The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 Planning Board Oct-Dec Minutes FINAL Approved as written 1-4-05 Draft to Clerk December 17,2004 Approved January 4,2005 To Clerk January 6,2005 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Ruge, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Hodges. C. Excused absences: Bruch, Frederick. D. Absent: Keene. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. ACT-17-2004, 122 Smith Street, Acquisition and Demolition of Duplex This is a request by the City of Lansing Development Office to acquire the property with CDBG funds for demolition and clearance of the existing two unit structure and conveyance of the property to the adjoining property owners to reduce overcrowding. The property is located at 122 Smith St. (Parcel # 33-01-01-21-381-061), more specifically described as: W% of lot 7 of Block 17 of Park Place Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan Mr. Hodges gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about how much it would cost to purchase the property and demolish it. Mr. Hodges stated that he does not have an estimate at this time and that the property was acquired by the Lansing Housing Commission. Mr. Ruge asked if the property would be split amongst the neighbors. Mr. Hodges stated that was the request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Ruge asked if the neighbors would pay the amount that the City paid for the property. Mr. Hodges stated that this issue has not been described in the communications that he has received. Mr. Ruge inquired about ownership and if the GLHC would be rehabilitating the building. Mr. Hodges stated that if the City is not interested in acquiring the property, then it is the intentions of the GLHC to rehabilitate the building. Mr. Ruge asked if it the building would remain as a two-unit or if it would be returned to a one-unit. Mr. Hodges stated that the Development Office recommended that the building be returned to a single family dwelling. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Hodges could provide an estimate and also if there would be a cost to the neighbors. Mr. Czekai stated that in one of the letters from 2003 addressed to Council President Wood there was a reference to the Moores Park Neighborhood Organization. Although there was no communication received from them or no indication from them, he asked if the organization supported the position of the City to purchase the property located at 122 Smith Street and demolish the house. Mr. Hodges stated that it was at the organization's request and that he received the information from a report that was prepared by the Development Office. Mr. Hodges stated that he does not have a communication from the organization and has not spoken with the organization. He stated that the City sent a request for comments to the neighborhood organization but the organization may not have had time to hold its meeting. Ms. Cordill inquired about the current dimensions of the properties located on Coleman Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the smallest property is 31.5 feet wide by 55 feet deep, and the largest property is 49.5 feet wide by 55 feet deep. Ms. Cordill asked if the properties would gain an extra 27.5 feet. Mr. Hodges stated that is correct. Mr. Ruge asked if the properties would gain the entire width of the 122 or gain half. Mr. Hodges stated that the owner would be getting the entire width of the property. There are four lots that would abut the side of the property and each would get 27.5 feet. Mr. Ruge stated that it usually is the City's practice to split the property evenly between the all the adjoining properties. Mr. Hodges stated that is for vacation of right-of-ways. When acquiring property, there is no precedent on how to divide the property. Ms. Dorothy Jones, resident 426 W. Barnes Street, stated that she has been an active member of the Moores Park Neighborhood Organization for over 10 years. The organization has looked at this property for 10 to 12 years because it was apparent that the property was not maintained. Some of the tenants were not desirable. Ten or twelve years ago the City said that we can't afford both to buy the house and pay relocation costs. In 2003, the property was vacated and red tagged. At that point, the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 3 organization presented a formal request that the property be purchased and demolished. The neighborhood was largely built in the early 1900s when the automobile business began. The Reo Truck Company was close by and it needed people who could walk to work from the neighborhood. The neighborhood was very closely built. She provided pictures for the Board to review. There are 20 buildings on this square block and 30 units to be occupied. When CDBG first started approximately 20 years ago, the organization took down the number of houses in the neighborhood to reduce the overcrowding. This particular block did not have any reduction. The organization feels that this is the appropriate time to demolish the home at 122 Smith Ave. She stated that the property runs from Smith Avenue to the alley and if it is divided amongst the Coleman Avenue houses, these houses would have a size that is more appropriate to the needs and desires of today's society. She stated that two of the houses have virtually no back yards, may be 8 to 10 feet. There is no place to park vehicles and there is kind of a shared drive between the homes. The organization feels that it would be to the enhancement of neighborhood and the whole City if this was opened up so that the houses on Coleman could have a decent back yard. She stated that the organization did not take formal action but has been discussing this issue for 12 years. In 2003 when the property became vacant, the organization made formal action and presented to the Council for purchasing and demolishing of the property. She stated that the State Historic Commission has put a null on the request but she does not believe that anyone from the Commission has viewed the area. This house was built in 1915 and the houses on Coleman Avenue were built in 1917. She stated that there is not much difference in the age of the homes and that an owner would have to do a little bit to keep up to date with times. If this house is left as it is, overcrowding would continue. She asked that a portion of the property next to the houses on Smith Avenue be retained by the City as an alley or some way for the residents in the middle of the Coleman Avenue block to have automobile access back to the property that may be added to the surrounding properties. She urged the Board to approve the request. She has spoken to an aide to send the request to Representative Benero. Benero understands the situation and if the City does in fact purchase the property, he will help the organization to convince the Historic Commission that this is okay to do and that it will enhance the other historic properties rather than destroying the historic character of the neighborhood. Mr. Harry James, resident of 1725 Coleman Avneue, stated that his property is adjacent to the property located at 122 Smith Avenue, and that he supports the demolition of the home. He does not have a back yard. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 4 He is representing the other Coleman Avenue residents who are also supportive of demolishing the home. This would enable them to have more room. He stated that this is not a good area for a family to be with kids because there is no room for the kids to play. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred ACT-17-2004, 122 Smith Street, Acquisition and Demolition of Duplex to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on January 25, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. PRD-1-2004, Planned Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums This is a request by Eric Stevenson for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 1.875 acre parcel located at the east end of Larrabee Drive. The applicant proposes to construct 6 detached, single family, residential site condominium units on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked where the ordinance amendment is and if it has gone anywhere. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has not but will likely progress at probably the same pace as this request. She stated that it will make a difference as to whether the applicant actually pulls building permits before or after the ordinance goes into affect. Ms. Cordill stated that there have been concerns by the Board with having houses attached to garages. Mr. Eric Harger, Representative for the applicant with Trinity Engineering located in St. Johns, stated that he would like to add that the utility extensions are in process (i.e. sanitary sewer extension, water main extension, storm sewer extension). He has spoken with Dan Danke and Andy Kilpatrick with the City of Lansing to make sure the company is conforming to all the requirements of the City. This residential development would be a very harmonious fit to the neighborhood. He stated that the actual density allows for 7 units per acre and the company is currently at 3.2 units per acre. The plans show larger lots so the residents can enjoy more space. Ms. Cordill asked if the company had considered recessing the garage or making it a less prominent feature of the home. Mr. Harger stated that as it stands, this is a preliminary floor plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 5 Ms. Cordill asked if the company considered increasing the number of bedrooms for the condominium units. Two bedroom units seem rather small in today's market. Mr. Harger stated that he would have to defer to his client Ms. Cordill stated that there was approximately 1,600 square feet and could easily add a third bedroom. Ms. Jamie Schmidt, resident of 5700 Coulson Court, stated that the proposed area of development is on a hill directly behind her residence and she is concerned with the properties looking down into her home. She stated that this development would decrease the value of her home and increase traffic in the neighborhood. She is opposed to the development. Mr. Jerry Felt, resident of 5706 Coulson Court, stated that the proposed area of development would be on a big hill and the residents would be able to look down into the neighborhood windows. He stated that there is a major problem with traffic in this area for North Elementary School and Gardener Junior High. If this continues there would be streets passing through and with the condominiums traffic would be an even greater problem with people traveling through the area. This would make an open traffic way. He would like to obtain some information on what these condominiums would do to the value of the homes in the area. He stated that sometimes it is nice to have new condominiums but six years down the road what they may look like would really depreciate the value of the neighbors' land. The height of the hill where the new development would be is approximately 25 feet. He would not be able to put up a privacy fence because the new residents would still be able to look into his back yard. His major concerns are traffic and privacy. The neighbors are trying to resolve the pedestrian traffic with the Gardener Middle School kids cutting through the properties on their way to school. He asked if there was some way that the neighbors would be advised of the status of the development. Ms. Cordill stated that there would be word of where this goes in the process. She stated that as a point of information Larrabee Steet through this development ends up in a cul-de-sac and that it would not be a through street. Mr. Felt stated that he understands the development would end in a cul-de-sac. Currently, the street does not go through but still has traffic from the children cutting through. Instead of the children walking around to the bus stop, they cut through the neighbors' yards and cut across to get to Gardener Junior High school. People walk through the yards when it is dark. Most of the houses have sliding glass doors and he does not particularly like people cutting through his back yard especially when his wife is in the basement working and having them staring into the windows. Constructing condominiums is opening an opportunity for more traffic to cut through. Mr. Dan Silengo, resident of 127 Olympia Street, stated that his home is located at the bottom of the hill. He stated that he stood at the top of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 6 the hill and that there is no way he could put a fence up high enough in his yard to keep anybody from seeing into his area from the top of the hill. He stated that a man hole will be on the corner of this lot which will be in his back yard. The man hole would be for drainage and there is already a water drainage problem. He does not need any more water problems. He is sure that the developer is intelligent enough to make sure that the drainage would not run onto his property. He is opposed to this development. He stated that foot traffic is also a concern. He stated that with the homes on Northrup Street adjacent to the development which have long backyards, whose to say that all these other homeowners will sell their properties on the back side to continue this road which would run parallel to Olympia? He sees this as a lot of congestion and this would be too much for one area. He does not want to pay to have a fence put in to keep people out of his back yard. He received the plans in the mail from the City and the plans showed a fence around the development. He has heard a rumor that there would not be a fence. He requested that if the development was approved, that there be a privacy fence where the new residents could not see into his house. He would like to know what is up with the man hole in his back yard. He also requested that privacy trees be put in. Mr. John Steven, developer and a new resident to the Holt area, stated that he wanted to explain a few things. On the site condo these will be privately owned homes and will not be owned by a rental company. The owners will own the property and maintain them as new homes. The acreage that is there would allow for double the house that could be constructed in that area. He went for half the amount of the homes. The pedestrian traffic comes from the neighborhood and side streets. These are the kids who live on Olympia and Coulson Streets who come through this area to go to school. The views from the back of these houses are not sitting on the edge of the hill. The homes have considerable back yards in between the houses that are situated in the back lot. Many of the new residents may put up fences which would take the privacy part completely out. People down below obviously cannot build fences high enough to protect their homes. The people who live up the hill can easily put up fences which will stop all pedestrian traffic or should cut it down considerably. Most kids are a little less conscious about going through developed home areas in between those yards as they are through an open field. The open field is a magnet for the kids to hang out or to travel through. Everyone has a legitimate right here to live on Northrup Street or the side streets because they are all going through there to get to the open field. He believes that the traffic PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 7 would be considerably less as soon as the area is developed. Hopefully the new residents will put up fences but there are no restrictions on the condo. He stated that in order for the neighbors on Northrup Street to develop their back yards, the residents would have to join the association. This is a private road that is owned by the association. It is not like someone can just say they will sell the back side of their property and build a house there. This would keep down a lot of the traffic. Six houses will be built here and the additional road traffic may be a small amount. He stated that the foot traffic would be considerably less. Ms. Rhea Anderson, resident of 134 E. Northrup, stated that this development will abut her back yard and that there will be a lot more traffic. She shares a driveway with a neighbor and with the way it is set up, it looks like another road. A private property sign was put up and that has eliminated the problem. There are pedestrians who go through her back yard. She stated that with the driveway into the proposed development, a lot of woods would have to be demolished. This was one of the reasons why she purchased her property. She was attracted to the trees and the openness. She is opposed to the development. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred PRD-1-2004, Planned Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District ACT-18-2004, South side of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City Property Z-18-2004. This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning & Neighborhood Development to rezone the property located south of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar and Larch Streets, more specifically described as: Lots 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 & the south % of the vacated alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1, Block 241 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 8 from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for the purpose of developing the property for mixed uses (i.e. residential, office, commercial). ACT-18-2004. This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development to sell the property located on the south side of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch Streets, more specifically described as: Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 26, 27 and the vacated alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1, Block 241; and the north of the east % and the south 'z of the east 132 feet of Lot 2, Block 241, Original Plat Mr. Hodges gave a brief overview on both cases. Mr. Ruge inquired about drawing in the stadium district and asked if it was the actual proposal or if it was the concept of what could possibly happen. Mr. Hodges stated that it is the design concept and that perhaps the developer could explain it better. The floor plan layout seems to be consistent with this particular design. Mr. Ruge asked if there was a developer chosen. Mr. Hodges stated that the project is a proposal by Gillespie Partnership and the City is responding to convey the property for this project to the developer. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the information in the packet, the site plan and the elevation drawing, were both provided to the Planning Office by Mr. Gillespie. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Parks horizontal lines and the LBA diagonal lines on the parcel map. Mr. Hodges stated that all of the property was owned by the City of Lansing but a portion of the property is currently under the Parks management but has not been designated for park use. Some of the money that the City receives from the parking in this particular area goes back to the Parks Department. Ms. Cordill inquired about the LBA. Mr. Rieske stated that LBA stands for Lansing Building Authority which was established for the purpose of property acquisitions a long time ago and was instrumental in the planned assembly of land in various places (i.e. the stadium project). Mr. Pat Gillespie, of Gillespie Group, stated that he has been working with the City for 4 to 5 months on this project laying out different site plans and elevations. This is what instigated this request for an ACT 285 review and a rezoning. Basically this is 30,000 square feet of retail or office use on the first level. There would be 69 urban loft apartments on levels 2 and 3, with one, two or three bedroom units. These apartment would be anywhere from a 1,400 square foot, three bedroom apartment to a 790 square foot studio, one bedroom apartment to a 1,080 square foot, two bedroom apartment. This is a great unit mix on levels 2 and 3. On levels 3 and 4, there are garden patios which would be two story condominiums. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 9 He stated that there would be 21 of them and that they will be marketed at $175,000 to $225,000. These condominiums would have garden patios overlooking Michigan Avenue. The apartments on the other levels will be anywhere from $750 to $1,100 a month. There will be private parking on site. These plans have been presented to City Council, Planning Staff and have been marketed to the community. The reception that the company has received so far has been absolutely incredible. He stated that bars, restaurants, retail operations, coffee shops and financial institutions would like to house their operations at this location. These companies like the visibility on Michigan Avenue and they liked the mixed-use. Overall, there are approximately 89 residences here. A lot of the people he has spoken with from 621 to Troppos to the Lansing Chamber of Commerce have all voiced the same opinions. They would love to see people after 5:00 p.m. and see activity on Michigan Avenue. They would like to a signature building like this one on the way to the capital rather than a surface parking lot. He stated that every step of the way he has seen incredible comments and Gillespie Group is excited about this project. Mr. Ruge inquired about the parking ramp and if it would be private or if the public would be able to use it. Mr. Gillespie stated that this portion was not included in the ACT 285 review and that the City will maintain ownership it. He stated that the City is still debating whether it will build a parking ramp or surfaced parking and that either way it will be open to the public. Mr. Ruge mentioned that there may not be a ramp at this location. Mr. Gillespie stated the City was determining if there is a need for the ramp. Mr. Hollister stated that on the picture that was just passed around it shows the ramp but it would not be a part of his development. Mr. Gillespie stated that was correct and that Gillespie Group is waiting for word from the City to see whether or not the ramp is approved. Mr. Hollister stated that on the west side of the property that runs along Cedar Street the drawing shows 25 covered parking spaces. He asked if these were a part of the development. Mr. Gillespie stated that those 25 or 26 spaces will have an elevator that goes directly to the 21 "for sale" condominiums. These are private spaces for the proposed condominiums on the fourth level. Ms. Cordill inquired about the rental units and where these residents would park. Mr. Gillespie stated that there are approximately 100 parking spaces at this location and 26 parking spaces in another wing. Ms. Cordill inquired about the covered parking and asked if it belonged to the condominium portion of the project. Mr. Gillespie stated that is correct. Mr. McConnell inquired about the breakdown of the 21 condominiums with 69 apartments. He stated that the City is trying to promote home PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 10 ownership even in the downtown area with loft renovations. Mr. Gillespie stated that he is 100 percent positive that he can rent the apartments and that he is not positive about how deep the condominium market is in the City of Lansing. Mr. McConnell inquired about other special amenities. Mr. Gillespie stated that floors 2 and 3 will have a work out facility. The fourth floor will have a 1,400 square foot conference room which is a video conference room set up so people can hold fund raisers, Tupperware parties, wedding showers, birthday parties, etc. It would be like a mixed use business center. He stated that there would be outside parking, two work-out facilities and a video conferencing room. Mr. Hollister stated that the ACT 285 review encompasses a larger area that would include the parking garage that may or may not exist and would belong to the Gillespie Group. Mr. Hodges stated that the lower parking area would belong to the City but is under review of the ACT 285 because the parking needs that are generate by this overall development had implications on this parking area. The City wanted to address this even though the ownership portion is not changing for the whole section. Mr. McConnell asked if the City would allow the tenants to utilize some of the parking that the City owns. Mr. Hodges stated that this will be a public lot and will be open to the public. The City still needs to work out all the details as to whether this particular design meets the demands that are going be generated by itself as well as the other needs of this area. The City is currently reviewing all these issues. Mr. Hodges stated that parking will be the primary challenge in this development. Mr. Gillespie was told that one of the reasons the ACT 285 would encompass the whole thing was that the ACT 285 review kicks in surveys, and other things that identify utilities so that the Gillespie Group could identify everything at once rather than just the front portion. He stated that it is not so much an ownership but the actual lay out of what is underground in this area. Mr. Jerry Carpenter, resident of 119 S. Larch Street, stated that he and his father own Liskey's Professional Wheel Service and they are in favor of the development. He stated that everything that has happened in the area (i.e. Oldsmobile Park, surrounding growth) has been good for the business. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing and referred Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue, and referred ACT-18-2004, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 11 South side of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City Property to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on January 25, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — November 3, 2004 Mr. Hollister moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of November 3, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of November 3, 2004 were APPROVED. Mr. McConnell stated that with him missing the last two meetings, the record does not reflect his absences as excused and they should be excused. He stated that each time he has missed a meeting he has called another Board member and/or someone from the Planning Office. He stated that the record should reflect November 16t" and the subsequent meeting that his absences were excused. Mr. Ruge made a motion to approve excused absences for Mr. McConnell from the November 3rd and November 16th meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the motion dies for lack of a second. Minutes for Approval — November 16, 2004 Mr. Ruge moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of November 16, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of November 16, 2004 were APPROVED. Mr. McConnell inquired about the minutes being amended to reflect his excused absences. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the minutes would not be amended. Mr. McConnell stated that he could make the motion and have PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 12 it supported by Mr. Ruge. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board does not usually have a member vote on their own excused absences. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like to only make the motion. Mr. Rieske stated that he does not know where to go on this part. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about Mr. McConnell making a motion with support and having the Board vote on it. Mr. Rieske stated that would work. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve excused absences for Mr. McConnell from the November 3rd and November 16th meetings. On a voice vote, the motion failed (2-3). Ms. Cordill stated that it may be helpful to say after Ms. Bruch's name "formerly Ms. Foster" and be consistent throughout the minutes by using her current name. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Acting a. Nomination of Election of Officers Mr. Czekai stated that it was decided by the Committee that he would be taking up the helm from Mr. McConnell. He stated that he hopes that he can fill the shoes. Mr. Czekai stated that Ms. Keene will continue her service as the Vice Chair of the Committee. b. Approval of 2005 UDC meeting schedule Mr. Czekai stated that the meetings will remain the fourth Tuesday of the month as it has been for 2004 and the schedule was approved by the Committee. G. Discussion of 2005 Work Program Mr. Czekai stated that the committee reviewed the Planning Board duties under City Charter and the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285 of 1931), the items listed on the FY 04-05 Planning Office Work Program, and the comments regarding PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 13 the Work Program by Board and staff members. The main points of the ensuing discussion were: 1. Although opportunities for improvement exist, the Board complies with its duties as specified in City Charter and P.A. 285; 2. Continue efforts on completing a master plan revision, and conducting capital improvements programming; 3. The Planning Office web site should be upgraded; 4. Present the annual report to the Planning Board, with Board accomplishments shown, in a manner which doesn't "reinvent the wheel"; 5. Include in the "Report from Planning Manager" (at Board meetings) regular updates on the cases acted upon by the Planning Board; 6. Consider carbon copying the Planning Board chair on all transmittals to the Mayor for subsequent action; 7. Consider giving Planning Board input on the necessity of parking meters in certain areas; 8. Consider the zoning amendment ideas that were suggested by staff. Next meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that before the meeting invitations were handed out to the holiday gathering next Tuesday at the Radisson Hotel restaurant. This will not be on the regularly scheduled meeting day because the Planning staff figured it was a little too close to Christmas. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board evaluations were also handed out. She asked that the Board complete the evaluations and return them to the Planning Office preferably by the first meeting in January. Mr. Hollister inquired about the holiday gathering and if it was in lieu of the meeting on December 21st. Ms. Stachowiak stated that was correct. Mr. Rieske stated that a dinner will be provided and alcohol will be at the expense of the individual. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 14 Ms. Stachowiak gave an update on City Council items. In October, the Board recommended approval of LS-24-2004, 115-119 W. Grand River Avenue, Lot Split and it was approved by City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a little controversy regarding Z-17-2004, 801-803 N. Sycamore Street, "C" Residential to "DM-2" Residential District. The Committee recommended that the request be denied and City Council is leaning that way as well which is consistent with the way the Board recommended it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Z-14-2004, 427 W. Ionia Street/222 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-3" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District has been approved by City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that LS-25-2004, 4804 Ballard Road, Lot Split is put on hold only because one of the residents who had concerns was not able to attend the Committee meeting and City Council wants to make sure that the resident has every opportunity to provide input. Mr. Rieske stated that ACT-14-2004, Convey east 89 ft. of Manchester Ct. right-of-way has been approved by City Council. Mr. Rieske stated that ACT-13-2004, Walsh Park, Easement for Consumers Energy was approved by City Council for a license agreement. Mr. Rieske stated that ACT-15-2004, 1616 Perkins, Barrier-free Ramp in Perkins ROW was approved by City Council. Mr. Rieske stated that ACT-4-2004, SW Corner Leslie & Main, Sell Portion of Acquired Main St ROW was approved by City Council. Mr. Rieske stated that with ACT-5-2004, SW Corner Mt. Hope & MLK, Acquire for Neighborhood Sign the City did acquire the property and the neighborhood sign was installed. The sign was not installed in accordance with what was recommended and was placed in the middle of the property, not as close to the corner. Mr. Rieske stated that ACT-9-2004, 111 E. Grand River, Permanent Canopy over ROW has been approved by City Council but not installed. 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 15 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. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) h. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) i. 2702 S.Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18,2004) j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) k. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence(August 17,2004) I. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) M. 4229 Chickory Lane-possible unregistered rental (October 19, 2004) n. Intersection of Aurelius&Miller Roads- no street signs (November 3, 2004) o. Intersection of Kipling Blvd. &Vine Street-house for rent, possible registered rental (November 3,2004) p. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004) q. 2740,3013&3030 Stoneleigh Drive-possible registered rentals(November 16, 2004) r. 3525 Ruth Avenue-possible registered rentals(November 16,2004) S. 2411 Windbreak Lane-possible registered rentals(November 16,2004) t. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road & Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16,2004) U. Both Leo's Lodges-illegal signs on roofs(November 16,2004) Ms. Stachowiak addressed the status of several of the pending items. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Meeting Schedule for 2005 Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the 2005 meetings schedule. On a voice vote (5-0), the motion carried unanimously. B. Reconsideration of Act-16-04, Acquire Properties for CSO Project: 904 Bates Street, 843 & 844 Harris Street and Vacant Lot #26 on Banghart Street. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Board recommended approval of Act- 16-04 on 11/16/04 subject to several conditions. As a reminder, this was a request by the City of Lansing's Public Service Department to acquire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 16 three properties at 904 Bates (Parcel A), 843 Harris (Parcel B) and 844 Harris (Parcel C) which are all zoned "B" Residential for a CSO project. The following circumstances have changed since the Planning Board made its recommendation: 1. Subsequent to the Planning Board action, the property owner on Harris Street, Linda Marciniak, indicated her interest in combining an adjacent vacant lot (Lot #39) that she owns to her property at 843 Harris Street (Lot#40). The two lots, when combined would result in a buildable lot (100' x 156'). A new house, or relocated house, could be erected on Lot #39, leaving Lot#40 as additional side yard. 2. Based on a Title Search, it was discovered that the Parks Department has no legal interest in the property at the east end of Harris Street (formerly known as 854 Harris Street). Based on the discussion and recommendation of the Planning Board, if the properties are not retained for public or neighborhood parks and open space, then the properties should be sold to the owners of neighboring residential properties to be combined with existing residential lots for additional side yard space. 3. The Planning Board also recommended approval of Act-16-04 provided that the City obtain an acceptable environmental assessment. The Public Service Department is still evaluating whether or not this is necessary for the subject properties. It should be stressed that the City will need to acquire the subject properties regardless of whether of not an environmental assessment is conducted. The following describes the properties more specifically: Parcel A, located at 904 Bates, is 50' x 156' (7,800 sq. ft.) and includes a 712 square foot house built in 1937. The vacant parcel to the east, also owned by the same property owner Linda Marciniak and zoned "B" Residential, will need to be combined with 904 Bates, which will make it a buildable lot for a single family home. Lot 40 could also be split between lot 41 and lot 39. Parcel B, located at 843 Harris, is 50' x 137.38' (6,869 sq. ft.) and includes a 974 square foot house built in 1949, and was recently sold to FR Investments, LLC. This lot should strictly be sold and combined with Lot#80 to the west since the property to the east is a nonresidential property. Combining said lot would likely result in the encroachment of a business into a single family neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 17 Parcel C, located at 844 Harris, is 50' x 133' (6,650 sq. ft.) and includes an 860 square foot house built in1952 and is owned by William and Connie Hoag. The property should be sold and attached to Lot #82 to the west. The property to the east is a "no name" property according to the Assessor's Office, and is not owned by the City through the Parks Department, contrary to what is labeled on the Assessor's Tax Parcel map. This change will be reflected on next year's maps. Staff therefore recommends that Parcel C be sold and attached to Lot#83 and not to parcel to the east. The following is a point of information (no action by Planning Board required): Parcel D, a vacant lot on Banghart Street (Lot#26), is located between the houses at 903 and 915 Banghart and is 40' x 133' (5,320 sq. ft.). The Public Service Department requests that an old 1936 easement located across Lot 26 be "replaced/clarified" with a new 40' sewer easement. Permanent easements for CSO projects were approved under Resolution #745, dated December 16, 1991. No Planning Board or City Council action is needed for Parcel D. The following general recommendations to address the overall Act 285 are: 5. Should be sold to the owners of neighboring residential properties for combination with adjacent parcels. More specifically, staff recommends the following on each of the parcels: Parcel A: Acquire both lots 39 and 40. Either combine all or a portion of Lot 40 to the adjacent residential lots. Parcel B: Acquire Lot 81 and combine the entire lot with the residential lot to the west, (Lot 80). Parcel C: Acquire Lot 82 and combine the entire lot with the residential lot to the west (Lot 83). Parcel D: No Planning Board action is required. The Public Service Department should replace or clarify the existing 1936 easement located across Lot 26 with a new 40' sewer easement. Permanent easements for CSO projects were approved under Resolution #745, dated December 16, 1991. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Hodges stated that recommendation #5 could be eliminated as it is not necessary. Mr. Czekai made a motion to reconsider Act-16-04. Mr. Hollister seconded the motion. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Czekai made a motion to approve Act-16-04 to acquire the three properties subject to the following conditions: 1. that the City obtain good and marketable title to the properties; 2. the City should relocate the homes to a suitable location or demolish the structure; 3. that there be future deed restrictions on the properties prohibiting the approval of any building permits over the easements; and 4. the entire site must be restored and the driveway and curb cuts eliminated. More specifically, the Planning Board recommended the following on each of the parcels: Parcel A: Acquire both lots 39 and 40 and resell for residential development, either individually or combined as two lots. Parcel B: Acquire Lot 81 and combine the entire lot with the residential lot to the west, (Lot 80). Parcel C: Acquire Lot 82 and combine the entire lot with the residential lot to the west (Lot 83). Parcel D: No Planning Board action is required. The Public Service Department should replace or clarify the existing 1936 easement located across Lot 26 with a new 40' sewer easement. Permanent easements for CSO projects were approved under Resolution #745, dated December 16, 1991. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge encouraged the other Board members to travel down Barnes Avenue. He said that the Transportation Office has done a very good job of traffic calming on this street. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Hollister stated that 1231 W. Ionia Street is a possible rental. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2004 Page 19 Mr. Czekai stated that in the 1200 block of Turner Street next to the October Moon, there appears to be someone living on the 1st floor. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.120704.doc Approved as written 12-7-04 Draft to Clerk November 19,2004 Approved December 7,2004 To Clerk December 10,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. - C. Excused absences: Czekai. D. Absent: McConnell. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's 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 — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Needs Mr. Rieske stated that this is the time for citizens to comment on needs and priorities with regards to projects that should be funded under the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the FY 2006 — 2011. The CIP is a six year schedule of public improvements and various other operational improvements that require larger cash outlays (i.e. computer equipment). A public hearing is held annually the Planning Office tries to blend additional comments with comprehensive plan comments and with proposals submitted by various departments. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing and referred the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Needs to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on November 30, 2004 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 2 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Resident of 2219 Newark Avenue stated that this is a cross street between Pleasant Grove Road and MLK Jr. Blvd. There are a lot of children in this area and in the past the neighborhood has had petitions to have speed bumps put in. He stated that there are no stop signs on this road between Pleasant Grove Road and MILK Jr. Blvd. There are speeders constantly in the neighborhood. He asked if someone could come out and look into the matter. On Mary Avenue, speed bumps were implemented and has helped the traffic flow between the cross streets. He is a concerned parent of children and a Pastor of the area, and he would like to see speed bumps or stop signs implemented in this area. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board and a short Urban Development Committee meeting convened to consider ACT-1 6-2004. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — October 5, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of October 5, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of October 5, 2004 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — October 19, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of October 19, 2004 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of October 19, 2004 were APPROVED w/corrections. Pg. 8, last line of the motion, delete "unanimous." B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-7-2004, 6070 S. MILK Blvd., Church in the "F" Commercial District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 3 This is a lot split request to utilize Suite G of the plaza at 6070 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. for church services and related activities. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Collectively, there are 29 parking spaces on the site; three of which are handicapped spaces. It is estimated that the center has approximately 1,600 square feet of useable floor area. The required parking for a facility of this size is 15 spaces based upon the parking requirement of one parking space for each 110 square feet of usable floor area in a shopping center. An additional 14 spaces are available beyond what is required for this center. The applicant has estimated the seating capacity of the main room at 50 persons. Since the parking requirement for churches is 1 space for each 3 seats, 17 parking spaces need to be available. The peak use of the church would be on Sundays from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. This would be a time when the other businesses in the center are either not open or are generating only modest activity. Staff recommended approval of SLU-7-2004, 6070 S. MLK Blvd., Church in the "F" Commercial District, with the condition that the seating capacity be limited to 50 persons or the limit as determined by the Fire Marshall, whichever is smaller. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. That the seating capacity be limited to 50 persons or the limit as determined by the Fire Marshall, whichever is smaller; 2. That seven trees be planted in the ROW along MLK Jr. Blvd. with a minimum starting size of 2" caliper; and 3. That two trees along Newark and one along Piper be planted also with a minimum starting size of 2" caliper; and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-7-2004, 6070 S. MILK Blvd., Church in the "F" Commercial District with the following conditions: 1) That the seating capacity be limited to 50 persons or the limit as determined by the Fire Marshall, whichever is smaller; 2) That seven trees be planted in the ROW along MLK Jr. Blvd. with a minimum starting size of 2" caliper; and 3) That PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 4 two trees along Newark and one along Piper be planted also with a minimum starting size of 2" caliper. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair a. ACT-16-2004, 904 Bates, 843 and 844 Harris; Acquire for CSO This is a request by the City of Lansing's Public Service Department to acquire three properties at 904 Bates, 843 Harris and 844 Harris St as part of the Combined Sewer Overflow sewer separation project. The houses are constructed over a 30-inch combined sewer. The existing 30-inch sewer will change from a combined sewer to a storm sewer, thus making the sanitary sewer service leads a pollution source and not allowed by law. The Public Service Department proposes to either clear the houses from these sites or relocate them to other sites to eliminate the costly relocation of the sanitary sewer service leads from the houses, which are of slab-on-grade construction. The overall neighborhood, comprised predominantly of small single family homes, is generally located between a commercial strip along North East Street and industrially zoned land to the east. A cluster of industrially zoned property is also located two blocks further to the north, closer to North East Street. According to the Future Circulation Map of the North East Comprehensive Plan, the streets in the area are classified as local streets. Both Bates and Harris Streets have curb, gutter and sidewalks. The Comprehensive Plan designates the use of this area as residential and the request should further strengthen the residential character and property values. The clearance of homes on the three lots will not change the general use of the area. The impact on the surrounding land use pattern will therefore, not be appreciable. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 5 Staff recommended approval of the request to acquire the four subject properties provided that the City obtain an acceptable environmental assessment and good and marketable title to the property. Staff further recommended that in accordance with past practice in neighborhood redevelopment areas, properties should be offered to adjacent property owners at a nominal cost, upon completion of the project. In Committee, the request was adopted and recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. That there be a future deed restriction on the property prohibiting the approval of any building permits for the property; 2. The entire site must be restored and the driveway and curb cuts eliminated; and 3. If cost effective, the City should relocate the homes to a suitable location; and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0). Mr. Ruge inquired about how houses could be built over the sewer. Mr. Rieske stated that he was not the only one who was curious. Ms. Bruch stated that she was not so sure of going to the neighbors and asked if it was possible for these properties to be turned into parks. She stated that this is in a very high dense area and from the looks there are no parks in this area. She asked if this could be turned into a nice linear park for the area rather than given to the neighbors. The property abuts some green area. She stated that this would make a great pedestrian cut-through for all of this area. Mr. Ruge suggested an amendment to offer these properties to the Parks Department for a park and if the department declines the offer, then offer the properties to the neighbors. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster stated that the Planning Board is also in charge of trying to designate if areas need more parks as well as part of the Planning Board functions. She inquired about this area being short of parks and stated that she would like to see extra thought put into it rather than have it as extra property. Ms. Cordill asked if there was an issue of maintenance rather than acquisition by the Parks Department. She stated that the City would already own the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 6 properties. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is more of an issue with maintenance. Mr. Rieske stated that the Parks Department is trying to have a baseline level of maintenance on all parks and to improve the maintenance on higher profile parks (i.e. the river trails). He stated that the department has been trying to divest of park administered properties which were not designated parks. He stated that it would be a good idea to ask the department to evaluate this request before declining it. If it were a linear park, it would be a linear park with no connectivity. This would have to be considered. Mr. Frederick stated that maybe the Board should lean on the Parks department a little harder on the parcel located at 844 Harris Street since 854 Harris Street is already owned by the Parks Department. Presumably, the Parks department already has some maintenance requirements for this and it would essentially double the size of the park. Ms. Bruch stated that the other property should be left open so that pedestrians could access the park instead of going all the way around to enter the park. She stated that this would be a great pedestrian path even if it is a mulch path. Ms. Bruch stated that her dissertation is on parks and the issues of reducing crime, increasing property values, and increasing all sorts of health for the people, the value is pretty high. She stated that the quality of life issues are really high when it comes to parks. Ms. Bruch asked if the Parks department declines the properties then maybe offer the properties to the neighborhood association for this area. Ms. Keene accepted this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve ACT-16-2004, the acquisition and resale of 904 Bates, 843 and 844 Harris with the following conditions: 1) That there be a future deed restriction on the property prohibiting the approval of any building permits for the property; 2) The entire site must be restored and the driveway and curb cuts eliminated; and 3) If cost effective, the City should relocate the homes to a suitable location; 4) The properties should be considered first for public or neighborhood parks and open space uses; and 5) If the properties are not retained for public or neighborhood parks and open space, they should be sold to the owners of neighboring properties for combination with adjacent parcels. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 7 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, November 30, 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 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board members received a flier regarding a one day seminar at the Lansing Center. If anyone is interested, please let her know and she will try to get funding to send members to it. 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. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) h. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) i. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed (August 3,2004) k. 2414 Solomon Drive-corner lot w/a high fence(August 17, 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 8 I. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) M. 4229 Chickory Lane- possible unregistered rental (October 19, 2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that with item 5k, there was an illegal fence and the owner applied for a variance that will go before the Board of Zoning Appeals in December. With item 5m, she stated that the property is on the rental registration but the registration certificate has expired. The Code Compliance officer will track it down and have it reinspected so that the owner will have a valid certificate. Ms. Cordill inquired about the rental unit on Kipling Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she went over the minutes today from the meeting and turned it in to the Code Compliance office. She will have an update for her at the next meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Bruch stated that a while back Mr. Czekai suggested developing goals and objectives for the Planning Board and she wanted to share some of things that the Planning Board used to do. The plans are from 1964. She stated that the Planning Board used to have Achievements of the Planning Board reports compiled, which are not done anymore. There used to be a staff of 30 and now there is 7 and a half. She stated that the Goals and Objectives talked about some of the duties and she stated that there were a lot different Committees. There was a Zoning Committee, Streets and Subdivision Committee (reviewed all applications for subdivisions and their locations), Buildings and Property Committee, Urban Renewal, Ordinance Committee (developed, studied and reviewed all the ordinances), Capital's Improvements Committee, and a Finance Committee. She stated that it looked like the Board used to be a lot different and there are some things the Board is currently not doing. She stated that the Planning Board used to promote public interest in an understanding of the Planning and the Master Plan. This is still a part of the Board's duties but there is nothing being done about it either. She asked about how the Board can start actually meeting some of these things that the Board is responsible for. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Frederick had provided written comments to the Planning Office and these comments have been typed and prepared for other members. It was on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee agenda last week but both the previous regularly scheduled Zoning and Ordinance Committee and Urban Development Committee meetings were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 9 cancelled due to lack of a quorum. She stated that the Board needs to do this because staff has a deadline to have the Work Program completed. Time is running out on this because the Board only meets once in December because of the holidays. She stated that there is the Board dinner later in December and this may be an opportunity to have a good discussion on it. Usually everyone is at this meeting and it is something that the Board needs to do. If anyone can turn in written comments in the mean time, it would be greatly appreciated. Ms. Bruch stated that there are a few comments coming out of today's meeting: 1) changing the rule about no shrubs on the ROW, and 2) history of how many Planners there used to be and how it changed in the budgets. Mr. Rieske stated that in the 1960s, HUD had the 701 Program where there was lots of money granted to municipalities to conduct plans. In the Planning Library at Michigan State University, there are a lot of plans done by Harlon Barthalemou and some larger firms that were funded by the 701 Program. He stated that he did see a plan for one community and a name of another community was snuck in there by mistake. There was a lot of money available for planning that became not available after the 701 program expired after model cities, etc. In the 1980s, funding became even tighter and has not loosened up since then. Ms. Bruch stated that there are grants available for some of these things and maybe part of the Capital Improvements Program would be to hire a grant writer to go after these grants that will in turn allow the City to have more planners. The Board needs to chase funds because the City cannot financially do this. Mr. Rieske stated that a lot of this was folded into the CDBG during the Nixon Administration. Currently, the City has two Planners who are funded through CDBG funds. Ms. Bruch stated that maybe the Board needs to go for more CDBG money to be able to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that this is all formula and that the City is using money from the Michigan State Police and FEMA to do emergency management, emergency mitigation type planning. This requires a community profile which is a little more abbreviated in nature than what the City would want in a Master Plan. He stated that the City does receive money to do the Consolidated Plan which the Board acts upon every year, and that there are these types of opportunities given to the City which are pretty well targeted. Another possibility is to be able to utilize whatever the City can from the Regional Growth project that Tri-County has done. He stated that there are summaries now available of the goals and objectives that have been whittled beyond belief. He attended several meetings pounding out the verbage on these and he has been very particular about making sure that it benefits central cities. Ms. Bruch asked that the City Forester be involved to make Lansing a Tree City USA. The City Forester does a great job of the residential trees but nothing with the commercial area trees. Ms. Bruch stated that billboards, especially in the entrances of the City, need to be addressed. She stated that driving from East Lansing into the city of Lansing, there are seven billboards and it is an eye sore that she sees everyday. She would like to see something done about it just for the sake of beautification. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Hollister asked about when improvements are done if the Board oversees the theme for street signage and if there was a City wide theme. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is no theme. Mr. Hollister asked if it was by neighborhood and stated that he has been involved in a group that is doing Saginaw Street on the west side of town and are trying to get the entry way done over by the GM plant. Ms. Bruch stated that the west side is not a City project. Mr. Hollister asked if there was a general plan for street signs and sign posts. Mr. Rieske stated that this is in the process of being developed to a certain point and that the City Economic Development Office in conjunction with the Principal Shopping District worked on a way-finding system for the downtown area. If one drives downtown, it would be noticed and if one drives east on Michigan Avenue it can be seen along Washington Avenue. There are logos on the top and bottom and then there are names of attractions in the middle which works out nicely. It combines different elements that can be standardized and produced at lower costs. Ms. Bruch stated that some of the ideas with Saginaw Street were to try to have a concept for that neighborhood and that some of these neighborhood-specific things end up being a design issue. Mr. Hollister stated that the question becomes whether or not the project can be funded (i.e. street lights along Saginaw Street). He asked if there was a standard Lansing street light that the City should purchase so that it looks the same on West Saginaw Street as it does on Kalamazoo Street or Michigan Avenue, or is this by neighborhood. Mr. Rieske stated that this is also up for discussion. The Planning Office does have a standard "historic light" on its arterials and that Michigan Avenue, Washington Avenue (in certain parts of the downtown area), and the ReoTown has them. There is some question about what design improvements can be made in the downtown area and especially along Michigan and Washington Avenues that make those lights special. Ms. Bruch stated that this makes a historic area, like this one, have some continuity to it. Mr. Rieske stated that what the City has done in the past was to have the same street light all over the areas wherever residents have asked for them (i.e. South Washington, ReoTown). These areas are not as focused as the downtown area should be. He is involved with a design committee that has been dealing with the question about if the City is placing these lights wherever residents want them, what does the City actually do to make the downtown area special that would make the Capital Loop special? What does the City have on the Capital Loop that makes it recognizable once an individual is on the loop and has seen it. He stated that currently there is a problem, in his opinion, of ubiquity of these lights in various places which delutes the specialness of them. What the City needs to do is develop a series of alternatives that are compatible with but not the same as what the City is doing along Michigan Avenue in the 100 percent corners of the City of Lansing. Ms. Bruch stated that she agreed with Mr. Rieske with each neighborhood having its own character. Mr. Hollister stated that he does not necessarily need an answer tonight and inquired about this being something that the Board should look into it. Mr. Rieske stated that he does not know the answer and the way the City is currently structured, this is dealt with more at the project level by the sponsors of the projects. The City is looking seriously as part of the CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow) project downtown where it was extended from a 2 year project to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 11 basically a 16 year project, and is looking at what improvements should be made, since the street is already torn up, concurrently with this that would be able to be installed efficiently. Lighting improvements is one of them. What has been recommended by the design team is that the downtown area be special somehow. There are variations upon the same theme of the double globe historic light. Some of the lights have caps on them and are opaque at the top and others do not. Some have brass bands and others do not. Ms. Bruch stated that this is what the Board needs to start doing is to cap the lights so that there is no extra lighting. Mr. Rieske stated that this is something that has not been addressed in the past. Board of Water and Light is in charge of this even though it has been on the design team, a representative is not always present at the meetings. Ms. Bruch asked if either the Urban Development Committee or the Board should start looking into design details as well. Mr. Hollister asked if this should be a part of the Master Plan is that the City as some sort of theme or if there was a template of this is what the City should look like. Ms. Bruch stated that she did not think that the Board would want a theme for everyone but that the Board may want to say that every neighborhood is allowed to design what the details would be like and when the designed is finished just for a quick review to make sure that it is not something that would be an eye sore. Mr. Hollister stated that he has seen some of the proposals and some were cool. He asked if the City has some oversight. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board can discuss it and decide whether it is really the Board's place or not. The Board may want to be able to give a little input. Ms. Cordill recommended eliminating the overhead lamp on the pole. Mr. Rieske stated that this was part of the design team's recommendations particularly for the downtown area. Ms. Bruch stated to bring every thing down to people scale (i.e. extra little banners, adding the awnings, add a few benches along the way). She is aware of City's consideration with the homeless so that the individuals do not sleep on the benches. Ms. Bruch stated that regular benches would be really nice everywhere. Mr. Frederick stated that what the Board is talking about is things that make the City more attractive and that currently there is a lot of controversy about rental units. He does not agree with the philosophy of limiting rentals but he believes a more effective way of limiting rentals would be to study what can be done in the City to make it more attractive to single homeowners. He stated that this is the direction the City should be pursuing and that is what the Board discussed (i.e. walkable communities, nice looking street lighting). He stated that somehow the Board needs to get the City to look at this as an overall goal of making the City more attractive. He is not sure if the Board can discuss this matter, or if the Board has the authority to do it, or if the Board can make suggestions for someone to do it. Ms. Bruch stated that she believes that the Board does have the authority if the Board is supposed to do the Master Plan because this is part of the master planning and guidelines for development. When a site plan is presented to the Planning Office, the site guidelines are reviewed to make sure that some of these walkable issues have been addressed. Mr. Frederick stated that he is talking about something even more proactive than this, like improvements that can be made immediately to make the City attractive and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 12 more desirable to live. He does not believe that the City has this, and that red tagging houses is a start but attacks the problem far too late. This attacks the problem when the houses are already decrepit. This can go on forever and nothing gets done with the house. He stated that the City needs to suggest ways to prevent these homes from becoming decrepit in the first place. He stated that the City does have the authority to step in on these houses a lot sooner including houses owned by landlords or residentially owned, and make sure these homes stay improved. He stated this is one place where the Board can encourage improvements. Ms. Bruch requested an excused absence from the December 7t" meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Bruch for the December 7t" meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick requested an excused absence from the December 7t" meeting. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to ap�rove an excused absence request from Mr. Frederick for the December 7t meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick stated that a few weeks ago the County Commission entertained, if not approved, a resolution to keep cul-de-sacs from being built in any new developments going into the County because they are too hard to plow. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the County cannot tell the City not to have cul-de-sacs. Ms. Bruch stated that this was good in a sense because grid streets are better. Mr. Frederick stated that with walkable communities and a park-like atmosphere, the County should not ban cul-de-sacs outright. He is not sure if the City can make any comments on this resolution. Mr. Rieske stated that Meridian Township is inclined to agree. Ms. Bruch stated that the cul-de-sacs when taken too far become the design of the 1970s where everything is cul-de-sac and then everything gets dumped into one major road. This is the part that if it is tied to other grid streets it would be fine. Otherwise, when everything is a cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac, everything dumps to one major road and then it becomes collectors and sprawl. Every once in a while a cul-de-sac is needed depending on the shape of the piece of property. Mr. Frederick clarified cul-de- sacs should not be banned outright but intelligent cul-de-sac planning should be considered in some cases. Ms. Cordill stated that to the home owners the most appealing attractive lot in a new subdivision is at the end of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Bruch stated that this is fine if the City will give pedestrian access to the other side so that the individual does not have to go all the way around the block and connect to other neighborhoods. Mr. Frederick stated that maybe the County Commissioner is listening to the City. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Keene inquired about an ordinance being passed regarding the garages being closer to the street than the homes. Ms. Stachowiak stated the ordinance has not been forwarded and that it is still pending with either the Zoning and Ordinance Committee or the Board. Mr. Frederick stated that it had stopped with the Board. Ms. Bruch asked it could be placed back on the agenda. Ms. Bruch inquired about other pending items. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Front Yard Setbacks ordinance is pending at the Law Office, and that the Parking Lot Landscaping ordinance is pending with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. Bruch asked if these pending items could be added to the agendas. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she made a list of all the amendments that are in the process and that there are approximately 6 or 7 of them. Mr. Ruge inquired about Mr. McConnell's absences. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office has not heard from him. Mr. Ruge asked if the Planning Office could send him a letter or give him a phone call. Ms. Keene inquired about the rule for absences. Mr. Frederick stated that technically the member is no longer eligible to continue with membership. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board has to vote on the matter. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Ruff did say that he would talk with Mr. McConnell and she is not sure if it has happened. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that there may be more possible rentals: 2740, 3013 & 3030 Stoneleigh Drive, 3525 Ruth Avenue and 2411 Windbreak Lane. He stated that these addresses are offered for rentals. Mr. Frederick stated that with the railroad tracks on Cavanaugh Road, between Aurelius Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, the northeast side of the tracks is now becoming a garbage dump. He stated that there is an old couch there and that it is not close enough to the creek to be used by the fishermen. Mr. Frederick stated that on both Leo's Lodges there are signs on the roof (i.e. giant inflated beer bottles) that are clearly illegal. He stated that you cannot miss them. One lodge is located on Pennsylvania Avenue and the other is located on Jolly Road. Ms. Bruch stated that when someone passes Lake Lansing Road going towards the Eastwood Mall, there is a traffic light without a lane line on the road for people to stop. She stated that people have been missing the light and she has seen too many vehicles run through this intersection. She believes the drivers are not seeing the light and there is no lane line to indicate it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this area is in the Township. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2004 Page 14 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned ut Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, ecretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.111604.doc Approved as written 12-7-04 Draft to Clerk November 12, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 To Clerk December 10,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Wednesday, November 3, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Witherspoon. C. Excused absences: Keene, Czekai, Hollister. 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 hearing and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA — None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-7-2004, 6070 S. MLK Blvd., Church in the "F" Commercial District This is a request by Mount Hope Church, for a Special Land Use permit to utilize Suite G of the plaza at 6070 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. for church services and related activities. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which permits churches with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview and stated that a full report, with a recommendation would be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch referred SLU-7-2004 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on November 10, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 3, 2004 Page 2 B. Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS), 2005-2010, Needs Hearing Ms. Rosemary Taylor, Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC), 811 Bon Air Road, thanked the Board for their assistance in the past. LISC is an affordable housing organization that helps low to moderate income residents. LISK has received $1.75 million and has loaned over $3 million since 1991. LISC assists several community organizations: Lansing Housing Commission, Ferris Development, Old Town Commercial Association, Reo Town Main Street, Habitat for Humanity, Northwest Healthy Communities Initiative, Lansing Eastside Community Development Corporation, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, Lansing Community Microenterprise Fund and Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation. She stated that this is a valuable program for the community and that it depends on continued support in order to further its goals. Ms. Cheryl Risner, Director of Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC) located at 500 W. Lenawee, stated that the LNC has served neighborhood organizations throughout the City for many years. There are over 76 neighborhood organizations/watches currently in the City and new organizations are being formed. She stated that the LNC also sponsors the Neighborhoods in Bloom programs, seminars and the Bea Christy Award banquet. She asked for the Board's continued support. Ms. Jean Lodge, Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (FSCHC) located at 1210 N. Turner, stated that the FSCHC renovates housing in north Lansing for single family use and offers services for asset building, home buying, money management and credit repair. She stated that the FSCHC appreciates the Board's past and future support. Ms. Priscilla Holmes, Coordinator for ReoTown Main Street located at 1027 S. Washington, stated that ReoTown requests $20,000 for a matching grant to obtain an Americorp worker, audit, etc. She stated that ReoTown has set aside money for a streetscape plan that is coming along very nicely and that the funds are needed to extend historic streetlights from Baker Street to Mt. Hope Ave. She explained the recent developments in ReoTown and thanked the Board for its support of ReoTown. Mr. John Taylor, Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN) located at 106 S. Washington, stated that the GLHRN is working to prevent homelessness, build life skills and provide more housing in the Lansing area for the homeless. The GLHRN is dedicated to preventing homelessness and there are 27 agencies involved in the network, including the City of Lansing. He highlighted some of the outstanding activities undertaken by the Network and stated that the organizations appreciate the emergency shelter grant funding from the City. He asked the Board for its continued support for the program. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 3, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Susan Kancrow, Co-Chair of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN), stated that the Board's continued support of its programs is necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of preventing homelessness in the Lansing area. She stated that the homeless providers are grateful for the support from the City and look forward to its continued support. Mr. Donald Leaf, Director of Loaves and Fishes located at 831 N. Sycamore, stated that Loaves and Fishes is part of the GLHRN and that the funds are primarily used to buy food for the shelter, purchase personal items for the residents and pay for the utilities. Loaves and Fishes provides a safe and warm place for the homeless. He thanked the City for their past support and looks forward to continued support. Ms. Susan Schoultz, EVE, stated that EVE is also a part of the GLHRN. She stated that the council against domestic assault provides shelter and services to victims of domestic assault. The agency helped 467 people last year. Mr. Mark Criss, Executive Director of the City Rescue Mission located at 607 E. Michigan Ave., stated that the City Rescue Mission does not currently receive any CDBG funds. The shelter offers food, clothing and shelter to the homeless and helps approximately 30 men and 30 to 35 women and children on any given night. Mr. Charles Bicy, New Jerusalem Church (NJC) located at 3607 Inverary Drive, stated that the NJC would like to create a community center to help young people and families get off drugs and get their lives back on track. The program is referred to as REACT (reaching every adult and child in trouble). He thanks the Board for their anticipated support. Ms. Meredith Krause, Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA) located at 1232 Turner Street, stated that OTCA has been around for seven years and is a Main Street Program. There are only a few of these programs in Michigan. She stated that there has been a decrease in crime since the buildings in Old Town have been renovated and occupied. She thanked the Board for its past support and requested its future support as well. Ms. Anne Smiley, Northwest Lansing Healthy Communities Initiative (NWLHCI) located at 423 W. Grand River Ave., stated that a vast majority of the residents in the target area are low to moderate income and are CDBG eligible. The NWLHNI uses economic development buyer based homeowner strategies and promotes lane restrictions, bike lanes, streetscape improvements, business development, etc. to transform this part of the community. She stated that there are several agencies involved in this initiative and she asked for the Board's support. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 3, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Rick Kibbey, Executive Director of the Lansing Eastside Community Development Corporation (LECDC) located at 1609 E. Kalamazoo Street, stated that the primary problems affecting the east side are lack of home ownership and a struggling E. Michigan business district. He asked for the Board's support in trying to solve these problems. He briefly discussed the fagade improvements along East Michigan Avenue and the new businesses in the area. He also expressed the LECDC's interest in becoming a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) in the Lansing area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing and referred the Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission (CSPS), 2005-2010, Needs Hearing to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on November 30, 2004 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION — None. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that there are no street signs at the intersection of Aurelius and Miller Roads. Ms. Cordill stated that there is a house for rent at the intersection of Kipling Blvd. and Vine Street, and she questioned whether or not it was a registered rental. Mr. Ruge stated that there is no landscaping at 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. as required by the approved special land use permit. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 3, 2004 Page 5 There was a general discussion regarding re-inspection fees and student rentals. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.110304.doc