Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 Planning Board Apr-June Minutes FINAL APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk June 1,2004 Pg. 8, 1st motion,delete"unanimously(5-1)"and add"(4-2)". Approved June 15,2004 To Clerk July 2,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai. B. Staff attending: Jim Ruff, Sue Stachowiak, Bill Rieske, Doris Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to amend the agenda to include ACT-1 1-2004 as Item D. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing to rezone the vacant property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: North % of Lot 20 & the East % of Lot 19, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN# 33-01-01-17-430-222) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 2 from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Ms. Witherspoon gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff stated that City Council asked the Planning Department to work with the developer to try to include some mixed use in the development. These rezonings are in response to the proposal. The City had a plan for this property and it has taken some time to fulfill as evidenced by the history in the entire Seven Block area. This commercial piece of property had always been the toughest piece. The City looked at getting neighborhood commercial services in this area. There is a special land use classification in the "D-1" Professional Office District that would allow the City to do some sort of neighborhood commercial services if the activity could be generated. The City has not had any qualifying projects under the special land use category. There were many attempts to have a small grocery store in this area. Then the plan was modified to allow for an office development for the larger piece of property. At that time, the corner included a small party/liquor store and a residence to the north. This corner was not part of the 4 acre piece that was subsequently sold under the plan through a development agreement with the current developer. The Seven Block LLC is a development company that is composed of partners to develop the property. From the history there were a number of reiterations to review and during this time other activities were done (i.e. vacation of Washtenaw Street). The City is proceeding with the amended plans. Mr. Ruff stated that there are three applications: 1) rezoning for the City- owned property, 2) rezoning of the adjacent property owned by the developer, 3) opportunity for the City to sell the corner property. Based on the ownership of the larger area, more could be developed with this proposal and it could be a more cohesive development with the other property. The administration has been reacting to existing plans and things that are in hand. One of the things the Seven Block CDC would like for the City to do would be to act upon a clause in the existing agreement that would have the City reclaim the property. The Planning Office has been advised by the City Attorney's office and he has advised the neighborhood organization that this could be a very lengthy process. The City could reclaim the property and end up in litigation for a number of years. One thing that is different with this development proposal is that the property was sold. A performance-type condition was placed on the property. Other than this corner, the rest of the property is in the hands of Seven Block LLC. Ms. Cordill inquired about an ownership map. Mr. Ruff referred to the outline graphic of the proposed development and pointed out the sections owned by the City and Seven Block LLC. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Foster inquired about the land use for office and if it is something that the City would want. Mr. Ruff stated that when the City first entered into the agreement, there were very few office vacancies downtown especially Class A-type vacancy. There is a desire to bring in some of the tenants who were formerly downtown back to the downtown area from the Okemos area. It is more of a priority to refill downtown office buildings that exist at the present time than it is to build a new 150,000 square feet office space outside of the downtown area. This is the reality of it. The original development agreement was specific in having one building at least 40,000 square feet built and having the other building smaller. This is what the proposal included but today that does not necessarily make sense from a staging standpoint. The rezoning is a part of the proposal. If the rezoning and the sale of the land are approved, then the City can proceed with the negotiating the terms of that property and any changes to the existing development. He would prefer to not build the office building at this site for the overall benefit of the downtown area until such time as there is a better saturation of office space. The developer agrees with this because is does not help to build a 150,000 square foot building and not have any tenants. Ms. Foster inquired about the comment from the Transportation Office with the property being closer to MLK Jr. Blvd. and stated that part of the history shows that the developer has not upheld his end as well. Mr. Ruff stated that the timing has not been held to and there have been other desires than to do what is planned. He asked the Board to keep in mind that the market changed a lot in early 2000. Ms. Foster stated that the developer has agreed to develop the site and has not done so because of the circumstances of the market. She would like to see a multi-use building constructed on the developer's property in a better location. If successful, then the City could sell the other portion to continue the process. Mr. Ruff stated that Transportation comments were for the larger office building. Mr. Ruff stated that the building was laid out with a nicer looking fagade. Ms. Foster inquired about the expired agreement and if there was a resolution or a comprehensive plan for the entire block. Mr. Ruff stated that there is a comprehensive plan for the entire Seven Block area except for the corner. Ms. Foster asked if the plan was approved. Mr. Ruff stated that a plan has been approved for the whole Seven Block area. Mr. Ruff stated that the plan is primarily for commercial/office and that is why the zoning went to "D-1" Professional Office. Ms. Cordill inquired about the property being sold to the developer. Mr. Ruff stated that if the rezoning is appropriate, then the property should be sold. He stated that there is a lack of trust by the neighborhood for the COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 4 developer. He can only try to accomplish something that is an improvement. From the basis of the plan, the zoning and sale of the property makes sense. Mr. McConnell stated that the development would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He inquired about approval of this proposal and what would stop it from being placed on hold for 4 to 5 years. Mr. McConnell stated that the process for the sale of the property seems unfair and not equitable. In the eyes of the lay person, this is not good. He inquired about what could be done to ensure that the process is completed (i.e. time constraints). Mr. Frederick stated that the letters from the various neighborhood organizations raised the issue of not having a bid process. When he thought about the bid process and what it is, he realized that in the whole time that he has dealt with this no one has presented a plan to the City that would work. There has been no interest in developing anything and had there been interest, it would be completed by now and everyone would be admiring it. No one else has stepped forward with any plans. The neighborhood organizations do not want to do anything with the property. He believes that there has been a huge amount of oversight with what has been going on. Nothing has ever been hidden and everyone knew what was happening. No one has been excluded and no one has stepped forward. Mr. Frederick stated that who is to say that the Board will not be looking at this proposal 4 to 5 years from now. If recommended for approval and nothing happens, the same thing would happen if it were not recommended for approval at all. The Board can say that there is something wrong with the plan, the plan needs to be reviewed or the plan needs to be redone. This is the same thing as making sure that this proposal fails. If the Board recommends approval, there is a chance for this proposal to succeed. The only way that this proposal will have a chance to succeed is if the Board recommends approval and City Council also approves the request. He is pleased to see some development at this location. He sees a lot of road blocks that have happened and some of the things that were planned were good, others were not. He stated that this proposal seems to fit very well and meets with the overall plans of the City. He supports the request. Mr. Ruff stated that the proposal does not dictate the sale of the property to the developer. This is in response to the developer providing the City with a request to do the plan. The City has done an appraisal and would meet all the Charter requirements for the sale of the land. Ms. Foster inquired about the amount of office space for this area according to the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff stated for this section of the block, there are some residences with 198 foot deep lots (zoned residential) and COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 5 others are zoned for office use. He is preserving the plan on one side where it says "residential is necessary". Ms. Foster inquired about the corner, according to the Master Plan, being zoned for office use. Mr. Ruff stated that is correct. When the plan was presented with the City's property, the developer was able to combine it with their own property to have a larger overall site. Mr. McConnell inquired about who did the appraisal. Mr. Ruff stated the appraisal was done by an independent appraiser. Mr. Czekai stated that the neighborhood organization seems to be up in arms with this request and he does not understand why the organization is opposed to the request. Ms. Cordill stated that when Ms. Monica Zuchowski (President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association) spoke, she was not opposed to the kind of development. When Ms. Cordill reviewed the packet, she did not think that there would be controversy. She thought the plan looked wonderful. The DNA would like to have one bargaining chip because the DNA feels that the other properties to the north and west, which the applicant owns, should be developed. The City has been waiting for something to be built. Mr. Ruff stated that there are letters in the packet from the DNA and Westside Neighborhood Organization. He stated that if the Board reviews the resolution of the Seven Block Citizens District Council, the second paragraph clearly shows that there is not a lot of trust in the developer. Mr. Ruge inquired about a comment in a memorandum from the Westside Neighborhood Association: "In exchange for building a small mixed-use development at the corner in question, Seven Block Development LLC would be rewarded with a revised agreement for the adjacent four-acre site that would remove all deadlines per project completion,..." He asked if it was true. Mr. Ruff stated that the City has not yet come to an agreement on it. The premise on the larger piece of property around it was, from the Administration standpoint, that the City did not want to build, allow, or force to be built another large office building that would sit vacant. If the developer brought in an insurance company from out-of- state or in-state in another location who had 400 employees, he did not think the City would hesitate at approving something like this. Mr. Ruge stated that obviously the developer has not met the agreements under the contract. Right now, downtown Lansing has more than enough office space. He asked about the City taking back the property and trying a different kind of development. He does not foresee office space being needed downtown. With as much as the City has and with Boji building, he does not foresee the City needing much more office space. Mr. Ruff stated that the City would not get all the property because the City did not sell all of the property to the owner. He stated that Seven Block LLC owns COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 6 some of the property but not under the City's agreement. Mr. Ruff stated that it would be very litigious. The development agreement resulted in the sale of the property, and it is not that the property is still in the City's hands and the City is looking at a particular type of development for this site. The City actually sold the property with a clause that stated "if the developer did not perform, the City could reclaim it." It would make it very difficult in the City's opinion to reclaim the property cleanly without some lengthy litigation, not that this has been threatened. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like a great proposal but it leaves a bad taste in his mouth. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, for the sale of the property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lots 21 & 22, also S. % lot 20; Block 10, Bush, Butler and Sparrows Addition property for a mixed use development (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Ms. Foster requested a friendly amendment to have the property held, if possible, in escrow pending project completion so that the property would belong to the City until such time that the project has been completed. Mr. Ruff stated that this may be difficult because of the developer getting financing to build which may require having the title to the property. Mr. McConnell stated that the City could be in the second lien position. Mr. Ruff stated that there may be some way to do it and he would seek the Legal Department advice on how better the City can secure the performance, whether it be a performance bond or some other method. Ms. Foster stated that she would prefer not to have a performance bond because it obviously did not work here. Mr. Ruff stated that the City did not have a performance bond before and that it was a performance condition on the sale. A bond would be something where the developer would have to actually put some money into it. Ms. Foster asked how this would protect the City legally and if the developer could take the City to court and hold this forever. Mr. Ruff stated it is just a matter of how it is written. Mr. Ruff stated that if there is some way to COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 7 effectuate it, than yes. Ms. Foster wanted to add that the property go into escrow pending project completion so that it could be turned over to the developer once the project was completed within 5 years. If nothing happens in 5 years, then the sale does not happen. Mr. Frederick stated that he will not accept the friendly amendment and hat it is time to move along with the proposal, sell the property and get this done. If the City makes conditions, creates differences, and changes things, then all that is being done is delaying the project. The proposal may fail but at least he has supported it, giving it a change to be completed rather than giving it a chance not to be completed. He believes the Board should move ahead, recommend approval and go from there. He suggested letting Mr. Ruff, the legal department and the Planning Department work out all the problems that could likely result. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like to have Mr. Eyde step to the podium to answer some questions. He asked Mr. Eyde if the City would have some stake in the property while the site is being developed (i.e. City maintain some type of escrow, subordinate role, subordinate ownership or second lien position), would this negatively impact Eyde's development. Mr. Eyde stated that the more hinderances you have in your way, the tougher the process is. He stated that the reason why the building was not built was because of a huge detriment and a liability with the corner site. He could not build a building and have people leaving the facility at all hours of the day and night with the environment that was left on the corner of Kalamazoo and Butler Streets. For someone to keep saying that his integrity is questionable, there was no time that there was anything hidden from the City of Lansing during this whole process. He missed great opportunities to build the building even though he did not have tenants. He could not justify it from a business standpoint. Ms. Foster inquired about the agreement between the City and Eyde Company to build a building on the site. Mr. Eyde stated that there were other things that were going to be done and promised him, and Mr. Ruff would know more about why the process was not taken to remove the party store from the market. Initially when Eyde Company made an offer to build a higher building, this would have been the ideal thing to build with the interest of the Capitol Loop. Mr. Eyde felt that by building another majestic building there would have been a great interest in the Capitol Loop. Board of Zoning Appeals did not see it that way so Eyde Company has moved on to design other buildings. He wished that he had built the building because he does not need to go through this aggravation that he is going through tonight with the process. The building that Eyde Company will be building on the corner is a favor to the City that will provide a buffer between the major office building and the neighborhood. This softens the exposure of office to residential. That is how this came about. He already has a tenant for the new building. He will be gambling on the building because the City and the neighborhood would like to see something other than just a big office building. This is the process that he COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES MaV 18, 2004 Page 8 has gone through to get to this point. He does not want any hurdles and stated that there is not reason to have any hurdles. Ms. Witherspoon clarified that with Z-9-2004 and ACT-6-2004 the applicant should be identified as the City of Lansing. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimous) • (5-1 (4-2). C. Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, to rezone the vacant property at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lot 21, 22 & S. % of Lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, from "F" Commercial and "C" Residential Districts to "E-1" Apartment Shop District for the development of the property as mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). D. ACT-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement The City of Lansing Planning Department received a request from the Department of Public Service regarding an Act 285 Review for the relocation of a sewer easement. This review is being conducted pursuant to the Administration Code (sections 208.07 and 208.08), which requires an Act 285 Review for the acquisition and disposition of property. An easement is an interest in property, and is thus subject to review. The City owns, operates and maintains an 8-inch public sanitary sewer through the property 6405 S. Cedar Street. In 1992, Bill Knapp's Corporation constructed a new restaurant on the property, which required the relocation of the sewer. The sewer was rerouted to the east to avoid the building. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 9 A relocation of the sewer required the release of an easement and the acceptance of a new permanent easement. A review of the title history for 6405 S. Cedar St. indicated that the release of the old easement and acceptance of a new easement has not been finalized. The current property owner, David J. Stanton &Associates, and the Department of Public Service both wish to finalize the release and creation of a new permanent easement for the benefit of both parties. The sanitary sewer is the only utility affected by this easement. The owners of the adjacent property, have an interest by way of a private sanitary sewer connection to the public 8 inch sanitary sewer and have agreed to releasing the old easement and accepting the terms of the new easement. The document for creating a new easement and releasing the old one has already been drafted and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Staff recommended approval of the proposal to establish a new easement, describing the sewer as built, and the release of the current easement, for which no public purpose exists. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview. He stated that the 20 foot easement was never recorded. Documents were drawn up to move the easement. There is a pending tenant for the building for a new restaurant at this site. He stated that since the Board was having the Committee of the Whole meeting, he thought that the Board could make a recommendation so that he could ask the Mayor and City Council to authorize the recordation of an easement of City property. He would like to have an official action. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the old and new easements. Ms. Foster inquired about the new location of the sewer and if it was forcing the restaurant back. Mr. Ruff stated that the restaurant was already built and that this was all done in 1992 without approval. The lines are already built and there are no other utilities involved in this. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of ACT-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. ADJOURNMENT - The Committee of the Whole was adjourned. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 10 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.051804.COW.doc Draft to Clerk June 1,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 18, 2004 -. cw_�' Committee of the Whole 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai. B. Staff attending: Jim Ruff, Sue Stachowiak, Bill Rieske, Doris Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to amend the agenda to include ACT-1 1-2004 as Item D. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing to rezone the vacant property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: North '2 of Lot 20 & the East % of Lot 19, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN# 33-01-01-17-430-222) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 2 from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Ms. Witherspoon gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff stated that City Council asked the Planning Department to work with the developer to try to include some mixed use in the development. These rezonings are in response to the proposal. The City had a plan for this property and it has taken some time to fulfill as evidenced by the history in the entire Seven Block area. This commercial piece of property had always been the toughest piece. The City looked at getting neighborhood commercial services in this area. There is a special land use classification in the "D-1" Professional Office District that would allow the City to do some sort of neighborhood commercial services if the activity could be generated. The City has not had any qualifying projects under the special land use category. There were many attempts to have a small grocery store in this area. Then the plan was modified to allow for an office development for the larger piece of property. At that time, the corner included a small party/liquor store and a residence to the north. This corner was not part of the 4 acre piece that was subsequently sold under the plan through a development agreement with the current developer. The Seven Block LLC is a development company that is composed of partners to develop the property. From the history there were a number of reiterations to review and during this time other activities were done (i.e. vacation of Washtenaw Street). The City is proceeding with the amended plans. Mr. Ruff stated that there are three applications: 1) rezoning for the City- owned property, 2) rezoning of the adjacent property owned by the developer, 3) opportunity for the City to sell the corner property. Based on the ownership of the larger area, more could be developed with this proposal and it could be a more cohesive development with the other property. The administration has been reacting to existing plans and things that are in hand. One of the things the Seven Block CDC would like for the City to do would be to act upon a clause in the existing agreement that would have the City reclaim the property. The Planning Office has been advised by the City Attorney's office and he has advised the neighborhood organization that this could be a very lengthy process. The City could reclaim the property and end up in litigation for a number of years. One thing that is different with this development proposal is that the property was sold. A performance-type condition was placed on the property. Other than this corner, the rest of the property is in the hands of Seven Block LLC. Ms. Cordill inquired about an ownership map. Mr. Ruff referred to the outline graphic of the proposed development and pointed out the sections owned by the City and Seven Block LLC. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Foster inquired about the land use for office and if it is something that the City would want. Mr. Ruff stated that when the City first entered into the agreement, there were very few office vacancies downtown especially Class A-type vacancy. There is a desire to bring in some of the tenants who were formerly downtown back to the downtown area from the Okemos area. It is more of a priority to refill downtown office buildings that exist at the present time than it is to build a new 150,000 square feet office space outside of the downtown area. This is the reality of it. The original development agreement was specific in having one building at least 40,000 square feet built and having the other building smaller. This is what the proposal included but today that does not necessarily make sense from a staging standpoint. The rezoning is a part of the proposal. If the rezoning and the sale of the land are approved, then the City can proceed with the negotiating the terms of that property and any changes to the existing development. He would prefer to not build the office building at this site for the overall benefit of the downtown area until such time as there is a better saturation of office space. The developer agrees with this because is does not help to build a 150,000 square foot building and not have any tenants. Ms. Foster inquired about the comment from the Transportation Office with the property being closer to MLK Jr. Blvd. and stated that part of the history shows that the developer has not upheld his end as well. Mr. Ruff stated that the timing has not been held to and there have been other desires than to do what is planned. He asked the Board to keep in mind that the market changed a lot in early 2000. Ms. Foster stated that the developer has agreed to develop the site and has not done so because of the circumstances of the market. She would like to see a multi-use building constructed on the developer's property in a better location. If successful, then the City could sell the other portion to continue the process. Mr. Ruff stated that Transportation comments were for the larger office building. Mr. Ruff stated that the building was laid out with a nicer looking fagade. Ms. Foster inquired about the expired agreement and if there was a resolution or a comprehensive plan for the entire block. Mr. Ruff stated that there is a comprehensive plan for the entire Seven Block area except for the corner. Ms. Foster asked if the plan was approved. Mr. Ruff stated that a plan has been approved for the whole Seven Block area. Mr. Ruff stated that the plan is primarily for commercial/office and that is why the zoning went to "D-1" Professional Office. Ms. Cordill inquired about the property being sold to the developer. Mr. Ruff stated that if the rezoning is appropriate, then the property should be sold. He stated that there is a lack of trust by the neighborhood for the COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 4 developer. He can only try to accomplish something that is an improvement. From the basis of the plan, the zoning and sale of the property makes sense. Mr. McConnell stated that the development would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He inquired about approval of this proposal and what would stop it from being placed on hold for 4 to 5 years. Mr. McConnell stated that the process for the sale of the property seems unfair and not equitable. In the eyes of the lay person, this is not good. He inquired about what could be done to ensure that the process is completed (i.e. time constraints). Mr. Frederick stated that the letters from the various neighborhood organizations raised the issue of not having a bid process. When he thought about the bid process and what it is, he realized that in the whole time that he has dealt with this no one has presented a plan to the City that would work. There has been no interest in developing anything and had there been interest, it would be completed by now and everyone would be admiring it. No one else has stepped forward with any plans. The neighborhood organizations do not want to do anything with the property. He believes that there has been a huge amount of oversight with what has been going on. Nothing has ever been hidden and everyone knew what was happening. No one has been excluded and no one has stepped forward. Mr. Frederick stated that who is to say that the Board will not be looking at this proposal 4 to 5 years from now. If recommended for approval and nothing happens, the same thing would happen if it were not recommended for approval at all. The Board can say that there is something wrong with the plan, the plan needs to be reviewed or the plan needs to be redone. This is the same thing as making sure that this proposal fails. If the Board recommends approval, there is a chance for this proposal to succeed. The only way that this proposal will have a chance to succeed is if the Board recommends approval and City Council also approves the request. He is pleased to see some development at this location. He sees a lot of road blocks that have happened and some of the things that were planned were good, others were not. He stated that this proposal seems to fit very well and meets with the overall plans of the City. He supports the request. Mr. Ruff stated that the proposal does not dictate the sale of the property to the developer. This is in response to the developer providing the City with a request to do the plan. The City has done an appraisal and would meet all the Charter requirements for the sale of the land. Ms. Foster inquired about the amount of office space for this area according to the Master Plan. Mr. Ruff stated for this section of the block, there are some residences with 198 foot deep lots (zoned residential) and COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 5 others are zoned for office use. He is preserving the plan on one side where it says "residential is necessary". Ms. Foster inquired about the corner, according to the Master Plan, being zoned for office use. Mr. Ruff stated that is correct. When the plan was presented with the City's property, the developer was able to combine it with their own property to have a larger overall site. Mr. McConnell inquired about who did the appraisal. Mr. Ruff stated the appraisal was done by an independent appraiser. Mr. Czekai stated that the neighborhood organization seems to be up in arms with this request and he does not understand why the organization is opposed to the request. Ms. Cordill stated that when Ms. Monica Zuchowski (President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association) spoke, she was not opposed to the kind of development. When Ms. Cordill reviewed the packet, she did not think that there would be controversy. She thought the plan looked wonderful. The DNA would like to have one bargaining chip because the DNA feels that the other properties to the north and west, which the applicant owns, should be developed. The City has been waiting for something to be built. Mr. Ruff stated that there are letters in the packet from the DNA and Westside Neighborhood Organization. He stated that if the Board reviews the resolution of the Seven Block Citizens District Council, the second paragraph clearly shows that there is not a lot of trust in the developer. Mr. Ruge inquired about a comment in a memorandum from the Westside Neighborhood Association: "In exchange for building a small mixed-use development at the corner in question, Seven Block Development LLC would be rewarded with a revised agreement for the adjacent four-acre site that would remove all deadlines per project completion,..." He asked if it was true. Mr. Ruff stated that the City has not yet come to an agreement on it. The premise on the larger piece of property around it was, from the Administration standpoint, that the City did not want to build, allow, or force to be built another large office building that would sit vacant. If the developer brought in an insurance company from out-of- state or in-state in another location who had 400 employees, he did not think the City would hesitate at approving something like this. Mr. Ruge stated that obviously the developer has not met the agreements under the contract. Right now, downtown Lansing has more than enough office space. He asked about the City taking back the property and trying a different kind of development. He does not foresee office space being needed downtown. With as much as the City has and with Boji building, he does not foresee the City needing much more office space. Mr. Ruff stated that the City would not get all the property because the City did not sell all of the property to the owner. He stated that Seven Block LLC owns COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 6 some of the property but not under the City's agreement. Mr. Ruff stated that it would be very litigious. The development agreement resulted in the sale of the property, and it is not that the property is still in the City's hands and the City is looking at a particular type of development for this site. The City actually sold the property with a clause that stated "if the developer did not perform, the City could reclaim it." It would make it very difficult in the City's opinion to reclaim the property cleanly without some lengthy litigation, not that this has been threatened. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like a great proposal but it leaves a bad taste in his mouth. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, for the sale of the property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lots 21 & 22, also S. % lot 20; Block 10, Bush, Butler and Sparrows Addition property for a mixed use development (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Ms. Foster requested a friendly amendment to have the property held, if possible, in escrow pending project completion so that the property would belong to the City until such time that the project has been completed. Mr. Ruff stated that this may be difficult because of the developer getting financing to build which may require having the title to the property. Mr. McConnell stated that the City could be in the second lien position. Mr. Ruff stated that there may be some way to do it and he would seek the Legal Department advice on how better the City can secure the performance, whether it be a performance bond or some other method. Ms. Foster stated that she would prefer not to have a performance bond because it obviously did not work here. Mr. Ruff stated that the City did not have a performance bond before and that it was a performance condition on the sale. A bond would be something where the developer would have to actually put some money into it. Ms. Foster asked how this would protect the City legally and if the developer could take the City to court and hold this forever. Mr. Ruff stated it is just a matter of how it is written. Mr. Ruff stated that if there is some way to COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 7 effectuate it, than yes. Ms. Foster wanted to add that the property go into escrow pending project completion so that it could be turned over to the developer once the project was completed within 5 years. If nothing happens in 5 years, then the sale does not happen. Mr. Frederick stated that he will not accept the friendly amendment and hat it is time to move along with the proposal, sell the property and get this done. If the City makes conditions, creates differences, and changes things, then all that is being done is delaying the project. The proposal may fail but at least he has supported it, giving it a change to be completed rather than giving it a chance not to be completed. He believes the Board should move ahead, recommend approval and go from there. He suggested letting Mr. Ruff, the legal department and the Planning Department work out all the problems that could likely result. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like to have Mr. Eyde step to the podium to answer some questions. He asked Mr. Eyde if the City would have some stake in the property while the site is being developed (i.e. City maintain some type of escrow, subordinate role, subordinate ownership or second lien position), would this negatively impact Eyde's development. Mr. Eyde stated that the more hinderances you have in your way, the tougher the process is. He stated that the reason why the building was not built was because of a huge detriment and a liability with the corner site. He could not build a building and have people leaving the facility at all hours of the day and night with the environment that was left on the corner of Kalamazoo and Butler Streets. For someone to keep saying that his integrity is questionable, there was no time that there was anything hidden from the City of Lansing during this whole process. He missed great opportunities to build the building even though he did not have tenants. He could not justify it from a business standpoint. Ms. Foster inquired about the agreement between the City and Eyde Company to build a building on the site. Mr. Eyde stated that there were other things that were going to be done and promised him, and Mr. Ruff would know more about why the process was not taken to remove the party store from the market. Initially when Eyde Company made an offer to build a higher building, this would have been the ideal thing to build with the interest of the Capitol Loop. Mr. Eyde felt that by building another majestic building there would have been a great interest in the Capitol Loop. Board of Zoning Appeals did not see it that way so Eyde Company has moved on to design other buildings. He wished that he had built the building because he does not need to go through this aggravation that he is going through tonight with the process. The building that Eyde Company will be building on the corner is a favor to the City that will provide a buffer between the major office building and the neighborhood. This softens the exposure of office to residential. That is how this came about. He already has a tenant for the new building. He will be gambling on the building because the City and the neighborhood would like to see something other than just a big office building. This is the process that he COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 8 has gone through to get to this point. He does not want any hurdles and stated that there is not reason to have any hurdles. Ms. Witherspoon clarified that with Z-9-2004 and ACT-6-2004 the applicant should be identified as the City of Lansing. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-1). C. Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, to rezone the vacant property at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lot 21, 22 & S. % of Lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, from "F" Commercial and "C" Residential Districts to "E-1" Apartment Shop District for the development of the property as mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). D. ACT-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement The City of Lansing Planning Department received a request from the Department of Public Service regarding an Act 285 Review for the relocation of a sewer easement. This review is being conducted pursuant to the Administration Code (sections 208.07 and 208.08), which requires an Act 285 Review for the acquisition and disposition of property. An easement is an interest in property, and is thus subject to review. The City owns, operates and maintains an 8-inch public sanitary sewer through the property 6405 S. Cedar Street. In 1992, Bill Knapp's Corporation constructed a new restaurant on the property, which required the relocation of the sewer. The sewer was rerouted to the east to avoid the building. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 9 A relocation of the sewer required the release of an easement and the acceptance of a new permanent easement. A review of the title history for 6405 S. Cedar St. indicated that the release of the old easement and acceptance of a new easement has not been finalized. The current property owner, David J. Stanton &Associates, and the Department of Public Service both wish to finalize the release and creation of a new permanent easement for the benefit of both parties. The sanitary sewer is the only utility affected by this easement. The owners of the adjacent property, have an interest by way of a private sanitary sewer connection to the public 8 inch sanitary sewer and have agreed to releasing the old easement and accepting the terms of the new easement. The document for creating a new easement and releasing the old one has already been drafted and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Staff recommended approval of the proposal to establish a new easement, describing the sewer as built, and the release of the current easement, for which no public purpose exists. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview. He stated that the 20 foot easement was never recorded. Documents were drawn up to move the easement. There is a pending tenant for the building for a new restaurant at this site. He stated that since the Board was having the Committee of the Whole meeting, he thought that the Board could make a recommendation so that he could ask the Mayor and City Council to authorize the recordation of an easement of City property. He would like to have an official action. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the old and new easements. Ms. Foster inquired about the new location of the sewer and if it was forcing the restaurant back. Mr. Ruff stated that the restaurant was already built and that this was all done in 1992 without approval. The lines are already built and there are no other utilities involved in this. Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of ACT-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. ADJOURNMENT - The Committee of the Whole was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 10 4. ADJOURNMENT - The Committee of the Whole was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.051804.COW.doc Approved as written 6-15-04 Draft to Clerk June 9,2004 Approved June 15,2004 To Clerk July 2,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske, Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Foster asked Mr. Czekai to introduce himself. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an amended agenda to include ACT-1 1-2004 as Item D under the Committee of the Whole, and will take up Committee Assignments under Item 8, New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. The North East Comprehensive Plan amendment was presented by Ms. Doris Witherspoon. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ron Whitmore, member of Seven Block CDC and Board Member of the Renaissance Neighborhood Association, stated that the rezoning and the sale of the 3 lots on the corner are a bad planning idea and that there are other clear options that the City should give serious consideration. If the City does move forward with the sale of the property, there are several conditions that should be attached to the sale to guarantee that what's being promised would actually be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 2 done. The current owner of the adjacent property has been holding that property hostage since 1999. At the time that the agreement was signed, there was a market for office space at that location and the developer could have built his office building at that time. He stated that the developer signed the agreement with the City knowing that there was a corner lot there. It is not a major crime issue but it was unsightly. Nobody wanted it there. Mr. Whitmore stated that the neighborhood has been very cooperative throughout this process. The latest approved design for the 150,000 square foot building has been approved by the CDC. It is not accurate to say that CDC and the neighborhoods are against development or the developer, or that they are not cooperating or do not want anything at this site. The CDC would like the entire site to be mixed-use, primarily housing, because that is really what the downtown and Greater Lansing area need at this point. The CDC does appreciate the effort that the City and the developer are making to integrate some mixed-use into a larger development. A major concern of the neighborhoods is that the City's plan, in exchange for selling the developer these corner lots, is to remove all deadlines from the agreement with the larger lot. That would mean this site would remain vacant indefinitely. This is a key downtown piece of real estate right along the Capitol Loop. It is considered a black land, a neighborhood that is already heavily revitalized thanks to the Renaissance Zone. The City has leverage as a result of this current developer and it could be used in this case to revise the agreement to make it include housing and other mixed-use development. The neighborhood is concerned about the lack of a bid process. He stated that it was noted earlier that no one else has ever expressed interest in these sites. This is not true. Both market rate and non-profit developers have expressed interest in the entire 4-acre site primarily for housing and mixed-use development. They have not been able to approach the City formally because the City has been looking only at this developer. He stated that there are other options: 1) to make the entire 4-acre site mixed- use; 2) ask the developer to first demonstrate his commitment to mixed-use development on the site by building first on the property that he currently owns; 3) the City could reclaim the property but this could be a lengthy process. He asked the Board to consider opening the proposal to other developers so that their ideas could be submitted for this site. There should be strict and enforced deadlines for completion of the project. The City should have the property held in escrow or have lien options before the sale is completed so that the guidelines and deadlines are followed. The City definitely should not change any of the current terms of the agreement with the developer for allowing further extension of the development. Ms. Ruth Hallman, Genesee Neighborhood Association, stated that she brought up concerns regarding ACT-13-2003 at the other meetings prior to this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 3 one. Hopefully all of the Board members were given a copy of the map that showed what the property was prior to a year ago when it was purchased by Mr. Townsend. She has been doing more research and is trying to come up with other solutions. It is her understanding that there is an ordinance that states all individual properties have to have proper access. At least one of these properties would never have proper access. Two of the properties used to run along the alley from Leitram Street to Bancroft Court. She inquired about the properties located at 521, 519 and 737 Bancroft Court and asked if they are individual or single properties. If there is no driveway, the accessibility is not there that is required by the City. The properties would only be rentals and she inquired about where the people would park. She turned the podium over to Stephanie Whitbeck to further the discussion. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 620 W. Ionia and a member of the Genesee Neighborhood Association (GNA) and the Genesee Neighborhood Design Team, stated that she did look at the property. The neighborhood is concerned about the way the property will be now and in the future. There are often houses in the downtown area that do not have enough parking because there was not enough parking long ago. She stated that 737 Bancroft Court will be isolated without parking. It is her understanding that the current property owner has trespassed and changed this. Maybe the City is trying to reward him with vacating land to give to him which she does not believe is possible. The City could sell the property to him. This is certainly contrary to the City Charter and the Michigan Constitution to give away public property for private purposes. When the GNA looked at 525 Leitram Street, it was not under ownership of the applicant. It has a current driveway without any buffering from someone else's residence. If one looked under the off-street parking requirements, this cannot be done without a special land use and there is not one proposed. Perhaps this will be done piece meal with the vacation of the property. The property cannot be given away to a private owner. The main concern is that over time this will not be conducive to future owners. This is always an important issue for real estate in a planning decision. She stated that the public policy of the City of Lansing is to encourage home ownership and that this proposal does not encourage home ownership for subsequent owners. She recommended that the Board deny the request. Mr. Gene Townsend, applicant for ACT-14-2004 and resident of 732 Genesee Street, stated that he has had a dream for quite a few years to create a model of urban living that would include a central garden space for the enjoyment of people. This would require excluding automobiles from the center of a space surrounded by homes. He found a place at the corner of Leitram Street and Bancroft Court that would accommodate his dream. He purchased three of the homes in this area and his friends have purchased the other three homes. Five of the homes are adjacent to each other and surround this center space. This space used to have a residence which the City demolished a few years ago and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 4 vacated half of the alley that ran through this space. When he encountered and purchased the properties, this space which is the back yard of 521 Leitram Street provided illegal parking because it was in a dirt back yard for the residents at 737 and 738 Bancroft Court, and 521 and 519 Leitram Street. There were a lot of cars parked here, two abandoned vehicles and some abandoned boats and there were two derelict garages. These are private properties with the exception of the 11 feet by 59 feet section of the alley which the City still maintains next door to 521 Leitram Street. After reviewing some parking ordinances at City Hall and inquiring about permits, he went about converting what was essentially the back yard of 521 Leitram Street to the side yard of 737 Bancroft Court. He owned both residences and converted those yards into a garden space. He provided parking for those cars that parked in the back yard in the driveways of 737 Bancroft Court and 519 and 521 Leitram Street. He did this with a vision of creating a central common space for the comfort and safety of the residents. If one can imagine a play space for kids with four kitchen windows facing it, he believes that this was a good model for creating home ownership in the City. These homes were all rentals at the time and the ones that are now occupied are owner occupied. The rest will be owner occupied as the renovations are being done. The Planning Department asked him to find some solutions to the regulatory issues. In working through the department and Committee, an idea was presented for creating a condominium association that would have a master deed for four of the properties. It would include a condominium association that would provide for the maintenance of the properties and the common space. Another aspect would be conveyance of the 11 foot by 59 foot alley section, by license agreement, to this condominium association to provide two parking spaces. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — (Minutes will be presented for consideration at a later date.) B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-2-2004, 1400 Block, William St. Lots 18 & 19, Special Land Use Permit - Gas Regulator Facility This is a request by the Consumers Energy Company, for a Special Land Use permit to construct a gas regulator facility on the property located on the north side of William St. in the 1400 Block, between Olds and Max Streets. The property PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 5 consists of lots 18 & 19, of Block 2, of Stebbins-Moore replat, City of Lansing, (parcel # 33-01-01-20-203-092). The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits public utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of SLU-2-2004, subject to the following: 1. The service drive will be oriented to the side of the property; 2. Access to the site will continue to be from the shared drive, if an easement for shared access currently exists, and the drive will be paved unless the neighboring property owner provides written objection to such paving; 3. The parking pad and turn-around to be constructed in accordance with one of the following methods: a. Built of a permeable material such as `Grasspave' or comparable that supports a grass surface; or b. Located toward the rear property line, designed to not be visible from the street, and built of an impermeable surface material; 4. All above ground facilities to be completely screened from the street with evergreen shrubs and/or conifer trees; 5. The mature tree in the front yard to be preserved and the root ball to be protected during construction with fencing along the drip edge; 6. The lawn and vegetation be properly maintained, including grass cutting at sufficient frequency to achieve a neat and orderly appearance at all times. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant utilize the existing approach; 2. The parking, drive and turn-around be constructed of grass-crete; 3. All above ground facilities be completely screened from the street with vinyl fencing and 2-3 evergreen shrubs; 4. The mature trees in the front yard be preserved and the root ball protected during construction with fencing along the drip edge; and 5. The lawn and vegetation be properly maintained, including grass cutting at sufficient frequency to achieve a neat and orderly appearance at all times; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 6 and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Ms. Cordill asked if there was any discussion regarding the longevity of the structure or how long Consumers Energy intended to have this facility. Mr. Chris Thelen of Consumers Energy stated that this would be a permanent installation to serve the neighborhood south of 1-496 and that it is an upgrade to the existing services. Consumers Energy is essentially retiring two gas mains that feed the area which are currently located on two bridges over I- 496. This necessitates a need for the new equipment. Ms. Cordill inquired about the new facility ever becoming obsolete or retired for some reason and if a new location was found, would this facility be properly removed. Mr. Thelen stated that it would depend on the characteristics of the neighborhood. This facility specifically serves 268 customers and is a permanent fixture that is a direct benefit to the residents who live in the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-2-2004, 1400 Block, William St. Lots 18 & 19, Special Land Use Permit— Gas Regulator Facility with the following conditions: 1) The applicant utilize the existing approach; 2) The parking, drive and turn-around be constructed of grass- crete; 3) All above ground facilities be completely screened from the street with vinyl fencing and 2-3 evergreen shrubs; 4) The mature trees in the front yard be preserved and the root ball protected during construction with fencing along the drip edge; and 5) The lawn and vegetation be properly maintained, including grass cutting at sufficient frequency to achieve a neat and orderly appearance at all times. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-2-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District Mr. Ruge stated that this item was tabled at the applicant's request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 7 C. Z-3-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Paul Forsberg to rezone the property at 2801 Turner Street, more specifically described as: LOT 3 ASSESSORS PLAT NO 34 REC L 11 P 15, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN#33- 01-01-04-326-211) from 'F' Commercial to 'C' Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing building on the subject property and use it for a duplex. Staff recommended approval of Z-3-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District, and recommended that the applicant obtain formal recording of the Duffy Drain easement on the subject property. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Ms. Cordill inquired about the addition housing an entirely different unit or if there was some overlap with the existing building. Mr. Ruge stated that the existing building will remain. The applicant will eliminate a portion of the addition that is not in very good shape and add two garages to the rear of the property. Then a second unit will be added and be completely separated by the garages. Mr. Ruge stated that from the street the house will look fairly original. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-3-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 8 d. Z-4-2004, Northeast Corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, from "F" Commercial District to "A"' Residential District This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to rezone .30 acres of property at the northeast corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, more specifically described as: The south 100 feet of Lot 38, Floral Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33-01- 01-20-484-002) from 'F' Commercial to 'A' Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to construct 2 single family homes on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of Z-4-2004, Northeast Corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, from "F" Commercial District to "B"' Residential District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Mr. Czekai asked to be recused from Z-4-2004 and Z-7-2004. He stated that his work is a direct affiliation with these organizations as the organization that he is employed by is a potential funding source for these projects. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to accept Mr. Czekai's request to be recused from Z-4-2004 and Z-7-2004. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-4-2004, Northeast Corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, from "F" Commercial District to "B"' Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak stated that six votes are required for a formal recommendation so this request will be forwarded to City Council without a formal recommendation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 9 e. Z-5-2004, 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Houseman Construction to rezone the property at 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, more specifically described as: E 140 FT LOT 14 BATTENFIELD SUB NO 1, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, (PPN# 33-01-05-03-101-271) from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a car wash on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of Z-5-2004, 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-5-2004, 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. SLU-3-2004, 3215 W. Mt. Hope, Telecommunications Facility This is a request by T-Mobile USA, Inc., for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 120-foot, monopole, telecommunications tower at 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. The property is commonly known as Grand Haven Manor and the tower will be located at the south end of the site. The property is zoned "DM-3" Residential District which permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 10 Staff recommended approval of SLU-3-2004, 3215 W. Mt. Hope, Telecommunications Facility, with the following conditions: 1. With the exception of the lease area and the driveway, all mature trees be preserved and the root ball protected during construction; 2. The tower be designed to permit future co-locations; and 3. The tower be designed to not interfere with telemetry communications of local hospitals and emergency services. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. With the exception of the lease area and the driveway, all mature trees be preserved and the root ball protected during construction; 2. The tower be designed to permit future co-locations; and 3. The tower be designed to not interfere with telemetry communications of local hospitals and emergency services. The Committee also recommended that the applicant speak to the owner about the possibility of paving the gravel drive and looping it around the south end of the site so that it could be use as a walking trail for the senior citizens in the area. The motion carried unanimously (2-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that in response to the recommendation there is a letter that she had distributed right before this meeting. The letter is from the owner and leasee of the property. Mr. Danamen, applicant, did correspond with the company regarding the possibility of doing the walking trail. As stated in the letter, the company had considered this as an idea in the past but had some concerns. Essentially the company believes they have made recreational options for the residents. Mr. Danamen has already fulfilled that recommendation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals did approve the variance for a 120 foot high tower. Ms. Cordill inquired about the possibility of adverse health ramifications with having a cell tower in a residential area. Mr. Frederick stated with the latest scientific investigation of cell tower radiation is inclusive. There was no evidence of whether or not it would harm the residents. He stated that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 11 there were several common sense recommendations that were made (i.e. use a microphone ear piece instead of having the phone next to the head). The cell phone towers are so low powered that by the time the radiation reaches the ground it is of no health consequence to ordinary people. If someone climbed the tower, there may be a burn. Mr. Ruff stated that a number of years ago the City looked into cellular towers. There was a video tape discussion on the known health concerns. The concern of having a cell phone constantly on the hip with the battery or having the antenna next to the head was a greater risk than the antennas on top of a pole. The FCC regulates the workers' safety around the towers, and the only place where it identified a concern was directly adjacent to the antennas at the top of the pole. There was also a study done at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee where there is a web site that talks more about health effects. The City has brochures that can be made available. The City was looking at that time to reduce the number of towers and make sure there was less need for towers from an aesthetics standpoint requiring co-location and also to help protect the health industry in Lansing by making sure the frequencies are cleared that are used. The health industry uses a lot of non- regulated or non-licensed frequencies on health monitors within the hospital. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-3-2004, 3215 W. Mt. Hope, Telecommunications Facility. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. g. Z-6-2004, Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Spencer Batten of Universal Building & Property Management, to rezone Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, more specifically described as: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 12 Lots 149 & 150, M. Mitshkun, S. Oak Grove Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN: 33-01-01-05-252-160) from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a duplex on this property. Staff recommended approval of Z-6-2004, Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-6-2004, Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. h. Z-7-2004, 1445 Lyons, from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District This is a request by the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, 1017 W. Lapeer, to rezone the property at 1445 Lyons, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2, Assessors Plat, No. 20, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN# 33-01-01- 22-306-091) from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Staff recommended approval of Z-7-2004, 1445 Lyons, from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 13 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-7-2004, 1445 Lyons, from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak stated that six votes are required for a formal recommendation so this request will be forwarded to City Council without a formal recommendation Next meeting, Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room Mr. Ruff stated that he will meet with Mr. Czekai since he is new to the Board. They will probably meet with the City Attorney's office and potentially the Ethics Board to review procedures. The City strives for not having the appearance of conflict through the Board members and it is important that the City has Board members seated who are interested and active in things that go on in the City. The City has concerns with people who are president or vice president of a neighborhood organization and sit in on the Planning Board. He stated that Planning Office may need to make referral to the City Attorney's office. Mr. Czekai stated that he really appreciates this because he is being overly cautious since he is new to the Board. It is just to be on the safe side. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Act-14-2003, 500 Blk Leitram, Vacate/convey Alley This is a request by Mr. Eugene Townsend, 521 Leitram Street that the City vacate the eastern half of Bancroft Court alley and attach it to his adjoining parcel (PPN 3301-01-17-229-353) at 521 Leitram Street. The applicant filed this request in order to provide off-street parking for 3 properties (519 and 521 Leitram Street, and 737 Bancroft Court) and enhance these parking spots with brick pavers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 14 The Planning Board will consider this matter in accordance with P.A. 285 Public Acts of 1931, as amended. Staff recommended approval of Act-14-2003, 500 Blk Leitram, Vacate/convey Alley with modifications, to grant the applicant's use of the eastern half of the alley through a license agreement, with the following conditions: 1. The western half of the alley (see map) was vacated in 1996. The eastern half has remained a public alley but was often used for private parking. A trash accumulation problem and junk vehicle parking began to occur; 2. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Moderate Density (6 - 20 du/acre) Residential. Its existing and surrounding zoning is the "B" Single Family Residential District; 3. The applicant bases the request on an urban co-housing concept, incorporating the alley in an overall plan for common open and parking areas; 4. Approval by license agreement could support the project, but provide the City with additional assurances and protect the interests of the neighborhood, should problems arise; 5. The license agreement could preserve the City's right of access to the property for utilities purposes, and allow the alley to revert back to the City if the partnership/condominium agreement dissolves, or possibly at the request of one of the future residents; and 6. A condominium agreement could be constructed which includes a master deed for the land, and would provide for owner occupancy of the units, collective open space, on-site parking, maintenance, and would be subject to site plan review by City staff and approval as to form by the City Attorney. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. A condominium agreement be drafted, approved as to form by the City, and executed to consist of the four properties (519 Leitram, 521 Leitram, 737 Bancroft, and 738 Bancroft), open spaces for resident use, and parking spaces located to the north for resident parking. Parking should be limited in number at specified locations. This agreement shall also indicate who will be responsible for the maintenance of public areas to include trash removal, snow plowing, and mowing of grass; 2. The project be subject to Site Plan Review (SPR) for the proposed parking lot and associated landscaping; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 15 3. No expansion or widening of existing curb cut should be undertaken; 4. Landscaping, screening and buffering be provided to screen parking areas from neighboring properties which are not covered by the condo agreement; and 5. The condominium agreement contain provisions which require single family residential use and owner occupancy of each unit, and spell out acceptable forms of owner occupancy (e.g. lease-option, land contract, etc.); and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Rieske clarified that this is a license agreement. It is not a vacation of the alley and not a conveyance of real estate rights. This is a licensed agreement that would provide rights under certain conditions as finalized between the City of Lansing and the applicant. Mr. Ruge stated that he is glad to see this proposal because it takes care of a troubled area in such a way that it does not tear down a couple of houses that were in problem areas. He was concerned with certain aspects of the proposal but these have been addressed very well by the conditions. He supports the request. Mr. Frederick stated that this neighborhood was one of the first ones that he dealt with when he first came on board. When he viewed the property, there were some issues with car chases cutting through the property. Some dead ends were implemented and this did help. Obviously, it took a while but those decisions made a big difference on this piece of property. It have improved dramatically over time. He believes that this is a real good plan and that it really has made a huge difference with the neighborhood. It was pretty shabby when he first saw it and is now making great strides. Ms. Foster believes the neighborhood will be happy. It is beautifully planted. Mr. Ruff thanked Ms. Ruth Hallman and the neighborhood. They have worked diligently over a number of years to improve this neighborhood. This is a small area that had its own issues with cut through traffic and such. The type of improvement or landscape here was desired and yet there was always trouble with having individual owners and trying to make sure there would be access to parking. Ms. Whitbeck pointed out that the agenda reflects a vacation and stated that no one had the opportunity to discuss a license. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 16 Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-14-2003, 500 Bilk Leitram, Vacate/convey Alley. Frederick . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak clarified that the request was a vacation, and that the recommendation was a license agreement. This is why it is different on the agenda. Ms. Cordill stated that in a sense it is a denial of the vacation but in lieu of that it is a license agreement. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 25, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing to rezone the vacant property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: North % of Lot 20 & the East % of Lot 19, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN#33-01-01- 17-430-222) from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Staff recommended approval of Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District In Committee of the Whole, the request to rezone the property was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 17 Frederick . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, for the sale of the property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lots 21 & 22, also S. % lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler and Sparrows Addition property for a mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. Staff recommended approval of ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. In Committee of the Whole, the request to sell the lots was denied (4-2). Mr. Ruge stated that he was bothered with the City negotiating to remove any time lines to the larger piece of property in connection with this request. Originally the property was supposed to be like a neighborhood convenience center and deemed to be not viable. Then there was an office complex, and if Mr. Eyde cannot build it, then it is not viable at this time. He stated that perhaps Mr. Eyde should try something else. He believes that the City should take back the time lines. He will not be supporting the ACT case. Ms. Foster stated that it would be a really good development for this corner and she would support it. However, because the other development has not come to fruition, she would like to have some safety built in, whether it is with a bond or something else, that would not leave the City in the same PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 18 situation as it is currently with the larger property. She will also not be supporting the request. Mr. Czekai inquired about an amendment with Ms. Foster's recommendations. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an amendment to add a bond or escrow so that the City could retain control of the property. Mr. McConnell stated that Mr. Ruff spoke earlier regarding the request, and that he would work with the City attorney to have some language that would include start and finish deadlines. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Czekai's recommendation is to have this included in the motion. Mr. Ruff stated that the ACT 285 request is for authorization to negotiate the sale. He cannot come to any agreement until he is authorized to do so. What has been represented is an idea because of the time frame that the amount of time that the City has had to extend or do other things to try to accommodate is burdensome on something that is for the most part market driven on the building of the office. In an effort to have mixed-use included, which was part of the proposal the City was responding to, if there are conditions or recommendations that the Board has to go along with the ACT 285, he asked the Board to state them so that it can be a consideration. It is still something that has to have a resolution approved by City Council. In the past, he has seen where the Board did not recommend approval on a request especially on things where conditions could be added. Whereas City Council has approved certain things that were in opposition to the Board's recommendation but because the Board did not voice conditions or thing that could make it a better proposal, those things were lacking. He is always looking for input and considering all the input received from the neighborhood as well as from the Board and what City Council resolves to do. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board should not encumber the Planning Department or the City on negotiating this request. He will not accept the amendment. In the past, the Board has made recommendations and he believes this certainly can be done. He believes that the Board needs to stay out of any road blocks on the completion of this project. Mr. Ruff heard the Board say that they would like some kind of guarantee of performance from the applicant. Mr. Ruff will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 19 do everything within his power to do so. He strongly encouraged other Board members to approve the request. Mr. Ruge stated that he could support this request if there was a condition placed upon the sale of the property that any negotiations as part of this property would not relieve the applicant of his time obligations under the original contract concerning the 4-acre property. If the applicant is not able to do this, then have the City pursue reclamation of the property. Ms. Cordill stated that the commitment was to build an office building on the larger area where there is not a market for it. When she made the motion to recommend approval of the sale of the property, it was to simply look at this property not to pull in the other aspects of it. This is the proposal before the Board tonight. Ms. Cordill would not accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Ruff stated all that has been since then is a tolling of the existing agreement and that basically the time frame to build has expired. There has to be some sort of negotiation of the old agreement and a proposal brought to City Council and the Mayor to satisfy the tolling of the agreement. If the tolling allowed the City administration to take any action as to the agreement if desires, that is allowed in the agreement at the end of the time frame. The developer has the same opportunity. Something has to be done and this is the developer's proposal to respond to it. The developer has put together some other things to deal with the property that is partly in question by the rezoning but not entire by the rezoning. Mr. McConnell stated that after hearing everyone's side (i.e. Board members, public, developer, various neighborhood groups and organizations), he will be supporting the request to expound on the project. From the Governor of Michigan who initiated the Hip Cool cities this past year, he believes personally and professionally that this proposal ties into this. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots, with the condition that the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development put into effect, some sort of performance guarantee to ensure that the developer will build the proposed development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 20 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, to rezone the vacant property at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lot 21, 22 & S. % of Lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN# 33-01-01-17-430-222) from "F" Commercial and "C" Residential Districts to "E-1" Apartment Shop District for the development of the property as mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). Staff recommended approval of Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Act-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 21 The City of Lansing Planning Department received a request from the Department of Public Service regarding an Act 285 Review for the relocation of a sewer easement. This review is being conducted pursuant to the Administration Code (sections 208.07 and 208.08), which requires an Act 285 Review for the acquisition and disposition of property. An easement is an interest in property, and is thus subject to review. The City owns, operates and maintains an 8-inch public sanitary sewer through the property 6405 S. Cedar Street. In 1992, Bill Knapp's Corporation constructed a new restaurant on the property, which required the relocation of the sewer. The sewer was rerouted to the east to avoid the building. A relocation of the sewer required the release of an easement and the acceptance of a new permanent easement. A review of the title history for 6405 S. Cedar St. indicated that the release of the old easement and acceptance of a new easement has not been finalized. The current property owner, David J. Stanton &Associates, and the Department of Public Service both wish to finalize the release and creation of a new permanent easement for the benefit of both parties. The sanitary sewer is the only utility affected by this easement. The owners of the adjacent property, have an interest by way of a private sanitary sewer connection to the public 8 inch sanitary sewer and have agreed to releasing the old easement and accepting the terms of the new easement. The document for creating a new easement and releasing the old one has already been drafted and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Staff recommended approval of the proposal to establish a new easement, describing the sewer as built, and the release of the current easement, for which no public purpose exists. Mr. Ruff gave a brief overview. He stated that the 20 foot easement was never recorded. Documents were drawn up to move the easement. There is a pending tenant for the building for a new restaurant at this site. He stated that since the Board was having the Committee of the Whole meeting, he thought that the Board could make a recommendation so PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 22 that he could ask the Mayor and City Council to authorize the recordation of an easement of City property. He would like to have an official action. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the old and new easements. Ms. Foster inquired about the new location of the sewer and if it was forcing the restaurant back. Mr. Ruff stated that the restaurant was already built and that this was all done in 1992 without approval. The lines are already built and there are no other utilities involved in this. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of ACT-11-2004, 6405 S. Cedar Street, Relocation of Sewer Easement: Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager- None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-1 4-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 23 d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19, 2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) g. 201 Jones Street-corner lot with a 6 foot wooden fence against the sidewalk (March 16, 2004) h. 1340 Eureka Street-trash and a junk car in driveway(March 16,2004) i. 200 Clifford Street-2 junk cars (March 16,2004) j. 1830 W.Saginaw-used car lot(April 20,2004) k. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Czekai requested appointment to the Urban Development Committee. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster stated that she met with Ron Whitmore regarding the Butler & Kalamazoo cases. Mr. Ruff stated that as long as you do not receive any information that the other Board members may not have, it is not a problem. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill requested excused absences from both June meeting. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czakie to excuse Ms. Cordill from the June meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). Ms. Cordill stated that the drain culverts are still blocking views in her neighborhood. Mr. McConnell welcomed Mr. Czekai to the Planning Board. Mr. Ruge asked that the Planning Office look in to whether or not there can be an amendment to a motion that is not a "friendly" amendment. Mr. McConnell asked that water be provided at all of the meetings. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that the property at 2702 S. Cedar Street still has not installed its landscaping. Ms. Foster said that there is dirt all over the road from the staging area on Ottawa and Butler. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2004 Page 24 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.051804.doc Draft to Clerk May 24,2004 Approved June 1,2004 To Clerk June 3,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair.. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, Keene. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck regarding Z-2-2004 B. Letter of opposition from Michael and Susan Wey regarding Z-2-2004 C. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association regarding Z-2-2004 D. Fax from Grant Hilts of the REO Town Organization supporting Z-5-2004 E. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 F. Letter of opposition from the Westside Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 G. Letter of opposition from the Reneissance Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 H. Letter of opposition from Seven Block Citizens District Council regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 I. Information from the applicants of Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 2 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-2-2004, 1400 Block, William St. Lots 18 & 19, Special Land Use Permit - Gas Regulator Facility This is a request by the Consumers Energy Company, for a Special Land Use permit to construct a gas regulator facility on the property located on the north side of William St. in the 1400 Block, between Olds and Max Streets. The property consists of lots 18 & 19, of Block 2, of Stebbins- Moore replat, City of Lansing, (parcel # 33-01-01-20-203-092). The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits public utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after roll was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Melody Miller, representative of the Consumers Energy Company, Jackson, MI, stated that the engineer for Consumers Energy has made a model of the site so the Board would have an idea of what the regulator would look like and what it entails. This new regulator site would maintain a natural gas supply to 268 customers who are south of 1-496 and west of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., north of Grand River Avenue and east of N. Olds. Consumers Energy is currently feeding this area through two gas mains that are suspended on bridges. Because there has been quite a bit of corrosion over the years, the company needs to find another way to serve these customers. Ms. Miller introduced Mr. Cliff Janz, Engineer for the project, and Ms. Laura Bell, Designer Technician for the project. She stated that they are available to answer the engineering and technical portion of the Board's questions. Mr. Ruge stated that in this area there are a great deal of industrial properties (i.e. GM), and he inquired about why Consumers chose to place this facility between two residences instead of someplace more industrial. Ms. Bell stated that Consumers did look into placing the regulator on the General Motors property and that there were a couple of sites as options. However, the details were not resolved for Consumers to use GM property. One of the properties was a huge insurance factor that was millions and millions of dollars and Consumers could not do it. The proposed site was brought to their attention and Consumers pursued it. Mr. Ruge inquired about why it had to be this piece of property or if it could be anywhere in this area south of 1-496, west of MLK Jr. Blvd. Mr. Janz stated that Consumers Energy did look at several other sites. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 3 Unfortunately, the only available sites that were vacant are in the residential area. Most of the sites are narrow which would not be consistent with the neighborhoods and would be to close to the homes. He stated that most of the lots in this area are approximately 35 feet wide and this particular lot is a little wider because it is actually a double lot. Consumers believed that this lot would work much better and did not want to create something that was inconsistent with the neighborhood. The above grade piping is approximately 24 to 30 inches above grade and is 2 to 4 inches in diameter. The regulation is within a 4 by 4 aluminum enclosure that is 4 feet in height. This facility is very low profile and is something that would not stick out like a sore thumb. Consumers has made an attempt to landscape and place shrubs around it, and is more than willing to add more if necessary. Ms. Cordill stated that he could bring the model forward and that it may be helpful for the Board to review. Mr. Janz gave an overview of the model. Ms. Cordill inquired about the nature of the facility. Mr. Janz stated that in order for the company to transport gas over long distances, Consumers has to maintain a higher pressure to keep the size of the pipe reasonable, 24 to 36 inches in some cases to pass millions of cubic feet of gas. In distributing gas to a customer, the company does not want high pressures or high volumes of gas within residential neighborhoods. What Consumers does is reduce the pressure and install regulator stations at various locations around the City to reduce the pressure. Consumers lowers the pressure to under 60 pounds per square inch to ensure the gas mains underground within the neighborhoods are maintained below that pressure to deliver gas to the customer. At the meter, the pressure is reduced again to go into the house at 14 inches water power. The new regulator facility reduces the pressure from 170 pounds per square inch in this case. The high pressure main is coming off of Olds Street to the south and Consumers will run the pipe alongside the parking lot of GM to this site and then the pressure will be cut to 60 pounds through the outlet going out of the station into the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill stated that it is a step down process. Mr. Janz stated that was correct. In this case, it is one step. Some of the other facilities have more than one step. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was any noise or odor that would come from the facility under normal operating conditions. Mr. Janz stated that normally there would not be noise or odor. He cannot say that there will be absolutely no noise. Some of the regulation facilities during peak periods (i.e. winter) when larger volumes of gas are being passed, it will create some noise. This is one of the reasons Consumers uses the aluminum enclosure because it helps to deaden the sound and bring it to something that would not be objectionable especially to a neighborhood. This is another reason why Consumers tries to place the facility at the back of the property. The orange markers on the model represent the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 4 corners of the proposed site. The facility would be back as far as it can go without encumbering upon another neighborhood that abuts the property. Ms. Cordill inquired about the sound at the noisiest level and if Mr. Janz had a decimal reading. Mr. Janz stated that it is hard to tell because this is a low volume station. In most cases, there would hardly be any noise. He stated that Consumers is feeding approximately 268 customers and that it is not a high volume station. In this case, Consumers is not taking that much of a pressure cut so there would be no noticeable noise at all. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about when the facility does make noise, would it be like the hum of an air conditioner. Mr. Janz stated that it would probably sound like an air conditioner except without the hum. It would be more like a hiss noise and probably quieter. He is fairly confident in saying that it would not be a problem. Ms. Cordill stated that the reason why the Board was asking is that it is part of the criteria for determining special land use issues. Mr. McConnell stated that the odor was not addressed. Mr. Janz stated that under normal conditions there would not be an odor. The only time Consumers would experience an odor would be if an employee was at the site doing testing, which Consumers is required to do on an annual basis to verify that the over pressure equipment does operate. The employee will blow the relief valve just for a short period of time to make sure that it actually activates when it is needed. This is part of Consumers' standards and is required by the Public Service Commission. If the stag is 8 feet above grade that is so the public does not notice any smell, if there does happen to be a smell. There will be odor coming out of that vent because there is odor put in the natural gas so if there is a leak, it would be noticed. This would be the only time that there would be any smell. If there are some leaky fittings there is a potential for some slight odor. If this does happen, Consumers would expect to receive a leak call and would respond to fix the problem. The company does not want leaks. Mr. Frederick inquired about the upkeep of the property (i.e. grass mowed). Mr. Janz stated that Consumers would take care of the property. Ms. Cordill inquired about the lot dimensions. Mr. Janz stated the lot is 70 feet wide by 116 feet deep. Mr. Ruge inquired about the vegetation on the model plan and if it is the same as the current vegetation on the site. Mr. Janz stated that the model was made to depict exactly what is on the site. The only deviation might be that one tree is a little smaller. There are some small scrub trees to the back of the property and there is some other brush which Consumers intends to clean up. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 5 Mr. McConnell inquired about the shrubs around the piping in the model and asked if these would be added. Mr. Janz stated that the shrubs would be added. The suggestion was to do a little buffering so Consumers created a little landscape berm and is planning on planting shrubs on top of it. He stated that Consumers is open to suggestions. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred SLU-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office This is a request by Larry Brunette to rezone the property at 230 N. Sycamore St., more specifically described as: North 104.2 feet of the West 95 feet of lots 11 & 12, Block 91, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN#33- 01-01-16-156-001) from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office, for the purpose of utilizing the entire building at 230 N. Sycamore Street for offices. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a zoning change and if the property would have sufficient parking for an office use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has quite a bit of land and currently there would not be sufficient parking. The applicant would have the ability to construct more parking on the lot to accommodate the office use and would have to provide 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of usable space in the building. Mr. Ruge inquired if there had been any rezoning of this particular lot in the past. Ms. Stachowiak stated not this particular parcel. There have been other requests and they have been denied. Mr. Larry Brunette, owner of the property, stated that things came about based upon a complaint for violating the Zoning code. He did not purchase the property to renovate it and spent a lot of money on it in order to lease it and then decided to rezone the property. He found this particular building, it was appealing to him and it had potential. He did some investigating through the Zoning office and found that the property was listed as commercial property by a commercial real estate company. The building is only one unit with one kitchen facility. He mentioned that it is not feasible to have a mixed use. When there are office professionals working, they really cannot have residents running around. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 6 He stated that it appears the "D-2" zonings are for multi-units. He reiterated that the request is one unit. He inherited the utilities and stated that they are commercial utilities from Board of Water and Light. The City approved a sign permit that was consistent with the "D-1" Professional Office District. He pulled the necessary mechanical and electrical permits. He even called the Code Compliance office to register the property. When he made changes to things on the property, he called to make sure that he was doing everything by the book. With the parking situation, he stated that there is ample parking. He believes that the property is consistent with the commercial codes and that this is a transitional neighborhood. He stated that all the other corners are zoned as "D-1" Professional Office District. He has a commitment to lease by McCoy Law and United Transportation Union. His tenants like being at this location and he enjoys having them as tenants. He asked if there were copies available of the letters of opposition and why the people were opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that copies were not available at this time and if the he could stop by the office or call she would make sure that he received copies of all the letters. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Brunette was an attorney. Mr. Brunette stated that he is not an attorney. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 618/620 W. Ionia, stated that her residence is a single family, owner occupied home directly across from the proposed site. She clarified that the properties on the other corners are not zoned "D-1" Professional Office District. The surrounding properties are zoned residential. She understands what it is like to have a zoning denied. In 1997, she had put in a request to rezone her home and the home located at 616 W. Ionia and they were denied. Michigan Retailers, located at 235 N. Pine, also requested a rezoning and it was denied. She hopes that the Board will review the report on the surrounding vacant properties and other vacant properties in the downtown area. She provided pictures for the Board. Mr. Richard Wilkins, resident of 309 N. Sycamore, stated that the 200 block of Sycamore is the only buffer that the residents have between full residential and full commercial. Ottawa Street contains all large office buildings. Beginning with the 300 block of Sycamore, one will find residential. His residence was previously owned by an attorney who planned to use the home as part office and part residential. He believes that the request was denied. He would like to keep some buffer in this area. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, stated that the proposed property is right in the midst of her neighborhood. The Board of Directors of the DNA unanimously passed a resolution opposing the request by Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 7 Brunette to rezone the property for the purpose of utilizing the entire building for offices. The building is in a neighborhood that is primarily residential. The DNA has historically opposed zoning change requests which remove housing opportunities permanently from the neighborhood. The DNA values the balance of residential to office to business but must remain vigilant that one interest not damage the other. She stated that Mr. Brunette knew the zoning of the property when he purchased it but has been in violation of the law for many months having the whole building rented for office use. Refusal to follow the law is not a hardship. Mr. Brunette is welcome to the neighborhood if he follows the rules. The DNA asks that the Board deny the request. Ms. Sheila Kathleen McCoy, Attorney for McCoy Law, stated that apparently this is a pretty emotional experience for some of the residents in the area, and that the building is being used in a very passive, unobtrusive manner. It is not true that Mr. Brunette or herself were informed that this property was to be used for a mixed residential/office use. Prior to Mr. Brunette purchasing the property, she contacted the City and was informed that the building could be used commercially or residentially. She made sure that she understood what the purposes were from various conversations. If someone conveyed the wrong information, neither Mr. Brunette nor her should be held at fault for it. There has been a lot of time, money and concern over this whole issue. There is minimal night time and day time activity. At an attorney's office, there are not flocks of people on the site. Mr. Brunette stated that on the contiguous block, three corners are zoned "D-1" and that the area is in transition. The Master Plan for this whole area is residential (i.e. "D-1", "D-2"). There is a lot of construction going on in the area. She stated that no one in the neighborhood has complained, only Ms. Whitbeck. Some of the areas residents stated that they do not mind the property being used this way. In fact, she knows a lot of the people in the area, and that it has been very pleasant experience. There have not been any conflicts. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-3-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Paul Forsberg to rezone the property at 2801 Turner Street, more specifically described as: LOT 3 ASSESSORS PLAT NO 34 REC L 11 P 15, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33-01-01-04-326-211) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 8 from 'F' Commercial to `C' Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing building on the subject property and use it for a duplex. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Planning Office receiving a drawing from the applicant. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the office has not received a drawing and that the applicant has not given much detailed information. The lot is very large, 80 feet wide and almost 300 feet deep. The applicant would have no problems meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Ruge stated that in order to add on to the property and not make it look cobbled up, it will require some sensitivity and he is concerned about it. He inquired about adding on to the building. Mr. Paul Forsberg, resident of 1240 Boycott, stated that he did provide a picture of the finished home but will provide another photo to the Planning Office. When he first contacted the Planning Office he was informed that a photo was not necessary. A few days later he was informed that there was a mistake and that the picture was needed. He dropped off a picture at the Planning Office front desk. He stated that there is not enough traffic to support a commercial building. There are two or three other commercial buildings on Turner Street that are struggling, one of which has changed zoning a couple of times. The property across the street is zoned commercial. The company has been there more than a year and has not yet opened its door. It is a struggle to get along with a commercial project in this area. To turn this area around, he thought about turning the property into a duplex to match the residence next door. It is a little better land use for this area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-3-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-4-2004, Northeast Corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, from "F" Commercial District to "A"' Residential District This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to rezone .30 acres of property at the northeast corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, more specifically described as: The south 100 feet of Lot 38, Floral Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33-01-01-20-484-002) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 9 from 'F' Commercial to 'A' Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to construct 2 single family homes on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Denise Paquette, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and resident of 634 N. Foster, stated that she has a packet of information for the Board members. The property was donated to Habitat for Humanity by Saint Casimir Church with the intent of building two homes. The properties in the general area average in size between 40 to 50 feet by approximately 115 feet. The houses in the neighborhood are modestly sized, well kept, and average between 1,016 to 1 ,600 square feet. The proposed homes would be approximately 1,090 to 1,246 square feet. She believes that the house size is consistent with the neighborhood and that the land use of constructing two homes is also consistent. She stated that in the packet of information there are pictures of the property with different views and information regarding comparison of square footage and foundation size. The homes will be one story. Habitat for Humanity has received approval from the State Historic Preservation Office to build traditional homes on the property. Also included in the packet are renderings of what the homes will look like, site plans, and internal blue prints of the homes. Habitat for Humanity does not build garages but instead will have an 8 foot by 10 foot shed. This is policy. There are very few places in the United States where Habitat for Humanity is allowed to build garages (i.e. Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota). She believes that this is a wonderful neighborhood. There was a donation offered of evergreen trees to plant behind the property to separate it from the church parking lot. She hopes that the zoning issues can be resolved. Ms. Cordill inquired about where the applicant would place the storage shed. Ms. Paquette stated that with the house on Smith Street the shed would be to the back of the property. With the other home, she is not sure at this time. She will look into the matter and report her findings back to the Board. Ms. Roberta Albert, resident of 819 W. Barnes, stated that she has lived in the area for 47 years. She has spoken with many of the neighbors and they are very supportive of this request. The residents are looking forward to the new homes and hope the Board will approve the request. Ms. Ann Andrews, resident of 1712 S. Rundle, stated that she is delighted with the idea of having Habitat for Humanity homes across the street from her residence. She is concerned with the homes not having garages and would like to see some outside storage building. At the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 10 neighborhood meeting, she understood that the Habitat homes would be 1,000 square feet. Her home and two others are 1,400 square feet with garages. She stated that this makes quite a difference in terms of how the proposed property will look from across the street. If there is no storage space, then there are concerns with that. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-4-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. Z-5-2004, 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Houseman Construction to rezone the property at 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, more specifically described as: E 140 FT LOT 14 BATTENFIELD SUB NO 1, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, (PPN# 33-01-05-03-101-271) from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a car wash on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Tom Houseman, of Houseman Construction, Grand Rapids, stated that the company was asked to rezone the property to accommodate the car wash. Currently, the site is the only piece of property on Pennsylvania Avenue in the area that remains zoned as "A" Residential District. The owner would like to construct a car wash on the site and needs the "F" Commercial zoning for this use. This property has been vacant for quite some time and the rezoning opens up all the opportunities for this property. Ms. Janet Walker, Manager of the Pennway Motel located at 5132 S. Pennsylvania Ave., stated that the noise at the motel right now from the Admiral gas station is not good, especially on Tuesday when gas prices are lowered. A car wash could cause the same problems. She has residents who work day and night shifts. Every Wednesday she receives complaints regarding loud music in the middle of the night, she has also been woken up more than once. The traffic situation is terrible with the gas station. On Tuesdays, there are three lanes of traffic on the property and traffic on Pennsylvania Ave. Sometimes the traffic makes it difficult for her to get to the motel. She has also received complaints like this from her residents. In the last few months it has become worse and she PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 11 believes this is why she cannot keep the motel full. She is very concerned about what goes in on this lot. She stated that the restaurant was very quiet and it was very nice there. Mr. John Pavlik, resident of 5104 S. Pennsylvania Ave., stated that he owns the properties next to the proposed site. He is not opposed to the "F" Commercial zoning. However, he is opposed to the drive through car wash at this site. This is the site that is adjacent to the Admiral gas station where people line up for blocks to buy cheap gas and cause major traffic congestion every Tuesday and on other days when gas takes a major increase. The Lansing Police Department (LPD) is very familiar with this problem because they receive complaints every week. Just last week there was a major broad-side accident right in from of the proposed site during one of those traffic jams. He presented pictures to the Board members. He stated that the Planning Office has been a little misinforming on the request for zoning. His recommendation would be for the Board to take their time before making a decision on this rezoning. He stated that the Board needs to review the Traffic Engineer's comments and LPD's traffic records, and also visit the site. There has been a discussion with Carol Wood and Sandy Allen, and they are in support of special use. He is not opposed to the rezoning. On Tuesdays when gas prices are lower, one cannot leave the parking lot and head south. It is very difficult and the center lane which is a turn lane has to be used. What would happen with the car wash is that the situation would be more compound. There would be another line of traffic just to get to the car wash. He asked the Board to place something there for special use. Mr. Ruge asked for information regarding the traffic problems to be presented at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge asked that the applicant revise the information regarding what kind of noise the facility would make. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-5-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. SLU-3-2004, 3215 W. Mt. Hope, Telecommunications Facility This is a request by T-Mobile USA, Inc., for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 120-foot, monopole, telecommunications tower at 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. The property is commonly known as Grand Haven Manor and the tower will be located at the south end of the site. The property is zoned "DM-Y Residential District which permits public/private utility PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 12 facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated that she appreciated the photograph that displayed the appearance of the cell tower from Glasgow Drive and inquired about a photograph showing the location of the cell tower from Grand Haven Manor. Mr. Marc Daneman, representative for T-Mobile, Grand Rapids, stated that he did provide a fairly detailed packet of information. The telecommunications industry has been pretty quiet the past couple of years because of the economy. They are returning to continue the build cycle that was started in 2001-2002. T-Mobile is trying to fill a void in the central/southwest side of the City. There are three sites that he is working on in the City. The proposed site is the only one where he had to build a new tower. The other sites he was able to co-locate. He stated that T- Mobile makes an effort to co-locate whenever possible whether it is an existing tower or with power poles on a Consumers Energy tower. The site is 18 acres and is 1,400 feet from Mt. Hope Ave. The photo shows a simulation of the site from Mt. Hope Ave. as people drive by. The tower will be approximately 235 feet from the nearest residence and more than 250 feet from most of the residences that surround the property. T-Mobile made a particular effort to locate the tower in the most isolated part of the property. The rear portion of the property cannot be developed because of the drains that have already been established. This allows the property owner to make some kind of functional use of the site without creating a significant inconvenience to the neighbors. He believes that T-Mobile has met all of the City's standards. Ms. Karie Woarala, resident of 2406 Bedford Road, stated that her property is adjacent to Grand Haven Manor and that she is opposed to the construction of the tower. When she purchased her home two years ago, one of the main things about the property was the view of the woods in the back. The tower will be visible to the residents on Bedford Street, Glasgow Drive and Cooley Drive. She referenced Item 2 on the application and has concerns with the height of the tower. The tower can be built up to 200 feet or be designed for later additions to increase the height. She stated that the City needs to look at the possibility of the tower being 200 feet. Another concern that she had is the studies addressing the possibility of health concerns with cell towers. When she purchased her home she had plans for raising a family in this neighborhood. In a neighborhood that is filled with families with young children, an elementary school and elderly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 13 residents, there are health concerns. She asked the Board to review this request very carefully. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred SLU-3-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. G. Z-6-2004, Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, from "H" Light Industrial trict to "C" Residential District This is a request by Spencer Batten of Universal Building & Property Management, to rezone Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, more specifically described as: Lots 149 & 150, M. Mitshkun, S. Oak Grove Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN: 33-01-01-05-252-160) from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a duplex on this property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the pending ordinance regarding the union-type architecture. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the public hearing was scheduled for the first meeting in April 2004, which was cancelled. Given the length of tonight's agenda, it was not rescheduled for tonight. The public hearing will be held at the first meeting in June. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-6-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. H. Z-7-2004, 1445 Lyons, from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District This is a request by the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, 1017 W. Lapeer, to rezone the property at 1445 Lyons, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2, Assessors Plat, No. 20, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN# 33-01-01-22-306-091) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 14 from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Wendy Klein, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (GLHC) located at 1017 W. Lapeer, stated that the GLHC proposes the rezoning of 1445 Lyons Street. She does have pictures available. The GLHC will rehabilitate the home and sell it to people who are in the low to moderate income category. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-7-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. I.-K. Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing to rezone the vacant property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: North % of Lot 20 & the East % of Lot 19, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN# 33-01-01-17-430-222) from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, for the sale of the property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lots 21 & 22, also S. % lot 20; Block 10, Bush, Butler and Sparrows Addition property for a mixed use development (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 15 Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, to rezone the vacant property at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lot 21, 22 & S. % of Lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN#33-01-01-17-430-222) from "F" Commercial and "C" Residential Districts to "E-1" Apartment Shop District for the development of the property as mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview of the three cases. Mr. Sam Eyde, of Eyde Company, stated that the proposed project will be located at the northwest corner of Kalamazoo and Butler Streets, with the building situated to provide a high visibility for its unique curb appeal. The building will consist of two stories. The main level will be 10,000 square feet of retail and the upper level will be 10,000 square feet of multi- family with 1 and 2 bedroom units. The concept will consist of an old downtown design to provide transition from the existing residential neighborhood to the future three story office building on the adjacent property. The landscape architect will work with Jim Ruff to develop a landscaping design that will provide a sense of maturity for the location. Mr. Eyde asked the Planning Board to approve Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004. He stated that once the rezoning and the corner lot is acquired, it will take 30 days to provide a revised site plan of the entire Seven Block development and begin construction. Mr. Ruge inquired about the photograph and if it showed the completed project. Mr. Eyde stated that it was the building on the corner of Butler and Kalamazoo Streets. Mr. Ruge inquired if the business was successful where would the addition be added. Mr. Eyde stated that another two story building would be added and would match the first building. Mr. McConnell asked if there would be 10 lofts on the upper level and how many retail outlets on the lower level. Mr. Eyde stated that there is 10,000 square feet, and depending on the tenant, it could be separated. Mr. McConnell inquired about marketing these lofts and what type of people the applicant would like to have as tenants. Mr. Eyde stated that he would like to have young professionals or anyone who would like to work in this area or anyone living in the downtown area who would like to walk to work. Parking will be contained to the rear of the building. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 16 McConnell stated that this ties in with the Governor's Initiative and the Mayor's Initiative on Hip-Cool cities. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that the Planning Board has received a letter from the DNA Board regarding a resolution passed endorsing the Seven Block Citizens District Council opposing the rezoning and sale of the lots on the corner of W. Kalamazoo and South Butler. This area is still within the geographical boundaries of the DNA. The boundaries are the river to the south, river to east, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to the west and Oakland Ave. to the north. The DNA has in the past supported the efforts of the Seven Block Citizens District Council and the Renaissance Neighborhood Association to work with the redevelopment of this area. The DNA is concerned about this project in that it does not address the concerns of the lack of development on the large vacant area. The DNA would like to see this moving forward and not just the corner lot. The DNA Board urges the Planning Board to deny this request. Mr. Ruge stated it sounds like the DNA is not opposing the use of the property but upset with the Eyde Company for not moving forward on the proposal to build the office building. Ms. Zuchowski stated that the DNA wants to be sure that this project does not have and is not tied in any way to the big project. The DNA would like to see the big project continue to move forward and that the time line for this project still continues. The DNA was informed that the projects were tied together. If this is such a really good space to do some development, perhaps the City should step back a moment, issue an RFP, and look at other proposals. She stated that this is a very attractive proposal and the plans that the Eyde Company has may very well be what this corner needs. The DNA would like to see the City issue an RFP and see what other developments are presented. The DNA does not want to see the corner be an isolated project. Mr. Ruge inquired about these cases going before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Stachowiak stated that zoning cases will go before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and the ACT 285 Review will go before the Urban and Development Committee. Since these cases tie into both Committees, there was a discussion with Mr. Rieske about handling these cases under the Committee of the Whole so that both Committees would be present for the discussion. Mr. Ruge stated that he would be interested in hearing from City and what thoughts there are with selling this property. He was interested in if the City considered selling the property any other way or to anyone else, and if not, then why not. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearings for Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004. There was a discussion about referring Z-8-82004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004 to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see these cases referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 17 Frederick stated that his only concern would be having a quorum. Mr. McConnell recommended a Committee of the Whole meeting at 6:00 p.m. prior to the next Planning Board meeting. Ms. Cordill referred Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004 to the Committee of the Whole, scheduled to meet on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval —April 20, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of April 20, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of April 20, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Act-14-03, 500 Bilk Leitram, Vacate/convey Alley Mr. McConnell stated that no action will be taken at this time. b. ACT-4-04, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW This is a request by the City of Lansing, Development Office to convey a portion of the Main street ROW to Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity is proposing to divide the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 18 property into two (2) parcels, and build two (2) new homes for owner occupancy with access off of Leslie street. The minimum size house is 24' x 24' and would need to meet the setback requirements in the "B" Residential District. Once divided, one of the lots would constitute a corner lot and would need to meet the front yard setback setbacks for Main Street and Leslie Street. Based on the drawing provided and once the lots have been divided, Parcel A will contain 7,617 square feet of lot area and Parcel B will contain 6,196 square feet of lot area which is sufficient lot area for the construction of new homes. The average front yard setback would need to be determined before approval of a building permit to construct the house(s). This request is similar to ACT-16-2002 regarding Main Street and Regent approved in 2003. The property is located at the southwest corner of Leslie and Main Street and encompasses the right-of-way (ROW). The sale of the property would not change the predominately residential character of the area. According to the Transportation office, no structure should be constructed in the sight triangle for the southwest corner of the intersection. Further, adequate distance should also be reserved for potential sidewalk along the south side of Main Street. Staff recommended approval of Act-4-04, SW Corner Leslie & Main, the sale of a portion of the acquired Main St ROW. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about adding a new condition to the sale of the property, stating that there cannot be construction in the site triangle. Mr. Rieske stated that this should be settled in the review of the plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is an ordinance requirement and during the site plan review process the Planning Office and Transportation Office would not allow anything to be constructed within this area. Mr. Ruge stated that Ms. Denise Paquette, Director of Habitat for Humanity, is a close friend of his. He does not believe that there would be a conflict of interest but just wanted to disclose this information. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 19 Mr. Ruge inquired about a condition requiring Habitat for Humanity to build a garage or at least provide a storage building. Mr. Frederick inquired about another developer being required to build a garage or a secondary building for storage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Habitat for Humanity is not permitted to build a garage or a shed but the owner of the property could. Ms. Cordill inquired about this being a City requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that garages are optional. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-4-2004, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MLK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign The Public Service Department proposes the acquisition of a vacant residential lot located at the southwest corner of MLK, Jr. Blvd. and Mt. Hope Avenue. The Department proposes to acquire the property for back taxes. As proposed, the property would be owned by Public Service (but not incorporated into the right-of-way) and maintained by the Colonial Village Neighborhood Association, which would construct a neighborhood sign and associated landscaping. Staff recommended approval of ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MLK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The Colonial Village Neighborhood Association be responsible for the maintenance and cleanup of the entire site, including snow removal, if necessary, and that grass, trees and shrubs be well maintained; 2. That prior to acquiring the property, a written maintenance agreement implementing condition #1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 20 be submitted by the CVNA, and approved as to form by the City Attorney; 3. The sign be limited in size to 32 square feet at standard height, be designed to be compatible with neighborhood residential styles, and be installed to integrate with landscaping features. Interesting and more appealing landscape is suggested to improve the image of the neighborhood; 4. No other structure, signs, or any form of improvements shall be erected on this site unless approved by the Department of Public Service and Planning Office in writing; The Committee further recommends that any surplus portion of the subject parcel be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick inquired about a friendly amendment for any surplus portion of the subject parcel to be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel, and it was accepted by Mr. McConnell. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MILK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign with the following conditions: 1) The Colonial Village Neighborhood Association be responsible for the maintenance and cleanup of the entire site, including snow removal, if necessary, and that grass, trees and shrubs be well maintained; 2) That prior to acquiring the property, a written maintenance agreement implementing condition #1 be submitted by the CVNA, and approved as to form by the City Attorney; 3) The sign be limited in size to 32 square feet at standard height, be designed to be compatible with neighborhood residential styles, and be installed to integrate with landscaping features. Interesting and more appealing landscape is suggested to improve the image of the neighborhood; 4) No other structure, signs, or any form of improvements shall be erected on this site unless approved by the Department of Public Service and Planning Office in writing; and 5) Any surplus portion of the subject parcel be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 21 d. ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties This is a request by the Lansing Board of Water & Light to sell a property on the south side of Heald Place, east of S. Pennsylvania Avenue, to Frook Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc., owner of contiguous properties. The BWL has determined that this parcel is no longer needed for its operations. Lansing Board of Water and Light, by Resolution # 2003-7-6, found that the subject parcel is surplus to its operations, and voted to sell this parcel to Frook Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc., the owner of the adjacent properties on both sides of this BWL property. Frook's is located on the east side of S. Pennsylvania, between 1-496, Heald Place, and a railroad right of way. The subject property is located just east of and adjacent to the Frook's place of business. Frook also owns the abutting property east of the subject property. Although the subject BWL property is zoned residential, it is located in a commercial/industrial district, and is separated by the railroad tracks from any residences. The property is a former well site, which was abandoned and plugged due to contamination in the area. No other public purpose has been identified for the property. Staff recommended approval of ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 22 C. Capital Improvement Program - Preliminary FY 05 Recommendation The Mayor's recommended budget is very tight due to a "structural deficit," and approximately forty four (44) vacant positions are expected to go unfilled for the next two or three years. However, Lansing is doing fairly well financially in comparison to some other Michigan central cities, such as Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. Lansing has experienced property tax growth due to the fact that its homes have been selling at increasing prices. Income tax revenues are also fairly stable. Fortunately, the City can still fund priority public improvements. Lansing has been able to: • continue its operations without laying off people, • conduct public improvements despite budget shortfalls, • fund an apparatus reserve for fire equipment, • reduce the general fund share of the Combined Sewer Overflow project, • save costs by coordinating CSO work with street improvements. The Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget reflects the highest priority projects. Staff recommended approval of the Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget for FY 05. In Committee, Mr. Rieske summarized the steps planned for integrating this proposal into the remainder of the six year CIP. These steps include: 1. identifying those projects proposed for funding by the departments, included in the Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget, 2. requesting department input on their recommendation for future funding for each project, 3. compiling these recommendations, and fine-tune, 4. repeating step #2, making the appropriate adjustments, and incorporating these recommendations into the draft CIP, 5. distributing the draft for agency comments, making any needed corrections, 6. submitting to the Urban Development Committee and Planning Board for consideration and approval. 7. transmitting the Planning Board's recommended CIP to the Mayor. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 23 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick expressed his concern regarding the vacant staff positions and stated that staff is more important than public improvements. Public improvements can be funded. If staff members are not available to carry out the necessary work to complete the public improvements, then there is not much point having the money and allocating it. He stated that the Mayor and City Council should look very hard at finding the money to fund the vacant positions. Ms. Cordill stated that she would rather see people hired to do the work. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Capital Improvement Program - Preliminary FY 05 Recommendation. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 25, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 24 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) g. 201 Jones Street-corner lot with a 6 foot wooden fence against the sidewalk (March 16,2004) h. 1340 Eureka Street-trash and a junk car in driveway(March 16,2004) i. 200 Clifford Street-2 junk cars (March 16,2004) j. 1830 W.Saginaw- used car lot(April 20,2004) k. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief report on 201 Jones Street, 1340 Eureka Street and 200 Clifford Street. She stated that Ms. Wood, Code Compliance officer for this area, has had some of these corrected and is still working on the other one. With 2714 W. Jolly, she stated that there have been multiple conversations with the owner and that there is consideration of a site located at the 3000 block of S. Washington to relocate the church. This would work very well for the church. Ms. Stachowiak gave them a 90-day extension to close on the property and relocate with the condition that the signage be removed. She stated that the sign has been removed but the statue still remains. Mr. McConnell stated that the property can still be utilized as a church. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it will continue to be used as a church for the next 90 days until the church is relocated. With 1830 W. Saginaw Street, she stated that the property is zoned "F" Commercial and a used car lot has been approved for that site. The owner has 90 days in which to install the required landscaping, 8 foot buffer around the entire perimeter of the site. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill stated that sewer separation is being done around her neighborhood. At Kipling Blvd. and Fernwood Ave. there are huge sewer pipes that interfere with a person's view of looking down the street. This can be a bad intersection because of the hill. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 25 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. McConnell stated at 2418 W. Miller Road there is a residence that has a chicken coop in the back yard with dozens of doves/pigeons in it. Mr. Frederick inquired about the ordinance for pets and if it had been approved. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is at the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's office stated that it would be easier to enforce if the ordinance was in the Housing Code rather than the Zoning Ordinance. With the language involved, it will still be an ordinance but will be in the Housing Ordinance with the same language. Mr. Frederick stated with his experience of having chickens, the pigeons/doves probably are not illegal. He found out that the residence could have chickens. Ms. Stachowiak stated that in the new ordinance, livestock are not permitted. Mr. McConnell stated at 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd. there is a home that has peeling paint. Mr. Frederick stated that 2509 Solomon Drive may be an unregistered rental property and that there are a lot of college students living there. The owner never mows the lawn. Ms. Cordill inquired about the residence being licensed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property has to be registered. Mr. Ruge inquired about Grace Tabernacle Church located on W. Willow Street and stated that there still is no landscaping on the site. Mr. McConnell inquired about the tree trimming business located on Jolly Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has turned in the address four times and has not received an update from the Code Compliance office. This is a violation. She visited the site last Thursday and she noticed the business was still there. Mr. McConnell stated that it looks like the owner added a few buildings, and he inquired about permits for the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look in to the matter. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Chinese take-out/Cash Advance business located at Mt. Hope Ave. and Pennsylvania Ave. She stated that the business has a banner sign on Mt. Hope Ave and that it may be a little more excessive. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would turn this over to the sign inspector and that the check cashing business is legal. The owner still intends to do the Chinese take- out. Mr. Ruge stated at the corner of Michigan Ave. and Shepard Street there is a sign business that has several banner signs nailed to the outside of the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 26 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectful y submitted, James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.050404.doc Draft to Clerk May 24,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, Keene. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck regarding Z-2-2004 B. Letter of opposition from Michael and Susan Wey regarding Z-2-2004 C. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association regarding Z-2-2004 D. Fax from Grant Hilts of the REO Town Organization supporting Z-5-2004 E. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 F. Letter of opposition from the Westside Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 G. Letter of opposition from the Reneissance Neighborhood Association regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 H. Letter of opposition from Seven Block Citizens District Council regarding Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 I. Information from the applicants of Z-8-2004, Z-9-2004, and ACT-6-2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4 2004 Page 2 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-2-2004, 1400 Block, William St. Lots 18 & 19, Special Land Use Permit - Gas Regulator Facility This is a request by the Consumers Energy Company, for a Special Land Use permit to construct a gas regulator facility on the property located on the north side of William St. in the 1400 Block, between Olds and Max Streets. The property consists of lots 18 & 19, of Block 2, of Stebbins- Moore replat, City of Lansing, (parcel # 33-01-01-20-203-092). The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits public utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after roll was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Melody Miller, representative of the Consumers Energy Company, Jackson, MI, stated that the engineer for Consumers Energy has made a model of the site so the Board would have an idea of what the regulator would look like and what it entails. This new regulator site would maintain a natural gas supply to 268 customers who are south of 1-496 and west of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., north of Grand River Avenue and east of N. Olds. Consumers Energy is currently feeding this area through two gas mains that are suspended on bridges. Because there has been quite a bit of corrosion over the years, the company needs to find another way to serve these customers. Ms. Miller introduced Mr. Cliff Janz, Engineer for the project, and Ms. Laura Bell, Designer Technician for the project. She stated that they are available to answer the engineering and technical portion of the Board's questions. Mr. Ruge stated that in this area there are a great deal of industrial properties (i.e. GM), and he inquired about why Consumers chose to place this facility between two residences instead of someplace more industrial. Ms. Bell stated that Consumers did look into placing the regulator on the General Motors property and that there were a couple of sites as options. However, the details were not resolved for Consumers to use GM property. One of the properties was a huge insurance factor that was millions and millions of dollars and Consumers could not do it. The proposed site was brought to their attention and Consumers pursued it. Mr. Ruge inquired about why it had to be this piece of property or if it could be anywhere in this area south of 1-496, west of MLK Jr. Blvd. Mr. Janz stated that Consumers Energy did look at several other sites. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 3 Unfortunately, the only available sites that were vacant are in the residential area. Most of the sites are narrow which would not be consistent with the neighborhoods and would be to close to the homes. He stated that most of the lots in this area are approximately 35 feet wide and this particular lot is a little wider because it is actually a double lot. Consumers believed that this lot would work much better and did not want to create something that was inconsistent with the neighborhood. The above grade piping is approximately 24 to 30 inches above grade and is 2 to 4 inches in diameter. The regulation is within a 4 by 4 aluminum enclosure that is 4 feet in height. This facility is very low profile and is something that would not stick out like a sore thumb. Consumers has made an attempt to landscape and place shrubs around it, and is more than willing to add more if necessary. Ms. Cordill stated that he could bring the model forward and that it may be helpful for the Board to review. Mr. Janz gave an overview of the model. Ms. Cordill inquired about the nature of the facility. Mr. Janz stated that in order for the company to transport gas over long distances, Consumers has to maintain a higher pressure to keep the size of the pipe reasonable, 24 to 36 inches in some cases to pass millions of cubic feet of gas. In distributing gas to a customer, the company does not want high pressures or high volumes of gas within residential neighborhoods. What Consumers does is reduce the pressure and install regulator stations at various locations around the City to reduce the pressure. Consumers lowers the pressure to under 60 pounds per square inch to ensure the gas mains underground within the neighborhoods are maintained below that pressure to deliver gas to the customer. At the meter, the pressure is reduced again to go into the house at 14 inches water power. The new regulator facility reduces the pressure from 170 pounds per square inch in this case. The high pressure main is coming off of Olds Street to the south and Consumers will run the pipe alongside the parking lot of GM to this site and then the pressure will be cut to 60 pounds through the outlet going out of the station into the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill stated that it is a step down process. Mr. Janz stated that was correct. In this case, it is one step. Some of the other facilities have more than one step. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was any noise or odor that would come from the facility under normal operating conditions. Mr. Janz stated that normally there would not be noise or odor. He cannot say that there will be absolutely no noise. Some of the regulation facilities during peak periods (i.e. winter) when larger volumes of gas are being passed, it will create some noise. This is one of the reasons Consumers uses the aluminum enclosure because it helps to deaden the sound and bring it to something that would not be objectionable especially to a neighborhood. This is another reason why Consumers tries to place the facility at the back of the property. The orange markers on the model represent the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 4 corners of the proposed site. The facility would be back as far as it can go without encumbering upon another neighborhood that abuts the property. Ms. Cordill inquired about the sound at the noisiest level and if Mr. Janz had a decimal reading. Mr. Janz stated that it is hard to tell because this is a low volume station. In most cases, there would hardly be any noise. He stated that Consumers is feeding approximately 268 customers and that it is not a high volume station. In this case, Consumers is not taking that much of a pressure cut so there would be no noticeable noise at all. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about when the facility does make noise, would it be like the hum of an air conditioner. Mr. Janz stated that it would probably sound like an air conditioner except without the hum. It would be more like a hiss noise and probably quieter. He is fairly confident in saying that it would not be a problem. Ms. Cordill stated that the reason why the Board was asking is that it is part of the criteria for determining special land use issues. Mr. McConnell stated that the odor was not addressed. Mr. Janz stated that under normal conditions there would not be an odor. The only time Consumers would experience an odor would be if an employee was at the site doing testing, which Consumers is required to do on an annual basis to verify that the over pressure equipment does operate. The employee will blow the relief valve just for a short period of time to make sure that it actually activates when it is needed. This is part of Consumers' standards and is required by the Public Service Commission. If the stag is 8 feet above grade that is so the public does not notice any smell, if there does happen to be a smell. There will be odor coming out of that vent because there is odor put in the natural gas so if there is a leak, it would be noticed. This would be the only time that there would be any smell. If there are some leaky fittings there is a potential for some slight odor. If this does happen, Consumers would expect to receive a leak call and would respond to fix the problem. The company does not want leaks. Mr. Frederick inquired about the upkeep of the property (i.e. grass mowed). Mr. Janz stated that Consumers would take care of the property. Ms. Cordill inquired about the lot dimensions. Mr. Janz stated the lot is 70 feet wide by 116 feet deep. Mr. Ruge inquired about the vegetation on the model plan and if it is the same as the current vegetation on the site. Mr. Janz stated that the model was made to depict exactly what is on the site. The only deviation might be that one tree is a little smaller. There are some small scrub trees to the back of the property and there is some other brush which Consumers intends to clean up. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 5 Mr. McConnell inquired about the shrubs around the piping in the model and asked if these would be added. Mr. Janz stated that the shrubs would be added. The suggestion was to do a little buffering so Consumers created a little landscape berm and is planning on planting shrubs on top of it. He stated that Consumers is open to suggestions. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred SLU-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office This is a request by Larry Brunette to rezone the property at 230 N. Sycamore St., more specifically described as: North 104.2 feet of the West 95 feet of lots 11 & 12, Block 91, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33- 01-01-16-156-001) from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office, for the purpose of utilizing the entire building at 230 N. Sycamore Street for offices. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about a zoning change and if the property would have sufficient parking for an office use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has quite a bit of land and currently there would not be sufficient parking. The applicant would have the ability to construct more parking on the lot to accommodate the office use and would have to provide 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of usable space in the building. Mr. Ruge inquired if there had been any rezoning of this particular lot in the past. Ms. Stachowiak stated not this particular parcel. There have been other requests and they have been denied. Mr. Larry Brunette, owner of the property, stated that things came about based upon a complaint for violating the Zoning code. He did not purchase the property to renovate it and spent a lot of money on it in order to lease it and then decided to rezone the property. He found this particular building, it was appealing to him and it had potential. He did some investigating through the Zoning office and found that the property was listed as commercial property by a commercial real estate company. The building is only one unit with one kitchen facility. He mentioned that it is not feasible to have a mixed use. When there are office professionals working, they really cannot have residents running around. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 6 He stated that it appears the "D-2" zonings are for multi-units. He reiterated that the request is one unit. He inherited the utilities and stated that they are commercial utilities from Board of Water and Light. The City approved a sign permit that was consistent with the "D-1" Professional Office District. He pulled the necessary mechanical and electrical permits. He even called the Code Compliance office to register the property. When he made changes to things on the property, he called to make sure that he was doing everything by the book. With the parking situation, he stated that there is ample parking. He believes that the property is consistent with the commercial codes and that this is a transitional neighborhood. He stated that all the other corners are zoned as "D-1" Professional Office District. He has a commitment to lease by McCoy Law and United Transportation Union. His tenants like being at this location and he enjoys having them as tenants. He asked if there were copies available of the letters of opposition and why the people were opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that copies were not available at this time and if the he could stop by the office or call she would make sure that he received copies of all the letters. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Brunette was an attorney. Mr. Brunette stated that he is not an attorney. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 618/620 W. Ionia, stated that her residence is a single family, owner occupied home directly across from the proposed site. She clarified that the properties on the other corners are not zoned "D-1" Professional Office District. The surrounding properties are zoned residential. She understands what it is like to have a zoning denied. In 1997, she had put in a request to rezone her home and the home located at 616 W. Ionia and they were denied. Michigan Retailers, located at 235 N. Pine, also requested a rezoning and it was denied. She hopes that the Board will review the report on the surrounding vacant properties and other vacant properties in the downtown area. She provided pictures for the Board. Mr. Richard Wilkins, resident of 309 N. Sycamore, stated that the 200 block of Sycamore is the only buffer that the residents have between full residential and full commercial. Ottawa Street contains all large office buildings. Beginning with the 300 block of Sycamore, one will find residential. His residence was previously owned by an attorney who planned to use the home as part office and part residential. He believes that the request was denied. He would like to keep some buffer in this area. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, stated that the proposed property is right in the midst of her neighborhood. The Board of Directors of the DNA unanimously passed a resolution opposing the request by Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 7 Brunette to rezone the property for the purpose of utilizing the entire building for offices. The building is in a neighborhood that is primarily residential. The DNA has historically opposed zoning change requests which remove housing opportunities permanently from the neighborhood. The DNA values the balance of residential to office to business but must remain vigilant that one interest not damage the other. She stated that Mr. Brunette knew the zoning of the property when he purchased it but has been in violation of the law for many months having the whole building rented for office use. Refusal to follow the law is not a hardship. Mr. Brunette is welcome to the neighborhood if he follows the rules. The DNA asks that the Board deny the request. Ms. Sheila Kathleen McCoy, Attorney for McCoy Law, stated that apparently this is a pretty emotional experience for some of the residents in the area, and that the building is being used in a very passive, unobtrusive manner. It is not true that Mr. Brunette or herself were informed that this property was to be used for a mixed residential/office use. Prior to Mr. Brunette purchasing the property, she contacted the City and was informed that the building could be used commercially or residentially. She made sure that she understood what the purposes were from various conversations. If someone conveyed the wrong information, neither Mr. Brunette nor her should be held at fault for it. There has been a lot of time, money and concern over this whole issue. There is minimal night time and day time activity. At an attorney's office, there are not flocks of people on the site. Mr. Brunette stated that on the contiguous block, three corners are zoned "D-1" and that the area is in transition. The Master Plan for this whole area is residential (i.e. "D-1", "D-2"). There is a lot of construction going on in the area. She stated that no one in the neighborhood has complained, only Ms. Whitbeck. Some of the areas residents stated that they do not mind the property being used this way. In fact, she knows a lot of the people in the area, and that it has been very pleasant experience. There have not been any conflicts. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-3-2004, 2801 Turner Street, from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Paul Forsberg to rezone the property at 2801 Turner Street, more specifically described as: LOT 3 ASSESSORS PLAT NO 34 REC L 11 P 15, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33-01-01-04-326-211) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 8 from 'F' Commercial to `C' Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing building on the subject property and use it for a duplex. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Planning Office receiving a drawing from the applicant. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the office has not received a drawing and that the applicant has not given much detailed information. The lot is very large, 80 feet wide and almost 300 feet deep. The applicant would have no problems meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Ruge stated that in order to add on to the property and not make it look cobbled up, it will require some sensitivity and he is concerned about it. He inquired about adding on to the building. Mr. Paul Forsberg, resident of 1240 Boycott, stated that he did provide a picture of the finished home but will provide another photo to the Planning Office. When he first contacted the Planning Office he was informed that a photo was not necessary. A few days later he was informed that there was a mistake and that the picture was needed. He dropped off a picture at the Planning Office front desk. He stated that there is not enough traffic to support a commercial building. There are two or three other commercial buildings on Turner Street that are struggling, one of which has changed zoning a couple of times. The property across the street is zoned commercial. The company has been there more than a year and has not yet opened its door. It is a struggle to get along with a commercial project in this area. To turn this area around, he thought about turning the property into a duplex to match the residence next door. It is a little better land use for this area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-3-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-4-2004, Northeast Corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, from "F" Commercial District to "A"' Residential District This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to rezone .30 acres of property at the northeast corner of Smith & Rundle Avenues, more specifically described as: The south 100 feet of Lot 38, Floral Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, (PPN# 33-01-01-20-484-002) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 9 from 'F' Commercial to `A' Residential. If approved, the applicant intends to construct 2 single family homes on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Denise Paquette, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and resident of 634 N. Foster, stated that she has a packet of information for the Board members. The property was donated to Habitat for Humanity by Saint Casimir Church with the intent of building two homes. The properties in the general area average in size between 40 to 50 feet by approximately 115 feet. The houses in the neighborhood are modestly sized, well kept, and average between 1,016 to 1,600 square feet. The proposed homes would be approximately 1,090 to 1,246 square feet. She believes that the house size is consistent with the neighborhood and that the land use of constructing two homes is also consistent. She stated that in the packet of information there are pictures of the property with different views and information regarding comparison of square footage and foundation size. The homes will be one story. Habitat for Humanity has received approval from the State Historic Preservation Office to build traditional homes on the property. Also included in the packet are renderings of what the homes will look like, site plans, and internal blue prints of the homes. Habitat for Humanity does not build garages but instead will have an 8 foot by 10 foot shed. This is policy. There are very few places in the United States where Habitat for Humanity is allowed to build garages (i.e. Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota). She believes that this is a wonderful neighborhood. There was a donation offered of evergreen trees to plant behind the property to separate it from the church parking lot. She hopes that the zoning issues can be resolved. Ms. Cordill inquired about where the applicant would place the storage shed. Ms. Paquette stated that with the house on Smith Street the shed would be to the back of the property. With the other home, she is not sure at this time. She will look into the matter and report her findings back to the Board. Ms. Roberta Albert, resident of 819 W. Barnes, stated that she has lived in the area for 47 years. She has spoken with many of the neighbors and they are very supportive of this request. The residents are looking forward to the new homes and hope the Board will approve the request. Ms. Ann Andrews, resident of 1712 S. Rundle, stated that she is delighted with the idea of having Habitat for Humanity homes across the street from her residence. She is concerned with the homes not having garages and would like to see some outside storage building. At the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 10 neighborhood meeting, she understood that the Habitat homes would be 1,000 square feet. Her home and two others are 1,400 square feet with garages. She stated that this makes quite a difference in terms of how the proposed property will look from across the street. If there is no storage space, then there are concerns with that. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-4-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. Z-5-2004, 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Houseman Construction to rezone the property at 5134 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, more specifically described as: E 140 FT LOT 14 BATTENFIELD SUB NO 1, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, (PPN#33-01-05-03-101-271) from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a car wash on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Tom Houseman, of Houseman Construction, Grand Rapids, stated that the company was asked to rezone the property to accommodate the car wash. Currently, the site is the only piece of property on Pennsylvania Avenue in the area that remains zoned as "A" Residential District. The owner would like to construct a car wash on the site and needs the "F" Commercial zoning for this use. This property has been vacant for quite some time and the rezoning opens up all the opportunities for this property. Ms. Janet Walker, Manager of the Pennway Motel located at 5132 S. Pennsylvania Ave., stated that the noise at the motel right now from the Admiral gas station is not good, especially on Tuesday when gas prices are lowered. A car wash could cause the same problems. She has residents who work day and night shifts. Every Wednesday she receives complaints regarding loud music in the middle of the night, she has also been woken up more than once. The traffic situation is terrible with the gas station. On Tuesdays, there are three lanes of traffic on the property and traffic on Pennsylvania Ave. Sometimes the traffic makes it difficult for her to get to the motel. She has also received complaints like this from her residents. In the last few months it has become worse and she PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 11 believes this is why she cannot keep the motel full. She is very concerned about what goes in on this lot. She stated that the restaurant was very quiet and it was very nice there. Mr. John Pavlik, resident of 5104 S. Pennsylvania Ave., stated that he owns the properties next to the proposed site. He is not opposed to the "F" Commercial zoning. However, he is opposed to the drive through car wash at this site. This is the site that is adjacent to the Admiral gas station where people line up for blocks to buy cheap gas and cause major traffic congestion every Tuesday and on other days when gas takes a major increase. The Lansing Police Department (LPD) is very familiar with this problem because they receive complaints every week. Just last week there was a major broad-side accident right in from of the proposed site during one of those traffic jams. He presented pictures to the Board members. He stated that the Planning Office has been a little misinforming on the request for zoning. His recommendation would be for the Board to take their time before making a decision on this rezoning. He stated that the Board needs to review the Traffic Engineer's comments and LPD's traffic records, and also visit the site. There has been a discussion with Carol Wood and Sandy Allen, and they are in support of special use. He is not opposed to the rezoning. On Tuesdays when gas prices are lower, one cannot leave the parking lot and head south. It is very difficult and the center lane which is a turn lane has to be used. What would happen with the car wash is that the situation would be more compound. There would be another line of traffic just to get to the car wash. He asked the Board to place something there for special use. Mr. Ruge asked for information regarding the traffic problems to be presented at the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge asked that the applicant revise the information regarding what kind of noise the facility would make. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-5-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. SLU-3-2004, 3215 W. Mt. Hope, Telecommunications Facility This is a request by T-Mobile USA, Inc., for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 120-foot, monopole, telecommunications tower at 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. The property is commonly known as Grand Haven Manor and the tower will be located at the south end of the site. The property is zoned "DM-3" Residential District which permits public/private utility PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 12 facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated that she appreciated the photograph that displayed the appearance of the cell tower from Glasgow Drive and inquired about a photograph showing the location of the cell tower from Grand Haven Manor. Mr. Marc Daneman, representative for T-Mobile, Grand Rapids, stated that he did provide a fairly detailed packet of information. The telecommunications industry has been pretty quiet the past couple of years because of the economy. They are returning to continue the build cycle that was started in 2001-2002. T-Mobile is trying to fill a void in the central/southwest side of the City. There are three sites that he is working on in the City. The proposed site is the only one where he had to build a new tower. The other sites he was able to co-locate. He stated that T- Mobile makes an effort to co-locate whenever possible whether it is an existing tower or with power poles on a Consumers Energy tower. The site is 18 acres and is 1,400 feet from Mt. Hope Ave. The photo shows a simulation of the site from Mt. Hope Ave. as people drive by. The tower will be approximately 235 feet from the nearest residence and more than 250 feet from most of the residences that surround the property. T-Mobile made a particular effort to locate the tower in the most isolated part of the property. The rear portion of the property cannot be developed because of the drains that have already been established. This allows the property owner to make some kind of functional use of the site without creating a significant inconvenience to the neighbors. He believes that T-Mobile has met all of the City's standards. Ms. Karie Woarala, resident of 2406 Bedford Road, stated that her property is adjacent to Grand Haven Manor and that she is opposed to the construction of the tower. When she purchased her home two years ago, one of the main things about the property was the view of the woods in the back. The tower will be visible to the residents on Bedford Street, Glasgow Drive and Cooley Drive. She referenced Item 2 on the application and has concerns with the height of the tower. The tower can be built up to 200 feet or be designed for later additions to increase the height. She stated that the City needs to look at the possibility of the tower being 200 feet. Another concern that she had is the studies addressing the possibility of health concerns with cell towers. When she purchased her home she had plans for raising a family in this neighborhood. In a neighborhood that is filled with families with young children, an elementary school and elderly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 13 residents, there are health concerns. She asked the Board to review this request very carefully. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred SLU-3-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. G. Z-6-2004, Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, from "H" Light Industrial trict to "C" Residential District This is a request by Spencer Batten of Universal Building & Property Management, to rezone Lots 149 & 150, Marquette Street, more specifically described as: Lots 149 & 150, M. Mitshkun, S. Oak Grove Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN: 33-01-01-05-252-160) from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a duplex on this property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the pending ordinance regarding the union-type architecture. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the public hearing was scheduled for the first meeting in April 2004, which was cancelled. Given the length of tonight's agenda, it was not rescheduled for tonight. The public hearing will be held at the first meeting in June. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-6-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. H. Z-7-2004, 1445 Lyons, from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District This is a request by the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, 1017 W. Lapeer, to rezone the property at 1445 Lyons, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2, Assessors Plat, No. 20, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan (PPN# 33-01-01-22-306-091) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 14 from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Wendy Klein, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (GLHC) located at 1017 W. Lapeer, stated that the GLHC proposes the rezoning of 1445 Lyons Street. She does have pictures available. The GLHC will rehabilitate the home and sell it to people who are in the low to moderate income category. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-7-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 12, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. I.-K. Z-8-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing to rezone the vacant property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: North % of Lot 20 & the East % of Lot 19, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN# 33-01-01-17-430-222) from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-1" Apartment Shop District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed use (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. ACT-6-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, Public Sale of Vacant Lots This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, for the sale of the property located at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lots 21 & 22, also S. % lot 20; Block 10, Bush, Butler and Sparrows Addition property for a mixed use development (i.e. residential, office, commercial) development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 15 Z-9-2004, NW corner W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, from "F" Commercial & "C" Residential to "E-1" Apartment Shop District This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, to rezone the vacant property at the northwest corner of W. Kalamazoo/S. Butler, more specifically described as: Lot 21, 22 & S. % of Lot 20, Block 10, Bush, Butler& Sparrows Addition, (PPN#33-01-01-17-430-222) from "F" Commercial and "C" Residential Districts to "E-1" Apartment Shop District for the development of the property as mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview of the three cases. Mr. Sam Eyde, of Eyde Company, stated that the proposed project will be located at the northwest corner of Kalamazoo and Butler Streets, with the building situated to provide a high visibility for its unique curb appeal. The building will consist of two stories. The main level will be 10,000 square feet of retail and the upper level will be 10,000 square feet of multi- family with 1 and 2 bedroom units. The concept will consist of an old downtown design to provide transition from the existing residential neighborhood to the future three story office building on the adjacent property. The landscape architect will work with Jim Ruff to develop a landscaping design that will provide a sense of maturity for the location. Mr. Eyde asked the Planning Board to approve Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004. He stated that once the rezoning and the corner lot is acquired, it will take 30 days to provide a revised site plan of the entire Seven Block development and begin construction. Mr. Ruge inquired about the photograph and if it showed the completed project. Mr. Eyde stated that it was the building on the corner of Butler and Kalamazoo Streets. Mr. Ruge inquired if the business was successful where would the addition be added. Mr. Eyde stated that another two story building would be added and would match the first building. Mr. McConnell asked if there would be 10 lofts on the upper level and how many retail outlets on the lower level. Mr. Eyde stated that there is 10,000 square feet, and depending on the tenant, it could be separated. Mr. McConnell inquired about marketing these lofts and what type of people the applicant would like to have as tenants. Mr. Eyde stated that he would like to have young professionals or anyone who would like to work in this area or anyone living in the downtown area who would like to walk to work. Parking will be contained to the rear of the building. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 16 McConnell stated that this ties in with the Governor's Initiative and the Mayor's Initiative on Hip-Cool cities. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that the Planning Board has received a letter from the DNA Board regarding a resolution passed endorsing the Seven Block Citizens District Council opposing the rezoning and sale of the lots on the corner of W. Kalamazoo and South Butler. This area is still within the geographical boundaries of the DNA. The boundaries are the river to the south, river to east, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to the west and Oakland Ave. to the north. The DNA has in the past supported the efforts of the Seven Block Citizens District Council and the Renaissance Neighborhood Association to work with the redevelopment of this area. The DNA is concerned about this project in that it does not address the concerns of the lack of development on the large vacant area. The DNA would like to see this moving forward and not just the corner lot. The DNA Board urges the Planning Board to deny this request. Mr. Ruge stated it sounds like the DNA is not opposing the use of the property but upset with the Eyde Company for not moving forward on the proposal to build the office building. Ms. Zuchowski stated that the DNA wants to be sure that this project does not have and is not tied in any way to the big project. The DNA would like to see the big project continue to move forward and that the time line for this project still continues. The DNA was informed that the projects were tied together. If this is such a really good space to do some development, perhaps the City should step back a moment, issue an RFP, and look at other proposals. She stated that this is a very attractive proposal and the plans that the Eyde Company has may very well be what this corner needs. The DNA would like to see the City issue an RFP and see what other developments are presented. The DNA does not want to see the corner be an isolated project. Mr. Ruge inquired about these cases going before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Stachowiak stated that zoning cases will go before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and the ACT 285 Review will go before the Urban and Development Committee. Since these cases tie into both Committees, there was a discussion with Mr. Rieske about handling these cases under the Committee of the Whole so that both Committees would be present for the discussion. Mr. Ruge stated that he would be interested in hearing from City and what thoughts there are with selling this property. He was interested in if the City considered selling the property any other way or to anyone else, and if not, then why not. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill the public hearing for Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004. There was a discussion about referring Z-8-82004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004 to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see these cases referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 17 Frederick stated that his only concern would be having a quorum. Mr. McConnell recommended a Committee of the Whole meeting at 6:00 p.m. prior to the next Planning Board meeting. Ms. Cordill referred Z-8-2004, ACT-6-2004 and Z-9-2004 to the Committee of the Whole, scheduled to meet on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval —April 20, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of April 20, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of April 20, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Act-14-03, 500 Bilk Leitram, Vacate/convey Alley Mr. McConnell stated that no action will be taken at this time. b. ACT-4-04, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW This is a request by the City of Lansing, Development Office to acquire a portion of the Main street ROW. The applicant PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 18 is proposing to divide the lot and build two (2) new homes for Habitat for Humanity with access off of Leslie street. The minimum size house is 24' x 24' and would need to meet the setback requirements in the "B" Residential District. The lots would need to be divided. Once divided, one of the lots would constitute a corner lot and would need to meet the front yard setback setbacks for Main Street and Leslie Street. Based on the drawing provided and once the lots have been divided, Parcel A will contain 7,617 square feet of lot area and Parcel B will contain 6,196 square feet of lot area which is sufficient lot area for the construction of new homes. The average front yard setback would need to be determined before approval of a building permit to construct the house(s). This request is similar to an ACT 285 Review (ACT-16-02) approved in 2003. The property is located at the southwest corner of Leslie and Main Street and encompasses the right-of-way (ROW). The acquisition of the property would not change the predominately residential character of the area. According to transportation, no structure should be constructed in the sight triangle for the southwest corner of the intersection. Further, adequate distance should also be reserved for potential sidewalk along the south side of Main Street. The applicant wishes to build two new homes on the lot and in an effort to accomplish that, the right-of-way would need to be acquired and the lot divided. Staff recommended approval of Act-4-04, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about adding a new condition to the sale of the property, stating that there cannot be construction in the site triangle. Mr. Rieske stated that this should be settled in the review of the plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is an ordinance requirement and during the site plan review process the Planning Office and Transportation Office would not allow anything to be constructed within this area. Mr. Ruge stated that Ms. Denise Paquette, Director of Habitat for Humanity, is a close friend of his. He does not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 19 believe that there would be a conflict of interest but just wanted to disclose this information. Mr. Ruge inquired about a condition requiring Habitat for Humanity to build a garage or at least provide a storage building. Mr. Frederick inquired about another developer being required to build a garage or a secondary building for storage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Habitat for Humanity is not permitted to build a garage or a shed but the owner of the property could. Ms. Cordill inquired about this being a City requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that garages are optional. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-4-2004, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MLK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign The Public Service Department proposes the acquisition of a vacant residential lot located at the southwest corner of MLK, Jr. Blvd. and Mt. Hope Avenue. The Department proposes to acquire the property for back taxes. As proposed, the property would be owned by Public Service (but not incorporated into the right-of-way) and maintained by the Colonial Village Neighborhood Association, which would construct a neighborhood sign and associated landscaping. Staff recommended approval of ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MLK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The Colonial Village Neighborhood Association be responsible for the maintenance and cleanup of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 20 entire site, including snow removal, if necessary, and that grass, trees and shrubs be well maintained; 2. That prior to acquiring the property, a written maintenance agreement implementing condition #1 be submitted by the CVNA, and approved as to form by the City Attorney; 3. The sign be limited in size to 32 square feet at standard height, be designed to be compatible with neighborhood residential styles, and be installed to integrate with landscaping features. Interesting and more appealing landscape is suggested to improve the image of the neighborhood; 4. No other structure, signs, or any form of improvements shall be erected on this site unless approved by the Department of Public Service and Planning Office in writing; The Committee further recommends that any surplus portion of the subject parcel be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick inquired about a friendly amendment for any surplus portion of the subject parcel to be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel, and it was accepted by Mr. McConnell. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MILK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign with the following conditions: 1) The Colonial Village Neighborhood Association be responsible for the maintenance and cleanup of the entire site, including snow removal, if necessary, and that grass, trees and shrubs be well maintained; 2) That prior to acquiring the property, a written maintenance agreement implementing condition #1 be submitted by the CVNA, and approved as to form by the City Attorney; 3) The sign be limited in size to 32 square feet at standard height, be designed to be compatible with neighborhood residential styles, and be installed to integrate with landscaping features. Interesting and more appealing landscape is suggested to improve the image of the neighborhood; 4) No other structure, signs, or any form of improvements shall be erected on this site unless approved by the Department of Public Service and Planning Office in writing; and 5) Any surplus portion of the subject parcel be marketed for sale to the owner of the adjacent property west of the subject parcel. Frederick . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 21 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties This is a request by the Lansing Board of Water & Light to sell a property on the south side of Heald Place, east of S. Pennsylvania Avenue, to Frook Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc., owner of contiguous properties. The BWL has determined that this parcel is no longer needed for its operations. Lansing Board of Water and Light, by Resolution # 2003-7-6, found that the subject parcel is surplus to its operations, and voted to sell this parcel to Frook Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc., the owner of the adjacent properties on both sides of this BWL property. Frook's is located on the east side of S. Pennsylvania, between 1-496, Heald Place, and a railroad right of way. The subject property is located just east of and adjacent to the Frook's place of business. Frook also owns the abutting property east of the subject property. Although the subject BWL property is zoned residential, it is located in a commercial/industrial district, and is separated by the railroad tracks from any residences. The property is a former well site, which was abandoned and plugged due to contamination in the area. No other public purpose has been identified for the property. Staff recommended approval of ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-7-2004, 1016 Heald Place, Sale of BWL Parcel to Owner of Adjacent Properties. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 22 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. Capital Improvement Program - Preliminary FY 05 Recommendation The Mayor's recommended budget is very tight due to a "structural deficit," and approximately forty four (44) vacant positions are expected to go unfilled for the next two or three years. However, Lansing is doing fairly well financially in comparison to some other Michigan central cities, such as Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. Lansing has experienced property tax growth due to the fact that its homes have been selling at increasing prices. Income tax revenues are also fairly stable. Fortunately, the City can still fund priority public improvements. Lansing has been able to: • continue its operations without laying off people, • conduct public improvements despite budget shortfalls, • fund an apparatus reserve for fire equipment, • reduce the general fund share of the Combined Sewer Overflow project, • save costs by coordinating CSO work with street improvements. The Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget reflects the highest priority projects. In Committee, Mr. Rieske summarized the steps planned for integrating this proposal into the remainder of the six year CIP. These steps include: 1. identifying those projects proposed for funding by the departments, included in the Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget, 2. requesting department input on their recommendation for future funding for each project, 3. compiling these recommendations, and fine-tune, 4. repeating step #2, making the appropriate adjustments, and incorporating these recommendations into the draft CIP, 5. distributing the draft for agency comments, making any needed corrections, 6. submitting to the Urban Development Committee and Planning Board for consideration and approval. 7. transmitting the Planning Board's recommended CIP to the Mayor. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 23 Staff recommended approval of the Mayor's recommended infrastructure budget for FY 05. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick expressed his concern regarding the vacant staff positions and stated that staff is more important than public improvements. Public improvements can be funded. If staff members are not available to carry out the necessary work to complete the public improvements, then there is not much point having the money and allocating it. He stated that the Mayor and City Council should look very hard at finding the money to fund the vacant positions. Ms. Cordill stated that she would rather see people hired to do the work. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Capital Improvement Program - Preliminary FY 05 Recommendation. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . ... . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 25, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 24 d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping&buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) g. 201 Jones Street-corner lot with a 6 foot wooden fence against the sidewalk (March 16,2004) h. 1340 Eureka Street-trash and a junk car in driveway(March 16,2004) i. 200 Clifford Street-2 junk cars (March 16,2004) j. 1830 W.Saginaw-used car lot(April 20,2004) k. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief report on 201 Jones Street, 1340 Eureka Street and 200 Clifford Street. She stated that Ms. Wood, Code Compliance officer for this area, has had some of these corrected and is still working on the other one. With 2714 W. Jolly, she stated that there have been multiple conversations with the owner and that there is consideration of a site located at the 3000 block of S. Washington to relocate the church. This would work very well for the church. Ms. Stachowiak gave them a 90-day extension to close on the property and relocate with the condition that the signage be removed. She stated that the sign has been removed but the statue still remains. Mr. McConnell stated that the property can still be utilized as a church. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it will continue to be used as a church for the next 90 days until the church is relocated. With 1830 W. Saginaw Street, she stated that the property is zoned "F" Commercial and a used car lot has been approved for that site. The owner has 90 days in which to install the required landscaping, 8 foot buffer around the entire perimeter of the site. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill stated that sewer separation is being done around her neighborhood. At Kipling Blvd. and Fernwood Ave. there are huge sewer pipes that interfere PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 25 with a person's view of looking down the street. This can be a bad intersection because of the hill. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. McConnell stated at 2418 W. Miller Road there is a residence that has a chicken coop in the back yard with dozens of doves/pigeons in it. Mr. Frederick inquired about the ordinance for pets and if it had been approved. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is at the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's office stated that it would be easier to enforce if the ordinance was in the Housing Code rather than the Zoning Ordinance. With the language involved, it will still be an ordinance but will be in the Housing Ordinance with the same language. Mr. Frederick stated with his experience of having chickens, the pigeons/doves probably are not illegal. He found out that the residence could have chickens. Ms. Stachowiak stated that in the new ordinance, livestock are not permitted. Mr. McConnell stated at 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd. there is a home that has peeling paint. Mr. Frederick stated that 2509 Solomon Drive may be an unregistered rental property and that there are a lot of college students living there. The owner never mows the lawn. Ms. Cordill inquired about the residence being licensed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property has to be registered. Mr. Ruge inquired about Grace Tabernacle Church located on W. Willow Street and stated that there still is no landscaping on the site. Mr. McConnell inquired about the tree trimming business located on Jolly Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has turned in the address four times and has not received an update from the Code Compliance office. This is a violation. She visited the site last Thursday and she noticed the business was still there. Mr. McConnell stated that it looks like the owner added a few buildings, and he inquired about permits for the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look in to the matter. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Chinese take-out/Cash Advance business located at Mt. Hope Ave. and Pennsylvania Ave. She stated that the business has a banner sign on Mt. Hope Ave and that it may be a little more excessive. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would turn this over to the sign inspector and that the check cashing business is legal. The owner still intends to do the Chinese take- out. Mr. Ruge stated at the corner of Michigan Ave. and Shepard Street there is a sign business that has several banner signs nailed to the outside of the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 4, 2004 Page 26 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.050404.doc Approved as written 5-4-04 Draft to Clerk April 27,2004 Approved May 4,2004 To Clerk May 7,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Rieske, Stanich. C. Excused absences: McConnell. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Preliminary FY 05 Recommendation B. E-mail note from Ms. Jeannie Wood addressed to Ms. Stachowiak regarding Board Member Code Enforcement issues 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Ms. Ann L. Andrews, resident of 1712 S. Rundle Ave., stated that she is supportive of the Habitat for Humanity home that will be constructed across the street from her home. She has talked with her neighbors and they are all in agreement with the idea of having Habitat homes in the neighborhood. Her understanding is that these homes are 1,000 square feet and that there no plans for garages or any outside buildings. She and her neighbors are concerned with extra stuff sitting around outside. She suggested that the City take this into PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 2 consideration and request that Habitat for Humanity work towards having garages or some type of storage buildings for these homes. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — March 2, 2004 Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of March 2, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of March 2, 2004 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — March 16, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of March 16, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of March 16, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair Due to lack of a quorum, the Committee could not take official action on its cases and agreed to report them without a recommendation to the Planning Board for consideration. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to receive the Urban Development Committee report and to consider all of these cases for discussion and action at the Planning Board level. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 3 a. ACT-1-2004, Muskegon Ave, Comfort to Robertson, Muskegon Ave Reconstruction Project This is a request by the City of Lansing Public Service Department that a review be conducted of a proposed reconstruction project, involving Muskegon Ave. (see map on other side of this page) which stretches from Comfort Street to Robertson Avenue, to improve the street and add storm sewer and curb and gutter. It is located substantially on property that is currently owned by the Board of Water and Light (BWL). The Act 285 review and related corresponding BWL Transfer of Jurisdiction review is necessary to: 1) Clear up ownership issues between the BWL and the City on the roadway known as Muskegon Avenue between Comfort Street and Robertson Avenue; 2) Obtain easements to the City from the Board of Water and Light and Pennsylvania Line Railroad to provide a storm sewer outlet for the proposed street improvements; and 3) Formalize arrangements to give Mac's All Car access over BWL-owned land that is presently being used as the Mac's All Car private driveway. The Planning Board will consider this matter in accordance with P.A. 285 Public Acts of 1931, as amended. Muskegon Avenue currently exists as an east-west gravel road (or as the tax parcel maps label it, a `traveled way') and is located south of the Grand River and west of Martin Luther King Boulevard. There is currently no legal right-of-way, the traveled way is on BWL property. The proposal is for the City to obtain the property in question for use as a right-of- way. The City plans to pave Muskegon Avenue with curb, gutter and necessary storm sewer improvements. It is located between Comfort Street and Robertson. At the western end of this section is a 25 foot wide right-of-way, which contains a sanitary sewer. This extends approximately 660 feet east of Comfort Street. (see attached). Muskegon is located at the north end of several streets: Robertson, Glenrose and Comfort St. Roselawn comes just one property short of Muskegon, and therefore does not go all the way through. The proposed Muskegon Avenue right-of- way is 50 feet wide. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 4 Mac's All Car towing business is located further to the north, followed by the Pennsylvania Line Railroad tracks, which runs along the south side of the Grand River. Mac's All Car is accessed by a dirt drive from the north end of Glenrose that runs across BWL property. The overall length of Muskegon is approximately 1,520 feet, from Comfort to Robertson. Muskegon Avenue is an unimproved, very rough, pothole filled road and is lined with several trees at its western end. Many of these appear to be in the proposed right-of-way and will consequently have to be removed. The existing 25 feet of right-of-way has strictly been a "paper street" since no street has existed within said area. The area includes storm sewer, but is used as open space between the dirt road and the neighbors front property lines, many of which are lined with fences. The Board of Water and Light property that lies between Muskegon and Mac's All Car includes two stone faced buildings, one at either end of the property, each of which houses a well. The well on the east end will require at least 150 foot distance from any requested sewer easement to drain the new street out to the Grand River. The easement will also cross the (abandoned) Pennsylvania Line Railroad tracks. The goal of the City of Lansing and the Public Service Department has been to hard surface all dirt/gravel roads throughout the city. The City has been plowing Muskegon over the years, despite the fact that it is not under the jurisdiction of the City, since it is on BWL property. The City therefore needs to bring the road into its jurisdiction before making any improvements such as pavement, curb, gutter, etc. Staff recommended approval of Act-1-2004, including the following course of action: 1. Transfer of jurisdiction over the south 50' of the property from the Board of Water and Light to the Public Service Department. 2. Acquisition of 30' wide easement from the BWL, extending NE from the proposed ROW to the proposed storm sewer outlet. 3. Acquisition of a 30' wide easement from the Pennsylvania Line Railroad for the proposed storm sewer outlet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 5 4. Acquisition of the front 33' of the property located at 1901 Comfort Street, which abuts the west end of the BWL property, for incorporation in the proposed Muskegon Street ROW. 5. Granting of a license agreement, if necessary, for the use of the Glenrose extension to provide legal access to the Mac's All Car property. Staff further recommended that the Public Service Department take into consideration the comments that have been provided regarding the improvement of this right-of- way. Ms. Keene stated that there were still some outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. Mr. Rieske stated that there was and still remains a mystery regarding the ownership of the 30 foot strip of property extending from the proposed right-of-way into Mac's All Car. Property ownership is still unclear and that is why the staff recommended a "license agreement, if necessary," for the use of the Glenrose extension. Aside from this, there were questions regarding the improvement of the roadway primarily relating to what the nature of the improvements were and who would pay for them (i.e. special assessments), which is outside of this review. Although the proposed project is basically to pave the street like a normal neighborhood street, there were some residents who wanted it to remain as a dirt road. The public hearing that was held on March 2, 2004 contains those comments and a letter was transmitted to City Council by the individual who made those comments. The street has been used more as open space and would become more of a street as a result of paving it. Ms. Foster inquired about the possibility of keeping the street without curb and gutter. Mr. Rieske stated that this was left to the discretion of the Public Service Department, who would have to pave it and maintain it. This was one of the reasons for this catch-all recommendation about taking into account the comments received so that at least those issues do get a technical review to see what is appropriate. Ms. Foster inquired about storm drain management for the road. Mr. Rieske stated that there is some contamination on the property to the north, where the roadway is located. The roadway is located on Board of Water and Light property PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 6 which is larger than the roadway. There are contamination issues and one of the ideas was if curb and gutter are added, the runoff would be managed from the roadway such that it would not contribute to the contamination, and would not cause additional drainage to go into the contaminated soil. It would channel the roadway runoff away from the contaminated area. This part of the roadway which is contaminated would be covered by an impervious surface. Ms. Foster stated for water quality, this would be a good thing to do. Mr. Rieske stated this is what he has heard. Mr. Frederick stated that at the public hearing the issues were raised for the payment of curb and gutters and who would be responsible for them. Ms. Jeanine Eno raised the issue and he believes that she may have been thinking about an assessment on the property. He stated that there was not an answer at the public hearing and he mentioned when the case is referred to the UDC that the issue and the issues of potential trash dumping, etc. be addressed. Mr. Rieske deferred these issues to the applicant, and stated that the issues of sidewalk and curb and gutter are special assessment items. Ms. Jane Dykema, Assistant City Engineer of the Public Service Department, stated that the question was raised about the assessments and that it is a separate process which will go through the public improvement process. The public improvement process has already begun through the City Council. The Public Service Department receives permission to design the project, which has been done, and then a PI 2 resolution is taken back to City Council who will give permission to go to bid. This is where Public Service is at in the process. Once all the ownership issues are resolved, then a design can be done and sent out for bid. Then Public Service can go back to City Council with the bid amounts and the assessment role. At this point, City Council will hold a public hearing and notices will be mailed. The Public Service Department will answer the incoming phone calls, meet with the residents and review the assessments with them. Sometimes a public meeting is held before the public hearing. After the public hearing, City Council takes action on a PI 4 resolution which would give the Public Service Department permission to start the project. Ms. Dykema stated that the City has just over 7 miles of gravel streets and that they are paving approximately '/Z mile PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 7 per year. The Public Service Department depends on the special assessments to help cover the costs of the gravel streets. City Council has looked at other ways of funding but the assessments are still used. City Council has looked at Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money for Federal funding to assist the property owners, if qualified, to pay the special assessment. It would not go towards the project cost but can be used to pay the property owners' special assessment to the City. She stated that this is a separate process and City Council approves it every step of the way. Mr. Frederick stated that it appears Ms. Eno will have ample opportunity to have her questions answered and give input. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of ACT-1-2004, Muskegon Ave, Comfort to Robertson, Muskegon Ave Reconstruction Project with the following conditions: 1) Transfer of jurisdiction over the south 50' of the property from the Board of Water and Light to the Public Service Department, 2) Acquisition of 30' wide easement from the BWL, extending NE from the proposed ROW to the proposed storm sewer outlet, 3) Acquisition of a 30' wide easement from the Pennsylvania Line Railroad for the proposed storm sewer outlet, 4) Acquisition of the front 33' of the property located at 1901 Comfort Street, which abuts the west end of the BWL property, for incorporation in the proposed Muskegon Street ROW, and 5) Granting of a license agreement, if necessary, for the use of the Glenrose extension to provide legal access to the Mac's All Car property. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. ACT-2-2004, 700 Blk E. St. Joseph, Vacate ROW West of Hosmer Street The applicant, Feiger Family Properties (FFP) requests that the City vacate the ROW west of Hosmer Street in the 700 block of S. Joseph to the railroad tracks. FFP and Davis Glass, which also borders the street, would be responsible for the maintenance of the street and the street would be used as an access to Builders Plumbing and Heating Supply PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 8 (owned by FFP) at 700 S. Hosmer and Davis Glass and Screen Company at 800 S. Hosmer. The property is located in the 700 block of E. St. Joseph Street between Hosmer and the railroad tracks. The vacation of the street is south of the proposed Brownfield site. The proposed vacation would not change the character of the area nor should have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. There is a 41,456 sq. ft. warehouse and office facility being proposed on the adjacent property just north of the proposed vacation. The adjacent property to the north of the proposed vacation is the proposed site for Brownfield Plan #17B. Builder's Plumbing and Heating Supply plans to invest a substantial amount of funds to redevelop this property. The project will involve the demolition of two buildings and the construction of a 41,560 square foot warehouse and office facility retain approximately 35 full-time jobs in the City of Lansing. The applicant is requesting that the city vacate approximately 30,150 sq. ft. St. Joseph on the north and south sides of the street. The purpose of the vacation is to allow access onto the property. Staff recommended approval of ACT-2-2004, the vacation of the E. St. Joseph ROW (700 block) between S. Hosmer Street and the railroad tracks, reserving utility easements, subject to site plan review and coordination of any improvements in the vacated ROW with the CSO 025 sewer separation project. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to add a friendly amendment to have the BWL, Consumers Energy, Public Service Department and Transportation Department easements be reserved. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster inquired about vacation of the right-of-way and if BWL would now have to pay for the reservation of the new easement or if it would be granted. Mr. Rieske stated it would be reserved as part of the vacation and that it is a right the City reserves. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-2-2004, 700 Blk E. St. Joseph, Vacate ROW West of Hosmer Street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 9 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. ACT-3-2004, 1700 Block E. Jolly Rd., Sidewalk Project The City of Lansing Public Service Department, requests that a review be conducted of a proposed sidewalk project. The Act 285 Review is necessary for the placement of sidewalk due to the location of power poles within the public right-of-way (see attached map). An easement is necessary due to the existence of power poles in the right-of-way, that prevents the placement of the sidewalk entirely within the right-of-way. The necessary easement would be approximately 7 feet. The area is predominantly light industrial and commercial in nature, with some residential development along Boettcher Court. The proposed project would affect six (6) properties known as: 1705, 1719, 1725, 1805, 1835 E. Jolly Road. (One property is vacant with no address.) Staff recommended approval of ACT-3-2004, the proposed sidewalk improvement project and acquisition of associated easements. Ms. Foster inquired about residents having a garden that would be eliminated by the sidewalk. Mr. Rieske stated that it would only be front yards. Mr. Frederick stated that he is familiar with the area and that there is nothing in this area other than grass. Ms. Foster inquired about trees being eliminated. Mr. Frederick stated that there are not trees along this area and that it is mostly wasteland. There are 1 or 2 residences and some commercial buildings. He stated that it ends at the corner of Aurelius and Jolly Roads. Ms. Foster inquired about a friendly amendment for adding street trees. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 10 Ms. Foster inquired about lighting since this section is now becoming a pedestrian corridor. Ms. Dykema stated that there are overhead lights. Mr. Rieske stated that the lights cover the roadways and the post sidewalk areas. Ms. Foster stated that because the overhead lights would be where the trees would be planted, she recommended that the City Forester be involved to see what would be the appropriate trees to plant. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of ACT-3-2004, 1700 Block E. Jolly Rd., Sidewalk Project. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) - South Capitol Avenue II Application The City of Lansing is considering the establishment of a new Neighborhood Enterprise Zone as enabled by P.A. 147 of 1992. The intent of the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Act is to provide property tax abatements within the designated zones to promote the adaptive reuse of housing and mixed land use of vacant office buildings in the central city area. On Monday, March 22, 2004, the Lansing City Council is expected to approve the tentative boundaries for the South Capital Avenue II Area proposed to be designated as a "Neighborhood Enterprise Zone" (NEZ). The Mayor's Housing Task Force recognizes that a mixed use development is an important component of the new housing strategy because it provides the goods and services demanded in a high density environment. An additional Neighborhood Enterprise Zone in the downtown area will assist property owners and developers in the adaptive reuse of housing and mixed land use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 11 Currently there are four designated NEZ areas in the downtown area in which 20 luxury market-rate lofts have been developed with ten more to be completed in 2004. It is anticipated that the property owners and businesses located in this newly proposed zone will greatly benefit from this opportunity for further residential development and that the creation of this new NEZ, in addition to the other NEZs, will encourage the development of additional "loft-style" housing and provide other residential opportunities in the downtown area, thus increasing the "after 5:00 p.m." critical mass, as well as supporting additional retail and commercial development. Prior to adopting a final resolution establishing the South Capitol Avenue II area as a Neighborhood Enterprise Zone, the Lansing City Council must: 1. "shall make a finding that a proposed Neighborhood Enterprise Zone is consistent with the master plan of the local governmental unit and the neighborhood preservation and economic development goals" 2. "shall also adopt a statement of the local governmental unit's goals, objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing for all persons regardless of income level living within the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone" The Economic Development Corporation requests the Planning Board to pass a resolution supporting the findings outlined above as required by Public Act 147 of 1992, for the establishment of the new South Capitol Avenue II Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. We also request that the recommendation be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council requesting their concurrence. Staff recommended approval of a resolution for the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) - South Capitol Avenue II Application. Mr. Rieske stated that the NEZ would fill the gap that is not designated as an NEZ but is surrounded by NEZ and would provide continuity further down the street. Ms. Foster inquired about a larger plan that the City is following and what steps would be next. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 12 Ms. Marchelle Smith, Economic Development Corporation, stated that the City is considering designating an additional zone one month down the line (Baker Donora). The purpose for not creating all of the empty sections is due to the fact that legislation will only require municipalities to incorporate 15% of a city's municipality acreage for NEZ zones. Legislation is pretty particular on designating the zones and trying to incorporate zones where there is going to be encourage housing development. Ms. Foster inquired about how the areas are identified. Ms. Smith stated that they are identified by more distressed areas and what type of economic impact the development would have on an area. Will this program help assist that development to occur that might not otherwise occur. A lot of the downtown buildings are in desperate need of rehabilitation and repairs. Rehabilitation costs a lot more then building new, and the City would like to preserve the older buildings and provide adaptive reuse. Mr. Rieske stated what was done through the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, is a plan already in place of which this is an implementation tool. The plan states to have upper level housing units but not established NEZ. The plan encourages it and this is a tool to encourage it. This is set up for administration by the EDC and this would be used as a tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan in the same manner to implement capital improvements. Ms. Foster inquired about the plan being targeted to residential and if it would also target commercial. Ms. Smith stated that it would target residential. Mr. Rieske stated that it is not available for commercial. Ms. Foster stated that it is mainly for residential to try to bring up the residential stock. Ms. Smith stated that the commercial portions of these properties are separate from the housing part of the project. Mr. Ruge inquired about if there was a project and stated that these properties do not have any residential units. Ms. Smith stated that there is a two-step process. EDC is trying to designate a zone. She stated that there is a developer who is proposing to do some development in the Washtenaw block where Keystone Bakery and Linn & Owen Jewelers are located. The Knapp's Building and the buildings along the Washington Square corridor are in an NEZ at the cutoff PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 13 point. EDC would like to extend the boundaries to assist the developer and to help the housing to occur. Ms. Foster inquired about how the project identified and if the developer came to EDC. Ms. Smith stated that was correct. Mr. Ruge inquired about which property the developer wanted to redevelop. Ms. Smith stated 221, 225, and 227 W. Washtenaw Street. Ms. Keene stated that it would be right across the street from the Cooley Law School parking lot. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board is approving the whole NEZ for the three addresses. Mr. Rieske stated that the zone is being requested by owner of these three parcels. There is a separate process that is undertaken to actually get the NEZ designation for the parcels. The first thing that needs to be done is to create the industrial development district. After that, the properties located within an industrial development district are eligible for tax abatements. Similarly, what this would do is make these properties eligible for NEZ abatements. Mr. Ruge stated that his concern is the part that the developer is interested in appears to be less than 10% of the entire zone. He stated that the rest of the buildings that are included in the zones are very unlikely to have any residential redevelopment added to them (i.e. Cooley Law School, Michigan National Tower). He stated that he does not see any of these becoming residential. Ms. Smith stated that it is challenging when the zones are designated. The legislation states that when a zone is created, it must be at least 10 contiguous parcels of property. She stated that EDC does understand his concern about the buildings that are being asked to be designated in the zone. However, the buildings are compact and contiguous. The abatement is not automatic to any building owner, only when it is chosen to redevelop the existing property into housing. Mr. Ruge stated that there is a limited amount of space in the City that can be turned into an NEZ. He inquired about how much the City currently is a NEZ. Ms. Smith stated that the City is not close to the maximum by any means. She asked if she could provide the Board with a copy at a later date. She stated that it is a very small fraction and that this NEZ designation is just a little over two acres. She stated that some of the larger neighborhoods have an average of a hundred acres. EDC does take the acreage into consideration and would like to utilize what is available at the best level possible. Mr. Ruge inquired about the entire zone being two acres. Ms. Smith stated that combined it would be two acres and that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 14 properties are very small. Ms. Keene stated that this came up at the Committee meeting and that the people who would be affected had signed off on it. There was a discussion at Committee that Cooley Law School would look at trying to establish some residential somewhere. She did not believe that it was out of the question that some of these other locations, like the Knapp's Center, might ultimately try to do something residential (i.e. lofts). Mr. Ruge stated that would be possible. Mr. Frederick stated that the Knapp's Center does not appear to be included in this NEZ and that the only other available property that could potentially be used as residential is the parking lot located next to Cooley Law School. If Cooley Law School were to build another building in place of the parking lot and have part of it be residences, the rest of it may not seem likely to accommodate any residences. Mr. Rieske stated that the City's area is 33 square miles. While the Board is discussing a significant number of properties being 10 properties, compared to the larger numbers of 50,000 parcels, this is not a great percentage of the City. Mr. Ruge stated that 2 acres is like 1/10 of 1%. Mr. Rieske stated that these properties constitute a pocket of possible development in the midst of an institutional area. According to the City's Master Plan, the Board is encouraging the development that is being proposed. Although this is a small area, it may well be the only residential in this area. The other properties as long as there is no residential development would be ineligible for the tax relief. It would not be endangering the City from extending tax relief to some one who is undeserving. In order to be deserving, there has to be residential development. Mr. Rieske stated that it would be cool to be in a penthouse in the Boji Tower and that would be an eligible project under the NEZ. Ms. Keene stated that this is what the City has been encouraging, people downtown. When something comes along, the City may as well go for it. Mr. Ruge inquired about value limitations in qualifying for an NEZ if an apartment building is constructed and is worth $200,000. Ms. Smith stated with a rehab tax abatement, the residential portion of the property (current taxable value) is frozen. The City is not losing any existing taxes. Mr. Ruge inquired about the qualifications for receiving the tax PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 15 abatement. Ms. Smith stated that the pre-rehabilitation cannot be more than $80,000 true cash value per unit that is built, meaning that the existing residential portion cannot have a true cash value of more than $80,000. Mr. Ruge inquired about the value before the unit is worked on and if it has to be less than $80,000. Ms. Smith stated correct and that anything beyond this would not be eligible. Ms. Smith stated that if one thinks of this in terms of a single family dwelling, which the program is eligible for, and the home has a true cash value of more than $80,000, the abatement is meant to encourage development on low value property. Ms. Foster inquired about the residential homes behind the property and if they fit into the NEZ. Mr. Rieske stated that Washington Avenue is a commercial district and that it is all businesses behind the zone. Ms. Foster stated that some of the commercial buildings could have residential above them. Mr. Rieske stated that is what the City is trying to encourage for this section. Ms. Foster stated that if the boundary was extended, it would be contiguous and more buildings would be added that could actually have residential units. Mr. Rieske stated that a NEZ currently exists in this area. The City is actually extending the zone by creating a new zone next to the previous NEZ rather than amending the boundaries of an existing zone. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of a resolution to create the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) - South Capitol Avenue II Application. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Foster . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ruge. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cordill. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 27, 2004, 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 April 20, 2004 Page 16 C. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that the Board received a communication this evening about members attending a Lugnuts game. He asked the Board to call the Planning Office or let him know now what days of the week would be good and any time that members would be away on vacation. Mr. Ruge stated that Thursdays would not work for him. He stated that Mr. Jamie Czekai was interviewed for a Planning Board position and has accepted it. The Planning Office has submitted a recommendation to the Mayor's Office and an appointment has been submitted to City Council for approval. He also stated that Mr. Todd Cordill is now on the Historic District Commission and another individual will be interviewed by City Council for confirmation for the Historic District Commission. 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. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19,2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) g. 201 Jones Street-corner lot with a 6 foot wooden fence against the sidewalk (March 16, 2004) h. 1340 Eureka Street-trash and a junk car in driveway(March 16,2004) i. 200 Clifford Street-2 junk cars (March 16,2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 17 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about the bold initials on the proposed UDC agenda. Mr. Rieske stated that the initials represented the Planner who is handling the case. Ms. Foster stated that she attended at meeting of the Corp of Engineers and they asked if Lansing wanted to take up the four areas that were identified which could be worked on along the river or if Lansing wanted to do an overall Master Plan for the water areas that the Corp of Engineers could review. She stated that there were some complaints about certain things as to habitat restoration, estrow mark management. There is some erosion. The main office in Washington, D.C. sent a group to Lansing to do a report. The report is due at the end of May. She stated that the Master Plan was considered recreational and therefore, the City would need to have funding for it. The idea is that the corp could do all of the design work but none of the construction. The City would have to provide funding for the projects. Ms. Foster requested an excused absence from the May 4th meeting. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Foster from the May 4th Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Foster stated that one of her students brought to her attention that the ROTC students were carrying their weapons on campus. If it were a fake gun, it would have to be orange or have an orange tip. These did not. She stated that in Lansing and depending on the City Ordinance, people could walk down the street with rifles on their backs. The rifles could not be placed in a vehicle and the vehicle be driven, but one could walk and have the weapon exposed. Ms. Keene stated that one could not have a concealed weapon. Mr. Frederick stated that this was a whole complicated process and he believed that if someone was walking down the street with a rifle, loaded or otherwise, they would not be walking for to long. There would be someone investigating it. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Cordill inquired about the Chinese carry out on the southwest corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania. She mentioned that it is a cash advance place and asked if it fell within the Board's action or if it was in conflict. Mr. Frederick stated that he had asked Ms. Stachowiak the same question at the last BZA meeting and that she stated that this was permissible. She had approved this case and the applicant still intends to have the Chinese carry out in the building. Ms. Keene inquired about 1830 W. Saginaw. There used to be a restaurant at this location and now there is a used car lot. She stated that it is not a very attractive used car lot. She asked if it was allowed at this location. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 20, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Frederick inquired about 545 Baker Street. He stated that Mount Hope Church has some type of an outreach or satellite church system called "House of Fire Church" or "Mount Hope Church Beyond the Walls" that meets at 11:00 a.m. every Sunday morning. There was a sandwich sign set up in the front yard that has flames on it. He stated that this property is clearly residential and he is not sure if an application has been done for this location. Ms. Cordill inquired about a chapel and if it would fall under the same restrictions. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.042004.doc Approved as written 8-3-04 Draft to Clerk July 1,2004 Approved August 3,2004 To Clerk August 3,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Mr. Frederick, Acting Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, McConnell, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene, Cordill. D. Absent: Foster. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve excused absence requests for Ms. Cordill and Ms. Keene from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Ruge mentioned that the number tabs were incorrect in the packet. There was no number placed on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report and therefore all the numbers after that were one off. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 2 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — May 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole Mr. Ruge moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of May 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of May 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole were APPROVED w/Corrections. Pg. 8, 1st motion, delete "unanimously (5-0)" and add "(4-2)". Minutes for Approval — May 18, 2004 Regular Meeting Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of May 18, 2004 Regular Meeting without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of May 18, 2004 Regular Meeting were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair a. Z-10-2004, 112 Shepard Street, "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Land Contractors, LLC to rezone the property at 112 Shepard, more specifically described as: South 33 feet of Lot 1 & the South 33 feet of the East 17 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 Halls Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Staff recommended approval of the Z-10-2004, 112 Shepard Street, rezoning from "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District, based upon its consistency with the surrounding land uses and the master plan. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Z-10-2004, 112 Shepard Street, "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . Ave McConnell . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak stated that because only four members were present, this case will go to City Council without a formal recommendation. Six votes are needed for a formal recommendation. b. SLU-4-2004, 810 Nipp Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Parking Lot This is a request by Jonathan Watts for a Special Land Use permit to remove the existing house and construct a parking lot at 810 Nipp Avenue. The proposed parking lot would serve the existing office at 1801 W. Main Street, which is also owned by the applicant and is located directly north of the subject property. The property is zoned "B" Residential District, which permits parking lots, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-4-2004, 810 Nipp Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Parking Lot, with the following conditions: 1. The installation of an 8-foot landscape buffer along the south and west edges of the site, to include a 6-foot high, decorative, screen fence with trees and shrubs to soften its view; 2. The parking comply with the required 20 foot setback from the Nipp Avenue right-of-way, and include at least 2 trees and 5 shrubs, with minimum starting sizes in accordance with Section 1290.08 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Upon approval of this SLU request, parcel 33- 01-01-20-128-111 (810 Nipp Ave.) shall be combined with parcel 33-01-01-20-128-121 (1801 W. Main Street). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 4 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The installation of an 8-foot landscape buffer along the south and west edges of the site, to include a 6-foot high, decorative, screen fence with trees and shrubs to soften its view; 2. The parking comply with the required 20 foot setback from the Nipp Avenue right-of-way, and include at least 2 trees and 5 shrubs, with minimum starting sizes in accordance with Section 1290.08 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Upon approval of this SLU request, parcel 33- 01-01-20-128-111 (810 Nipp Ave.) shall be combined with parcel 33-01-01-20-128-121 (1801 W. Main Street); and 4. The fence be placed in the center of the buffer area, with plant materials on both sides; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. McConnell stated that in the past when the Board has approved cases like this with conditions regarding buffering and landscaping, sometimes after these cases have been approved and construction has begun a year or two passes and the buffering, fencing and landscaping still has not been competed. He asked if there was anything the Board could do to enhance the timeline. Mr. Ruge stated that in the past the Board discussed having a performance bond and nothing ever happened with it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a good point. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be reviewing the parking lot/landscape standards at the July meeting and this would be an ideal place to start requiring bonding on these types of projects. Currently, there is nothing in place. There have been two or three cases that have not done this and it becomes an enforcement issue. The best way to rectify this is to get the bonding implemented in the ordinance. Then if the applicant does not do it, then the City can cash in the bond. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of SLU-4-2004, 810 Nipp Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Parking Lot. Frederick Ave Ruge. Ave McConnell Ave Czekai Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 5 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. SLU-5-2004, 217 N. Sycamore street, Special Land Use Permit - Ratio of Office to Residential Use This is a request by Booth Newspapers for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 217 N. Sycamore Street for 68 percent office and 32 percent residential use. The proposed percentages are based upon the amount of floor area that would be devoted to each use. The property is zoned "D-2" Residential/Office District, which permits a residentially used structure with up to 70 percent of the gross floor area in office use, if a Special Land Use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-5-2004, 217 N. Sycamore street, Special Land Use Permit - Ratio of Office to Residential Use. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval to utilize the existing building for up to 68 percent office and 32 percent residential use, and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that there were conditions placed on SLU-4-2004 but not on this case. Perhaps putting the performance bond requirement would be better in the part of code that pertains to special land uses rather than the parking lots. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend approval of SLU-5-2004, 217 N. Sycamore street, Special Land Use Permit - Ratio of Office to Residential Use. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 6 d. NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by West Lansing Church of God, 817 West Street, 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 and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a 952 square foot meeting hall behind the existing church building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to permit an expansion of a nonconformity at 817 West Street. Staff recommended approval of the NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1. The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building; 2. The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building; 2. The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet; and 3. A buffer strip, with trees, be installed along the south side of the parking lot and along West Street in front of the parking lot; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office did receive a letter from the Lansing School District signed by Mr. Michael Hubert, Deputy Superintendent for Business and Operations. The letter stated that the school district allows the church to use the parking lot located at 1715 W. Main Street for overflow parking anytime on weekends and weekdays after 6:00 p.m. In return, the church allows the school system, the educational child care center, to use their parking lot for overflow parking during weekdays before 6:00 p.m. She stated that the church and the school district PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 7 worked out a good agreement that fits both of their needs and certainly satisfies the City's requirements. Mr. Ruge stated that there is quite a good buffer along most of the south edge of the parking lot. It is wild but it has naturally grown up this way and it is not manicured. He stated that only the western 60 feet of the south side really needs to be buffered along with the west side of the parking lot. Mr. Frederick asked if this would be a friendly amendment. Mr. Ruge stated that it is a friendly amendment and Mr. Czekai accepted it. Mr. Frederick stated that third condition has been amended. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1) The architecture of the addition be compatible in design, color, materials, and roof pitch with existing church building, 2) The structure not be connected to the primary building in the future, unless it can comply with the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet, and 3) A buffer strip, with trees, be installed along the west 60' of the south side of the parking lot and along West Street in front of the parking lot. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. e. LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive This is a lot split request by Michael Debney to split off the west, approximately 53 feet of the properties at 6616/6618 & 6622/6624 Aurelius Road and combine it with the property at 1925 Bowker, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 6616/6618 Aurelius: Lot 7 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 6622/6624 Aurelius: Lot 8 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 8 1925 Bowker Drive: Lot 4 New Horizon Sub and the west 53 feet of Lots 7& 8, Hartland Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, 1925 Bowker would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.18. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations is requested. Staff recommended denial of the LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive, due to the proposed lot at 1925 Bowker being completely inconsistent with the other lots in the Bowker Street neighborhood. In addition, the lot split would result in an irregular side lot line. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to recommend denial of LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Ave McConnell . . Ave Czekai . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. f. Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages In Committee, the proposed ordinance amendment to prohibit garages from extending closer to the front lot than the front of the house was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a concern brought up at the staff level regarding the original language not addressing how this would pertain to corner lots where there are two frontages. Ms. Stachowiak made a change to the amendment to address the corner lots. Mr. Ruge stated that he is concerned with the restrictions of houses that are set back more than 60 feet from the front lot line. The City could end up with houses set back farther on the lots than normal. Ms. Stachowiak stated it was deleted PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 9 from the ordinance and then it was reinserted by Mr. Ruff. She could not remember the reason why it was reinserted in the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no rush with this ordinance and could be easily postponed until the next meeting. This would allow her more time to review the matter. Mr. Ruge inquired about the setback requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that with detached garages the setback requirement is 60 feet from the front lot line. This is the current requirement and would be carried over to the new ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this ordinance would allow a snout house as long as it was set back at least 60 feet. Mr. Ruge asked if the snout house would have to comply to the setback requirements for a house. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would. If the applicant wanted to do this type of architecture the way the ordinance is written, it would have to be setback with not just the average but 60 feet. Mr. Ruge asked about how likely it would be for someone to set their house back off the front property line 60 feet. Ms. Stachowiak stated not likely and not on a typical City lot. There may be lots that are excessively deep (i.e. Aurelius Road lots) where someone could potentially do this. For the most part, it could not be done at all. Mr. Ruge stated that front yards are 30 feet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the front yards are typically 20 to 30 feet. Some cases are less than this in the older areas of the town. She stated that the new ordinance has a minimum and a maximum setback requirement. Mr. Frederick stated that he willing to go either way with waiting for an explanation or pass it along. If the Board would like to wait, then there could be a motion to table it until the next meeting. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to table the Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Next meeting, Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 10 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Ms. Stachowiak stated that she had a note from Mr. Rieske for cancellation of the next meeting on Tuesday, June 22nd and that it will be rescheduled for a later date. He is waiting for some information from the Parks Department. She stated that the next scheduled meeting will be on July 29tn Next meeting, Tuesday, July 29, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Report from Planning Manager— None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-1 4-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) g. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) h. 2418 W. Miller Road-chicken coop(May 4,2004) i. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd. -home with peeling paint(May 4, 2004) j. 2509 Solomon Drive- unregistered rental property(May 4, 2004) k. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) I. Mt. Hope Ave. &Pennsylvania Ave.- Chinese take-out/Cash Advance business- excessive banner sign (May 4,2004) M. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 11 With item 5f, Ms. Stachowiak stated that tickets have been issued and it appears that it may end up in court. With item 5g, she is still reviewing. With item 5i, she stated that a written notice has been sent. The owner has been given a certain amount of time to comply (30 days). With item 5k, she has a number of sites around town where the 90 days has expired for the landscaping. She will be doing these within the next week. With item 51, Ms. Stachowiak was informed by the sign inspector that the banner sign has been removed. Mr. Frederick stated that the sign has been put back. He drove by there this evening on his way to the meeting. With item 5m, she stated that the sign inspector has done a written notice. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the requests are in progress. With item 5d, Mr. Frederick stated there was a permit for the garage and that this one could be removed since it has been resolved. With item 5c, Mr. McConnell stated that there is a Quality Dairy store located at South MLK Jr. Blvd. and Miller Road. Grovenburg Street runs behind the QD and there are a couple of dumpsters there behind the store. It has been almost a year since this was brought before the Board. He stated that the dumpsters are almost in the street and there is no fence around it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is hard to get compliance out of the dumpster requests because Public Service has to do the enforcement of them. She is not sure where this request is at on their priority list. She stated that she will put in an inquiry to find out the status. With item 5b, Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Dollar Store did install more buffering. She reviewed the site plan and stated that the store was not required to do buffering because back then there was not a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for having landscaping adjacent to a right-of-way. There is now a requirement in the ordinance. The store did install landscaping at that time even though there was not a requirement for it. She has no recourse to go back and have them replace it. She stated that the store has some nice trees that are fairly mature and growing well on the site. There are some landscape items out there as well. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Sarah has been on vacation for a week and a half. The minutes from the June 1st Planning Board meeting have not been completed. Any code enforcement items that were brought up at the meeting have not yet been reported to her. The list is given to her PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 12 and she forwards the items to the Code Compliance Office or the appropriate department. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. McConnell inquired about the Board members attending a Lugnuts game. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the members would need to provide dates for when they would be out of town and these dates could be excluded. She asked if any of the members had planned vacations. Mr. Czekai stated that he would be gone July 16th through July 21St. Mr. Ruge stated that he would be gone the last week of July. Mr. Czekai inquired about agenda building for the new year and if it was scheduled for this meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this would be addressed in July when there is a lighter case load. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no new zoning cases for the July meeting. She is not sure if there are any ACT 285 reviews. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would probably fall under New Business for discussion. She stated that it is normally done with the work plan at the beginning of the year but the Board will revisit it since it has already been approved. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge mentioned that 2500 Lake Lansing Road has an office building with no buffering in front of the parking lot. He stated that there is a whole string of office buildings and all of them have grass between the sidewalk and the parking lot except for this one. Mr. Frederick mentioned that the lot immediately west of 1708 Cavanaugh Street is listed by Forsberg Realty and is in dire need of weed control. The weeds are approximately 2 feet tall. He stated that it detracts from the business at 1708 Cavanaugh Street which has done an excellent job of landscaping and buffering, and that it especially detracts from Hawk Island which is across the street. Hawk Island has added their trees, done a lot of mowing and is looking pretty good. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 15, 2004 Page 13 Respectfully submitted, James A. uff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.061504.doc Approved as written 8-3-04 Draft to Clerk June 28,2004 Approved August 3,2004 To Clerk August 4,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 1, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Cordill, McConnell. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-10-2004, 112 Shepard Street, "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Land Contractors, LLC to rezone the property at 112 Shepard, more specifically described as: South 33 feet of Lot 1 & the South 33 feet of the East 17 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 Halls Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Mr. Gordon VanWieren, 501 S. Capitol Ave., Suite 500, stated that the property tax card for this property has been classified as residential and in looking at the property and the surrounding uses, residential is the proper zoning classification. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Ryan Feedewa, current renter, stated that he tried to purchase the property a few times. He was informed that there would be no problems and there we none until the very end when it was determined that the property was zoned commercial. The property is between the alley and Michigan Avenue. There are a lot of other residences in the same area and he was not sure why it was zoned this way. He would like to change the zoning so he can purchase the proposed property. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-10-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-4-2004, 810 Nipp Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Parking Lot This is a request by Jonathan Watts for a Special Land Use permit to remove the existing house and construct a parking lot at 810 Nipp Avenue. The proposed parking lot would serve the existing office at 1801 W. Main Street, which is also owned by the applicant and is located directly north of the subject property. The property is zoned "B" Residential District, which permits parking lots, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of parking spaces that would be available on the lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would pick up approximately 10 parking spaces. There are some problems with this proposed layout. It does not allow much buffering between the lot and the neighboring parcel to the south. This would need to be corrected. In correcting this situation, the 3 parallel parking spaces that are located next to the building may have to be removed. Everything would shift a little to the north so that applicant could accommodate the required 8 foot buffer along the south property line. This would allow some protection for the residential neighborhood to the south. Other than this, the proposal would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would gain approximately 7 parking spaces. Ms. LaDean Watts-George, resident of 4615 W. Michigan Ave., stated that she is here on behalf of her father, Jonathon Watts. He was not able to attend this meeting because of an arthritic condition. She is here to answer any questions. The proposal is to remove the house on the property and turn it into a parking lot to accommodate the tenants at 1801 W. Main Street. In addition, there are plans to expand to the upper level and make the building handicap accessible by adding an elevator. Mr. Brian Schlee, architect, stated that he is here to answer any questions the Board may have regarding parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 3 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-4-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-5-2004, 217 N. Sycamore street, Special Land Use Permit - Ratio of Office to Residential Use This is a request by Booth Newspapers for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 217 N. Sycamore Street for 68 percent office and 32 percent residential use. The proposed percentages are based upon the amount of floor area that would be devoted to each use. The property is zoned "D-2" Residential/Office District, which permits a residentially used structure with up to 70 percent of the gross floor area in office use, if a Special Land Use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Mr. Chuck Postemus, architect, 560 Fifth Street NW, Grand Rapids, stated that he was an architect in the late 1980s to early 1990s when Booth Newspapers purchased the old house and restored it and constructed an addition on the west side. At that time, the parking was improved. There is one residential unit in the building and it currently has three bedrooms. The idea with the residence worked out well. So often an intern or reporter will stay for a varying length of time in the residence and sometimes there may be a spouse. What the news bureau would like to do is take one of the bedrooms and turn it into more office space. There would be no changes to the historical building. There is an old sycamore tree on the south side and mature landscaping all the way around the parking area. There is a six percent swing in use changing one bedroom to an office and this is a very minor impact on the use. The applicant has spoken with all the neighbors and there are no objections to the proposal. The news service has been at this location for approximately 13 to 14 years and the proposal works out well for a soft use in the neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-5-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by West Lansing Church of God, 817 West Street, 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 4 frontage on a major or minor arterial and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a 952 square foot meeting hall behind the existing church building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to permit an expansion of a nonconformity at 817 West Street. Dr. John H. Knight, Pastor of the West Lansing Church of God located at 817 W. Street, stated that there is a Quonset but located on the back of the property. The church would like to demolish it and replace it with a pole-type barn for a fellowship hall. When the school across the street from the church was in the process of remodeling, they needed parking spaces. The church entered into a contract with the school so that the employees could use the church parking lot. In return, the church could use the school's parking lot on Sunday mornings. The current Quonset but building is not able to be used. This is why the church needed to be upgraded and this would also help upgrade the community. Ms. Stachowiak asked Pastor Knight for a copy of the contract between the church and the school so that the City could have it for the case file. Pastor Knight stated that he could bring a copy to the Planning office. Ms. Keene inquired about the increased square footage and how it would impact the parking that is required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it does not impact the parking at all because the parking requirement is strictly based on the seating in the sanctuary. The same people seated in the sanctuary will also occupy the fellowship hall. One of the criteria in evaluating nonconforming uses is that the applicants must meet the parking requirements. The contract agreement should satisfy this requirement. Ms. Doris Swanson, resident of 1612 Williams Street, stated that her property abuts the parking lot of the church. She inquired about where the new building would be located and how tall it would be. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant's plan shows that the building would be approximately 20 feet from the rear property line and that the requirement is 30 feet. The applicant would have to adjust this by resituating the building on the lot. The building will be at least 30 feet from her property. In terms of the height of the building, it will be a one- story building and will be located directly behind the church. Ms. Swanson inquired about the parking lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the existing parking lot will remain the same. Mr. Gordon Wilson, Southside Community Coalition located at 2101 W. Holmes, stated that this property is very deceptive. He viewed the property today and is not sure how the 30 foot setback requirement will be met. He stated that a one-story building will be higher than the Quonset hut. He is not sure how the building will fit on the lot. There is a driveway -PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 5 to the south of the proposed building area but he does not see 30 feet from the end of the church to the property line. To the north, the church is 3 to 4 feet from the wall of the house on the corner of West and Main Street. He stated that the neighbors are not real happy with the proposal and he is present to speak on their behalf. The surrounding residents have lived in the area for over 60 years and average in age between 80 to 100 years. He stated that the building needs to conform. It has been this way too long. When he was a young man, the church was a Quonset hut. Then the church built in front of it. This type of pattern should not happen. The elderly ladies have to deal with drugs, slum landlords and boarded up homes. He stated that this used to be a nice neighborhood. He asked the Board to deny the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred NCU-1-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive This is a lot split request by Michael Debney to split off the west, approximately 53 feet of the properties at 6616/6618 & 6622/6624 Aurelius Road and combine it with the property at 1925 Bowker, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 6616/6618 Aurelius: Lot 7 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 6622/6624 Aurelius: Lot 8 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1925 Bowker Drive: Lot 4 New Horizon Sub and the west 53 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Hartland Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, 1925 Bowker would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.18. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations is requested. Mr. Gerald Buffin, owner of the properties located at 6616 & 6624 Aurelius Road and resident of 2880 E. St. Joe Hwy., stated that he purchased the property 2 years ago. The buildings are duplexes and rental units. What he proposes is to keep the community looking nice. In the description, one can see how deep the lots are. For rental units, it is unnecessary and he does not foresee anything else being there except rental units. If the community owned the property, he would propose that the residents take care and maintain it. It would be a more pleasant atmosphere and well cared for. There is a woodsy environment and it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 6 would improve the looks of the area. It has taken some time to slowly renovate the interiors of the duplexes. He would also like to redo the exteriors and use vinyl siding. There are new windows ordered for one of the units. He would like to keep the appearance of the duplexes looking as good as the rest of the area. If anyone has been in the area, the two duplexes have been the topic of discussion for the last 1 '/z years. If he can get the outside taken care of, it will also help improve the community and the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred LS-13-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was initiated by the Planning Board. The amendment would prohibit new accessory structures, primarily garages, from being able to project closer to the street than the front of the house. It seems to be the trend lately with new houses that when one drives down the street what can be seen is a garage with an attached house behind it. In the older neighborhoods, this type of architecture will not be seen. The house will be in front with the garage behind it, either a detached garage that sits to the rear of the property or in some cases a garage that may be even with the front of the house but not one that projects completely out from the home. This amendment is essentially intended to prohibit this type of architecture. The nearest point of the roof structure would essentially define where the front of the house would be. If there is a roofed front porch, then the garage could essentially project even with the porch. The idea is not to have the garage in its entirety or even in part protrude in front of the house itself. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred the Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 7 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — May 4, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of May 4, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of May 4, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Act-8-2004, 100 Blk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor patio on the existing sidewalk adjoining the 101 Building, located at the southeast corner of Michigan and Washington Ave. As depicted in the attached design concept and site plan, the patio would encroach onto the sidewalk approximately 13 feet. This would leave a 7' - 7" wide pedestrian walkway fronting the patio. The patio would be slightly (e.g., 4" - 18") above the grade of the sidewalk. The area would be enclosed by a wrought iron fence with masonry colonnades. As proposed, the patio will be heated to allow year-round occupancy. Staff recommended approval of Act-8-2004, a street-side patio in the sidewalk right-of-way (ROW) of Michigan Avenue adjoining the '101' building subject to a legal instrument (e.g., license) to convey the right to construct and occupy the patio being approved by the City Attorney's Office, with conditions to protect the City's interests in the right-of-way. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 8 1. revert all control and authority back to the City should the patio no longer be used by the applicant in the manner approved by the City; 2. require adequate surety to restore the location to its original condition should the patio cease to be used by the applicant in the agreed upon manner; 3. include as an exhibit a site plan of the patio and adjoining area that has been prepared in accordance with City specifications, reviewed in accordance with City site plan review procedures, and requiring adequate unobstructed space for pedestrian circulation as determined by the City Transportation Engineer; 4. an indemnification/hold harmless clause to address liability issues; 5. that the City of Lansing be named as coinsured with respect to the patio area; 6. that the appearance of the patio be substantially as presented in the conceptual diagram provided with the application; and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Foster stated for the record that Mr. Ruge has arrived after roll was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Foster inquired about the patio being heated year round and how the applicant will do it since it is an outdoor patio. Mr. Czekai stated that a lot of restaurants around the country in urban areas will have heated outdoor seating areas where there may be large gasoline heaters. There is usually some type of overhang for inclement weather. Mr. Chris Elliot, applicant, stated that the space would be heated by radiant floor and ceiling heat and that the patio would be used seasonally, approximately 10 months out of the year. This will be a non-smoking restaurant. He stated that smokers would be able to go outside and smoke in relative comfort. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Act-8-2004, 100 Bilk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe with the following conditions: 1) Revert all control and authority back to the City should the patio no longer be used by the applicant in the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 9 manner approved by the City, 2) Require adequate surety to restore the location to its original condition should the patio cease to be used by the applicant in the agreed upon manner, 3) Include as an exhibit a site plan of the patio and adjoining area that has been prepared in accordance with City specifications, reviewed in accordance with City site plan review procedures, and requiring adequate unobstructed space for pedestrian circulation as determined by the City Transportation Engineer, 4) An indemnification/hold harmless clause to address liability issues, 5) That the City of Lansing be named as coinsured with respect to the patio area, and 6) That the appearance of the patio be substantially as presented in the conceptual diagram provided with the application. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-9-2004, 111 E. Grand River, Permanent Canopy over ROW This is a request by Fred Hammond to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 111 E. Grand River Avenue. The applicant is proposing to extend a canopy from the front facade and over the public right-of-way at 111 E. Grand River Ave. Although the canopy will be made of modern materials (aluminum and stainless steel), it will restore the building to its original appearance. These more modern materials will be concealed to blend with the original architecture and will include lighting accents and signage designed to be changeable. The canopy will be 8' above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 3.5' into the ROW. It will be heated to prevent ice buildups. The canopy will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk within this block of Grand River Avenue. According to the agency comments received, it will not interfere with utilities or any public improvement projects. Staff recommended approval of Act-9-2004, by issuance of a license, for the request by Fred Hammond to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 111 E. Grand River Avenue, with the conditions that the proposed canopy is: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 10 1. in keeping with the historic character and commercial/office use of the building, and 2. compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. That the size, design, and materials for construction of the proposed canopy be approved as stated in the applicant's proposal; and 2. That a proper license agreement be executed between the applicant and the City; and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Act-8-2004, 100 Bilk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe with the following conditions: 1) That the size, design, and materials for construction of the proposed canopy be approved as stated in the applicant's proposal, and 2) That a proper license agreement be executed between the applicant and the City. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker- Donora Area The Baker Donora neighborhood is bounded by the Red Cedar River on the north, Mt. Hope on the south, Pennsylvania Avenue on the east, and Cedar Street on the west. According to the 2000 Census, this neighborhood has 757 housing units, over 12% of which are vacant. Approximately 52% of the occupied units are rentals. This application by the GLHC is at the behest of the Baker Donora neighborhood, which is working with the GLHC, the City, and a coalition of other agencies on the general improvement of the neighborhood. The GLHC is applying for a Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) grant from MSHDA. The NEZ has been identified by the neighborhood PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 11 as one of about 38 improvement strategies. Also high on the list are strategies to encourage homeownership, such as credit training & budgeting, home repair training, and downpayment assistance. The NEZ program is a plan implementation tool to encourage the construction and improvement of housing units located within designated zones. It would provide property tax abatements within the proposed zone to promote the major housing renovation and new construction in the Baker-Donora area. The current proposal establishes the zone in which these abatements are available. Individual property owners wishing to avail themselves of this incentive apply on an individual basis, based on the rehabilitation or construction work they propose on properties within the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. Not all property owners within this zone will be making use of the NEZ abatement. The NEZ works best when the work proposed would increase the taxable value of the property, such as new additions, decks, etc. A separate program, through the Mathieu-Gast Act, exempts normal repair, replacement, and maintenance work from being assessed until the property is sold. The NEZ encourages property owners to go beyond repair, replacement, and maintenance to make major improvements to their properties. If this proposal is approved, the City will still have 86% of its legal capacity for NEZs remaining. Staff recommended approval of the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker-Donora Area. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker- Donora Area . Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 12 Next meeting, Tuesday, June 22, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E.Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19,2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) g. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) h. 2418 W. Miller Road-chicken coop(May 4,2004) i. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd. -home with peeling paint(May 4,2004) j. 2509 Solomon Drive-unregistered rental property(May 4,2004) k. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) I. Mt. Hope Ave.&Pennsylvania Ave. -Chinese take-out/Cash Advance business- excessive banner sign (May 4,2004) M. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that under item 51, the two signs have been turned over to the City sign inspector and enforcement action is being conducted. With item 5j, it is also being reviewed by Code Compliance. With item 5i, a written notice has been done with a July 1St compliance date to have the exterior of the home completed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Stachowiak stated that item 5h is not in violation under the current ordinance. There are chickens in the coop. She also stated that when the housing code changes, this will be a violation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the other items listed are in progress. With item 5e, Ms. Stachowiak stated that the sign had been removed and that the church was given a 90-day extension. The church has purchased property on South Washington and will be moving to the new site. The church needed time to do the closing of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she gave the extension with the condition that the sign be removed. The statue in the front yard weighs a ton and cannot be moved until the closing of the new church has been completed. Mr. Ruge mentioned the property on South Cedar Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Sarah had not completed the minutes from the last meeting and that she updates the list as she completes them. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster stated that the Master Plan was dated for 1981 and asked if there were any new updates. Mr. Rieske stated that he does not have much to add. The process of making revisions to the Master Plan is sort of a linear process and seems to be a puzzle of which pieces of it are falling into place. He has a picture in his mind of what it all should look like at the end, but he is not seeing enough of the puzzle pieces to see if it is turning out this way. He stated that the Planning Office continues to work on developing a land use classification system which is similar to what was adopted by the State called Imagine Conference. The State has adopted the frame work land use code which is based on the USGS land use codes that are decades old and were fine-tuned from there. SEMCOG has fined-tuned it since then. The City has its own version which is also being fine-tuned. He stated that the City is trying to incorporate the Assessor's Office data into the land use code. There is a good reason for this. An existing land use map is a whole lot easier to develop digitally, based on the Assessor's Office codes, than it is to go out and check house to house. There needs to be a field check. The Planning Office did use the Assessor's Office information to develop the existing land use map contained within the Central Lansing Plan. The Planning Office is thinking that a land use code can be put together that would be suitable for the Assessor's Office and Planning Office and would utilize some of the information. The Planning Office needs more detailed information about sites that the Assessor's Office does not need. The Assessor's Office knows information like whether or not a residence has a half or full basement. The Planning Office does not need this information. The Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 14 staff meet every 2 to 4 weeks to try and get this resolved. Sam Quan, C&CS Office, has been assisting staff. The Planning Office is working on the Infrastructure 20/20 plan. This is a fairly new initiative brought on by the need to coordinate public improvements with CSO, especially in the downtown area. There are all these plans dictating all these designs and providing guidelines for them but then when the City's streets are tore up for CSO, how does the Planning Office make sure that whatever is installed conforms to these plans? In going down Grand Avenue part of it abuts Cherry Hill Avenue. Does it get treated like Cherry Hill or part of the downtown area? This part is being coordinated by Mr. Ruff and the overall project is being coordinated by the Mayor's Office and the Public Service Department. It involves a whole lot more than what he is doing. The Planning Office is doing the Visioning Subcommittee portion of the plan. There are a great number of stake holders of which many are in agreement. A lot of the Hip Cool ideas were mentioned in the Central Lansing plan. Ms. Foster stated that it is a 1981 plan and if it still represents what is needed then that is great. The plan is now 25 years old. Mr. Rieske stated that a good portion of the City is single family residential. There are not that many land use changes that are going to go on with those. A plan this old has been amended and those areas where it has been amended include South Washington Avenue (2000), West Willard (special land use granted for offices relating to Ingham Regional Medical), West Mount Hope (1995) near Pleasant Grove Road, and Boston Blvd. He stated that the plans are updated as needed. Mr. Rieske stated that there are recommendations about the Baker— Danora Area in the South East plan. They have not been implemented. This plan is still good because the to-do list still has not been fulfilled. Ms. Foster made a recommendation to set an agenda for the Master Plan and define what it is that the Board would like to actually accomplish. She stated that the Board may be more efficient if there is an agenda. She would have liked to see the billboard ordinance amendment get passed but it was shot down saying it was not a good thing to do. Mr. Frederick asked if this would be appropriate for a Committee of the Whole meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this would be the best way of handling it and that the next meeting has a light agenda. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick stated that a few months ago the Board approved a Class A nonconforming status for a church that had a fire and was in pretty bad shape. He drove by it the other day and was amazed at the progress that was made. He was not sure that the church could be rebuilt. The brick walls were bowed out and the whole inside was gutted. He stated that the outside looks the way it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 15 originally did. It is a real asset to the neighborhood to have this eye sore cleaned up. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.060104.doc Draft to Clerk June 28,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers < ! Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 1, 2004 `n r c0 % N 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Cordill, McConnell. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-10-2004, 112 Shepard Street, "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Land Contractors, LLC to rezone the property at 112 Shepard, more specifically described as: South 33 feet of Lot 1 & the South 33 feet of the East 17 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 Halls Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to make the zoning of the property consistent with its residential use. Mr. Gordon VanWieren, 501 S. Capitol Ave., Suite 500, stated that the property tax card for this property has been classified as residential and in looking at the property and the surrounding uses, residential is the proper zoning classification. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Ryan Feedewa, current renter, stated that he tried to purchase the property a few times. He was informed that there would be no problems and there we none until the very end. The property is between the alley and Michigan Avenue. There are a lot of other residences in the same area and he was not sure why it was zoned this way. He would like to change the zoning so he can purchase the proposed property. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-10-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-4-2004, 810 Nipp Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Parking Lot This is a request by Jonathan Watts for a Special Land Use permit to remove the existing house and construct a parking lot at 810 Nipp Avenue. The proposed parking lot would serve the existing office at 1801 W. Main Street, which is also owned by the applicant and is located directly north of the subject property. The property is zoned "B" Residential District, which permits parking lots, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of parking spaces that would be available on the lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would pick up approximately 10 parking spaces. There are some problems with this proposed layout. It does not allow much buffering between the lot and the neighboring parcel to the south. This would need to be corrected. In correcting this situation, the 3 parallel parking spaces that are located next to the building would have to be removed. Everything would shift a little to the north so that applicant could accommodate the required 8 foot buffer along the property line. This would allow some protection for the residential neighborhood to the south. Other than this, the proposal would comply. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would gain approximately 7 parking spaces. Ms. LaDean Watts-George, resident of 4615 W. Michigan Ave., stated that she is here on behalf of her father, Jonathon Watts. He was not able to attend this meeting because of an arthritic condition. She is here to answer any questions the Board. The proposal is to remove the house on the property and turn it into a parking lot to accommodate the tenants at 1801 W. Main Street. In addition, there are plans to expand to the upper level and make the building handicap accessible by adding an elevator. Mr. Brian Schlee, architect, stated that he is here to answer any questions the Board may have regarding parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 3 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-4-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-5-2004, 217 N. Sycamore street, Special Land Use Permit - Ratio of Office to Residential Use This is a request by Booth Newspapers for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 217 N. Sycamore Street for 68 percent office and 32 percent residential use. The proposed percentages are based upon the amount of floor area that would be devoted to each use. The property is zoned "D-2" Residential/Office District, which permits a residentially used structure with up to 70 percent of the gross floor area in office use, if a Special Land Use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Mr. Chuck Postemus, architect, 560 Fifth Street NW, Grand Rapids, stated that he was an architect in the late 1980s to early 1990s when Booth Newspapers purchased the old house and restored it, added an addition on the west side. At that time, the parking was improved. There is one residential unit in the building and it currently has three bedrooms. The idea with the residence worked out well. It allows Booth Newspapers network, the Lansing bureau, serves as a news service to Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Ann Arbor, and to the other papers owned by Booth Newspapers. So often an intern or reporter will stay for a varying length of time in the residence and sometimes there may be a spouse. What the news bureau would like to do is take the bedroom and turn it into one more office space. This allows no changes to the historical building. There is an old sycamore tree on the south side and mature landscaping all the way around the parking area. There is a six percent swing in use changing one bedroom to an office and this is a very minor impact on the use. The applicant has spoken with all the neighbors and there are no objections to the proposal. The news service has been at this location for approximately 13 to 14 years and the proposal works out well for a soft use in the neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-5-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. NCU-1-2004, 817 West Street, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 4 This is a request by West Lansing Church of God, 817 West Street, 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 and has less than the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a 952 square foot meeting hall behind the existing church building. Therefore, the purpose of this request is to permit an expansion of a nonconformity at 817 West Street. Dr. John H. Snight, Pastor of the West Lansing Church of God located at 817 W. Street, stated that there is a quanson but located on the back of the property. The church would like to demolish it and replace it with a pole-type barn for a fellowship hall. When the school across the street from the church was in the process of remodeling, they needed parking spaces. The church entered into a contract with the school so that the employees could use the church parking lot. In return, the church could use the school's parking lot on Sunday mornings. The current building is not able to be used. This is why the church needed to be upgraded and this would also help upgrade the community. Ms. Stachowiak asked Pastor Snight for a copy of the contract between the church and the school so that the City could have it for the case file. Pastor Snight stated that he could bring a copy to the Planning office. Ms. Keene inquired about the increased square footage and how it would impact the parking that is required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it does not impact the parking at all because the parking requirement is strictly based on the seating in the sanctuary. The same people seated in the sanctuary will also occupy the fellowship hall. One of the criteria in evaluating nonconforming uses is that the applicants must meet the parking requirements. The contract agreement should satisfy this requirement. Ms. Doris Swanson, resident of 1612 Williams Street, stated that her property abuts the parking lot of the church. She inquired about where the new building would be located and how tall it would be. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant's plan shows that the building would be approximately 20 feet from the rear property line and that the requirement is 30 feet. The applicant would have to adjust this by resituating the building on the lot. The building will be at least 30 feet from her property. In terms of the height of the building, it will be a one- story building and will be located directly behind the church. Ms. Swanson inquired about the parking lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the existing parking lot will remain the same. Mr. Gordon Wilson, Southside Community Coalition located at 2101 W. Holmes, stated that this property is very deceptive. I viewed the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 5 property today. He is not sure how the 30 feet setback requirement will be met. He stated that a one-story building will be higher than the quanson hut. He is not sure how the building will fit on the lot. There is a driveway to the south of the proposed building area but he does not see 30 feet from the end of the church to the property line. To the north, the church is 3 to 4 feet from the wall of the house on the corner of West and Main Street. He stated that the neighbors are not real happy with the proposal and he is present to speak on their behalf. The surrounding residents have lived in the area for over 60 years and average in age between 80 to 100 years. He stated that the building needs to conform. It has been this way too long. When he was a young man, the church was a quanson hut. Then the church built in front of it. This type of pattern should not happen. The elderly ladies have to deal with drugs, slum landlords and boarded up homes. He stated that this used to be a nice neighborhood. He asked the Board to deny the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred NCU-1-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive This is a lot split request by Michael Debney to split off the west, approximately 53 feet of the properties at 6616/6618 & 6622/6624 Aurelius Road and combine it with the property at 1925 Bowker, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 6616/6618 Aurelius: Lot 7 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 6622/6624 Aurelius: Lot 8 Hartland Subdivision, except the west 53 feet thereof, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1925 Bowker Drive: Lot 4 New Horizon Sub and the west 53 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Hartland Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, 1925 Bowker would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.18. Therefore, a variance from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations is requested. Mr. Gerald Buffin, owner of the properties located at 6616 & 6624 Aurelius Road and resident of 2880 E. St. Joe Hwy., stated that he purchased the property 2 years ago. The buildings are duplexes and rental units. He believes in improving the community and feels he purchased property in a nice area. So far, he is on the third of the four duplexes to restore them. What he proposes is to keep the community PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 6 looking nice. In the description, one can see how deep the lot is. For a rental unit, it is unnecessary and he does not foresee anything else being there except rental units. If the community owned the property, he would propose that the residents take care and maintain it. It would be a more pleasant atmosphere and well cared for. There is a woodsy environment and it would improve the looks of the area. It has taken some time to slowly renovate the interiors of the duplexes. He would also like to redo the exteriors and use vinyl siding. There are new windows ordered for one of the units. He would like to keep the appearance of the duplexes looking as well as the rest of the area. If anyone has been in the area, the two duplexes have been the topic of discussion for the last 1 '/2 years. If he can get the outside taken care of, it will also help improve the community and the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred LS-13-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was initiated by the Planning Board. The amendment would prohibit new accessory structures, primarily garages, from being able to project closure to the street than the front of the house. It seems to be the trend lately with new houses that when one drives down the street what can be seen is a garage with an attached house behind it. In the older neighborhoods, this type of architecture will not be seen. The house will be in front with the garage behind it, either a detached garage that sits to the rear of the property or in some cases a garage that may be even with the front of the property but not one that projects completely out from the home. This amendment is essentially intended to prohibit this type of architecture. The nearest point of the roof structure would essentially define where the front of the house would be. If there is a roof front porch, then the garage could essentially project even with the porch. The idea is not to have the garage in its entirety or even in part protrude in front of the house itself. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred the Ordinance Amendments - Front Yard Setbacks/Garages to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 9, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 7 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 was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — May 4, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of May 4, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of May 4, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair a. Act-8-2004, 100 Bilk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor patio on the existing sidewalk adjoining the 101 Building, located at the southeast corner of Michigan and Washington Ave. As depicted in the attached design concept and site plan, the patio would encroach onto the sidewalk approximately 13 feet. This would leave a 7' - 7" wide pedestrian walkway fronting the patio. The patio would be slightly (e.g., 4" - 18") above the grade of the sidewalk. The area would be enclosed by a wrought iron fence with masonry colonnades. As proposed, the patio will be heated to allow year-round occupancy. Staff recommended approval of Act-8-2004, a street-side patio in the sidewalk right-of-way (ROW) of Michigan Avenue adjoining the '101' building subject to a legal instrument (e.g., license) to convey the right to construct and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 8 occupy the patio be approved by the City Attorney's Office, with conditions to protect the City's interests in the right-of- way. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. revert all control and authority back to the City should the patio no longer be used by the applicant in the manner approved by the City; 2. require adequate surety to restore the location to its original condition should the patio cease to be used by the applicant in the agreed upon manner; 3. include as an exhibit a site plan of the patio and adjoining area that has been prepared in accordance with City specifications, reviewed in accordance with City site plan review procedures, and requiring adequate unobstructed space for pedestrian circulation as determined by the City Transportation Engineer; 4. an indemnification/hold harmless clause to address liability issues; 5. that the City of Lansing be named as coinsured with respect to the patio area; 6. that the appearance of the patio be substantially as presented in the conceptual diagram provided with the application; and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Foster stated for the record that Mr. Ruge has arrived after roll was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Foster inquired about the patio being heated year round and how the applicant will do it since it is an outdoor patio. Mr. Czekai stated that a lot of restaurants around the country in urban areas will have heated outdoor seating areas where there may be large gasoline heaters. There is usually some type of overhang for inclement weather. Mr. Chris Elliot, applicant, stated that the space would be heated by radiant floor and ceiling heat and that the patio would be used seasonally, approximately 10 months out of the year. This will be a non-smoking restaurant. He stated that smokers would be able to go outside and smoke in relative comfort. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 9 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Act-8-2004, 100 Blk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe with the following conditions: 1) . Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Act-9-2004, 111 E. Grand River, Permanent Canopy over ROW This is a request by Fred Hammond to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 111 E. Grand River Avenue. The applicant is proposing to extend a canopy from the front facade and over the public right-of-way at 111 E. Grand River Ave. Although the canopy will be made of modern materials (aluminum and stainless steel), it will restore the building to its original appearance. These more modern materials will be concealed to blend with the original architecture and will include lighting accents and signage designed to be changeable. The canopy will be 8' above grade from the sidewalk, and extend 3.5' into the ROW. It will be heated to prevent ice buildups. The canopy will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk within this block of Grand River Avenue. According to the agency comments received, it will not interfere with utilities or any public improvement projects. Staff recommended approval of Act-9-2004, by issuance of a license, for the request by Fred Hammond to utilize the air rights over the sidewalk at 111 E. Grand River Avenue, with the conditions that the proposed canopy is: 1. in keeping with the historic character and commercial/office use of the building, and 2. compatible with the historic and traditional commercial character of the surrounding environment. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 10 1. That the size, design, and materials for construction of the proposed canopy be approved as stated in the applicant's proposal; and 2. That the proper license agreement be executed between the applicant and the City; and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Act-8-2004, 100 Bilk E Michigan Ave., Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements for Sidewalk Cafe with the following conditions: 1) . Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker- Donora Area The Baker Donora neighborhood is bounded by the Red Cedar River on the north, Mt. Hope on the south, Pennsylvania Avenue on the east, and Cedar Street on the west. According to the 2000 Census, this neighborhood has 757 housing units, over 12% of which are vacant. Approximately 52% of the occupied units are rentals. This application by the GLHC is at the behest of the Baker Donora neighborhood, which is working with the GLHC, the City, and a coalition of other agencies on the general improvement of the neighborhood. The GLHC is applying for a Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) grant from MSHDA. The NEZ has been identified by the neighborhood as one of about 38 improvement strategies. Also high on the list are strategies to encourage homeownership, such as credit training & budgeting, home repair training, downpayment assistance. The NEZ program is a plan implementation tool to encourage the construction and improvement of housing units located within designated zones. It would provide property tax abatements within the proposed zone to promote the major housing renovation and new construction in the Baker-Donora area. The current proposal establishes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 11 the zone in which these abatements are available. Individual property owners wishing to avail themselves of this incentive apply on an individual basis, based on the rehabilitation or construction work they propose on properties within the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. Not all property owners within this zone will be making use of the NEZ abatement. The NEZ works best when the work proposed would increase the taxable value of the property, such as new additions, decks, etc. A separate program, through the Mathieu-Gast Act, exempts normal repair, replacement, and maintenance work from being assessed until the property is sold. The NEZ encourages property owners to go beyond repair, replacement, and maintenance to make major improvements to their properties. If this proposal is approved, the City will still have 86% of its legal capacity for NEZs remaining. Staff recommended approval of the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker-Donora Area. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to recommend approval of Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Application - Baker- Donora Area . Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene Ave Ruge Ave Czekai Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 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 June 1, 2004 Page 12 C. Report from Planning Manager- None. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planninq Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19, 2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) g. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) h. 2418 W. Miller Road-chicken coop(May 4,2004) i. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4, 2004) j. 2509 Solomon Drive-unregistered rental property(May 4,2004) k. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) I. Mt. Hope Ave.& Pennsylvania Ave.-Chinese take-out/Cash Advance business- excessive banner sign (May 4,2004) M. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that under item 51, the two signs have been turned over to the City sign inspector and enforcement action is being conducted. With item 5j, it is also being reviewed by Code Compliance. With item 5i, a written notice has been done with a July 1st compliance date to have the exterior of the home completed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that item 5h is not in violation under the current ordinance. There are chickens in the coop. She also stated that when the housing code changes, this will be a violation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the other items listed are in progress. With item 5e, Ms. Stachowiak stated that the sign had been removed and that the church was given a 90-day extension. The church has purchased property on South Washington and will be moving to the new site. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 13 church needed time to do the closing of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she gave the extension with the condition that the sign be removed. The statue in the front yard weighs a ton and cannot be moved until the closing of the new church has been completed. Mr. Ruge mentioned the property on South Cedar Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Sarah had not completed the minutes from the last meeting and that she updates the list as she completes them. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster stated that the Master Plan was dated for 1981 and asked if there were any new updates. Mr. Rieske stated that he does not have much to add. In the process of making revision of the Master Plan sort of a linear process, it seems to be a puzzle which pieces of it are falling into place. He has a picture in his mind of what it all should look like at the end. He is not seeing enough of the puzzle pieces to see if it is turning out this way. He stated that the Planning Office continues to work on developing a land use classification system which is similar to what was adopted by the State called Imagine Conference. The State has adopted the frame work land use code which is based on the USGS land use codes that are decades old and is fine-tuned from there. SimCog has fined-tuned it since then. The City has its own version which is also being fine-tuned. He stated that the City is trying to incorporate the Assessor's Office data into the land use code. There is a good reason for this. An existing land use map is a whole lot easier to develop digitally, based on the Assessor's Office codes and if they fit, than it is to go out and check house to house. There needs to be a field check. The Planning Office did use the Assessor's Office information to develop on a smaller scale for the Central Lansing Plan to develop existing land use. The Planning Office is thinking that a land use code can be put together that would be suitable for the Assessor's Office and Planning Office and would utilize some of the information. The Planning Office needs more detailed information about sites that the Assessor's Office does not need. The Assessor's Office knows information like whether or not a residence has a half or full basement. The Planning Office does not need this information. The Planning staff meet every 2 to 4 weeks to try and get this resolved. Sam Quan, CIS Office, has been assisting staff. The Planning Office is working on the Infrastructure 20/20. This is a fairly new initiative brought on by the need to coordinate public improvements with CSO, especially in the downtown area. There are all these plans dictating all these designs and providing guidelines for them but then when the City's streets are tore up for CSO, how does the Planning Office make sure that whatever is installed conforms to these plans? In going down Grand Avenue part of it abuts PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 14 Cherry Hill Avenue. Does it get treated like Cherry Hill or part of the downtown area. Little things like this sort of decision rules that end up making a big difference. This part is being coordinated by Mr. Ruff and the overall project is being coordinated by the Mayor's Office and the Public Service Department. It involves a whole lot more than what he is doing. The Planning Office is doing the Visioning Subcommittee portion of the plan. There are a great number of stake holders of which many are in agreement. When the Central Lansing plan, people come up with these brand new ideas and he says that it is right from the plan. The plan has a lot to be said for it. A lot of the Hip Cool ideas were mentioned in the Central Lansing plan. Ms. Foster stated that it is a 1981 plan and if it still represents what is needed then that is great. The plan is now 25 years old. Mr. Rieske stated that a good portion of the City is single family residential. There are not that many land use changes that are going to go on with those. A plan this old has been amended and those areas where it has been amended include South Washington Avenue (2000), West Willard (special land use granted for offices relating to Ingham Regional Medical), West Mount Hope (1995) near Pleasant Grove Road, and Boston Blvd. He stated that the plans are updated as needed and that it is an overall plan but still forthcoming. Mr. Rieske stated that there are recommendations about the Baker— Danora Area in the South East plan. They have not been implemented. This plan is still good because the to-do list still has not been fulfilled. Ms. Foster made a recommendation to set an agenda for the Master Plan and define what it is that the Board would like to actually accomplish. She stated that the Board may be more efficient if there is an agenda. She would have liked to see the billboards pass but it was shot down saying it was not a good thing to do. Mr. Frederick asked if this would be appropriate for a Committee of the Whole meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this would be the best way of handling it and that the next meeting has a light agenda. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick stated that a few months ago the Board approved a Class A nonconforming status for a church that had a fire and was is pretty bad shape. He drove by it the other day and was amazed at the progress that was made. He was not sure that the church could be rebuilt. The brick walls were bowed out and the whole inside was gutted. He stated that the outside looks the way it originally did. It is a real addition to the neighborhood to have this eye sore cleaned up. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 1, 2004 Page 15 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.060104.doc