the flood plain area located within the properties to be acquired, (2) An alternate route extending through the natural area between Potter Park and Mt. Hope Rd. be evaluated, and (3) The use of underpasses be considered for road crossings in areas where the existing topography is favorable. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Foster . .Ave Keene. . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-15-2002, Grovenburg & Georgetown, Vacate 5' strip of Georgetown ROW Applicant was requesting that the City vacate a 5 foot strip of the Georgetown ROW. Mr. Holbert stated that his property is actually 3 feet beyond the exisiting fence. He proposed to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 12 move the existing fence to the new property line if his request was approved. Their primary purpose was to (a) stop motorists to cut through the property from Georgetown to Grovenburg Road or vice versa; (b) to protect their trailer from being too close to the current fence and being subjected to vandalism; and c) to continue to maintain (mowing grass) the ROW which he said he'd been doing for the past 13 years. The applicants stated that they had many instances when their trailer had been vandalized in the past with motorcycles and snow mobiles and he also mentioned some of the youngsters coming down through that area just using the space between their property and the guard rail to pass through to the back. Their intention is to move the fence 8 feet from its current location (owner claims the property line is still 3 feet south from the fence, plus the 5 feet vacated ROW) in order for their trailer to be a few feet away from the fence; and the moved fence will block the passage way (the gap between the fence and guard rail) from motorcyclist and snow-mobiles to run through the property. Applicant will use cyclone wire for fence to maintain their view to Edgewood and Georgetown Blvd. The request to vacate 5 feet of ROW at 6327 Grovenburg Road will not significantly change the neighborhood character. However, vacation of a ROW should be based far beyond the applicant's personal desire and how it is going to affect existing and future land configuration and utility services in the area. It also would affect pedestrian traffic access through that area. There seems to be no problem from the environmental, transportation and circulation, and development point of view, but certainly for the overall land configuration on the block where this property is located. The additional 5 feet piece of land will not provide a guarantee to the applicant of preventing neighbors to cut through his property, nor will it stop vandalism of their trailer (which it appears is already inside the existing fence). In terms of location, character, and extent, the proposal does not provide sufficient reason to merit an approval as is. Rather, the approval will generally result in an abrupt change in land configuration (at least in the map) and a precedence for property owners to request the same. Based on the given information, staff is recommending that Act-15-02 be denied as it can possibly have a negative impact on land use pattern. Approving the request would only mean submitting to the applicant's personal desire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 13 which does not benefit the community but only the applicant's. Neither should this request become a precedent to future requests that does not support general benefit to the community as a whole. It appears that vacating the ROW is not the ultimate solution to problems that the applicants contend. Other viable alternatives include: 1. The City could relocate the guard rail located along the east side of Grovenburg northward toward the applicant's south property line, and the applicant could move his fence 3 feet to where exactly his property line should be. This would completely close the gap so that motorcyclists and snowmobilers could not cut through the property. A separate gap (standard 5' wide) could be created for pedestrian access closer to the cul-de-sac. 2. The applicant could install a privacy fence on the area where the trailer is parked. Maximum height is 4 feet high the same as the applicant intended to do with the request. These two alternatives are complementary, so either one could be implemented. In Committee, it was recommended that the applicant be offered the first alternative. In addition, a third recommendation was given that if this request is approved by Council and the City did not take prompt action on closing the gap by winter season that the property owner be allowed to put up some kind of a temporary fence or barrier that would close the gap until the City could extend the guardrail. A specified date of February 2003 was given. In Committee, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request to vacate the ROW and recommend to City Council the alternatives given. On a voice vote, it carried unanimously. Mr. Ruge stated that he visited the site and he can see why the applicant is having problems. When the area was reconstructed, there was no thought put into where the pedestrians would walk. There were no provisions for pedestrians. At the end of the cul-de-sac, there is no sidewalk. People go the easiest way. He believes that it is a good idea to extend the guardrail over to the light pole and have an opening in the guardrail for people to pass through. Maybe sidewalks should be installed so that people know where to walk. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Foster stated that the applicant has maintained the green space for the past 13 years and inquired if the City could help in some way, maybe speak with the hardware store to plant a buffer that would protect the property. Some type of buffer that does not need to be trimmed or maintained. Ms. Cordill inquired about the property owner being receptive to the notion. Ms. Foster stated that instead of the applicant moving the fence, maybe he could install the plantings. The applicant did not agree with this. Since the Board was denying the applicant's request to give him the extra land, and he has maintained the property, it seemed like a nice gesture in return for what he has done. Mr. Ruge stated that the nice gesture may not be appreciated. By reading of the minutes, the applicant likes to look out onto Edgewood Blvd. Mr. Ruff stated that it becomes less of a hiding place when it is all open. Mr. Rieske stated that this request was first presented to City Council and then was directed to the Planning Department with a request to process an ACT 285 review. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend denial of Act-15-2002, Grovenburg & Georgetown, Vacate 5' strip of Georgetown ROW. Further, the Board recommended 3 alternatives that could satisfy the applicant's reasons for the request. Two were stated in the Committee report as: (1) The City could relocate the guard rail located along the east side of Grovenburg northward toward the applicant's south property line, and the applicant could move his fence 3 feet to where exactly his property line should be. This would completely close the gap so that motorcyclists and snowmobilers could not cut through the property. A separate gap (standard 5' wide) could be created for pedestrian access closer to the cul-de-sac, and (2) The applicant could install a privacy fence on the area where the trailer is parked. A third recommendation was added by friendly amendment to include: (3) The City could install landscaping or landscape could be added to guide pedestrian traffic away from the applicant's property. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Patrick . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 15 Next meeting, Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 4 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff discussed the November 5th meeting. The Planning Office had received a request from the City Clerk's office to either relocate the Planning Board Meeting from City Council Chambers or it was suggested by staff to change the date of the meeting. The Board discussed and chose to relocate the place of the meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that with the Wolverine Pipeline, the City went to Circuit Court to prevent construction of the pipeline. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"I"'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. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene inquired about the American Eagle property located on Oakland between Cedar and Larch Streets. Mr. Ruff stated that it was placed to meet PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 1, 2002 Page 16 setback requirements, to continue operating while in the current building, and to organize parking in the present location. The owner is planning on removing the old American Eagle building and have parking on that site. The site plan calls for landscaping and a retention basin on the residential side along Ash Street. Ms. Keene was concerned that it would not look pleasant so close to the street. Ms. Foster inquired about not having design limitations and wondered about changing the ordinance to prevent some of the terrible designs. Mr. Ruff stated that there is an amendment in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee regarding housing setbacks and he believes that this is the first place to start. He stated that if it is workable to get those design criteria satisfactory to the proper wording, because there are so many areas of interpretation when it comes to using the word "compatible", then similar wording may be able to be used for commercial. He stated that steps need to be taken to try and make it work. Ms. Foster inquired about how to start the process regarding commercial changes. Mr. Ruff stated to do an ordinance amendment, and have it taken up with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Cordill stated that she attended a Preservation Conference. There are Secretary of Interior Guidelines that can be reviewed and done for design controls. She emphasized that it is a careful line. She stated that in a way it is almost easier to do commercial changes than residential. Mr. Ruge inquired about Neogen's parking lot in the back of a house on Pennsylvania Street. There was still parking in the front of the house. Mr. Ruge stated that he has been driving recently down Kalamazoo Street passed the State Library and mentioned that the State of Michigan wanted to surface a gravel parking lot. He stated that there were trees going in two directions through the parking lot and that there are trees all along the sidewalks. It is a nice looking parking lot now. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.100102.wpd Draft to Clerk October 17,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 .Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Patrick, Keene Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak C. Excused absences: Cordill 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email message regarding the withdrawal of Act-2-2002 B. NW Lansing Community Issues Forum C. MSU Urban Planning Partnership - Bicycle Friendly Communities - Placed under New Business D. Memo from Mr. Bill Rieske regarding "Getting to Density" Training Program 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by John and Janet Gargett for a Special Land Use permit to utilize an existing, 2-story brick building, located at 117 W. South Street, for a single family residence. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits residential uses with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. Mr. Ruge inquired about landscaping on the property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 2 Ms. Keene stated that the applicants could add some planters to the site to break up the harsh appearance of all the concrete/asphalt. Ms. Foster stated that painting the asphalt white will help keep it cool in the summer. John Gargett, resident of 2510 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Gargett stated that he and his wife would be installing some fencing behind the building for their dog and that they are excited to be part of the S. Washington Avenue district, which is becoming somewhat of a renaissance area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-9-2002 to the Committee of the Whole. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Joanne Creede, resident of 2108 DeSoto Drive, stated that she supports the extension of the RiverTrail. Mr. Frederick requested that Ms. Creede's comments be forwarded to City Council. Ms. Patrick informed Ms. Creede that the Planning Board would soon be taking up the west extension of the RiverTrail. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve the minutes of October 1, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of October 1, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 13, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 3 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Foster, Chair a. SLU-9-02, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by John and Janet Gargett for a Special Land Use permit to utilize an existing, 2-story brick building, located at 117 W. South Street, for a single family residence. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits residential uses with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending that SLU- 9-2002, a Special Land Use Permit to utilize the existing building at 117 W. South Street for a single family residence in the "H" Light Industrial District be approved, with the following conditions: (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character. (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District with the conditions that (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character, and (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 4 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Foster, Chair a. SLU-9-02, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District Ms. Foster stated that the Committee of the Whole recommended SLU-9-2002, a Special Land Use Permit to utilize the existing building at 117 W. South Street for a single family residence in the "H" Light Industrial District be approved, with the following conditions: (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character. (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-9-02 with the condition that (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character, and (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Foster . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board meeting scheduled for November 5, 2002 would be held in the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capital Avenue and would begin at 5:30 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 5 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. MSU Urban Planning Partnership - Bicycle Friendly Communities Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board, if they agree with the information that has been given to them, should sign the form so that it can be sent back to MSU expressing their support for this program. Mr. Ruge stated that he strongly supports this concept and would like to see the City achieve a "platinum status" as a bicycle friendly community. He pointed out that the attachment from MSU describes how to apply for this status. Ms. Foster stated that the City should apply, and if turned down, should find out what is needed to become a bicycle friendly community. Mr. Frederick stated that he also supports bicycling in the community. The Board agreed to have Mr. Frederick sign the form on behalf of the entire Planning Board. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to indicate to the City Council that the Planning Board strongly supports becoming a bicycle friendly community and encourages the Council to apply for "Platinum Status" through the MSU Urban Planning Partnership, and if turned down, to implement changes necessary to achieve this status. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 6 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that there are no connections at the Rite Aids from the sidewalks near the intersection to the parking areas and that this needs to be reviewed during the site plan review process as it is an important part of the goal towards becoming a walkable community. Ms. Foster stated that the Planning Board should have reviewed Lake Lansing Road when it was reconstructed so that the members could have provided input on bicycling and other issues. She inquired about the process and if it can be changed so that the Board could give input on all capital improvements. Ms. Patrick stated that Mr. Ruff is looking into the matter. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that there is an old radiator shop in the 2300 block of E. Michigan that became a car lot and they now have moved their vehicles to 1825 E. Michigan. He also stated that there is no landscape, screening or buffering on the property. Mr. Frederick stated that there is an old Lincoln with a collapsed suspension parked in the front yard of a property on Luwana Drive. It is located on the north side of the street, midway between Aurelius and the next cross street. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.101 502.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk October 17,2002 PAGE 2, FIRST PARA,ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE. Approved November 5,2002 To Clerk November 7,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Patrick, Keene Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak C. Excused absences: Cordill 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email message regarding the withdrawal of Act-2-2002 B. NW Lansing Community Issues Forum C. MSU Urban Planning Partnership - Bicycle Friendly Communities - Placed under New Business D. Memo from Mr. Bill Rieske regarding "Getting to Density" Training Program 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by John and Janet Gargett for a Special Land Use permit to utilize an existing, 2-story brick building, located at 117 W. South Street, for a single family residence. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits residential uses with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Ruge inquired about landscaping on the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property was covered entirely with pavement. Ms. Keene stated that the applicants could add some planters to the site to break up the harsh appearance of all the concrete/asphalt. Ms. Foster stated that painting the asphalt white will help keep it cool in the summer. John Gargett, resident of 2510 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Gargett stated that he and his wife would be installing some fencing behind the building for their dog and that they are excited to be part of the S. Washington Avenue district, which is becoming somewhat of a renaissance area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred SLU-9-2002 to the Committee of the Whole. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Joanne Creede, resident of 2108 DeSoto Drive, stated that she supports the extension of the RiverTrail. Mr. Frederick requested that Ms. Creede's comments be forwarded to City Council. Ms. Patrick informed Ms. Creede that the Planning Board would soon be taking up the west extension of the RiverTrail. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve the minutes of October 1, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-0). The minutes of October 1, 2002 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 3 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 13, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Foster, Chair a. SLU-9-02, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by John and Janet Gargett for a Special Land Use permit to utilize an existing, 2-story brick building, located at 117 W. South Street, for a single family residence. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which permits residential uses with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending that SLU- 9-2002, a Special Land Use Permit to utilize the existing building at 117 W. South Street for a single family residence in the "H" Light Industrial District be approved, with the following conditions: (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character. (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-9-2002, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District with the conditions that (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character, and (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 4 Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Foster, Chair a. SLU-9-02, 117 W. South Street, Single Family Residence in an "H" Light Industrial District Ms. Foster stated that the Committee of the Whole recommended SLU-9-2002, a Special Land Use Permit to utilize the existing building at 117 W. South Street for a single family residence in the "H" Light Industrial District be approved, with the following conditions: (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character. (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-9-02 with the condition that (1) Any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, particularly street view elevations, be made consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation to preserve its historic character, and (2) The applicant submit proposed exterior changes to the Planning Office for review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Patrick . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 5 C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board meeting scheduled for November 5, 2002 would be held in the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capital Avenue and would begin at 5:30 p.m. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E.Grand River,"F Commercial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj.Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. MSU Urban Planning Partnership - Bicycle Friendly Communities Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board, if they agree with the information that has been given to them, should sign the form so that it can be sent back to MSU expressing their support for this program. Mr. Ruge stated that he strongly supports this concept and would like to see the City achieve a "platinum status" as a bicycle friendly community. He pointed out that the attachment from MSU describes how to apply for this status. Ms. Foster stated that the City should apply, and if turned down, should find out what is needed to become a bicycle friendly community. Mr. Frederick stated that he also supports bicycling in the community. The Board agreed to have Mr. Frederick sign the form on behalf of the entire Planning Board. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to indicate to the City Council that the Planning Board strongly supports becoming a bicycle friendly community and encourages the Council to apply for "Platinum Status" through the MSU Urban Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 15, 2002 Page 6 Partnership, and if turned down, to implement changes necessary to achieve this status. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that there are no connections at the Rite Aids from the sidewalks near the intersection to the parking areas and that this needs to be reviewed during the site plan review process as it is an important part of the goal towards becoming a walkable community. Ms. Foster stated that the Planning Board should have reviewed Lake Lansing Road when it was reconstructed so that the members could have provided input on bicycling and other issues. She inquired about the process and if it can be changed so that the Board could give input on all capital improvements. Ms. Patrick stated that Mr. Ruff is looking into the matter. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that there is an old radiator shop in the 2300 block of E. Michigan that became a car lot and they now have moved their vehicles to 1825 E. Michigan. He also stated that there is no landscape, screening or buffering on the property. Mr. Frederick stated that there is an old Lincoln with a collapsed suspension parked in the front yard of a property on Luwana Drive. It is located on the north side of the street, midway between Aurelius and the next cross street. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.101502.wpd Draft to Clerk November 15,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 5:30 p.m., 316 N. Capitol, Suite C-3 Planning Department Conference Room Tuesday, November 5, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Patrick. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Hodges, Stanich. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Ruff stated that this is a different location and time. The Planning Office was asked by the City Clerk's Office to relocate in an effort to help them report on the election results. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office has been doing their best to accommodate those who wish to speak regarding the request. He also stated that the Planning Office would be meeting with the neighborhood and the two large cooperatives in that area: Highland Co-op and Woodbridge Commons. The meeting will be on November 121h, at 7:00 p.m. at their location. This would give an opportunity to those who wish to review the development proposal, ask questions and develop comments. This would be an appropriate response to having this meeting on Election Day and it would give people an extra opportunity to speak as well. Ms. Keene inquired about whether the Planning Department would speak to the neighborhood or if there would be another public hearing. Mr. Ruff stated there was a concern with such a large community group and with being on Election Day as to whether they would have fair representation during the public hearing comment time. Mr. Ruff offered to have staff meet with the neighborhood and review the proposal with the applicant. This would allow everyone an opportunity to comment. There will not likely be a recommendation prior to the next time the Board meets that comments allow so that they could offer their comments and have it on record before the Committee or Board takes action. What the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 2 Planning Office goal is to hopefully have all comments received on Nov. 19th and potentially have a Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting between Nov. 19th and Dec. 3'. This would then give the Planning Office a process that would be whole and allow people to give comments on record prior to recommendations from the Board. Ms. Keene stated that she would be concerned that the Board would have, in advance, a good record of the comments that came out of the neighborhood meeting rather than having the Zoning and Ordinance Committee come back with their recommendations before comments are received. Ms. Keene inquired about the Committee reporting out on the same day, November 191h. Mr. Ruff clarified by saying the Committee would reschedule the meeting until after November 191h so that the Board would have all the information from the hearing plus the comments from the neighborhood meeting, and then be able to address any comments or use the public comments in its evaluation prior to a recommendation back to the Board in December. Ms. Keene stated she wanted to be sure that the Board would not be voting the same day the Committee would be reporting out. Mr. Ruff stated he would prefer not to do that and that it would be better to hold a Committee meeting prior to the December 3' Planning Board meeting even if it would mean having a Committee meeting the same day as the Planning Board meeting on November 191h just for due diligence purpose and public comment procedure. Ms. Keene stated her concern was that the Board does not somehow circumvent the technical public hearing process by having a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that this was still the public hearing but there are other times to comment on the case in order for the Planning Office to give due diligence to the comments. It is important to have the Committee meet after the comments are received. This would satisfy the concerns. Mr. Frederick stated, for the record, that Ms. Patrick arrived at 5:41 p.m. after role was taken and that she will be present for the duration of the meeting. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Amy J. Williams regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. B. Letter of opposition from Ms. Kim Barkons regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. C. Letter of opposition from Mr. Kyle K. Meister regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. D. Letter of opposition from Mr. Barry D. Swartz regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. E. Notice of Cancellation for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting originally scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 2002 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 3 4. HEARINGS A. Z-16-2002 & PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District, Planned Residential Development - 272 Units John Hodges gave a brief overview. There are two applications for the property. One application is to rezone the property from "A" Residential to "C" Residential and the second application is for a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The applicant is Sterling Development. The property is a 29.7 acre parcel that is located to the north of Georgetown Blvd., south of Miller Road, and east of Grovenburg Road. The parcel has approximately 1,000 ft. of frontage on Georgetown Blvd. and access to Miller Road. It is bounded to the north and west by single family residential development and the zoning of those areas are also "A" Single Family Residential. To the east is Highlands Cooperatives condominium development, zoned "CUP" Community Unit Plan. To the south of Georgetown Blvd is Woodbridge Commons condominium development, zoned "CUP" Community Unit Plan. The proposal is specifically for a 272 unit multiple family development. This development is proposed to be in 16 unit two-story structures. These structures would be in pairs and uniformly located throughout the site. The property is currently in a natural state due to the extensive changes in grade on the property. Very little human intervention has taken place on that property and therefore there is a relatively wide range of natural environments on the property. There are a variety of woodlands, some of them upland woodlands, and a number of relatively mature trees, some of which have diameters in excess of 24" while others have considerably more than 24". There is also a wetland located in the north central portion of the site. Although this wetland does not appear at this time to be 5 acres in size, which is one of the threshholds for regulation by the State, it still could be a regulated wetland. To his knowledge, there has not been a determination by the State as to the boundaries of this area or whether or not it is a regulated wetland. The significant feature regarding both of these requests is related to the density. The proposed plan residential development could be developed on the current site. The type of structures could be the same. The limiting factor would be the number of units that could be developed. The current zoning, "A" single family residential, is limited in the density by the minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. This is equivalent to 7.26 units per acre. In reality, if this is a typical single family subdivision type of development based on contemporary construction standards and amenities, and the need for street right-of-way areas, typically a density would be more in the range of 2-4 units per acre. That does not necessarily have to be the case for a planned residential development. However, since the development could occur without public streets, using private streets, that amount for streets does not need to be included. In addition, there is a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 4 greater mixture of housing types that would allow the development to be clustered. It is not unusual to develop a planned residential development at the full density capacity of the district at 2 - 4 units per acre with the "C" residential that is being requested. The density is based on the number of bedrooms that would be in each of the units so the density would range from all of the units being single bedroom units (i.e. 18 units an acre) to a maximum, if all the units were at 3 bedroom unit dwellings, of 10.9 units per acre. The proposal is for a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units so the potential density would be more in the mid-range of that amount. In addition, the planned residential development allows for density bonuses for certain types of development to occur and this bonus could be up to a 25% increase in the overall density. Under a single family, this could bring the density up to 9.08 units per acre. One of the options for the density bonus in particular is not hard to achieve through energy conservation. This can be accommodated with a relatively standard construction technique. The same density bonus would also apply to the other districts, including the "C" residential district. Included in the report are the initial responses the Planning Office had received from the agencies. There does not appear to be any significant concerns by the agencies that have reported to date and the Planning Office is still expecting to receive other agency reports as well. In regards to the density of the property, the surrounding land uses range from single family to the north and west at approximately 3 units an acre. The Highlands Cooperative, the development to the east, is at an estimated 3.8 units an acre. He believes that the Georgetown Park was dedicated to the City of Lansing as part of that development. Currently he has requested, but has not received, confirmation of this information. If the park land was included as part of the initial development consideration, then the density would be more in the range of approximately 2.8 units an acre. Woodbridge Commons, the development on the south side of Georgetown Blvd., is at a higher density range of approximately 9.3 units an acre. Ms. Foster inquired about the approximate cost of the units. Mr. Hodges stated this information was not available at this time. Ms. Keene inquired about the development and if it would be townhouses or apartments. Mr. Hodges stated that there are 16 unit, 2-story structures and these structures are paired. There would be 2 - 16 unit structures next to each other and these pairs are spread out uniformly across the site. These appear to be standard apartments. Mr. Ruge inquired about the wetlands and if a determination would be made about whether or not the wetlands are being regulated. Mr. Hodges had not received any information at this time as to whether or not an application had been requested. However, he did contact the State of Michigan and was informed that an application had not been received. Mr. Ruge stated that this would be important to know before the Board acted on the PRD and that this would have an affect on where the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 5 buildings would be built. Mr. Hodges stated that it would have a bearing also on the density and the rezoning. Ms. Foster inquired about a density bonus. Mr. Hodges stated that there were a number of approaches in which a density bonus could be received. The energy conservation bonus would be the easiest because of conformity to standard construction techniques. Ms. Foster inquired about whether or not the City encourages bonuses to the applicants in order to bring buildings closer to the LEAD standard. Mr. Hodges stated there are other public benefits that the City is striving to achieve with other bonuses (i.e. creating energy efficient structures, vegetation). Ms. Foster inquired about whether or not the City could encourage the applicants to go for the energy efficiency. Mr. Ruff stated that one possibility would be for the applicant to achieve a higher density. One application of that would be the rezoning if it was not approved. The applicant would have to get a higher density in a PRD environment and then use the bonus density tools to get a higher density. This would be the only way for the Board to make a recommendation to achieve it. Mr. Hodges stated that the developer was aware of these options, in particular the energy conservation bonus, but declined and pursued the zoning request. Ms. Foster inquired about the minimal architectural standards that the City would be required to meet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that building code would be the only requirement. Ms. Foster inquired about the building code and if it reflected anything regarding energy efficiency. Mr. Ruff stated that it does, but he was not sure to what degree. Ms. Patrick commented that it was very inadequate and was in the process of being changed. The State of Michigan adopted the National Code and then unadopted it. The Model Energy Code is not in affect at this time but is being reviewed for possible reinstatement. Ms. Cordill inquired about the density of 9 units per acre and if this was the "CUP" zoning to the south of the site. Mr. Hodges responded yes. Ms. Keene inquired about the developer and if they had constructed other complexes in the area. Mr. Hodges stated that the owner is from out of state. Ms. Keene stated that she would like to see their work. Ms. Cordill inquired about a representative for the developer and if there was someone present. Ms. Stachowiak stated that unfortunately there was not a representative present and was not sure as to why they were not in attendance. She stated that the developer would be attending the neighborhood meeting on November 12`h and that they were expected to be in attendance this evening. Mr. Ruge inquired about a steep slope. Mr. Hodges presented a larger layout of the site plan for the Board's review. He estimated that it was not more than a 1 on 2 slope. It does not appear to be very conducive as far an amenity for the site. In looking at the site plan, the existing contours PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 6 are completely different than the final elevations. There will be a lot of cutting and filling on the site. Based on the elevation changes, there may not be any existing vegetation left. Ms. Foster stated that the whole site would be wiped out. Mr. Hodges stated that unless the developer plans on temporarily relocating some of the trees and then replanting them at the new elevation. He had no indication from the developer that this would be done. Mr. Ruff commented, for the public's benefit, that the current Planning Board members are volunteers from around the City representing different wards. These members are not making the application. They are responding to the application. It would be helpful that when comments are received, to have them be directed at the application. This would allow the Board to review and respond to the comments. Mr. Ruge inquired about parking. Mr. Hodges stated that they are consistent with the requirements. Mr. Ruge stated that it seems like a fairly unattractive way to deal with parking. Every building would have cars parked in front. He would prefer to have something that looks more like a street than to drive through a parking lot. Mr. Ruge inquired about the amount of trees in the proposal. Mr. Hodges stated that this is the initial design concept and that the Planning Office has not received an actual landscaping plan as part of the information. Ms. Keene inquired about the traffic pattern for entering and exiting the development. Mr. Hodges stated that both accesses would be equally viable and that it would depend on the destinations unless Transportation restricts access to some extent. Ms. Keene stated that it appears the traffic would enter via Balfour Road. Mr. Hodges stated that since there is so long a boulevard off Georgetown either one could be the main entrance. This does not necessarily mean that the resident would prefer to use an alternate route. Ms. Patrick inquired about whether or not there would be enough width in the road to provide for bus transportation. Mr. Hodges stated that the lanes were consistent with the City's standards and the turning radii look like they would not be a problem in accommodating larger vehicles. The upper northwestern corners are at least 35 ft. in radius. Mr. Ruff inquired about if this was referred to CATA or the School District. Mr. Hodges stated that the prior arrangement was to have Transportation report and work directly with CATA. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Longmeadow Road runs through the middle of the property and that the applicant would need to file an ACT 285 application to vacate Longmeadow Road. There will be 3 proposals on the table for the Board to review. Mr. Ruff stated that Longmeadow Road is currently a paper street that has not been developed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant cannot utilize Longmeadow Road for anything unless it is formally vacated. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 7 Ms. Foster inquired about a CATA stop being located on the property. Mr. Hodges stated that it is part of the review process and that the Planning Office would request input from CATA and the schools regarding these kinds of issues. These are considerations for the site plan review process or it can be a condition of the planned residential development. Mr. Ruff stated that the Transportation Office would be making the contact and will respond with CATA and school district comments. Once these comments are received, this will provide more information to the Planning Office. Tony Smydra, resident of 6131 Balfour and President of the Board of Directors for Highlands Cooperative Association, stated that Highlands Cooperative Association is a townhome community consisting of 414 townhomes and is located next to the property that is proposed to be rezoned. He is representing the HCA community to register their objections to the rezoning request, Z-16-2002 and PRD-1-2002, on Georgetown Blvd. from an "A" Residential District to a "C" Residential District. The HCA is located in a well-established neighborhood. It is the contention of the Association that if approved, this request would have a tremendous negative effect on the neighborhood. Rezoning these 29.67 acres could potentially generate an additional 300 plus vehicles on our neighborhood streets. The HCA requests that before any rezoning of this property takes place, a traffic impact study be completed to evaluate the impact. It is the HCA's belief that the residents of the proposed development would use Edgewood Blvd. to access Georgetown Blvd. The reality is that the residents of the new development would soon discover that because of traffic patterns on Edgewood and Georgetown Blvds., it would be much easier to use Balfour Street and Haag Road as a means to enter and exit the neighborhood. Currently, Haag Road, Balfour Street and Georgetown Blvd. accomodate over 650 dwellings as well as Moore Living Center. If you estimate 1.2 vehicles per household for the 650 dwellings in the neighborhood, we would currently have 780 vehicles routinely entering and exiting the neighborhood. Frankly, he believes an estimate of 1.2 vehicles per household is a low estimate. The proposed development would increase the traffic flow by 40 percent (272 swellings x 1.2 vehicles each). The additional dynamic involved in the traffic pattern is that Balfour Street and Haag Road are adjacent to Georgetown Park. A deliberate increase in the traffic around the park would be detrimental to the children using the park facilities. He asked that the zoning request be denied. He thanked the Board for scheduling an additional meeting on November 121h. He stated that it would give the members of Highlands Cooperative, Village Townhomes and Woodbridge an opportunity to attend as well as other neighbors who have single family homes. The HCA has been an established part of the south Lansing community since 1968 and their townhomes are single family homes. The current zoning for this property allows for single family homes to be built. The rezoning request is for 17 multi-family residential structures with a combined total of 272 dwellings units. What is proposed is turning land zoned for single family homes into apartments. What the neighborhood would like to see PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 8 happen is for people to invest in the neighborhood and build community roots. That happens when you have single family homes and does not happen when you have apartments. He asked the Board to listen to the people of the neighborhood and deny this request. Not only is the applicant referring to the 17 buildings, but also the issues related to the wetlands. Although the wetlands are less than 5 acres, are they regulated? The issue brought up tonight was the mature trees on the property and the multi-grade within that area. The applicant is basically talking about stripping the property and building on it rather than using the natural topography, building within the existing wetlands. The applicant is also looking at destroying the essence of the property and this would change the dynamic of the neighborhood. The HCA asks that the Board look at the traffic impact, paying close attention to how this development will be built, and factor in the wetland aspects. James Preston, resident of 1923 W. Miller Road, stated that he is a home owner in the neighborhood. He opposes the request because of other developments that have been built within the neighborhood under the same scenario as this request. Approximately 1 mile from his home, there was a developer who stripped a field and built some apartment complexes. There has been trouble ever since. The townhomes are to the west of his residence. The difference between townhomes and apartments is the townhomes are owned by the occupants and they take pride in keeping the neighborhood clean. With apartments, if there are people who are renting, the attitude is different. These people do not care. In the new apartment complex, there has already been one murder. As homeowners, we need to stop and think about this. What are we involving our kids with? One of the reasons he is opposed to this request is based on some of the comments he heard: 1) The company is out of state and the people know nothing about them; 2) If the company is as important to this development as the people are, then why are they not here? His property abuts this property. Are these low income or standard rate apartments? There is a difference between pricing, and the type of people who will be renting these apartments. Not that people make a difference, but it is how these people treat the property and his property will abut this property. He also has a concern with the traffic. In front of his house is a skywalk that leads to the elementary school across the street. Will this become more difficult for the kids? The entrance being spoke of is 3 houses down off West Miller Road. There is no doubt in his mind that this is where the main entrance will be. The surrounding streets (i.e. Logan Street, Miller Street) are main roads leading right to the development and are all within a 2 block radius. In front of his house, the traffic will increase tremendously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 9 Kyle Meister, resident of 1729 Georgetown Blvd., stated that he took time out of his studies from the University of Michigan (U of M) to attend the meeting. He shares all the neighborhood concerns about traffic and all the impacts on the neighborhood. He is concerned with the wood lot as a natural area in itself. Over the past 10 years on the south side of Lansing, there has been an increase in development all over (i.e. Celebration Cinema, Sam's Club, Target). Edgewood Blvd. did not go all the way to Martin Luther King (MLK) Blvd. before. There is more traffic and less green space. Having this green space is very important to the community. It provides beauty, and also blocks noises from the highway, Edgewood Blvd., and Miller Road. Animals live in this wood lot and there are all kinds of trees. It would be nice, as a little kid, to live in an urban area and be able to see this patch of woods that a lot of kids in other neighborhoods do not get to see. As far as the wood lot itself, he has questions: 1) Are there any endangered, threatened or rare species on the property? If so, how will they be handled? Will they be relocated or allowed to stay? 2) In regards to the wetlands, within the last 3 years, Michigan has had a drought and a lot of the wetlands have been drying out. For this wetland, the soil will need to be checked for any indicator tree species because they will not die as quickly as some herbaceous species. Define this property as a wetland and refer to some of the following species: Red Maple, American Elm, Red oshier Dogwood, Silky Dogwood, Yellow Birch, and Black Ash. If one looks for these trees, especially the Black Ash which grows in the wettest of the wet areas, it should reflect that this property is a wetland. They are very productive ecosystems. It would be a shame to have one more destroyed on this side of town. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-16-2002 & PRD-1-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Patrick moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of October 15, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of October 15, 2002 were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 10 PAGE 2, FIRST PARAGRAPH, ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE: "MS. STACHOWIAK STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS COVERED ENTIRELY WITH PAVEMENT." APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair The next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 2002, has been cancelled. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr Ruff stated that one thing good about some of these issues and going out for the neighborhood meeting is that this is a Third Ward area and the Board is lacking a Third Ward member. This would be one way of gaining some additional applications for a Third Ward Board membership. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office will be making arrangements for the Board holiday gathering, reviewing budget work program items and updating the Master Plan. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoninq 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. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 11 Ms. Keene inquired about item "c" - Crystal Woods PRD. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview. Ms. Patrick inquired about the west extension of the RiverTrail. Mr. Ruff stated that between the time the Parks Department made its initial presentation to the Board and in doing further investigative work into those areas, it is the Planning Office's understanding that the Board of Water and Light property tested higher than expected in certain levels of contaminants. The west-northwest leg takes a crook around and is a fly ash site. With fly ash there are certain materials that have been a part of the incineration process and that includes arsenic and some other heavy metals. This is being further evaluated. Instead of proceeding with this part of the extension of the trail and the public hearing process, the Parks Department has asked the Planning Office to delay the process. There is no time available when it will be requested otherwise. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Evaluation Report Mr. Ruff stated that a copy of the Board evaluation questions was mailed under cover and he had asked that they be returned by November 19`h in hopes that this would allow the Planning Office to provide a better summary to the Board when they gather for the annual meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that the annual meeting will not be at the same location this year and is looking into other options. Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. Rieske had discussed with the Board information from the American Planning Association (APA) regarding video conferences. These conferences are difficult to schedule and require a computer to be compatible with broadcasting. The APA will have a CD, which will include comments and questions, available of these conferences. The Planning Office is interested in purchasing these CDs for the planners to review at their leisure. One of the CDs covers issues regarding density and how to achieve a density that is right for the City of Lansing, and is supportive of the services. There is another CD that will be published in the spring that the Planning Office is interested in reviewing. Plus, there are other CDs that have been published that may also be beneficial to the office. Ms. Patrick stated that the Department of Education is equipped for teleconferences and that it may be an option for the Planning Office to use at little or no cost. Mr. Ruge requested to be excused from the duration of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 12 B. Planning Board Schedule for Calendar Year 2003 Mr. Ruff stated that the 2003 Planning Board schedule was provided in the packet and that the only date to be altered at this time would be September 3, 2003. The City Council has been moving their Monday night meetings that fall on a holiday to Thursday of that week or canceling them. This works well from a Labor Day stand point and can be changed, if necessary. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the 2003 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Ruff to explain the Division's Work Planning Activities as listed on the Planning Board Evaluation sheet and if they are extensive enough. Mr. Ruff stated that currently from the work program standpoint the existing year was presented last year and he can provide a copy to the Board for their review. Mr. Tom Lapka, Attorney representing Sterling Group and Mr. Jeff Kyes, Engineer for KEBS, Inc. arrived to the meeting at 6:47 p.m. and were given incorrect information about the time and place of the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office received a phone call from one of the co-ops regarding the public hearing being held on election night and that the co-ops would be an important factor. A handful of folks were present tonight knowing that there will be a neighborhood meeting out at the site. He informed Mr. Lapka that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for next week had been cancelled because the Planning Office wants to be sure to accept public comment at the next opportunity which would be the November 19th Planning Board meeting. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., 101h Floor, City Hall. The Board had a number of questions this evening and the Planning Office will be sure to get a copy of the questions to Mr. Lapka. There will be a short presentation out at the site and Mr. Lapka could also make a presentation at the next Planning Board meeting scheduled on November 191h. Mr. Lapka stated that they will be attending the neighborhood meeting along with principals of Sterling Group. Mr. Frederick stated that he would prefer to wait on the presentation since the public had already left. Mr. Lapka stated that it would be a little unfair to some of the residents in the area to do a presentation in their absence and that there will be a full presentation at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that there will be an opportunity to address the Board at the next Planning Board meeting and also at the Zoning and Ordinance meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that at the November 19th meeting official public comment can be added to the record before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets. Because those meetings are "neighborhood meetings", they are not official public record. Mr. Lapka stated that they would like to educate the citizens and provide some information about Sterling Group. Mr. Ruff stated that the citizens would want to know more about them. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 13 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he apologizes for forgetting the names of the Board members. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about the law suit from the residents against the Sparrow parking lot and if it went forward. Mr. Ruff stated that there was a request for an immediate injunction filed to prevent the starting of the work until the residents could be heard. The injunction was not granted when it was filed. There was a hearing established for the following week and at that hearing they were denied any injunctive relief. Then there was an option to file a suit and he does not know it that had been done at this time. The original plan called for 6 acres of gravel on an 8 acre site. Through the site plan review process, the applicant accepted the minimum acreage, which would be 4.75 acres for 570 vehicles. There would be no fence, only using the top soil for berming. Trees would be added to permanent locations and some trees will need to be added because of the change in the grade of the parking lot. This would help funnel water to a storm drain. Additional evergreen trees were requested to be placed at the ends of the drive isles on the berm so that the vehicle headlights would not be pointed towards the homes. These evergreens will be removed when the berm is removed. The berm will be at a height of 42", which would be adequate at a level grade. Because the vehicles would be coming down a drive isle, there might be a foot of grade difference in some areas so additional planting was needed. Ms. Patrick inquired about the Wolverine pipe line and if there had been any additional negotiations. Mr. Ruff stated that the City had filed an injunction and the City's law office has committed an attorney to the case. The Wolverine Pipeline company has not continued pursuing the construction of the pipe line. The Planning Office has received a request from an outside firm for the Planning Department's record regarding the Wolverine Pipeline. Mr. Ruff had responded twice with a cost estimate and has not heard anything further from them. He stated that he would check the status. Ms. Cordill stated that the proposed project would add more residents to the pipe line route. Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. Hodges noted the vacant land in some of the material the Planning Office had submitted. Ms. Keene stated that she had watched the history channel a few weeks ago and the show was about a pipe line accident that had happened in San Bernadino, California. It was awful. Somehow a train derailment had caused an initial incident and the pipe line company had assured everyone that everything had been repaired. But within a few weeks to a month later, all of a sudden the pipe line burst. The residents had no clue what was happening. They smelled gasoline and ran from their homes. City blocks would burn and the residents lost everything. It was extremely tragic because a lot of these residents hired an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 14 attorney to represent the case and litigations dragged on for quite a while. When the attorney settled the case, he was give a third of everything and the residents who were plaintiffs were left with nothing. The sites where the homes had burned were never redeveloped. This was a graphic example of what could happen. Mr. Ruff stated that there would be sites on line that would list accidents. Mr. Frederick stated that the Discovery Channel, History Channel and TLC would have web sites, and the past schedules could be reviewed to find that exact program. He would be interested in seeing the movie. Mr. Frederick stated that there was testimony with the pipe line that this would not happen. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the broken down Lincoln was still parked on Luwanna Drive and that it still had a "For Sale" sign on it. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.110502.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk November 15,2002 PAGE 5, SECOND PARA,24T" LINE, Approved December 3,2002 "NATIONAL"S/B MODEL ENERGY To Clerk December 6,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 5:30 p.m., 316 N. Capitol, Suite C-3 Planning Department Conference Room Tuesday, November 5, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Patrick. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Hodges, Stanich. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Ruff stated that this is a different location and time. The Planning Office was asked by the City Clerk's Office to relocate in an effort to help them report on the election results. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office has been doing their best to accommodate those who wish to speak regarding the request. He also stated that the Planning Office would be meeting with the neighborhood and the two large cooperatives in that area: Highland Co-op and Woodbridge Commons. The meeting will be on November 121h, at 7:00 p.m. at their location. This would give an opportunity to those who wish to review the development proposal, ask questions and develop comments. This would be an appropriate response to having this meeting on Election Day and it would give people an extra opportunity to speak as well. Ms. Keene inquired about whether the Planning Department would speak to the neighborhood or if there would be another public hearing. Mr. Ruff stated there was a concern with such a large community group and with being on Election Day as to whether they would have fair representation during the public hearing comment time. Mr. Ruff offered to have staff meet with the neighborhood and review the proposal with the applicant. This would allow everyone an opportunity to comment. There will not likely be a recommendation prior to the next time the Board meets that comments allow so that they could offer their comments and have it on record before the Committee or Board takes action. What the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 2 Planning Office goal is to hopefully have all comments received on Nov. 191h and potentially have a Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting between Nov. 19'h and Dec. 3rd. This would then give the Planning Office a process that would be whole and allow people to give comments on record prior to recommendations from the Board. Ms. Keene stated that she would be concerned that the Board would have, in advance, a good record of the comments that came out of the neighborhood meeting rather than having the Zoning and Ordinance Committee come back with their recommendations before comments are received. Ms. Keene inquired about the Committee reporting out on the same day, November 19'h. Mr. Ruff clarified by saying the Committee would reschedule the meeting until after November 19'h so that the Board would have all the information from the hearing plus the comments from the neighborhood meeting, and then be able to address any comments or use the public comments in its evaluation prior to a recommendation back to the Board in December. Ms. Keene stated she wanted to be sure that the Board would not be voting the same day the Committee would be reporting out. Mr. Ruff stated he would prefer not to do that and that it would be better to hold a Committee meeting prior to the December 3rd Planning Board meeting even if it would mean having a Committee meeting the same day as the Planning Board meeting on November 191h just for due diligence purpose and public comment procedure. Ms. Keene stated her concern was that the Board does not somehow circumvent the technical public hearing process by having a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that this was still the public hearing but there are other times to comment on the case in order for the Planning Office to give due diligence to the comments. It is important to have the Committee meet after the comments are received. This would satisfy the concerns. Mr. Frederick stated, for the record, that Ms. Patrick arrived at 5:41 p.m. after role was taken and that she will be present for the duration of the meeting. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Amy J. Williams regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. B. Letter of opposition from Ms. Kim Barkons regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. C. Letter of opposition from Mr. Kyle K. Meister regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. D. Letter of opposition from Mr. Barry D. Swartz regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02. E. Notice of Cancellation for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting originally scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 2002 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 3 4. HEARINGS A. Z-16-2002 & PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District, Planned Residential Development -272 Units John Hodges gave a brief overview. There are two applications for the property. One application is to rezone the property from "A" Residential to "C" Residential and the second application is for a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The applicant is Sterling Development. The property is a 29.7 acre parcel that is located to the north of Georgetown Blvd., south of Miller Road, and east of Grovenburg Road. The parcel has approximately 1,000 ft. of frontage on Georgetown Blvd. and access to Miller Road. It is bounded to the north and west by single family residential development and the zoning of those areas are also "A" Single Family Residential. To the east is Highlands Cooperatives condominium development, zoned "CUP" Community Unit Plan. To the south of Georgetown Blvd is Woodbridge Commons condominium development, zoned "CUP" Community Unit Plan. The proposal is specifically for a 272 unit multiple family development. This development is proposed to be in 16 unit two-story structures. These structures would be in pairs and uniformly located throughout the site. The property is currently in a natural state due to the extensive changes in grade on the property. Very little human intervention has taken place on that property and therefore there is a relatively wide range of natural environments on the property. There are a variety of woodlands, some of them upland woodlands, and a number of relatively mature trees, some of which have diameters in excess of 24" while others have considerably more than 24". There is also a wetland located in the north central portion of the site. Although this wetland does not appear at this time to be 5 acres in size, which is one of the threshholds for regulation by the State, it still could be a regulated wetland. To his knowledge, there has not been a determination by the State as to the boundaries of this area or whether or not it is a regulated wetland. The significant feature regarding both of these requests is related to the density. The proposed plan residential development could be developed on the current site. The type of structures could be the same. The limiting factor would be the number of units that could be developed. The current zoning, "A" single family residential, is limited in the density by the minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. This is equivalent to 7.26 units per acre. In reality, if this is a typical single family subdivision type of development based on contemporary construction standards and amenities, and the need for street right-of-way areas, typically a density would be more in the range of 2-4 units per acre. That does not necessarily have to be the case for a planned residential development. However, since the development could occur without public streets, using private streets, that amount for streets does not need to be included. In addition, there is a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 4 greater mixture of housing types that would allow the development to be clustered. It is not unusual to develop a planned residential development at the full density capacity of the district at 2 - 4 units per acre with the "C" residential that is being requested. The density is based on the number of bedrooms that would be in each of the units so the density would range from all of the units being single bedroom units (i.e. 18 units an acre) to a maximum, if all the units were at 3 bedroom unit dwellings, of 10.9 units per acre. The proposal is for a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units so the potential density would be more in the mid-range of that amount. In addition, the planned residential development allows for density bonuses for certain types of development to occur and this bonus could be up to a 25% increase in the overall density. Under a single family, this could bring the density up to 9.08 units per acre. One of the options for the density bonus in particular is not hard to achieve through energy conservation. This can be accommodated with a relatively standard construction technique. The same density bonus would also apply to the other districts, including the "C" residential district. Included in the report are the initial responses the Planning Office had received from the agencies. There does not appear to be any significant concerns by the agencies that have reported to date and the Planning Office is still expecting to receive other agency reports as well. In regards to the density of the property, the surrounding land uses range from single family to the north and west at approximately 3 units an acre. The Highlands Cooperative, the development to the east, is at an estimated 3.8 units an acre. He believes that the Georgetown Park was dedicated to the City of Lansing as part of that development. Currently he has requested, but has not received, confirmation of this information. If the park land was included as part of the initial development consideration, then the density would be more in the range of approximately 2.8 units an acre. Woodbridge Commons, the development on the south side of Georgetown Blvd., is at a higher density range of approximately 9.3 units an acre. Ms. Foster inquired about the approximate cost of the units. Mr. Hodges stated this information was not available at this time. Ms. Keene inquired about the development and if it would be townhouses or apartments. Mr. Hodges stated that there are 16 unit, 2-story structures and these structures are paired. There would be 2 - 16 unit structures next to each other and these pairs are spread out uniformly across the site. These appear to be standard apartments. Mr. Ruge inquired about the wetlands and if a determination would be made about whether or not the wetlands are being regulated. Mr. Hodges had not received any information at this time as to whether or not an application had been requested. However, he did contact the State of Michigan and was informed that an application had not been received. Mr. Ruge stated that this would be important to know before the Board acted on the PRD and that this would have an affect on where the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 5 buildings would be built. Mr. Hodges stated that it would have a bearing also on the density and the rezoning. Ms. Foster inquired about a density bonus. Mr. Hodges stated that there were a number of approaches in which a density bonus could be received. The energy conservation bonus would be the easiest because of conformity to standard construction techniques. Ms. Foster inquired about whether or not the City encourages bonuses to the applicants in order to bring buildings closer to the LEAD standard. Mr. Hodges stated there are other public benefits that the City is striving to achieve with other bonuses (i.e. creating energy efficient structures, vegetation). Ms. Foster inquired about whether or not the City could encourage the applicants to go for the energy efficiency. Mr. Ruff stated that one possibility would be for the applicant to achieve a higher density. One application of that would be the rezoning if it was not approved. The applicant would have to get a higher density in a PRD environment and then use the bonus density tools to get a higher density. This would be the only way for the Board to make a recommendation to achieve it. Mr. Hodges stated that the developer was aware of these options, in particular the energy conservation bonus, but declined and pursued the zoning request. Ms. Foster inquired about the minimal architectural standards that the City would be required to meet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that building code would be the only requirement. Ms. Foster inquired about the building code and if it reflected anything regarding energy efficiency. Mr. Ruff stated that it does, but he was not sure to what degree. Ms. Patrick commented that it was very inadequate and was in the process of being changed. The State of Michigan adopted the National Model Energy Code and then unadopted it. The Model Energy Code is not in affect at this time but is being reviewed for possible reinstatement. Ms. Cordill inquired about the density of 9 units per acre and if this was the "CUP" zoning to the south of the site. Mr. Hodges responded yes. Ms. Keene inquired about the developer and if they had constructed other complexes in the area. Mr. Hodges stated that the owner is from out of state. Ms. Keene stated that she would like to see their work. Ms. Cordill inquired about a representative for the developer and if there was someone present. Ms. Stachowiak stated that unfortunately there was not a representative present and was not sure as to why they were not in attendance. She stated that the developer would be attending the neighborhood meeting on November 121h and that they were expected to be in attendance this evening. Mr. Ruge inquired about a steep slope. Mr. Hodges presented a larger layout of the site plan for the Board's review. He estimated that it was not more than a 1 on 2 slope. It does not appear to be very conducive as far an amenity for the site. In looking at the site plan, the existing contours PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 6 are completely different than the final elevations. There will be a lot of cutting and filling on the site. Based on the elevation changes, there may not be any existing vegetation left. Ms. Foster stated that the whole site would be wiped out. Mr. Hodges stated that unless the developer plans on temporarily relocating some of the trees and then replanting them at the new elevation. He had no indication from the developer that this would be done. Mr. Ruff commented, for the public's benefit, that the current Planning Board members are volunteers from around the City representing different wards. These members are not making the application. They are responding to the application. It would be helpful that when comments are received, to have them be directed at the application. This would allow the Board to review and respond to the comments. Mr. Ruge inquired about parking. Mr. Hodges stated that they are consistent with the requirements. Mr. Ruge stated that it seems like a fairly unattractive way to deal with parking. Every building would have cars parked in front. He would prefer to have something that looks more like a street than to drive through a parking lot. Mr. Ruge inquired about the amount of trees in the proposal. Mr. Hodges stated that this is the initial design concept and that the Planning Office has not received an actual landscaping plan as part of the information. Ms. Keene inquired about the traffic pattern for entering and exiting the development. Mr. Hodges stated that both accesses would be equally viable and that it would depend on the destinations unless Transportation restricts access to some extent. Ms. Keene stated that it appears the traffic would enter via Balfour Road. Mr. Hodges stated that since there is so long a boulevard off Georgetown either one could be the main entrance. This does not necessarily mean that the resident would prefer to use an alternate route. Ms. Patrick inquired about whether or not there would be enough width in the road to provide for bus transportation. Mr. Hodges stated that the lanes were consistent with the City's standards and the turning radii look like they would not be a problem in accommodating larger vehicles. The upper northwestern corners are at least 35 ft. in radius. Mr. Ruff inquired about if this was referred to CATA or the School District. Mr. Hodges stated that the prior arrangement was to have Transportation report and work directly with CATA. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Longmeadow Road runs through the middle of the property and that the applicant would need to file an ACT 285 application to vacate Longmeadow Road. There will be 3 proposals on the table for the Board to review. Mr. Ruff stated that Longmeadow Road is currently a paper street that has not been developed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant cannot utilize Longmeadow Road for anything unless it is formally vacated. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 7 Ms. Foster inquired about a CATA stop being located on the property. Mr. Hodges stated that it is part of the review process and that the Planning Office would request input from CATA and the schools regarding these kinds of issues. These are considerations for the site plan review process or it can be a condition of the planned residential development. Mr. Ruff stated that the Transportation Office would be making the contact and will respond with CATA and school district comments. Once these comments are received, this will provide more information to the Planning Office. Tony Smydra, resident of 6131 Balfour and President of the Board of Directors for Highlands Cooperative Association, stated that Highlands Cooperative Association is a townhome community consisting of 414 townhomes and is located next to the property that is proposed to be rezoned. He is representing the HCA community to register their objections to the rezoning request, Z-16-2002 and PRD-1-2002, on Georgetown Blvd. from an "A" Residential District to a "C" Residential District. The HCA is located in a well-established neighborhood. It is the contention of the Association that if approved, this request would have a tremendous negative effect on the neighborhood. Rezoning these 29.67 acres could potentially generate an additional 300 plus vehicles on our neighborhood streets. The HCA requests that before any rezoning of this property takes place, a traffic impact study be completed to evaluate the impact. It is the HCA's belief that the residents of the proposed development would use Edgewood Blvd. to access Georgetown Blvd. The reality is that the residents of the new development would soon discover that because of traffic patterns on Edgewood and Georgetown Blvds., it would be much easier to use Balfour Street and Haag Road as a means to enter and exit the neighborhood. Currently, Haag Road, Balfour Street and Georgetown Blvd. accomodate over 650 dwellings as well as Moore Living Center. If you estimate 1.2 vehicles per household for the 650 dwellings in the neighborhood, we would currently have 780 vehicles routinely entering and exiting the neighborhood. Frankly, he believes an estimate of 1.2 vehicles per household is a low estimate. The proposed development would increase the traffic flow by 40 percent (272 swellings x 1.2 vehicles each). The additional dynamic involved in the traffic pattern is that Balfour Street and Haag Road are adjacent to Georgetown Park. A deliberate increase in the traffic around the park would be detrimental to the children using the park facilities. He asked that the zoning request be denied. He thanked the Board for scheduling an additional meeting on November 121h. He stated that it would give the members of Highlands Cooperative, Village Townhomes and Woodbridge an opportunity to attend as well as other neighbors who have single family homes. The HCA has been an established part of the south Lansing community since 1968 and their townhomes are single family homes. The current zoning for this property allows for single family homes to be built. The rezoning request is for 17 multi-family residential structures with a combined total of 272 dwellings units. What is proposed is turning land zoned for single family homes into apartments. What the neighborhood would like to see PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 8 happen is for people to invest in the neighborhood and build community roots. That happens when you have single family homes and does not happen when you have apartments. He asked the Board to listen to the people of the neighborhood and deny this request. Not only is the applicant referring to the 17 buildings, but also the issues related to the wetlands. Although the wetlands are less than 5 acres, are they regulated? The issue brought up tonight was the mature trees on the property and the multi-grade within that area. The applicant is basically talking about stripping the property and building on it rather than using the natural topography, building within the existing wetlands. The applicant is also looking at destroying the essence of the property and this would change the dynamic of the neighborhood. The HCA asks that the Board look at the traffic impact, paying close attention to how this development will be built, and factor in the wetland aspects. James Preston, resident of 1923 W. Miller Road, stated that he is a home owner in the neighborhood. He opposes the request because of other developments that have been built within the neighborhood under the same scenario as this request. Approximately 1 mile from his home, there was a developer who stripped a field and built some apartment complexes. There has been trouble ever since. The townhomes are to the west of his residence. The difference between townhomes and apartments is the townhomes are owned by the occupants and they take pride in keeping the neighborhood clean. With apartments, if there are people who are renting, the attitude is different. These people do not care. In the new apartment complex, there has already been one murder. As homeowners, we need to stop and think about this. What are we involving our kids with? One of the reasons he is opposed to this request is based on some of the comments he heard: 1) The company is out of state and the people know nothing about them; 2) If the company is as important to this development as the people are, then why are they not here? His property abuts this property. Are these low income or standard rate apartments? There is a difference between pricing, and the type of people who will be renting these apartments. Not that people make a difference, but it is how these people treat the property and his property will abut this property. He also has a concern with the traffic. In front of his house is a skywalk that leads to the elementary school across the street. Will this become more difficult for the kids? The entrance being spoke of is 3 houses down off West Miller Road. There is no doubt in his mind that this is where the main entrance will be. The surrounding streets (i.e. Logan Street, Miller Street) are main roads leading right to the development and are all within a 2 block radius. In front of his house, the traffic will increase tremendously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 9 Kyle Meister, resident of 1729 Georgetown Blvd., stated that he took time out of his studies from the University of Michigan (U of M) to attend the meeting. He shares all the neighborhood concerns about traffic and all the impacts on the neighborhood. He is concerned with the wood lot as a natural area in itself. Over the past 10 years on the south side of Lansing, there has been an increase in development all over (i.e. Celebration Cinema, Sam's Club, Target). Edgewood Blvd. did not go all the way to Martin Luther King (MLK) Blvd. before. There is more traffic and less green space. Having this green space is very important to the community. It provides beauty, and also blocks noises from the highway, Edgewood Blvd., and Miller Road. Animals live in this wood lot and there are all kinds of trees. It would be nice, as a little kid, to live in an urban area and be able to see this patch of woods that a lot of kids in other neighborhoods do not get to see. As far as the wood lot itself, he has questions: 1) Are there any endangered, threatened or rare species on the property? If so, how will they be handled? Will they be relocated or allowed to stay? 2) In regards to the wetlands, within the last 3 years, Michigan has had a drought and a lot of the wetlands have been drying out. For this wetland, the soil will need to be checked for any indicator tree species because they will not die as quickly as some herbaceous species. Define this property as a wetland and refer to some of the following species: Red Maple, American Elm, Red oshier Dogwood, Silky Dogwood, Yellow Birch, and Black Ash. If one looks for these trees, especially the Black Ash which grows in the wettest of the wet areas, it should reflect that this property is a wetland. They are very productive ecosystems. It would be a shame to have one more destroyed on this side of town. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-16-2002 & PRD-1-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Patrick moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of October 15, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of October 15, 2002 were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 10 PAGE 2, FIRST PARAGRAPH, ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE: "MS. STACHOWIAK STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS COVERED ENTIRELY WITH PAVEMENT." APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair The next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 2002, has been cancelled. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr Ruff stated that one thing good about some of these issues and going out for the neighborhood meeting is that this is a Third Ward area and the Board is lacking a Third Ward member. This would be one way of gaining some additional applications for a Third Ward Board membership. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office will be making arrangements for the Board holiday gathering, reviewing budget work program items and updating the Master Plan. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,7"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) 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. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 11 Ms. Keene inquired about item "c" - Crystal Woods PRD. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview. Ms. Patrick inquired about the west extension of the RiverTrail. Mr. Ruff stated that between the time the Parks Department made its initial presentation to the Board and in doing further investigative work into those areas, it is the Planning Office's understanding that the Board of Water and Light property tested higher than expected in certain levels of contaminants. The west-northwest leg takes a crook around and is a fly ash site. With fly ash there are certain materials that have been a part of the incineration process and that includes arsenic and some other heavy metals. This is being further evaluated. Instead of proceeding with this part of the extension of the trail and the public hearing process, the Parks Department has asked the Planning Office to delay the process. There is no time available when it will be requested otherwise. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Evaluation Report Mr. Ruff stated that a copy of the Board evaluation questions was mailed under cover and he had asked that they be returned by November 191h in hopes that this would allow the Planning Office to provide a better summary to the Board when they gather for the annual meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that the annual meeting will not be at the same location this year and is looking into other options. Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. Rieske had discussed with the Board information from the American Planning Association (APA) regarding video conferences. These conferences are difficult to schedule and require a computer to be compatible with broadcasting. The APA will have a CD, which will include comments and questions, available of these conferences. The Planning Office is interested in purchasing these CDs for the planners to review at their leisure. One of the CDs covers issues regarding density and how to achieve a density that is right for the City of Lansing, and is supportive of the services. There is another CD that will be published in the spring that the Planning Office is interested in reviewing. Plus, there are other CDs that have been published that may also be beneficial to the office. Ms. Patrick stated that the Department of Education is equipped for teleconferences and that it may be an option for the Planning Office to use at little or no cost. Mr. Ruge requested to be excused from the duration of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 12 B. Planning Board Schedule for Calendar Year 2003 Mr. Ruff stated that the 2003 Planning Board schedule was provided in the packet and that the only date to be altered at this time would be September 3, 2003. The City Council has been moving their Monday night meetings that fall on a holiday to Thursday of that week or canceling them. This works well from a Labor Day stand point and can be changed, if necessary. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the 2003 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Ruff to explain the Division's Work Planning Activities as listed on the Planning Board Evaluation sheet and if they are extensive enough. Mr. Ruff stated that currently from the work program standpoint the existing year was presented last year and he can provide a copy to the Board for their review. Mr. Tom Lapka, Attorney representing Sterling Group and Mr. Jeff Kyes, Engineer for KEBS, Inc. arrived to the meeting at 6:47 p.m. and were given incorrect information about the time and place of the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office received a phone call from one of the co-ops regarding the public hearing being held on election night and that the co-ops would be an important factor. A handful of folks were present tonight knowing that there will be a neighborhood meeting out at the site. He informed Mr. Lapka that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for next week had been cancelled because the Planning Office wants to be sure to accept public comment at the next opportunity which would be the November 19th Planning Board meeting. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., 10th Floor, City Hall. The Board had a number of questions this evening and the Planning Office will be sure to get a copy of the questions to Mr. Lapka. There will be a short presentation out at the site and Mr. Lapka could also make a presentation at the next Planning Board meeting scheduled on November 19th. Mr. Lapka stated that they will be attending the neighborhood meeting along with principals of Sterling Group. Mr. Frederick stated that he would prefer to wait on the presentation since the public had already left. Mr. Lapka stated that it would be a little unfair to some of the residents in the area to do a presentation in their absence and that there will be a full presentation at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that there will be an opportunity to address the Board at the next Planning Board meeting and also at the Zoning and Ordinance meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that at the November 19th meeting official public comment can be added to the record before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets. Because those meetings are "neighborhood meetings", they are not official public record. Mr. Lapka stated that they would like to educate the citizens and provide some information about Sterling Group. Mr. Ruff stated that the citizens would want to know more about them. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 13 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he apologizes for forgetting the names of the Board members. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about the law suit from the residents against the Sparrow parking lot and if it went forward. Mr. Ruff stated that there was a request for an immediate injunction filed to prevent the starting of the work until the residents could be heard. The injunction was not granted when it was filed. There was a hearing established for the following week and at that hearing they were denied any injunctive relief. Then there was an option to file a suit and he does not know it that had been done at this time. The original plan called for 6 acres of gravel on an 8 acre site. Through the site plan review process, the applicant accepted the minimum acreage, which would be 4.75 acres for 570 vehicles. There would be no fence, only using the top soil for berming. Trees would be added to permanent locations and some trees will need to be added because of the change in the grade of the parking lot. This would help funnel water to a storm drain. Additional evergreen trees were requested to be placed at the ends of the drive isles on the berm so that the vehicle headlights would not be pointed towards the homes. These evergreens will be removed when the berm is removed. The berm will be at a height of 42", which would be adequate at a level grade. Because the vehicles would be coming down a drive isle, there might be a foot of grade difference in some areas so additional planting was needed. Ms. Patrick inquired about the Wolverine pipe line and if there had been any additional negotiations. Mr. Ruff stated that the City had filed an injunction and the City's law office has committed an attorney to the case. The Wolverine Pipeline company has not continued pursuing the construction of the pipe line. The Planning Office has received a request from an outside firm for the Planning Department's record regarding the Wolverine Pipeline. Mr. Ruff had responded twice with a cost estimate and has not heard anything further from them. He stated that he would check the status. Ms. Cordill stated that the proposed project would add more residents to the pipe line route. Mr. Ruff stated that Mr. Hodges noted the vacant land in some of the material the Planning Office had submitted. Ms. Keene stated that she had watched the history channel a few weeks ago and the show was about a pipe line accident that had happened in San Bernadino, California. It was awful. Somehow a train derailment had caused an initial incident and the pipe line company had assured everyone that everything had been repaired. But within a few weeks to a month later, all of a sudden the pipe line burst. The residents had no clue what was happening. They smelled gasoline and ran from their homes. City blocks would burn and the residents lost everything. It was extremely tragic because a lot of these residents hired an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 5, 2002 Page 14 attorney to represent the case and litigations dragged on for quite a while. When the attorney settled the case, he was give a third of everything and the residents who were plaintiffs were left with nothing. The sites where the homes had burned were never redeveloped. This was a graphic example of what could happen. Mr. Ruff stated that there would be sites on line that would list accidents. Mr. Frederick stated that the Discovery Channel, History Channel and TLC would have web sites, and the past schedules could be reviewed to find that exact program. He would be interested in seeing the movie. Mr. Frederick stated that there was testimony with the pipe line that this would not happen. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the broken down Lincoln was still parked on Luwanna Drive and that it still had a "For Sale" sign on it. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.1 10502.wpd Draft to Clerk November 22,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Vice Chair. A. Roll call. Present: Foster, Patrick, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Frederick, Cordill, Keene. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve excused absence requests for Mr. Frederick, Ms. Cordill and Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). Mr. Ruff stated that since there were only three Board members present, the Board would be acting under the Committee of the Whole. As such, the action taken tonight would be for informational purposes only, according to the rules of procedure. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as written. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Barbara Miller regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02 B. Memorandum consisting of multiple communications regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02: 1. Letter of opposition from Katetra Washington and Shamari Milton 2. Letter of opposition from Ms. Jackie Brown 3. Letter of opposition from Ms. Tricia L. Nguyen-Vo 4. Letter of opposition from Ms. Sabrina Mazurek 5. Statement of opposition from Marc Harris, Joyce Harris and Justin Morgan 6. Letter of opposition from Ms. Dorothy Coleman and family 7. Letter of opposition from Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Wilson 8. Letter of opposition from Ms. Edith Wasson and Councilmember Tony Benavides PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 2 9. Letter of opposition from Ms. Elizabeth Rockafellow 10. Letter of opposition addressed to Councilmember Benavides from Ms. Linda Gonzales 4. HEARINGS A. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Needs This is an opportunity that will allow citizens to indicate needs, views, and proposals for the preparation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the fiscal years 2004 to 2009. Mr. John McComb, City of Lansing Finance Department, Budget Office, stated that he would like to welcome the Planning Board back to the Capital Improvements process. He believes that it will be a positive thing in moving forward. The Board will learn a lot about the infra structure of the City and this will help with the Board's decisions. He looks forward to working with the Board. He has been doing this for a while and if he can help in any way, let him know. Ms. Patrick stated that item "M" in the plan is Energy Management Systems regarding the parking ramps. She has worked in the energy field and asked Mr. McComb to explain more about this improvement. Mr. McComb stated that there was not much more that he could add because this was not his field. There was a request submitted by Mr. Dave Berrige, the Public Service Director. He would be happy to provide the Board with the original documentation that was submitted. The Board will be receiving a packet of information regarding the request that was being submitted for this year, and he will be sure to include a copy from last year as well. Mr. Rieske gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff stated that a separate hearing was being held tonight and normally in past years the hearing was held in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds hearing. The reason for the separate hearing is to help isolate this one differently for input and also for review purposes. Ms. Foster inquired about a hearing for the final list. Mr. Ruff stated that this is basically a Needs hearing and would be the only hearing on this issue. The Board will make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the list of items. When dealing with infra structure that deals with land use and master planning, there are a lot of things listed under infra structure or capitol expenditures. The focus is primarily on issues that relate to the master plan, the goals and objectives of the Planning Board as well as any of the current types of infra structure improvements that deal with land uses. In the official review, hopefully it will cut down on some of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 3 extraneous reviews that the Board does on some of the ACT 285 as well when it comes to different types of projects. There was a great deal of time spent in the Cavanaugh road project when the City was looking at a purchase for an intersection improvement. Hopefully it will make comment more front-end on some of these types of projects and the relationship to the master plan. It will be more direct input into the project itself. Ms. Foster stated that the Board will not be back pedaling to make it better in the end. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ruff stated, for the record, that the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be held on November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., City Council Conference Room, 124 W. Michigan Avenue, to consider the PRD-1-2002 and Z-16-2002 proposal. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval No action was taken at this time regarding the minutes of November 5, 2002. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 4 C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that there was a Development Planning Committee today and there were a number of items that had been taken up previously by the Board. Mr. Abraham's proposal for SLU-5-2002 (parking in the "A" Residential District, adjacent to Washington Park) and ACT-4-2002 were moved by Councilmembers Nino Rodriguez and Larry Meyer, (2-0) with one abstention. Councilmember Bauer, who is also on the Committee, abstained from the case because she is employed by Ingham Regional. The Planning Office had continually worked on the special land use and the ACT 285 resolutions to fine-tune them to achieve all the goals (i.e. sale the property, legal issues). For the record, to emphasize that the any building construction was to respect the residential character of the area. Further, the Councilmembers wanted to be made aware of the building construction plans when they came along. He was not sure when the Planning Office would receive the plans for the development project. SLU-9-2002 (117 W. South Street) was recommended for approval by the Committee. The revised request for Z-14-2002 (SW Corner of Hartford and Waverly Roads) was recommended for approval by Committee. There were a couple of items on the Development Planning Committee agenda. One of which was the Thelma Joyce Osting Comfort Station. Mr. Johnson from the Mayor's Office gave the report. The Development Planning Committee took some additional comments today and further recommended that the Planning Office do a request for proposals to address the first issue of possibly a lease. Looking at the request for proposals, there are a few items to be reviewed (i.e. the maintenance of the building with the restrictions in it as well as the use of the building, financial capabilities of those associations that may apply to lease the building for a nominal amount, and what kinds of improvements these associations would make, how they would fund those improvements). If the lease option does not work, then a sale would be the next option. A sale might offer non-profits a chance for a greater funding level because of ownership versus lease tenancy. Both Councilmembers Rodriguez and Bauer were in favor of maintaining City ownership of the building at this time versus Councilmember Meyer who believes the sale could be done in such a way with a reverter clause that it would be out from under the City's responsibility, except in those cases where it would be forfeited for some reason and then allow people to use historic tax credits as well as mortgage financing to help fund those improvements. Draft Number 8 of the Historic Ordinance revision was approved today. The revision includes a number of items that have been paired down from PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 5 the original list (i.e. time frames, financial hardship criteria, option to hold a public hearing to inform people that their area has been requested to be studied and notices would be mailed to the residents of that area). Instead of the second Planning Board meeting in December, he anticipates having the annual Planning Board dinner. He is open for any suggestions from the Board regarding location. The Planning Office will be preparing the Work Program for budget purposes for distribution at the December 3 d Planning Board meeting for fiscal year 2004. The Board has seen a lot of things with regard to revenue sharing with the State of Michigan. It will probably be a status quote type budget. The Mayor's Office is committed to keeping people in work and satisfying existing programs but not doing any expansions. The Planning Office is working through those processes. The Committee also recommended approval of a new Planning Board member. Hopefully there will be a new Third Ward member by the next meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that he handed out to the Board member two magazines: The Power of Partnerships and The Engine That Powers Success! The Power of Partnership is more of an economic development tool and it talks about partnerships. The City of Lansing's Economic Development Corporation originated the magazine with the assistance of the Planning Office and other people. The Engine That Powers Success is newly printed and deals more with people who are looking to move to Lansing. It lists some of the exciting events that happen in Lansing, and summarizes departments and how these departments can be of assistance. It lists events within the City's location, and gives some of the local businesses an opportunity to be publicized. These are available for distribution. Hopefully these will be good resources for the Board members. D. Pending Items: Future action required 3. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002&PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A"Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property,310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 6 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that regarding PRD-1-2002, he would like to make sure at the meeting the Board members receive information regarding traffic volumes and a full size blueprint. Mr. Ruff stated that the blueprint will be available for review at the next Zoning and Ordinance meeting and that there will be a presentation at that time by Mr. Lapka and the engineer. Mr. Ruge inquired about a map showing the different low income apartment complexes in the area. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office does not keep track of them by income. He will look into the matter with Mr. Emil Winnicker of the Development Office. Mr. Ruge stated that Liberty Church on Michigan Avenue had planted a few trees in the screening and buffering area. Mr. Ruff stated that there was supposed to be some landscaping in the front and side areas, and the fence was added. Mr. Ruge added that the fence was added and five trees were planted along the fence but there is nothing in the front. Mr. Ruge inquired about the used car place that moved in at 1825 E. Michigan Avenue. He is quite certain that the cars are from the old radiator shop around the 2300 block of Michigan Avenue. He realizes that they are redeveloping and building a new cement block building but hopes that there will be adequate screening and buffering to the north against the residential property. He inquired about the use of the property. Mr. Ruff stated that he will have Ms. Stachowiak give him a call with an update on the situation. Ms. Patrick stated that she drives almost everyday by Tony's Party Store on the corner of Cedar and Miller Streets and that it has been a couple of years since their request. Finally, their building is being built. Ms. Patrick stated across the street from her home is the old Richter's Garden site and that there is an unbelievable amount of dirt that has been brought in to the site. She is not sure if it will be leveled. Mr. Ruff stated that there was a big basement on the lower level that was filled. The Planning Office had reserved the right to require additional landscaping on the east side because of some grade changes and was not sure of the appearances. The Planning Office wanted to be sure that there was adequate buffering to the first house east of the site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 7 Ms. Patrick stated there are two buildings under construction on Miller Road, east of the AT&T Broadband building, and that she was confused about which one will be the new fire station. She inquired about the location of the new fire station. Mr. Ruff stated that the building closest to Aurelius would be an engineering office building. Tetra Tech is an engineering corporation in Lansing but has offices around the State of Michigan. They are consolidating all their offices in the City of Lansing. They are currently leasing in an older office development on Long Blvd. and are now building their own office building with which they will bring in the their staff from all the other offices. The development that is closer to the cable company is where the new fire station will be located. Ms. Foster inquired about PRD-1-2002 presentation. She thought the presentation would be given today. Because the Urban Development Committee meets the same day as the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, she will not have an opportunity to see the presentation. She has concerns with what appears to be leveling of the site. It seems that the topography on the site has not been reviewed and all the vegetation has been destroyed. If possible, she would like to see the blueprint of the site and then give her comments. Mr. Ruff stated at the next Planning Board meeting on December V, there would be an opportunity for a presentation before the entire Board and that he would like to make sure the developer or the representative has ample opportunity to make a presentation to the Board. Mr. Tom Lapka, Attorney representing Sterling Development Group, 605 S. Capitol Avenue, stated that they would be happy to arrive an hour earlier on the day of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and give a presentation to any of the Board members before the Urban Development Committee meeting begins. If given advance notice, they could do a presentation at 3:00 p.m. and have available full size sheets, pictures and other information regarding the site. They could also address the concerns of area residents. There was a discussion about having a presentation around 5:30 p.m. during the Urban Development Committee meeting. Mr. Ruff gave the suggestion to Mr. Lapka. Mr. Lapka stated that if they were on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee agenda first, they could give a presentation and address any questions the Committee may have. From there, they could attend the Urban Development Committee meeting and give the Committee a presentation. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to obtain a copy of the updated Sign Ordinance. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 8 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.1 1 1902.wpd Approved as written 12-3-02 Draft to Clerk November 26,2002 Approved December 3,2002 To Clerk December 6,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Vice Chair. A. Roll call. Present: Foster, Patrick, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Frederick, Cordill, Keene. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve excused absence requests for Mr. Frederick, Ms. Cordill and Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). Mr. Ruff stated that since there were only three Board members present, the Board would be acting under the Committee of the Whole. As such, no action could be taken tonight and the meeting would be for informational purposes only, according to the rules of procedure. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as written. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Barbara Miller regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02 B. Memorandum consisting of multiple communications regarding Z-16-02 and PRD-1-02: 1. Letter of opposition from Katetra Washington and Shamari Milton 2. Letter of opposition from Ms. Jackie Brown 3. Letter of opposition from Ms. Tricia L. Nguyen-Vo 4. Letter of opposition from Ms. Sabrina Mazurek 5. Statement of opposition from Marc Harris, Joyce Harris and Justin Morgan 6. Letter of opposition from Ms. Dorothy Coleman and family 7. Letter of opposition from Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Wilson 8. Letter of opposition from Ms. Edith Wasson to Councilmember Tony Benavides PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 2 9. Letter of opposition from Ms. Elizabeth Rockafellow 10. Letter of opposition addressed to Councilmember Benavides from Ms. Linda Gonzales 4. HEARINGS A. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Needs This is an opportunity that will allow citizens to indicate needs, views, and proposals for the preparation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the fiscal years 2004 to 2009. Mr. John McComb, City of Lansing Finance Department, Budget Office, stated that he would like to welcome the Planning Board back to the Capital Improvements process. He believes that it will be a positive thing in moving forward. The Board will learn a lot about the infra- structure of the City and this will help with the Board's decisions. He looks forward to working with the Board. He has been doing this for a while and if he can help in any way, let him know. Ms. Patrick stated that item "M" in the plan is Energy Management Systems regarding the parking ramps. She has worked in the energy field and asked Mr. McComb to explain more about this improvement. Mr. McComb stated that there was not much more that he could add because this was not his field. There was a request submitted by Mr. Dave Berridge, the Public Service Director. He would be happy to provide the Board with the original documentation that was submitted. The Board will be receiving a packet of information regarding the request that was being submitted for this year, and he will be sure to include a copy from last year as well. Mr. Rieske gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff stated that a separate hearing was being held tonight and normally in past years the hearing was held in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds hearing. The reason for the separate hearing is to help isolate this one differently for input and also for review purposes. Ms. Foster inquired about a hearing for the final list. Mr. Ruff stated that this is basically a Needs hearing and would be the only hearing on this issue. The Board will make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the list of items. The focus is primarily on issues that relate to the master plan, the goals and objectives of the Planning Board as well as any of the current types of infra-structure improvements that deal with land uses. In the official review, hopefully it will cut down on some of the extraneous reviews that the Board does on some of the ACT 285's as well when it comes to different types of projects. There was a great deal of time spent PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 3 in the Cavanaugh road project when the City was looking at a purchase for an intersection improvement. Hopefully it will make comment more front-end on some of these types of projects and the relationship to the master plan. It will be more direct input into the project itself. Ms. Foster stated that the Board will not be back pedaling to make it better in the end. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ruff stated, for the record, that the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be held on November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., City Council Conference Room, 124 W. Michigan Avenue, to consider the PRD-1-2002 and Z-16-2002 proposal. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval No action was taken at this time regarding the minutes of November 5, 2002. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 4 C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that there was a Development and Planning Committee today and there were a number of items that had been taken up previously by the Board. Mr. Abraham's proposal for SLU-5-2002 (parking in the "A" Residential District, adjacent to Washington Park) and ACT-4-2002 were moved by Councilmembers Nino Rodriguez and Larry Meyer, (2-0) with one abstention. Councilmember Bauer, who is also on the Committee, abstained from the case because she is employed by Ingham Regional. The Planning Office had continually worked on the special land use and the ACT 285 resolutions to fine-tune them to achieve all the goals (i.e. sale of the property, legal issues). For the record, the Committee wanted to emphasize that any building construction was to respect the residential character of the area. Further, the Councilmembers wanted to be made aware of the building construction plans when they came along. He was not sure when the Planning Office would receive the plans for the development project. SLU-9-2002 (117 W. South Street) was recommended for approval by the Committee. The revised request for Z-14-2002 (SW Corner of Hartford and Waverly Roads) was recommended for approval by Committee. There were a couple of other items on the Development and Planning Committee agenda. One of which was the Thelma Joyce Osteen Comfort Station. Mr. Johnson from the Mayor's Office gave the report. The Development and Planning Committee took some additional comments today and further recommended that the administration do a request for proposals to address the first issue of possibly a lease. Looking at the request for proposals, there are a few items to be reviewed (i.e. the maintenance of the building with the restrictions in it as well as the use of the building, financial capabilities of those associations that may apply to lease the building for a nominal amount, and what kinds of improvements these associations would make, how they would fund those improvements). If the lease option does not work, then a sale would be the next option. A sale might offer non-profits a chance for a greater funding level because of ownership versus lease tenancy. Both Councilmembers Rodriguez and Bauer were in favor of maintaining City ownership of the building at this time versus Councilmember Meyer who believes the sale could be done in such a way with a reverter clause that it would be out from under the City's responsibility, except in those cases where it would be forfeited for some reason, and then allow people to use historic tax credits as well as mortgage financing to help fund those improvements. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 5 Draft Number 8 of the Historic Ordinance revision was approved today. The revision includes a number of items that have been paired down from the original list (i.e. time frames, financial hardship criteria, option to hold a public hearing to inform people that their area has been requested to be studied and notices would be mailed to the residents of that area). Instead of the second Planning Board meeting in December, he anticipates having the annual Planning Board dinner. He is open for any suggestions from the Board regarding location. The Planning Office will be preparing the Work Program for budget purposes for distribution at the December 3' Planning Board meeting for fiscal year 2004. The Board has seen a lot of things with regard to revenue sharing with the State of Michigan. It will probably be a status- quot type budget. The Mayor's Office is committed to keeping people in work and satisfying existing programs but not doing any expansions. The Planning Office is working through those processes. The Committee also recommended approval of a new Planning Board member. Hopefully there will be a new Third Ward member by the next meeting. Mr. Ruff stated that he handed out to the Board member two magazines: The Power of Partnerships and The Engine That Powers Success! Hopefully these will be good resources for the Board members. D. Pending Items: Future action required 3. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"Id"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) G. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002& PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A"Residential District to"C" Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 6 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that regarding PRD-1-2002, he would like to make sure at the meeting the Board members receive information regarding traffic volumes and a full size blueprint. Mr. Ruff stated that the blueprint will be available for review at the next Zoning and Ordinance meeting and that there will be a presentation at that time by Mr. Lapka and the engineer. Mr. Ruge inquired about a map showing the different low income apartment complexes in the area. Mr. Ruff stated that the Planning Office does not keep track of them by income. He will look into the matter with Mr. Emil Winnicker of the Development Office. Mr. Ruge stated that Liberty Church on Michigan Avenue had planted a few trees in the screening and buffering area. Mr. Ruff stated that there was supposed to be some landscaping in the front and side areas, and the fence was added. Mr. Ruge added that the fence was added and five trees were planted along the fence but there is nothing in the front. Mr. Ruge inquired about the used car place that moved in at 1825 E. Michigan Avenue. He is quite certain that the cars are from the old radiator shop around the 2300 block of Michigan Avenue. He realizes that they are redeveloping and building a new cement block building but hopes that there will be adequate screening and buffering to the north against the residential property. He inquired about the use of the property. Mr. Ruff stated that he will have Ms. Stachowiak give him a call with an update on the situation. Ms. Patrick stated that she drives almost everyday by Tony's Party Store on the corner of Cedar and Miller Streets and that it has been a couple of years since their request. Finally, their building is being built. Ms. Patrick stated across the street from her home is the old Richter's Garden site and that there is an unbelievable amount of dirt that has been brought in to the site. She is not sure if it will be leveled. Mr. Ruff stated that there was a big basement on the lower level that was filled. The Planning Office had reserved the right to require additional landscaping on the east side because of some grade changes and was not sure of the appearances. The Planning Office wanted to be sure that there was adequate buffering to the first house east of the site. Ms. Patrick stated there are two buildings under construction on Miller Road, east of the AT&T Broadband building, and that she was confused about which one will be the new fire station. She inquired about the location of the new fire station. Mr. Ruff stated that the building closest to Aurelius would be an engineering office building. Tetra Tech is an engineering corporation in Lansing but has offices around the state of Michigan. They are consolidating all their PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 2002 Page 7 offices in the City of Lansing. They are currently leasing in an older office development on Long Blvd. and are now building their own office building with which they will bring in the their staff from all the other offices. The development that is closer to the cable company is where the new fire station will be located. Ms. Foster inquired about PRD-1-2002 presentation. She thought the presentation would be given today. Because the Urban Development Committee meets the same day as the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, she will not have an opportunity to see the presentation. She has concerns with what appears to be leveling of the site. It seems that the topography on the site has not been reviewed and all the vegetation has been destroyed. If possible, she would like to see the blueprint of the site and then give her comments. Mr. Ruff stated at the next Planning Board meeting on December 3rd, there would be an opportunity for a presentation before the entire Board and that he would like to make sure the developer or the representative has ample opportunity to make a presentation to the Board. Mr. Tom Lapka, Attorney representing Sterling Development Group, 605 S. Capitol Avenue, stated that they would be happy to arrive an hour earlier on the day of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and give a presentation to any of the Board members before the Urban Development Committee meeting begins. If given advance notice, they could do a presentation at 3:00 p.m. and have available full size sheets, pictures and other information regarding the site. They could also address the concerns of area residents. There was a discussion about having a presentation around 5:30 p.m. during the Urban Development Committee meeting. Mr. Ruff gave the suggestion to Mr. Lapka. Mr. Lapka stated that if they were on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee agenda first, they could give a presentation and address any questions the Committee may have. From there, they could attend the Urban Development Committee meeting and give the Committee a presentation. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to obtain a copy of the updated Sign Ordinance. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.11 1902.wpd Approved as written 1-7-03 Draft to Clerk December 30,2002 Approved January 7,2003 To Clerk January 8,2003 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, December 3, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:OOp.m. by Ms. Foster, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Foster, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Frederick. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Frederick. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). Mr. Ruff stated that the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be held on January 15, 2003. He also stated a case that is pending under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore, will be moved out of Committee with a request for it to be addressed at the Committee of the Whole. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. A packet of information regarding the Arbors at Georgetown Development was given to each of the Board members. It addresses a lot of the questions the Board members had regarding the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a copy has been given to both cooperatives, who have in turn distributed the information to their residents. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-10-2002, 2621 N. Grand River Avenue, Storage Yard in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Pryer's Towing, L.L.C. to permit a storage yard for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 2 towed vehicles at 2621 N. Grand River Avenue. Storage yards are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Dave Schneider, one of the owners of Pryer's Towing located at 2416 W. Willow, stated that they are a new company and are looking at purchasing the land which they are currently renting. As it stands, all the company is able to do is tow vehicles from place to place and not store the vehicles on site. As the diagram shows, there will not be a problem with visibility from the road with the cars parked on the site. Most vehicles will not stay long on the site. It is not a salvage yard by any means and the company does not get paid until the vehicles are moved for the insurance companies. There is an incentive to move the cars and the company wants to get them off the lot as soon as possible. The insurance companies are pretty quick to come get the vehicles because they do not want to pay for storage or daily fees. There is a period of time around 5:30 p.m. when accidents happen or vehicles die and the vehicles have to be stored on site. This is what the company is looking for so they can become a full service towing company. The company is relatively new and their intentions are to build a good, strong and reputable company in the Lansing area. The company would not be buying if they did not have long term plans. In regards to the storage, A-1 has an outside storage permit and they are a self storage facility. This company extends further west of their lot and they can be seen from Grand River without screening. The company does not have a problem with adding screening. Currently, there is outside storage allowed in the area. To the east of the property is Hitches and More who are allowed storage of trailers. The company is not asking for anything out of the ordinary for that area and believes it is a good site for both the company and also the City for towing services. Mr. Ruff inquired about what happens if a vehicle owner is involved in an accident and does not have insurance. The vehicle owner gets ticketed for not having insurance and the towing company has the car. What happens? Mr. Schneider stated that the company goes through a process. Eaton County has a process for abandoned vehicles that stay on the lot for 20 days. Eaton County will process the paperwork and the company will dispose of the vehicle as quickly as possible as they have no reason to keep the vehicles on the lot. If the owner does not come back within the 20 days, the vehicles are taken to the scrap yard. Ms. Keene inquired about companies surrounding the property. Mr. Schneider stated to the east is a driveway that runs back to the storage facility, self storage being contained in buildings. However, they must have an outside storage permit because of the vehicles. Behind the property is a self storage facility with a permit to store vehicles. Their lot PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 3 actually extends further west. To the west is an open lot approximately 150 feet with an unfinished structure and possibly a commercial lot. Further to the east beyond the driveway is Hitches and More, located on the corner of Martin Luther King Blvd. and Grand River. Hitches and More currently stores trailers on their lot. Ms. Keene inquired about the type of business directly across the street. Mr. Schneider stated that the Admiral gas station is directly across the street and to the east of the Admiral gas station is the new Frankenburger's Grill restaurant. To the west of Admiral is what used to be Tony's restaurant. It was demolished a few days ago. Further west after the unfinished structure is a 3 or 4 plex house. It remains vacant and is up for sale as commercial property. Further west would be trees and then the river. Ms. Keene inquired about the business hours of the company and if they were a 24 hour operation. Mr. Schneider stated as far as a tow service, it is a 24 hour operation. The normal office hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. They have drivers, including Tony (another owner of Pryer's Towing), who will take a truck home with them for when calls are received during the middle of the night. Mr. McConnell inquired about the storage fees charged. Mr. Schneider stated that the normal rate for the City was between $15.00 to $30.00 per day. Generally, insurance companies are the cases in which the vehicles are towed to the lot and they have an incentive to pick up their cars within a few days. Mr. McConnell inquired as to whether Mr. Schneider and his partners have their fees set. Mr. Tony Pryer stated that the company's normal storage rates for Eaton County calls or regular customer calls currently are $15.00 per day. If the company becomes a Class A towing company for the City and do police rotation calls for the Lansing Police Department (LPD), the company would be mandated to charge only $12.00 per day. The company would do that for those calls. The company is working with Dewitt and Lansing Townships to be on their rotation as well. The company is currently on Eaton County rotation and is not mandated by them. In this case, the company charges Eaton County $15.00 per day. If the price were to increase, it would probably be in a couple of years depending on how much storage takes place on the lot and how much room is needed. Mr. McConnell inquired about a comment made by Mr. Schneider regarding a vehicle stored at the lot in the storage facility that would become scrap after 20 days. He gave the example of a nice vehicle, towed after a sporting event and the person was out of town, and could not get back to the lot to pick up the vehicle within the 20 day period. What is the company's policy in regards to this type of situation? Mr. Pryer stated that 10 days after a vehicle was towed to the lot, whether it was towed from Eaton County or LPD, the police department will file paperwork with the Secretary of State to basically take possession of the vehicle. Ten days after the vehicle has been on the lot, the company needs to contact the jurisdiction and inform them that the vehicle is still on the lot or the jurisdiction contacts the company. Then there is a 21 day period in which a form is sent to the last registered owner explaining where the vehicle is stored and that they have 21 days PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 4 in which to retrieve the vehicle. If the vehicle is not retrieved within the 21 days, an extra 10 day grace period is given. If the person does not contact the City, State, or County, then the vehicle becomes property of the company. The company would then take the vehicle to a salvage yard or to another location for auction. Currently, the company takes the vehicles directly to a salvage yard. The company is not looking to have a salvage yard but to have an isolated storage unit or storage area for vehicles. Maybe long term in a different county or city, the company will open a salvage yard if that many vehicles are received. Mr. Ruge stated that he had been out to the facility and that it looked like the front fence is pretty close to the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Pryer inquired about the location of the fence (north, south, east or west). Mr. Ruge stated that it would be the north fence along Grand River. Mr. Ruge inquired about a sidewalk and if there was one between the fence and the street. Mr. Pryer stated that on the west side there is a sidewalk approximately 4.5 to 5 feet from the fence line straight forward to the north. To the east, the road was widened a couple of years ago and the sidewalk was eliminated. Now there is only asphalt. Potentially, there could be a sidewalk there. He was not sure if it would be done later by the City. Mr. Schneider stated that at the widest it is 5 feet and tapers down from when the road was widened. Since the road was redone, it was never fixed the way it was supposed to be. Going west to east is 5 feet and it starts to narrow down towards the storage unit. Mr. Ruge inquired about the 5 feet and if it was to the curb or to the sidewalk. Mr. Pryer stated that it is to the sidewalk. Mr. Pryer stated that in the diagram it shows 5 feet straight across because there is no sidewalk currently on the east side. If a sidewalk would be redeveloped, it would probably be brought in closer to the fence. Mr. Pryer stated that the company would come inside of the fence, if needed, to create the buffer necessary to comply with the code. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would need to be done and that the buffer area begins at the property line, to a depth of 8- feet. She also stated that the property line is further in from the sidewalk and that the company would need to find out where it is. Ms. Foster inquired about the landscaping and what type of things the company would do. Mr. Pryer stated that there are arborvitae, which are a tall greenery and grow anywhere from 10 to 27 feet in height. This would create a huge buffer and no one would be able to see behind them. They grow together very well. There are other smaller bushes (i.e. burning bushes). Ms. Foster stated that there is asphalt and concrete but no shade trees. She inquired about shade trees being planted instead of arborvitae. Mr. Pryor stated that there are no shade trees on the lot. Mr. Schneider stated that this was the proposed landscaping and that anything was possible. Mr. Pryor stated that the landscaping could be altered in any way. Ms. Stachowaik stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 tree for every 30 linear feet of frontage, with a minimum starting size of 2.5 inch caliper. Ms. Foster stated that this is a concern and that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 5 there needs to be shade in this area. Mr. Pryor stated that the reason why he did this was because Planning was asking for the company to create a buffer to where no one could see in. A shade tree will grow tall and people will be able to see around the trunk. With an arborvitae, no one will be able to see through it. Ms. Foster stated that the idea is also to reduce temperatures as well as create buffering. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Ms. Foster referred SLU-10-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. B. Z-17-2002, 927 E. North Street, "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Maranatha Assemblies of God Church to rezone the property at 927 E. North Street, more specifically described as: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Part of Vacated Alley Described as Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Lot 14, Thence North 3.96 Feet, East 132 Feet, South 3.96 Feet, West 132 Feet to the point of beginning, Replat of Block 3 of Ballards Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the construction of a new church building on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about parking and if the church used the parking lot at the Union Hall on Sunday. Ms. Stachowiak stated that yes, they do use it and the Planning Office has a letter from the owners of the Union Hall giving the church permission to use their parking lot. Mr. Ruge inquired about the new building and if it would have the same foot print as the old building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office does not have plans for the new building but the applicant is in the audience and could possibly answer that question. David Bordago, representative of Maranatha Church, stated that the new church would be in the same location as the old church. Ms. Foster inquired about the new structure and if it would be larger or the same foot print as the old building. Mr. Bordago stated that to go larger, the church could only build upward because of the parking issue. The church would like to build a larger footprint, if permitted. If not, the church could build upward. Ms. Foster inquired about the ordinance requirement for vegetation in the parking lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no vegetation required PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 6 within the parking lot, and that the only requirement would be for the frontage and to screen parking lots from neighboring residential properties. Mr. Ruge inquired about the rezoning to "D-1" and if there would be requirements for screening and buffering. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the rezoning automatically triggers landscaping. Mr. Ruge stated that the edge of the parking lot, the west edge, is quite close to a house next door. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is also an issue with the aisle way. It does not come close to meeting the City's requirements, even for a one way. There may have to be some reconfiguring of the parking lot. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Ms. Foster referred Z-17-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, scheduled to meet on January 15, 2003. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of November 5, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). The minutes of November 5, 2002 were PAGE 5, SECOND PARAGRAPH, LINE 24, REMOVE "NATIONAL", ADD THE WORDS "MODEL ENERGY." APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of November 19, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of November 19, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-16-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District Mr. Ruge stated that Z-16-2002 was tabled to allow PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 7 additional time to review the information. b. NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status Mr. Ruge stated that NCU-7-2002 was tabled to allow additional time to receive and review additional information. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend that NCU-7-2002 be moved to the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). C. NCU-8-02, 3161318 W. Saginaw Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting a Class "A" nonconforming status to increase the number of bedrooms in the existing 4- unit residential structure at 316/318 W. Saginaw Street. There are currently 4, 1-bedroom residential units in the existing structure. The applicant intends to convert the attics in the two second story units to bedrooms. This would increase these existing one-bedroom units to two bedrooms, which results in an expansion of an existing nonconformity. According to the applicant, the previous owner of the property has already completed much of the work to convert the attics to living space. The cost of this work was below the 35 percent ($20,300) cap on the amount of money that can be put into a nonconforming structure. According to the Assessor's records, the valuation of the structure at 316/318 W. Saginaw Street is $58,000. The total amount of money that would be put into the structure to make the conversion is approximately $18,000. Therefore, the dollar value of the work is not the issue with this request. The purpose of the Class A is to permit the expansion of an existing nonconformity. Mr. Ruge stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee felt bad for the applicant, but that it did not seem like the right thing to do to increase density in an area where the existing density is less. Ms. Cordill stated that the request ran counter to the required lot area per bedrooms. There are currently more units in the area than what there should be for the zoning. Given the ordinance requirements, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee had no other choice. It would have set a poor precedent. Ms. Foster inquired about the density of the area and if the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 8 City was heading towards a lower density. Ms. Stachowiak stated that for this area, the master plan reflects moderate density, residential, 6 to 20 units per acre and that it is zoned "C" Residential which permits up to 2 units. Currently, there are 4 units in the subject building. Ms. Foster inquired about the limit for the bedrooms of each unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated there is no limit. If it were a 2 unit, the number of bedrooms would be determined by the lot size. In this case, it is nonconforming for the number of units, not necessarily the bedrooms. However, by adding more bedrooms, it increases the intensity of the nonconformity. Currently, there are four 1 bedroom units. The applicant would like to have two 1 bedroom units and two 2 bedroom units. Another issue is increasing parking on the site. Ms. Foster stated that generally the City would like to see more density and that it is on the main line where the buses travel. Ms. Cordill stated that it is not a redevelopment where there would be a target of a greater density. The applicant can expand the living area but with the additional bedrooms there could be more people living at that apartment. There is a place for greater density but this is not the place for it. Mr. McConnell inquired about a denial for the request and if a City official would inspect the duplex. Ms. Stachowiak stated that because it is a rental unit it would have to be inspected periodically by the Code Compliance Division. Delores Fuller, who is a Code Compliance Officer for this area, is familiar with this case. When she did an inspection and had seen that the attics were being converted to bedrooms, a red flag went up and that is why this request has come before the Board. In the report it states that the previous owner had done most of the work of converting the attic space. When the inspector went through, the current owner applied for a building permit and was not able to have one issued because the number of bedrooms could not be increased. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend denial of NCU-8-02, 316/318 W. Saginaw Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status. Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . .Ave Cordill. . . Ave Patrick . . Ave McConnell . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 9 d. NCU-9-2002, 433 S. Magnolia, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status This is a request by Little Rock Baptist Church, 433 S. Magnolia, Lansing, MI. for Class "A" Nonconforming Status. The church is nonconforming as it is located on a site that is less than two (2) acres in size, does not have frontage on a major or minor arterial, does not comply with the required front yard setbacks and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to add a second story addition to this nonconforming building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to allow for the extension and restoration of the nonconforming church building at 433 S. Magnolia. This is not a matter of rezoning. Mr. Ruge stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee was concerned about receiveing input from the neighborhood since this would be a major change to the church. The church has been around since 1941 and is actually like a basement of a church that never had the first floor built. It is like a foundation with a roof. The Committee wanted to receive feedback from the neighborhood regarding parking, noise, etc. and decided to table NCU-9- 2002. Next meeting, Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Ms. Patrick stated that there is still work that needs to be done before the CIP can be presented to the Board for discussion after the first of the year. The Committee's comments are listed on page 2 of the report. The Committee's view point was that the Board should try to stay focused on some of the big picture items. One thing that would be helpful to know is how much money in the CIP proposed plan would be going towards various categories (i.e. Parks and Recreation, roads). A simple pie chart would be adequate to display these figures or percentages. The next comment would be to include a year-to-year comparison and the Committee would rely on Planning Staff to decide how many years would be shown. Maybe compare last year to this year's proposed funding for the various categories. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 10 The third comment was that some priority should be given to paving dirt roads in the City, especially on streets where there are residential developments. There is no indication of whether or not it should be curbed and guttered. This should be reviewed at the time when the City decides their street work for the year. The Committee recommended approval of projects which facilitate development in accordance with the Master Plan and the Housing Market Study. The Committee would consider recommending denial of the requests that do not implement or induce desirable developments of single family homes. The Committee discussed being pro-active about the safety of pedestrians in the City and non-motorized traffic along transportation corridors. An out of city example was used. At the Planning Board meeting it was discussed about how Chandler Road was not safe without sidewalks for the pedestrians. There may be streets in the Lansing area that as they are developed, they should be reviewed (i.e. Aurelius Road). The Committee had inquired about energy management and there was no information available at that time regarding the parking ramps. The Committee had inquired about the Waste Water treatment plant. There seems to be somewhat of a barrier to newcomers feeling that there is a welcome community as they pass the City. It turns out it is an East Lansing facility, located under the 1-496 roadway near downtown. It seems that the secondary tertiary treatment is not working very well there. Strong odors are getting stronger. She did not know what the City could do and if the plant is the appropriate place to review. One of the goals, as the plan stated, is to remove barriers to economic development. The Committee thought that this might be something the City would want to discuss with East Lansing. In Committee, Sterling Development gave a very brief presentation and one of the Committee members asked that in the next presentation the Committee be shown photos of previous developments that are under the management of Sterling Development (i.e. pictures of models that are intended to be built or have been built in other places). The Committee would like to see how well these models have been managed in a visual way. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 11 Next meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Ruge, Acting a. NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting the Class "A" nonconforming status to allow the construction of a 16' x 40' addition to the front of the church for the primary purpose of making the church handicapped accessible. The proposed addition will also provide for a first floor restroom and classroom. Currently, the only way for a wheelchair bound person to get into the church or once in, to use the restroom, is to be carried. Based upon Section 1294.02(c) of the Zoning Code, the property maintains a "Class B, Group 3" Nonconformity status. The church was constructed prior to the present Ordinance that was adopted in 1983 which requires a minimum lot size of two acres and frontage on a major or minor arterial for churches in the "B" Residential zoning district. The church is also nonconforming for setback purposes and for parking. As a "Class B, Group 3 Nonconformity", restoration costs are limited to 35% of the fair market value of the structure and are not allowed to expand. The applicant is, therefore, requesting Class A Nonconforming status to allow an addition onto the front of the existing church. A variance for the new setbacks was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA 3729.02) on November 14, 2002. This is not a matter of rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Foster stated that from the drawing, it looks like there will be a brick wall to cover the ramp. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a note was left by Mr. Green that there will be one adjustment to the brick wall. The wall will be cut down so that it did not overpower the appearance. Mr. Clarence Greene, resident of 3325 Continental Drive, Deacon and Board Member of Christ Temple Church, stated that the Church met with their general contractor on Monday. They received the drawings a few weeks prior, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 12 the church was not happy with the brick extending from the line of the church all the way out to the end of the ramp. The general contractor agreed with the church that is was unnecessary to have brick all that way. The architect had drawn the wall. The wall was intended to hide the ramp from view, however, it would also contribute to the problem that the church was currently trying to fix (i.e. visibility coming out of the driveway). The wall will only be as high as the ramp itself. There will be a vinyl fence across the front so the brick will not extend beyond that. The church wants the least impact possible on visibility coming out of the main drive. Mr. Ruff inquired about the slope of the ramp and if the fence would be level or will it follow the slope of the ramp. Mr. Greene stated that there will not be an additional wall. The ramp will have a vinyl covering in front so there will only be the ramp itself. There will not be an additional structure added to the ramp. Mr. Ruff stated that the wall shows a stone look to the facade and inquired about if this would be placed on the building itself. Mr. Greene said "yes". Mr. Ruff stated then it would not be stone on the facade of the ramp; it would be vinyl. Mr. Greene stated that is correct. The vinyl would match the top part above the new addition which would be the old part of the roof that runs up to the highest peak. The space between the original peak and the new addition will also be white vinyl. The vinyl will go up the sides of the church, meet at the top and extend across the side in the front. The church will also have some accent lights that will be placed on the inside of the existing fence and shine on the brick and the vinyl to give a nice view at night. Ms. Cordill stated, for clarification, that the church is a stucco building and inquired about the church introducing a new material. Mr. Greene stated that the stucco has been there as long as the church has existed. It has been repaired 3 or 4 times in the last 20 years and the church has still had big pieces of stucco come off. There is block construction behind the stucco and the stucco will not remain attached to the brick. The church has had concerns about the pieces falling down and hurting someone. The church will have the artificial rock in the front of the church with vinyl trim around it. The sides will be redone all the way around the church with vinyl. There church will no longer have the stucco. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 13 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). b. SLU-11-2002, Development in Flood Plain, Kircher Park - NE Corner, Clippert & Kalamazoo Streets The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new restroom/concessions/storage building at Kircher Park. Section 1288.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Land Use permit for development in the floodplain on a parcel that is one-half acre or greater in size. The proposed improvements to the park also include paving the existing gravel parking lot. The paving work is permitted in the floodplain, without a Special Land Use permit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has approved the 266 cubic yards of fill within the 100 year floodplain of the Red Cedar River for the construction of the building. The permit (# 02-33-0004-P) is attached. The building will be placed on an elevated pad above the 100 year flood plain level. The base flood elevation (B.F.E.) Is 836.30 ft. The proposed building will have a finish floor elevation of 837.30 feet, which is one foot above the base flood elevation. Staff recommended approval to construct a new restroom/ concessions/storage building within the 100 year floodplain of the Red Cedar River with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with requirements of the City Engineer and Public Service Department. 2. Compliance with requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of SLU-11-2002, Development in Flood Plain, Kircher Park - NE Corner, Clippert & Kalamazoo Streets. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Ruge, Acting Chair a. NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting the Class "A" nonconforming PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 14 status to allow the construction of a 16' x 40' addition to the front of the church for the primary purpose of making the church handicapped accessible. The proposed addition will also provide for a first floor restroom and classroom. Currently, the only way for a wheelchair bound person to get into the church or once in, to use the restroom, is to be carried. Based upon Section 1294.02(c) of the Zoning Code, the property maintains a "Class B, Group 3" Nonconformity status. The church was constructed prior to the present Ordinance that was adopted in 1983 which requires a minimum lot size of two acres and frontage on a major or minor arterial for churches in the "B" Residential zoning district. The church is also nonconforming for setback purposes and for parking. As a "Class B, Group 3 Nonconformity", restoration costs are limited to 35% of the fair market value of the structure and are not allowed to expand. The applicant is therefore requesting Class A Nonconforming status to allow an addition onto the front of the existing church. A variance for the new setbacks was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA 3729.02) on November 14, 2002. This is not a matter of rezoning. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of NCU-7-2002, 1033 Lenore Street, Request for a Class "A" Nonconforming Status. Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . Ave Foster . .Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Patrick . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. SLU-11-2002, Development in Flood Plain, Kircher Park - NE Corner, Clippert & Kalamazoo Streets The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new restroom/concessions/storage building at Kircher Park. Section 1288.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Land Use permit for development in the floodplain on a parcel that is one-half acre or greater in size. The proposed improvements to the park also include paving the existing gravel parking lot. The paving work is permitted in the floodplain, without a Special Land Use permit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 15 has approved the 266 cubic yards of fill within the 100 year floodplain of the Red Cedar River for the construction of the building. The permit (# 02-33-0004-P) is attached. The building will be placed on an elevated pad above the 100 year flood plain level. The base flood elevation (B.F.E.) Is 836.30 ft. The proposed building will have a finish floor elevation of 837.30 feet, which is one foot above the base flood elevation. Staff recommends approval to construct a new restroom/ concessions/storage building within the 100 year floodplain of the Red Cedar River with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with requirements of the City Engineer and Public Service Department. 2. Compliance with requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality. Ms. Foster stated that she would like for the City to take the lead in constructing energy efficient buildings, beginning with this project. Mr. Ruff stated that this is a seasonal building that is only used during baseball season. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of SLU-11-2002, Development in Flood Plain, Kircher Park - NE Corner, Clippert & Kalamazoo Streets, with the two conditions as recommended by staff and with the added condition that the building comply with the minimum LEED standards, incorporating solar design into the building. Ruae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . .Ave Cordill. . . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Ruff stated that he will be sending Mr. Frederick a get well card from the Planning Board. Mr. Ruff also stated that he has arranged for a tour of the firehouse during the Christmas dinner on December 17, 2002. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 16 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) d. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) e. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) f. Z-16-2002&PRD-1-2002, Georgetown Blvd., Rezoning from"A"Residential District to"C"Residential District and Planned Residential Development 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Work Program - FY 2004 Mr. Ruff reviewed the proposed work program. He stated that the number of building permits has increased over the past year and is expected to continue to increase. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill asked about the City sidewalk repair policy. She said that there are a number of markings on the sidewalk and she is wondering how the City determines what needs to be repaired. Mr. Ruge stated that the plants/trees are being installed at Liberty Christian Church on E. Michigan. Ms. Foster asked about the status of the master plan. Mr. Ruff stated that this would be discussed at the December 17`h meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Cordill stated that there is a sign on the corner at Elias Auto Sales on E. Michigan that appears to be out of compliance with the sign code. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2002 Page 17 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.120302.wpd