Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 Planning Board July-Sept Minutes FINAL Draft to Clerk August 27,2004 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, August 3, 2004 = r 1. OPENING SESSION - The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. :n ' CSi A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene, McConnell. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell from tonight's meeting and from the meeting on August 3rd. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant for Z-2-2004, Item A, under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting has asked that this case be removed from the agenda this evening. The applicant's attorney had a family emergency and was unable to attend this evening. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to table Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., "D-2" Residential/Office District to "D-1" Professional Office District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). This case will be taken up at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, September 8, 2004. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the amended agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) regarding Z-14-2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 2 B. Letter of opposition from Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck regarding Z-2-2004 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Bob Cochran, resident of 403 N. Sycamore, stated that he is currently an appointed demolition hearing officer for the Mayor. He is a former Board member and past President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA). He was on the Lansing City Council's ADHOC Committee and was also active in Turner- Dodge for 7 years. He is here to discuss Z-14-2004. For years there has been a Master Plan that created the transitional zone from downtown businesses into the neighborhoods. It has been kept fairly inviolate. Everyone remembers when Michigan Retailers came and fought tooth and nail to construct a 32,000 square foot office building. In this case, the MCC decided to demolish without consulting anyone and went against the wisdom of Jim Ruff, Director of the Planning Department. The applicant was informed they would not be able to do anything with the property, not even parking because of the required setbacks. MCC discussed with the surrounding neighbors that they just wanted to put in parking and did not inform the neighbors of their application for a rezoning. The MCC owns the property at 423 N. Sycamore which is immediately adjacent to this property. They own property on Chestnut Street and the parking lots to the east. He has been in Lansing for 13 years and when he used to do work on Sharon Kellogg's house, he noticed that the parking lot was almost always empty. The company has 3 or 4 employees and there are approximately 20 parking spaces on the lot. The company does not need more parking. Attorney Tom Wood purchased Sharon Kellogg's home and informed Mr. Cochran the he only supported the applicant because he thought it would only be for parking. The application is not for parking. It is a zoning change to the "D-1" Professional Office space. If the request is granted, and City Council approves the request, the applicant will have an L-shaped lot that is large enough for a 20,000 square foot building. This will change the character of the neighborhood and will violate the updated (1999) Master Plan that modified the River Island Master Plan. The neighbors are not getting the true story and he is not sure what it is. He does know that zoning is forever. The neighbors have fought so long to keep the character the way it is so that there would be some residential history to this neighborhood. If this goes undetected, it will erode, the property values will go down and there will be a big cluster mess downtown. It will be hit and miss and this is one more case of someone not coming forward. There have not be any discussions with the DNA or the neighbors, and there were no plans submitted at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. He asked the Board to deny the request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that DNA opposes the zoning request and have been very concerned with this property ever since the MCCA made the decision to demolish the building on the corner. The DNA has been wondering what the applicant was going to do with the property. There has not been any money put into the property located at 423 N. Sycamore and it needs serious roof repairs. There are other outside damages to the property and the DNA is concerned that the applicant will continue to let the building deteriorate. She stated that granting a zoning change to put in a very small parking lot is not the answer. If the applicant feels that more parking is needed, then let the applicant apply for a special land use permit and go through the process to see if a case can be made. The DNA does not feel that this is the right direction for this area. Mr. Ruge stated that it appears this area in the Master Plan is designated for office use, and he asked if the DNA has spoken with anyone about getting this changed. Ms. Zuchowski stated that rather than changing the current zoning, her recommendation would be to wait until the MCCA has a plan for this site. She believes that the MCCA has plans but she wishes that the plans would be finalized first and then presented. This way the DNA, the City and City Council could deal with it as a whole. The properties are zoned in such a way that they can be used as office space. The best way would be to review this as a whole. The MCCA is considering an addition to the building and should be dealing with it openly so that everyone can see what would be done. Ms. Zuchowski stated that with the plans for the parking lot, the applicant will gain very few parking spaces. A special land use permit would be better. This would allow the DNA time to review this whole area and see what really should be happening on the lot. Mr. Ruge agreed that the whole area should be reviewed. If the DNA sees a problem, then the Board should look in to the matter and determine a direction. Ms. Zuchowski stated that she would like to review this area more comprehensively. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 620 W. Ionia, stated she is providing the Board with information from the file. She agreed with Mr. Ruge that this needs to be better reviewed, especially the Master Plan for this area. If the required set backs are followed, it is more infinitive than what is in the staff report. The setbacks have to be 20 feet back, leaving a prod of land 43 feet by 46 feet which is insufficient to do anything. Then the applicant would have to do buffering because of the different uses on the sides of the property. This request should be denied. The property was formerly rental property until it was purchased by the applicant. Once the applicant gained control of the property, he continued to use it for what it legitimately had been used for, a building and now a piece of land that is too small. The applicant wanted to tear down the building but the Planning Department tried to convince the property owner to do something different with the property. The City tried to put together resources to show the property owner how it could be handled. Mr. Ruff wrote a lettering regarding the demolition of the building and explained that if the building was torn down, there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 4 will not be anything that could be done to the property. The property would not be buildable and vehicles could not be parked on it whatsoever. It would be a self induced hardship. She stated that the applicant has caused these problems. What was on the site before could have continued to survive at the building and even following the Master Plan, the building could have become an office but it was demolished. Now all of the rules apply. The applicant has an unbuildable lot with setback requirements and the City's hands are tied. The City has to tell the applicant no. The building was fairly new construction, possibly built in the 1980's. The property line is very close to the fence and she does not understand how this would work. The building is not the footprint of the small 18th Century buildings that were previously there. This was a new footprint. The applicant was supposed to follow the setbacks when the building was first constructed but it did not happen. She stated that the building needs to be taken down and built legitimately. The applicant certainly has no legitimate reason to be able to use this property to build an office or to use for parking. This is the problem with self induced hardships. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — August 3, 2004 Mr. Ruge moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of August 3, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of August 3, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office Mr. Ruge stated that Z-2-2004 was tabled by the Planning Board. b. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Ruge stated that Z-12-2004 was tabled in Committee. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 5 C. Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Toomey Builders, Inc. to rezone the property at the southwest corner of Dunckel and Hazelwood, more specifically described as: Lots 27 & 28, Green Acres Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit an office building on the subject property. Staff recommended denial of the Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District due to inconsistency with the residential land use pattern being advanced in the master plan and is inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by the Michigan Community College Association to rezone the northwest 66' x 63' of the property at 427 W. Ionia/222 N. Chestnut Streets, more specifically described as: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 6 Lot 10 & the West 107 Feet of Lots 11 & 12, Block 93 Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit additional parking for the Michigan Community College Association located at 222 N. Chestnut Street. Staff recommended approval of Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Czekai inquired about what was currently on the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a vacant lot with green space. A few years ago, there was a house on this lot that was nonconforming in every way possible (i.e. setback, lot coverage, parking). The structure was demolished. At that time, Mr. Ruff put the owner of the property on notice that because this lot is so small, 63 feet by 66 feet, that the owner would not be able to built another structure at this location. By itself, the owner would not be able to construct a parking lot on this property. However, when added to the surrounding property, which it has been, it can now be used in part as accessory parking. This is what the applicant is proposing to do and this is why the applicant is going through the process of a rezoning rather than special land use permit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the plan provided in the packet does not comply with the zoning ordinance. The applicant cannot submit a parking plan that does not comply with the ordinance and then go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance. This needs to be understood up front that there would be very limited use of the property no matter what happens. Most of it would go to green space. The rezoning is acceptable to staff at this point, but that does not mean the site plan is acceptable. The applicant fully understands this. Mr. Frederick inquired about anything being done on this piece of property that would fit within the "DM-3" Residential zone. Ms. Stachowiak stated no. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was anything that would require an applicant to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 7 present a site plan when there is a request for a rezoning or can the applicant simply request that something be rezoned. Ms. Stachowiak stated that an applicant can simply request something to be rezoned. A site plan is not required with a rezoning application. Mr. Frederick stated that the site plan submitted was conceptual at best and would not meet any requirements and if anything would be parked on the lot, the applicant would have to resubmit a new plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would have to submit a site plan that meets all of the ordinance requirements, and would have to go through all of the normal channels of being reviewed by not only the Planning Office for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance but also with the Public Service Department in terms of drainage, the Transportation Office for curb cuts, etc. The request will go through an extensive approval process if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Ruge inquired about property that the applicant owns on this particular block. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns the property directly adjacent to this site. Mr. Ruge inquired about the applicant owning the property located at 423 W. Ionia. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant may own this property and that the applicant does not own the whole half block. Ms. Cordill asked if this request could be a special use permit for parking in the "DM-3" zone or a residential zone that is less intensive than the "D-1" zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would not do any good to down zone the property because as useless as it currently is right now the down zone would still make it useless. She stated that a special land use permit could still be requested. The applicant would still be stuck with a spot zone and there is no gain from it. Ms. Cordill stated that it may permit something from happening. Ms. Stachowiak stated anything that would be allowed on this site, being an office building or parking, still has to meet the required 20 foot setback. Ms. Cordill inquired about the applicant attending any of the meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a representative at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting last week. She was not asked any questions but she was in attendance. Mr. Ruge stated that the area still has the feel of a residential neighborhood. He respects what the neighborhood is saying and appreciates their work and dedication. He would not like to oppose their views but to him it appears that with this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 8 block the battle is already lost. The zoning is all "D-1" residential. He stated that he feels very torn about this request. Ms. Cordill stated that she was not thrilled with the idea of a parking lot on a corner in the downtown area. However, she noticed that the plan called for office use. It is not an office use but it is an office zoning. This request is not an expansion of the office building but under the zoning, the applicant can expand parking. She is at a loss with what options there are given that the plan calls for office use. Mr. Frederick stated that this is currently spot zoning which is not good from a planning perspective. The property as it currently is, whether there was a building or not, cannot be used for anything because of its size. He does not feel that he has the right to make a decision that would prevent a property owner from getting use out of the property. The Master Plan calls for "D-1" Residential zoning and that is what the applicant has requested. He sees nothing within his authority that would allow him to vote against this request. From recent history, site plans that are presented do not always turn out the way they were designed. When he supports a particular zoning, he is supporting anything that can be done by right in that zoning. He supports this request. Mr. Ruge stated that the site plan does indicate that the applicant plans on demolishing the building next door at 423 W. Ionia. The driveway runs right into the side of the house. He is concerned about the applicant's plans because the Board does not know anything about the plans. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there seems to be some unanswered questions and that there is another way to handle this request. She recommended that the Board refer this request back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and have the Committee members meet with the applicant. Ms. Foster stated that she does have concerns and that this is spot zoning. It also increases the diversity within this neighborhood which is positive since the City wants to increase diversity of land uses. Mr. Frederick stated that there are no uses for this site. Ms. Foster stated that the applicant was informed that if the house was demolished there would be no use. It is not like the applicant was not aware of this. She is not sure if by keeping this a different zoning, whether the City would prevent changes because of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 9 the lumping of the land to change the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the driveway runs through the house so this would mean that plans are probably to demolish those two and construct something there. Is this what the City would want? The character does not fit this at all. It appears that the Board is guessing the applicant's plans. By keeping the house, the Board is preventing the clumping of the land to prevent something bigger. By not keeping the house, the Board is allowing a larger use of this type. Mr. Frederick stated that whether or not the applicant knew when the house was torn down that there would be no use for the land is not enough to give him the authority to prevent the applicant from saying that he can get no valid use through no fault of the applicant's own. The property was zoned "DM-Y Residential and is too small for anything else. If the property were to stay at the "DM-3" zoning then no one could get any use out of it regardless of who owns it. He does not believe that the Board has the authority and is on tenuous legal ground by keeping the property "DM-3" Residential as the reason is to keep it from being used in a way that might change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Foster wondered about when the applicant purchased the property with the house that existed if it maintained the character of the area. By removing the home, the applicant has now caused the character to change. Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant could let the property stay until it became dangerous. Then the Code Compliance Office could red tag the home and the demolition Board could tell the applicant that it has to be done. One way or the other, the building had to be demolished. The applicant still would have ended up with a piece of property that is valueless. Ms. Foster inquired about rehabbing the house. Mr. Frederick stated that the house could have been rehabilitated, and when a person goes before the demolition Board there are two choices: 1) have the home meet code requirements, or 2) demolish the home. If neither is done, then the demolition Board will demolish the home. The applicant could have stone-walled everything and still ended up with an empty piece of property that would be of no value. It would be of no value to the property owner or to anyone with the current zoning. Ms. Foster stated that if the applicant would have rehabbed the building, he could have had use of the building. Mr. Frederick stated that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 10 applicant only had the use of the building because it is a legal nonconformity and the whole reason in the Zoning Ordinance for legal nonconformity is to get the applicant to conform. This is what the property owners are choosing to do. By asking for a "D-1" zoning, the owners are getting their piece of property to conform to both the Master Plan and the adjacent zoning. Ms. Cordill stated that the planning for this area was for office use and she is not sure how something could be legally denied when it has been designated for office use. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to follow the Master Plan because this is the plan and this is the only way that the Board can operate without chaos. If the situation changes where the Master Plan is no longer really viable or not appropriate in the area any longer, then he believes that the Board can go against the Master Plan. This may be the case with this property but he is not sure Mr. Frederick stated that in this case he would support Ms. Stachowiak's suggestion that the case be referred back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. This would give the Committee an opportunity to evaluate if the Master Plan is inappropriate. So far, the Board has been presented with no evidence that the Master Plan is inappropriate. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to refer this case back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for further review. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to try to avoid anymore parking lots in the downtown area. However, if the members examine whether the Master Plan is appropriate, this property has already been in the process. There would be a danger of not treating this petitioner fairly under the rules that were in place at the time of application. The thought of demolishing another home to construct a parking lot, she is not an advocate for. However, the Board has legal restraints and due process. She is not sure how the Board would get around these. She is in favor of the Committee doing further research. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board could not deny this request because the Board would like to reevaluate the whole Master Plan. The Board does have the authority to refer this case back to Committee to explore other PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 11 possibilities. The Board may end of not being able to deny the case but he believes that the delay would be negligible because the property owners have a lot of work ahead of them to make their proposed site plan comply. The Board is not slowing them down any by sending the case back to Committee and maybe delaying it for a month. The Board cannot table the request while the City works to change the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there have been some questions that arose here for the first time in terms of the intentions with the adjacent property that have not been answered. This alone warrants referring the case back to Committee until all of the questions have been answered. Ms. Foster stated that because of that, she would like to see all of the properties owned by the applicant and how it is that the applicant would modify them to meet the change. Mr. Czekai asked if there was any way at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee to ascertain not only what the applicant's plans are but what the different possibilities are. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning staff could answer that question. Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to invite the Michigan Association of Community College to the next Board meeting. She believes that the association could present this information in front of the entire Board. Mr. Frederick inquired about referring this case to the Committee of the Whole rather than the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Foster wondered if it would give the Committee more time to discuss the case and if there are any more issues, there would be enough time to bring the case to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that it can always be discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and then be referred to the Committee of the Whole. e. SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by George and Rosy Rowan for a Special Land Use permit to expand an adult foster care home located at 706 Britten Ave. to a residential care facility. The number of residents in the facility is proposed to increase PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 12 from 6 to 9. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to nine persons; 2. Operation of the residential care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of such facilities, including International Fire Code which requires sprinkling for over eight residents; 3. The residents are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance; and 4. Adequate onsite parking is provided in accordance with the zoning requirements and parking is screened from view of the abutting neighbors and the street. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to eight persons; 2. Operation of the residential care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of such facilities, including International Fire Code which requires sprinkling for over eight residents; 3. The residents are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance; and 4. Adequate onsite parking is provided in accordance with the zoning requirements and parking is screened, with landscaping, from view of the abutting neighbors and the street and that said landscaping be completed within six (6) months from the date of approval of this SLU; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Czekai asked Mr. Ruge if the applicant was present at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the applicant was present. Mr. Czekai asked if there were any objections to the conditions. Mr. Ruge stated that there were no objections. Ms. Cordill inquired about condition number 4, and asked if the parking would be screened but not the house itself. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility. Frederick Aye Foster. Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split This is a lot split request by Kathy Bennett and Robert Terry, 5188 W. Stoll Rd., Lansing, MI. The applicants are proposing to divide the property at 527 Beech Street, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 527 Beech Street: West 127.71 feet of the South 1 Rod of Lot 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Vacant Parcel: East 127.71 feet of the South Rod of Lots 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. In addition, Section 1236.07(d) allows a maximum width to depth ratio of1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the resulting lots would have a width of 49.5 feet and a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.58. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Staff recommended approval of the LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 14 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. g. NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by William Sainz, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status at 238 S. Foster Avenue. The property is nonconforming as it contains a 2-family structure in the "B" Single Family Residential Zoning District and does not comply with the minimum required front yard setback. The applicant proposes to rebuild the second story, add a front porch and make general improvements to the house, garage and the site. This is, therefore, a request for a Class "A" Nonconforming status to permit the proposed improvements/alterations at 238 S. Foster Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the condition that the improvements be completed within one year from the date of approval of this NCU, and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). In Committee, Mr. Ruge offered a friendly amendment to require that steps be taken to protect the tree next to the driveway. Ms. Keene and Mr. Frederick accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster inquired if there was a limit to how tall the structure would be. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the maximum height is 35 feet, and the applicant only intends to construct a normal size second story addition. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1) The improvements be completed within one year from the date of approval of this NCU, and 2) That steps be taken to protect the tree next to the driveway. Frederick Ave Foster. Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 15 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, August 24, 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& MILK Blvd. -landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 2714 W. Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20, 2004) f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) g. 5912 S. MILK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4,2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) I. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds (June 15, 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 16 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board Member Code Enforcement items from the last meeting have not been added to list but have been forwarded to the Code Compliance Office. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster inquired about the goals and agendas and if it will happen at the next meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated it can be done any time the Board is ready. She asked Ms. Foster if she would like to have it placed on the next meeting agenda. Ms. Foster stated that she would like it on the next agenda so that it could be done as a Committee of the Whole item. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that a fence on a corner lot located at 2414 Solomon Drive may not be in compliance with the code requirements. The fence sticks out a lot farther than the neighbor's house behind it, and was constructed a few months ago by R & R Fence Inc. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.081704.doc Draft to Clerk August 11, 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, August 3, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION CD c� The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call- Present- Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Witherspoon. C. Excused absences- None. D. Absent: McConnell. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Foster from the June 15th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 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 (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from W. Kinsman regarding Z-13-2004 B. Letter of concern from the Lansing Catholic Central regarding M PA-1-2004 C. Letter of support from the Eastside Neighborhood Association regarding MPA-1-2004 D. Letter of support from Cummins Woods, Attorneys and Counselors, regarding Z-14-2004 E. Five letters of support (from Debra & Jeffrey Lecato, Marguerite Davis, Michael Lankins, Gail & Judy Watkins, and Laura Short) regarding NCU-2- 2004 F. Fifty-one letters of opposition regarding Z-12-2004 4. HEARINGS A. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 2 This is a request by Friedland Iron & Metal Company to rezone the property located at the east end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Street, more specifically described as: Lot 32 Banghart Sub, and Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot 81 Banghart Sub No 1, Thence East 500 Feet to Westerly Line NYC Railroad ROW, Southerly on said Westerly ROW Line to North Line Banghart St West on North Line Banghart St 91 Feet to Southeast Corner of Lot 32, Banghart Sub, North 133 Ft, West 191 Ft, North 187 Ft, West 50 Ft to Southeast Corner Lot 81 Banghart Sub No. 1, N 137.41 Ft to Beginning; and Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot 82 Banghart Sub No 1, Thence East 50 Ft, South 133 Ft, West 50 Ft, North 133 Ft to Beginning, Section 3 T4N R2W, and Lots 26 Through 38 Inclusive, Also Vacated Ninth Ave Between Lots 34 & 35, Also Vacated Bates Street from East Line Ninth Ave East to Railroad Right-of-way, B L Bates Jackson Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "B" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of this request is to permit the cleanup of contamination on the subject property and to allow its redevelopment for non-residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Chuck Barbieri, attorney for Friedland Iron & Metal Company, stated that this request is to change certain areas that are part of the old Friedland Iron & Metal site from "B" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale districts to "H" Light Industrial district. This reclassification is necessary to carry out a clean up. For some time, the company has been performing investigations and some interim response activities at this site. The final remedy would be the placement of a cap over certain areas that are contaminated but the property has to have the same zoning classification. He cited the statutory section MCL 324.20120A, sub paragraph 6. This provision requires the cleanup that has been proposed. Since this is a limited industrial cleanup that is proposed, it has to have a zoning classification that fits industrial use. There is a small portion which is residential and also warehouse which needs to be converted to this industrial classification. Once the zoning and the remedial action plan is approved, then the site will remain in its capped condition limited to whatever restrictions may be involved. Friedland Iron & Metal Company does not have any active reuse plans for the property and the company does not want to waive any of the rights that it may have. This is a request to carry out a cleanup which the company would like to do. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 3 The property is owned by Sylvia Friedland, widow of Bernard Friedland (former principle of Friedland Iron & Medal). Friedland Iron & Medal Company was the former operator of the site. Mr. Ruge inquired about access to the site other than Bates, Harris or Banghart Streets. Mr. Barbieri stated that someone could gain access from the south or the north along the railroad tracks. In terms of the cleanup, he stated that the company is not sure which entry way would be feasible but is willing to work with the City and others who have jurisdiction to try to minimize the destruction that might occur from the equipment that would be taken back and forth on the site. There is no intention to cause an undue or unreasonable interference. The company only needs to gain access to the site for the closure that is proposed. Mr. Ruge inquired about how long the site has been used by Friedland Iron & Metal Company. Mr. Barbieri stated that the site has not been used since the late 1980's. Mr. Ruge asked if the property had not been used at all since the late 1980's. Mr. Barbieri stated that is correct. Mr. Ruge asked if Friedland Iron & Metal Company actually have a nonconforming use because the company has owned the property so long. Mr. Barbieri stated that it was an interesting question and that he posed this to the Planning staff when he submitted the idea. He could have gone one of two routes: legal nonconforming use or rezoning. He stated that he was encouraged to do a rezoning on behalf of his client. Mr. Czekai inquired about the possibility of a temporary status for the company to do a clean up or does the property have to be completely rezoned or is there a special land use permit of any kind that could be used. Mr. Barbieri stated that it would not work from the stand point of the State requirements. There would have to be a restrictive covenant on the property. One of the things that the restrictive covenant will require is that the company attach the zoning as consistent with the cleanup that was achieved. Ms. Cordill inquired about the intentions of the property once the cleanup has occurred. Mr. Barbieri stated that his client would like to get use out of the property. For the past 16 to 17 years, no use has occurred. His client would like to achieve the clean up and cap but do not want to waive any redevelopment rights that might be enjoyed in the future. Ms. Keene inquired about the source of the contamination and asked what was on the site. Mr. Barbieri stated that there are two things that drive the closure: heavy metal lead and small concentrations of PCB. These can be addressed with a cap over the areas. There are intentions for some areas to be scraped so that the levels will be down to residential levels, even though this is not the zoning classification. In the capped areas, there will be contaminants above the levels that would justify the cleanup. Ms. Keene asked how long the company has been aware of this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 4 contamination. Mr. Barbieri stated that the studies go back to the early 1990's. Ms. Foster asked if there were any other thoughts on the cleanup. There are different methods for removing lead from the soil rather than capping them which would leave the contaminants on the site. Mr. Barbieri stated that it is possible. However, the costs are significantly different. His client, as owner of the site, has options available for the site but does not have to remove the contaminants. The department is not requiring any removal as part of the closure. At this time, the closure that is planned is consistent with the DEQ requirements and will not result in exposures that pose a risk to the populas. Ms. Foster asked about the size of the area that would be capped. Mr. Barbieri stated that a diagram was provided and should be in the case materials. Ms. Stachowiak referred to sections a, b and c in the materials. Mr. Barbieri reviewed these areas. Ms. Foster asked if sections a, b, c, d, e, and f were also being excavated and put in a soil stock pile. Mr. Barbieri stated that she may be reviewing a different diagram. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was the survey that was provided. Ms. Foster stated that there were four outlined areas. One large area has a lot of different sections. Mr. Barbieri asked if he could approach the podium and clarify things. Ms. Foster gave permission. Mr. Barbieri clarified the areas shown on the diagram. Ms. Foster asked if it was possible to have the property rezoned as "G-2" Wholesale District rather than the Light Industrial District. Mr. Barbieri stated that the unfortunate part is the department specifies certain types of cleanup and follows the specifications of residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Ms. Foster stated that it is DEQ that is expecting the industrial zoning. Mr. Barbieri stated that is correct for the type of cleanup that the company has envisioned for this site. Mr. Ruge asked for clarification that if someone wanted to use this site for residential then DEQ would say that a different standard would have to be met, probably a more strict standard to use this property as residential. Mr. Barbieri stated that if one would clean up the property to residential then it could be reused as such. This clean up involves a consolidation and capping of the elevated metal materials and will require a restrictive covenant that is different than an unrestricted residential clean up. This is not what his client is proposing. Ms. Foster asked if Mr. Barbieri requested the "G-2" Wholesale district, then he would be forced to clean up the site greater than the zoning for light industrial. Mr. Barbieri stated that he did not know how to answer that question. In theory, there could be stricter requirements but the company has never gone into intense comparison between industrial or commercial. Because this has been under consideration for several PLANNING BOARD MINUTES-`� August 3, 2004 Page 5 years, the company presented the method of cleanup in a public notice back in 2000. At that time, the public notice did not receive any comments from the City of Lansing or area residents. The company was required to publish a notice in the Lansing State Journal but did not receive any comments on it. Mr. Barbieri stated that if the Board wanted the company to explore this option further, he was not sure if it would worsen the resolution. For the concern of everyone, it would certainly delay the process. He urged the Board to consider that the type of request the company is making is consistent with what the history of that site was. This request will achieve the clean up. Obviously, it has been a long time already but in a shorter period of time than what otherwise might occur. Ms. Foster stated that because the property is abutting a whole residential neighborhood, she believes that most people would feel more comfortable not having light industrial zoning together with residential. It might be that the cleanup may be the same levels for the "G-2" Wholesale zoning. Even exploring and having some of those questions answered might be really helpful. Mr. Barbieri stated that he is not in favor of delaying this rezoning and that he came here tonight with a mission to ask the Board to approve the request so the company can move ahead. Ms. Foster stated that this request would not be approved tonight. Tonight is the public hearing for this case and then it will go to Committee. She stated that this may be the time between now and the Committee meeting to see if the cleanup could possibly be done the same way as to the levels. It might help appease the neighborhood and allow this request to move quicker. Ms. Cordill asked if Mr. Barbieri could please provide information on how the site has been used. Mr. Barbieri stated that the site was used for scrap and iron recycling. Mr. Ruge stated that from the two maps that were provided it appears that the areas zoned "B" residential do not have any contamination. Mr. Barbieri stated these are certainly not the areas that would be excavated but the department has asked that these areas be included as part of the designation. Clean up standards actually changed in 2002, and at that time the choices were to pursue the clean up or something different would have to be done that would involve different testing. His client chose to pursue the clean up under the previous requirements. Rather than re- open all the testing, the department insisted on adding a restriction which would require the property to have the same zoning as the company is restricting the use to be. Mr. Ruge stated that the "B" residential zoning provides a buffer for the neighborhood. Mr. Barbieri stated that he would contend respectfully that this is a legal nonconforming use. He simply went through the process as a means but will go with whatever means he has to. He stated that whether this provides a buffer, he is not prepared to yay or no. Mr. Frederick asked who makes the determination of a legal conformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does. Mr. Frederick asked if she had PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 6 made any kind of a determination on this request. Ms. Stachowiak stated she determined that it is not legally nonconforming. Mr. Barbieri stated that she may have one view point but he could certainly go to court and get another view if he has to. He would rather not do that. Mr. Frederick stated this does not answer his question. He asked the Zoning Administrator who has the authority to make a determination of a legal nonconformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she makes the decision and that any decision that she makes can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Barbieri stated that it can also be appealed through the court. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could also be appealed through the court after having exhausted the local remedies. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification that the conformity is not legal at this time. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Frederick stated that Ms. Stachowiak's and the client's attorney's determination are the same. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the attorney disagreed with her but went along with her determination. Mr. Frederick stated that the attorney would rather have it be a legal nonconformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated he would because it would be a lot easier on his end. Mr. Barbieri stated that he was encouraged to do it this way without waiving his rights or any other obligations that his client would have to undertake. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to expand on the determination at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Robert Dixon, resident of 815 Banghart Street, stated that he has lived on Banghart Street since 1941 and he does not recall Friedland Iron & Metal Company being a junkyard forever. This property had trees and was almost like a jungle because he used to play in this area as a kid. He has no objection to anybody moving into the neighborhood to clean it up. He agreed that it should be cleaned up. He believes that Friedland Iron & Metal Company made a big mistake when an iron crusher was put in. It kept him awake every time it was running. The neighborhood was upset about it. There was some equipment that caught on fire and the whole neighborhood was upset. It was hard sleeping when someone was making so much noise that it sounds like it is coming through the walls. Anyone who agrees with this type of situation for the residential area, needs to live on Banghart Street and listen to the noise. He stated that Mr. Barbieri is in a hurry to have the request approved. With the Board asking questions, he does not believe that there is enough information available to make a reliable decision. When the property is rezoned and cleaned up, there will be a new zone. He stated that the Board needs more information to make an informed decision. He is opposed to the rezoning, and thanked the Board for their time and patience. Mr. Barbieri asked to clarify funding. Ms. Foster stated there was already too much time spent on this case and that it will be taken to Committee PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 7 where he can clarify this matter further. Mr. Barbieri continued speaking. Mr. Frederick called for a point of order. Ms. Renee Smith, resident of 924 Banghart Street, stated that the residents do not want to see this rezoning approved. There are kids who live on this dead-end street and play outdoors. They have a good time. There are trucks running up and down this street. She has spoken with other neighbors who could not attend tonight's meeting. There are a lot of elderly people living in the neighborhood. This is an old neighborhood and the residents are opposed to the rezoning. She stressed that there are a lot of children who play on this street. There is a lot of property across the street from where she lives. There is a big fence that falls down periodically. Every season, her husband is repairing the fence and getting it back up. She stated that her husband has called the City, and the City has contacted Friedland Iron & Metal Company about repairing the fence. Friedland Iron & Metal Company fixes the fence and it falls back down. She has mowed the grass for 12 years and asked if Friedland Iron & Metal Company wants her bill for the mowing and expenses. She stated that the residents are opposed to the rezoning and the kids would have no place to play. The residents do not need the trucks traveling up and down this street. Mr. Jay Whitney, resident of 901 Bates Street, stated that this is not the first time residents have gone round and round with Friedland Iron & Metal Company. He fought with the company back in the 1980s over a shredder that was brought in illegally. He stated that it took Representative Hollister and his staff to have the shredder shut down because it was put in and running without a permit. The company feels that it can do whatever it wants, and if the residents do not like it then they can move. The shredder did get shut down, and at that time the company was supposed to cap the property. That was 15 years or more ago. He has the document at home of everything that went on with the property from the onset of the shredder to the final determination by Department of Environmental Equality to deny the company's permit to operate. The company was shut down and forced to relocate. He believes that the reason why the company wants the light industrial is because it would give the company all the opportunity to move the mess from Center Street and create a mess on Harris and Banghart Streets. This is his view point. If the property would be zoned wholesale, then this would stop it. The company is determined to have light industrial and this would give them all the opportunity to make a mess. He would like to know if Friedland Iron & Metal Company was supposed to cap the property 15 years ago and why the company is just now getting around to doing it. After the property was capped, contrary to what Mr. Barbieri said, the company has been bringing stuff to this site and dumping it (i.e. dirt from Maple and Center Streets, old semis that are no longer used). ��+� 1. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 8 Mr. David Boda, resident of 837 East Harris Street, stated that he lives right at the gate of Friedland Enterprises. There are a number of entrances for this site and asked if employees were to use the entrance between the plastic labs and the heating and ventilation company off of Seventh Avenue which was never honored. He stated that the company does use the land almost every day throughout the week with the exception of Saturday and Sunday. With the two semi trailors that were on the site, vagrants have gone in and set them ablaze. Currently, the company's gates are supposed to be locked and people keep going in. The company has been less than gracious neighbors. The gates to the hanger are broken and rusted. Trash is strewn all around. The company is not doing any maintenance. One time the City was called regarding the site. A representative from Friedland came down to the site and thought it was a big joke. He brought an earth mover, put some dirt around and laughed about it. The representative said there's your clean up, took off and drove down to Center Street. Mr. Boda stated that the gates are continuously left open so there is immediate access. People drive in there and some people have been hurt, including broken limbs. He believes that this is a big game. If the company had a contract to cap this years ago, then the company should be in breach of the contract. There has been an awful lot of activity. He stated that he does not agree with what the company is trying to do. He has children at the end of the road and the whole neighborhood is full of children. When the semis travel down the street, they leave the road filthy with clay. The site used to have metal crunchers that spew metal through the air and would land on surrounding homes midway down the block. People could not drive through there without getting flat tires. He stated that if the company wanted to cap the site that would be fine. He believes that the company should waive the right for industrial use. He thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Mr. Monte Deces, resident of 916 Banghart Street, stated that his wife grew up on Banghart Street and they have been acquainted for over 40 years. If anyone thinks that they can go in to the site and just cover the mess with some dirt with the idea of turning around later on and making the property saleable with the new zoning, turn all of those streets into nothing but truck highways, someone has blinders on. He spent several thousand dollars in the last two years remodeling his house and so have other residents. He has a junk yard in his back yard, a super fun clean up at the end of the street and now the company is requesting a rezoning on the Friedland property. As far as he is concerned, the property can stay the way it is because it has been this way for 20 years. Short of the trucks driving in and out of the end of Banghart Street, if the property is rezoned to light industrial, that would be wrong. He stated that the City should have the company clean up the two lots at the end of the street and sell them so that some homes could be built there. This would be a lot better. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 9 Ms. Mona Deces, resident of 916 Banghart Street, stated that she has spoken with all the neighbors to see how they felt. There are a lot of elderly people. It is a nice neighborhood. She grew up in this neighborhood and it has been a dump. She stated that she used to play in the dump when she was a kid back in 1957. She would like to see this cleaned up. Regardless of what has been done, Friedland Iron & Metal Company has a responsibility to clean up the contamination. She stated that it needs to be maintained because it is an eyesore. She believes that Friedland needs to repair the fence and mow the law. Friedland needs to be responsible for all the damage that has been done. Friedland has not be truthful about everything. The property has been neglected. She stated that Friedland has not been giving enough information about what the company plans to do. Friedland has not provided the residents with any information and would not put anything in writing. She questioned what Mr. Barbieri stated about the site not being used. She stated that this was not true. If the truth is not being told, how can the people believe what the company is going to do? She stated that this request needs to wait. The Board needs to find out what is behind everything and what the company is responsible for regardless of whether or not the property is rezoned to light industrial. The residents need to know more because they do not know anything, only what is being heard tonight. She thanked the Board for their questions and their time. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-12-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Toomey Builders, Inc. to rezone the property at the southwest corner of Dunckel and Hazelwood, more specifically described as: Lots 27 & 28, Green Acres Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit an office building on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that the proposed site plan has the parking lot in the back and has parking right up against the side lot line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a conceptual site plan that the applicant put together and it shows generally how the applicant would intend to lay out everything. If PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 10 the applicant was to rezone the property to "D-1" Professional Office District, there would have to be an 8 foot landscape buffer along all property lines. This is a basic sketch that the applicant provided to show what was being considered if the request was approved. In no way is this the site plan that would necessarily be accepted by the City. There is adequate room on this parcel to construct an office building with associated parking. Mr. Ruge asked if the parking lot could be moved to the front of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could not be moved because the Zoning Ordinance does not permit parking in the front yard in a "D-V Professional Office District. If this request were to be approved, parking would have to be behind the building. It would still require an 8 foot landscape buffer between the parking area and the adjoining residential districts. Mr. Simon Toomey, applicant, 3238 W. St. Joseph, stated the company's reason for submitting the rezoning is because the company has been in the area a while and there are a lot of offices nearby. The company believes that this would be the best use of these lots. There has been a lot of talk about modular homes being placed on these lots which would not help the land value. He believes that an operations building out front would really dress up the entrance. Currently, the front has tall trees and brush. This site plan is to scale but the company would bring in an architect to do the actual building design and a landscape architect for the landscaping around the building which is required. The company feels that this would be best use for this property. With an office in front of the neighborhood, it would dress up the neighborhood. The office building would be a small 2,400 square foot brick office building with one story. Mr. Matt Lenhard, resident of 4831 Eastlawn Drive, stated that he has one of the adjacent properties. He moved to this area 4 years ago and stated that he likes the buffer zone that is now overgrown. It is beautiful and keeps the traffic noise from Dunckel Road down. Dunckel Road was widened approximately 2 years ago. He has questions for the applicant. He asked how many driveways the applicant would be able to have on Dunckel Road and Hazelwood Drive. He canvassed the whole neighborhood and found that the public hearing notices missed 2/3 of the residents. He has everyone's signature and they are opposed to this request. McGuire Mailing is approximately 2 blocks away and have been in the neighborhood a long time. Every other business is on the other side of Jolly Road, except the Quality Dairy. There are 4 tiny businesses in a little strip on Jolly Road next to Leo's Lodge. He stated that this is a bad idea because the area is all residential. The neighbors do not want this. If office space is needed, that is what the other side of Jolly Road was PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 11 created for. It is all office spaces and there are a lot of vacant properties located there. There are also vacant spaces in the buildings. He was not allowed a driveway on Dunckel Road and does not see where the applicant would get one for a business. Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Lenhard if his house was the white house with the tall garage behind it. Mr. Lenhard stated that it was his house. Mr. Ruge asked if he could explain why his garage was an unusual shape. Mr. Lenhard stated that the previous owner had a mobile home. He stated that there are a lot of new families in the neighborhood on Hazelwood Drive. This area is currently used by people as a cut through path. When Dunckel Road was widened, he mentioned that a traffic light needed to be added. He was told that it was not needed. There have been a few roll over accidents at this location. He was told by Ms. Sandy Allen that they were going to stop the traffic from cutting through and this has not happened. He asked if there would be another meeting regarding this case. Ms. Foster referred him to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on August 11, 2004. Ms. Keene inquired about the list with the neighbors' signatures. Mr. Lenhard stated that he wanted to leave the list but he would like for the Board to have a copy of it. Ms. Stachowiak asked him if he would like to send a copy or bring a copy to the Planning Office. Ms. Laura Lorence, resident of 2613 Hazelwood Drive, stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed site. There are a lot of young children in the neighborhood and she has 2 small children. She is opposed to the request because if it were approved she would look out her living room window and see a professional building. The overgrown brush has blocked a lot of the noise. Since Dunckel Road was widened, the noise level has increased dramatically. If the brush is cleared and a building was constructed, the noise level would be incredible. She is completely opposed to the request because of property value reasons. It is a small neighborhood with young children. This request would increase the traffic. She does not think that this is a good idea at all. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of parking spaces that would be feasible for this area given the proposed plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that offices do not generate a high volume of traffic. There is a little bit more traffic with a medical office than a professional office. The exact amount of parking spaces that will be required will be determined by the useable square footage of this building. This will need to be shifted around in order to accommodate the buffer. What was presented is right on target PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 12 with how many parking spaces that would actually be seen at this location if the request was approved. Mr. Ray Williams, resident of 4822 Eastlawn Drive, stated that the overgrown brush and the trees at the site look much better than any office building that would be constructed on the site. There is more room for offices on the other side of Jolly Road. There is no reason to have a building at this location. If the applicant wanted to place modular homes on the site, it would look a lot better than the houses that he has seen. The increase in traffic would not be a good thing for the neighborhood. Ms. Donna Pierce, resident of 2605 Hazelwood Drive, stated that she has lived at this location for 30 years. There are neighborhoods that continue to want to move and grow in Lansing. There is talk about Lansing being a 50/50 rental market versus home owner. This is a neighborhood that has home owners. Most people do not know that this neighborhood exists because it is small and tucked behind everything. This is the way the neighbors like it. Even though she appreciates the applicant looking out for what is in the best interest of the neighborhood, this is not the way that she sees it. She chose to live in this neighborhood and she does not have to live there. She can live wherever she chooses. She works in Jackson and owns her own business. She chose Lansing because this is where she has always been comfortable and this is the same with her neighbors. She stated that there are also older people living in the neighborhood who have lived in the area for 45 years and others whose children own the homes. Finally, the neighborhood is getting families who have newborns. This is the one thing that should be looked at. Why would a neighborhood want an office building in a residential situation when there can be families instead? She thought that this is what Lansing was supposed to be looking out for. Ms. Cordill inquired about how long the current owner has owned the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. Ms. Antoinette Imhoff, resident of 4907 Eastlawn Drive, stated that her property is very close to the proposed site and that she has concerns about the neighborhood change. She does not want to see this request as an in mode to other changes. She does not want commercial in the residential neighborhood where there are families. She has been living in this neighborhood for 30 years. Within the past few years she has put a considerable amount of money into her home and she will continue to live there. She has seen in the area where Eastlawn and Hazelwood Drives intersect that there are a lot of children who play in the street. She is concerned with their safety. Her family consists of felines and she is concerned about their well being. She stated that the proposed property is a nice buffer from Dunckel Road. She asked the Board to take into consideration the families in the neighborhood and that the neighbors do �� � PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 13 not like the idea of transitioning this site into something other than a residential area. She appreciates the Board's consideration. Ms. Judy Davis, resident of 4638 Eastlawn Drive, stated that she is 5 houses away from the proposed site. When she moved in the neighborhood, these particular lots were a beautiful woods with nice trees. Approximately 5 to 6 years ago, they were cut down. It really does keep a lot of noise from the neighborhood. There are a lot of kids in the neighborhood. She has grandchildren who lived with her last summer and were almost hit with the traffic that was coming down the street when Dunckel Road was being reconstructed. She is not sure how many parking spots there would be on the proposed site. To her, five would be too many. She thanked the Board for their consideration. Mr. Brian Childers, resident of 4900 Eastlawn Drive, stated that he is opposed to this request. He has lived in this area for 15 years and the neighborhood does not need to be beautified. The neighborhood is already beautiful. There are wonderful neighbors in this area and they care about each other. The traffic is already at an all time high with people cutting through and the neighborhood does not need any more. He believes that with this building being constructed, it would cause not only traffic problems but maybe more accidents. Dunckel Road has become a very fast road since it was widened. With any office building, there are deliveries and he is not sure how the deliveries would be done at this site. The delivery person would not be allowed to back in off of Dunckel Road. He does not want the delivery trucks driving through the neighborhood. He thanked the Board for their time. Ms. Sandy Childers, resident of 4900 Eastlawn Drive, stated this is a residential area and she is baffled that the applicant wants to construct a professional building on the site. The property is surrounded by residential zoning. There are office buildings located on the other side of Jolly Road. She feels that the company has lots that they are just trying to get rid of and they are doing it by adding offices. She hopes that the Board will keep the area residential. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-13-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4.00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 14 This is a request by the Michigan Community College Association to rezone the northwest 66' x 63' of the property at 427 W. Ionia/222 N. Chestnut Streets, more specifically described as: Lot 10 & the West 107 Feet of Lots 11 & 12, Block 93 Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-Y Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit additional parking for the Michigan Community College Association located at 222 N. Chestnut Street. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the parking lot emptying directly into the side of a house. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no way to pull into one of these parking spaces and exit the parking lot without backing up all the way. The Board is not considering this site plan. The Board is considering the rezoning. Mr. Ruge asked if the applicant also owns the house located at 423 W. Ionia Street and if the applicant is considering demolishing the house. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns the properties located at 423 and 427 W. Ionia Street and also the property located at 222 Chestnut Street. The applicant does not own the property at 421 W. Ionia Street. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut Street and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that the DNA does not support the rezoning of this property. The DNA was not pleased when the building on the property was demolished 1 '/2 years ago without notice to the neighborhood. The residents were wondering what would be done with the property. The DNA's understanding is that when the applicant built the new building, there was more than adequate parking for the use of the building. She asked why the applicant needs more parking, and how many parking spaces this rezoning would give the applicant. If additional parking is needed, she stated that perhaps the applicant should apply for a special land use permit than a zoning change. A number of buildings on this block are offices. Across the street and on different side streets there are residences. The DNA would not support a permanent zoning change and would be interested if the applicant would like to discuss a special land use permit for additional parking. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-14-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 15 D. SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten St., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by George and Rosy Rowan for a Special Land Use permit to expand an adult foster care home located at 706 Britten to a residential care facility. The number of residents in the facility is proposed to increase from 6 to 9. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the applicant adding on to the building to accommodate 3 more residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant will accommodate the additional residents in the existing building. It is a large house. Ms. Cordill inquired about the square footage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she can look this up on the City Assessor's records and if the applicant is present, he can give the information. Mr. George Rowan, owner of the property located 706 Britten Avenue, stated that there are no plans to expand the building and that the existing facility will be used to accommodate up to 9 residents. Currently, there are plans for only 8 residents because a bathroom was added in one of the bedrooms making it a luxury suite. The home can only have up to 8 residents. Family Independence Agency will not allow the applicants to expand the building any more. Ms. Foster asked about the square footage. Mr. Rowan stated that the house is 3,500 square feet. Ms. Stachowaik stated that the finished square footage, according to the realtors sheet, appears to be 1,466 square feet and it has 2 stories. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the basement is 1,276 square feet. Square feet above ground is 3,258. This is a good size single family structure. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-6-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4.00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split This is a lot split request by Kathy Bennett and Robert Terry, 5188 W. Stoll Rd., Lansing, MI. The applicants are proposing to divide the property at 527 Beech Street, resulting in the following legal descriptions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 16 527 Beech Street: West 127.71 feet of the South 1 Rod of Lot 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Vacant Parcel. East 127.71 feet of the South Rod of Lots 8 & North of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. In addition, Section 1236.07(d) allows a maximum width to depth ratio of to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the resulting lots would have a width of 49.5 feet and a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.58. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick asked if this plat was part of the original City but is certainly an old plat. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was a part of the original plat of the City. Mr. Frederick stated that this was back in the days when the lots were made skinny. Mr. Bob Terry, resident of 5188 Stohl Road and owner of 527 Beech Street, stated that the parcel is currently at a ratio of 1 to 5.16 because of the depth of the property. He believes that the area is good for single family residential use even though it is zoned and leaning towards apartments. It is really designed for single family and within walking distance from the downtown area for Cooley Law School and State employment. It is a very good location for single family homes and relatively small lots, not larger lots. He believes that there is an opportunity to split the lot. He currently owns 527 Beech Street which is a 49.5 foot wide lot and has a huge back yard. He asked the Board for their consideration of the variances even though other residents on the block are at a variance. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred LS-21-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by William Sainz, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status at 238 S. Foster Avenue. The property is nonconforming as it contains a 2- family structure in the "B" Single Family Residential Zoning District and does not comply with the minimum required front yard setback. The applicant proposes to rebuild the second story, add a front porch and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 17 make general improvements to the house, garage and the site. This is, therefore, a request for a Class "A" Nonconforming status to permit the proposed improvements/alterations at 238 S. Foster Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview and stated that the building located at 238 S. Foster has historically been a 2-unit. However, the second story does not conform to the housing code's required ceiling height for livable space. She also stated that the neighborhood has shown a great deal of support for the applicant's request. Mr. Bill Sainz, resident of 4742 Curtice Road, spoke in support of his request. He stated that he is upgrading the entire house and would like to bring it up to the current codes. He also stated that he has renovated other homes in the area and they have turned out very nicely. Mr. Carl Tiecking, resident of 231 S. Foster and neighborhood coordinator in his area, spoke in support of the request and stated that the applicant has done a great job with the other homes he has renovated in the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred NCU-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4.00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. G. MPA-1-2004, Master Plan Amendment, Southeast Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets This is a request by the Lansing School District to amend the Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Boys Training School Planning and Development Study of March 1992. The applicant is requesting that the City of Lansing change the future land use designation of Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets from residential development to institutional development. The purpose of the amendment is to permit a new Pattengill Middle School at this location. Dr. Sharon Banks, Superintendent of Lansing Schools, 519 W. Kalamazoo, introduced her staff. Dr. Banks stated that the school district held approximately 15 meetings with community organizations to discuss this project. She stated that the objective was to keep Pattengill Middle School on the east side and this seems to be the only available parcel of land for such a project. Ms. Linda Angel-Weinbey, Principal of Pattengill Middle School located at 1017 Jerome Street, spoke in support of the request and explained the traffic flow in terms of pick-up and drop-off for the students. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 18 Mr. Tom Maloney, Principal of Lansing Catholic Central located at 401 Marshall Street, stated that he fully supports this proposal and that his only concern is traffic, especially on Marshall Street. He stated that traffic has been backed up all the way to Oakland on Marshall Street during construction. Mr. John Mertz, resident of 330 N. Clemens, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that this is the last large tract of undeveloped land on the east side and it should be preserved. The school building should be located as far to the west on the site as possible in order to preserve green space for the neighbors to the east. Ms. Nyla Munk, resident of 601 N. Clemens, asked if there would be a fence along the property lines adjacent to the residential neighborhood to hold back children and litter. She complemented the school district on its approach to this project in terms of meeting with the neighborhood groups before submitting the proposal to the City. Mr. Rick Kibbey, Chairman of the BTS Committee and Representative of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization,1609 E. Kalamazoo, spoke in support of the request. He stated that there have been numerous meetings about this proposal. The new school will provide recreational opportunities for the area as approximately half of the site will remain green space. Ms. Nancy Parsons, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, 430 N. Fairview, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the School District held numerous meetings with the neighborhood groups and really made a concerted effort to get this proposal out to the people. Mr. Ira Ginsburg, Vice-Chair of the BTS Committee and Vice- President of Sparrow Hospital, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the School District has been an active participant on the BTS Committee and also with the Eastside Neighborhood Organization. He stated that the schools are aging and need to be replaced. This location is appropriate for this project. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred MPA-1-2004 to the next Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on August 24, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning & 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 August 3 2004 Page 19 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — June 1, 2004 Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of June 1, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of June 1, 2004 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — June 15, 2004 Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of June 15, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of June 15, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. 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. Staff recommended approval of the LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 20 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak explained that this request is coming back to the Planning Board because of an error in the original staff report. Mr. Ruff felt that the case should be re-looked at since the proposed split would not have any affects on the area. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive. Frederick . Ave Foster . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . Ave Cordill. . Ave Czekai . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair a. ACT-12-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 6'/2' by 132' of Alley Behind Building This is a request by David W. Sheets, owner of the Cadillac Club (former Cosmic Bowl property) at 1115 S. Washington Avenue, that the City vacate a 6'/' by 132' strip of the alley behind (east of and adjacent to) the building. The subject alley is currently 33' in width. The applicant proposes to utilize the area for a barrier-free access into the building, and for private stormwater detention. Staff recommended approval of the ACT-12-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 61/2' by 132' Strip of Alley Behind Building. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve ACT-1 2-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 6'/2' by 132' Strip of Alley Behind Building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 21 Frederick . Ave Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, August 24, 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. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. 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, Prof 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3 2004 Page 22 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about why the Z-12-04 site was not cleaned up 15 years ago as indicated by one of the speakers this evening. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was not likely that a City department required the clean-up but she would look into that matter before the Z&O Committee meeting. Ms. Foster stated that there is pink stuff coming out of the building behind 1115 S. Washington. She also mentioned that she would not be at the Z&O Committee meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station on the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh has weeds, excessive signage and the landscaping appears to be dead. Mr. Frederick also stated that the weeds on Cavanaugh across from Hawk Island Park still have not been mowed. Mr. Frederick stated that Spartan Toyota has added signs to their building. Mr. Ruge stated that 300 Lathrop Street has a 6-foot high fence in the front yard. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board P BMinutes.080304.doc Approved as written 9-8-04 Draft to Clerk August 27,2004 Approved September 8,2004 To Clerk September 9,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION I The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. - A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Keene, McConnell. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Mr. McConnell from tonight's meeting and from the meeting on August 3,d. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant for Z-2-2004, Item A, under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting has asked that this case be removed from the agenda this evening. The applicant's attorney had a family emergency and was unable to attend this evening. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to table Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., "D-2" Residential/Office District to "D-1" Professional Office District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). This case will be taken up at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, September 8, 2004. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the amended agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) regarding Z-14-2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 2 B. Letter of opposition from Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck regarding Z-2-2004 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Bob Cochran, resident of 403 N. Sycamore, stated that he is currently an appointed demolition hearing officer for the Mayor. He is a former Board member and past President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA). He was on the Lansing City Council's ADHOC Committee and was also active in Turner- Dodge for 7 years. He is here to discuss Z-14-2004. For years there has been a Master Plan that created the transitional zone from downtown businesses into the neighborhoods. It has been kept fairly inviolate. Everyone remembers when Michigan Retailers came and fought tooth and nail to construct a 32,000 square foot office building. In this case, the MCC decided to demolish without consulting anyone and went against the wisdom of Jim Ruff, Director of the Planning Department. The applicant was informed they would not be able to do anything with the property, not even parking because of the required setbacks. MCC discussed with the surrounding neighbors that they just wanted to put in parking and did not inform the neighbors of their application for a rezoning. The MCC owns the property at 423 N. Sycamore which is immediately adjacent to this property. They own property on Chestnut Street and the parking lots to the east. He has been in Lansing for 13 years and when he used to do work on Sharon Kellogg's house, he noticed that the parking lot was almost always empty. The company has 3 or 4 employees and there are approximately 20 parking spaces on the lot. The company does not need more parking. Attorney Tom Wood purchased Sharon Kellogg's home and informed Mr. Cochran the he only supported the applicant because he thought it would only be for parking. The application is not for parking. It is a zoning change to the "D-V Professional Office space. If the request is granted, and City Council approves the request, the applicant will have an L-shaped lot that is large enough for a 20,000 square foot building. This will change the character of the neighborhood and will violate the updated (1999) Master Plan that modified the River Island Master Plan. The neighbors are not getting the true story and he is not sure what it is. He does know that zoning is forever. The neighbors have fought so long to keep the character the way it is so that there would be some residential history to this neighborhood. If this goes undetected, it will erode, the property values will go down and there will be a big cluster mess downtown. It will be hit and miss and this is one more case of someone not coming forward. There have not be any discussions with the DNA or the neighbors, and there were no plans submitted at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. He asked the Board to deny the request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that DNA opposes the zoning request and have been very concerned with this property ever since the MCCA made the decision to demolish the building on the corner. The DNA has been wondering what the applicant was going to do with the property. There has not been any money put into the property located at 423 N. Sycamore and it needs serious roof repairs. There are other outside damages to the property and the DNA is concerned that the applicant will continue to let the building deteriorate. She stated that granting a zoning change to put in a very small parking lot is not the answer. If the applicant feels that more parking is needed, then let the applicant apply for a special land use permit and go through the process to see if a case can be made. The DNA does not feel that this is the right direction for this area. Mr. Ruge stated that it appears this area in the Master Plan is designated for office use, and he asked if the DNA has spoken with anyone about getting this changed. Ms. Zuchowski stated that rather than changing the current zoning, her recommendation would be to wait until the MCCA has a plan for this site. She believes that the MCCA has plans but she wishes that the plans would be finalized first and then presented. This way the DNA, the City and City Council could deal with it as a whole. The properties are zoned in such a way that they can be used as office space. The best way would be to review this as a whole. The MCCA is considering an addition to the building and should be dealing with it openly so that everyone can see what would be done. Ms. Zuchowski stated that with the plans for the parking lot, the applicant will gain very few parking spaces. A special land use permit would be better. This would allow the DNA time to review this whole area and see what really should be happening on the lot. Mr. Ruge agreed that the whole area should be reviewed. If the DNA sees a problem, then the Board should look in to the matter and determine a direction. Ms. Zuchowski stated that she would like to review this area more comprehensively. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 620 W. Ionia, stated she is providing the Board with information from the file. She agreed with Mr. Ruge that this needs to be better reviewed, especially the Master Plan for this area. If the required set backs are followed, it is more infinitive than what is in the staff report. The setbacks have to be 20 feet back, leaving a prod of land 43 feet by 46 feet which is insufficient to do anything. Then the applicant would have to do buffering because of the different uses on the sides of the property. This request should be denied. The property was formerly rental property until it was purchased by the applicant. Once the applicant gained control of the property, he continued to use it for what it legitimately had been used for, a building and now a piece of land that is too small. The applicant wanted to tear down the building but the Planning Department tried to convince the property owner to do something different with the property. The City tried to put together resources to show the property owner how it could be handled. Mr. Ruff wrote a lettering regarding the demolition of the building and explained that if the building was torn down, there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 17, 2004 Page 4 will not be anything that could be done to the property. The property would not be buildable and vehicles could not be parked on it whatsoever. It would be a self induced hardship. She stated that the applicant has caused these problems. What was on the site before could have continued to survive at the building and even following the Master Plan, the building could have become an office but it was demolished. Now all of the rules apply. The applicant has an unbuildable lot with setback requirements and the City's hands are tied. The City has to tell the applicant no. The building was fairly new construction, possibly built in the 1980's. The property line is very close to the fence and she does not understand how this would work. The building is not the footprint of the small 18th Century buildings that were previously there. This was a new footprint. The applicant was supposed to follow the setbacks when the building was first constructed but it did not happen. She stated that the building needs to be taken down and built legitimately. The applicant certainly has no legitimate reason to be able to use this property to build an office or to use for parking. This is the problem with self induced hardships. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval —August 3, 2004 Mr. Ruge moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of August 3, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of August 3, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office Mr. Ruge stated that Z-2-2004 was tabled by the Planning Board. b. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Ruge stated that Z-12-2004 was tabled in Committee. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 5 C. Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Toomey Builders, Inc. to rezone the property at the southwest corner of Dunckel and Hazelwood, more specifically described as: Lots 27 & 28, Green Acres Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit an office building on the subject property. Staff recommended denial of the Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District due to inconsistency with the residential land use pattern being advanced in the master plan and is inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by the Michigan Community College Association to rezone the northwest 66' x 63' of the property at 427 W. Ionia/222 N. Chestnut Streets, more specifically described as: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 6 Lot 10 & the West 107 Feet of Lots 11 & 12, Block 93 Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit additional parking for the Michigan Community College Association located at 222 N. Chestnut Street. Staff recommended approval of Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Czekai inquired about what was currently on the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a vacant lot with green space. A few years ago, there was a house on this lot that was nonconforming in every way possible (i.e. setback, lot coverage, parking). The structure was demolished. At that time, Mr. Ruff put the owner of the property on notice that because this lot is so small, 63 feet by 66 feet, that the owner would not be able to built another structure at this location. By itself, the owner would not be able to construct a parking lot on this property. However, when added to the surrounding property, which it has been, it can now be used in part as accessory parking. This is what the applicant is proposing to do and this is why the applicant is going through the process of a rezoning rather than special land use permit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the plan provided in the packet does not comply with the zoning ordinance. The applicant cannot submit a parking plan that does not comply with the ordinance and then go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance. This needs to be understood up front that there would be very limited use of the property no matter what happens. Most of it would go to green space. The rezoning is acceptable to staff at this point, but that does not mean the site plan is acceptable. The applicant fully understands this. Mr. Frederick inquired about anything being done on this piece of property that would fit within the "DM-3" Residential zone. Ms. Stachowiak stated no. Mr. Frederick inquired if there was anything that would require an applicant to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 7 present a site plan when there is a request for a rezoning or can the applicant simply request that something be rezoned. Ms. Stachowiak stated that an applicant can simply request something to be rezoned. A site plan is not required with a rezoning application. Mr. Frederick stated that the site plan submitted was conceptual at best and would not meet any requirements and if anything would be parked on the lot, the applicant would have to resubmit a new plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would have to submit a site plan that meets all of the ordinance requirements, and would have to go through all of the normal channels of being reviewed by not only the Planning Office for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance but also with the Public Service Department in terms of drainage, the Transportation Office for curb cuts, etc. The request will go through an extensive approval process if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Ruge inquired about property that the applicant owns on this particular block. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns the property directly adjacent to this site. Mr. Ruge inquired about the applicant owning the property located at 423 W. Ionia. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant may own this property and that the applicant does not own the whole half block. Ms. Cordill asked if this request could be a special use permit for parking in the "DM-3" zone or a residential zone that is less intensive than the "D-1" zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would not do any good to down zone the property because as useless as it currently is right now the down zone would still make it useless. She stated that a special land use permit could still be requested. The applicant would still be stuck with a spot zone and there is no gain from it. Ms. Cordill stated that it may permit something from happening. Ms. Stachowiak stated anything that would be allowed on this site, being an office building or parking, still has to meet the required 20 foot setback. Ms. Cordill inquired about the applicant attending any of the meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a representative at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting last week. She was not asked any questions but she was in attendance. Mr. Ruge stated that the area still has the feel of a residential neighborhood. He respects what the neighborhood is saying and appreciates their work and dedication. He would not like to oppose their views but to him it appears that with this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 8 block the battle is already lost. The zoning is all "D-1" residential. He stated that he feels very torn about this request. Ms. Cordill stated that she was not thrilled with the idea of a parking lot on a corner in the downtown area. However, she noticed that the plan called for office use. It is not an office use but it is an office zoning. This request is not an expansion of the office building but under the zoning, the applicant can expand parking. She is at a loss with what options there are given that the plan calls for office use. Mr. Frederick stated that this is currently spot zoning which is not good from a planning perspective. The property as it currently is, whether there was a building or not, cannot be used for anything because of its size. He does not feel that he has the right to make a decision that would prevent a property owner from getting use out of the property. The Master Plan calls for "D-1" Residential zoning and that is what the applicant has requested. He sees nothing within his authority that would allow him to vote against this request. From recent history, site plans that are presented do not always turn out the way they were designed. When he supports a particular zoning, he is supporting anything that can be done by right in that zoning. He supports this request. Mr. Ruge stated that the site plan does indicate that the applicant plans on demolishing the building next door at 423 W. Ionia. The driveway runs right into the side of the house. He is concerned about the applicant's plans because the Board does not know anything about the plans. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there seems to be some unanswered questions and that there is another way to handle this request. She recommended that the Board refer this request back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and have the Committee members meet with the applicant. Ms. Foster stated that she does have concerns and that this is spot zoning. It also increases the diversity within this neighborhood which is positive since the City wants to increase diversity of land uses. Mr. Frederick stated that there are no uses for this site. Ms. Foster stated that the applicant was informed that if the house was demolished there would be no use. It is not like the applicant was not aware of this. She is not sure if by keeping this a different zoning, whether the City would prevent changes because of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 17, 2004 Page 9 the lumping of the land to change the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the driveway runs through the house so this would mean that plans are probably to demolish those two and construct something there. Is this what the City would want? The character does not fit this at all. It appears that the Board is guessing the applicant's plans. By keeping the house, the Board is preventing the clumping of the land to prevent something bigger. By not keeping the house, the Board is allowing a larger use of this type. Mr. Frederick stated that whether or not the applicant knew when the house was torn down that there would be no use for the land is not enough to give him the authority to prevent the applicant from saying that he can get no valid use through no fault of the applicant's own. The property was zoned "DM-Y Residential and is too small for anything else. If the property were to stay at the "DM-3" zoning then no one could get any use out of it regardless of who owns it. He does not believe that the Board has the authority and is on tenuous legal ground by keeping the property "DM-3" Residential as the reason is to keep it from being used in a way that might change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Foster wondered about when the applicant purchased the property with the house that existed if it maintained the character of the area. By removing the home, the applicant has now caused the character to change. Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant could let the property stay until it became dangerous. Then the Code Compliance Office could red tag the home and the demolition Board could tell the applicant that it has to be done. One way or the other, the building had to be demolished. The applicant still would have ended up with a piece of property that is valueless. Ms. Foster inquired about rehabbing the house. Mr. Frederick stated that the house could have been rehabilitated, and when a person goes before the demolition Board there are two choices: 1) have the home meet code requirements, or 2) demolish the home. If neither is done, then the demolition Board will demolish the home. The applicant could have stone-walled everything and still ended up with an empty piece of property that would be of no value. It would be of no value to the property owner or to anyone with the current zoning. Ms. Foster stated that if the applicant would have rehabbed the building, he could have had use of the building. Mr. Frederick stated that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 10 applicant only had the use of the building because it is a legal nonconformity and the whole reason in the Zoning Ordinance for legal nonconformity is to get the applicant to conform. This is what the property owners are choosing to do. By asking for a "D-1" zoning, the owners are getting their piece of property to conform to both the Master Plan and the adjacent zoning. Ms. Cordill stated that the planning for this area was for office use and she is not sure how something could be legally denied when it has been designated for office use. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to follow the Master Plan because this is the plan and this is the only way that the Board can operate without chaos. If the situation changes where the Master Plan is no longer really viable or not appropriate in the area any longer, then he believes that the Board can go against the Master Plan. This may be the case with this property but he is not sure Mr. Frederick stated that in this case he would support Ms. Stachowiak's suggestion that the case be referred back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. This would give the Committee an opportunity to evaluate if the Master Plan is inappropriate. So far, the Board has been presented with no evidence that the Master Plan is inappropriate. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to refer this case back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for further review. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to try to avoid anymore parking lots in the downtown area. However, if the members examine whether the Master Plan is appropriate, this property has already been in the process. There would be a danger of not treating this petitioner fairly under the rules that were in place at the time of application. The thought of demolishing another home to construct a parking lot, she is not an advocate for. However, the Board has legal restraints and due process. She is not sure how the Board would get around these. She is in favor of the Committee doing further research. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board could not deny this request because the Board would like to reevaluate the whole Master Plan. The Board does have the authority to refer this case back to Committee to explore other PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page ll possibilities. The Board may end of not being able to deny the case but he believes that the delay would be negligible because the property owners have a lot of work ahead of them to make their proposed site plan comply. The Board is not slowing them down any by sending the case back to Committee and maybe delaying it for a month. The Board cannot table the request while the City works to change the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there have been some questions that arose here for the first time in terms of the intentions with the adjacent property that have not been answered. This alone warrants referring the case back to Committee until all of the questions have been answered. Ms. Foster stated that because of that, she would like to see all of the properties owned by the applicant and how it is that the applicant would modify them to meet the change. Mr. Czekai asked if there was any way at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee to ascertain not only what the applicant's plans are but what the different possibilities are. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning staff could answer that question. Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to invite the Michigan Association of Community College to the next Board meeting. She believes that the association could present this information in front of the entire Board. Mr. Frederick inquired about referring this case to the Committee of the Whole rather than the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Foster wondered if it would give the Committee more time to discuss the case and if there are any more issues, there would be enough time to bring the case to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that it can always be discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and then be referred to the Committee of the Whole. e. SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by George and Rosy Rowan for a Special Land Use permit to expand an adult foster care home located at 706 Britten Ave. to a residential care facility. The number of residents in the facility is proposed to increase PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 12 from 6 to 9. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to nine persons; 2. Operation of the residential care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of such facilities, including International Fire Code which requires sprinkling for over eight residents; 3. The residents are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance; and 4. Adequate onsite parking is provided in accordance with the zoning requirements and parking is screened from view of the abutting neighbors and the street. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to eight persons; 2. Operation of the residential care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of such facilities, including International Fire Code which requires sprinkling for over eight residents; 3. The residents are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance; and 4. Adequate onsite parking is provided in accordance with the zoning requirements and parking is screened, with landscaping, from view of the abutting neighbors and the street and that said landscaping be completed within six (6) months from the date of approval of this SLU; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Czekai asked Mr. Ruge if the applicant was present at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the applicant was present. Mr. Czekai asked if there were any objections to the conditions. Mr. Ruge stated that there were no objections. Ms. Cordill inquired about condition number 4, and asked if the parking would be screened but not the house itself. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 17, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Ruge. Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. f. LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split This is a lot split request by Kathy Bennett and Robert Terry, 5188 W. Stoll Rd., Lansing, MI. The applicants are proposing to divide the property at 527 Beech Street, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 527 Beech Street: West 127.71 feet of the South 1 Rod of Lot 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Vacant Parcel: East 127.71 feet of the South Rod of Lots 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. In addition, Section 1236.07(d) allows a maximum width to depth ratio of1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the resulting lots would have a width of 49.5 feet and a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.58. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Staff recommended approval of the LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster. . . Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page_ 14 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. g. NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by William Sainz, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status at 238 S. Foster Avenue. The property is nonconforming as it contains a 2-family structure in the "B" Single Family Residential Zoning District and does not comply with the minimum required front yard setback. The applicant proposes to rebuild the second story, add a front porch and make general improvements to the house, garage and the site. This is, therefore, a request for a Class "A" Nonconforming status to permit the proposed improvements/alterations at 238 S. Foster Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the condition that the improvements be completed within one year from the date of approval of this NCU, and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). In Committee, Mr. Ruge offered a friendly amendment to require that steps be taken to protect the tree next to the driveway. Ms. Keene and Mr. Frederick accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster inquired if there was a limit to how tall the structure would be. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the maximum height is 35 feet, and the applicant only intends to construct a normal size second story addition. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status with the following conditions: 1) The improvements be completed within one year from the date of approval of this NCU, and 2) That steps be taken to protect the tree next to the driveway. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 15 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Acting Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, August 24, 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& MILK Blvd. -landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1, 2003) d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) g. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4, 2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) i. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds (June 15, 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 17, 2004 Page 16 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board Member Code Enforcement items from the last meeting have not been added to list but have been forwarded to the Code Compliance Office. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster inquired about the goals and agendas and if it will happen at the next meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated it can be done any time the Board is ready. She asked Ms. Foster if she would like to have it placed on the next meeting agenda. Ms. Foster stated that she would like it on the next agenda so that it could be done as a Committee of the Whole item. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that a fence on a corner lot located at 2414 Solomon Drive may not be in compliance with the code requirements. The fence sticks out a lot farther than the neighbor's house behind it, and was constructed a few months ago by R & R Fence Inc. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respe tfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.081704.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk September 14,2004 PG 1, last line, "east"s/b"new"; PG 5,4th line from bottom, "employee" Approved September 21,2004 s/b"tenant". To Clerk September 22,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting ' r LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, September 8, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, Keene, Ruge. D. Absent: McConnell. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Thomas L. and Camilla E. Gotts regarding Z-15-2004 4. HEARINGS A. Amendment to the FY 2005 Action Plan Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Public Service Department has requested an amendment to the Consolidated Summary and Plans Submission 2005 Action Plan. The change would be under the public improvements sections and would include a new item number 5, which would state "special assessment for new sidewalks will be payed for income eligible, owner/occupants of residences that do not have existing City sidewalks in neighborhoods where the City has proposed construction projects. Specific sites to be determined." Ms. Cordill asked if the amendment was for the new sidewalks and not for repairs. Mr. Neal Galehouse, Engineer, City of Lansing Public Service Department, stated this was for the east new sidewalk project only. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill referred the amendment to the next Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on September 28, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial Dist. to "F" Commercial Dist. This is a request by Hicham Reda Jadaow to rezone the property at the southwest corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd., more specifically described as: Those Parts of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 & N 1/2 of SE 1/4 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edgewood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc W 3 a of S 8 a of E 1/2 of Said NE 1/4, Also Exc Parts Lying Ely of Line Com on N'ly Line /-96 300 Ft Nw'ly of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE; Sec 8 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial Districts to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to permit a gasoline station on the area of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial and to permit general commercial uses on the remainder of the site. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. She also stated that the Board now has a quorum and can take action on necessary matters. Mr. Frederick stated that Ms. Dobias' letter raised a good point. On page 2, Ms. Dobias pointed out that there is a Board of Water and Light (BWL) active well across from the subject property. He was wondering if BWL is aware that a gas station could be constructed and if they take any kind of precautions for contamination seeping into the well in case of a spill. He asked if it was a good idea to build a gas station this close to an active well. He asked Ms. Stachowiak to alert BWL and ask for their comments before the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee or Planning Board meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that BWL has been notified and has already responded. The comments are in the file. BWL does have concerns because it is in a well-head protection area and a gas station would be close to an active well. There are precautions that the gas PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 3 station could take to make sure that it does not contaminate the City's water supply. This is an issue that has yet to be worked out. Mr. Ehssan Jedeon, resident of 10811 Riverside Drive, Diamondale and applicant, stated that he intends to construct a strip mall type of development. Mr. William Downs, resident of 1001 W. Edgewood, stated that his property is immediately west of the proposed site. He is concerned because his utilities come off of Washington Road and run down to his home. When the Board of Water and Light drilled their well, they lowered the water table and drained his well. He is concerned with the underground utilities that run to his home. He has lived in this area for 40 years. He inquired about the separation (i.e. fence, barrier) between residential and commercial properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City does require screening between the properties. The requirement would be a minimum of an 8 foot landscaped green space comprised of either fencing along with some plant materials or a dense row of plant materials that adequately screens. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she could not address the concerns with the utilities but she would forward them to BWL. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-15-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Franklin Street Housing Corporation to rezone the property at the northeast corner of High Street and Lake Lansing Road, more specifically described as: Part of Lot 65, Park Manor Heights, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 6 of Plats, Page 2, Ingham County Records, described as: Beginning at the easterly most corner of said Lot 65; thence S48 58'00" W, 12.59; thence northwesterly 31.42 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta angle of 90 00'00", and a chord of 28.28 feet, bearing N86 02'00"W, thence N41 02'00"W, 26.06 feet; thence northwesterly 100.09 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 136.00 feet, a delta angle of 42 09'57", and a chord of 97.84 feet, bearing N19 57'01"W to the northeast line of said Lot 65; thence S39 56'53"E, 14 1.11 feet along said northeast PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 4 line to the point of beginning. Reserving the southeasterly 18 feet for future Lake Lansing Road right of way. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the construction of a single family home on the subject property in conjunction with Lot 66 to the north along Lake Lansing Road. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Jean Lodge, Executive Director of Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (FSCHC), stated that this is the best use of the subject property. Otherwise, both of the lots will remain vacant. The FSCHC intends to build a single family home and sell it to a low to moderate income family who can make it their home. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-16-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by Delores Nagel to rezone the property at 801-803 N. Sycamore, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2 of Barnes Subdivision on Block 27, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the structure at 801-803 N. Sycamore Street to be used as a 3-unit residential building. The "C" Residential District permits single and 2-family uses. However, the "DM-2" Residential District permits multiple family uses based upon the size of the lot. If approved, the applicant could utilize the structure at this address for 3 residential units. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Delores Nagel, resident of 1267 Lakeside, East Lansing, stated that she purchased this property in 1994,and that it was advertised and sold as a 3-unit. There were three separate units. It was a very large property with almost 4,000 square feet. Each apartment was very large and had front and back doors. She did check with the City Assessor's Office and confirmed that it was a 3-unit. It was licensed and code regulations had the property listed as a 3-unit. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 5 In 1999, she ran out of funds and asked the City for matching funds through one of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) prorams. She was told that the City would help her. Two weeks later, she received a letter saying that the City could not assist her because the property was an illegal 3-unit in a 2-unit area. She was immediately told by the Code enforcement office that she could not rent the third unit. She has not rented that unit since 1999. At $500 per week, she has lost over $30,000. Because of this, it has created a terrible hardship. She has continued to put money into the property. She stated that she has lost a lot of money on this property and that this was supposed to be her retirement. She could not sell the property because it would not support itself. She stated that it could not be turned into two 2,000 square foot apartments on Sycamore Street. She has been paying approximately $1,200 a month for the mortgage, taxes and utilities. Last year, Ms. Delores Fuller evicted her two tenants and red-tagged the building while she was out of town. The property has been vacant ever since. This happened because of something minor. The City would not authorize a permit to fix the building unless she signed an agreement accepting the building as a 2-unit. She could not do that because she would be responsible for it the rest of her life and she would be paying money out on it. The building cannot support itself and has remained empty. She stated that this has been a tremendous hardship. Mr. Calvin Willet, resident of 820 N. Sycamore Street, stated that he has lived in the area since 1977, and that the subject property does not have enough parking for three units. In the past, there were cars parked on the street over night. This made it hard for vehicles to travel down the street. Without parking, it would not be wise to rezone the property for a 3-unit. Two units would be pushing the limit because there is limited parking. He stated that there is no place for children to play and that there is not much of a yard. The building has had additions to the front, side and back so there is not much property left. It is a very large house. He has spoken with his neighbors and they share the same opinions. He presented the Board with a letter of opposition from Mr. Robert Guernsey, resident of 812 N. Sycamore Street. He stated that there is a bus stop on the corner and with all the cars parked on the street, it was very difficult for the bus driver to pick up students. It also caused a lot of confusion. He stated that the rezoning is not a very good idea. Ms. Sheila McCoy, eloyee tenant of 230 N. Sycamore, stated that information was given to Ms. Nagel by City officials and that people make mistakes every day. However, there are certain ramifications for those mistakes, and they need to be accounted for. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 6 In this situation, she supports the rezoning because Ms. Nagel purchased the property based on information that was provided to her by the City. Ms. Nagel invested her retirement funds and this has been a serious hardship for her. She believes that the minimal amount of conflict that could result with another car or maybe more cars or another apartment would not conflict with this area. North Sycamore has become an extremely busy area. The traffic in this area is not isolated to just the residents. It is completely inundated on a constant basis with traffic from State workers, other employees, school children, busses, and now construction. The whole of the City is changing and people need to be adaptive and support it. She strongly recommended that the Board approve the rezoning. Mr. Frederick inquired about the parking requirements for a 3-unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it depends on how many bedrooms are in the units. For one bedroom, the requirement is 1 '/2 parking spaces per unit, and for two or more bedrooms, the requirement is two parking spaces per unit. Given the size of the home, each apartment would have at least two bedrooms. Therefore, the minimal amount of parking the applicant would need is six spaces. Ms. Nagel stated that two of the units have only one bedroom and the third unit has two bedrooms. Ms. Stachowiak stated that five parking spaces would be required. Mr. McConnell inquired about the number of current parking spaces. Ms. Stachowiak was not sure and stated that a site plan had not been submitted for this case. Ms. Nagel stated that currently there is a parking area for two cars and that the other section could have three cars. There has never been a need for additional parking. She has never been informed of problems with extra cars at this location. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-16-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 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) Mr. Larry Brunette, owner of the property located 230 N. Sycamore Street, stated that he did receive zoning information regarding the use of his property, and that people rely on this information to make decisions. He made a decision to purchase property that was listed as commercial and relied on the information that he was given. He submitted his request and now the Planning Department is denying it. He is under attack by the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the Genesee Neighborhood Association when they should be led to the Planning Office. There is a real misleading area with the general zoning information. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 7 written information he received had the surrounding land use (north, south, east, west) as all residential. The next line showed the properties to the north as residential, and to the south was "D-2" Residential/Office, "D-1" Professional Office and parking. This contradicted the residential land uses and the information was misleading. The building is fully leased with good tenants and has a very, very passive office use. He was using the building in accordance with the code requirements. This is a one unit building. The signage was approved based on commercial requirements. According to Board of Water and Light, the utilities have been used as commercial since 1979. When he went to register the property, he was told that there was no need to register his property because it was listed as commercial. Ms. Sheila McCoy, tenant of 230 N. Sycamore, stated that a lot of allegations have been made against Mr. Brunette and her law firm because they did not investigate the zoning for the property. This is not true. She has the evidence to prove the research was done. A lot of allegations have been made about them being confused, not knowing what they were doing, or that they disregarded and ignored what the zoning was for the property. These allegations are not true. She has tried to do everything by the book. One of the neighborhood associations alleged that they refused to allow Mr. Dave Brand, City's Code Compliance Officer, to walk through the building for code requirements. She stated that they have worked very closely with the Code Compliance Office. Because of her family's construction background, she knows what it means to comply with codes. The Code Compliance officers were allowed to walk through the building. When Mr. Brand walked into the building, it was in shambles because of the renovations. She personally talked with Mr. Brand and was told that everything was great. No one ever complained until after August 2003 when Mr. Brunette inquired about permits. He did not know what he was doing with renting the space. He just tried to do what was right. She stated that the most important legal issue is the transitional area. Lansing is a city of transition. This is a beautiful historic building and they intend to have it registered with the historic registry. She stated that this would be a very secure measure to keep it residential in appearance and in character with the neighborhood. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 620 W. Ionia, stated that she supports the Planning staff's recommendation to deny Z-2-2004. With the property at 230 N. Sycamore Street and as part of the River Island Master Plan Amendment, this property was rezoned from "DM-4" Residential to "DM-2" Residential/Office in March 1988. The property was used residentially as an elderly assisted living facility until Mr. Brunette purchased the property in March 2003. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 8 In September 2003, the Genesee Neighborhood Design Team found a zoning violation. This was triggered when Mr. Brunette placed a large, free standing sign in front of the building. The property was zoned at "D-2" Residential/Office and was to be used 50/50 as residential and low intensity professional office. The sign read, "Brunette Professional Center, Office space available, a phone number to call, McCoy Law", and there were three other spaces for the names of future commercial tenants. All the surrounding property owners, the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) and the Genesee Neighborhood Association (GNA) realized that this property was not being used properly. She, her husband and the surrounding neighbors stand together with a legitimate and valid protest petition. All of the surrounding property owners signed the petition. She stated that the DNA and GNA are opposed to Z-2-2004 and would like to see the building restored. She asked the Board to deny the request. Seeing no one else 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 —August 17, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of August 17, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of August 17, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair a. 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 9 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. Staff recommended denial of the Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office, based on inconsistency with the land use pattern being advanced in the Master Plan and based upon the potential for an office building to be constructed on this site that would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area, if the rezoning were to be approved. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to deny Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant requested that this item be tabled because they are expecting a response from the MDEQ regarding cleaning up the contamination to a level that would accommodate a less intense zoning than the "H" Light Industrial District. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Acting Chair a. ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MILK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension) This is a request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Dept. to acquire conservation easements across two parcels along PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 10 the north side of the Grand River in North Lansing. The two properties, Pro Bowl and Peckham Vocational, are located at 2122 and 2525 N. M.L. King Blvd. The applicant proposes to acquire the easements and "land bank" them for future River Trail development (see attached map). This is a revision from the original request to acquire multiple riverfront properties to extend the River Trail from Dietrich Park to Kaplan St. The owners of the two properties, Pro Bowl (2122 N. M.L. King Blvd.) and Peckham Vocational (2525 N. M.L.K.), are willing to donate the proposed easements or convey them at a nominal cost. The easements would occupy the southerly portions of the Pro Bowl and Peckham properties. Staff recommended approval of ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MLK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension). In Committee, the request was recommended for approval for the Parks and Recreation Department to acquire the conservation easements on the subject properties described above, for the purpose of land banking as open space for the possible development of the River Trail, provided that the Parks Department coordinate the site plan with utilities such as the Public Service Department and the Board of Water and Light, and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Rieske stated that Ms. Keene is a Board member of Peckham Vocational and that she did note a possible conflict of interest. Due to Ms. Keene having no interest in acquiring these easements personally, and since it would not benefit her personally, and she is not a paid Board member, it was believed that she could vote on this matter. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MILK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension). Frederick Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . ... . . . . . . Ave McConnell Ave Czekai. Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 11 b. MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board does have a quorum tonight but this case requires five votes for action. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to table MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan for consideration at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for September 21, 2004. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 28, 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) g. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4,2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) i. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 12 j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds (June 15, 2004) M. Corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads-Citgo gas station-weeds, excessive signage and dead landscaping (August 3,2004) n. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) o. 300 Lathrop Street-6-foot fence in front yard (August 3,2004) P. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence(August 17,2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that item 5g now has siding and is in compliance. With item 5e, the owner is in the process of complying with code requirements and that at least two tickets have been written for this property. The owner is in the process of cleaning up the property. With item 51, a letter was written and the applicant did not comply. The City will be sending out its contractor to mow the property and the owner of the property will be billed for those charges plus the administrative charges when they have to do the cleanup themselves. With item 5k, Ms. Stachowiak stated that this property is not within the City of Lansing limits. The City's property only goes up to the 1300 block. With item 5d, Ms. Stachowiak stated that she have given the owner until the end of September to vacate the property. The owner sent a letter in August and she will provide a copy to the Board members. The church has purchased property in Alaiedon Township and is seeking a special land use permit from the Township. Much like the City's process, it has taken some time. She stated that as long as the church keeps her advised every step of the way and are actively working toward it, she would rather keep going with the condition that the church does not put up any more signage on the property and that they do not have large gatherings that would be a burden on the traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the other items are in process and she will provide more updates at the next meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Cash Advance business item, regarding the pennants and banners at the corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues, was removed. She went by there earlier in the week and it appeared to be in compliance. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 13 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stachowiak recommended that the excused absences be approved at this time. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Foster from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The Planning Board Goals and Objectives were scheduled for discussion at tonight's meeting. However, given the limited amount of Board members present, Ms. Stachowiak recommended that this item be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board members were given a memorandum that asked for Board comments. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the Board members could review the information and give their individual lists of the types of things they would like to see the Board and the Planning Staff focus on. As she and Mr. Rieske work on the Master Plan, they can compile the Board comments and have a discussion in the Committee of the Whole. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill asked about the gas station in a well-head protection area. Mr. McConnell asked if this was the property located on the corner of Edgewood Blvd. where the owner wanted to change the zoning to commercial. He asked if the owner planned on constructing a gas station at this location. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner has confirmed plans to construct a gas station on this site. She stated that the owner is doing this on the portion of the property that is already zoned for a gas station and that the applicant can do this regardless of whether or not the Board approves or denies the rezoning request. The owner cannot do this unless he has approval from Board of Water and Light (BWL), the Public Service Department, and the Planning Office. The City and BWL are concerned about the proximity of the gas station storage tanks to the active well. She stated that there would have to be safe guards on the underground storage PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 14 tanks so that there is no chance of contamination in this area. BWL has already made a brief comment. Mr. McConnell inquired about the owner placing the gas station on the six acres at the corner. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner would like to place the gas station on the corner which is the only portion of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station took care of the weeds on their property and it improved the appearance a little bit. Mr. Frederick stated that at 3706 Stoneleigh Drive, the owner wanted to build a deck but it would not meet the rear setback requirements. Now the owner has put up a picket fence in the front. He stated that part of the property has a sidewalk and the owner put up the fence right in the middle of where a sidewalk would be. The fence is in the right-of-way and needs to be moved back. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ru , Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.090804.doc ` A 9 Draft to Clerk September 14,2004 aweApproved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, September 8, 2004 `- 1. OPENING SESSION -y C� The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, Keene, Ruge. D. Absent: McConnell. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from Thomas L. and Camilla E. Gotts regarding Z-15-2004 4. HEARINGS A. Amendment to the FY 2005 Action Plan Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Public Service Department has requested an amendment to the Consolidated Summary and Plans Submission 2005 Action Plan. The change would be under the public improvements sections and would include a new item number 5, which would state "special assessment for new sidewalks will be payed for income eligible, owner/occupants of residences that do not have existing City sidewalks in neighborhoods where the City has proposed construction projects. Specific sites to be determined." Ms. Cordill asked if the amendment was for the new sidewalks and not for repairs. Mr. Neal Galehouse, Engineer, City of Lansing Public Service Department, stated this was for the east sidewalk project only. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES u%Pgr teptember 8, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill referred the amendment to the next Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on September 28, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial Dist. to "F" Commercial Dist. This is a request by Hicham Reda Jadaow to rezone the property at the southwest corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd., more specifically described as: Those Parts of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 & N 1/2 of SE 1/4 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edgewood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc W 3 a of S 8 a of E 1/2 of Said NE 1/4, Also Exc Parts Lying Ely of Line Com on N'ly Line 1-96 300 Ft Nw'ly of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE; Sec 8 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial Districts to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to permit a gasoline station on the area of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial and to permit general commercial uses on the remainder of the site. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. She also stated that the Board now has a quorum and can take action on necessary matters. Mr. Frederick stated that Ms. Dobias' letter raised a good point. On page 2, Ms. Dobias pointed out that there is a Board of Water and Light (BWL) active well across from the subject property. He was wondering if BWL is aware that a gas station could be constructed and if they take any kind of precautions for contamination seeping into the well in case of a spill. He asked if it was a good idea to build a gas station this close to an active well. He asked Ms. Stachowiak to alert BWL and ask for their comments before the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee or Planning Board meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that BWL has been notified and has already responded. The comments are in the file. BWL does have concerns because it is in a well-head protection area and a gas station would be close to an active well. There are precautions that the gas PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 3 station could take to make sure that it does not contaminate the City's water supply. This is an issue that has yet to be worked out. Mr. Ehssan Jedeon, resident of 10811 Riverside Drive, Diamondale and applicant, stated that he intends to construct a strip mall type of development. Mr. William Downs, resident of 1001 W. Edgewood, stated that his property is immediately west of the proposed site. He is concerned because his utilities come off of Washington Road and run down to his home. When the Board of Water and Light drilled their well, they lowered the water table and drained his well. He is concerned with the underground utilities that run to his home. He has lived in this area for 40 years. He inquired about the separation (i.e. fence, barrier) between residential and commercial properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City does require screening between the properties. The requirement would be a minimum of an 8 foot landscaped green space comprised of either fencing along with some plant materials or a dense row of plant materials that adequately screens. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she could not address the concerns with the utilities but she would forward them to BWL. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-15-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Franklin Street Housing Corporation to rezone the property at the northeast corner of High Street and Lake Lansing Road, more specifically described as: Part of Lot 65, Park Manor Heights, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 6 of Plats, Page 2, Ingham County Records, described as: Beginning at the easterly most corner of said Lot 65; thence S48 58'00" W, 12.59; thence northwesterly 31.42 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta angle of 90 00'00", and a chord of 28.28 feet, bearing N86 02'00"W, thence N41 02'00"W, 26.06 feet; thence northwesterly 100.09 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 136.00 feet, a delta angle of 42 09'57", and a chord of 97.84 feet, bearing N19 57'01"W to the northeast line of said Lot 65; thence S39 56'53"E, 14 1.11 feet along said northeast PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 4 line to the point of beginning. Reserving the southeasterly 18 feet for future Lake Lansing Road right of way. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the construction of a single family home on the subject property in conjunction with Lot 66 to the north along Lake Lansing Road. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Jean Lodge, Executive Director of Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (FSCHC), stated that this is the best use of the subject property. Otherwise, both of the lots will remain vacant. The FSCHC intends to build a single family home and sell it to a low to moderate income family who can make it their home. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-16-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by Delores Nagel to rezone the property at 801-803 N. Sycamore, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2 of Barnes Subdivision on Block 27, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the structure at 801-803 N. Sycamore Street to be used as a 3-unit residential building. The "C" Residential District permits single and 2-family uses. However, the "DM-2" Residential District permits multiple family uses based upon the size of the lot. If approved, the applicant could utilize the structure at this address for 3 residential units. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Delores Nagel, resident of 1267 Lakeside, East Lansing, stated that she purchased this property in 1994,and that it was advertised and sold as a 3-unit. There were three separate units. It was a very large property with almost 4,000 square feet. Each apartment was very large and had front and back doors. She did check with the City Assessor's Office and confirmed that it was a 3-unit. It was licensed and code regulations had the property listed as a 3-unit. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 5 In 1999, she ran out of funds and asked the City for matching funds through one of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) prorams. She was told that the City would help her. Two weeks later, she received a letter saying that the City could not assist her because the property was an illegal 3-unit in a 2-unit area. She was immediately told by the Code enforcement office that she could not rent the third unit. She has not rented that unit since 1999. At $500 per week, she has lost over $30,000. Because of this, it has created a terrible hardship. She has continued to put money into the property. She stated that she has lost a lot of money on this property and that this was supposed to be her retirement. She could not sell the property because it would not support itself. She stated that it could not be turned into two 2,000 square foot apartments on Sycamore Street. She has been paying approximately $1,200 a month for the mortgage, taxes and utilities. Last year, Ms. Delores Fuller evicted her two tenants and red-tagged the building while she was out of town. The property has been vacant ever since. This happened because of something minor. The City would not authorize a permit to fix the building unless she signed an agreement accepting the building as a 2-unit. She could not do that because she would be responsible for it the rest of her life and she would be paying money out on it. The building cannot support itself and has remained empty. She stated that this has been a tremendous hardship. Mr. Calvin Willet, resident of 820 N. Sycamore Street, stated that he has lived in the area since 1977, and that the subject property does not have enough parking for three units. In the past, there were cars parked on the street over night. This made it hard for vehicles to travel down the street. Without parking, it would not be wise to rezone the property for a 3-unit. Two units would be pushing the limit because there is limited parking. He stated that there is no place for children to play and that there is not much of a yard. The building has had additions to the front, side and back so there is not much property left. It is a very large house. He has spoken with his neighbors and they share the same opinions. He presented the Board with a letter of opposition from Mr. Robert Guernsey, resident of 812 N. Sycamore Street. He stated that there is a bus stop on the corner and with all the cars parked on the street, it was very difficult for the bus driver to pick up students. It also caused a lot of confusion. He stated that the rezoning is not a very good idea. Ms. Sheila McCoy, employee of 230 N. Sycamore, stated that information was given to Ms. Nagel by City officials and that people make mistakes every day. However, there are certain ramifications for those mistakes, and they need to be accounted for. flal:- &I Vim Zvi U PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 6 In this situation, she supports the rezoning because Ms. Nagel purchased the property based on information that was provided to her by the City. Ms. Nagel invested her retirement funds and this has been a serious hardship for her. She believes that the minimal amount of conflict that could result with another car or maybe more cars or another apartment would not conflict with this area. North Sycamore has become an extremely busy area. The traffic in this area is not isolated to just the residents. It is completely inundated on a constant basis with traffic from State workers, other employees, school children, busses, and now construction. The whole of the City is changing and people need to be adaptive and support it. She strongly recommended that the Board approve the rezoning. Mr. Frederick inquired about the parking requirements for a 3-unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it depends on how many bedrooms are in the units. For one bedroom, the requirement is 1 '/2 parking spaces per unit, and for two or more bedrooms, the requirement is two parking spaces per unit. Given the size of the home, each apartment would have at least two bedrooms. Therefore, the minimal amount of parking the applicant would need is six spaces. Ms. Nagel stated that two of the units have only one bedroom and the third unit has two bedrooms. Ms. Stachowiak stated that five parking spaces would be required. Mr. McConnell inquired about the number of current parking spaces. Ms. Stachowiak was not sure and stated that a site plan had not been submitted for this case. Ms. Nagel stated that currently there is a parking area for two cars and that the other section could have three cars. There has never been a need for additional parking. She has never been informed of problems with extra cars at this location. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill referred Z-16-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 15, 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) Mr. Larry Brunette, owner of the property located 230 N. Sycamore Street, stated that he did receive zoning information regarding the use of his property, and that people rely on this information to make decisions. He made a decision to purchase property that was listed as commercial and relied on the information that he was given. He submitted his request and now the Planning Department is denying it. He is under attack by the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the Genesee Neighborhood Association when they should be led to the Planning Office. There is a real misleading area with the general zoning information. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 7 written information he received had the surrounding land use (north, south, east, west) as all residential. The next line showed the properties to the north as residential, and to the south was "D-2" Residential/Office, "D-1" Professional Office and parking. This contradicted the residential land uses and the information was misleading. The building is fully leased with good tenants and has a very, very passive office use. He was using the building in accordance with the code requirements. This is a one unit building. The signage was approved based on commercial requirements. According to Board of Water and Light, the utilities have been used as commercial since 1979. When he went to register the property, he was told that there was no need to register his property because it was listed as commercial. Ms. Sheila McCoy, tenant of 230 N. Sycamore, stated that a lot of allegations have been made against Mr. Brunette and her law firm because they did not investigate the zoning for the property. This is not true. She has the evidence to prove the research was done. A lot of allegations have been made about them being confused, not knowing what they were doing, or that they disregarded and ignored what the zoning was for the property. These allegations are not true. She has tried to do everything by the book. One of the neighborhood associations alleged that they refused to allow Mr. Dave Brand, City's Code Compliance Officer, to walk through the building for code requirements. She stated that they have worked very closely with the Code Compliance Office. Because of her family's construction background, she knows what it means to comply with codes. The Code Compliance officers were allowed to walk through the building. When Mr. Brand walked into the building, it was in shambles because of the renovations. She personally talked with Mr. Brand and was told that everything was great. No one ever complained until after August 2003 when Mr. Brunette inquired about permits. He did not know what he was doing with renting the space. He just tried to do what was right. She stated that the most important legal issue is the transitional area. Lansing is a city of transition. This is a beautiful historic building and they intend to have it registered with the historic registry. She stated that this would be a very secure measure to keep it residential in appearance and in character with the neighborhood. Ms. Stephanie Whitbeck, resident of 620 W. Ionia, stated that she supports the Planning staff's recommendation to deny Z-2-2004. With the property at 230 N. Sycamore Street and as part of the River Island Master Plan Amendment, this property was rezoned from "DM-4" Residential to "DM-2" Residential/Office in March 1988. The property was used residentially as an elderly assisted living facility until Mr. Brunette purchased the property in March 2003. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES w September 8, 2004 Page 8 In September 2003, the Genesee Neighborhood Design Team found a zoning violation. This was triggered when Mr. Brunette placed a large, free standing sign in front of the building. The property was zoned at "D-2" Residential/Office and was to be used 50/50 as residential and low intensity professional office. The sign read, "Brunette Professional Center, Office space available, a phone number to call, McCoy Law", and there were three other spaces for the names of future commercial tenants. All the surrounding property owners, the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) and the Genesee Neighborhood Association (GNA) realized that this property was not being used properly. She, her husband and the surrounding neighbors stand together with a legitimate and valid protest petition. All of the surrounding property owners signed the petition. She stated that the DNA and GNA are opposed to Z-2-2004 and would like to see the building restored. She asked the Board to deny the request. Seeing no one else 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 —August 17, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of August 17, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of August 17, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair a. 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page_9 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. Staff recommended denial of the Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office, based on inconsistency with the land use pattern being advanced in the Master Plan and based upon the potential for an office building to be constructed on this site that would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area, if the rezoning were to be approved. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to deny Z-2-2004, 230 N. Sycamore St., from "D-2" Residential/Office to "D-1" Professional Office. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant requested that this item be tabled because they are expecting a response from the MDEQ regarding cleaning up the contamination to a level that would accommodate a less intense zoning than the "H" Light Industrial District. Next meeting, Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Acting Chair a. ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MILK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension) This is a request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Dept. to acquire conservation easements across two parcels along PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 10 the north side of the Grand River in North Lansing. The two properties, Pro Bowl and Peckham Vocational, are located at 2122 and 2525 N. M.L. King Blvd. The applicant proposes to acquire the easements and "land bank" them for future River Trail development (see attached map). This is a revision from the original request to acquire multiple riverfront properties to extend the River Trail from Dietrich Park to Kaplan St. The owners of the two properties, Pro Bowl (2122 N. M.L. King Blvd.) and Peckham Vocational (2525 N. M.L.K.), are willing to donate the proposed easements or convey them at a nominal cost. The easements would occupy the southerly portions of the Pro Bowl and Peckham properties. Staff recommended approval of ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MLK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension). In Committee, the request was recommended for approval for the Parks and Recreation Department to acquire the conservation easements on the subject properties described above, for the purpose of land banking as open space for the possible development of the River Trail, provided that the Parks Department coordinate the site plan with utilities such as the Public Service Department and the Board of Water and Light, and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Rieske stated that Ms. Keene is a Board member of Peckham Vocational and that she did note a possible conflict of interest. Due to Ms. Keene having no interest in acquiring these easements personally, and since it would not benefit her personally, and she is not a paid Board member, it was believed that she could vote on this matter. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve ACT-13-2002, 2122 and 2525 N. MILK Blvd., Conservation Easements on Riverfront Properties (RiverTrail NW Extension). Frederick Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Ave McConnell Ave Czekai. Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 11 b. MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board does have a quorum tonight but this case requires five votes for action. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to table MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan for consideration at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for September 21, 2004. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 28, 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20, 2004) f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) g. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4, 2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) i. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 12 j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds(June 15, 2004) M. Corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads-Citgo gas station-weeds, excessive signage and dead landscaping (August 3,2004) n. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) o. 300 Lathrop Street-6-foot fence in front yard (August 3,2004) P. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence (August 17,2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that item 5g now has siding and is in compliance. With item 5e, the owner is in the process of complying with code requirements and that at least two tickets have been written for this property. The owner is in the process of cleaning up the property. With item 51, a letter was written and the applicant did not comply. The City will be sending out its contractor to mow the property and the owner of the property will be billed for those charges plus the administrative charges when they have to do the cleanup themselves. With item 5k, Ms. Stachowiak stated that this property is not within the City of Lansing limits. The City's property only goes up to the 1300 block. With item 5d, Ms. Stachowiak stated that she have given the owner until the end of September to vacate the property. The owner sent a letter in August and she will provide a copy to the Board members. The church has purchased property in Alaiedon Township and is seeking a special land use permit from the Township. Much like the City's process, it has taken some time. She stated that as long as the church keeps her advised every step of the way and are actively working toward it, she would rather keep going with the condition that the church does not put up any more signage on the property and that they do not have large gatherings that would be a burden on the traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the other items are in process and she will provide more updates at the next meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Cash Advance business item, regarding the pennants and banners at the corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues, was removed. She went by there earlier in the week and it appeared to be in compliance. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 13 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stachowiak recommended that the excused absences be approved at this time. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Foster from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The Planning Board Goals and Objectives were scheduled for discussion at tonight's meeting. However, given the limited amount of Board members present, Ms. Stachowiak recommended that this item be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board members were given a memorandum that asked for Board comments. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the Board members could review the information and give their individual lists of the types of things they would like to see the Board and the Planning Staff focus on. As she and Mr. Rieske work on the Master Plan, they can compile the Board comments and have a discussion in the Committee of the Whole. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill asked about the gas station in a well-head protection area. Mr. McConnell asked if this was the property located on the corner of Edgewood Blvd. where the owner wanted to change the zoning to commercial. He asked if the owner planned on constructing a gas station at this location. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner has confirmed plans to construct a gas station on this site. She stated that the owner is doing this on the portion of the property that is already zoned for a gas station and that the applicant can do this regardless of whether or not the Board approves or denies the rezoning request. The owner cannot do this unless he has approval from Board of Water and Light (BWL), the Public Service Department, and the Planning Office. The City and BWL are concerned about the proximity of the gas station storage tanks to the active well. She stated that there would have to be safe guards on the underground storage PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 14 tanks so that there is no chance of contamination in this area. BWL has already made a brief comment. Mr. McConnell inquired about the owner placing the gas station on the six acres at the corner. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner would like to place the gas station on the corner which is the only portion of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station took care of the weeds on their property and it improved the appearance a little bit. Mr. Frederick stated that at 3706 Stoneleigh Drive, the owner wanted to build a deck but it would not meet the rear setback requirements. Now the owner has put up a picket fence in the front. He stated that part of the property has a sidewalk and the owner put up the fence right in the middle of where a sidewalk would be. The fence is in the right-of-way and needs to be moved back. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.090804.doc Approved as written 8-17-04 Draft to Clerk August 11,2004 Approved August 17,2004 To Clerk August 19,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall -- Tuesday, August 3, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: McConnell. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Foster from the June 15th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 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 (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from W. Kinsman regarding Z-13-2004 B. Letter of concern from the Lansing Catholic Central regarding M PA-1-2004 C. Letter of support from the Eastside Neighborhood Association regarding M PA-1-2004 D. Letter of support from Cummins Woods, Attorneys and Counselors, regarding Z-14-2004 E. Five letters of support (from Debra & Jeffrey Lecato, Marguerite Davis, Michael Lankins, Gail & Judy Watkins, and Laura Short) regarding NCU-2- 2004 F. Fifty-one letters of opposition regarding Z-12-2004 4. HEARINGS A. Z-12-2004, East end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Streets, "B" Residential & "G-2" Wholesale District to "H" Light Industrial District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 2 This is a request by Friedland Iron & Metal Company to rezone the property located at the east end of Banghart, Harris and Bates Street, more specifically described as: Lot 32 Banghart Sub, and Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot 81 Banghart Sub No 1, Thence East 500 Feet to Westerly Line NYC Railroad ROW, Southerly on said Westerly ROW Line to North Line Banghart St West on North Line Banghart St 91 Feet to Southeast Corner of Lot 32, Banghart Sub, North 133 Ft, West 191 Ft, North 187 Ft, West 50 Ft to Southeast Corner Lot 81 Banghart Sub No. 1, N 137.41 Ft to Beginning; and Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot 82 Banghart Sub No 1, Thence East 50 Ft, South 133 Ft, West 50 Ft, North 133 Ft to Beginning; Section 3 T4N R2W, and Lots 26 Through 38 Inclusive, Also Vacated Ninth Ave Between Lots 34 & 35, Also Vacated Bates Street from East Line Ninth Ave East to Railroad Right-of-way, B L Bates Jackson Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "B" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of this request is to permit the cleanup of contamination on the subject property and to allow its redevelopment for non-residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Chuck Barbieri, attorney for Friedland Iron & Metal Company, stated that this request is to change certain areas that are part of the old Friedland Iron & Metal site from "B" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale districts to "H" Light Industrial district. This reclassification is necessary to carry out a clean up. For some time, the company has been performing investigations and some interim response activities at this site. The final remedy would be the placement of a cap over certain areas that are contaminated but the property has to have the same zoning classification. He cited the statutory section MCL 324.20120A, sub paragraph 6. This provision requires the cleanup that has been proposed. Since this is a limited industrial cleanup that is proposed, it has to have a zoning classification that fits industrial use. There is a small portion which is residential and also warehouse which needs to be converted to this industrial classification. Once the zoning and the remedial action plan is approved, then the site will remain in its capped condition limited to whatever restrictions may be involved. Friedland Iron & Metal Company does not have any active reuse plans for the property and the company does not want to waive any of the rights that it may have. This is a request to carry out a cleanup which the company would like to do. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 3 The property is owned by Sylvia Friedland, widow of Bernard Friedland (former principle of Friedland Iron & Medal). Friedland Iron & Medal Company was the former operator of the site. Mr. Ruge inquired about access to the site other than Bates, Harris or Banghart Streets. Mr. Barbieri stated that someone could gain access from the south or the north along the railroad tracks. In terms of the cleanup, he stated that the company is not sure which entry way would be feasible but is willing to work with the City and others who have jurisdiction to try to minimize the destruction that might occur from the equipment that would be taken back and forth on the site. There is no intention to cause an undue or unreasonable interference. The company only needs to gain access to the site for the closure that is proposed. Mr. Ruge inquired about how long the site has been used by Friedland Iron & Metal Company. Mr. Barbieri stated that the site has not been used since the late 1980's. Mr. Ruge asked if the property had not been used at all since the late 1980's. Mr. Barbieri stated that is correct. Mr. Ruge asked if Friedland Iron & Metal Company actually have a nonconforming use because the company has owned the property so long. Mr. Barbieri stated that it was an interesting question and that he posed this to the Planning staff when he submitted the idea. He could have gone one of two routes: legal nonconforming use or rezoning. He stated that he was encouraged to do a rezoning on behalf of his client. Mr. Czekai inquired about the possibility of a temporary status for the company to do a clean up or does the property have to be completely rezoned or is there a special land use permit of any kind that could be used. Mr. Barbieri stated that it would not work from the stand point of the State requirements. There would have to be a restrictive covenant on the property. One of the things that the restrictive covenant will require is that the company attach the zoning as consistent with the cleanup that was achieved. Ms. Cordill inquired about the intentions of the property once the cleanup has occurred. Mr. Barbieri stated that his client would like to get use out of the property. For the past 16 to 17 years, no use has occurred. His client would like to achieve the clean up and cap but do not want to waive any redevelopment rights that might be enjoyed in the future. Ms. Keene inquired about the source of the contamination and asked what was on the site. Mr. Barbieri stated that there are two things that drive the closure: heavy metal lead and small concentrations of PCB. These can be addressed with a cap over the areas. There are intentions for some areas to be scraped so that the levels will be down to residential levels, even though this is not the zoning classification. In the capped areas, there will be contaminants above the levels that would justify the cleanup. Ms. Keene asked how long the company has been aware of this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 4 contamination. Mr. Barbieri stated that the studies go back to the early 1990's. Ms. Foster asked if there were any other thoughts on the cleanup. There are different methods for removing lead from the soil rather than capping them which would leave the contaminants on the site. Mr. Barbieri stated that it is possible. However, the costs are significantly different. His client, as owner of the site, has options available for the site but does not have to remove the contaminants. The department is not requiring any removal as part of the closure. At this time, the closure that is planned is consistent with the DEQ requirements and will not result in exposures that pose a risk to the populas. Ms. Foster asked about the size of the area that would be capped. Mr. Barbieri stated that a diagram was provided and should be in the case materials. Ms. Stachowiak referred to sections a, b and c in the materials. Mr. Barbieri reviewed these areas. Ms. Foster asked if sections a, b, c, d, e, and f were also being excavated and put in a soil stock pile. Mr. Barbieri stated that she may be reviewing a different diagram. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was the survey that was provided. Ms. Foster stated that there were four outlined areas. One large area has a lot of different sections. Mr. Barbieri asked if he could approach the podium and clarify things. Ms. Foster gave permission. Mr. Barbieri clarified the areas shown on the diagram. Ms. Foster asked if it was possible to have the property rezoned as "G-2" Wholesale District rather than the Light Industrial District. Mr. Barbieri stated that the unfortunate part is the department specifies certain types of cleanup and follows the specifications of residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Ms. Foster stated that it is DEQ that is expecting the industrial zoning. Mr. Barbieri stated that is correct for the type of cleanup that the company has envisioned for this site. Mr. Ruge asked for clarification that if someone wanted to use this site for residential then DEQ would say that a different standard would have to be met, probably a more strict standard to use this property as residential. Mr. Barbieri stated that if one would clean up the property to residential then it could be reused as such. This clean up involves a consolidation and capping of the elevated metal materials and will require a restrictive covenant that is different than an unrestricted residential clean up. This is not what his client is proposing. Ms. Foster asked if Mr. Barbieri requested the "G-2" Wholesale district, then he would be forced to clean up the site greater than the zoning for light industrial. Mr. Barbieri stated that he did not know how to answer that question. In theory, there could be stricter requirements but the company has never gone into intense comparison between industrial or commercial. Because this has been under consideration for several PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 5 years, the company presented the method of cleanup in a public notice back in 2000. At that time, the public notice did not receive any comments from the City of Lansing or area residents. The company was required to publish a notice in the Lansing State Journal but did not receive any comments on it. Mr. Barbieri stated that if the Board wanted the company to explore this option further, he was not sure if it would worsen the resolution. For the concern of everyone, it would certainly delay the process. He urged the Board to consider that the type of request the company is making is consistent with what the history of that site was. This request will achieve the clean up. Obviously, it has been a long time already but in a shorter period of time than what otherwise might occur. Ms. Foster stated that because the property is abutting a whole residential neighborhood, she believes that most people would feel more comfortable not having light industrial zoning together with residential. It might be that the cleanup may be the same levels for the "G-2" Wholesale zoning. Even exploring and having some of those questions answered might be really helpful. Mr. Barbieri stated that he is not in favor of delaying this rezoning and that he came here tonight with a mission to ask the Board to approve the request so the company can move ahead. Ms. Foster stated that this request would not be approved tonight. Tonight is the public hearing for this case and then it will go to Committee. She stated that this may be the time between now and the Committee meeting to see if the cleanup could possibly be done the same way as to the levels. It might help appease the neighborhood and allow this request to move quicker. Ms. Cordill asked if Mr. Barbieri could please provide information on how the site has been used. Mr. Barbieri stated that the site was used for scrap and iron recycling. Mr. Ruge stated that from the two maps that were provided it appears that the areas zoned "B" residential do not have any contamination. Mr. Barbieri stated these are certainly not the areas that would be excavated but the department has asked that these areas be included as part of the designation. Clean up standards actually changed in 2002, and at that time the choices were to pursue the clean up or something different would have to be done that would involve different testing. His client chose to pursue the clean up under the previous requirements. Rather than re- open all the testing, the department insisted on adding a restriction which would require the property to have the same zoning as the company is restricting the use to be. Mr. Ruge stated that the "B" residential zoning provides a buffer for the neighborhood. Mr. Barbieri stated that he would contend respectfully that this is a legal nonconforming use. He simply went through the process as a means but will go with whatever means he has to. He stated that whether this provides a buffer, he is not prepared to yay or no. Mr. Frederick asked who makes the determination of a legal conformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does. Mr. Frederick asked if she had PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 6 made any kind of a determination on this request. Ms. Stachowiak stated she determined that it is not legally nonconforming. Mr. Barbieri stated that she may have one view point but he could certainly go to court and get another view if he has to. He would rather not do that. Mr. Frederick stated this does not answer his question. He asked the Zoning Administrator who has the authority to make a determination of a legal nonconformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she makes the decision and that any decision that she makes can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Barbieri stated that it can also be appealed through the court. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could also be appealed through the court after having exhausted the local remedies. Mr. Frederick asked for clarification that the conformity is not legal at this time. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Frederick stated that Ms. Stachowiak's and the client's attorney's determination are the same. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the attorney disagreed with her but went along with her determination. Mr. Frederick stated that the attorney would rather have it be a legal nonconformity. Ms. Stachowiak stated he would because it would be a lot easier on his end. Mr. Barbieri stated that he was encouraged to do it this way without waiving his rights or any other obligations that his client would have to undertake. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to expand on the determination at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Robert Dixon, resident of 815 Banghart Street, stated that he has lived on Banghart Street since 1941 and he does not recall Friedland Iron & Metal Company being a junkyard forever. This property had trees and was almost like a jungle because he used to play in this area as a kid. He has no objection to anybody moving into the neighborhood to clean it up. He agreed that it should be cleaned up. He believes that Friedland Iron & Metal Company made a big mistake when an iron crusher was put in. It kept him awake every time it was running. The neighborhood was upset about it. There was some equipment that caught on fire and the whole neighborhood was upset. It was hard sleeping when someone was making so much noise that it sounds like it is coming through the walls. Anyone who agrees with this type of situation for the residential area, needs to live on Banghart Street and listen to the noise. He stated that Mr. Barbieri is in a hurry to have the request approved. With the Board asking questions, he does not believe that there is enough information available to make a reliable decision. When the property is rezoned and cleaned up, there will be a new zone. He stated that the Board needs more information to make an informed decision. He is opposed to the rezoning, and thanked the Board for their time and patience. Mr. Barbieri asked to clarify funding. Ms. Foster stated there was already too much time spent on this case and that it will be taken to Committee PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 7 where he can clarify this matter further. Mr. Barbieri continued speaking. Mr. Frederick called for a point of order. Ms. Renee Smith, resident of 924 Banghart Street, stated that the residents do not want to see this rezoning approved. There are kids who live on this dead-end street and play outdoors. They have a good time. There are trucks running up and down this street. She has spoken with other neighbors who could not attend tonight's meeting. There are a lot of elderly people living in the neighborhood. This is an old neighborhood and the residents are opposed to the rezoning. She stressed that there are a lot of children who play on this street. There is a lot of property across the street from where she lives. There is a big fence that falls down periodically. Every season, her husband is repairing the fence and getting it back up. She stated that her husband has called the City, and the City has contacted Friedland Iron & Metal Company about repairing the fence. Friedland Iron & Metal Company fixes the fence and it falls back down. She has mowed the grass for 12 years and asked if Friedland Iron & Metal Company wants her bill for the mowing and expenses. She stated that the residents are opposed to the rezoning and the kids would have no place to play. The residents do not need the trucks traveling up and down this street. Mr. Jay Whitney, resident of 901 Bates Street, stated that this is not the first time residents have gone round and round with Friedland Iron & Metal Company. He fought with the company back in the 1980s over a shredder that was brought in illegally. He stated that it took Representative Hollister and his staff to have the shredder shut down because it was put in and running without a permit. The company feels that it can do whatever it wants, and if the residents do not like it then they can move. The shredder did get shut down, and at that time the company was supposed to cap the property. That was 15 years or more ago. He has the document at home of everything that went on with the property from the onset of the shredder to the final determination by Department of Environmental Equality to deny the company's permit to operate. The company was shut down and forced to relocate. He believes that the reason why the company wants the light industrial is because it would give the company all the opportunity to move the mess from Center Street and create a mess on Harris and Banghart Streets. This is his view point. If the property would be zoned wholesale, then this would stop it. The company is determined to have light industrial and this would give them all the opportunity to make a mess. He would like to know if Friedland Iron & Metal Company was supposed to cap the property 15 years ago and why the company is just now getting around to doing it. After the property was capped, contrary to what Mr. Barbieri said, the company has been bringing stuff to this site and dumping it (i.e. dirt from Maple and Center Streets, old semis that are no longer used). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 8 Mr. David Boda, resident of 837 East Harris Street, stated that he lives right at the gate of Friedland Enterprises. There are a number of entrances for this site and asked if employees were to use the entrance between the plastic labs and the heating and ventilation company off of Seventh Avenue which was never honored. He stated that the company does use the land almost every day throughout the week with the exception of Saturday and Sunday. With the two semi traitors that were on the site, vagrants have gone in and set them ablaze. Currently, the company's gates are supposed to be locked and people keep going in. The company has been less than gracious neighbors. The gates to the hanger are broken and rusted. Trash is strewn all around. The company is not doing any maintenance. One time the City was called regarding the site. A representative from Friedland came down to the site and thought it was a big joke. He brought an earth mover, put some dirt around and laughed about it. The representative said there's your clean up, took off and drove down to Center Street. Mr. Boda stated that the gates are continuously left open so there is immediate access. People drive in there and some people have been hurt, including broken limbs. He believes that this is a big game. If the company had a contract to cap this years ago, then the company should be in breach of the contract. There has been an awful lot of activity. He stated that he does not agree with what the company is trying to do. He has children at the end of the road and the whole neighborhood is full of children. When the semis travel down the street, they leave the road filthy with clay. The site used to have metal crunchers that spew metal through the air and would land on surrounding homes midway down the block. People could not drive through there without getting flat tires. He stated that if the company wanted to cap the site that would be fine. He believes that the company should waive the right for industrial use. He thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Mr. Monte Deces, resident of 916 Banghart Street, stated that his wife grew up on Banghart Street and they have been acquainted for over 40 years. If anyone thinks that they can go in to the site and just cover the mess with some dirt with the idea of turning around later on and making the property saleable with the new zoning, turn all of those streets into nothing but truck highways, someone has blinders on. He spent several thousand dollars in the last two years remodeling his house and so have other residents. He has a junk yard in his back yard, a super fun clean up at the end of the street and now the company is requesting a rezoning on the Friedland property. As far as he is concerned, the property can stay the way it is because it has been this way for 20 years. Short of the trucks driving in and out of the end of Banghart Street, if the property is rezoned to light industrial, that would be wrong. He stated that the City should have the company clean up the two lots at the end of the street and sell them so that some homes could be built there. This would be a lot better. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 9 Ms. Mona Deces, resident of 916 Banghart Street, stated that she has spoken with all the neighbors to see how they felt. There are a lot of elderly people. It is a nice neighborhood. She grew up in this neighborhood and it has been a dump. She stated that she used to play in the dump when she was a kid back in 1957. She would like to see this cleaned up. Regardless of what has been done, Friedland Iron & Metal Company has a responsibility to clean up the contamination. She stated that it needs to be maintained because it is an eyesore. She believes that Friedland needs to repair the fence and mow the law. Friedland needs to be responsible for all the damage that has been done. Friedland has not be truthful about everything. The property has been neglected. She stated that Friedland has not been giving enough information about what the company plans to do. Friedland has not provided the residents with any information and would not put anything in writing. She questioned what Mr. Barbieri stated about the site not being used. She stated that this was not true. If the truth is not being told, how can the people believe what the company is going to do? She stated that this request needs to wait. The Board needs to find out what is behind everything and what the company is responsible for regardless of whether or not the property is rezoned to light industrial. The residents need to know more because they do not know anything, only what is being heard tonight. She thanked the Board for their questions and their time. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-12-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-13-2004, Southwest Corner of Dunckel & Hazelwood, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Toomey Builders, Inc. to rezone the property at the southwest corner of Dunckel and Hazelwood, more specifically described as: Lots 27 & 28, Green Acres Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit an office building on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that the proposed site plan has the parking lot in the back and has parking right up against the side lot line. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a conceptual site plan that the applicant put together and it shows generally how the applicant would intend to lay out everything. If PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 10 the applicant was to rezone the property to "D-1" Professional Office District, there would have to be an 8 foot landscape buffer along all property lines. This is a basic sketch that the applicant provided to show what was being considered if the request was approved. In no way is this the site plan that would necessarily be accepted by the City. There is adequate room on this parcel to construct an office building with associated parking. Mr. Ruge asked if the parking lot could be moved to the front of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could not be moved because the Zoning Ordinance does not permit parking in the front yard in a "D-1" Professional Office District. If this request were to be approved, parking would have to be behind the building. It would still require an 8 foot landscape buffer between the parking area and the adjoining residential districts. Mr. Simon Toomey, applicant, 3238 W. St. Joseph, stated the company's reason for submitting the rezoning is because the company has been in the area a while and there are a lot of offices nearby. The company believes that this would be the best use of these lots. There has been a lot of talk about modular homes being placed on these lots which would not help the land value. He believes that an operations building out front would really dress up the entrance. Currently, the front has tall trees and brush. This site plan is to scale but the company would bring in an architect to do the actual building design and a landscape architect for the landscaping around the building which is required. The company feels that this would be best use for this property. With an office in front of the neighborhood, it would dress up the neighborhood. The office building would be a small 2,400 square foot brick office building with one story. Mr. Matt Lenhard, resident of 4831 Eastlawn Drive, stated that he has one of the adjacent properties. He moved to this area 4 years ago and stated that he likes the buffer zone that is now overgrown. It is beautiful and keeps the traffic noise from Dunckel Road down. Dunckel Road was widened approximately 2 years ago. He has questions for the applicant. He asked how many driveways the applicant would be able to have on Dunckel Road and Hazelwood Drive. He canvassed the whole neighborhood and found that the public hearing notices missed 2/3 of the residents. He has everyone's signature and they are opposed to this request. McGuire Mailing is approximately 2 blocks away and have been in the neighborhood a long time. Every other business is on the other side of Jolly Road, except the Quality Dairy. There are 4 tiny businesses in a little strip on Jolly Road next to Leo's Lodge. He stated that this is a bad idea because the area is all residential. The neighbors do not want this. If office space is needed, that is what the other side of Jolly Road was PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 11 created for. It is all office spaces and there are a lot of vacant properties located there. There are also vacant spaces in the buildings. He was not allowed a driveway on Dunckel Road and does not see where the applicant would get one for a business. Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Lenhard if his house was the white house with the tall garage behind it. Mr. Lenhard stated that it was his house. Mr. Ruge asked if he could explain why his garage was an unusual shape. Mr. Lenhard stated that the previous owner had a mobile home. He stated that there are a lot of new families in the neighborhood on Hazelwood Drive. This area is currently used by people as a cut through path. When Dunckel Road was widened, he mentioned that a traffic light needed to be added. He was told that it was not needed. There have been a few roll over accidents at this location. He was told by Ms. Sandy Allen that they were going to stop the traffic from cutting through and this has not happened. He asked if there would be another meeting regarding this case. Ms. Foster referred him to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on August 11, 2004. Ms. Keene inquired about the list with the neighbors' signatures. Mr. Lenhard stated that he wanted to leave the list but he would like for the Board to have a copy of it. Ms. Stachowiak asked him if he would like to send a copy or bring a copy to the Planning Office. Ms. Laura Lorence, resident of 2613 Hazelwood Drive, stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed site. There are a lot of young children in the neighborhood and she has 2 small children. She is opposed to the request because if it were approved she would look out her living room window and see a professional building. The overgrown brush has blocked a lot of the noise. Since Dunckel Road was widened, the noise level has increased dramatically. If the brush is cleared and a building was constructed, the noise level would be incredible. She is completely opposed to the request because of property value reasons. It is a small neighborhood with young children. This request would increase the traffic. She does not think that this is a good idea at all. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of parking spaces that would be feasible for this area given the proposed plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that offices do not generate a high volume of traffic. There is a little bit more traffic with a medical office than a professional office. The exact amount of parking spaces that will be required will be determined by the useable square footage of this building. This will need to be shifted around in order to accommodate the buffer. What was presented is right on target PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 12 with how many parking spaces that would actually be seen at this location if the request was approved. Mr. Ray Williams, resident of 4822 Eastlawn Drive, stated that the overgrown brush and the trees at the site look much better than any office building that would be constructed on the site. There is more room for offices on the other side of Jolly Road. There is no reason to have a building at this location. If the applicant wanted to place modular homes on the site, it would look a lot better than the houses that he has seen. The increase in traffic would not be a good thing for the neighborhood. Ms. Donna Pierce, resident of 2605 Hazelwood Drive, stated that she has lived at this location for 30 years. There are neighborhoods that continue to want to move and grow in Lansing. There is talk about Lansing being a 50/50 rental market versus home owner. This is a neighborhood that has home owners. Most people do not know that this neighborhood exists because it is small and tucked behind everything. This is the way the neighbors like it. Even though she appreciates the applicant looking out for what is in the best interest of the neighborhood, this is not the way that she sees it. She chose to live in this neighborhood and she does not have to live there. She can live wherever she chooses. She works in Jackson and owns her own business. She chose Lansing because this is where she has always been comfortable and this is the same with her neighbors. She stated that there are also older people living in the neighborhood who have lived in the area for 45 years and others whose children own the homes. Finally, the neighborhood is getting families who have newborns. This is the one thing that should be looked at. Why would a neighborhood want an office building in a residential situation when there can be families instead? She thought that this is what Lansing was supposed to be looking out for. Ms. Cordill inquired about how long the current owner has owned the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would look into the matter. Ms. Antoinette Imhoff, resident of 4907 Eastlawn Drive, stated that her property is very close to the proposed site and that she has concerns about the neighborhood change. She does not want to see this request as an in mode to other changes. She does not want commercial in the residential neighborhood where there are families. She has been living in this neighborhood for 30 years. Within the past few years she has put a considerable amount of money into her home and she will continue to live there. She has seen in the area where Eastlawn and Hazelwood Drives intersect that there are a lot of children who play in the street. She is concerned with their safety. Her family consists of felines and she is concerned about their well being. She stated that the proposed property is a nice buffer from Dunckel Road. She asked the Board to take into consideration the families in the neighborhood and that the neighbors do PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 13 not like the idea of transitioning this site into something other than a residential area. She appreciates the Board's consideration. Ms. Judy Davis, resident of 4638 Eastlawn Drive, stated that she is 5 houses away from the proposed site. When she moved in the neighborhood, these particular lots were a beautiful woods with nice trees. Approximately 5 to 6 years ago, they were cut down. It really does keep a lot of noise from the neighborhood. There are a lot of kids in the neighborhood. She has grandchildren who lived with her last summer and were almost hit with the traffic that was coming down the street when Dunckel Road was being reconstructed. She is not sure how many parking spots there would be on the proposed site. To her, five would be too many. She thanked the Board for their consideration. Mr. Brian Childers, resident of 4900 Eastlawn Drive, stated that he is opposed to this request. He has lived in this area for 15 years and the neighborhood does not need to be beautified. The neighborhood is already beautiful. There are wonderful neighbors in this area and they care about each other. The traffic is already at an all time high with people cutting through and the neighborhood does not need any more. He believes that with this building being constructed, it would cause not only traffic problems but maybe more accidents. Dunckel Road has become a very fast road since it was widened. With any office building, there are deliveries and he is not sure how the deliveries would be done at this site. The delivery person would not be allowed to back in off of Dunckel Road. He does not want the delivery trucks driving through the neighborhood. He thanked the Board for their time. Ms. Sandy Childers, resident of 4900 Eastlawn Drive, stated this is a residential area and she is baffled that the applicant wants to construct a professional building on the site. The property is surrounded by residential zoning. There are office buildings located on the other side of Jolly Road. She feels that the company has lots that they are just trying to get rid of and they are doing it by adding offices. She hopes that the Board will keep the area residential. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-13-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 14 This is a request by the Michigan Community College Association to rezone the northwest 66' x 63' of the property at 427 W. Ionia/222 N. Chestnut Streets, more specifically described as: Lot 10 & the West 107 Feet of Lots 11 & 12, Block 93 Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-Y Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of this request is to permit additional parking for the Michigan Community College Association located at 222 N. Chestnut Street. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the parking lot emptying directly into the side of a house. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no way to pull into one of these parking spaces and exit the parking lot without backing up all the way. The Board is not considering this site plan. The Board is considering the rezoning. Mr. Ruge asked if the applicant also owns the house located at 423 W. Ionia Street and if the applicant is considering demolishing the house. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant owns the properties located at 423 and 427 W. Ionia Street and also the property located at 222 Chestnut Street. The applicant does not own the property at 421 W. Ionia Street. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut Street and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that the DNA does not support the rezoning of this property. The DNA was not pleased when the building on the property was demolished 1 '/2 years ago without notice to the neighborhood. The residents were wondering what would be done with the property. The DNA's understanding is that when the applicant built the new building, there was more than adequate parking for the use of the building. She asked why the applicant needs more parking, and how many parking spaces this rezoning would give the applicant. If additional parking is needed, she stated that perhaps the applicant should apply for a special land use permit than a zoning change. A number of buildings on this block are offices. Across the street and on different side streets there are residences. The DNA would not support a permanent zoning change and would be interested if the applicant would like to discuss a special land use permit for additional parking. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred Z-14-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 15 D. SLU-6-2004, 706 Britten St., Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by George and Rosy Rowan for a Special Land Use permit to expand an adult foster care home located at 706 Britten to a residential care facility. The number of residents in the facility is proposed to increase from 6 to 9. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the applicant adding on to the building to accommodate 3 more residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant will accommodate the additional residents in the existing building. It is a large house. Ms. Cordill inquired about the square footage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she can look this up on the City Assessor's records and if the applicant is present, he can give the information. Mr. George Rowan, owner of the property located 706 Britten Avenue, stated that there are no plans to expand the building and that the existing facility will be used to accommodate up to 9 residents. Currently, there are plans for only 8 residents because a bathroom was added in one of the bedrooms making it a luxury suite. The home can only have up to 8 residents. Family Independence Agency will not allow the applicants to expand the building any more. Ms. Foster asked about the square footage. Mr. Rowan stated that the house is 3,500 square feet. Ms. Stachowaik stated that the finished square footage, according to the realtors sheet, appears to be 1,466 square feet and it has 2 stories. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the basement is 1,276 square feet. Square feet above ground is 3,258. This is a good size single family structure. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-6-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. E. LS-21-2004, 527 Beech Street, Lot Split This is a lot split request by Kathy Bennett and Robert Terry, 5188 W. Stoll Rd., Lansing, Mi. The applicants are proposing to divide the property at 527 Beech Street, resulting in the following legal descriptions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Auqust 3, 2004 Page 16 527 Beech Street: West 127.71 feet of the South 1 Rod of Lot 8 & North % of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Vacant Parcel: East 127.71 feet of the South Rod of Lots 8 & North of Lot 9, Block 236, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. In addition, Section 1236.07(d) allows a maximum width to depth ratio oft to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the resulting lots would have a width of 49.5 feet and a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.58. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick asked if this plat was part of the original City but is certainly an old plat. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was a part of the original plat of the City. Mr. Frederick stated that this was back in the days when the lots were made skinny. Mr. Bob Terry, resident of 5188 Stohl Road and owner of 527 Beech Street, stated that the parcel is currently at a ratio of 1 to 5.16 because of the depth of the property. He believes that the area is good for single family residential use even though it is zoned and leaning towards apartments. It is really designed for single family and within walking distance from the downtown area for Cooley Law School and State employment. It is a very good location for single family homes and relatively small lots, not larger lots. He believes that there is an opportunity to split the lot. He currently owns 527 Beech Street which is a 49.5 foot wide lot and has a huge back yard. He asked the Board for their consideration of the variances even though other residents on the block are at a variance. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred LS-21-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. NCU-2-2004, 238 S. Foster Avenue, Request for Class A Nonconforming Status This is a request by William Sainz, for Class "A" Nonconforming Status at 238 S. Foster Avenue. The property is nonconforming as it contains a 2- family structure in the "B" Single Family Residential Zoning District and does not comply with the minimum required front yard setback. The applicant proposes to rebuild the second story, add a front porch and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 17 make general improvements to the house, garage and the site. This is, therefore, a request for a Class "A" Nonconforming status to permit the proposed improvements/alterations at 238 S. Foster Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview and stated that the building located at 238 S. Foster has historically been a 2-unit. However, the second story does not conform to the housing code's required ceiling height for livable space. She also stated that the neighborhood has shown a great deal of support for the applicant's request. Mr. Bill Sainz, resident of 4742 Curtice Road, spoke in support of his request. He stated that he is upgrading the entire house and would like to bring it up to the current codes. He also stated that he has renovated other homes in the area and they have turned out very nicely. Mr. Carl Tiecking, resident of 231 S. Foster and neighborhood coordinator in his area, spoke in support of the request and stated that the applicant has done a great job with the other homes he has renovated in the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred NCU-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on August 11 , 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. G. MPA-1-2004, Master Plan Amendment, Southeast Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets This is a request by the Lansing School District to amend the Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Boys Training School Planning and Development Study of March 1992. The applicant is requesting that the City of Lansing change the future land use designation of Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets from residential development to institutional development. The purpose of the amendment is to permit a new Pattengill Middle School at this location. Dr. Sharon Banks, Superintendent of Lansing Schools, 519 W. Kalamazoo, introduced her staff. Dr. Banks stated that the school district held approximately 15 meetings with community organizations to discuss this project. She stated that the objective was to keep Pattengill Middle School on the east side and this seems to be the only available parcel of land for such a project. Ms. Linda Angel-Weinbey, Principal of Pattengill Middle School located at 1017 Jerome Street, spoke in support of the request and explained the traffic flow in terms of pick-up and drop-off for the students. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Paqe 18 Mr. Tom Maloney, Principal of Lansing Catholic Central located at 401 Marshall Street, stated that he fully supports this proposal and that his only concern is traffic, especially on Marshall Street. He stated that traffic has been backed up all the way to Oakland on Marshall Street during construction. Mr. John Mertz, resident of 330 N. Clemens, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that this is the last large tract of undeveloped land on the east side and it should be preserved. The school building should be located as far to the west on the site as possible in order to preserve green space for the neighbors to the east. Ms. Nyla Munk, resident of 601 N. Clemens, asked if there would be a fence along the property lines adjacent to the residential neighborhood to hold back children and litter. She complemented the school district on its approach to this project in terms of meeting with the neighborhood groups before submitting the proposal to the City. Mr. Rick Kibbey, Chairman of the BTS Committee and Representative of the Eastside Neighborhood Organ ization,1 609 E. Kalamazoo, spoke in support of the request. He stated that there have been numerous meetings about this proposal. The new school will provide recreational opportunities for the area as approximately half of the site will remain green space. Ms. Nancy Parsons, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, 430 N. Fairview, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the School District held numerous meetings with the neighborhood groups and really made a concerted effort to get this proposal out to the people. Mr. Ira Ginsburg, Vice-Chair of the BTS Committee and Vice- President of Sparrow Hospital, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the School District has been an active participant on the BTS Committee and also with the Eastside Neighborhood Organization. He stated that the schools are aging and need to be replaced. This location is appropriate for this project. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred MPA-1-2004 to the next Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on August 24, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning & 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 August 3, 2004 Page 19 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — June 1, 2004 Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of June 1, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of June 1, 2004 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — June 15, 2004 Mr. Czekai moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of June 15, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of June 15, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. 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. Staff recommended approval of the LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 20 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Stachowiak explained that this request is coming back to the Planning Board because of an error in the original staff report. Mr. Ruff felt that the case should be re-looked at since the proposed split would not have any affects on the area. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve LS-13-2004, 6616-6624 Aurelius Road & 1925 Bowker Drive. . Ave Foster . Ave Frederick . Aye Ruge . Ave Keene Cordill . Ave Czekai . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, August 11 , 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair a. ACT-12-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 61/2' by 132' of Alley Behind Building This is a request by David W. Sheets, owner of the Cadillac Club (former Cosmic Bowl property) at 1115 S. Washington Avenue, that the City vacate a 6'/2' by 132' strip of the alley behind (east of and adjacent to) the building. The subject alley is currently 33' in width. The applicant proposes to utilize the area for a barrier-free access into the building, and for private stormwater detention. Staff recommended approval of the ACT-12-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 6'/2' by 132' Strip of Alley Behind Building. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve ACT-12-2004, 1115 S. Washington, Vacate 61/2' by 132' Strip of Alley Behind Building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 21 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . Ave Keene . Ave Cordill . Aye Czekai . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, August 24, 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 3, 2004 Page 22 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about why the Z-12-04 site was not cleaned up 15 years ago as indicated by one of the speakers this evening. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was not likely that a City department required the clean-up but she would look into that matter before the Z&O Committee meeting. Ms. Foster stated that there is pink stuff coming out of the building behind 1115 S. Washington. She also mentioned that she would not be at the Z&O Committee meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Citgo gas station on the corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh has weeds, excessive signage and the landscaping appears to be dead. Mr. Frederick also stated that the weeds on Cavanaugh across from Hawk Island Park still have not been mowed. Mr. Frederick stated that Spartan Toyota has added signs to their building. Mr. Ruge stated that 300 Lathrop Street has a 6-foot high fence in the front yard. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.080304.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk September 30,2004 PG 1,item 7A,September"21"s/b"8"; PG 2,item 7131a,3`d para.,3`d line,"gasoline Approved October 5,2004 station"s/b"strip mall"; PG 8,2"d para.,last line,delete"do this."&add"look into the To Clerk October 7,2004 matter,if possible."; PG 14,2"d para.,5th line,delete"proverbs"and"etc." Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, September 21, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, McConnell. D. Absent: None. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve excused absence requests for Ms. Foster and Mr. McConnell from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS — None. 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, and a short Urban Development Committee meeting convened to consider ACT-1 3-2004. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — September 24 8, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of September 8, 2004 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of September 8, 2004 were APPROVED w/Corrections. Pg. 1, last line at bottom, "east" s/b "new". Pg. 5, 4th line from bottom, "employee" s/b "tenant". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional OfficePF" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Hicham Reda Jadaow to rezone the property at the southwest corner of S. Washington &W. Edgewood Blvd., more specifically described as: Those Parts of E 112 of NE 114 & N 112 of SE 114 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edgewood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc W 3 a of S 8 a of E 112 of Said NE 114, Also Exc Parts Lying E'ly of Line Com on N'ly Line I-96 300 Ft Nw'Iy of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE, Sec 8 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial Districts to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to permit a gasoline station strip mall on the area of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial and to permit general commercial uses on the remainder of the site. Staff recommended denial of Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington &W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District. While the request is generally in conformance with the master plan, rezoning the property to "F" Commercial could have negative impacts on the surrounding residential area(s) in terms of traffic, the environment and future patterns of development in the area. The existing zoning of the subject property represents a good transitional land use pattern by concentrating the commercial uses at the intersection and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 3 having professional office zoning closer to the residential neighborhood. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to deny Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. b. Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Franklin Street Housing Corporation to rezone the property at the northeast corner of High Street and Lake Lansing Road, more specifically described as: Part of Lot 65, Park Manor Heights, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 6 of Plats, Page 2, Ingham County Records, described as: Beginning at the easterly most corner of said Lot 65; thence S48❑58'00" W, 12.59; thence northwesterly 31.42 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta angle of 901100'00", and a chord of 28.28 feet, bearing N861102'00"W,- thence N41❑02'00"W, 26.06 feet, thence northwesterly 100.09 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 136.00 feet, a delta angle of 420 09'57", and a chord of 97.84 feet, bearing N19❑57'01"W to the northeast line of said Lot 65, thence S39❑5653"E, 14 1.11 feet along said northeast line to the point of beginning. Reserving the southeasterly 18 feet for future Lake Lansing Road right of way. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the construction of a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 4 single family home on the subject property in conjunction with Lot 66 to the north along Lake Lansing Road. Staff recommended approval of Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approval Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by Delores Nagel to rezone the property at 801-803 N. Sycamore, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2 of Barnes Subdivision on Block 27, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the structure at 801- 803 N. Sycamore Street to be used as a 3-unit residential building. The "C" Residential District permits single and 2- family uses. However, the "DM-2" Residential District permits multiple family uses based upon the size of the lot. If approved, the applicant could utilize the structure at this address for 3 residential units. Staff recommended denial of Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District. The Future Land Use Map designates this property for `Residential 0-14 du/acre' use. The "DM-2" district is intended for developments with densities ranging from 15.5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 5 to 31.1 units per acre. The property is in an area which generally reflects a mixture of low density rental and owner occupied housing, with not more than two units per structure. Furthermore, the existing zoning limits residential use to 1 and 2 unit dwellings which is in keeping with this land use pattern. The proposal is, therefore, considered to not be consistent with the intent of the Plan or the existing land use pattern in the area. Given the size of the existing lots, configuration of the houses, and the extent to which the area has already been developed, zoning in this area should remain in keeping with low density residential uses. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Keene asked if the applicant had been misinformed by staff or by the realtor who sold her the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not know of any conversation the applicant had with staff and that some of the back ground information was included in the staff report. This building never should have been registered as a 3-unit. Ms. Cordill stated that it was very unfortunate for this to happen to the applicant but she does not believe that it is in the purview of the Board to address whether or not this should have been registered as a 2-unit or 3-unit property. Ms. Keene stated that she wanted the record to be clear of the circumstances that led up to this situation. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to deny Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. Next meeting, Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 6 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair a. MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan This is a request by the Lansing School District to amend the Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 20, 1984, and Boys Training School Property, Planning and Development Study, adopted by the Lansing Planning Board on February 18, 1992 (a.k.a. "the BTS Plan"). The applicant is requesting that the City of Lansing change the future land use designation of Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets from residential development to institutional development. The purpose of the amendment is to permit a new Pattengill Middle School at this location. The request is specifically to amend the Boys Training School Study, specifically Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets) from residential development to institutional development for the purpose of constructing a new Pattengill Middle School. The Boys Training School Advisory Implementation Committee, at its meeting on April 28, 2004, voted unanimously to approve, with conditions, the request from the Lansing School District to amend the Master Plan. It was the consensus opinion of the BTS Committee that the proposed development of the Lansing School District will largely be compatible with surrounding uses in the area as well as maintaining Pattengill Middle School on the Eastside. Staff recommended approval of MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan. In Committee, the request, MPA-1-04, the Boys Training Advisory Implementation Committee's consensus recommendation to amend the Boys Training School Property Planning and Development Study, March 1992 (which amends the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan), was recommended for adoption as follows: Amendment#1 Replace "residential development" with "institutional development" in the Products Section (pg. 1-14) of the Boys Training School Property Planning and Development Study, March 1992, and whenever Parcel E is referenced PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 7 throughout the document. Amend the section regarding Parcel E on Page 1-14 to read as follows: "Parcel E would also be designated for,sidential INSTITUTIONAL development with a 50 foot-landscaped buffer along the west property. The development of this parcel will require a storm water retention area, which according to the Consensus Plan, would occur in the current open space directly adjacent to the southeast corner of Parcel E." All sections, maps and narratives in the existing plan shall be changed to reflect the above amendment. This amendment shall supercede all sections, maps, and narrative contrary to or in conflict with this amendment. The UDC further recommended adoption of the following additional BTS Advisory Implementation Committee recommendations: 1. That traffic issues, including a traffic analysis on Marshall Street be completed to evaluate the pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns and the effect traffic from the development may have on adjacent property, particularly the proposed new Pattengill Middle School and that traffic calming or some other mechanisms are implemented to address the traffic problems at Clemens/Fairview Streets. A circulation plan be subject to final approval by the City Transportation Engineer and Michigan Department of Transportation as part of the site plan review process; 2. That the Lansing School District continue to work cooperatively with Lansing Catholic Central to address their needs for the safety of the students, particularly during construction of the new Pattengill Middle school, including entrances/exits to/from the institutions in the area; 3. That the flashing light at Fairview/Saginaw be changed to a "timed" light and consider changing the light at Saginaw/Marshall to accommodate the increased of traffic in the area; 4. That the institutional development be buffered from the existing residential development, particularly for the parking lot and specifically along Clemens Street to the east. In addition, parking be closely evaluated in the area since there were a number of concerns PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 8 expressed regarding the traffic and overflow of parking in the neighborhood along Clemens and Fairview Streets; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that this is one of the few things that once the Board gives approval, it becomes final since it is a Master Plan. Assuming the Board approves the plan this evening, the Lansing Public School system would be able to proceed with all deliberate speed on the development. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Pattengill Middle School and Lansing Catholic Central staggering their school times so that it would spread out the flow of traffic. Ms. Keene stated that this issue was discussed with the school district representative and that the representative stated that this would be discussed with Lansing Catholic Central. Ms. Keene emphasized a firm commitment to make sure that the schools were convening and recessing at different times. The representative stated that the schools would do this look into the matter, if possible. Mr. Ruge inquired about the plan going before the Board for a special land use or rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a use permitted by right in the "A" or "B" Residential District and that it is already in the site plan review process. Ms. Cordill stated that there is an administrative review and that it would also go through the State of Michigan's site plan review process. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a building permit will eventually be issued by the State. It is reviewed by the City because the school would rely on the City's utility services and have access to the City's streets. Otherwise, State law indicates that the City will not regulate public schools. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 9 b. ACT-13-2004, Walsh Park, Easement for Consumers Energy This is a request by the Consumers Energy, 530 W. Willow Street to relocate an existing 20' x 30' gas pipeline easement currently in the road ROW at Perkins/Lathrop onto Walsh Park. The purpose of the easement is to grant Consumers the right to enter the park to construct, operate, inspect, etc. a gas pipeline and lateral pipelines in the easement area. The gas pipeline may consist of valve connections and accessories for transmitting and distributing natural gas. At the request of a nearby resident, the applicant is proposing to relocate a gas regulator out of the right-of-way of Perkins/Lathrop streets onto Walsh Park. The regulator is in close proximity to residential structures and one resident is concerned with the level of noise generated by the regulator. Consumers Energy has agreed to relocate the easement to the park to alleviate some of those concerns. The gas regulator is a nuisance in its current location and moving it to the park will alleviate some of the concerns (e.g. noise, aesthetics), particularly those of the neighborhood. A license agreement can be used to implement the project without conveying an interest in Park property. Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of ACT-13- 2004, a license agreement to permit Consumers Energy to relocate an existing gas regulator currently located in the Perkins Street ROW onto Walsh Park with the following conditions: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will; 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park, and adjacent properties; 3. The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Dept.; 4. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; 5. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet and piping at the end of the agreement. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The license should be terminable at will; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 10 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park and adjacent properties; 3. The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department; 4. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; 5. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet at the end of the license agreement; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick asked if it was only one neighbor who complained about the noise. Ms. Cordill stated that is correct and that the noise was relatively close to this person's house. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a hearing recently and a discussion regarding these regulators. The gas company wanted to install a regulator in a residential neighborhood and assured the neighbors that it would not be noisy. Now there is a regulator that is being moved because it is noisy. He asked if there was a difference with this particular regulator that would make it noisier than others. Ms. Keene stated that maybe the representative could address this issue. Mr. Chris Thelen, Area Manager for Consumers Energy, 530 W. Willow, stated that this regulator is a gas regulator stand and is for this type of use. One can hear more gas pressure running through it where the other regulator was a gas regulator station. It is a different type of operation. With a stand, there will be more noise because it is a simpler mechanism. Mr. Ruge inquired about how noisy the regulator is (i.e. 90 or 45 decibels). Mr. Thelen stated that it was not measured in decibels but there was a gas leak complaint from a neighbor across the street last winter. The noise will be heard the most during the cold season when the most gas will run through the regulator stand. This was the extent of it. He visited the site and stated that it was difficult to hear it in the immediate proximity. The home was right along the right-of- way. Ms. Cordill stated that the utility company is moving the regulator at their cost. With the regulator being in the park past the home, it would not be an issue. Mr. Thelen stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 11 that Walsh Park is down a hill and makes it an ideal location for the regulator in relation to the neighborhood. It would be in a low spot. The neighborhood is in a higher area and would help defuse the noise. He stated that during the summer months there would be negligible gas use and that winter is when gas is most used. Mr. Ruge inquired about condition number 5. He recommended a friendly amendment for adding the foundation and any piping along with the removal of the cabinet so that there would be nothing left behind. Mr. Thelen stated that there is only a pipe coming out and that there is really no foundation. He also stated that a license is appropriate because if Consumers Energy puts in another gas regulator station in the future to upgrade the system, this would not be needed. If Consumers Energy no longer had a need for it, everything would be removed and the land would go back to the park. Mr. Ruge inquired about the cabinet resting on a cement pad. Mr. Thelen stated that he was not sure about the pad and that there would be some type of cement probably to hold up the stand. He is not sure if it is a solid pad as much as something that would register in. There will be some type of support, probably cement, for the cabinet and it would need to be removed if Consumers Energy no longer had a use for it. Mr. Rieske stated that what currently exists does not have a cabinet. What was being envisioned basically, site unseen, was a cabinet. He stated that he failed to change the wording of cabinet to state that anything should be removed. Ms. Keene stated that she would accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve ACT-13-2004, Walsh Park, Easement for Consumers Energy with the following conditions: 1) The license should be terminable at will; 2) The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park and adjacent properties; 3) The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department; 4) The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; and 5) The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet, piping and associated apparatus at the end of the license agreement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 12 Frederick . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Frederick, Chair a. LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District This is a request by Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, who is seeking a land use review to determine if the property located at 913 W. Holmes Road, which is zoned "F" Commercial, could be used for an ambulance service. The "F" Commercial District does not specifically list emergency services as a permitted use. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to determine if this use could be permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as office, with a strip of open space separating the office use(s) from the residential neighborhood along Burchfield Drive to the east. Holmes Road is designated as a minor arterial and MLK is designated as a major arterial. Regional EMS has operated its ambulance service for the past 3 years at the Pennsylvania Campus of Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC). IRMC is expanding their wound care center and as a result, Regional EMS must find a new location in which to operate. The ambulance service is now investigating the possibility of relocating its business to 913 W. Holmes Road which is zoned "F" Commercial District. A public or private emergency service facility is a use permitted by special land use permit in the "D-1" Professional Office district. The "F" Commercial District, however, does not list it as a permitted use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 13 Section 1268.02 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the uses permitted by right in the "F" Commercial District. Item 0) of this Section states: "Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Among the uses permitted in the "F" Commercial District are retail, offices, parking lots, theaters, automobile sales, and restaurants. The purpose of this review is to determine if an ambulance service is similar to these types of uses and could therefore, be permitted in this district. The Regional EMS operation consists of 2 ambulances and one wheelchair van. According to Brett Murphy, the Director of Operations for Regional EMS, the majority of their calls are non-emergency transports. There are a maximum of 5 employees on staff at any one time and they operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The attached letter from Mr. Murphy states that they will not initiate any type of emergency warning device until they have reached a major street. Ms. Cordill stated that this is two-fold: 1) The Board would be making a general statement that an emergency service facility, by right, can go in to an "F" Commercial District. Because of this general change, this particular one would be located at 913 W. Holmes. Ms. Stachowiak stated the Board is making a determination that public and private emergency service facilities such as this one could be similar to other uses permitted by special conditions in the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Cordill asked if these were special conditions and not by right. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct and that if it is use by right conditions, there could not be any additional controls placed on it. Ms. Keene asked if there would be a public hearing for this review. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there would be no public hearing for it and that it would only be a judgment call that the Planning Board would make. Mr. Ruge stated that he liked the idea of the special conditions and that he is concerned about the problems of the lights and noise. This would be one way to try to monitor or correct these problems. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if these items do become a problem, then the City can cite the property owner for violation of those conditions. Otherwise, the City does not have much to go on. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 14 Ms. Keene inquired about the number of calls received at night that may disturb the neighbors. Mr. Brett Murphy, Operations Director for the EMS operations, stated that the primary function in Lansing is to accommodate the Ingham Regional Medical Center and the Ingham Regional Pennsylvania Campus. The EMS is contracted by them because it is an affiliate and joint venture with this agency through their health care system in Michigan. By contractual services to Ingham Regional Medical Center and the Ingham Regional Pennsylvania Campus, the EMS runs very few emergency calls. The statistics show that the total emergency calls run in Lansing year-to-date for this facility was 29 calls. The rest of the calls are non-emergency (i.e. intra facility transports from either Ingham Regional to Pennsylvania campus, or from Pennsylvania campus to Ingham Regional). However, there will be times that the facility will have to run an emergency. The concerns with lights and sirens are valid and that is a very minor part of what this facility actually does at Regional EMS. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Lansing Fire Department's ambulance service and how it fits into the scheme of things. Mr. Murphy stated that the Lansing Fire Department provides am,b,,�ullance service to the City of Lansing within the City's P O���� �� , borders. eta If there was a time where this facility was closer and Lansing Fire needed assistance, they could call upon this facility and it would respond. That does not happen at this point. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Murphy to explain to the Board how the facility would handle or respond to an emergency call at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. and how being so close to a residential neighborhood would not create a disturbance for the neighborhood. Mr. Murphy stated that the facility understands the need to cooperate with the neighbors. By protocol, the policy states that the facility will not initiate lights or sirens until the vehicle hits a major thoroughfare. The major thoroughfare would be Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and it would certainly be adhered to. Mr. Murphy stated that there were questions regarding the lights penetrating the cover relevant to the positioning of the ambulance on the east side of the building. Where the parking spots are allocated, the cover is very thick and that there are not as many holes as it might seem. He brought pictures to present to the Board that shows what the parking spots are in relation to the cover and how it translates to the parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 15 Mr. Murphy stated that immediately to the south of the building there is a driveway. The ambulance would have to be moved over and that it may not be the most conducive for the operation. However, the facility will defer to the expertise of the Board. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Murphy to address the issue of the diesel engines. Mr. Murphy stated that the ambulances by regulation are held to a strict standard and fall under Federal guidelines through the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the General Services Authority. The General Services Authority is used instead of protocols relative to the building of an ambulance. All ambulance manufacturers are held to stringent guidelines and are inspected prior to a sale. According to the Federal Specifications for the Star of Life Ambulance, an ambulance qualifies as a van because that it was it is. It has either a 250 or 350 chassis (motor, power train, frame). He read the guidelines for Star Life Ambulances, section 3.4.3 of KKK1822.A: "Unless more stringent sound levels are regulated by states or municipalities where ambulances will be the exterior noise level produced by the vehicle except for the siren shall not exceed Federal guidelines." Based on the comments that were relative to a regular automobile or van, it would be similar. He stated that it would not be like a semi truck or a large 1 ton vehicle that has a diesel engine. The ambulance engines are relatively quiet and do not run all night. He stated that the reason they are parked in back of the building is because they are plugged in to a shore line. The shore line ensures that the ambulances are warm during the winter, the plot heaters are working and that the ambulances will start instantly when there are calls. Mr. Frederick inquired about the ambulance engines idling constantly and if there would be a need for this. Mr. Murphy stated that there is no need for idling because the shore line keeps the block warm and makes it more conducive for the ambulances to be parked in back of the building. Mr. Frederick inquired about the engine noise and if it would be less than the Ford V8 diesel pick up or the Dodge diesel pick up currently on the road. Mr. Frederick stated that at times he finds these vehicles quite noisy. Mr. Murphy stated that he is not quite sure how to answer that question because he has never compared the sounds. He stated that the EMS facility follow the Federal guidelines for emissions and noise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 16 Ms. Keene stated that it feels like the Board is changing an ordinance and that it does not seem like something that the Board should be able to do. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Chapter 1268.02, which regulates the "F" Commercial District, item Q) states: "Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning Ordinance leaves this open for the Board to make a judgment call. Ms. Keene inquired about any case appearing before the Board and if the Board can make this type of a call. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can make a determination that the use is similar to other uses permitted in that district and is therefore permitted. She stated that the ordinance allows it this way. Mr. Ruge stated that this would pertain to any future ambulance services that would apply to the City. If the Board makes the determination, then the ambulance services would abide by whatever determination the Board makes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that it is not just specific to this location and Regional EMS. The Board is making a decision whether ambulance services in general are compatible with other uses in the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Cordill stated that the recommendation was not very clear that this would be a special condition within the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated basically the Board is making the determination that it is compatible with other uses permitted so that the special conditions in the "F" Commercial District and the conditions associated with this use should be sufficient buffering to control noise and light glare from negatively impacting adjacent residential areas. Ms. Cordill stated that she is concerned with how it reads. If the Board were to decide, it would be that EMS services could go into an "F" Commercial District with special conditions. She would prefer to be more specific. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to address the issue of the EMS facility in the "F" Commercial District and its similarity to the other services that are allowed. He stated that EMS services are allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a less intense zoning district. Mr. Frederick stated that EMS services are allowed by right in a less intense zoning district. He inquired about the Lansing Police Department's facility which is very close to where they want to be and is there by PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 17 right. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Frederick stated that it is emergency vehicles coming in at anytime day or night potentially with sirens and possibly with diesel engines. He asked if taxi cab services were allowed in an "F" Commercial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are allowed. Mr. Frederick stated that this would be similar in running transportation services for people 24 hours a day. The only difference is that taxi cabs would not be transporting ill people and an ambulance service would not be transporting well people. Nevertheless, the functionality is certainly similar. In his opinion, he believes that this is a similar service that is already allowed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that other uses that are permitted in the "F" Commercial District subject to special conditions are: a hospital, emergency clinic, an animal hospital and a kennel. All of these operate 24 hours a day. A hospital is permitted by right and there would be ambulances coming and going. There may be the same possibility with a clinic. She stated that these uses are spelled out but this one is not specifically done and staff did not feel comfortable making the call without bringing it to the Board. Ms. Stachowiak stated that from a staff standpoint, the use was compatible with a hospital, clinic, and an animal hospital, and that these uses will all generate the same type of activity on a 24 hour basis. Mr. Murphy stated that from the pictures he presented, there is a Kroger grocery store, adjacent to the parking lot where the ambulances will be parked, which takes deliveries during the evening with diesel engine semi trucks and lights that shining in to the neighborhood. He understands the Board's concerns. He believes that the facility is farther away and does not see this to be an issue. Mr. Ruge inquired about where the vehicles are maintained. Mr. Murphy stated that all the vehicles are maintained in Southfield, Michigan. He clarified that Regional EMS is a cooperative effort or a joint venture with McClarin Regional Health Care Center. The Flint operation, which is the headquarters of the Regional operation, is moving to a new location so these vehicles will be relocated. Ms. Cordill inquired about tightening the language. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can use any language that would be comfortable for them. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Pane 18 Mr. Frederick presented the following conditions for the Board to consider: 1. To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2. Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3. Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; 4. No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. Ms. Keene inquired about these conditions being specific to this particular facility or if they would apply in all cases. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these would be conditions for any ambulance service in the "F" Commercial District and that the ambulance service would have to abide by the conditions that Mr. Frederick just listed. She stated that these conditions are sufficient to protect residential area. These are general conditions and not specific to this site. These could apply to any "F" Commercial District site and would provide adequate safeguards to protect the adjoining residential areas. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend approval of LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District with the following conditions: 1) To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2) Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3) Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; and 4) No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District This is a request by Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, who is seeking a land use review to determine if the property located at 913 W. Holmes Road, which is zoned "F" Commercial, could be used for an ambulance service. The "F" Commercial District does not specifically list emergency services as a permitted use. Therefore, the purpose of this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 19 review is to determine if this use could be permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as office, with a strip of open space separating the office use(s) from the residential neighborhood along Burchfield Drive to the east. Holmes Road is designated as a minor arterial and MLK is designated as a major arterial. Regional EMS has operated its ambulance service for the past 3 years at the Pennsylvania Campus of Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC). IRMC is expanding their wound care center and as a result, Regional EMS must find a new location in which to operate. The ambulance service is now investigating the possibility of relocating its business to 913 W. Holmes Road which is zoned "F" Commercial District. A public or private emergency service facility is a use permitted by special land use permit in the "D-1" Professional Office district. The "F" Commercial District, however, does not list it as a permitted use. Section 1268.02 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the uses permitted by right in the "F" Commercial District. Item 0) of this Section states: "Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Among the uses permitted in the "F" Commercial District are retail, offices, parking lots, theaters, automobile sales, and restaurants. The purpose of this review is to determine if an ambulance service is similar to these types of uses and could therefore, be permitted in this district. The Regional EMS operation consists of 2 ambulances and one wheelchair van. According to Brett Murphy, the Director of Operations for Regional EMS, the majority of their calls are non-emergency transports. There are a maximum of 5 employees on staff at any one time and they operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The attached letter from Mr. Murphy states that they will not initiate any type of emergency warning device until they have reached a major street. Mr. Frederick stated that the Committee of the Whole found that the EMS vehicles facility appears to be an appropriate PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Pane 20 function in the "F" Commercial District and is like the other permitted uses, with the following conditions: 1. To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2. Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3. Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; 4. No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. Ave Keene. Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; 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 7"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) 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20, 2004) f. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) g. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4,2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 21 i. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds(June 15, 2004) M. Corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads-Citgo gas station-weeds, excessive signage and dead landscaping (August 3,2004) n. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3, 2004) o. 300 Lathrop Street-6-foot fence in front yard (August 3,2004) P. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence(August 17, 2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have more updates before the next meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that with item 5n, the weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been touched and that it is to the point that the park is going to be not used. 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Goals and Objectives were put on hold because not all of the members were present and that it will be on the next agenda. Ms. Cordill asked if Ms. Stachowiak could indicate Zoning Ordinance amendments for the meeting so that those members who are not on the Committee are aware of them. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be done. Ms. Keene inquired about election of officers. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it will be on the next agenda. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Hunt Club installed a sound barrier between their facility and the freeway and has done some nice landscaping. He stated that the Hunt Club did put a sign up on the sound barrier but may not have a permit for it. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 22 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.092104.doc Draft to Clerk September 30,2004 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, September 21, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Foster, McConnell. D. Absent: None. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve excused absence requests for Ms. Foster and Mr. McConnell from tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 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 (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board, and a short Urban Development Committee meeting convened to consider ACT-1 3-2004. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — September 21, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of September 8, 2004 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of September 8, 2004 were APPROVED w/Corrections. Pg. 1, last line at bottom, "east" s/b "new". Pg. 5, 4th line from bottom, "employee" s/b "tenant". B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington &W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Hicham Reda Jadaow to rezone the property at the southwest corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd., more specifically described as: Those Parts of E 112 of NE 114 & N 112 of SE 114 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edgewood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc W 3 a of S 8 a of E 112 of Said NE 114, Also Exc Parts Lying E'ly of Line Com on N'ly Line 1-96 300 Ft Nw'ly of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE, Sec 8 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial Districts to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to permit a gasoline station on the area of the site that is currently zoned "F" Commercial and to permit general commercial uses on the remainder of the site. Staff recommended denial of Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District. While the request is generally in conformance with the master plan, rezoning the property to "F" Commercial could have negative impacts on the surrounding residential area(s) in terms of traffic, the environment and future patterns of development in the area. The existing zoning of the subject property represents a good transitional land use pattern by concentrating the commercial uses at the intersection and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 3 having professional office zoning closer to the residential neighborhood. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to deny Z-15-2004, SW Corner of S. Washington & W. Edgewood Blvd.,"D-1" Professional Office/"F" Commercial District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. b. Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District This is a request by Franklin Street Housing Corporation to rezone the property at the northeast corner of High Street and Lake Lansing Road, more specifically described as: Part of Lot 65, Park Manor Heights, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 6 of Plats, Page 2, Ingham County Records, described as: Beginning at the easterly most corner of said Lot 65; thence S48 58'00" W, 12.59; thence northwesterly 31.42 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta angle of 90 00'00", and a chord of 28.28 feet, bearing N86 02'00"W, thence N41 02'00"W, 26.06 feet, thence northwesterly 100.09 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 136.00 feet, a delta angle of 42 09'57", and a chord of 97.84 feet, bearing N19 57'01"W to the northeast line of said Lot 65; thence S39 56'53"E, 141.11 feet along said northeast line to the point of beginning. Reserving the southeasterly 18 feet for future Lake Lansing Road right of way. from "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the construction of a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 4 single family home on the subject property in conjunction with Lot 66 to the north along Lake Lansing Road. Staff recommended approval of Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approval Z-16-2004, Lot 65, Northeast Corner of High Street & Lake Lansing Road, "F" Commercial District to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by Delores Nagel to rezone the property at 801-803 N. Sycamore, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Block 2 of Barnes Subdivision on Block 27, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District. The purpose of this request is to permit the structure at 801- 803 N. Sycamore Street to be used as a 3-unit residential building. The "C" Residential District permits single and 2- family uses. However, the "DM-2" Residential District permits multiple family uses based upon the size of the lot. If approved, the applicant could utilize the structure at this address for 3 residential units. Staff recommended denial of Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District. The Future Land Use Map designates this property for `Residential 0-14 du/acre' use. The "DM-2" district is intended for developments with densities ranging from 15.5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1 ` - iSeptember 21, 2004 Page 5 to 31.1 units per acre. The property is in an area which generally reflects a mixture of low density rental and owner occupied housing, with not more than two units per structure. Furthermore, the existing zoning limits residential use to 1 and 2 unit dwellings which is in keeping with this land use pattern. The proposal is, therefore, considered to not be consistent with the intent of the Plan or the existing land use pattern in the area. Given the size of the existing lots, configuration of the houses, and the extent to which the area has already been developed, zoning in this area should remain in keeping with low density residential uses. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Ms. Keene asked if the applicant had been misinformed by staff or by the realtor who sold her the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not know of any conversation the applicant had with staff and that some of the back ground information was included in the staff report. This building never should have been registered as a 3-unit. Ms. Cordill stated that it was very unfortunate for this to happen to the applicant but she does not believe that it is in the purview of the Board to address whether or not this should have been registered as a 2-unit or 3-unit property. Ms. Keene stated that she wanted the record to be clear of the circumstances that led up to this situation. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to deny Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. Next meeting, Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 6 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair a. MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan This is a request by the Lansing School District to amend the Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 20, 1984, and Boys Training School Property, Planning and Development Study, adopted by the Lansing Planning Board on February 18, 1992 (a.k.a. "the BTS Plan"). The applicant is requesting that the City of Lansing change the future land use designation of Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets from residential development to institutional development. The purpose of the amendment is to permit a new Pattengill Middle School at this location. The request is specifically to amend the Boys Training School Study, specifically Parcel E, located at the southeast corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets) from residential development to institutional development for the purpose of constructing a new Pattengill Middle School. The Boys Training School Advisory Implementation Committee, at its meeting on April 28, 2004, voted unanimously to approve, with conditions, the request from the Lansing School District to amend the Master Plan. It was the consensus opinion of the BTS Committee that the proposed development of the Lansing School District will largely be compatible with surrounding uses in the area as well as maintaining Pattengill Middle School on the Eastside. Staff recommended approval of MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan. In Committee, the request, MPA-1-04, the Boys Training Advisory Implementation Committee's consensus recommendation to amend the Boys Training School Property Planning and Development Study, March 1992 (which amends the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan), was recommended for adoption as follows: Amendment#1 Replace "residential development" with "institutional development" in the Products Section (pg. 1-14) of the Boys Training School Property Planning and Development Study, March 1992, and whenever Parcel E is referenced PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 7 throughout the document. Amend the section regarding Parcel E on Page 1-14 to read as follows: "Parcel E would also be designated for,Sidential INSTITUTIONAL development with a 50 foot-landscaped buffer along the west property. The development of this parcel will require a storm water retention area, which according to the Consensus Plan, would occur in the current open space directly adjacent to the southeast corner of Parcel E." All sections, maps and narratives in the existing plan shall be changed to reflect the above amendment. This amendment shall supercede all sections, maps, and narrative contrary to or in conflict with this amendment. The UDC further recommended adoption of the following additional BTS Advisory Implementation Committee recommendations: 1. That traffic issues, including a traffic analysis on Marshall Street be completed to evaluate the pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns and the effect traffic from the development may have on adjacent property, particularly the proposed new Pattengill Middle School and that traffic calming or some other mechanisms are implemented to address the traffic problems at Clemens/Fairview Streets. A circulation plan be subject to final approval by the City Transportation Engineer and Michigan Department of Transportation as part of the site plan review process; 2. That the Lansing School District continue to work cooperatively with Lansing Catholic Central to address their needs for the safety of the students, particularly during construction of the new Pattengill Middle school, including entrances/exits to/from the institutions in the area; 3. That the flashing light at Fairview/Saginaw be changed to a "timed" light and consider changing the light at Saginaw/Marshall to accommodate the increased of traffic in the area; 4. That the institutional development be buffered from the existing residential development, particularly for the parking lot and specifically along Clemens Street to the east. In addition, parking be closely evaluated in the area since there were a number of concerns PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ''` " ' " September 21, 2004 Page 8 expressed regarding the traffic and overflow of parking in the neighborhood along Clemens and Fairview Streets; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that this is one of the few things that once the Board gives approval, it becomes final since it is a Master Plan. Assuming the Board approves the plan this evening, the Lansing Public School system would be able to proceed with all deliberate speed on the development. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Pattengill Middle School and Lansing Catholic Central staggering their school times so that it would spread out the flow of traffic. Ms. Keene stated that this issue was discussed with the school district representative and that the representative stated that this would be discussed with Lansing Catholic Central. Ms. Keene emphasized a firm commitment to make sure that the schools were convening and recessing at different times. The representative stated that the schools would do this. Mr. Ruge inquired about the plan going before the Board for a special land use or rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a use permitted by right in the "A" or "B" Residential District and that it is already in the site plan review process. Ms. Cordill stated that there is an administrative review and that it would also go through the State of Michigan's site plan review process. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a building permit will eventually be issued by the State. It is reviewed by the City because the school would rely on the City's utility services and have access to the City's streets. Otherwise, State law indicates that the City will not regulate public schools. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve MPA-1-2004, SE Corner of Saginaw and Marshall Streets, Amendment to NE Area Comprehensive Plan. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 9 b. ACT-13-2004, Walsh Park, Easement for Consumers Energy This is a request by the Consumers Energy, 530 W. Willow Street to relocate an existing 20' x 30' gas pipeline easement currently in the road ROW at Perkins/Lathrop onto Walsh Park. The purpose of the easement is to grant Consumers the right to enter the park to construct, operate, inspect, etc. a gas pipeline and lateral pipelines in the easement area. The gas pipeline may consist of valve connections and accessories for transmitting and distributing natural gas. At the request of a nearby resident, the applicant is proposing to relocate a gas regulator out of the right-of-way of Perkins/Lathrop streets onto Walsh Park. The regulator is in close proximity to residential structures and one resident is concerned with the level of noise generated by the regulator. Consumers Energy has agreed to relocate the easement to the park to alleviate some of those concerns. The gas regulator is a nuisance in its current location and moving it to the park will alleviate some of the concerns (e.g. noise, aesthetics), particularly those of the neighborhood. A license agreement can be used to implement the project without conveying an interest in Park property. Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of ACT-13- 2004, a license agreement to permit Consumers Energy to relocate an existing gas regulator currently located in the Perkins Street ROW onto Walsh Park with the following conditions: 1. The easement license should be terminable at will; 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park, and adjacent properties; 3. The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Dept.; 4. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; 5. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet and piping at the end of the agreement. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The license should be terminable at will; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 10 2. The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park and adjacent properties; 3. The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department; 4. The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; 5. The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet at the end of the license agreement; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Frederick asked if it was only one neighbor who complained about the noise. Ms. Cordill stated that is correct and that the noise was relatively close to this person's house. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a hearing recently and a discussion regarding these regulators. The gas company wanted to install a regulator in a residential neighborhood and assured the neighbors that it would not be noisy. Now there is a regulator that is being moved because it is noisy. He asked if there was a difference with this particular regulator that would make it noisier than others. Ms. Keene stated that maybe the representative could address this issue. Mr. Chris Thelen, Area Manager for Consumers Energy, 530 W. Willow, stated that this regulator is a gas regulator stand and is for this type of use. One can hear more gas pressure running through it where the other regulator was a gas regulator station. It is a different type of operation. With a stand, there will be more noise because it is a simpler mechanism. Mr. Ruge inquired about how noisy the regulator is (i.e. 90 or 45 decibels). Mr. Thelen stated that it was not measured in decibels but there was a gas leak complaint from a neighbor across the street last winter. The noise will be heard the most during the cold season when the most gas will run through the regulator stand. This was the extent of it. He visited the site and stated that it was difficult to hear it in the immediate proximity. The home was right along the right-of- way. Ms. Cordill stated that the utility company is moving the regulator at their cost. With the regulator being in the park past the home, it would not be an issue. Mr. Thelen stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 11 that Walsh Park is down a hill and makes it an ideal location for the regulator in relation to the neighborhood. It would be in a low spot. The neighborhood is in a higher area and would help defuse the noise. He stated that during the summer months there would be negligible gas use and that winter is when gas is most used. Mr. Ruge inquired about condition number 5. He recommended a friendly amendment for adding the foundation and any piping along with the removal of the cabinet so that there would be nothing left behind. Mr. Thelen stated that there is only a pipe coming out and that there is really no foundation. He also stated that a license is appropriate because if Consumers Energy puts in another gas regulator station in the future to upgrade the system, this would not be needed. If Consumers Energy no longer had a need for it, everything would be removed and the land would go back to the park. Mr. Ruge inquired about the cabinet resting on a cement pad. Mr. Thelen stated that he was not sure about the pad and that there would be some type of cement probably to hold up the stand. He is not sure if it is a solid pad as much as something that would register in. There will be some type of support, probably cement, for the cabinet and it would need to be removed if Consumers Energy no longer had a use for it. Mr. Rieske stated that what currently exists does not have a cabinet. What was being envisioned basically, site unseen, was a cabinet. He stated that he failed to change the wording of cabinet to state that anything should be removed. Ms. Keene stated that she would accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve ACT-13-2004, Walsh Park, Easement for Consumers Energy with the following conditions: 1) The license should be terminable at will; 2) The applicant should provide additional landscaping to screen the regulator from the street, park and adjacent properties; 3) The project should be subject to site plan review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department; 4) The applicant, as necessary, shall be required to remove any vandalism or graffiti that occurs; and 5) The applicant shall be required to remove the cabinet, piping and associated apparatus at the end of the license agreement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES' September 21, 2004 Page 12 Frederick Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Keene. Aye Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Frederick, Chair a. LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District This is a request by Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, who is seeking a land use review to determine if the property located at 913 W. Holmes Road, which is zoned "F" Commercial, could be used for an ambulance service. The "F" Commercial District does not specifically list emergency services as a permitted use. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to determine if this use could be permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as office, with a strip of open space separating the office use(s) from the residential neighborhood along Burchfield Drive to the east. Holmes Road is designated as a minor arterial and MLK is designated as a major arterial. Regional EMS has operated its ambulance service for the past 3 years at the Pennsylvania Campus of Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC). IRMC is expanding their wound care center and as a result, Regional EMS must find a new location in which to operate. The ambulance service is now investigating the possibility of relocating its business to 913 W. Holmes Road which is zoned "F" Commercial District. A public or private emergency service facility is a use permitted by special land use permit in the "D-1" Professional Office district. The "F" Commercial District, however, does not list it as a permitted use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 13 Section 1268.02 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the uses permitted by right in the "F" Commercial District. Item 0) of this Section states: `Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Among the uses permitted in the "F" Commercial District are retail, offices, parking lots, theaters, automobile sales, and restaurants. The purpose of this review is to determine if an ambulance service is similar to these types of uses and could therefore, be permitted in this district. The Regional EMS operation consists of 2 ambulances and one wheelchair van. According to Brett Murphy, the Director of Operations for Regional EMS, the majority of their calls are non-emergency transports. There are a maximum of 5 employees on staff at any one time and they operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The attached letter from Mr. Murphy states that they will not initiate any type of emergency warning device until they have reached a major street. Ms. Cordill stated that this is two-fold: 1) The Board would be making a general statement that an emergency service facility, by right, can go in to an "F" Commercial District. Because of this general change, this particular one would be located at 913 W. Holmes. Ms. Stachowiak stated the Board is making a determination that public and private emergency service facilities such as this one could be similar to other uses permitted by special conditions in the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Cordill asked if these were special conditions and not by right. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct and that if it is use by right conditions, there could not be any additional controls placed on it. Ms. Keene asked if there would be a public hearing for this review. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there would be no public hearing for it and that it would only be a judgment call that the Planning Board would make. Mr. Ruge stated that he liked the idea of the special conditions and that he is concerned about the problems of the lights and noise. This would be one way to try to monitor or correct these problems. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if these items do become a problem, then the City can cite the property owner for violation of those conditions. Otherwise, the City does not have much to go on. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES' ' September 21, 2004 Page 14 Ms. Keene inquired about the number of calls received at night that may disturb the neighbors. Mr. Brett Murphy, Operations Director for the EMS operations, stated that the primary function in Lansing is to accommodate the Ingham Regional Medical Center and the Ingham Regional Pennsylvania Campus. The EMS is contracted by them because it is an affiliate and joint venture with this agency through their health care system in Michigan. By contractual services to Ingham Regional Medical Center and the Ingham Regional Pennsylvania Campus, the EMS runs very few emergency calls. The statistics show that the total emergency calls run in Lansing year-to-date for this facility was 29 calls. The rest of the calls are non-emergency (i.e. intra facility transports from either Ingham Regional to Pennsylvania campus, or from Pennsylvania campus to Ingham Regional). However, there will be times that the facility will have to run an emergency. The concerns with lights and sirens are valid and that is a very minor part of what this facility actually does at Regional EMS. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Lansing Fire Department's ambulance service and how it fits into the scheme of things. Mr. Murphy stated that the Lansing Fire Department provides ambulance service to the City of Lansing within the City's proverbs, borders, etc. If there was a time where this facility was closer and Lansing Fire needed assistance, they could call upon this facility and it would respond. That does not happen at this point. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Murphy to explain to the Board how the facility would handle or respond to an emergency call at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. and how being so close to a residential neighborhood would not create a disturbance for the neighborhood. Mr. Murphy stated that the facility understands the need to cooperate with the neighbors. By protocol, the policy states that the facility will not initiate lights or sirens until the vehicle hits a major thoroughfare. The major thoroughfare would be Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and it would certainly be adhered to. Mr. Murphy stated that there were questions regarding the lights penetrating the cover relevant to the positioning of the ambulance on the east side of the building. Where the parking spots are allocated, the cover is very thick and that there are not as many holes as it might seem. He brought pictures to present to the Board that shows what the parking spots are in relation to the cover and how it translates to the parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 15 Mr. Murphy stated that immediately to the south of the building there is a driveway. The ambulance would have to be moved over and that it may not be the most conducive for the operation. However, the facility will defer to the expertise of the Board. Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. Murphy to address the issue of the diesel engines. Mr. Murphy stated that the ambulances by regulation are held to a strict standard and fall under Federal guidelines through the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the General Services Authority. The General Services Authority is used instead of protocols relative to the building of an ambulance. All ambulance manufacturers are held to stringent guidelines and are inspected prior to a sale. According to the Federal Specifications for the Star of Life Ambulance, an ambulance qualifies as a van because that it was it is. It has either a 250 or 350 chassis (motor, power train, frame). He read the guidelines for Star Life Ambulances, section 3.4.3 of KKK1822.A: "Unless more stringent sound levels are regulated by states or municipalities where ambulances will be the exterior noise level produced by the vehicle except for the siren shall not exceed Federal guidelines." Based on the comments that were relative to a regular automobile or van, it would be similar. He stated that it would not be like a semi truck or a large 1 ton vehicle that has a diesel engine. The ambulance engines are relatively quiet and do not run all night. He stated that the reason they are parked in back of the building is because they are plugged in to a shore line. The shore line ensures that the ambulances are warm during the winter, the plot heaters are working and that the ambulances will start instantly when there are calls. Mr. Frederick inquired about the ambulance engines idling constantly and if there would be a need for this. Mr. Murphy stated that there is no need for idling because the shore line keeps the block warm and makes it more conducive for the ambulances to be parked in back of the building. Mr. Frederick inquired about the engine noise and if it would be less than the Ford V8 diesel pick up or the Dodge diesel pick up currently on the road. Mr. Frederick stated that at times he finds these vehicles quite noisy. Mr. Murphy stated that he is not quite sure how to answer that question because he has never compared the sounds. He stated that the EMS facility follow the Federal guidelines for emissions and noise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - September 21, 2004 Page 16 Ms. Keene stated that it feels like the Board is changing an ordinance and that it does not seem like something that the Board should be able to do. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Chapter 1268.02, which regulates the "F" Commercial District, item 0) states: `Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning Ordinance leaves this open for the Board to make a judgment call. Ms. Keene inquired about any case appearing before the Board and if the Board can make this type of a call. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can make a determination that the use is similar to other uses permitted in that district and is therefore permitted. She stated that the ordinance allows it this way. Mr. Ruge stated that this would pertain to any future ambulance services that would apply to the City. If the Board makes the determination, then the ambulance services would abide by whatever determination the Board makes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that it is not just specific to this location and Regional EMS. The Board is making a decision whether ambulance services in general are compatible with other uses in the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Cordill stated that the recommendation was not very clear that this would be a special condition within the "F" Commercial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated basically the Board is making the determination that it is compatible with other uses permitted so that the special conditions in the "F" Commercial District and the conditions associated with this use should be sufficient buffering to control noise and light glare from negatively impacting adjacent residential areas. Ms. Cordill stated that she is concerned with how it reads. If the Board were to decide, it would be that EMS services could go into an "F" Commercial District with special conditions. She would prefer to be more specific. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to address the issue of the EMS facility in the "F" Commercial District and its similarity to the other services that are allowed. He stated that EMS services are allowed in the "D-1" Professional Office District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a less intense zoning district. Mr. Frederick stated that EMS services are allowed by right in a less intense zoning district. He inquired about the Lansing Police Department's facility which is very close to where they want to be and is there by PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 17 right. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct. Mr. Frederick stated that it is emergency vehicles coming in at anytime day or night potentially with sirens and possibly with diesel engines. He asked if taxi cab services were allowed in an "F" Commercial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are allowed. Mr. Frederick stated that this would be similar in running transportation services for people 24 hours a day. The only difference is that taxi cabs would not be transporting ill people and an ambulance service would not be transporting well people. Nevertheless, the functionality is certainly similar. In his opinion, he believes that this is a similar service that is already allowed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that other uses that are permitted in the "F" Commercial District subject to special conditions are: a hospital, emergency clinic, an animal hospital and a kennel. All of these operate 24 hours a day. A hospital is permitted by right and there would be ambulances coming and going. There may be the same possibility with a clinic. She stated that these uses are spelled out but this one is not specifically done and staff did not feel comfortable making the call without bringing it to the Board. Ms. Stachowiak stated that from a staff standpoint, the use was compatible with a hospital, clinic, and an animal hospital, and that these uses will all generate the same type of activity on a 24 hour basis. Mr. Murphy stated that from the pictures he presented, there is a Kroger grocery store, adjacent to the parking lot where the ambulances will be parked, which takes deliveries during the evening with diesel engine semi trucks and lights that shining in to the neighborhood. He understands the Board's concerns. He believes that the facility is farther away and does not see this to be an issue. Mr. Ruge inquired about where the vehicles are maintained. Mr. Murphy stated that all the vehicles are maintained in Southfield, Michigan. He clarified that Regional EMS is a cooperative effort or a joint venture with McClarin Regional Health Care Center. The Flint operation, which is the headquarters of the Regional operation, is moving to a new location so these vehicles will be relocated. Ms. Cordill inquired about tightening the language. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can use any language that would be comfortable for them. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Frederick presented the following conditions for the Board to consider: 1. To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2. Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3. Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; 4. No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. Ms. Keene inquired about these conditions being specific to this particular facility or if they would apply in all cases. Ms. Stachowiak stated that these would be conditions for any ambulance service in the "F" Commercial District and that the ambulance service would have to abide by the conditions that Mr. Frederick just listed. She stated that these conditions are sufficient to protect residential area. These are general conditions and not specific to this site. These could apply to any "F" Commercial District site and would provide adequate safeguards to protect the adjoining residential areas. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend approval of LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District with the following conditions: 1) To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2) Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3) Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; and 4) No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District This is a request by Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, who is seeking a land use review to determine if the property located at 913 W. Holmes Road, which is zoned "F" Commercial, could be used for an ambulance service. The "F" Commercial District does not specifically list emergency services as a permitted use. Therefore, the purpose of this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 19 review is to determine if this use could be permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as office, with a strip of open space separating the office use(s) from the residential neighborhood along Burchfield Drive to the east. Holmes Road is designated as a minor arterial and MILK is designated as a major arterial. Regional EMS has operated its ambulance service for the past 3 years at the Pennsylvania Campus of Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC). IRMC is expanding their wound care center and as a result, Regional EMS must find a new location in which to operate. The ambulance service is now investigating the possibility of relocating its business to 913 W. Holmes Road which is zoned "F" Commercial District. A public or private emergency service facility is a use permitted by special land use permit in the "D-1" Professional Office district. The "F" Commercial District, however, does not list it as a permitted use. Section 1268.02 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the uses permitted by right in the "F" Commercial District. Item 0) of this Section states: `Any other use which, by the decision of the Planning Board, is similar to the principally permitted uses set forth in this section." Among the uses permitted in the "F" Commercial District are retail, offices, parking lots, theaters, automobile sales, and restaurants. The purpose of this review is to determine if an ambulance service is similar to these types of uses and could therefore, be permitted in this district. The Regional EMS operation consists of 2 ambulances and one wheelchair van. According to Brett Murphy, the Director of Operations for Regional EMS, the majority of their calls are non-emergency transports. There are a maximum of 5 employees on staff at any one time and they operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The attached letter from Mr. Murphy states that they will not initiate any type of emergency warning device until they have reached a major street. Mr. Frederick stated that the Committee of the Whole found that the EMS vehicles facility appears to be an appropriate PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 20 function in the "F" Commercial District and is like the other permitted uses, with the following conditions: 1. To park in the least visible and audible part of the facility; 2. Install and maintain all landscaping to buffer lights and noise; 3. Use no emergency lights and sirens until reaching a major thoroughfare; 4. No engine idling at the facilities due to odor and noise. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve LUR-1-2004, Land Use Review, 913 W. Holmes, Ambulance Service in an "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; 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) 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20, 2004) f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) g. 5912 S. MLK Jr. Blvd.-home with peeling paint(May 4, 2004) h. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) �. ..,icy -,s1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 21 i. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) j. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) k. 2500 Lake Lansing Road-office building w/o buffering in front of parking lot (June 15,2004) I. Cavanaugh Street-property listed w/Forsberg Realty has tall weeds (June 15, 2004) M. Corner of Aurelius and Cavanaugh Roads-Citgo gas station-weeds, excessive signage and dead landscaping (August 3,2004) n. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) o. 300 Lathrop Street-6-foot fence in front yard (August 3,2004) P. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence(August 17,2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have more updates before the next meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that with item 5n, the weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been touched and that it is to the point that the park is going to be not used. 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Goals and Objectives were put on hold because not all of the members were present and that it will be on the next agenda. Ms. Cordill asked if Ms. Stachowiak could indicate Zoning Ordinance amendments for the meeting so that those members who are not on the Committee are aware of them. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be done. Ms. Keene inquired about election of officers. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it will be on the next agenda. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that the Hunt Club installed a sound barrier between their facility and the freeway and has done some nice landscaping. He stated that the Hunt Club did put a sign up on the sound barrier but may not have a permit for it. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2004 Page 22 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.092104.doc