HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 Planning Board minutes FINAL part 2 Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B . Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II. HEARINGS - None.
III. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Joint Meeting of Planning Board and Public Service Board for the
purpose of receiving public input concerning replacement by the Board
of Water and Light of existing street lights along two stretches of public
right-of-way, Washington Mall and East Michigan Avenue.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
V. RECESS
VI. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: May 17, 1994
B . Committee Reports:
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless Shelter (Tabled but expect action)
b. SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S. Pennsylvania Avenue,
Spartan Toyota, Allow "J" Parking for Display of New and
Used Vehicles
C. LS-4-94, Lot Split, 1539-1543 Ohio Ave.
d. P-1-94, New Horizon Subdivision, Final Preliminary Plat
e. Z-8-94, SW Corner S. Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District
f. Next meeting Wednesday, July 13, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Office Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Act-3-94, East Side 4900 Blk. of Tranter St. , Drain
Easement Reduction
b. Act-5-94, River St. Vacation
C. Next meeting Tuesday, July 12, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Off. Conf.. Rm. , Second Floor, Washington Sq. Annex
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JUNE 21 1994 PAGE 2
3. Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
c. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held)
d. SLU-9-94, Radford Road, Reachout Christian Center,
Construct New Church
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
A. Members' Vacation Schedules
X. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H. CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-
4088 TDD.
C:\PIP\DATA\PLANBD\5-051794.AG
SLU-7-94
831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave.
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Loaves & Fishes, Inc .
831 N. Sycamore. Ave.
Lansing, MI 48906
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Emergency/Transitional Shelter for
the homeless
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: No Change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 831 : Pie shaped = 8,749
835 : 49 .5 X 138 = 6,831
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: One - Two Family Residential
S: One - Two Family Residential
E: One - Two Family Residential
W: One - Two Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential
S: "C" Residential
E: "C" Residential
W: "C" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as moderate
density, residential units ( 6-20
units per acre.
CASE HISTORY: The property at 831 N. Sycamore
received a special land use permit
in 1982 . On April 12, 1982 , Lansing
City Council adopted SUP-8-81 for
the operation of a shelter home to
house a maximum of six temporarily
homeless persons and two staff
persons .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 - SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting the
expansion of Loaves and Fishes, a
homeless/emergency shelter for 15
persons located on property at 831
The request is to expand to the
property located at 835 N. Sycamore.
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Ameritech: There are no objections to this
proposal .
Trans . Engr. : A detailed and updated site plan
should be submitted for division
review prior to approval of the SLU.
The review is required to verify
parking layout decisions discussed
previously with the Loaves and
Fishes representative.
Assessor: No comments .
Building: The facility as proposed would be
classified as a congregate
residence. The Building Code
defines a congregate residence as a
building which contain facilities
for eating and cooking for occupancy
other than a family. A congregate
residence may be a shelter,
convent, dormitory or sorority
house. The building shall comply
the requirements for a Group R
Division 1 occupancy. Plans should
be submitted to the Building Office
for review and approval . Typical
code requirements may include, but
not limited to: barrier free access
to building and barrier free toilet
facilities, emergency egress
requirements, light and ventilation,
smoke detection and basement
separation
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 - SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
ANALYSIS
Evaluation
Section 1282 . 03 ( f) ( 1) -( 9) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The
criteria and evaluation are as follows .
1 . Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
The subject site is surrounded by residential uses on the
north, east, south and west. The proposed use is to join the
existing residential structure at 831 N. Sycamore, a homeless
emergency overnight shelter with 835 N. Sycamore, house just
north of the existing facility. The existing facility has a
need to expand their current location to accommodate an
additional 6 people for longer stays in a transitional living
situation. Loaves and Fishes, a homeless shelter has been
operating since 1982 at this same location. The attached site
plan illustrates the proposed connection of the two houses, a
combination corridor and dinning room. The proposed exterior
connection is being proposed to fit within the residential
gharacteristics of the neighborhood.
2 . Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The existing property is being proposed to be connected
to the property just north of the existing facility. The
petitioner is proposing to improve the essential
characteristics of the area. The appearance of 835 N.
Sycamore should be an improvement to the area, the petitioner
is proposing to modify this home to fit the residential
characteristics of the neighborhood similar to what was done
with the existing facility.
3 . Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent
Properties
There should be no interference with the general
enjoyment of adjacent properties, since Loaves and Fishes,
have been neighbors for the past twelve years . They are
looking to expand their facility to the adjacent property
to the north for a transitional homeless shelter.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 - SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
4 . Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
The existing facility at 831 N. Sycamore has been in the
neighborhood for several years . The exterior of the structure
is maintained very well . There are no foreseeable problems
with the proposed expansion being maintained. However, one of
the concerns is the parking on the property. The petitioner
would like to expand the current parking spaces . Ingress and
Egress to the property would need to be improved. Michigan
Department of Transportation prefers not to have another curb
cut off of Oakland Ave. Staff is proposing that due to the
nature of the slope pattern, if the elevation of the slope
were changed by removing the box elder trees and regrading the
area adjacent to the alley, additional parking would be
obtained; retaining and maintaining some of the landscaping
(i .e. lilac bushes ) would provide a buffering along Oakland
Ave. The elimination of the garage can provide additional
open space.
5 . Environmental Impacts
There are no negative environmental impacts anticipated.
6 . Impact on Public Services
There are no anticipated additional impacts on public service.
Previously, the house at 835 N. Sycamore was operating in a
residential capacity and will basically continue to operate in
that manner. The only difference is the physical connection
of the two houses .
7 . Impact on Utilities
The house at 835 N. Sycamore was operating in a residential
capacity and will basically continue to operate in that manner
with the connection of the houses . Therefore, there should be
no impacts on utilities .
8 . Compliance with the Master Plan
The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as residential use for moderate density units ( 6-20)
units per acre. Residential care facilities are permitted by
special land use permit in the "C" residential zoned district.
According to the Building Code, the facility is classified as
a congregate residence and certain code requirements will be
necessary when the special land use is approved. The
requirements are included but not limited to: barrier free
access, toilet facilities, emergency egress requirements ,
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 - SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
light and ventilation, smoke detection and basement
separation.
9 . Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
The special land use request is in compliance with zoning
district regulations . Residential care facilities are
permitted in the "C" residential district subject to a special
land use.
Section 1250 . 04 ( f) ( 1) -(2 ) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a residential care facility. The criteria
and evaluation are as follows .
1 . A minimum lot area of not less than 1, 000 square feet per
resident
The property at 835 N. Sycamore is 6 ,831 square feet and is
proposed to housed six additional homeless persons, 1, 138 . 5
square feet per resident. The combination of both facilities
is 15,580 . 195 square feet with a maximum of 15 homeless
persons, 1,039 square feet per resident. Therefore, the
proposed special land use meets the lot area requirement of
1,000 square feet per resident for a residential care facility
The lot area is sufficient for the 15 guests .
�. Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a
sponsoring agency
The petitioner is proposing to have at least two (2) staff
and/or volunteers to supervise guests during the operational
hours of 6 : 00 p.m. to 10 : 00 a.m. The transitional shelter at
835 N. Sycamore will be operational 24 hours a day.
SUMMARY
The proposed special land use is in compliance with adjacent
land uses .
The proposed special land use will not cause an essential
change in the character of the area.
The proposed special land use should not interfere with the
general enjoyment of the area.
The proposed special land use would not have a negative impact
on improvements to surrounding uses .
The proposed special land use will have no negative impacts on
the environment.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 - SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore
Loaves & Fishes - Homeless Shelter
The proposed special land use should not require any
additional public services .
The proposed special land use should not require any
additional utilities .
The proposed special land use is in compliance with the River
Island Area Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed special land use is compliance with the zoning
districts . Residential care facilities are permitted in the
"C" residential district subject to a special land use.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis, staff recommends approval of SLU-7-
94 , a request by Loaves and Fishes for an expansion of the
residential care facility with the following conditions :
• The exterior structure connecting the two houses shall be
designed to maintain the residential characteristics of
the neighborhood
• The property improvements shall retain and maintain some
of the landscaping (i .e.lilac bushes) and provide
screening and buffering along Oakland Ave.
• The elevation of the slope adjacent to the alley be
changed by removing the box elder trees and partially
regrading the area adjacent to the alley, to obtain
additional parking in the rear as shown on the attached
plan if practical .
• Eliminate the garage which will provide additional open
space and contribute to the aesthetics as proposed in the
plan.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\s1u794.fe
SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave
SLU-10-94
5609, 5701 & 5709 S . Pennsylvania Ave.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Spartan Toyota, Inc .
5701 S . Pennsylvania
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Lessee
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use
EXISTING LAND USE : Commercial (Car Dealership)
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial and "J"
Parking along 69 . 75 ' deep strip of
frontage along Pennsylvania.
PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 400 ' deep X 470 ' long; (4 . 3 acres)
Rectangular in shape
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial
S: Commercial
E: Commercial
W: Commercial, Office, & Warehouse
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial &
"J" Parking
S : "H" Light Industrial &
"J" Parking
E: "H" Light Industrial
W: "G-2" Wholesale &
"J" Parking
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates land along Pennsylvania
as commercial land use
CASE HISTORY: 5701 S . Pennsylvania has existed as
an auto dealership since 1979 .
5709 has existed as an auto
dealership since 1992 on the same
property as 5701 .
5609 has recently been acquired and
will be the location of Spartan
Mitsubishi .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , SLU-10-94
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The Special Use Permit request is
for the use of the "J" Parking
District for the display of new and
used vehicles for sale. The
property at 5609 S . Pennsylvania is
being converted into an auto
dealership as an expansion of the
existing auto dealership at 5701 and
5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue. The
remainder of these properties is
zoned "H" Light Industrial District,
which allows the existing and
proposed use.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
BWL: The BWL has no objections or
concerns regarding the request for
SLU at the above addresses .
Fire Marshall : No comment.
MDOT: Since this property does not abut a
state trunkline, MDOT has not
comment on the proposal.
AMERITECH: Ameritech has no objection to this
proposal .
Trans . Engr. : No comments or requirements .
Assessor: No comments .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3, SLU-10-94
ANALYSIS
The Special Use Permit request is for the use of the "J"
Parking District for the display of new and used vehicles for
sale. The property at 5609 S . Pennsylvania is being converted
into an auto dealership as an expansion of the existing auto
dealership at 5701 and 5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue. The
remainder of these properties is zoned "H" Light Industrial
District, which allows the existing and proposed use.
Evaluation
Section 1282 . 03 ( f) ( 1) -( 9 ) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The
criteria and evaluation are as follows .
1 . Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
Land use surrounding the subject site consists of a
variety of commercial developments . The layout of
development along Pennsylvania tends to have a more
expansive feel to it as a result of a wide right-of-way,
combined with a "buffer strip" of "J" Parking District
and parking lots placed in front of buildings .
2 . Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The display of new and used vehicles along Pennsylvania
was also requested and approved for the Capital Cadillac
dealership further to the south at 5901 S . Pennsylvania.
The ability to .display new and used vehicles in an area
previously intended for customer parking will not change
the overall commercial character of the surrounding area
in that case and should not change the character in this
case.
3 . Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent
Properties
The sale of new and used vehicles closer to Pennsylvania
should not adversely impact the general enjoyment of
adjacent properties .
4 . Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
The proposed special land use would represent a positive
change.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4, SLU-10-94
5 . Environmental Impacts
The display of new and used vehicles closer to
Pennsylvania will not adversely impact the surrounding
land uses . Banners and pennants that are strung along
Keystone Drive and elsewhere throughout the site are a
prohibited form of signage and must be removed.
6 . Impact on Public Services
No additional public services are required for this
special land use permit.
7 . Impact on Utilities
No additional public services are required for this
special land use permit.
8 . Compliance with the Master Plan
Section 1278 . 04 (C) allows the sale of new and used
vehicles from property zoned "J" Parking District if a
special land use is granted according to the four
conditions :
(a) The parking area shall be covered with portland
cement or asphaltic concrete.
(b) Each point of vehicular ingress and egress to the
lot shall be not less than 60 feet from the
intersection of any two streets .
(c) Any repair or refinishing which is done on the lot
shall be done within the confines of an enclosed
structure.
(4 ) Lighting shall be directed away from any adjacent
residential district.
The expansion is being proposed with .new asphalt paving.
The ingress and egress points to and from the lot are
more than 60 ' from Pennsylvania and from Jackson Drive.
The surrounding land uses consist of commercial and
office development; therefore, lighting would not
directly impact any adjacent residential neighborhoods .
9 . Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
Since a structure is not being proposed for construction,
building setback and height requirements do not apply.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 , SLU-10-94
SUMMARY
Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it
meets all of the nine principles required. Staff recommends
approval of the special land use.
The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character
of adjacent property and surrounding uses .
The proposed special land use will not change the essential
character of the surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the
general enjoyment of adjacent properties .
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to
adjacent properties .
The proposed special land use will not place any demands on
public services and facilities in excess of current
capacities .
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of
the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive
plan.
The proposed special land use does not require any type of
construction, building setback, and height requirements .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the special land use as requested be
approved.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\e1u1094.fe
ep
66
/M 7Yti YUtN.SL Mi, I
iw
l , I
1 I O1 ilal_xO]'Oli
I
� V2L®W�41V14V VJUOI C/141 a7 dNV W1�Ju� i' I, � � �I -..- II
� I [S1xTOu rlo�+uo-aLn !
I 1 •��— ` I I I anLLLco�tool •-•..✓H,-1
I
.SLN (V>JU)31:6 M NS,
' I ,7RKN,l.-narXe
Nam SMI'M'CI DAL 61
! LN.dllADt a
�T cyalill.Nv,inMoD.-z
/M n1 YU1NALMt1 �J 3�f dd/Y No11C
v r�unui�xni I I '�c 21
— — -- a
- vul—�• way_ .aroo9 v I 1 I �b+ii j._"I_ I 1 I I ! I I in+'a_:I I t
lvMixxa��iu,:
.SLI 12A LJI VDOIYXwu-•9
a IY07LMVJ"";Y„L/IZ 1 .�.:.� ` ��—•� 3 O �I !1�
Y 'KRi-IM-PY.M-1�'iIS M71 ivOL 'f'Aa LLJ �..,Irw
xv M 1 (NTiV -7No)MTi 11f14N ♦ ` L!—
R11 /OliS vY asvalLf9 'hila K¢10LVn
aLfL mom ROHS o11U U V / YPl'YAa Nona I M..W/M 7 lia 1
UV
yy �11 1nKV'Y.R / 11 tf}atl 1_g, I /
.V,I a3swoud hl �j�� ///''' ab»SZ31
'O7KRa ti YW
-Z OM il�ZtliKMllws7YUD1
_ `ONtOIMDSL 'i171 i7 O/MG'C!.»K-,�I `t IflWa olm6Tl7 a
XLi
rya .SZI / 1 i]SSM ros77Uul O1(M'M a7)l/ i I ��,*.
.OI\ — — I I IH t .}_ MOt�.-L IM SrLU wTn N.6L Nir 1*--I! r
— Tom'— — — — — --I1 -`- `I�/J 1S�V.V�LLa H l�' Jl
7..oalsoaeN na aa� i rz boZ — — — Lam.. -•— -—--— .._, ! i,
- � � - --- •-~ .00 QOs v - - 71lM 7nKN p�f3.T � I �l1YM Tt'J)151Ai
— --
_......_--.-.
NORTH
SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania
Spartan Toyota - New & Used Car Sales Lot
�60 .
859.8
-Ti
26
850
863.
86 .4 s
P KI
WALLS
86 .7
>. 87 .4 1
853.0
s }-- 853.5
0.
861.3 �
2.B
R K[NG
I
64.4
861.0 862.3 kE Y 9'f o N
LS-4-94
1539 & 1545 Ohio Avenue.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Kenneth Kruger
1539 Ohio Avenue
Lansing, MI
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Lot split of three ( 3) feet off the
property at 1545 Ohio Avenue for the
driveway at 1539 Ohio Avenue.
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: No Change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 1539 Ohio Ave.
Existing 33 X 127 = 4, 191
Proposed 36 X 127 = 4,572
1545 Ohio Ave.
Existing 49 X 127 = 6 ,223
Proposed 46 X 127 = 5, 842
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential
S: Single Family Residential
E : Single Family Residential
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "B" Residential
S: "B" Residential
E: "B" Residential
W: "B" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North East Area Comprehensive
Plan designates this area as low
density residential ( 0-7 dwelling
units per acre.
CASE HISTORY:
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 - LS-4-94, 1539 & 1545 Ohio Ave.
Lot Split
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting a lot
split of three ( 3 ) feet off the
property at 1545 Ohio Avenue for the
driveway at 1539 Ohio Avenue. The
driveway at 1539 Ohio extends two
(2 ) feet onto the adjacent property.
ANALYSIS
IMPACTS
The proposed lot split will have no adverse impacts on
surrounding uses .
The proposed lot split will have no adverse impacts on
vehicular or pedestrian uses
The proposed lot split has no negative impacts on the
environment.
The proposed lot split will not cause an essential change in
the character of the area.
The proposed lot split is in compliance with the North East
Area Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis, staff believes this to be a
reasonable request and recommends the approval of the lot
split for three (3) feet off the property at 1545 Ohio Avenue
for the driveway at 1539 Ohio Avenue.
c:\wp\data\planbd\1s494.fe
C� P/ To! /-/I/G fl i
—r--�
3 3
Lof 123 Lofz� �
Pi-o n ,3� Fro m
Lof zz�
ivr•ayG
I
I
� I � I drive
20 x 41 I S
'1
�1535
W
OHIO
II
NORTH
LS-4-94 , 1539-1545 Ohio Ave .
� � I "F17�
Lot Split
18 F2.5 Q7
/eW>8 20 � 26 908 2/
I 23
T20 SOVTf1 3 " z-�
ROO 7b
NORTH 89D.4 �� ,�Gr7��y ,r,,V -/Sr/N6
/7 25 /9
a I al
I /4
1 I
22 1 \ 19 -
!8 /9 �T I W
i O ED
Q 2
ED � 20 E2T /7 c
/ W
t , >L72 CID 26
❑ I
El !6
29
/� I El 23 22
20 /9
I �
I,
GD
26 20 24
O 7 28 I /7
_ I
2/ C) 2U /3
�� 892.j 29 89/.
z B8 .9
J
29 J j '9 /9
883.9 OAK 884.3 ST
2 /2 / 25 2' j2 27
23
EE� LEI �/ ❑.. 22 /8
C3 I 22
i �� I n 22 n , /7
P-1-94
New Horizons Subdivision
Final Preliminary Plat Approval
FOH 6700 Blk.Aurelius Rd.,S.of Dell Rd.; N.of Willoughby Rd.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Richard W. Remsing, 756 N. Edgar St. ,
Mason, MI 48854 and Dave Bowker, 6350
Timberland Dr. , Dimondale, MI 48821;
Surveyor: Stevens-Kyes & Associates ,
Inc. , 1401 East Lansing Drive, Suite 112 ,
East Lansing, MI 48823
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner-developers
REQUESTED ACTION: Final Preliminary Plat Approval
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: "A" Residential District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 542 , x 6331 ; 7 . 2 acres;
rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Single Family
S : Single Family
E: Single Family
W: Single Family
SURROUNDING ZONING: N' "A" Residential District
S : "A" Residential District;
E: Delhi Township
W: "A" Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan: Low
Density -Residential 0-7 DU/acre
Developer' s Proposal :
This is a request by Richard Remsing and Dave Bowker for final
preliminary plat approval of a proposed subdivision to be known as
New Horizon. This plat, containing approximately 7 . 2 acres, is
located off 6700 Block of Aurelius Road, South of Dell Road; North
of Willoughby Road. The plat contains thirty-six (36) lots for
single family residential development. The property is zoned "A"
Residential District and permits the development of single family
homes . The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan recommends single
family development in this area. Agency responses have been
received. There are no problems anticipated.
PLANNING BOARD P-1-94, New Horizons Subdivision PAGE 2
Review and Analysis :
The final preliminary plat as submitted appears to be in
substantial conformance with the tentative preliminary plat
approved by the Planning Board on February 15 , 1994 . The tentative
preliminary plat of New Horizon Subdivision was revised to include
the following: Street naming patterns have been improved, Seka
Drive changed to N. Remsing. Houses for lots 17 and 18 houses will
face the north in order to avoid a front yard setback along Unity
Lane and Lot 18 will not access Unity Lane. The parcel at 6700
Aurelius Road has been included with the proposed subdivision.
There is a street connection provided to the abutting subdivision,
South Pines, south of the proposed subdivision and Lots 22 , 23 and
36 driveways will not access Aurelius Road.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of staff that the final preliminary plat
of New Horizon subdivision be approved, subject to the following
conditions :
1 . That all public improvements as required by the Lansing
Subdivision Regulations and the Michigan Subdivision
Control Act; be adhered to;
2 . That all lots be graded so surface water will drain
therefrom so as not to adversely affect adjacent
properties;
3 . That the developer utilizes an underground electrical
distribution system as specified in Section 1238 . 08 of
the Lansing Subdivision Regulation of the Zoning Code;
4 . That the necessary easements be provided for the
installation of utilities;
5 . That the requirements of all responding agencies be
compiled with;
6 . That the final preliminary plat approval is effective for
a period of two years (2 ) years;
7 . That restrictions be placed on the face of the Plat
prohibiting access from Lots 22 , 23, and 36 to Aurelius ;
8 . That Lot 18 is recognized as a conforming corner lot with
a width of 60 feet instead of the standard required
70-foot lot.
c: \wp\data\planbd\pl94fppa
�9.�M;WAIAlT R/Q�1T a
Maven,T IvnV,sT ta.Ol V[al PRL1AwMT PUl Or
° NEW HORIZON
vA a MaH.M Al IOTRM61 m.a
Nc.o ro r.wsan sxax. vArr 1A,-1
"� .MLsB20OF:: ��� s SUBDIVISION
aE^oxEc r.N LIBEF 2D w Puts.
PALE 2, I NGHAM COLW, RE DF S. F
I i A SUBDIVISION ON PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
' ' I SECTION 70, T3N, R2W, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
I I ,4 1 5
, I I
1- claw ,
---- ---- ---- /
�7-- T. .ji
suc r-e
_ I I
B 7 g "�
a - 3 2
auHAAm E so-"
Alm
0 K cl�
10 / OR1VE , IW{ lusal M. AA&U
Is ----1�sHon ° , I PHONE.'(517)976-7712
20 ---- -R7k1i7 ----
11 \ I I 30 h --- --- - , I 1`le 1. S16.[LT DE1(LOPMENT COWTAMS 7-2 AC1iS OF LAND,MORE OR LESS
k By I 32 I i ik i L alcccT T E%UJOP nn a IOED'A
DEKLOPUENT RCMOMAL
33 a � �'- T��34 35 35 EACH rL e gRVEO R"LKS rtR STORM SEVERS
O(URIC.Am
I�_ g APO
SUBJECT DEVELOPMENTCOITAPM]!!IQ[MILT LZM
I� j o I I 1 1 L LOTS 32 2]MO M DPVVE ATS SHALL NOT ACQSS N1RlA RWa
12 I I , 1 4 7. LOT 16 DRrA'UT 11ALL HOT ACCESS L"TY LAZE
1
0
iHnl
® �� 151 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
$ - r--- 112 R.0.1I - 30' ---I
EY , 17 I} i 211 Zn 27 26 B 25 _ 2+ �] I>s ROADWAY-31'BACK OF CL*W M BAOc OF CLm
y�yy! 14 Ik r
fea REMSING DRIVE
---� - "¢•--------E--60•MDE- ---iInn-
7
It sot111 1e 10 _ 20 - 21 22wrT� i Iq Ig I
TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF PREL"NART PUT 04/oe/w
I I I I 1
® i i i i i i l 1 i i I Ema SfEPFII P75-I(Y k ASSOCIATES, INC.
.ter.���.acoamts. surnTomNEW �,
HORIZON A REPLAT OFLOTS 15, 16 RAND 17
SLC.Ty10, DEINI TOWNSHIP,
' AND PART OF LOT 18, MAPLE GROVE SUB.,
PI}:ES '
m�T^Mot'_ RE.RDL.7 IN: UBER 39 OF P..::S, 0 SECTION 10 T3N R2M, CITY OF LANSI NG
AARAHS 1�U.L SURVET CORP.
C:,RSD:: STREr PA.,^ES :9 - 20
, RLAAN RECORDS.
wII a woHoaH.rwr i+H¢Hi two Vim•, Hx Hx r---- ri w H
D.
ND 60+,HETt 4.3-15 ••w•�a
RIp1ARn♦ PEN9V,'. t]t�^^CD.^.:
P-1-94 , NEW HORIZON SUB.
OFF 6700 BLK. AURELIUS RD. S. OF DELL RD.; N. OF WILLOUGHBY RD.
no
77,
1
� �
I -------------- -------
,U U--- 331
('copos«1 Ace a• o,
10
Ade-1166
. ► - � - .... - sLLbd tv '
139 11
• �1 0j1 1
00 ) ` —
W� 01—
o° ,
N—Leg{,1.�.n 1U:�fIC1I ,
a
r=;
19s e t ..\
I I
_ I I
I 1 I
I I
I •1• I I -I 0
d I 1
� d�
s[C lo. ocuIIl IW• — CN°1
U
Z-8-94
SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Avenue
"B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ronald T. Allen
2311 S . Cedar Street, Suite B
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy
REQUESTED ACTION: "B" Residential District to "D-1"
Professional Office District
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land
EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 88 . 75 ft. x 87 ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Commercial
S: Office
E: Residential
W: Office, Commercial and School
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial
S : "D-1" Professional Office
E: "B" Residential
W: "F" Commercial and "B"
Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Comprehensive Plan:
Residential, 8-14 du/acre
CASE HISTORY: Excess right-of-way from Cedar
Street widening
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL:
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Assessor: No Comments .
Trans . Engr. : Driveway modifications may be
required on Cedar and Pacific
frontages . Submit a detailed
site plan for review before
construction.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 Z-8-94
SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave.
Fire Marshal : No comment.
Continental Cable: This proposed zoning change
does not affect our area of
operation at this time.
BWL: BWL has no objections or
concerns regarding the rezoning
at the above address .
Consumers Power: Consumers Power Co. has no
facilities involved.
ANALYSIS
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
The proposal for a parking lot along S . Cedar Street would
generally be compatible with surrounding development, which
includes office and commercial development along S . Cedar
Street and single family residential development to the east .
The proposed use would be less intense than much of the
commercial development that currently exists along Cedar
Street. Landscape, screening and buffering that is required
along the parking lot ' s east property line would help to add
better definition between the low density residential
neighborhood to the east and the commercial strip along Cedar
Street. The present plan lacks space for a landscape buffer
with exception for fencing, yet the activity of the lot should
be so minimal that an appropriately designed fence could be
adequate.
COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN
The Southeast Comprehensive Plan indicates commercial
development along S . Cedar Street. Very few residential lots
exist along this commercial strip. The change from a
residential zoning district to an office district would be in
compliance with the plan.
IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
The proposed parking lot will accommodate eight vehicles .
Dr. Allen has stated that it will be used by the employees who
work at his office building. The fifteen-car parking lot to
the south of his office building will be used by
clients/customers who come to the office. Some concern has
been expressed by area residents about potential
pedestrian/vehicle conflict between the children who cross
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 Z-8-94
SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave.
S . Cedar Street via the skywalk from Maplewood Elementary
School and employees coming and going out of the proposed
parking lot. Concern was expressed that the safety of
elementary school children would be affected by the addition
of the parking lot. It was also said that these concerns
would be alleviated if the curb cut could be off of Cedar,
instead of Pacific Avenue. One of the comments at the public
hearing was that the proposed layout would have students
crossing the driveway in front of the parking lot, morning,
noon and afternoon, during the peak parking hours of parking
lot use. The proposed eight-car parking lot, however, would
be long-term parking for employees with little turnover,
compared to the fifteen-car client/customer parking lot on the
other side of the office building. Another curb cut along
S . Cedar Street at this location would add another point of
ingress/egress along this busy commercial street, adding
further confusion and points of conflict . Proper landscaping
along the west line of the parking lot may help to direct
children to the sidewalks, such that they will not be crossing
through the parking lot. Signage at the exiting point of the.
parking lot at Pacific Avenue should also help to avoid any
conflict between employees entering and exiting the proposed
parking lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
N•o negative environmental impact is anticipated as a result of
additional parking if properly graded and landscaped.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
No negative impacts on future patterns of development are
anticipated as a result of the requested office zoning
district and proposed parking lot.
SUMMARY
The requested office zoning district is a reasonable district
along this commercial strip. It is consistent with the
adjacent office zoning district to the south for the
professional office building, owned by Dr. Allen. A more
detailed review of the development will be covered through the
site plan review process to ensure proper grading and
landscaping of the property. Special attention should be
given to landscaping along the west line of the parking lot to
direct the school children onto the sidewalks along Cedar and
Pacific and not through the parking lot.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 Z-8-94
SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the rezoning of the lot at the southeast
corner of S . Cedar Street from "B" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office be approved.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\z894.fe
_ I
\ I I I
I � ,
-
al
/ADD R�itArE
GIT ADD f P.,
o
I
I ropased arLirx3 �ClSTn�C�
f C Car.5 )
- A)l
- - - - - , � - - - - —I _ —\\11 1 01-0" IFF-0- GIP-(�b51•�1c
1 � �
0 r..
lA
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 27081 Lansing, MI 48909 • (517) 663-6492
EXECUTIVE BOARD
President
Yolanda Bellingar
My Brothers Hair loss
484-5062 PLANNING DIVISION
President Elect -� T l_
Lisa Sykes I 19 4
Office Systems Corporation H N
393-3447
Past President June 3 , 1994 R E C E I V E D
Michael Holmes
Mike's M-9 Party Store
394-4218
Secretary Jim Ruff - Zoning Administrator
Janet Clark
Voluntary Action Center City of Lansing
699-2992 City Anex - 119 N . Washington
Treasurer 2 n d Floor
John Coy Lansing , MI 48933
Dart National Bank
694-5083
DIRECTORS
Dawn Beals Re : Dr . Allen ' s Parking Lot
McDonald's Restaurant
394-3250 Dear M r . Ruff :
Michael
9DeRose
34384 On behalf of the South Lansing Business
Clem Laurion Association , I would 1 i ke to state that we are in
Laurionlnsurance favor of Dr . Ron Allen having a parking lot built
337-6000 on the vacant space next to his Chiropractic
Art Lopes Business , located at 2311 S . Cedar Street in
Brothers Restaurant L a n s i n g .
Supply Center, Inc.
694-4040 We have been informed that Dr . Al 1 en is wi 11 i ng to
David Patterson place a fence on the property , between the skywaIk
JiffyLuhe, Inc. and his parking area , for the children ' s safety .
487-0200 We al so understand that the school children are
Joseph Polack home from school before Dr . Allen ' s employees go
Polack Corporation 393-3440 home from work .
Alfreda Schmidt We appreciate ate Our het in this matter .
374-8172 P Pre y P
James Schmidt $1 n C e e l y
Hyacinth House Greenery/
VanPeenen's
482-3456
j�
Delle Williams
On The Spot Engraving Y u l a n d a B e l l i n g a r
374-8634 President
May 25, 1994
RE : Z-8-94 , SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District
Telephone call from Ms . Kane, Principal, Maplewood Elementary
School , in opposition to Z-8-94 .
In support of Fred Doherty and Maplewood P.T.A.
We do not wish to have the parking lot near the skywalk where we
have students going every day. We have had one student killed
recently, and one student hit and crippled, and we are fearful of
children having to cross a parking lot entrance on Pacific and
having contact with moving vehicles as the students come to the
school in the morning, and as they go home for lunch and return to
school again. We have students from kindergarten to fifth grade
here . We do have student safeties but they do not deal with cars
passing in front of them. I understand the Doctor' s needs for
parking space, but we must have safe passage to and from the school
for our children. I am in strong opposition, and I speak on behalf
of the children. I understand what the doctor is trying to do, but
there is a need for me to express my opposition.
-'VXMAy-J, -DOd s _
r�
I
• I
I
I
CIL
- 4
NORTH -
7
7
Z-8-94 , SE COR. S . CEDAR & PACIFIC AVE.
"B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District
' WALL
22 '� U)
- 27 27 29 30
o
857.2
850.2 PACIFIC ' AVE
/ 14 �
r /tf
18 24
-
-- I
WALL- I
/ I I I
,s I
Vz.r� I
L
15
/: c� QP{2K1NC> 30 ?8 2q I 9 1
29 30 2p
PARKING 85/:5 PACIFIC d50.6 PKWY
1 I
J / \u —
. O 24 30 z9 30
852.1
I8 s2 851.7
Ej
2< Cr I 22 P9 2a 9 25 <E
�— aLIj I
o `
/q C) L
> 852.5
851.7 i TISDALE
23 El
.
852..E 15 26
SLU-9-94
Reachout Christian Center
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Reachout Christian Church
635 Armstrong Road
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use Permit for construction
of new church facilities . Construction
will be in two phases , Phase 1 will be
the initial church building and parking
lot; Phase 2 will be a larger sanctuary
building and additional parking space.
EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped residential subdivision site.
LOCATION: North of Miller Road and Radford Road,
west of Wise Road; east of Waverly Road.
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 16 . 045 acres, irregular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Consumers Power Company Easement
(vacant) and Residential
S : Residential
E : Harry Hill Vocational Center
W: Residential/vacant
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential
S : "A" Residential
E: "C" Residential
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive
Development Plan designates the general
vicinity of the church for low density
residential land uses and the Consumers
Power Company right-of-way as open space.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant is presently proposing to
develop church facilities in two phases
on the northern one-third of the 16-acre
site (see site plan, attached) . Phase I
is proposed as an 8 , 000 square foot
sanctuary building which will seat
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , SLU-9-94, Reachout Christian Center
Church
approximately 279 people; Phase II
proposes an additional 35,000 square feet
of building area for a larger sanctuary
and conversion of the initial sanctuary
into a gymnasium. The applicant has
indicated Phase II will developed within
five to ten years .
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Trans . Engr. : Access road for the church should be
aligned with the Hill Vocational drive on
the east side of Wise Road.
Public Service: Provisions for sewer hookup will be
necessary (verbal comments to planning
staff) .
Fire Marshall : No objections providing all fire and
building codes are complied with.
BWL: No objections . Water is available to
this development at BWL rates and in
accordance with water utility policy and
procedures .
City Attorney: The City Attorney' s office has reviewed
the access easement agreement and has no
objection based on this review.
AMERITECH: No objection.
Assessor: No comments .
ANALYSIS
Section 1282 . 03 ( f) ( 1) -( 9 ) sets forth the criteria which must be
used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria
and evaluation are as follows .
1 . Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
The adjacent properties are essentially residential, or vacant
residentially zoned property. The proposed church will not be
inherently incompatible with these adjacent land uses . There
are, however, potential side effects visually, and from
traffic and noise, that should be addressed in the design of
the church development in order to minimize their impacts .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3, SLU-9-94, Reachout Christian Center
Church
2 . Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The present character is of a developing residential area that
includes some large institutional land uses (water plant, Hill
Vocational Center) . The present condition of the proposed
church site is overgrown with brush, trees, and weeds . The
proposed church has the potential to affect the character of
the area.
3 . Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent Properties
The design of the church facilities, through provision of
adequate landscaping, buffering, setbacks, and traffic
circulation design, can prevent any unreasonable impact on
adjacent properties . Plans submitted by the applicant
indicate a 50-foot-wide setback of the proposed parking area
from the east property line adjacent to the homes facing on
Wise Road. This setback area could be used for landscaping
and screening in order to soften the impact of the church
facilities on the adjacent homes . At the very least, the
Board should consider requiring the church facilities to have
setback and landscaping similar to what would be in place if
the church site were developed as single family homes .
4 . Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
The site of the proposed church was at one time proposed for
development as part of the Coachlight Estates Subdivision.
Only a portion of the subdivision was developed, and the
remaining property (approximately 60 acres) has stayed vacant.
In addition to the 16-acre parcel under review, the Church has
acquired the remaining adjacent undeveloped property, which
could be utilized for other purposes in the future.
5 . / Environmental Impacts/Impact on Public Services
6 .
The most serious potential impacts of this proposal on public
services are traffic safety and storm water runoff. The storm
water runoff will be addressed, if the SLU permit is granted,
by the City' s Engineer during site plan review.
The City' s Transportation Engineer has raised the concern
about the location of the entrance onto Wise Road. This
entrance could possibly serve a larger development than just
Phases I and II which are presently under review. This makes
the alignment of the driveway a critical issue in the safe
design of this site.
Because alignment of the church entrance with the existing
entrance to Harry Hill Vocational Center would require removal
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4, SLU-9-94, Reachout Christian Center
Church
on an existing house, some alternative access connection to
Wise Road needs to be considered (and approved by the
Transportation Engineer) . There are several vacant lots
remaining between the church site and Wise Road that may
suffice for this access connection. In addition, the Board
should consider that the driveway connection to Wise Road has
sufficient room to be developed into a public street at some
time in the future.
6 . Impact on Utilities
Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer facilities all exist
close to the subject site; the appropriate utilities have all
commented (see above) .
7 . Compliance with the Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area for residential uses .
The proposed church is consistent with this designation.
8 . Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
The Zoning Code requires that churches in residential zones
have access directly to an arterial or collector street, and
not a local, or residential street. Churches must also
Vrovide one on-site parking space for each three seats or six
lineal feet of pew space. Approximately 100 parking spaces
will be required for Phase I of this church.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing development of approximately 40, 000
square feet of building area for church uses , in two phases , on a
16-acre site. The principal access for this site is proposed to be
from an easement to Wise Road. The Church also owns a large amount
of property adjacent to the site under review, which could
conceivably be used for future development of church-related
activities . '
Staff ' s major concerns about the requested Special Land Use Permit
are proper location and design of the access driveway from Wise
Road, and provision of adequate landscaping, screening, and
buffering of adjacent residential properties .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5, SLU-9-94, Reachout Christian_ Center
Church
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions :
1 . The setback of parking areas, buildings, and other facilities
on the site should be determined to give the development a
character similar to that which would result if the site were
developed with single family homes .
2 . Detailed landscaping, screening and buffering be provided
adjacent to the east property line near the residential lots
fronting on Wise Road.
3 . The location and design of access be approved by the City
Transportation Engineer, and that provision for future
development of a public right-of-way be considered.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\s1u994fe.js
P73
1
;• 1
•✓
I _
I
I 1f
� f
I
g/fpfoRD
-Rai-•.� .
j t
pw,,�5rZ i T I II I
i��; 1. I
T----- r
� I
i
+ ✓ (s l
I
i
J
2
r '
•,i
=�£iZl��ifZ_LHU2 GH - — I _ ..a.r,.., I
• ° '^' � �SLRIILIT_�(ST1Af�"CERTE4 CNuRCN -'
+ L� ,'N
�o, L CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That Part of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, T3N, R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
Oescrlbed as Commencing at the West 1/4 Corner of Section 6; Thence N 89°56'34" E (recorded as East), 2443.80
-et Along the E-W 1/4 I.Ine of Section 6 and North Line of Supervisor's Plat of Glendale as Recorded In Llber 10
of Plats, Pale 38 of Ingliam County Records to the POINT_QF_BEGINNING of This 'Description; Thence Continuing
N 89056'34 E, 269.01 Feet Along Said E-W 1/4 Line and North Plat Line to a Point 173.00 Feet, S 89056'34' W
From the Center of Section 6; Thence S 00012'17" W, 1192.24 Feet Parallel With the N-S 1/4 Line of Section 6;
.Thence N 89°46'57" W, 456.40 Feet; Thence S 23048'55' W, 74.94' to the NE Corner of Lot 134 of Coachlight
Estates as Recorded In Llber 28 of Plats, Pages 46, 47, and 48 of Ingham County Records; Thence Westerly and
Northerly Along the Platted Boundary of Coachlight Estates the Following; Thence N 89°46'57" W, 117.00 Feet; Thence
N 700 27'11" W, 70.24 Feet (recorded as N 70007'35" W, 70.08 feet), Thence N 89046'57' W, 117.00 Feet; Thence
N 000 11'25" E, 196.53 Feet (recorded as N 00013'03" E, 196.49') to the NE Corner of Lot 150 of Coachlight Estates;
T^_nce IN 10019'10' E, 220.00 Feet; Thence N 30°32'56" E, 184-.77 Feet; Thence N 38024'57" E, 427.00 Feet; Thence
1`4 20032'24" E, 350.00' Feet to the Point of Beginning, Containing 16.045 Acres, More or Less, and Subject to
Easements and Restrictions of Record, If any. This Property Includes Part of the Vacated Portion of Supervisor's
Plat of Glendale as Recorded In Liber 986, Page 330 and Part of Vacated Plainfield Avenue as Recorded In Ilber 985,
Page 474 of Ingham County Records.
APPROX� -EX. Center of Sec. 6,
W 1/4 Corner, E-W 1/4 Line, Section 6 sTWM s£AER T3N, R2W
Sec. 6, T3N, R2W East (R) 2888.9' (R) (L. 7, P. 130)
(L. 7, P. 128) n _ S 89°56'34' W (M)— 2885.81'(M)
N 8956' — -_
( ° N 89°56'34" E 173.0
WI 0'
0
;OVERNMENT CORNER TNESES: 2443.8080'' E ^ 269.01'
\W 1/4 Comer, Sec. 6, T3N, R2W (Rec. L. 7, P. 128) • S
Nall and cap ry O rrs�* P.O.B.
Nail w/Flagging on N slde ut. pole — East, 28.31' O �Bf x%J"
Hex bar In man. box (E 1/4 car., Sec. 1, T3N, R3W) 0A1) ��` . . . . . . . .
— South, 8.55' ry
3/4' pipe — East, 33.05' �-N 59056'34' E
Top C—L of hydrant — SSW, 61.75' — DAFT DRAIN m
N & T (30897) on NE aide phone pole — NW, 32.03' (100' WIDE ESM'T) G C
' o
Center of Sec. 6, T3N, R2W (Rec. L 7, P. 130)
3/4" rod In man. box . . . . . . . . c
1c T (11370) SE side ut. Pole — NE, 33.00' N
x T 25832) SW side 20 cedar — SE, 165.15' d
—L precast It. pole — NW, 47.65' e
C—L bolt on W side of SW leg of elec. tower — NE, 68.20'
S1/4 Corner, Sec. 6; T3N, R2W (Rec. L 4, P. 307)
3/4" mbar In man. bex of C—L, C—L Miller & Wtse Rds 0
N & T 11370� on SE side ut. pole — N45'E, 42.24'
1137C; cn P:':! -', a ;:'., pole _ c35°W, 32.55' rO N 2
N k T 11370) on SW side ut. pole — N50°W, 49.00'
SW car. 5' dla. rock (paint mark) — S500E, 51.10'
. . . .. . Vacated Lot Line
+ IP
W l
off', . `l N��
ti
SCALE: 1' - 200' 2 Opp, LLJ
0 150
149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PF, .
00 148 / /_\ N 89 46'57' E 456.40'
Cy<G,� 135 of# t3 I \�S 23048'55' E 74.94'
Basis of Bearings _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. } . .;•l i II I i� i �ili I I � I � •I ICI I I � I I- I i IIII li I I;I
I I � i � I I I I 1 1 I � I •I i.
• 1 I '1 � I I 1 -1 1 � � t 1 I I I. ' i;il iI i I I ! II I i ilil I II•
i
III" I I. IIII I li I IIIII I I I I j II it ` III ;i li i Iii
I,II lI I ` II it I :lil 'II III' ,
li • � II ; ' II -4- F �t�rl1 ; �II : ' Il , l III : II ; ili � li•� lil I.. I : i II : I tll lill� I:I
_ _=____— 'I; - 'i. IIIIII•lii —= - - ��• --=- r- = ii
i- I r-r I I
—'--_—�-1,r I--- --Lam---- --1-` 1----- ------ � -1
41
14' 1�-•Q 20•o �4e-o--- qo O I '.a I I'c' -I1ITI j i Ia IA-U-
I /I � '
i
Lau-1
l I,
LWSanon3 I
I
f ><6T0 I
lacy�ff}c>•.—_ � — —'-- - �` f�l�Jc,2 . -•-- --s ..-----'--_ -
J�.a�J�. CU.cr.L
�wtje>E�lus.+clZ v ! ctes_S=��--
°t<aD S II
1 I
� I NurtSaay �� I �canT
• I � � I I I
0 I !++�P�•++ l.1RDAY J I I I
• — --- �----— — `— -- ----- t ---
Iuu�o'
NORTH
SLU-9-94 , 16 . 5 Acres on Radford Road
Reachout \Christian Center - Construct New Church
�L/MLI I
W.
Q MT HOP£ dVE. 1 7. [Irewla6 W MT, HOPE
/
W n
Lack_ �f� � R[L•!wc cK yet "'� I Jr
JPt %Ct
✓ tP 4.i F /1� ° t ; [NOT
C3COOKw
f�'7 ° Cy o OYCF i
P°°P `� ° F < rpl gJwOON a •YC.
COOLlr pw. RSN =
P° � O IIM ] � i O ti •!l J!
pP L
�p susspro, I° 2 * tar.IN! 7 •r�
] W wvrpLf
1 ncrow •vr. i a��nc row •rc. �_
�* parsr LN.
lrvLw.wr DR.
swlte•Nc pw �I( I(�II Nptcr I
° t 1 •N uwrr r LK •urw AIX
ILL p 4�°t e < L/N6fR V -CC 1 CUVt• JT. U 2 eOJrcY ° l
IfJ }I YIIIRU i L KiG1 �� � 3I
A YLL y = 2 c h faro OI
t ti y Wwl rCw'� � ]I C �� i N( /CF' ( 4 {•� -
W eCYCRL I Sr•w[1fMr Rl 2
o a MEAD
HOLM£S RO HCLM£S .RO
5
t i--I ry Frw
-1 \ I/OOOC.TCCL = 4 4i,� L. FCwwOC Sf rRT �\1�.�'.
O 1 t R/vfwJNCIL ILYO. VV � , ; LJ
J
o i t , ileJOM Jr p1 rLCI S•Nr Y(C� roY rpr w
] , ' JNFfF/fLp L JILVC.Tew o � ' Cf •Rp �II
<� LN. i <I tl 2 •'l[tCw[Sr Jr NI(t.Tf Jr lr.
J , V f1M0►IRp pR i \ 2� 1N
W uepr on
�` �' NfI rNOl rf 'y' •[fwf^}��` yb1 c J C —re—rcr on. ❑ N c wr(t <I C,C01
s LpcN aiT^ flctplrs pR. i
(~
Al
•uo !cc y Lt
of
IJO \ w/lwcfRO_�l
+r wr [fww! t tr
� o
�. w•Rw � ! R wC0 w0. l
l'
F YI rfCL
+vopewr b
hF.(wLw
�� _ f
" Lucie Sr2 wlrN[L 2 yfco
W. ✓OLLY t RD. I ° k y W OLLY L
Ylp coop tr � I �/
99�
2 Cv.
V t
I N•w rfowp 3g(��' `Iw�o�L � �LTL[r
< WINSFOROt --
Q I 11P Y/OLI 11.Ip L!/Of/lr Sf
SC-A—
kl I Few SC-A— F OIYIt 1111
---_--II
Ila �I > of +••ptf I; /� �I �fZ
♦ I 2 �I �� r[[_
w�
%Low c[ Ro ,� Ij.•w \----Lr
roctIwo w ..?\\' c\ a{ rf N
- n..lwflr[o •le ruw
OLD gyp" I rqc NJ ( [rc rp FdRM�L F \'a =Il
I J Jouti
i'e ±1✓( •. y +[esrLw rr ��� /) G, \� I i
�wVCYIN�, I efl0 a r�,r,1°+ C� � fT�r-1 Ow 7Il•
+(fib OJtrOaO i rC✓Iww Iv( �< \�'� 1 V � r�/III C
�� 11 I b rr+opp
5!L! RO no
rAf—rK[ �I[/fJC bl it 'I .el \���Rwr
li r�w �LQ ]� ` y L L �I�NL L EP
Ca
W MIL L ER RO
6
SLU-9-94 , 16 .5 Acres on Radford Road
Reachout Christian Center - Construct New Church _- -=
. -
❑ "I -CD
o ! - oO.j7c�i;p� loin of ❑ „
r 1 �• •� I 1 ,jam__ -�
CED-
U�
D/
jl
:1
✓1 A
ACT-3-94
4900 Block of Tranter - Reduction in Drain Easement
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Roy Markey
4900 Block of Tranter
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review
PURPOSE : Reduction of a twenty-five feet drain
easement to twenty feet.
EXISTING LAND USE: Light Industrial
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 172 ' x 60 ' = 10,320 sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Light Industrial
S: Light Industrial
E: Light Industrial
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S: "H" Light Industrial
E: "H" Light Industrial
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Plan designates this
area as 'light industrial
CASE HISTORY: City Council approved a 25 ft.
drain easement reduction on this
property, December 19, 1977 .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting a five
(5) feet reduction from a twenty-
five (25) feet drain easement in
width along the east to west
direction of the south edge of the
Wiegman drain easement so that a
business building can be situated
better on the lot.
AGENCY RESPONSES :
ANALYSIS
Public Service
The Public Service will approve a reduction in the drain
easement if the concrete footings are reduced to the same
level as the sanitary sewer lines . A reduction was granted by
City Council December 17, 1977 . The City has a 72" storm
sewer centered in the easement and a 18" sanitary sewer south
of the storm.
Evaluation
Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of
all proposals which involve the sale, acquisition or
substantial alteration of public property be evaluated.
Character
A five (5) foot reduction in the drain easement will not
change the character of the property if the concrete footings
are reduced to the level of the sanitary sewer so that a
building is placed on the property would not caused any added
stress on the sewer lines and would compromise the intensity
of the building.
Location
The property is located at the 4900 block of Tranter
street, just north of Jolly road, specifically, the northeast
corner of Tranter/Jolly, the southern part of the property.
An drain easement was granted on this property in December
1977 and Public Service would only recommend an additional 5
ft. reduction in the drain easement if the footings are
reduced to the sanitary sewer lines .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3
Extent
The request for a five foot easement reduction is not
unreasonable. The current easement is twenty-five and a
reduction of five feet would allow this to be in line with
adjacent properties to the east.
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the 5 ft. drain
easement. If the footings are placed to the level of the
sanitary sewer, the location, extent and character of the
.property will not have any adverse impacts in any future
building developments .
C I T Y O F L A N S I N G
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
PLANNING OFFICE
DATE: June 13, 1994
TO: Members of, the Urban Development Committee
?
FROM: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager 6i<� -
RE: Urban Development Committee Meeting
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Urban Development
Committee is Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 4 : 00 p.m. The agenda is as
follows :
1 . ACT-3-94 4900 Block of Tranter Street: This is a
request by Roy Markey to reduce the drain easement along
the north property line of a parcel on the east side of
the 4900 block of Tranter. An additional meeting between
the applicant, Public Services Department and Planning
has produced another alternative which the Committee
should consider.
2 . ACT-5-94 Vacation of River Street: This is a request by
the City of Lansing to vacate the River Street r.o.w.
between Kalamazoo Street and Cesar Chavez Avenue.
Initially the site would be used to absorb vehicles
presently parking on the site of the new transportation
Terminal and as a construction materials handling &
storage site for same. Eventually, the site may be used
for a new building with uses yet to be determined.
3 . New Items (a.k.a. Coming attractions)
a. E. Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan
recommendations are scheduled for July.
b. Initial implementation steps for Old Town and
Downtown Area Plans are scheduled for July and/or
August.
C. Suggestions for fee schedule and new regulations
regarding ACT 285 reviews due in August.
CITY OF LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
PLANNING OFFICE
DATE: June 14, 1994
TO: Urban Development Committee
FROM: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner
RE: ACT-3-94 , 4900 Block Tranter, Reduction in Drain Easement
On May 24 , 1994 , the Lansing Planning Board concurred with the
recommendations of staff to deny ACT-3-94 , a request by Roy Markey
for a 5 ft. reduction in the drain easement at the 4900 Block of
Tranter. Staff reviewed the request and based on responses
received from Public Service recommended a denial and forwarded the
information to the Planning Board.
Subsequent to that decision, Mr. Markey requested a meeting with
Planning staff and Public Service staff to discuss his request.
On Friday, June 10, 1994 , Mr. Markey, Jon Dowling, Engineer, Public
Department, Eleanor Love and I reviewed the information, sewer maps
and evaluation of the proposed property. Mr. Dowling indicated
that the department would reconsider their decision if Mr. Markey
were willing to reduce the concrete footings to the same level as
the sanitary sewer, this would not compromise the intensity of the
building and the 5 ft. reduction in the drain easement would not
cause any problems . Mr. Markey agreed to the request.
Staff would like to request an amendment to the original
decision of the Planning Board based on the aforementioned
information and ask for an approval of ACT-3-94 , for a 5 ft.
reduction in the drain easement on the north side ofthe vacant lot
in the 4900 Block of Tranter. Further, that if the footings of the
proposed building on this lot encroach into the subject 5 foot
easement, the the base of the footings must be even with the bottom
of the sanitary drain pipe ( approximately 7 ft. below grade) .
NORTH
ACT-3-94
4900 Block of Tranter - Reduction in Drain Easement
i82113,7
r V n
56
1
M I I
t
157 180
56 �' i 179 /I�I ?pu' ;za., z•i j / ,3ai
' r 13b/ i ;yo7
/RC'1'
RENSEN ST �t
i 159 .I� 178' r1 moo'7v 18' - 1
o
•a'
��� 160 0 09
177 nq��. •; I I 0 0 I I
i
(
„ N
Li ht J ndu5 �a(
g n � n 1
161
72, 78 Jill
�1 l62 ? 175 �o\ V n 0 1
I
o� 1^ 174 313 " --- - �- - - - - - - - -- I
V ,
163
u _ "--`DRAI h% - E A S MT nr Ear �+r
,A� 164 In o ° 173 3��3 v 09 7-
ti
60
165 ' o o `� 17 2
0' I � i Yo•9 S�'� � a W I
166• _
17 1 3 3 o z I q
a 1
3 � f
\� r67 3 a ;170 3� �- I
r ,
I
�4 1 6 8 o 169
,t -
172
JOLLY
R D.
I �
ACT-5-94
Vacation of River Street Right-of-Way
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Public Service
Dept.
Seventh Floor, Lansing City Hall
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
EXISTING LAND USE: Public Street
EXISTING' ZONING: Unzoned Right-of-Way
PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" General Business (assumes
zoning of adjacent parcels)
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : This section of the River Street
Right-of-Way between Kalamazoo and
Chavez (Grand) , is 82 . 5 feet wide
and approximately 600 feet long.
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Commercial/Office
S : Commercial/Office
E: Commercial/Office
W: Commercial/Office
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business District
S : "G-1" Business District
E : "G-1" Business District
W: "G-1" Business District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: River Island Master Plan is mute;
however, subsequent plans have
identified this right-of-way as part
of an overall development site
bounded by Kalamazoo, Grand Avenue
and the Grand River.
CASE HISTORY: River Street was depicted in the
initial plat of the City. See above
for previous development options .
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The City of Lansing has purchased all
the properties on either side of the
300 block of River Street. The City
intends to utilize this site as a
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2
temporary staging area for the
Transportation Terminal and then
for surface parking for 391 spaces .
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Fire Marshall : No comment
MI DOT: The proposed vacation of River Street
does not intersect a state trunkline
but is in close proximity to the
Capitol Loop Street system. MDOT is
planning a rather extensive
landscaping plan for the Capitol Loop
and would suggest that the proposed
parking lot as described in the site
plan include a landscape buffer on
the perimeter of the property. Since
the site plan provided did not
indicate any landscape material, MDOT
would recommend that appropriate
buffering techniques be applied to
reduce the impact of the proposed
parking lot on the downtown area.
AMERITECH: Ameritech has no objection to this
proposal if notification of buildings
being vacated so cables can be
removed.
Cable : We are currently working on our plans
to vacate River Street as we are now
on the pole line that will be taken
out. Our proposal to relocate our
facilities will be done soon and will
be sent to you ASAP.
Transp. Engineer: No conditions or requirements for
vacation. Traffic impacts have been
evaluated prior to the vacation
request. All traffic can be
adequately served by the remaining
streets in the area.
Assessor' s Office: I would like to review the
description for vacation before it
goes to Council (J. Grannell) .
Downtown Bus . Assoc. The Downtown Business Association, by
vote of its Board of Directors ,
supports this action.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3
Other responses :
From surrounding
property owners : The Department of Social Services
fully supports the proposal to vacate
the River Street right-of-way between
Kalamazoo Street and S . Grand and to
use part of the vacated area for 391
space surface parking lot.
ANALYSIS
The City' s Transportation Engineer, Dave Berridge, on behalf
of the City of Lansing, is requesting to vacate River Street
right-of-way between Kalamazoo and S . Grand (Cesar Chavez)
Avenue. The vacated property will go to the Lansing Building
Authority. The City has acquired businesses adjacent to
assemble land for the public purpose of creating a public
surface parking lot.
Evaluation
The Act 285 Review requires that the character, location and
extent of the proposal must be evaluated.
Character
The 300 Block of River Street is 82 . 5 feet wide and
approximately 600 feet in length from Kalamazoo to S . Grand.
The street has served as one of the entry points into the
Central Business District. Businesses that have abutted this
street have mostly been service related (see list below. )
Location
The location of this portion of River Street has primarily
provided access from Kalamazoo to S . Grand. The various
businesses in the 300 block of River Street for which this
right-of-way has provided access include the following:
305 River Street: Starr' s Black & Tan Lounge
325 ifFinish Master
327 itVolunteers of America Men' s Center
329 ifChapman Car Care (auto repair)
307 Grand Avenue: What' s Up Doc Restaurant
315 ifLansing Barber College
329 If Firestone Store Tires
A City parking lot exists between River Street and the Grand
River, consisting of 63 parking spaces .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4
Extent
Interest has been expressed in retaining an easement along the
east side of the site of the City parking lot for the
extension of the River Trail . Other improvements that relate
to the site plan that have been recommended include the
planting of landscape materials along the river bank and
landscape material interior to the parking lot. These will be
addressed through the site plan review process .
It should be noted that sufficient setback of the parking lot
from the river bank was designed to accommodate the extension
of the River Trail along this side of the Grand River.
Landscaping will be planted at the periphery along the Grand
Avenue and Kalamazoo side of the parking lot but not along the
east side of the site. Any new paved River Trial along this
side of the site would most likely result in the elimination
of such landscaping.
The use of the subject River Street right-of-way and adjacent
City-owned property for a surface parking lot is intended to.
be a use to accommodate the need for convenient parking in the
Lansing' s Central Business District. However, the use as a
surface parking lot may change in subsequent years as parking
demand and supply are impacted by future Central Business
District development. If the site is ultimately developed for
another use, then vacation, not closure, would be appropriate .
Vacation will allow more flexibility in future use of the
site.
Parking spaces to be lost while the site is under construction
would amount to 63 parking spaces in the City parking lot and
24 on-street spaces ( 87 total spaces ) . Ultimately a gain of
304 parking spaces will result from this proposal . The
overall development site will also serve as a construction
staging area during the development of the new Transportation
Terminal located to the west and south of this site.
The south end of the River Street R.O.W. is located in the 100
year flood plain. The razing of buildings for the proposed
parking lot will actually reduce the impact on the flood plain
in terms of displacement of flood water in the area. The
Michigan Department of Natural Resources has indicated that
this would only be a concern to them if substantial fill were
added to the site in the 100 year flood plain. The Stormwater
runoff, according to the Transportation Engineer, would be
properly detained on site before entering the Grand River.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the River Street right-of-way be
vacated as requested from Kalamazoo Street to S . Grand,
subject to the following conditions :
1 . The creation of necessary utility easements ;
2 . The creation of an easement along the east side
of the overall site adjacent to the Grand River,
for the possible extension of the River Trail; and
3 . Installation of landscape material along the Grand
River and interior to the parking lot.
-c:\wp\data\act\ac594fe
1,211*
N 3874: — - - - - - -- - -`�- - - — -1
• � \ N 5385m95
—---- ; I C-' - N 5378.17 �\\
\ E 4795.37 N 5376.25
8
i l 3 15'R E 'h798.41
4 9'.�� 1 :. I I 15'R\
8 51- 5 N 5366.67
o m E 4811191 16' LONG STRIPES - TYPICAL
i
I'l. Im \ ALONG ALL NEW CURB AND GUTTER.
BR
N 5329,51 \
E 4561.98
I t
2 'R
' N 34.42 l�� Ia l ?0
E 4-826 ��
JIJB \ N 514 7
� 4607.19 2'R 14E 5 07.17 \' \ E 4837.52 2' 8'R 5'R E 4900'9
2 .521 jj�
I I 3R
I I
\ I O'R
E 560. 5 N U717 O 1 9 3'R
I IN 183.19 E 4609.95 \ 4856.94
i O E 4606.84 N 518318 \
\ N 5124.52 E 4973 E 4607 84 72
2 R E 4 928.39
2 �' N S R
10'R
i N 109.91 5112 10
i
10 R E 4989.30 \
N 5108.79 N 49600.93
3 x 1 5'R { 4929 2'R
N
m 31 E 4926.93
4 CO 2'R
N b4 152 T N 5037.41 \ N 4935.82 N 4988.10
76
E 559 8 E 4575.76 \ E 4935. E 4988.76
I i )I 1 � \
i
4'R I I 5 N 5014 60
- 6' E 4966.95
i I N N 5015-24 O SR \ 'R _
4'ft 25'R
FRTH!
ACT-5-94 River Street Closure
(D
839.3 PARKING
845.5
PARKING --- �'
15
NAW ST e40.2
0
STACK /
�a 832
32 30 L LI 20 /!
27
Q
l -
PARK[NG 8307
/2
\ 2�i
PARKING
23
840.2 i 837
840.2 LD
z_
WALL Y F
26 \p
839.7 0�
a
O �
PARKING I Q 2B 838.E
9
Z
20
WALL < PARKING
(D 2/ 45
9 /4 32 B25.3
15 24 36 //
834
840.1 I /ALAM I AZOO 825.5
ez72
N I24 26 �
c`1
12
847.3 837.1 I 17 8,
I
PARKING
I ELL"12 825
13
4?7 P
DRAFT DRAFT TO CLERK 071594
APPROVED
TO CLERK
0'1-18`941012 : 25 RCVD
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1994
I , OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 30 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Forrest, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Thelen. Ex officio Councilmembers Jones and
Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absences - Absent, Marshall and Ruge.
Mrs . Horne made a motion, seconded by Mr'. Thelen, to
excuse the absences of Ms . Marshall and Mr. Ruge; voice
vote; unanimous; motion carried; Ms . Marshall and Mr.
Ruge were excused.
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator; Louise H. Christian, Planning Board
Secretary.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
II . HEARINGS - None.
III . PUBLIC MEETINGS :
A. Joint Meeting of Planning Board and Public Service Board
for the purpose of receiving public input concerning
replacement by the Board of Water & Light of existing
street lights along two stretches of public right-of-way,
Washington Mall and East Michigan Avenue.
Mr. Brian Cooper, Board of Water & Light, will make the
presentation, followed Board member questions, and then
audience comments .
Mr. Cooper provided some background in the street
lighting system and concepts; the scope of this project;
some standard lighting options ; and special lighting
arrangements . He showed slides of the twin mercury vapor
luminaires, twin historical luminaires, standard cobra
head lights, high pressure sodium lights, incandescent
fixtures in the residential areas . Some options for high
profile lighting include several basic styles : square
concrete poles with rectilinear luminaires, such as on
the Capitol Loop, and the octagonal concrete pole with
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 2
the cobra head lights, such as on Logan Street. Low
profile is the Lansing Globe with the brass ring and
concrete flared base, and the cast iron King Standard,
and the twin King, slightly higher steel standard, with
two luminaires with interior prisms for direction of
light.
The BWL recommendation proposes to use the square
rectilinear poles . Along Michigan Avenue, we propose the
standard light, such as east of Pennsylvania. It gives
a consistent look until reaching the historical light
area; however, Sparrow Hospital has indicated interest in
historical lights . We want to have a good looking system
that will adequately light the streets .
Chairman LeBlanc announced the public comment section.
PRISCILLA HOLMES, 220 REO AVENUE. We are requesting
historical lights for the south Washington area. Street
lights would provide continuity between the downtown area
and South Washington area of River Point Neighborhood.
I am less concerned about a large amount of light on the
road than about the aesthetic appearance of the street.
There is not a lot of nighttime traffic there nowadays;
heavy traffic times are during the day. I support
historic lighting from the bridge southward.
SUZIE COOK-STARK, PRESIDENT OF RIVER POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGANIZATION, 1147 S . WASHINGTON. We now have the
satellite lights . They were great in the fifties; they
over-illuminate the area. The lights on Martin Luther
King Boulevard are not appropriate for our area because
of its historic nature. We think they look like the
entrance to a prison, and we don't want to project that
image. We recently viewed an old picture of our street
and noted that they had the historic single globe
lighting. We want the double globe historic lights for
our street. We have worked very hard to bring the area
back, and want to preserve the historic quality. Many
artistic people in the neighborhood would be offended
with rectilinear lights and by the satellite lights . Our
Master Plan recommends historic lights . We plan to put
historic lights in the residential area as well, probably
the single globe. The Diamond Reo site has been
redeveloped and is occupied by new businesses, and we are
considering extending the lighting to Baker so as not to
exclude them; they helped make our renovations possible.
DALE JOHNSON, 1015 S . WASHINGTON. When I first moved in
about 31 years ago, it was a crime-infested area. The
neighborhood banded together, both residents and business
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 3
owners, to protect their property and their well-being.
Through cooperation, many positive changes have happened.
We have a community policing officer. The River Trail
soon will come through our neighborhood; we have a new
park coming in; the Diamond Reo site is redeveloped. In
considering additional cost for the desired lighting, the
investments going into the neighborhood would warrant the
historic lighting. I agree with extending the lighting
to the Diamond Reo site; excluding them would be unwise.
Ms . Holmes asked what would happen from this public
meeting. Ms . Love said the BWL asked for input. The
Planning Board will refer the matter to the Urban
Development Committee which will make a recommendation to
the Planning Board. The Planning Board is advisory to
the Mayor and City Council, and this is a process we have
not been involved in, and we have no guidelines . Most
people here are interested in finding out what
neighborhood residents and business would like and want
to give input to the Board of Water & Light. Ms . Holmes
said budgetary deviations would require more money.
Because it is a budgetary issue, will it end up at City
Council? Ms . Love said probably yes .
Chairman LeBlanc asked the members of the Public Service
Board to introduce themselves : Bob Trezise, Fred Rieger,
Cinda Elzroth, and Gilda Richardson.
BOB TREZISE, PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD. Speaking only for
myself, I wonder if the twin historical lights along
Michigan Avenue are appropriate for Washington Square and
Washington Mall, and if they would draw customers to
businesses, and new businesses to Washington Square. I
think the answer is no. Most important is the budgetary
factor. The twin historic lights are the most expensive.
The City is not in position to support this expense. If
lights were part of an overall comprehensive plan to help
revitalize the area, I could be more supportive. The
cost difference between the two proposals is immense.
DAWN KUTNEY. I live close to this neighborhood, and it
is a start. We promote businesses near S . Washington.
RON BLODGETT, 234 S . WASHINGTON, OWNER OF MOLE HOLE AND
VICE PRESIDENT OF DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. I speak
in favor of the 'twin historic lights . Aesthetics are
very important for downtown. Michigan and Washington are
the main corners downtown, and we have two types of
lights . I don' t think it would increase business, but it
would make downtown friendlier, with lights that are low.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 4
The Downtown Business Association is in favor of the
historic twin lights .
H.A. WELCH, OWNER OF CAPITOL FUR COMPANY, AND OWNER OF
BUILDING HOUSING THE PAPER IMAGE AND THE BARBER SHOP. I
also sit on a board with Ron Trezise. There should be
consistency in the lighting. Lights won' t bring business
downtown, but we should do them right in the first place,
so they don't have to be redone five years later. I am
a resident in the district. The City should be
considerate of downtown residents ; the lighting shouldn' t
be broad daylight at midnight.
SUE MILLS, DIRECTOR, ARTS COUNCIL, CENTER FOR THE ARTS,
425 S . GRAND, ALSO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, AND
CHAIR OF SILVER BELLS IN THE CITY. We should have a
vision for downtown. I love the Approach to the Capitol-
-brick pavers, historic lighting, the Capitol
restoration--it seems incongruous to put a different type
of lighting on the Washington Square Mall area. Making
a mistake on the lighting is the most expensive way to
go. It might be more economical in the long run to
install the right lighting in the first place. All the
lighting should be consistent with the twin historic
lights . A note to Mr. Cooper: regardless of what
happens to the light poles on the Washington Square Mall,
we have a lot of brackets on them for banners . We want
to make sure that those brackets are saved so we can use
them on other poles in the City. Silver Bells in the
City has spent a lot of money, buying the brackets, and we
want to make sure they are saved when the poles are
changed.
RICHARD BAIBAK, 1203 S . WASHINGTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR LANSING CAPITOL HILL STATION, ALSO A
REGISTERED COMMUNITY PLANNER. People visiting Capitol
Hill Station say they have trouble finding us because
they don't think we are down Washington Avenue because
the lighting is not the same as around the Capitol . They
are looking for something with a little more class, and
they are not finding it when they look south from the
freeway. Historical lighting is important for that
section of the street because it sets the stage for other
businesses along the street, how they decorate and finish
their stores and storefront and enhance their real
estate. Most of the people south of downtown have not
been the benefactors of the money that has been flowing
on Michigan to change the downtown area. Most of what
has happened on S . Washington is occurring with private
dollars , except in the Diamond Reo area. It would be
beneficial if we could get help with changing our image
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 211 1994 - PAGE 5
by means of the historic lights . Perhaps the lighting
should go beyond Baker all the way to Mt. Hope. I
question if you need the lighting north of Michigan
Avenue, because of the already existing low luminaires
from Michigan to Saginaw. I do have a photograph dated
April 29 , 1942 that shows Washington Avenue near South
Street, and it does show those historic fixtures . I
would agree that perhaps the historical luminaires aren' t
quite as bright as necessary, but I wouldn't agree that
brightness should be increased by adding a larger bulb.
The bulb size perhaps should be reduced to 175 watts or
even a 50-watt high pressure sodium to eliminate some
glare and enhance the aesthetic appeal of the lights .
Keep the satellite cobra head poles, and install the
rectilinear fixtures on top of the tall poles to give a
larger light spread, and use the historic fixtures to
enhance the aesthetics of the street. Also I question
the prices; I could bid the job for less than what was
quoted.
GREG WEYKAMP, DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES . Regarding the
lighting between Larch and Pennsylvania. Deardorff
Design Resources has been involved with the East Michigan
Task Force Committee, which has developed a comprehensive
plan for the revitalization of East Michigan Avenue. The
Committee unanimously approved using the historic lights
along that stretch. Mr. Cooper indicated they were
proposing the cobra head lights to maintain consistency
with the road east of Pennsylvania. We suggest using the
historic lights to maintain consistency with the Approach
to the Capitol . Rather than bringing the overhead lights
in to the Capitol, we will bring out the historic lights
to the Sparrow area. The whole design concept has been
to create a front door and an entrance to the Capitol,
and extending the feeling of the approach out to
Pennsylvania Avenue. Sparrow Hospital is going to be
investing a huge amount of money in revitalizing the
section between Pennsylvania and Holmes . We suggest
budgetary consideration for additional historic lighting
in the section of Michigan from Pennsylvania out. The
concern with the lights fits with the streetscape
elements of the whole area. We proposed lighting and
streetscape elements consistent with the Capitol
Approach. The twin historic lights are sufficient to
light East Michigan Avenue. I suggest historic lights
and make provision for extending them on east of
Pennsylvania as well .
KAREN SHULICK, 1140 S . GRAND AVENUE, RIVER POINT. We are
the Capital City; we need to be bigger and better. We
should have continuity in the lighting system, especially
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 6
in the cross streets . Holt has lights like we have on
Michigan Avenue; surely we should be able to do that if
Holt can; Mason also has historic lights . There is
interest in the neighborhood in getting a historic
designation. The lights will have to be historic lights .
If we do it now, it won' t cost later.
BILL VINCENT, SPARROW HOSPITAL. On the site component of
the Sparrow master site and facility plan, Howard
Deardorff said Sparrow has the appearance of a series of
buildings and a set of parking lots . We intend to change
that. Lighting is only one element to the streetscape.
It would be a shame to have the lighting drive the
streetscape in a backwards manner. It has to be
consistent throughout. As we developed our Site plan, we
did look towards the Capitol, and developed the plan
thematically, anticipating that the theme would be coming
out to Sparrow. The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization
Study Committee looked to the Capitol, the lighting and
the streetscape, and the theme as a consistent theme. • I
encourage consideration of the historic lighting, not
only from Larch Street to Pennsylvania, but onwards . If
the budget for historic lights is not possible, I would
suggest that lighting plan be deferred until the budget
can assume the expense, because these are 20-30 year
lights .
Chairman LeBlanc said a letter containing comments had
been received from Paul Howland, 2133 Moores River Drive,
in favor of historic lighting; also a letter from the
River and Waterfront Development Board, in favor of
historic lighting in the two areas .
Mr. Goolsby asked Mr. Cooper the number of BWL electric
customers; Mr. Cooper replied 88, 000 meters ,
approximately. Mr. Thelen asked about the Delhi Township
lights; Mr. Cooper agreed to make inquiry.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
DAWN KUTNEY, 531 RILEY, LANSING. In opposition to Z-8-94, SE
Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential District to
"D-1" Professional Office District, to make a parking lot.
Representing Maplewood PTA at Maplewood School, a neighborhood
school of 300 students who walk to school (there is no
busing) . The PTA and Maplewood parents have worked very hard
on safety issues . A parking lot here would be too dangerous .
FLORA BOLES, 2500 HANOVER DRIVE. Chair of Trustee Board of
Reachout Christian Center Church, asking that our request for
a special land use permit, previously tabled, be reviewed
again. Modifications have been addressed, and issues raised
have been resolved. We have further information.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 7
Mr. Ruff said he met with the petitioners yesterday. The
Zoning and Ordinance Committee asked for a schematic plan
showing how the facility would fit into an overall plan for
the 66 acres and also showing access . The petitioners have
the information. The Zoning and Ordinance will be meeting
during the recess .
ANDY ROGERS, PRESIDENT OF THE MAPLEWOOD PTA. In opposition to
Z-8-94 , SE Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Avenue, "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District, for
construction of a parking lot. I also bring a message from
Maxine Kane, Principal of Maplewood Elementary School, in
opposition. She did an informal survey; the current parking
lot does have at least four open spaces at all times . More
parking is not needed.
RONALD ALLEN, PETITIONER, Z-8-94 . I have been on that corner
since 1970; I want to help keep cars out of the neighborhood
and keep them from parking on neighborhood streets; I would
bear the additional cost to prevent that. Mr. Ruff has drawn
a new plan that protects the children. The ingress and egress
will be frontwards, which will make it safer than people
backing out of driveways . People parking in the lot come
before school children arrive and leave after the children
have gone home . Please consider this .
KEVIN J. BOWLING, 831 N. SYCAMORE, LOAVES & FISHES SHELTER,
representing SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave . , Loaves &
Fishes - Homeless/Emergency Shelter. Provided information
concerning parking layout and additional spaces . Urged
approval .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, for a recess
to conduct a Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to
consider SLU-7-94, and SLU-9-94; voice vote, unanimous;
carried.
V. RECESS
The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met during the recess .
VI . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : May 17, 1994
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thelen to
approve the minutes of May 17, 1994 . Mrs . Horne said on
Page 13, the "e" on her name is omitted. Mr. Thelen said
under VIII , P. 21, first paragraph, last sentence,
reference to Mr. Banker' s neighborhood group should read
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 8
near "Cedar and Syringa, " not "Robinson and Aurelius . "
Chairman LeBlanc accepted the correction.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Forrest Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
LeBlanc Yea Thelen Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; minutes of the meeting of May 17 , 1994 were:
APPROVED.
Mrs . Horne made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to excuse Mr.
Forrest from voting on the minutes since he was not in attendance
at the time.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas, 6; Nays, 0; unanimous; motion
carried and was APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair:
Mr. Thelen made a motion on behalf of the Chair,
seconded by Mr. Fountain, to add to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee Report SLU-9-94 , Radford Road,
Reachout Christian Center, as item g.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas, 6 ; Nays , 0; unanimous; motion
carried and was APPROVED.
a. SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves &
Fishes - Homeless Shelter
This is a request by Loaves & Fishes, Inc. , an
overnight shelter for six ( 6 ) persons located
at 831 N. Sycamore Avenue, to amend their
current special land use permit, SLU-8-81,
granted April 12, 1982 , by expanding onto the
property at 835 N. Sycamore, incorporating a
transitional living residential care facility
for a maximum of nine ( 9 ) persons . Loaves &
Fishes intends to connect the two homes with a
common dining room addition and make other
site improvements .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 9
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the use
would satisfy the evaluation criteria for a
special land use in the "C" Residential
District but was concerned about the site plan
and specifically the arrangement of parking.
Mr. Thelen said the parking situation was
addressed in the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting held during recess . A
motion was made to approve the special land
use with site plan illustration option C with
the inclusion of a greater setback from
Oakland and three of the four conditions as
stated on page 6 in the report. In committee,
the motion was approved, Yeas : 3; Nays : 1.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve
SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless/Emergency Shelter, with site plan Option C, which is a
greater setback from Oakland, and three of the four conditions,
conditions 1, 2, and 4 as on page 6 of the Planning Board Report,
a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
Mr. Fountain said Option C with modifications eliminates the first
two parking spaces to allow landscaping; the two parking spaces
eliminated were placed on the northern portion of the parking area.
For clarity, Chairman LeBlanc read the condition not included: The
elevation of the slope adjacent to the alley be changed by removing
the box elder trees and partially regrading the area adjacent to
the alley, to obtain additional parking in the rear as shown on the
attached plan if practical .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne No LeBlanc Yea
Thelen Yea Forrest Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 5; Nays : 1; carried;
SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless/Emergency Shelter was APPROVED.
b. SLU-10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania
Avenue, Spartan Toyota, Allow "J" Parking for
Display of New and Used Vehicles
This is a request for a special land use
permit by Spartan Toyota, Inc . to utilize the
front 69 . 75 ' of the properties at 5609-5701-
5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue for the display of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 10
new and used vehicles for sale. The property
at 5609 S . Pennsylvania Avenue is being
converted into an auto dealership as an
expansion of the existing auto dealership at
5701 and 5709 S . Pennsylvania. The bulk of
the property is zoned "H" Light Industrial
District, which allows the existing and
proposed uses .
It was found, based upon the staff report,
testimony, and evidence, that the use
satisfies the special land use evaluation
criteria.
A motion was made in committee to. approve SLU-
10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue,
with the landscape, screening and buffering
plans as submitted. The motion carried
unanimously, Yeas : 4 ; Nays : 0 .
It was further commented that Spartan Toyota
should not display vehicles in the "J" Parking
District of the new facility until after the
permit is granted.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve
SLU-10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan Toyota,
"J" Parking for New and Used Car Sales Lot, based on the staff
report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof .
Mrs . Horne said when she passed by the dealership last Thursday
evening, all the banners were down.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
Thelen Yea Forrest Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried;
SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan Toyota,
"J" Parking for New and Used Car Sales Lot, was APPROVED.
C . LS-4-94 , Lot Split, 1539-1545 Ohio Ave.
This is a request by Kenneth Kruger of 1539
Ohio Avenue for a lot split of three (3) feet
off the property at 1545 Ohio Avenue and add
that three ( 3) feet onto the property at
1539 Ohio in order to rectify an existing
situation. The driveway at 1539 has extended
two (2 ) feet onto 1545 for many years, and the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 11
owners have decided to adjust the boundaries
of the property to compensate. This
adjustment is a variance of the Subdivision
Regulations since the lot at 1545 Ohio will be
46 ' wide instead of the present 60 ' wide
standard.
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the lot
split will not adversely affect surrounding
land uses, circulation, the environment, the
residential character of the area, or the
goals of the Master Plan.
In committee, a motion was made .and seconded
to approve LS-4-94 as requested. The motion
carried unanimously, Yeas : 4 , Nays : 0 .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve
LS-4-94 , 1539-1545 Ohio Avenue, split three ( 3) feet off the
property at 1545 Ohio Avenue for the driveway at 1539 Ohio Avenue,
based on the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
LeBlanc Yea Thelen Yea
Forrest Yea Fountain Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried;
LS-4-94 , Lot Split, 1539-1545 Ohio Avenue, was APPROVED.
d. P-1-94 , New Horizon Subdivision, Final
Preliminary Plat
This is a request by Richard Remsing and Dave
Bowker for final preliminary plat approval of
a proposed subdivision to be known as New
Horizon. This plat, containing approximately
7 .2 acres, is located off 6700 Block of
Aurelius Road, south of Dell Road; north of
Willoughby Road. The plat contains thirty-
six ( 36 ) lots for single family residential
development. The property is zoned "A"
Residential District and permits the
development of single family homes . The
Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan recommends
single family development in this area.
Agency responses have been received. There
are no problems anticipated.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21 , 1994 - PAGE 12
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the final
preliminary plat includes the comments
generated by the tentative preliminary plat
and substantially conforms to the tentative
preliminary plat.
In committee, a motion was made and seconded
to approve P-1-94, New Horizon Subdivision,
Final Preliminary Plat, with the following
conditions :
( 1) That all public improvements as required
by the Lansing Subdivision Regulations
and the Michigan Subdivision Control Act
be adhered to;
(2) That all lots be graded so surface water
will drain therefrom so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties;
( 3) That the developer utilize an underground
electrical distribution system as
specified in Section 1238 . 08 of the
Lansing Subdivision Regulation of the
Zoning Code;
(4 ) That the necessary easements be provided
for the installation of utilities;
(5) That the requirements of all responding
agencies be compiled with;
(6) That the final preliminary plat approval
is effective for a period of two years
(2 ) years;
(7 ) That restrictions be placed on the face
of the Plat prohibiting access from Lots
22 , 23, and 36 to Aurelius; and
( 8) That Lot 18 is recognized as a conforming
corner lot with a width of 60 feet
instead of the standard required 70-foot
lot.
In committee, the motion carried unanimously, Yeas : 4 ; Nays : 0 .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve
P-1-94 , New Horizon Subdivision, Final Preliminary Plat with eight
( 8) conditions as in the staff report, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
Thelen Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Forrest Yea
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 13
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried; P-1-94 ,
New Horizon Subdivision, Final Preliminary Plat, was APPROVED.
e. Z-8-94, SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. ,
"B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional
Office District
This is a request by Dr. Ronald T. Allen of
2311 S . Cedar Street to rezone the abutting
property to the north located on the southeast
corner of Cedar and Pacific from "B"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional
Office District. Dr. Allen proposes to
develop additional off-street parking for
long-term employee parking on the lot, which
is adjacent to a side entrance to his office .
This property contains approximately 4, 141
square feet of lot area and is excess property
bought by the State of Michigan for the
widening of Cedar Street. The property is
adjacent to a pedestrian overpass that serves
the students at Maplewood Elementary School .
In committee, a motion was made to approve
Z-8-94 , understanding that the attached
revised site plan that illustrates six parking
spaces and additional safety features would be
the plan that would meet code requirements .
The motion received a vote of 2 Yeas and 2
Nays : 2 .
Since no motion came out of the committee, Mr. Thelen made a motion
to approve Z-8-94 , SE Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, based
on the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part thereof .
Mr. Goolsby asked to go on record as saying he supported the
request; while he is concerned for safety of children in the area,
the way that this request is set out, it fully protects the
children. Several points need to be made:
( 1) The starting and quitting times of school do not correspond
with arrival and departure times of employees of the business .
(2 ) The addition of the fence is very important. "Without this
addition, I probably would have voted no this evening. I
could foresee a situation with children exiting the skywalk
which would have created a very dangerous situation; however,
I believe the fence does take care of that concern. "
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 14
( 3) The point was made earlier this evening, and it is a very
important point, that the cars will be leaving the parking lot
facing the street, and drivers will be able to see children.
"For these reasons, I am going to vote for the rezoning. "
Mr. Fountain said we did go the extra mile to get a site plan
taking into consideration the safety of the children and adults
passing along the sidewalk. The other thing that came out of the
modification of the plan was the preservation of existing trees .
Mrs . Horne said her reasons for voting against the plan included
the safety of the children and traffic patterns of parents driving
in to pick up children. Also, she could not see the need for using
the property for parking. In her own informal traffic counts at
specific times, she did not see cars parked; only on one Friday
were there two cars parked in the other lot.
Chairman LeBlanc read one letter from Max Zemer, 527 Edison, in
support of Z-8-94, SE Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Avenue.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen No Forrest Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne No LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 4; Nays : 2 . The petition
failed to garner the required number of affirmative votes (6) and
was DENIED.
Z-8-94 , SE Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District, will be referred to
the City Council with no recommendation, noting a 4-2 vote.
f. SLU-9-94 , Radford Road, Reachout Christian
Center, Construct New Church
This is a Special Land Use Permit by Reachout
Christian Church for construction of new
church facilities . Construction will be in
two phases, Phase 1 will be the initial church
building and parking lot; Phase 2 will be a
larger sanctuary building and additional
parking space.
During the recess, the Committee considered
new information and a revised site plan and
with three conditions in the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee report:
( 1) The setback of parking areas, buildings,
and other facilities on the site should
be determined to give the development a
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 15
character similar to that which would
result if the site were developed with
single family homes .
(2) Detailed landscaping, screening and
buffering be provided adjacent to the
east property line near the residential
lots fronting on Wise Road.
( 3) The location and design of access be
approved by the City Transportation
Engineer, and that provision for future
development of a public right-of-way -be
considered.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve SLU-9-
94 , Parcel C, 16 . 5 Acres on Radford Rd. , Reachout Christian Center,
Construct New Church, based on the staff report, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part thereof, and with the three
conditions and revised site plan we saw this evening.
Mr. Fountain said the revised site plan is conceptual, but it meets
the intent of our discussions at the committee meeting, of making
sure that the surrounding land has potential for the future. It is
very important that it be finalized before City Council hearings .
Mr. Ruff explained about the site plan that concerns access . The
initial site plan showed access over Consumers Power right-of-way.
The new plan would have access a little farther south off Wise Road
which would foster improved traffic circulation. The Zoning and
Ordinance Committee wanted to ensure that future development of the
large tract would not be hindered. The church building has been
relocated, with parking near Consumers Power right-of-way. A more
finalized site plan would be presented to the Physical Development
Committee at that time.
Mrs . Horne said the Committee' s concern was that, as one of only a
few large pieces of land left in the City of Lansing with potential
for single family dwellings, it should not be landlocked.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
LeBlanc Yea Forrest Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-9-94 , Parcel C, 16 . 5 Acres on Radford Rd. .
Reachout Christian Center, Construct New Church, was APPROVED.
g. Next meeting Wednesday, July 13, 1994 , at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 16
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Acting
Chair.
a. Act-3-94, East Side 4900 Blk. of Tranter St. ,
Drain Easement Reduction
This item was before us recently. Initially,
the Committee recommended approval of the
reduction, but then we received information
from the Public Service Dept. indicating their
opposition, so we changed our recommendation,
based upon their recommendation. Subsequent
to that, a meeting was held with Mr. Markey
and staff from Planning and Public Service,
and a compromise has been reached. If Mr.
Markey builds within the five-foot easement,
which he indicated in Committee, that he will
have to sink the footings level with the pipe.
Normally, the footings would be about 42"
down, but the new level will between 72" and
84" , with this approval . This is currently
pending in Physical Development Committee. We
asked staff to research the technicalities of
whether or not we should bring it back from
Physical Development. We were assured we did
not need to bring it back. If we approve it
tonight, it will go to the Mayor. If he
concurs, it will go to City Council .
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve
Act-3-94 , Drain Easement Reduction, East Side 4900 Block Tranter
Street, based on the staff report, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part thereof, with the caveat that any footings
in the easement be placed at the level of the sanitary sewer
(approximately seven feet below) .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
LeBlanc Yea Forrest Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-3-94 Drain Easement Reduction, East Side 4900
Block Tranter Street, was APPROVED.
b. Act-5-94 , River St. Vacation
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve
Act-5-94 , River Street Vacation, from Kalamazoo to Grand (Cesar
Chavez) Avenue, subject to the following conditions :
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 17
1 . The creation of necessary utility easements;
2 . The creation of a 50 ' easement along the east side of the
overall site adjacent to the Grand River for the future
extension of the River Trail, such easement to be measured
from the top of the bank; and
3 . Installation of landscape material along the Grand River
between the parking lot as designed and the top of the river
bank, and it is to consist of vegetative material such as
grass and/or other plant materials, and it is recommended that
natural vegetation be retained between the area between the
river and the top of the river bank and
4 . that we also vacate the end of Kalamazoo Street as originally
platted, and the City Council should direct the staff to have
the appropriate documents filed with Circuit Court according
to MCLA 556 .255a.
Mr. Goolsby said Kalamazoo Street has been changed over the years .
At one point it used to go toward the river. State law requires
that any vacation of that property must be done in Circuit Court.
According to Mr. Ruff, we can't vacate that portion of Kalamazoo.
Riverfront property, according to City ordinance, cannot vacated or
relinquished as part of waterfront properties . If kept within the
50 ' distance, you would have to keep the easement. The Law
Department will have to look at it.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Forrest Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Blanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-5-94 , River Street Vacation, from Kalamazoo to
Grand (Cesar Chavez) Avenue, was APPROVED.
a. Next meeting Tuesday, July 12 , 1994 at 4 p.m. ,
Planning Off. Conf . Rm. , Second Floor,
Washington Sq. Annex
3 . Executive Committee: - Did not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said the Planning Board at the next meeting will
have a public hearing on the Section 108 Loan Application
Guarantee for the Seven Block Development Area for $3 . 8
million. Given the fact that this hearing is primarily
a formality to comply with the HUD requirements , would
the Board consider action that night.
Work on the Enterprise Community application is
continuing.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 - PAGE 18
Our new Planner 30, Steve Hayward, starts tomorrow.
D. Pending Items : Future action required
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A
status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
2 . Urban Development Committee :
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI . NEW BUSINESS - None.
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said one new communication, on Z-8-94 , was
read during the hearing.
viii, COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman LeBlanc asked if the historic lighting was referred
to the Historic District Commission; Mr. Ruff said yes .
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed Mr. Forrest .
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Goolsby said with 88 , 000 meters, 164: per month generates
$176 , 000 per year, more than the annual cost of historic
lighting. Could the City put a special assessment on utility
bills to fund the lighting? Also, visual pollution on
Michigan Avenue needs to be eliminated.
Mr. Fountain said it was a first for BWL for a presentation to
other City boards . Originally, they may have come because of
the cost, but the information presented was an eye opener for
Mr. Cooper.
X. ADJOURNMENT was at 10 : 45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn062194
Mrs.uorne said on page 10,Line W,the period was omitted after"Mr",before Mr.Fountain's name. APPROVED 070694
TO CLERK 002N4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
TUESDAY, JUNE 7 , 1994 06 -94 109 : 0� R C V D
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 32 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Fountain, Goolsby, Horne, LeBlanc,
Marshall, Ruge, Thelen. Ex officio Councilmembers Jones
and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - None. Forrest - absent. Mr. Thelen
made a motion, seconded Mrs . Horne to excuse Mr. Ruge
from the May 17, 1994 meeting; voice vote; unanimous ;
motion carried.
C . Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator;- William Burleson, Associate City Attorney,
City Attorney's Office; Louise H. Christian, Planning
Board Secretary; Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
The Chairman added an item to the agenda, a resolution
distributed at tonight' s meeting in support of the
Enterprise Community application. With that addition,
the agenda was approved.
II . HEARINGS :
A. SLU-7-94 , 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless/Emergency Shelter.
Mr. Ruff presented the request by Loaves and Fishes
Homeless Shelter to amend their special land use received
in 1982 in order to increase the capacity to 15 and
expand the facility into 835 N. Sycamore, combining the
two buildings . The property is zoned "C" Residential
which allows residential care facilities with a special
land use permit.
KEVIN J. BOWLING, ON BEHALF OF LOAVES AND FISHES CORE
GROUP, 831 N. SYCAMORE. We have operated the overnight
shelter since 1981 . To maintain our current shelter at
831 N. Sycamore, we need to buy the adjacent property at
835 N. Sycamore. Our plan is to connect 831 and 835, and
provide adequate parking. We intend to maintain the
emergency portion of our program at 831 (short-term) , and
develop a transitional living program at 835 ( long-term) .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2
I have letters of support from community agencies . For
the overnight shelter, the City Council in 1981 required
that guests could be in the shelter only from 6 p.m. to
10 a.m. the following day. If we expand to include a
transitional living program, services would be provided
to guests in the transitional living component during the
day if City Council would permit this .
Chairman LeBlanc said Mr. Bowling provided letters of support from
the Child Abuse Prevention Service, Community Support Services,
Cristo Rey, Southland Clinic, Lansing Public Schools Adult and
Vocational Education, LCC Student Counseling Center, LCC Women' s
Resource Center, Literacy Volunteers of America, Center for
Handicapper Affairs, Friendship Clinic, Ingham County Health
Department, Housing Resource Center, Volunteers of America New Hope
Center, Professional and New Hope Job Clubs, Peckham Vocational
Industries, Youth Development Corps, and Legal Aid of Central
Michigan.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record letters received in the
Planning Division from New Way In, Wendy Ring, in support, and
David DeVinney, 916" Wisconsin Avenue, in support.
SLU-7-94 is referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
B. SLU-9-94, Radford Road, Reachout Christian Center,
Construct New Church
Mr. Ruff presented SLU-9-94, a request to construct a new
church facility in two phases on property bounded by Wise
Road, off the end of Holmes, along homes on Radford Rd.
near Coachlight Common, and Waverly and Miller. The area
was platted once and then replatted. It has never been
developed for residential purposes . A number of acres
have been sold off; the church purchased a part of the
property to develop the church facility, with a capacity
of 279 persons, on a 16-acre parcel in Phase I . Phase II
would have a larger sanctuary, and the Phase I facility
would be converted to a gymnasium. The property has an
access easement from Consumers Power, so there is direct
access onto Wise Road on the north end.
Chairman LeBlanc asked about access to Radford Road; Mr.
Ruff said there is no access to Radford Road.
The petitioner was not present.
SLU-9-94 was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - -PAGE 3
C. SLU-10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan
Toyota, Allow "J" Parking for Display of New and Used
Vehicles
Mr. Ruff presented the request by Spartan Toyota for a
Special Land Use permit to utilize "J" Parking District
along Pennsylvania Avenue for the display of new and used
vehicles . They have purchased the old ABC Warehouse
property and are reducing some of the parking area for
landscaping in the front 69 3/4 feet and also providing
parking for sale of new and used vehicles . The "J"
Parking District allows this with a special land use
permit. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial
besides the "J" Parking District; it is about 4 3/4 acres
in size, surrounded by other commercial and warehouse
development. They are also asking for their current
Spartan Toyota and Lexus property be brought up to meet
the standard of the special land use permit.
The petitioner was not present.
SLU-10-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
D. ACT-5-94, River Street Closure
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Public Service
Department to vacate street right-of-way of River Street
between Kalamazoo Street and Grand Avenue (Cesar Chavez)
and that the property be utilized for a staging area and
then for a redevelopment site in the future. In the
interim, it would be a parking area and a staging area
for construction of the Intermodal Transportation
Terminal . The City has purchased the properties on both
sides of River Street.
Mr. Ruge asked if the City has excess parking now? Mr.
Ruff said when a site is developed and existing parking
has to be relocated, the parkers have to be relocated
nearby; plus space is needed for construction equipment.
DAVID J. BERRIDGE, CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
Mr. Ruge asked if the proposed parking would replace
parking taken over by the new transportation center. Mr.
Berridge said the proposed parking lot is part of the
plan adopted by City Council in October 1989 to acquire
the land, demolish the properties, consolidate the land
and construct a surface lot. We are following through on
a plan adopted five years ago. Parking is still needed.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 4
Mr. Thelen asked how many total parking spaces;
Mr. Berridge said nearly 400 spaces . Patrons parking in
the 150-space lot will be relocated during construction.
Handicapper spaces will be constructed and available in
accordance with ADA requirements .
Mr. Fountain asked about vacation versus closure of the
street. As the item proceeds through committee, closing
rather than vacating should be scrutinized. Technically,
it may make some difference in the future. In some other
areas downtown, streets were closed, rather than vacated,
so that easements for sewer, etc. could be maintained.
It is worthwhile looking at this aspect. Mr. Berridge
said he would be happy to consider the suggestion. Mr.
Fountain said the property is in the floodplain and maybe
even in the floodway and should be checked to see if any
use permit is required to reconstruct the parking lot.
Act-5-94 was referred to the Urban Development Committee.
Chairman LeBlanc said the River and Waterfront Board at
their recent meeting informally discussed the matter and
requested landscaping of the parking lot and maintenance
of the access to the river and the River Trail, and
perhaps a river overlook. Also, if the site is developed
in the future, that the developer be required as part of
any sales agreement to develop the public portion of the
river bank.
E . LS-4-94 , Lot Split, 1539-1545 Ohio Ave.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kenneth Kruger,
1539 Ohio Avenue, to split property off 1545 Ohio Avenue
and attach it to his property at 1539 Ohio Avenue. The
split would increase the size of his property and
decrease the adjoining property. Neither property would
meet the current subdivision requirements . The property
sizes will increase, 1539 Ohio Avenue from 33-foot lot to
a 36-foot lot, and 1545 Ohio Avenue from a 49-foot lot to
a 46-foot lot. The property is "B" Residential District.
The petitioner' s driveway has extended over the driveway
for many years and he is trying to clear it up.
KENNETH KRUGER, 1539 OHIO AVENUE. The agenda gives this
item as 1543; the correct address is 1545 .
LS-4-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
III . PUBLIC MEETINGS :
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 5
A. Enterprise Community Application
Order will be first a staff presentation, followed by
audience comments .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, supported by Mrs . Horne, for a
five-minute recess to allow staff to set up for their
presentation; voice vote; Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Winnicker, Development Manager, summarized the City' s
effort to seek Enterprise Community designation. The
federal government has given communities the opportunity
to be designated as Enterprise Communities or Empowerment
Zones . We designated eight committees, which met in
March and April about the functional areas, housing,
economic development, human services, education and
training, finance, public safety, infrastructure and
transportation, and environment, to be addressed in the
application.
Each committee picked two or three strategies that would
be effective in addressing area problems, strategies for
which we have commitments in place.
Four things are mandated to be looked at: The need to
have self-sustaining programs . They have to run on their
own some time in the future. The theme of this area is
jobs, jobs, jobs; employment . The idea is to create
economic opportunities in the communities, or have people
create their own opportunities and get out of poverty.
They must be community-based, with community support.
The last is, the vision for change, the need to do
business in a different way than in the past. We tried
to demonstrate each of these four ideas in the core
strategies . We feel we have ten to twelve good core
strategies .
Chairman LeBlanc announced the public comment section.
MARTY ANDREWS, LANSING BUSINESS OWNER. I was on the
Economic Development Committee. Regarding micro-
enterprise businesses , we need to attract larger firms
with more business experience to provide jobs . Another
thing: people at the colleges aren' t qualified to train
people for jobs . They can train for basic skills but not
how to run businesses . Regarding community focus
centers, ten might be too many. One or two--who is going
to pay taxes, and utilities after the grant expiration.
Spend the money researching bringing bigger businesses to
Lansing to provide more jobs .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 6
CATHY PELHAM, 239 ELVIN COURT. I am confused about the
relationship of existing grants to the potential EC money
and concerned that money will be diverted from CDBG. In
the EC application and in CDBG, they talk about
maintenance of effort. We are not to use those special
funds to undermine an ongoing effort. We have been very
careful that the EC dollars would be an expansion or an
addition to existing programs .
BARB WICKERHAM, 539 BAKER STREET, NEIGHBORS UNITED IN
ACTION. I am a VISTA volunteer, in support. We would
like to see a latch key program instituted. People could
work and know their children are taken care of after
school . We are going to use resources already available,
RSVP program, Foster Grandparents and Youth Illiteracy
Coalition. We are doing a community needs assessment.
CARI HANSON, 907 BURCHAM. I am the other neighborhood
VISTA volunteer. We have talked about projects in the
focus center, immunization clinics, a community library,
and day care. Regarding attracting larger businesses, in
Atlanta, large corporations sponsor a neighborhood and
provide on-the-job training and other activities .
DEBRA TELLES, NORTH LANSING. Please explain rationale
used in developing the neighborhood focus centers as
opposed to utilizing and expanding existing centers in
the distressed areas, and a definition of "distressed
area" . "When I woke up this morning, all of a sudden it
was a distressed area" .
Ms . Love said Kingsley is already at capacity, and Foster
is outside the EC area. Instead of enlarging and
centralizing activities for two or three centers, the
idea is to decentralize facilities to be closer to
individual neighborhoods . Regarding distressed areas,
within the area are 14 census tracts having populations
with 25 percent of residents at or below poverty level .
The eight tracts in the center have 35 percent of
residents at or below poverty level . This is the same
area the City has been working on for at least 15 years .
JOHN SANFORD, 342 CORRAL PATH, EMERGENCY SERVICES
DIRECTOR, RED CROSS, EC HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE, ALSO ON
CAPITOL AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD. I want to speak
to the focus center issue. Head Start is growing, and
looking for classrooms . The closer Head Start can get to
the community, the less transportation we must have.
Head Start is in the Donora facility, will purchase half
of it, and will be involved in continuing maintenance.
CACS expects to continue to be involved. This is money
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 7
from a new source other than EC. These small multiple
facilities are needed because we are dealing with
community ownership. Each facility would have offices
that would be defined by the community. We can't
consolidate into major centers , rather, we have to get
smaller and closer to home, and focus on a smaller basis .
JENNIFER GRAU, 201 LATHROP, REPRESENTING LANSING
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I will be sending a letter with
ideas that neighborhoods interface, but Neighborhood
Council, along with Dr. Frank Fear from Resource
Development, and Dr. Rex Lamour from Center for Urban
Affairs, has gotten to the second stage of a $270, 000
environmental grant to interface neighborhood activities
with environmental projects . We are one of 14
applications being sent to the federal government Friday.
We will know by the end of the summer.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record some written comments :
Carl Dorshimer, Economic Development Planner, Tri County
Regional Planning Commission, in support, with comments;
Ken Spurber, Office for Young Children. Disappointed that
child care issues were not included in the preliminary plan.
Suggests several possible initiatives to address these;
Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll, President, Eastside Neighborhood
Organization, in support and offering help as volunteer. This
Concludes the public meeting on the Enterprise Community
application.
B. East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study Committee
HOWARD DEARDORF, DEARDORF DESIGN RESOURCES . Presented
the plan for revitalization of East Michigan Avenue in
four phases including Project Start Up, Neighborhood
Business Corridor Alternatives, East Michigan Design
Treatment, and Plan Implementation Phase.
The plan assumptions are: ( 1) consider existing and
future conditions; (2) the BTS Plan is relevant and is
the framework for the study; (3) coordinate the study
with Sparrow Hospital ' s plan; (4) Eastern, Pattengill and
Bingham are here to stay, and the residential
neighborhoods are here to stay; (5 ) Create design
standards for the interface for residential and
commercial uses; ( 6 ) East Michigan Avenue will remain
primarily in commercial use; ( 7 ) the Study will be a
participatory process ; ( 8) This plan will serve as the
prototype for the entire East Michigan corridor out to
US-127 .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 8
The goals are as follows : minimize traffic conflicts
between residents, schools, and hospital; identify
traffic impacts at intersections along E . Michigan;
minimize nonlocal cut-through traffic; enhance pedestrian
safety; create a gateway image for the Capitol as one
approach going from the east to the west, and for
Lansing' s east side; soften commercial use impacts on
residential uses; encourage facade improvements along E .
Michigan Avenue; attract new businesses to E. Michigan
Avenue; encourage conservation and revitalization of
residential neighborhoods; and maintain unity in the
streetscape design.
The East Michigan Avenue Design treatment is a part of
this study; we are taking about adding about 180 parking
for businesses along East Michigan other than Sparrow
Hospital in hopes of revitalizing the East Michigan
Avenue community. Parking is key. In terms of signage,
we want to install signage that will enable people to
find a place to park. That will give the businesses the
chance to be successful .
In the implementation stage to identify programs to fund
this, we think the secret is in the Enterprise Community,
not all the money, but the kind of money to pilot things
and get things started. This is an opportunity to
revitalize not just the street, but the neighborhoods
around it, and stabilize and emphasize opportunities in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Ruge left the meeting at this point.
Chairman LeBlanc informed Mr. Deardorf that at the June 21
meeting a public hearing will be held on street lighting in
the downtown area and on Michigan Avenue to Pennsylvania
Avenue. Chairman LeBlanc called for comments from the
audience.
JULIE SOLTOW, 1212 EUREKA. My question is about the
diverter at Holmes and Eureka. It looks like a one-way
loop that goes around the annex to the east.
Mr. Deardorff said it will be two-way, and traffic will
be diverted to prevent cut-through traffic. Holmes,
Bingham and Eureka will remain two- way streets .
PAUL ROSS, ON BEHALF OF STUDIO DE DANSE. I came to
express the concern of Studio De Danse for the safety of
the students . Jones Street is a very viable route used
by Studio De Danse and the parents . We ' re very aware of
the concerns of the neighbors against non-residential
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 9
cut-through traffic. The idea of a commercial alley
running from Bingham school, behind the CoMerica Bank,
the Lynn camera building, and outletting onto Jones
street is certainly something that we are interested in
looking at. Thank you.
JON ANTHONY, EASTSIDE COMMERCIAL CLUB. I 've been a
businessman on Michigan Avenue for 54 years . I think our
residential areas are coming back. I would like to see
this, and along with Sparrow Hospital, am trying to get
our employees to buy on the Eastside, and will assist in
the purchasing of houses similar to Sparrow. I would
like to see this a world class city, and everybody on the
east side would like to see that. Thank you.
BRIAN SINGER-TOWNS, 1220 EUREKA. We have to put a
priority on bringing those businesses back onto Michigan
Avenue again; that will help the neighborhood. We've
been concerned about the traffic flow. On Holmes and
Michigan, traffic lights would really help that if you
can't actually straighten the street out.
Chairman LeBlanc announced the conclusion of the public meeting.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None.
V. RECESS - None.
VI . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : None.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994 , at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair
a. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 4 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room, Second
Floor, Washington Square Annex
Chairman LeBlanc announced that Ms . Marshall has been appointed to
the Urban Development Committee.
Mr. Goolsby asked regarding the East Michigan Avenue study, if
committee consideration is being held off until the implementation
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 10
plan is completed. Ms . Love answered that she anticipates that it
would come at the July meeting.
3 . Executive Committee - did not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said "You've seen most of what we ' re working on
tonight. I ' ll leave it at that. "
D. Pending Items : Future action required.
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C . Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
d. Z-8-94 , SE Cor. S. Cedar & Pacific, "B" to
"D-1"
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92 , Kaplan Street
VII . NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain to resolve
into a• Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution for
the Enterprise Community Application.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; motion approved to. resolve into Committee of the
Whole; Mr. Goolsby, chair.
Mr. Goolsby called the Committee of the Whole to order to
consider the resolution of the Enterprise Community
application.
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that the
Committee approve the .resolution and forward it to Council .
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE on the motion was as follows :
Mr. Fountain said this might be the time to make ordinance
amendments to accommodate home occupations and cottage industries ,
while protecting adjacent properties; and to relax building codes
to make these things happen without taking away the entire intent.
Mr. Thelen said for the record that he formerly resided in one of
those distressed areas, and it did not suddenly become distressed
this morning.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 11
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, supported by Mrs . Horne, that the
Committee of the Whole has met and considered a resolution of
support for the Enterprise Community application, and the Committee
unanimously recommends that the Planning Board approve the
resolution and send it to City Council for their consideration.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
viii. NEW BUSINESS - None.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said there is one new communication she neglected
to read at the public hearing from the Eleven-Twenty Company
regarding SLU-10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, in
support; however, they feel the portion of property immediately
adjacent to Keystone Avenue should be restricted to normal
appearance and without the use of banners, flags, etc. , for sales
tools ' because Keystone Avenue is transitioning to office use.
They feel the appearance of the dealership should be oriented to
Pennsylvania Avenue, and not to Keystone Avenue.
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed new member Jane Marshall . The other item
is vacation schedules--submit them as soon as possible. Chairman
LeBlanc will have to miss the second August meeting. Also, the
first meetings in July, August, and September are on Wednesdays,
due to elections and holidays .
Mr. Fountain said it may be possible to consolidate the summer
meeting to a single monthly meeting. Regarding the Enterprise
Community boundaries , the area covers all four NDA areas that were
previously looked at as depressed areas . Ms . Love said it includes
the NSAs and the 21 target neighborhoods that we are operating in.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11 : 02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn060794
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II. HEARINGS
A. SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes - Homeless
Shelter
B. SLU-9-94, Radford Road, Reachout Christian Center, Construct New
Church
C. SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan Toyota,
Allow "J" Parking for Display of New and Used Vehicles
D. ACT-5-94, River Street Closure
E. LS-4-94, Lot Split, 1539-1543 Ohio Ave.
III. PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. Enterprise Community Application
B. East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study Committee
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
V. RECESS
VI. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: May 19, 1994
B. Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington
Square Annex
3. Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
DRAFT TO CLERK 070594
APPROVED
07-06-94A03 : 59 RCVD TO CLERK
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
TUESDAY, JUNE 7 , 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 32 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Fountain, Goolsby, Horne, LeBlanc,
Marshall, Ruge, Thelen. Ex off icio Councilmembers Jones
and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - None. Forrest - absent . Mr. Thelen
made a motion, seconded Mrs . Horne to excuse Mr. Ruge
from the May 17, 1994 meeting; voice vote; unanimous;
motion carried.
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator; William Burleson, Associate City Attorney,
City Attorney' s Office; Louise H. Christian, Planning
Board Secretary; Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
The Chairman added an item to the agenda, a resolution
distributed at tonight ' s meeting in support of the
Enterprise Community application. With that addition,
the agenda was approved.
II . HEARINGS :
A. SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave. , Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless/Emergency Shelter.
Mr. Ruff presented the request by ' Loaves and Fishes
Homeless Shelter to amend their special land use received
in 1982 in order to increase the capacity to 15 and
expand the facility into 835 N. Sycamore, combining the
two buildings . The property is zoned "C" Residential
which allows residential care facilities with a special
land use permit.
KEVIN J. BOWLING, ON BEHALF OF LOAVES AND FISHES CORE
GROUP, 831 N. SYCAMORE. We have operated the overnight
shelter since 1981 . To maintain our current shelter at
831 N. Sycamore, we need to buy the adjacent property at
835 N. Sycamore. Our plan is to connect 831 and 835, and
provide adequate parking. We intend to maintain the
emergency portion of our program at 831 (short-term) , and
develop a transitional living program at 835 (long-term) .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2
I have letters of support from community agencies . For
the overnight shelter, the City Council in 1981 required
that guests could be in the shelter only from 6 p.m. to
10 a.m. the following day. If we expand to include a
transitional living program, services would be provided
to guests in the transitional living component during the
day if City Council would permit this .
Chairman LeBlanc said Mr. Bowling provided letters of support from
the Child Abuse Prevention Service, Community Support Services ,
Cristo Rey, Southland Clinic, Lansing Public Schools Adult and
Vocational Education, LCC Student Counseling Center, LCC Women' s
Resource Center, Literacy Volunteers of America, Center for
Handicapper Affairs, Friendship Clinic, Ingham County Health
Department, Housing Resource Center, Volunteers of America New Hope
Center, Professional and New Hope Job Clubs , Peckham Vocational
Industries, Youth Development Corps, and Legal Aid of Central
Michigan.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record letters received in the
Planning Division from New Way In, Wendy Ring, in support, and
David DeVinney, 9161 Wisconsin Avenue, in support.
SLU-7-94 is referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
B. SLU-9-94, Radford Road, Reachout Christian Center,
Construct New Church
Mr. Ruff presented SLU-9-94, a request to construct a new
church facility in two phases on property bounded by Wise
Road, off the end of Holmes, along homes on Radford Rd.
near Coachlight Common, and Waverly and Miller. The area .
was platted once and then replatted. It has never been
developed for residential purposes . A number of acres
have been sold off; the church purchased a part of the
property to develop the church facility, with a capacity
of 279 persons, on a 16-acre parcel in Phase I . Phase II
would have a larger sanctuary, and the Phase I facility
would be converted to a gymnasium. The property has an
access easement from Consumers Power, so there is direct
access onto Wise Road on the north end.
Chairman LeBlanc asked about access to Radford Road; Mr.
Ruff said there is no access to Radford Road.
The petitioner was not present.
SLU-9-94 was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 3
C. SLU-10-94 , 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan
Toyota, Allow "J" Parking for Display of New and Used
Vehicles
Mr. Ruff presented the request by Spartan Toyota for a
Special Land Use permit to utilize "J" Parking District
along Pennsylvania Avenue for the display of new and used
vehicles . They have purchased the old ABC Warehouse
property and are reducing some of the parking area for
landscaping in the front 69 3/4 feet and also providing
parking for sale of new and used vehicles . The "J"
Parking District allows this with a special land use
permit. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial
besides the "J" Parking District; it is about 4 3/4 acres
in size, surrounded by other commercial and warehouse
development. They are also asking for their current
Spartan Toyota and Lexus property be brought up to meet
the standard of the special land use permit.
The petitioner was not present.
SLU-10-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
D. ACT-5-94, River Street Closure
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Public Service
Department to vacate street right-of-way of River Street
between Kalamazoo Street and Grand Avenue (Cesar Chavez)
and that the property be utilized for a staging area and
then for a redevelopment site in the future. In the
interim, it would be a parking area and a staging area
for construction of the Intermodal Transportation
Terminal . The City has purchased the properties on both
sides of River Street.
Mr. Ruge asked if the City has excess parking now? Mr.
Ruff said when a site is developed and existing parking
has to be relocated, the parkers have to be relocated
nearby; plus space is needed for construction equipment.
DAVID J. BERRIDGE, CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
Mr. Ruge asked if the proposed parking would replace
parking taken over by the new transportation center. Mr.
Berridge said the proposed parking lot is part of the
plan adopted by City Council in October 1989 to acquire
the land, demolish the properties, consolidate the land
and construct a surface lot. We are following through on
a plan adopted five years ago. Parking is still needed.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 4
Mr. Thelen asked how many total parking spaces ;
Mr. Berridge said nearly 400 spaces . Patrons parking in
the 150-space lot will be relocated during construction.
Handicapper spaces will be constructed and available in
accordance with ADA requirements .
Mr. Fountain asked about vacation versus closure of the
street. As the item proceeds through committee, closing
rather than vacating should be scrutinized. Technically,
it may make some difference in the future. In some other
areas downtown, streets were closed, rather than vacated,
so that easements for sewer, etc. could be maintained.
It is worthwhile looking at this aspect. Mr. Berridge
said he would be happy to consider the suggestion. Mr.
Fountain said the property is in the floodplain and maybe
even in the floodway and should be checked to see if any
use permit is required to reconstruct the parking lot.
Act-5-94 was referred to the Urban Development Committee.
Chairman LeBlanc said the River and Waterfront Board at
their recent meeting informally discussed the matter and
requested landscaping of the parking lot and maintenance
of the access to the river and the River Trail, and
perhaps a river overlook. Also, if the site is developed
in the future, that the developer be required as part of
any sales agreement to develop the public portion of the
river bank.
E . LS-4-94 , Lot Split, 1539-1545 Ohio Ave.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kenneth Kruger,
1539 Ohio Avenue, to split property off 1545 Ohio Avenue
and attach it to his property at 1539 Ohio Avenue. The
split would increase the size of his property and
decrease the adjoining property. Neither property would
meet the current subdivision requirements . The property
sizes will increase, 1539 Ohio Avenue from 33-foot lot to
a 36-foot lot, and 1545 Ohio Avenue from a 49-foot lot to
a 46-foot lot. The property is "B" Residential District.
The petitioner's driveway has extended over the driveway
for many years and he is trying to clear it up.
KENNETH KRUGER, 1539 OHIO AVENUE. The agenda gives this
item as 1543; the correct address is 1545 .
LS-4-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
III . PUBLIC MEETINGS:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 5
A. Enterprise Community Application
Order will be first a staff presentation, followed by
audience comments .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, supported by Mrs . Horne, for a
five-minute recess to allow staff to set up for their
presentation; voice vote; Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Winnicker, Development Manager, summarized the City' s
effort to seek Enterprise Community designation. The
federal government has given communities the opportunity
to be designated as Enterprise Communities or Empowerment
Zones . We designated eight committees , which met in
March and April about the functional areas , housing,
economic development, human services, education and
training, finance, public safety, infrastructure and
transportation, and environment, to be addressed in the
application.
Each committee picked two or three strategies that would
be effective in addressing area problems, strategies for
which we have commitments in place.
Four things are mandated to be looked at: The need to
have self-sustaining programs . They have to run on their
own some time in the future. The theme of this area is
jobs, jobs, jobs; employment. The idea is to create
economic opportunities in the communities_, or have people
create their own opportunities and get out of poverty.
They must be community-based, with community support.
The last is the vision for change, the need to do
business in a different way than in the past. We tried
to demonstrate each of these four ideas in the core
strategies . We feel we have ten to twelve good core
strategies .
Chairman LeBlanc announced the public comment section.
MARTY ANDREWS, LANSING BUSINESS OWNER. I was on the
Economic Development Committee. Regarding micro-
enterprise businesses, we need to attract larger firms
with more business experience to provide jobs . Another
thing: people at the colleges aren't qualified to train
people for jobs . They can train for basic skills but not
how to run businesses . Regarding community focus
centers , ten might be too many. One or two--who is going
to pay taxes, and utilities after the grant expiration.
Spend the money researching bringing bigger businesses to
Lansing to provide more jobs .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 6
CATHY PELHAM, 239 ELVIN COURT. I am confused about the
relationship of existing grants to the potential EC money
and concerned that money will be diverted from CDBG. In
the EC application and in CDBG, they talk about
maintenance of effort . We are not to use those special
funds to undermine an ongoing effort. We have been very
careful that the EC dollars would be an expansion or an
addition to existing programs .
BARB WICKERHAM, 539 BAKER STREET, NEIGHBORS UNITED IN
ACTION. I am a VISTA volunteer, in support. We would
like to see a latch key program instituted. People could
work and know their children are taken care of after
school . We are going to use resources already available,
RSVP program, Foster Grandparents and Youth Illiteracy
Coalition. We are doing a community needs assessment.
CARI HANSON, 907 BURCHAM. I am the other neighborhood
VISTA volunteer. We have talked about projects in the
focus center, immunization clinics, a community library,
and day care. Regarding attracting larger businesses, in
Atlanta, large corporations sponsor a neighborhood and
provide on-the-job training and other activities .
DEBRA TELLES, NORTH LANSING. Please explain rationale
used in developing the neighborhood focus centers as
opposed to utilizing and expanding existing centers in
the distressed areas, and a definition of "distressed
area" . "When I woke up this morning, all of a sudden it
was a distressed area" .
Ms . Love said Kingsley is already at capacity, and Foster
is outside the EC area. Instead of enlarging and
centralizing activities for two or three centers, the
idea is to decentralize facilities to be closer to
individual neighborhoods . Regarding distressed areas,
within the area are 14 census tracts having populations
with 25 percent of residents at or below poverty level .
The eight tracts in the center have 35 percent of
residents at or below poverty level . This is the same
area the City has been working on for at least 15 years .
JOHN SANFORD, 342 CORRAL PATH, EMERGENCY SERVICES
DIRECTOR, RED CROSS, EC HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE, ALSO ON
CAPITOL AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD. I want to speak
to the focus center issue. Head Start is growing, and
looking for classrooms . The closer Head Start can get to
the community, the less transportation we must have.
Head Start is in the Donora facility, will purchase half
of it, and will be involved in continuing maintenance.
CACS expects to continue to be involved. This is money
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 7
from a new source other than EC. These small multiple
facilities are needed because we are dealing with
community ownership. Each facility would have offices
that would be defined by the community. We can' t
consolidate into major centers , rather, we have to get
smaller and closer to home, and focus on a smaller basis .
JENNIFER GRAD, 201 LATHROP, REPRESENTING LANSING
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I will be sending a letter with
ideas that neighborhoods interface, but Neighborhood
Council, along with Dr. Frank Fear from Resource
Development, and Dr. Rex Lamour from Center for Urban
Affairs , has gotten to the second stage of a $270,000
environmental grant to interface neighborhood activities
with environmental projects . We are one of 14
applications being sent to the federal government Friday.
We will know by the end of the summer.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record some written comments :
Carl Dorshimer, Economic Development Planner, Tri County
Regional Planning Commission, in support, with comments;
Ken Spurber, Office for Young Children. Disappointed that
child care issues were not included in the preliminary plan.
Suggests several possible initiatives to address these;
Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll, President, Eastside Neighborhood
Organization, in support and offering help as volunteer. This
concludes the public meeting on the Enterprise Community
application.
B. East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study Committee
HOWARD DEARDORF, DEARDORF DESIGN RESOURCES. Presented .
the plan for revitalization of East Michigan Avenue in
four phases including Project Start Up, Neighborhood
Business Corridor Alternatives, East Michigan Design
Treatment, and Plan Implementation Phase.
The plan assumptions are: ( 1) consider existing and
future conditions; (2) the BTS Plan is relevant and is
the framework for the study; ( 3) coordinate the study
with Sparrow Hospital ' s plan; (4) Eastern, Pattengill and
Bingham are here to stay, and the residential
neighborhoods are here to stay; (5 ) Create design
standards for the interface for residential and
commercial uses ; ( 6 ) East Michigan Avenue will remain
primarily in commercial use; ( 7 ) the Study will be a
participatory process; (8) This plan will serve as the
prototype for the entire East Michigan corridor out to
US-127 .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 8
The goals are as follows : minimize traffic conflicts
between residents, schools , and hospital; identify
traffic impacts at intersections along E. Michigan;
minimize nonlocal cut-through traffic; enhance pedestrian
safety; create a gateway image for the Capitol as one
approach going from the east to the west, and for
Lansing' s east side; soften commercial use impacts on
residential uses; encourage facade improvements along E .
Michigan Avenue; attract new businesses to E . Michigan
Avenue; encourage conservation and revitalization of
residential neighborhoods; and maintain unity in the
streetscape design.
The East Michigan Avenue Design treatment is a part of
this study; we are taking about adding about 180 parking
for businesses along East Michigan other than Sparrow
Hospital in hopes of revitalizing the East Michigan
Avenue community. Parking is key. In terms of signage,
we want to install signage that will enable people to
find a place to park. That will give the businesses the
chance to be successful .
In the implementation stage to identify programs to fund
this, we think the secret is in the Enterprise Community,
not all the money, but the kind of money to pilot things
and get things started. This is an opportunity to
revitalize not just the street, but the neighborhoods
around it, and stabilize and emphasize opportunities in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Ruge left the meeting at this point.
Chairman LeBlanc informed Mr. Deardorf that at the June 21
meeting a public hearing will be held on street lighting in
the downtown area and on Michigan Avenue to Pennsylvania
Avenue. Chairman LeBlanc called for comments from the
audience.
JULIE SOLTOW, 1212 EUREKA. My question is about the
diverter at Holmes and Eureka. It looks like a one-way
loop that goes around the annex to the east.
Mr. Deardorff said it will be two-way, and traffic will
be diverted to prevent cut-through traffic. Holmes,
Bingham and Eureka will remain two- way streets .
PAUL ROSS, ON BEHALF OF STUDIO DE DANSE. I came to
express the concern of Studio De Danse for the safety of
the students . Jones Street is a very viable route used
by Studio De Danse and the parents . We 're very aware of
the concerns of the neighbors against non-residential
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 , 1994 - PAGE 9
cut-through traffic . The idea of a commercial alley
running from Bingham school, behind the CoMerica Bank,
the Lynn camera building, and outletting onto Jones
street is certainly something that we are interested in
looking at . Thank you.
JON ANTHONY, EASTSIDE COMMERCIAL CLUB. I 've been a
businessman on Michigan Avenue for 54 years . I think our
residential areas are coming back. I would like to see
this , and along with Sparrow Hospital, am trying to get
our employees to buy on the Eastside, and will assist in
the purchasing of houses similar to Sparrow. I would
like to see this a world class city, and everybody on the
east side would like to see that. Thank you.
BRIAN SINGER-TOWNS, 1220 EUREKA. We have to put a
priority on bringing those businesses back onto Michigan
Avenue again; that will help the neighborhood. We've
been concerned about the traffic flow. On Holmes and
Michigan, traffic lights would really help that if you
can't actually straighten the street out.
Chairman LeBlanc announced the conclusion of the public meeting.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None.
V. RECESS - None.
VI . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : None.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994 , at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair
a. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14 , 1994 at 4 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room, Second
Floor, Washington Square Annex
Chairman LeBlanc announced that Ms . Marshall has been appointed to
the Urban Development Committee.
Mr. Goolsby asked regarding the East Michigan Avenue study, if
committee consideration is being held off until the implementation
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 10
plan is completed. Ms . Love answered that she anticipates that it
would come at the July meeting.
3 . Executive Committee - did not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said "You 've seen most of what we ' re working on
tonight . I ' ll leave it at that. "
D. Pending Items : Future action required.
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
d. Z-8-94 , SE Cor. S . Cedar & Pacific, "B" to
"D-1"
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VII . NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain to resolve
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution for
the Enterprise Community Application.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; motion approved to resolve into Committee of the
Whole; Mr. Goolsby, chair.
Mr. Goolsby called the Committee of the Whole to order to
consider the resolution of the Enterprise Community
application.
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that the
Committee approve the resolution and forward it to Council .
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE on the motion was as follows :
Mr Fountain said this might be the time to make ordinance
amendments to accommodate home occupations and cottage industries,
while protecting adjacent properties; and to relax building codes
to make these things happen without taking away the entire intent.
Mr. Thelen said for the record that he formerly resided in one of
those distressed areas, and it did not suddenly become distressed
this morning.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 , 1994 - PAGE 11
On a voice vote, there were : Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, supported by Mrs . Horne, that the
Committee of the Whole has met and considered a resolution of
support for the Enterprise Community application, and the Committee
unanimously recommends that the Planning Board approve the
resolution and send it to City Council for their consideration.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
vIII. NEW BUSINESS - None.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said there is one new communication she neglected
to read at the public hearing from the Eleven-Twenty Company
regarding SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, in
support; however, they feel the portion of property immediately
adjacent to Keystone Avenue should be restricted to normal
appearance and without the use of banners, flags, etc . , for sales
tools, because Keystone Avenue is transitioning to office use.
They feel the appearance of the dealership should be oriented to
Pennsylvania Avenue, and not to Keystone Avenue.
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed new member Jane Marshall . The other item
is vacation schedules--submit them as soon as possible. Chairman ,'
LeBlanc will have to miss the second August meeting. Also, the!
first meetings in July, August, and September are on Wednesdays,
due to elections and holidays .
Mr. Fountain said it may be possible to consolidate the summer
meeting to a single monthly meeting. Regarding the Enterprise
Community boundaries, the area covers all four NDA areas that were
previously looked at as depressed areas . Ms . Love said it includes
the NSAs and the 21 target neighborhoods that we are operating in.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11 : 02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anhd\mn060794
REVISED AGENDA
0'1-21 -94i`,Cv 56 RCID
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B . Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
E. Presentations - Doris M. Witherspoon; Merle Barnhart
II. HEARINGS - None.
III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: May 3, 1994
B. Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Z-8-94, SE cor. S. Cedar & Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District
b. SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church
NCU-1-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church Parking Lot
C. SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking
NCU-2-94, 549 E. Mt. Hope Ave. Church Building
Addition
d. SLU-6-94, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. , 3003 Partners,
Renovate Building
e. SLU-1-94, Mill Pond Village, 1600 E. Willoughby Rd.
f. Z-5-94, 4720 S. Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "F"
Commercial District
g. SLU-8-94, 1130 S. Pennsylvania Ave. ,
Board of Water &
Light, Build in the Floodplain
h. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Office Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Act-3-94, East Side 4900 Blk. of Tranter St. , Drain
Easement Reduction
b. Act-4-94, 1000 Filley St. , Disposition of Property
C. Act-5-94, River St. Vacation (information only)
d. Next meeting Tuesday, June 10, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Off. Conf. Rm. , Second Floor, Washington Sq. Annex
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA MAY 17, 1994 PAGE 2
3. Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held)
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H. CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-
4088 TDD.
C:\WP\DATA\PLAN13D\5-051794.AG
APPROVED 062194
TO CLERK 071194
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chamberg7-21 -94A03 : 56 RCVD
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, May 17, 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 38 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Thelen. Absent : Ruge. Seven members serving
at this time; one vacancy. Ex officio members
Councilmembers Jones and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - None.
C . Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior
Planner, Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary;
William Burleson, Associate City Attorney.
D. Approval of Revised Agenda. Approved as printed.
E. Presentations .
On behalf of the Board and staff, Ms . Love, presented a
certificate to Ms . Witherspoon in recognition of her
service on the Planning Board. She also presented Mr.
Barnhart with a clock engraved IN APPRECIATION in
recognition of his 23 years of service. Mr. Barnhart
resigned recently; he is moving out of the City.
II . HEARINGS - None.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
RONALD ALLEN, 2311 S, CEDAR, SUITE B. (Distributed documents
addressing various concerns of the Board, pertaining to
parking on South Cedar, Z-8-94 . ) I have a total of 16 parking
spaces . One space is designated for handicapped; another is
for vans with lifts ( 18 feet wide) , to comply with Americans
With Disabilities Act, which requires an extra 6 feet over the
state requirement of 12 feet. That leaves 14 regular spaces .
My tenant, Interim Health Care, has five employees; I have
four employees . That leaves five spaces for patients and
tenant clients . My employees have been parking elsewhere, and
my tenant and I have been coordinating busy times . My tenant,
starting as a new business with a minimal parking requirement,
has been very successful and now has five employees and field
employees whom he interviews and trains at the office
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 2
location. Friday is payday, with lots of traffic in and out .
Another thing: When Cedar Street was widened, an error was
made in the survey, and the sidewalk is up to 18 inches on my
property. The State has asked to purchase 2 feet on Cedar
Street; they want to trade me this property that is under
consideration for rezoning. I have an option to purchase .
The State is ready to settle . Regarding the handicap parking
situation, when the parking lot was installed, it was done to
the builder' s and the City' s satisfaction. It was changed
from close to the building to the other side of the parking
lot because of the grade there and concern for the
handicapped. The new federal requirement is for an 18 ' width.
This parking is essential to the full use of my building.
Mrs . Horne asked the location of employee parking "elsewhere" ;
Dr. Allen said employees have been parking on the grassy area
next to the skywalk, on the property that is up for rezoning.
FRED DOHERTY, 531 EDISON. I am here on my behalf and the
members of the Maplewood PTA, in opposition. The lot is
adjacent to the skywalk that serves the Maplewood Elementary
School . The traffic patterns for children walking to the
school are such that all elementary students living on the
east side of Cedar are funneled to this skywalk in order to
safely cross Cedar, a very dangerous street. They would cross
in front of the curb cut that would provide access to this
drive way up to four times a day, at least three of which
would be during the peak hours of parking lot use. One
student fatality has occurred at Cedar and Mt. Hope, also one
serious injury. It is a serious safety problem for Maplewood
students . There are 16 parking spaces; assuming 2 are
designated handicapped, that would leave 14 . The tenant has
5, leaving 9 spaces . There were fewer spaces when Dr. Allen
had his original building. He has enough parking for his
staff and his patients . He knew the parking situation when he
elected to build the building. To allow him to expand the
parking now after the fact would jeopardize the school
children who are directed to this particular area. It is a
recipe for disaster. A driver is not going to be able to see
a child just off the sidewalk. A kindergartner who is coming
off the skywalk after school is not going to be looking for
cars . The child will leave the skywalk, make a hard right
turn, and in about four steps be in the path of any incoming
or outgoing vehicle. It is a dangerous situation, and the
request should be denied.
ANDREW BRODIE, 1114 W. GLENN ST. regarding SLU-4-94, 907 W.
Saginaw, Church. I would like to extend my thanks for your
hard work for the decision to allow us to use the city parking
north of Saginaw street. We appreciate it. Thank you.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 3
JAMES L. BANKER, 2014 EAST SYRINGA DRIVE, regarding Z-5-94 ,
4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial
District. Mrs . Horne said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee
requested Mr. Banker make a presentation to the Board. He
will exceed five minutes . Mrs . Horne made a motion, seconded
by Mr. Fountain, to allow Mr. Banker to speak beyond five
minutes .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; to allow Mr.
Banker more than five minutes to make his presentation;
carried unanimously; APPROVED.
In February, Mr. Banker and neighborhood watch coordinators
met with Mr. Maguire to discuss the possible rezoning of the
Hacker property at 4720 S . Cedar Street. Mr. Maguire stated
"We don' t build on speculation; we will build only for a
specific tenant; however, we are thinking of a hardware store
or neighborhood pharmacy. " We asked why have 61 parking
spaces; no response. Mr. Maguire said neighborhood concerns
would be addressed. We attended the Planning Board meeting on
March 1, 1994 and voiced our concerns .
An inventory of existing "F" Commercial property on Cedar
Street from Mt . Hope to Willoughby showed over 20 vacant or
unoccupied commercial properties . Existing commercial
properties should be utilized before creating more. On April
15, 1994, we sent a letter to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee opposing Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District . We requested denial
of the petition; however, we recognize this is a valuable
property and proposed a compromise. We would accept a split
of the property to conform to the existing established north-
south property lines . We propose one-third on the west remain
"A" Residential and the remaining two-thirds on the east be
rezoned "D-1" Professional Office and eliminate the exit drive
onto Syringa.
Another meeting requested by Mr. Maguire, was held, attended
by Jim Sturdevant, Joe Maguire, Vernon Fountain, Mr. and Mrs .
Charlie Dart, Jan Patrick and James Banker. Mr. Maguire
proposed another compromise, for "F" Commercial for the east
253 feet of 4720 S. Cedar, with the west 60 feet to be given
to the subdivision as a playground plus $5,000 of playground
equipment. Mr. Maguire was told that we cannot make this
compromise; however, a neighborhood meeting was set for April
26 when the modified proposal will be presented for
consideration.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 4
At the meeting on April 26, 1994 , the modified plan was
presented. After discussion, the property owners voted to
oppose rezoning of property at 4720 S . Cedar from "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District, recommend denial of
Z-5-94 , and consideration only of their compromise proposal .
Mr. Banker submitted a complete copy of his report, pictures
of property inventory, copy of newspaper article, and petition
with 74 signatures, for the record.
TOM BIRCHMAN, WOLVERINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. I call your
attention to a letter to the Planning Board, in care of Mr.
James Ruff, dated May 12, 1994 . I support the original
petition.
IV. RECESS - None .
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : May 3, 1994
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barnhart, to
approve the minutes of May 3, 1994 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion, was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; minutes of the meeting of May 5, 1994 were:
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Z-8-94, SE Cor. S. Cedar & Pacific Ave. , "B"
Residential District to "D-l" Professional
Office District
This is a request by Ronald T. Allen to rezone vacant property
located at the southeast corner of S . Cedar Street and Pacific
Avenue from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District. The applicant proposes to create a parking lot for
8 cars for staff who work in the adjacent office building at
2311 S . Cedar Street.
In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve the requested
rezoning, recognizing the need to properly lay out the parking lot,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 5
with landscape screening and buffering, saving the existing trees
with the idea of reversing the parking arrangement and maintaining
child safety. The item was reported out of committee on a vote as
follows : Yeas : 2 ; Nays : 2 .
The Committee was divided upon the use of the property. Some
members were of the opinion that there is no need for the
additional parking and that it may be better left green space,
seeing little other use of the property; while other members were
of the opinion that the proposed use was a reasonable use of low
intensity, and they recognized the need for an appropriate site
plan with buffering and reorientation of the lot.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to deny Z-8-94 ,
SW Cor. S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows .
Mr. Goolsby asked about school hours beginning at 8 : 40 and ending
at 3 p.m. , and timing of employees arriving at 8 a.m. and leaving .
at 5 p.m. , and impacts upon the request; also what were discussions
concerning buffering. Mr. Doherty raised an excellent question
about pedestrians coming off the skywalk and being directed toward
the parking lot on a diagonal direction. That situation is
probably dangerous . Also was there discussion concerning how
parking will be controlled, with parking for employees only.
Mr. Thelen said the Committee had not seen Dr. Allen' s letters
prior to this evening when he distributed them. About employee
hours and school hours, there was some discussion. Regarding
screening and buffering, potentially, the lot could be rotated or
mirrored, so that cars could be closer to the street than to the
building. There was no discussion of any monitoring of
unauthorized parking by other than employees .
Mrs . Horne said the design could not be flipped because of driveway
locations and locations of mature trees .
Mr. Fountain said with reference to Dr. Allen' s letters, we did
have one letter dated May 6 that was in the packet. We did talk
about, through the site plan review process, putting the driveway
to the east of the skywalk, to give more visibility to anyone
leaving the skywalk and walking to the sidewalk. We talked about
preserving a large tree in the public right-of-way and another one
on the lot itself . The one on the lot could very well eliminate
one parking space, reducing the number of spaces to seven. We
talked about keeping a low profile for the lot, to provide clear
visibility for anyone on the sidewalk, whether child or adult.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 6
Mr. Goolsby asked about lighting in the area. Mr. Fountain said
lighting would be addressed in the site plan review process .
Mrs . LeBlanc asked about flipping the lot and moving the entrance
to the east away from the skywalk. Mr. Fountain said he thought it
could be done; it would be a narrow driveway, but it is supposed to
be a low-intense lot. Mr. Ruff mentioned in the Z&O meeting
designing the curb cut so as to encourage going west towards Cedar
Street rather than towards the residential area.
Mr. Thelen said the committee considered whether or not the lot is
being used and being filled. The information Dr. Allen gave us
tonight appears to make the use of the lot more intense than what
we in reality had seen it. That is a new bit of information; I had
never seen that many cars in it. The second thing is that the
handicapper situation is illegal . I brought it up at the Z&O
meeting, but staff made no acknowledgment of it whatsoever. If we
are going to do a rezoning so they can have a parking lot, and the
current lot is illegal, I have doubts this can be done correctly.
This is the only first time we have had in writing that the
handicapper situation is nonconforming. If he can't get his
current lot in shape and there is no need to fill that lot, why
rezone another one? The lot is small, and if it is not going to be
used as parking, it could only be used for an addition onto the
structure, or existing green space.
Mr. Fountain said on the site plan there was a 10-ft. setback to
the first parking place. If it were in the "D-1" District, he
would be required to keep it back at least 20 feet, so he would
lose another space there, which could conceivably reduce it to 5
spaces at the most, with the preservation of the tree. We did not
encourage parking on the L-shaped part going out to Cedar Street.
Mr. Goolsby asked if Mr. Thelen had talked to Lansing School
officials? Mr. Thelen said no, but in the Board packet, the
president of the Maplewood PTA phoned and mentioned her concern
about unsafe and hazardous conditions .
Chairman LeBlanc said, in Mr. Doherty' s phone message, the
principal, Ms . Kane, will be calling. Mr. Goolsby said there were
no direct communications from the Lansing School officials, and no
comments from them about the proposal .
Mr. Fountain, based on Mr. Goolsby's questions, in all fairness to
the petitioner, made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to table Z-
8-94 until we get an updated site plan. Mr. Goolsby noted that the
motion to table would take precedence. Mr. Fountain reiterated
that the updated site plan should include relocation of the curb
cut, preservation of the trees, the proper setback in the "D-1"
Office District, we should determine how many cars will be parked
in there, and get some response from the School District.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 7
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were : Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
Z-8-94 , SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District was :
TABLED.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, that the
matter be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee on June
15, 1994 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were : Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
Z-8-94 , SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to 'ID-l" Professional Office District was referred to the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee on June 15, 1994 .
APPROVED.
b. SLU-4-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church
NCU-1-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church Parking Lot
This is a request by Rev. Andrew Brodie,
representing St. Luke' s Community Baptist
Church, for property located at 907 W.
Saginaw. The special land use request is
being considered simultaneously with NCU-1-94,
a nonconforming use request for property
located at 907 W. Saginaw. The special land
use request is for use of the building for
church services on Sundays between 11 a.m. and
1 p.m. for an average attendance of about 20
people (maximum capacity 90 people) . Also,
since the property has no parking associated
with the building, the Board is considering
the use in accordance with Section 1294 . 07 (e) ,
in the Nonconformities Chapter of the Zoning
Code.
Regarding SLU-4-94 , the Committee found, based on the staff report,
testimony and evidence:
1 . The proposed special land use is compatible with adjacent land
uses .
2 . The proposed special land use will not cause an essential
change in the character of the area.
3 . The proposed special land use should not interfere with the
general enjoyment of the area.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 8
4 . The proposed special land use would not have a negative impact
on improvements to surrounding uses . Clarification of the
parking arrangements of the church is necessary.
5 . The proposed special land use will have no negative impacts on
the environment.
6 . The proposed special land use should not require any
additional public services .
7 . The proposed special land use should not require any
additional utilities .
8 . The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan.
9 . The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for commercial and business use. The proposed
special land use is compliance with the zoning districts .
There are mixed zoning uses in this area. A special land use
permit is required for a church in a commercial district.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to
approve SLU-4-94 with two conditions :
1 . The parking lot is identified and a written contract
specifying the seven conditions of the off-street parking
agreement as defined by the City Attorney' s office. If a
parking contract is received, the nonconforming substitution
is not necessary.
If a contract cannot be arranged with Mr. Covello and Mr.
Park, there is adequate City parking available across Saginaw.
2 . Ingress and egress is clearly defined for church members and
others entering the parking lot.
Regarding NCU-1-94 , the Committee found, based on the staff report,
testimony and evidence, that the use was no more intense than the
previous commercial uses and that if it did become more intense
with the addition of activities, additional review and approval
will be necessary.
In committee, it was moved, and seconded to approve NCU-1-94 with
conditions; motion carried unanimously, 4-0; NCU-1-94, 907 W.
Saginaw, Church, Class B Nonconformity was approved in committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 9
The Committee recommended approval of the Special Land Use permit
and the substitution, based on the following conditions : .
1 . The parking lot is identified and a written contract
specifying the seven conditions of the off-street parking
agreement as defined by the City Attorney' s office. If a
parking contract is received, the nonconforming substitution
is not necessary.
If a contract cannot be arranged with Mr. Covello and Mr.
Park, there is adequate City parking available across Saginaw.
2 . Ingress and egress is clearly defined for church members and
others entering the parking lot .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve SLU-4-
94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, with the two conditions in the staff
report. Mr. Fountain offered, as a friendly amendment, a
recommendation that the contract be place prior to City Council
action, so that it does not become an enforcement action later.
Mr. Thelen and Mrs . Horne accepted the friendly amendment.
PLANNING BOARD on the motion was as follows .
Ms . Love asked for a point of clarification. The NCU is for the
parking. In case they are not able to work out the contract, then
they don't get the SLU, or the NCU? Mr. Fountain said they had two
options, one coming up with a contract with the adjacent property
owner to give the church the required parking, and the other coming
up with the spaces to satisfy the issues of the NCU. Ms . Love said
he would still need the SLU for the church and what you in effect
do by holding it up before Council is, they can't use the NCU
because there is no parking. What you have done is give them only
one way to go. Mr. Fountain said is the contract issue necessary at
all? Ms . Love said she didn' t think so, the SLU is for the church,
and the NCU is for the parking in case the church doesn't have
parking. Mr.. Fountain said the contract issue isn't necessary at
all, if you look at it that way. Chairman LeBlanc said we are
stating our preference that the contact be obtained, and offering
the City parking as a fall-back measure. Ms . Love said she did not
think it was an either-or. Your original motion is the one that is
in order. Mr. Fountain withdrew his motion.
Mr. Thelen and Ms . Horne accepted the withdrawal of the motion.
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-4-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, was APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 10
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve NCU-
1-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, Class B Nonconformity, Parking Lot.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; NCU-1-94 , was APPROVED.
C. SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Church
Parking
NCU-2-94 , 549 E . Mt. Hope Ave. Church Building
Addition
This is a request by Bethlehem Lutheran Church
for a special land use permit for property
located at 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue. The
special land use permit is being considered
simultaneously with NCU-2-94, a Class A
nonconforming use request for the church
located at 549 E. Mt. Hope Avenue. The
special land use request is for expansion of
the church parking lot, while the Class A
nonconforming use request is to allow a
building addition and renovations to the
existing church facilities . Approval of the
Special Land Use request will make the church
more conforming to the Zoning Code, and must
be done before the criteria necessary for
granting of Class A status are met.
Regarding SLU-5-94 , the Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony, and evidence, that the Special Land Use meets
the criteria set forth in Section 1282 . 03( f) ( 1) - ( 9 ) , which will
allow the requested permit to expand the church parking lot.
Approval of the Special Land Use request will make the church more
conforming to the Zoning Code, and must be done before the criteria
necessary for granting of Class A status are met.
Much discussion took place regarding circulation and the Norman
Street exit.
In committee, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved to
approve the Special Land Use request with the conditions ( 1) that
the landscape screening and buffering of the site be improved, and
(2 ) that the results of leaving the Norman Street exit open be
reviewed by the Planning Board after one year following the
completion of the requested improvements, and ( 3) that, if the exit
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 11
onto Norman Street caused undue pressure on the neighborhood during
the first year, the exit may be required to be closed or controlled
to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
The Committee also recommended that if further expansion is
contemplated, ( 1) that expansion of the parking be along
E . Mt. Hope, and (2 ) that the lot fronting Norman Street be
returned to a residential lot (possibly relocating the house at
565 E . Mt . Hope to Norman Street frontage) , thus eliminating
Norman Street access, and ( 3) the church building be reoriented
toward the neighborhood. It was anticipated that the neighborhood
organization, the community policing officer, and the staff would
be asked to give a report as to any problems that would have been
created by having continued egress onto Norman Street.
The Committee found with regard to public health, safety, and
welfare that the request for Class A was favorable, that Bethlehem
Lutheran Church serves as a community facility as required in the
Master Plan, and that the request does not expand the main hall of
worship.
In committee, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved to
approve Class A status to make the requested improvements, with all
the conditions and considerations as stated above for SLU-5-94 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve SLU-
5-94 , 559 E . Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking, citing the conditions
and considerations in the staff report, as well as the revised site
plan sketch, which is attached hereto and made a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-5-94, 559 E . Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking
was APPROVED.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve
NCU-2-94 , 549 East Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Building Addition, based
on the three conditions listed in the staff report which is
attached hereto and made a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 12
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; NCU-2-94 , 549 East Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Building
Addition was APPROVED.
d. SLU-6-94, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. , 3003
Partners, Renovate Building, Additions to and
Renovation of Building in Floodplain (Public
hearing was not required) .
This is a request by Victor Design,
representing 3003 E. Michigan Avenue
Partnership, to construct two additions onto
the building at 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, which
is in the 100-year floodplain. One of the
additions requires a setback variance of
Section 1268 . 06 (a) , and both have a floor
elevation below the 100-year flood elevation,
requiring a variance of Chapter 1288 of the
Zoning Code. As a corner lot, the property
has two front yards facing Homer and Michigan
Avenue.
The Committee believes this to be a reasonable
request, and recommends that the substantial
improvements be approved with conditions .
It was moved and seconded in committee, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, to recommend approval of SLU-6-94,
3003 E. Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners, Additions to and Renovation
of Building in Floodplain, modified with the six conditions
following:
1 . That the DNR permit applied for be approved (Received
5/11/94) .
2 . That the Board' of Zoning Appeals variances be approved
(Approved 5/12/94) .
3 . That floodplain insurance be purchased for the property in
accordance with federal guidelines .
4 . That all permanent mechanical devices installed be elevated
above the base flood elevation, and that any hazardous
materials stored on-site be stored in accordance with Ingham
County Health Department regulations .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 13
5 . That an evacuation plan for persons, temporary items and
products be developed, submitted to the Planning Office, and
be kept by the property owner/tenant.
6 . That the landscaping of the site, to soften and aesthetically
improve it, be completed by time of occupancy.
It was moved, seconded and unanimously approved in committee to
approve SLU-6-94 , 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners, Additions
to and Renovation of Building in Floodplain.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve SLU-6-
94 , 3003 E . Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners, Additions to and
Renovation of Building in Floodplain, based on the six conditions
referenced in the staff report, which is attached hereto and made
a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-6-94, 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners,
Additions to and Renovation of Building in Floodplain was
APPROVED.
e. SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 E.
Willoughby Rd.
A letter has been received from Lee Helman
requesting withdrawal of the Special Land Use
permit application.
In committee, a motion was made to accept the
withdrawal and place the letter on file;
motion carried unanimously; SLU-1-94, Mill
Pond Village, 1600 E . Willoughby Rd. was
withdrawn.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to withdraw
SLU-1-94 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 14
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 E . Willoughby Rd.
was WITHDRAWN.
f . Z-5-94 , 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District
A letter has been received from Mr. Maguire
submitting an amendment plan for rezoning the
corner of Cedar and Syringa, from "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District, "J"
Parking and "A" Residential Districts .
It was moved and seconded in committee to deny
the original request to rezone the entire site
to "F" Commercial District as filed, based
upon the following:
1 . Establish line of residential/nonresidential .
2 . Residential should abut residential front and rear.
3 . The Master Plan Master Plan recommends Professional Office or
Commercial . Commercial development at this corner would be
too intense for the adjacent residential properties . The
"D-1" Professional Office District would better fit, since
across Syringa Street is office use and zoning.
4 . The proposal presents potential and real traffic circulation
problems for the intersection as well as Syringa, which is a
local residential street.
5 . Syringa does not line up well with Cedar Street for proper
traffic circulation.
Further, understanding that the Council may consider an
alternative, it was moved and seconded in committee that if the
property is rezoned, the Board recommends "D-1" Professional Office
District along the Cedar Street frontage east of rear line of the
commercial zoning for that block face, and that the remaining
westerly portion of the site maintain "A" Residential zoning. The
motion carried, Yeas : 2; Nays : 1 .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to deny the
original request for Z-5-94, 4720 S. Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District. (We will deal with the attachment in
a separate motion; at that time we will discuss the five points . )
Mr. Goolsby asked about the proposed amendments in the letter dated
May 6 from Wolverine Development. The proposed amendment is
different from their original application. In denying the request,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 15
the amendment was not really discussed. Mr. Thelen explained the
Committee discussed the original rezoning request at length and was
not in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Maguire, in an attempt to
negotiate a compromise, submitted an amended request to try to
salvage the rezoning request. He appeared before the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee with no warning, and it was discussed then.
Ms . Love referred to two letters from Wolverine in the packet, one
dated May 6 , requesting an amendment to the petition, and a second
dated May 12 , 1994 . The legal problem here is that "J" Parking is
mentioned as zoning district that they are requesting. In the
legal notice placed in the State Journal, there was no mention of
the "J" Parking District; therefore, we do not have the latitude to
introduce a new zoning district when it has not been advertised as
part of the public hearing process . Neighbors were not given the
opportunity to have a public hearing, so we do not have the
latitude to open a new zoning district not previously mentioned.
Chairman LeBlanc reminded members that a "yes" vote is a vote to
deny the petition.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the original request, Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street,
"A" Residential to "F" Commercial District, was DENIED.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to send
correspondence to City Council that if the property is rezoned,
that the Board recommends "D-1" Professional Office District along
the Cedar Street frontage east of the rear line of the commercial
zoning for that block face, and that the remaining westerly portion
of the site maintain "A" Residential Zoning. We also wish to
reference the five points listed in the Zoning and Ordinance
report.
Ms . Love said regarding the second letter in the packet that the
Board needs to be clear that its action is not in any way tied to
the previous denial; in other words, that this is a letter simply
stating the Board' s opinion regarding this particular piece of
property. It is not a request to have the Council take any
particular action, it is simply a point of information for the
Council .
Mr. Goolsby said his intention is to vote no, because once we have
determined that we do not agree with the requested rezoning and we
send that recommendation to City Council, it is then up to them to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 16
act on our recommendation; giving them a sense of what we feel the
property should be rezoned to in the future is premature, because
once we have determined we cannot accept the petitioner' s request
to zone the property "F" Commercial, we have no request for
rezoning before us .
Mrs . Horne said we have many times sent things to Council, and they
have reversed us without any background information as to what we
have used in our rationale for denial .
Mr. Goolsby said given the recommendation that is going forward in
this case, with the background information, I think it is adequate
for them to determine that the Planning Board is not in favor, and
the reasons are well laid out in support of our recommendation.
Mr. Goolsby said Planning Board recommendations have been
overturned very seldom. It is within their purview to do so when
they .feel justified. It sets a bad precedent to talk about a
recommended rezoning when we do not have a petition before us .
Mr. Fountain said we also do not have a site plan to react to.
Mr. Thelen said we are not setting precedents, because we have done
this before, it hasn't, approving site plans that we kind of voted
on with a shot in the dark. We have done that quite a few times .
To say we don' t want to approve something that we don' t know of,
ironically, it is kind of funny because we have approved too many
site plans without review on a regular basis .
Ms . Love said we send a complete copy of the staff report now with
the Board' s letter of recommendation to the Mayor. It appears in
the Council packet.
Mr. Fountain said we agreed and voted we were not going to support
the "F" Commercial to its entire depth; that is reasonable, and the
neighborhood deserves that protection. To further recommend the
office zone on the front, since it is a sensitive corner based on
adjacent land uses, would not be all that bad if another petition
came to the Board for us to consider rather than just make a motion
in the dark. We have no site plan to react to for "D-l"
Professional Office District right now.
Mr. Thelen withdrew the motion communicating the Planning Board's
recommendations on the use of the land; Mrs . Horne withdrew the
second. Mrs . Horne said she would like to have the neighbors '
comments and petitions attached to the report. Ms . Love said they
would be included, together with the staff report.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 17
g. SLU-8-94 , 1130 S . Pennsylvania, Board of Water
& Light, Improve Building in Floodplain
The applicant proposes to convert a portion of
the second floor of Warehouse "A" (a one-story
warehouse) and the second floor of Warehouse
"B" to office space. Since these buildings
are located in the Red Cedar River floodplain,
approval for this project must include a
Special Land Use Permit from the Planning
Board under Section 1288 . 06 of the Zoning
Code, a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals under Section 1288 . 10, and separate
approval from the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources . The floor of Warehouse "A"
is 6 . 9 feet below the floodplain of 834 .5
feet. The second floor of Warehouse "B" is
actually above the 100 year flood level .
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
impact of this project is small, and meets all
of the procedures outlined in Section 1288 . 10
of the Zoning Code.
Regarding SLU-8-94 , it was moved and seconded in committee to
recommend approval with conditions of SLU-8-94 , 1130 S.
Pennsylvania. Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in
Floodplain. Motion carried unanimously, The Committee' s approval
is subject to the following four conditions :
( 1) Proposed fixed mechanical equipment shall be elevated above
the 100-year floodplain.
(2) An evacuation plan shall be prepared, submitted to the City of
Lansing Planning Office and kept on file by the Board of Water
and Light in order to prevent a loss of property and protect
the public health.
( 3) Compliance with flood insurance requirements may be required.
(4) Add landscape 'improvements to the site and soften parking
lots .
NOTE: This approval is not intended to jeopardize Lansing' s
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve SLU-
8-94 , 1130 S. Pennsylvania, Board of Water & Light, Improve
Building in Floodplain.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 18
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows .
Mr. Thelen said the area was flooded in 1975 in a fifty-year flood;
however, we did approve it in committee . The applicant should
consider this in their long-range planning. Mr. Fountain had
reservations about this . BWL admitted there was three or four feet
of water on the area to be modified for office space. The next
fifty-year flood could come along any time and flood them out
again. My other question is, do they carry flood insurance? A
Board of Water & Light representative in attendance said they
either have it or they are going to get it. The BWL risk manager
is in the process of working it; we have had it in the past. If
that is a condition, we will have it.
Mrs . Horne asked the estimated cost of the renovations; answer,
roughly one-half million dollars for the office and warehouse.
Barnhart Yea Fountain No
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 5; Nays : 1; carried
unanimously; the original request, SLU-8-94 , 1130 S. Pennsylvania,
Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in Floodplain was
APPROVED.
h. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994, at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room.
7 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Barnhart, Chair.
a. Act-3-94, East Side 4900 Blk. of Tranter St. ,
Drain Easement Reduction.
The petitioner, Roy C. Markey, is requesting a
five (5) feet reduction from a twenty-five
(25) feet drain easement in width along the
east to west direction of the south edge of
the Wiegman drain easement so that a business
building can be situated better on the lot. A
recommendation was made in committee to
approve the reduction; however, upon receipt
of more information, a report from the Public
Service Department, the Committee rescinds its
previous action and now makes a new motion to
deny the request, based upon the analysis and
comment from the Public Service Department.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to deny Act-3-
94, based upon input and analysis from the Public Service
Department.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 19
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above action was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yes
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; ACT-3-94 was DENIED.
b. Act-4-94 , 1000 Filley Street, Sell City-owned
Filley Street Warehouse
The City is presently considering an offer to
purchase the property. This building, a one-
story brick and block building of
approximately 2,440 square feet, was formerly
a Lansing Township fire station; it is
presently used for storage of old City
records and files . The City' s appraisal
report estimates the building was built in
1949; a more recent appraisal estimates the
building value at $71, 000 . 00 .
Regarding, Act-4-94 , it was moved and seconded in committee to
approve Act-4-94, disposition of property subject to regulations of
Section 208 and that the proceeds be used to microfilm the records
and files presently stored in that facility.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on the
staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
thereof, to approve Act-4-94 , 1000 Filley Street, disposition of
property subject to the regulations of Section 208 and that the
proceeds be used to microfilm the records and files presently
stored in that facility.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-4-94 , 1000 Filley Street, was APPROVED.
C. Act-5-94, River Street Vacation, a request by
the City Transportation Engineer, David A.
Berridge, on behalf of the City of Lansing, to
vacate River Street right-of-way between
Kalamazoo Street and S. Grand (Cesar Chavez)
Avenue. INFORMATION ONLY.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 20
The street, once vacated, is proposed to be
used as part of a 391-space surface parking
lot on the corner of Kalamazoo Street and S .
Grand (Cesar Chavez) Avenue. The vacated
property will go to the Lansing Building
Authority.
d. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14, 1994 , at 4
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex
3 . Executive Committee - Did not meet.
C . Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said on June 7, 1994 , the Board will have a
fairly extensive agenda. We will have the Enterprise
Community presentation, the East Michigan Avenue
Revitalization Study presentation, Act-5-94 River Street
Vacation, two special land use petitions, plus several
other items . Bring your sleeping bags .
D. Pending Items : Future action required.
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI . NEW BUSINESS - None.
The Planning Office has received a referral from the
Public Service Department and the Board of Water and
Light for conversion of the Washington Mall and Michigan
Avenue lighting. The 141 mall lights are 34 years old
and need to be replaced; 138 units have had breakdowns .
Our annual rental rate is $553/unit, and the total annual
rental rate is $76,314 . Kinds of lights available are
historic lights, as on E. Michigan Avenue; a contemporary
style as on King Boulevard; or a standard style as on S .
Cedar from Mt. Hope to Jolly Road. They want feedback as
to preferences, so that, instead of having another public
hearing at our board meeting on June 7 , and the Public
Service Board having a separate public meeting, a joint
board informational meeting can be held.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 21
Mrs . Horne asked if the information would be referred to
the Historic District Commission; Ms . Love said yes . Mr.
Goolsby inquired if the mall lighting on E . Michigan
would be from Shiawassee to Kalamazoo; Ms . Love said yes .
Mr. Goolsby asked if there were cost estimates for the
three styles . The historic lighting, proposal would
increase the number of units required from 141 to 276 ;
the cost would be $227 , 976 . Since the City is already
paying $76 , 314 , the net increase would be 151, 662/year.
For the contemporary style, a net savings of $29 , 868 per
year would result.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to
hold a joint informational meeting with the Public
Service Board at the regularly scheduled Board meeting on
Tuesday, June 21, 1994 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
a joint informational meeting with the Public Service Board
regularly scheduled Board meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1994 was
APPROVED.
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Wolverine Development, and three communications
from Dr. Allen; the May 6 letter is in the packet . Dr. Allen
distributed copies of the other two letters to Board members .
viii. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Members should submit their vacation calendars and submit them
at the next meeting. Three new neighborhood groups in the
south part of the City have formed, one bounded by Jolly and
Holmes, Pleasant Grove and Waverly, east of Lansing Eaton
Neighborhood Association; another near Coscarelli ' s, a
neighborhood watch interested in taking the next step; and the
third is the group that was here this evening, Mr. James
Banker' s group near Cedar and Syringa.
Chairman LeBlanc also gave the Board an update on her
participation in the Ingham County Groundwater Protection
Strategy on a task force and work group to make
recommendations for a model ordinance for groundwater
protection. Ingham County will ask the various municipalities
and townships to adopt the draft model ordinance drawn up by
the task force. The model ordinance is primarily to ensure
proper storage of hazardous materials .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 22
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Fountain had three areas of comment on his position on the
Board of Water and Light ' s construction in the floodplain, to
be recorded in the minutes .
1 . BWL is a public citizen-supported utility. They know,
and acknowledge, that the site is in the floodplain. It
has flooded up to three or four feet in the building.
They didn't really say tonight whether they had flood
insurance; they said they might try for it. If they
install the improvements, and the equipment is lost and
they do not have flood insurance, we pay the bill .
2 . Being a public building, I think there is something in
the flood insurance program that cautions cities against
utilizing flood insurance for public buildings .
3 . I looked at this one differently from the one on E.
Michigan Avenue, which is privately owned. Renovations
there will be minor, to a storage area in the rear. We
recommended that electrical, or anything that could be
damaged, be elevated above flood level . In the future,
BWL should look for other places to build this type of
facility, as opposed to putting more construction in the
floodplain. When the facility was built, the area was
used for storage. It is subject to flooding, but not
subject to being destroyed, so if it floods, the cable,
conduit, etc. can still be used.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 :55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitt d
Eleanor K. Love, Se retary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn051794
SLU-4-94
907 W. Saginaw
Church
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Rev. Andrew Brodie
1114 Glenn St.
Lansing, MI 48915
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Applicant
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use/Nonconforming Class
B Substitution
EXISTING LAND USE: Service and Retail
EXISTING ZONING: "F-1" Commercial District
PROPOSED ZONING: No Change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 30 . 2 ' x 77 . 32 ' ; 2 , 335 . 06 sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: J . B . ' s Saloon/Commercial
Properties
S : 1- and 2-Family Residential
E : Covello Properties, Inc.
W: Church + Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial
S: "C" Residential
E: "F" Commercial
W: "F" Commercial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive
Plan designates this area for
Commercial/business use.
CASE HISTORY:
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting a
special land use permit for use of
the building located at
907 W. Saginaw for church services
on Sundays between 11 a.m. and
1 p.m. for an average attendance of
approximately 20-90 people. The
church has been in operation for
over one year.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church
AGENCY RESPONSES :
BWL: The Board of Water & Light has no
objection or concerns regarding the
SLU and the NCU at the above
address .
Trans . Engr. : Provide additional information as to
the plans to accommodate parking
needs for this facility and proposed
use.
Assessor: No comments .
Fire Marshal : No comment, providing O.P. has been
granted and capacity has been
properly applied for.
Consumers Power: Consumers Power gas service is
located on this property. Contact
Miss Dig before any construction.
Continental Cable: At this time this SLU request does
not affect our area of operations .
ANALYSIS
Evaluation
Section 1282 . 03( f) ( 1) -(9 ) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The
criteria and evaluation are as follows .
1 . Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
Another church is located just west of the proposed
special land use request. A saloon is located at 910 W.
Saginaw Street, which is north of the property. Two-
family residential uses are situated to the south, and
other commercial uses to east of the property. The
surrounding land use consists of mixed zoning uses . The
church use will not alter the mixed use character of the
area.
2 . Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The essential character of the area would not change.
The special land use permit is for the use of the
building at 907 W. Saginaw for church services on Sundays
between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. for approximately
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 , SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church
90 people . Another church is located just west of this
property.
3 . Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent
Properties
There should be no interference with the general
enjoyment of adjacent properties, since the church is
proposing to operate for church services on Sundays only.
A bar is located within 500 feet; however, when there are
two existing locations next to one another, such as a bar
and a church, the bar cannot expand toward the church
facility, only away from the church facility. Since they
are across Saginaw Street, it would be practically
impossible for the bar to expand toward the church.
4 . Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
The parking lot is a concern. It is anticipated that a
maximum of 90 persons will be attending church services
on Sunday. The location of the parking lot is unclear.
If a written agreement is reached, the nonconformity
Class B is not necessary. Ingress and egress to the
structure needs to be clarified. The applicant has an
agreement with a nearby property that has approximately
14 parking spaces . Access is across Mr. Covello' s
property. An easement needs to be confirmed. Public
parking is also available in the City lot across Saginaw
Street.
5 . Environmental Impacts
No negative environmental impacts anticipated.
6 . Impact on Public Services
There should be no additional public services needed;
however, ingress and egress to the parking lot is a
concern.
7 . Impact on Utilities
The building is currently being operated, and utilities
should be in place; therefore, no additional utilities
are needed.
8 . Compliance with the Master Plan
The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for commercial/business use. Churches are permitted
in commercial districts under a special land use permit
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 , SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church
{Section 1268 . 04 (c) } ; therefore, this request is in
compliance with the Master Plan.
9 . Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
The special land use request is in compliance with zoning
district regulations . Since on-site parking is not
available, it is nonconforming, and a substitution of use
is required. A substitution shall be allowed if the
Board determines the proposed use is no more intensive
than the previous uses . Basically, the use has been
service- and retail-oriented, and most recently used as
"Suarez TV and Electronics . " The major difference in the
church use versus the retail/service type uses is the
days and hours of operation. While an electronics
establishment this size may get 20-40 persons visiting
per day five, six or even seven days a week, the church
may get 25-90 people one day, or maybe two days per week,
generally on the weekend. In this area, the number of
people and parking can be accommodated on the weekend.
This is a reasonable substitution.
SUMMARY
The proposed special land use is in compliance with adjacent
land uses .
The proposed special land use will not cause an essential
change in the character of the area.
The proposed special land use should not interfere with the
general enjoyment of the area.
The proposed special land use would not have a negative impact
on improvements to surrounding uses . Clarification of the
parking arrangements of the church is necessary.
The proposed special land use will have no negative impacts on
the environment.
The proposed special land use should not require any
additional public services .
The proposed special land use should not require any
additional utilities .
The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 , SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church
The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for commercial/business use. A special land use for
a church is permitted in a commercial district . The proposed
special land use is compliance with the zoning districts .
There. are mixed zoning uses in this area. A special land use
for a church is permitted in a commercial district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit and
the substitution, based on the following conditions :
1 . The parking lot is identified and a written contract
specifying the seven conditions of the off-street parking
agreement as defined by the City Attorney' s office. If
a parking contract is received, the nonconforming
substitution is not necessary.
If a contract cannot be arranged with Mr. Covello and Mr.
Park, there is adequate City parking available across
Saginaw.
2 . Ingress and egress is clearly defined for church members
and others entering the parking lot.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\s1u494.fe
I�,f;.�. .F1'�I�ti l;�1�� �,6`�1 l�'8�f1.1{ii� n.•. ,�•�� L�J I � N Z
3 (n '�;, , �)' I � .� {+CE i,��j�>s !�Fr.,�'!3",• {�' 1q:''n( ) // - _11 C��/(
A /�],qtr
rd
rn }
k� �I •'I.. W /
jj-
aim j . ; ' EA. t.tl ❑�13 t 1.
N j I iIj j�SAI; }-{.�d..�^ L},�? S ' 1(,C• s ❑ 'Q a (b T"
_ •y� �, �,', lh�:k�I •S Ct�'�a v�l ;tl( } CD
NA� ' { ^�j4il�a( "y�qa,.; lr� :�,,
I I
Ltj
All
} ( lLl '�,�.1 4'`•�I�f `i:".nA y .'1• {I jra FF - m a --"� 'I �n
rr
ED
a
FjPT
YtEN-
ir A.
4 , r u( l
41
Lli
•�Ilu p)p' �±.'�: I�:1 '�7,, .4 n'. .r(�ft '.' 1".�iTf�.9: Yl Lat.f•". _ Ql ��
pp �pp lip co•. r a ❑
a �' •�tA�1��E', Y' •�� •yI,'�`,� �Nf. )' ��;',ti.;k:� j�. f',� � \ N --( � 'b
ED
M1 lfj ,;,, 1; •,��s ;Fii �' i�q:�,�'}!( �'i;l�1j. � � N ,., N N ti
A. �Lo 6 1
, t,.
{C-J`Q��/
SLU-5-94 , 559 E . Mt. Hope Avenue - Church Parking
NCU-2-94, 549 East Mt. Hope Avenue - Building Addition and
Renovations to existing facility
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Bethlehem Lutheran Church
549 E . Mt. Hope Avenue
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use Permit for
construction of additional parking
space on lot located at 559 E. Mt.
Hope Avenue, and
Class A Nonconforming Use Permit for
construction of an addition to and
renovation of the church facilities
located at 549 E . Mt. Hope Avenue.
EXISTING LAND USE : SLU-5-94 Residential home and lot
NCU-2-94 Bethlehem Lutheran Church
LOCATION: Northeast corner of E. Mt. Hope Ave.
and Ray St. , 1 block east of Cedar
Street
EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: SLU-5-94 - .275 acres, rectangular
NCU-2-94 - 1 . 3 acres, irregular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential
S : Residential, Clifford Park
E: Residential
W: Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential
S : " C " Residential ; " A "
Residential (Park)
E: "C" Residential
W: "C" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive
Development Plan designates the
general vicinity of the church for
residential and professional office
land uses .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , SLU-5-94 , 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue
Church Parking
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The special land use permit is being
considered simultaneously with
NCU-2-94, a Class A nonconforming
use request for the church located
at 549 E . Mt. Hope Avenue. The
special land use request is for
expansion of the church parking lot,
while the Class A nonconforming use
request is to allow a building
addition and renovations to the
existing church facilities .
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Assessor: No Comment .
Continental Cable: The proposed work here should not
affect us at this time.
Trans . Engr. : Close driveway at 559 E. Mt. Hope
and reconfigure parking area as
shown on the attached plan.
Consumers Power: Consumers Power Co. gas service
located on this property. Notify
MISS DIG before any construction.
BWL: No objections or concerns .
Fire Marshal : No comment.
ANALYSIS
Special Land Use
Section 1282 . 03( f) ( 1) -(9) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request . The
criteria and evaluation are as follows .
1 . Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
The church is compatible with the surrounding residential
land uses . Expansion of the church' s property by the one
lot will help it maintain compatibility by reducing the
number of vehicles that may be required to park off-site
on the public street.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 , SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue
Church Parking
2 . Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The home that the church will be demolishing to expand
the parking lot is in substandard condition. Its removal
will have a positive effect on the character of the area.
3 . Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent
Properties
With provision of proper landscaping, screening and
buffering as required by the Zoning Code, staff has no
reason to believe that the proposed parking lot will
create any interference with the general enjoyment of
adjacent properties .
.4 . Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
By removing the substandard structure, the parking lot
may actually be an improvement to the surrounding area.
5 . Environmental Impacts/Im act on Public Services and
/6 . Utilities .
Additional storm water runoff will have to be addressed
per the requirements of the City' s Public Service
Department through the site plan review process .
6 . Compliance with the Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area for residential and
office uses . The existing church is consistent with this
designation.
7 . Compliance with Zoning District Requidations
A church is permitted as a Special Land Use in the "C"
Residential District if it fronts on an arterial or
collector street and is located on a parcel not less than
two acres in size. Because this church was legally
established prior to the two-acre requirement, it is
presently classified by the Zoning Code as a Group 3 .Non-
conforming Land Use because it can't conform to the lot
size dimensional requirements of the "C" Residential
District. Also, the Zoning Code requires churches to
provide 1 on-site parking space for each 6 lineal feet of
pew space, or 100 spaces for this church. The additional
parking lot will increase the on-site parking space count
from 72 to 103 .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4, SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue
Church Parking
The addition of this lot will help bring the church
closer to being in conformance with the present zoning
regulations by increasing the parcel size from 1 . 3 acres
to 1 . 6 acres and by bringing the Church into compliance
.with the on-site parking requirements of the Zoning Code.
Class "A" Nonconformity Status
8 . Section 1294 . 04 lists the criteria for determining the
appropriateness of granting Class A Status . The criteria
that apply in this case for a Group 3 nonconformity
include:
a. The City' s Transportation Engineer has reviewed the
request and suggested only minor changes; '
b. The proposed use does not produce undue
environmental impacts;
C . The use will meet the parking requirements of the
Zoning Code.
SUMMARY
The Special Land Use is requested to permit expansion of the
Church parking lot; the Class "A" Status is requested to allow
expansion of the church building. Approval of the Special
Land Use request will make the Church more conforming to the
Zoning Code, and must be done before the criteria necessary
for granting of Class A status are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval .
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\s1u594.fa
�r
BUEHRER GROUP
AnCMT C .EMOR�
". ON..,.IAEE,
VAUYE.,OHIO 43"y
CHURCH H
1 =
II l
769
jl I
L ----------------------------------J
BE H EHEM EVANGELICAL
B UrTHERAN a�Aat
UEHRER GROUP
r1---------I'XIMY NI,IYII----------T---7
j�� II xlnl•InH ,'I - � I ,�,,,YII�I,I •
I INY INI• 9XI.
1 xl
II I I
ITT1-11 1 I _-
"� IUm GI•WI4.Lw IS
U_
. I
I
I
-
[ 1� 1I--L1 _1 � .,IN - U.xllllll
I 11.. U� • �
� J-----� ���- r---�- �--r-�� f•IXNI1111•.M+x N:1111
iI ..._.._. .- .--.—_ _ �� � __ I • 1•i.11lll:1•.91xN.hl•N 1'. e0
I —_- - j I Iliw 1•nNxnx:SI�Nf15 II
II.111Yx:WI+fMN. 1 I W
IY�.1'_kLY1G.v.cls i � J
I - _ I IUIN Al U'll dl lll.fUllYx. � IUp
L�r•n.I I Ix. I yrul I N.lax.F u ry rlw
I„4 Ilxlle.i+l I� I I;
I �NFNI
1
..:
� hMY w4x - I j
hNJI
I.
I
1
L MI '"I,
SITE PLAN •
(oPnoN C-)
SK. 6
------- — ---------- —�
r,--- INIIM`I NIr IXx r
I
11114M INlel 111`n1A noel
„' 1•Xlx•1 NI, I-- .l __ I 1•Nnnl Nlf
r 1 I
' HXNt NI♦
F.------ — _ al,
FMI - i
I tone I - i u
� - II II II I I ' I
r I '�_1_1iL_.L�_.1 � I ;1 - i nlw Iwlxl xlr w.U1NNin o
- wh. - •
__ � -. '1 � I I 1A A I.xanx. .I.x I•. �V
I I.la `� - I r'ANN� — YI"Xlln 1•I AIIIMN. Ilil.r rnl.a�l.
,�� ..INw urN •• .dw r.w 1 n' —_. i „¢t•, m, �
j= •� i uiim - � '
N•Ixxlalll _ ! �A 0"
� cr
a T 7 lak.
. I
I • 1
wl I 11
SITE PLAN(0-1)" -A')
.r. tin,lx.„r' SK. 6
jenl F-71
Tr
dim
I°MIS 1 ,r
of g a
r _ {AAAAHHHH{��IIIrsrsII���II .: isar= 71 �]5
—� — •�^ � 111111e�0��I �.
I1 W
i i j lesll leeq� �a..
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
SK. 6
7,, • ❑ [~ /III �� . I I„
------ ----
5E
L
CHANCEL OPTION #1
0
LJ
L I-T TT T E
5-FPER LEVEL PLAN
SK. 6
BETHLEHEM EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
PROPOSED RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
EXTERIOR RENOVATION
■ New Covered Drop-Off ■ Renovated Chancel & Choir Loft
■ Modified West Entrance ■ Stairs To Balcony
■ Modified Parking ■ Renovated Kitchen
■ New Sign ■ Multi-Purpose Room Floor
■ Insulation & Architectural Finish - ■ Sound Dividers - Adult Area
Existing Block ■ Youth Room - Senior High
■ Minor Landscaping ■ Police Office
■ Food Bank
■ Junior High Classroom
■ Classrooms and Sunday School
Office
■ Renovation of Toilet Rooms
■ New Storage Room
■ Repaint & Replacement Carpet
■ Air Conditioning of East Classrooms
■ Air Conditioning of Nave - Alternate
NEW ADDITION
■ Three Classrooms
■ Choir Rooms & Storage
■ Meeting Lounge
■ General Office
■ Work Room
■ Computer Center & Support Office
■ Conference Room
■ Secretary
■ Two Pastor's Offices
■ Mechanical Room
■ Two Accessible Restrooms with Changing Facilities
■ New Entries with Elevator
Buehrer Group Architecture & Engineering 0 314 Conant Street 0 Maumee, Ohio 43537
i
I
ok(.
I I �•�
I i� I •\� 1 .:4
/ I b PARhilIG $: —_---
`o I SPACES c, 9'_.,,)'
l., I
* H.
IL L
DROP 0FF `�I
ARFA
H.C. , I Ln
Cn c I nj 12
.7 I :j12
-�DD,T1O1,1 '�' 2�� N l�•sl 1��" ��5
/,• c>
. I
T I 1 r
LLJ CD
CL �-
// w n {
W
LO
22'- " 18'-0 5'-D"
I i
ENTRANCEj 7- 7" .
0NE
SLU-5-94 , 559 E. MT. HOPE
Expansion OF Church Parking Lot
LLJ
r I Ji .-. -.
NoR M K N �STREE T
r !J' FT' i o ❑ ;
J Pa RK I I•lG � I \ ❑ I;
85� ❑ J
i'
PnRKirIG Jiv � F-II• � I ->—•�
I•
�--
� -IInIIii
I I,I I
nLI
r - •� -i l x� 7RR
/ PIAP.K1::G i '/ TEr:r:ls 4 —
x CCU"" ! \ .�
L
FI /ni1 I �
C,i � ❑ 11 ' � � 11 `\.��Gv � �� IT-^
SLU-6-94
3003 E. Michigan Avenue
3003 Partners, Additions to and Renovation of Bldg. in Floodplain
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Victor Design
201 N. Washington Square, #900
Lansing, MI 48933
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents owner: 3003 Partnership
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit and variance
PURPOSE : To construct three additions onto the
building at 3003 E. Michigan Avenue,
which is in the 100-year floodplain. A
substantial improvement of a building in
the floodplain.
EXISTING LAND USE : Commercial
EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial District
LOCATION: 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, north side of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Clippert and
Homer.
SIZE & SHAPE: 298 . 9 ' x 388 ' (somewhat rectangular)
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Commercial
S: Commercial
E: Commercial
W: U. S. 127
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial District
S : Out of City
E: "F" Commercial District
W: Unzoned public right-of-way
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North-East Area Master Plan shows
continued commercial use.
CASE HISTORY: SLU-14-88 - allowed the substantial
improvement of the building. Appeal
Number 2949 : The Board of Zoning Appeals
granted a variance on January 12, 1989 to
Paul Gentilozzi to renovate the building,
subject to the entire electrical service
being elevated at or above the 100-year
floodplain. The proposed use of the
building then was for another new and
used car dealership.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 - SLU-6-94
3003 E. Michigan Ave.--Addition to and Renovation of Bldg. in Floodplain
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
ANALYSIS
This is a request by Victor Design, representing 3003 E . Michigan
Avenue Partnership, to construct three additions onto the building
at 3003 E . Michigan Avenue, which is in the 100-year floodplain.
Two of the additions require setback variances of Section
1268 . 06 (a) , and all three will have a floor elevation below the
100-year flood elevation, requiring a variance of Chapter 1288 of
the Zoning Code. As a corner lot, the property has two front yards
facing Homer and Michigan Avenue.
The two additions are proposed to be 1 ' from the front property
line; 20 ' is required. Therefore, this is a request for setback
variances of 19 ' . One addition will extend across the front (south
side) of the building and will contain 4228 square feet. This
addition will also be 13 ' 6" from the Homer Street right-of-way,
requiring a 616" variance. The second addition will contain 700
square feet and will be in the required front yard setback off
Homer Street. Finally, the third addition of 255 square feet will
be located on the northeast corner of the building. All three
additions will have floor elevations of 832 .2 ' and the 100-year
flood elevation is 836 ' ; therefore, a variance of 3 . 8 ' of floor
elevation is requested. The new business will be the "Office
Depot. " The Board of Zoning Appeals is considering the setback and
floor elevation setbacks while the Planning Board reviews the
substantial improvement of buildings in the floodplain.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Neighborhood:
The surrounding area is predominantly commercial in nature. The
Frandor Shopping Center is located to the east, small commercial
strips are located to the south and north, and U.S . Route 127 is
located to the west. The subject property was used in the past for
the sale of new and used vehicles and more recently for the sale of
mattresses . The proposed use as an office supplies store will be
compatible with surrounding development .
Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic:
A few parking spaces will be lost with the addition onto the front
of the building facing Michigan Avenue, which should actually serve
as an improvement to the property. There are seventy-eight parking
spaces available to the new business . An additional seventy-eight
spaces are available north of the business, which will be shared by
the business to the north. Based on traffic patterns along
Michigan Avenue and Homer Street, site visibility and circulation
should not be a problem.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 - SLU-6-94
3003 E. Michigan Ave.--Addition to and Renovation of Bldg. in Floodplain
Environmental Impact :
The applicant has applied for a flood plain permit from the
Department of Natural Resources . Since the building footprint is
proposed to be increased by 5, 183 square feet, a special land use
permit in the 100-year flood plain of the Red Cedar River is
required with expansion of a building on a parcel larger than a
half acre in size. This will be reviewed by the Planning Board and
Council . The DNR will evaluate the impact on the flood plain as to
whether or not the proposed addition will increase the potential
flood hazard in the area.
Impact on Future Development Patterns :
No negative impact is anticipated. The proposed business and the
new business to the north will share parking which should prove to
be an efficient use of land.
Other:
The proposed 255 square feet addition at the northeast corner of
the building appears to extend over a property line approximately
.five (5) feet. The applicant will have to cut back this portion of
the building from the property line or combine the two parcels .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes this to be a reasonable request and recommends the
front yard setback variances be granted as requested. Staff also
recommends that the request to waive the requirement to floodproof
or elevate the first floor to a level at or above the 100-year base
flood elevation for the building additions at 3003 E. Michigan
Avenue be approved, and that substantial improvements be approved
with the following conditions :
1 . That the additions shall not extend over property lines .
2 . That the DNR permit applied for be approved.
3 . That the Board of Zoning Appeals variances be approved.
4 . That floodplain insurance be purchased for the property in
accordance with federal guidelines .
5 . That all permanent mechanical installed be elevated above the
base flood elevation.
6 . That an evacuation plan for persons, temporary items and
products be developed, submitted to the Planning Office, and
be kept by the property owner/tenant.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\s1u694.fe
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAY 51994
P ERM 2 T
-------------
f
I Permit No. 94-11-0102
S Gentilozzi Real Esta
S T 201 North Washington Sq Issued May 4 94
U O Suite 900 Extended
E Lansing MI 48933 Revised
D Expires Dec 31 95
This permit is granted under the provisions of:
Flood Plain Regulatory Act, 1929 PA 245 , as amended.
Permitted Activity
Construct additions to existing structure approximately 5 , 183 square feet
which is located within the Red Cedar River floodplain.
Water Course Affected: Red Cedar River
County: Ingham Town: 04N Range: 02W Sections: 14
Subdivision: Lot:
Authority granted by this permit is subject to the following limitations:
A. Initiation of any work on the permitted project confirms the peraittee's acceptance and agreement to comply with all
terms and conditions of this permit.
B. The permittee in exercising the authority granted by this permit shall not cause unlawful pollution as defined by Act
245 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended.
C. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and available for inspection at all times during the duration of
the project or until its date of expiration.
D. All work shall be completed in accordance with the plans and the specifications submitted with the application and/or
plans and specifications attached hereto.
E. No attempt shall be We by the permittee to forbid the full and free use by the public of public waters at or
adjacent to the structure or work approved herein.
F. It is made a requirement of this permit that the permittee give notice to public utilities in accordance with Act 53
of the Public Act of 1974 and comply with each of the requirements of that act.
G. This permit does not convey property rights in either real estate or material, nor does it authorize any injury to
private property or invasion of public or private rights, nor does it waive the necessity of seeking federal assent, all
local permits or complying with other state statutes.
9. This permit does not prejudice or limit the right of a riparian owner or other person to institute proceedings in any
circuit court of this state when necessary to protect his rights.
I. Permittee shall notify the Department of Natural Resources within one week after the completion of the activity
authorized by this permit, by completing and forwarding the attached, preaddressed post card to the office addressed
thereon.
J. This permit shall not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the Department of Natural Resources.
K. Failure to comply with conditions of this permit may subject the permittee to revocation of permit and criminal
and/or civil action as cited by the specific State Act, Federal Act and/or Rule under which this permit is granted.
L. Work to be done under authority of this permit is further subject to the following special instructions and
specifications:
Page 2
I Permit No. 94-11-0102
S Gentilozzi Real Esta
S T 201 North Washington Sq Issued May 4 94
U O Suite 900 Extended
E Lansing MI 48933 Revised
D Expires Dec 31 95
PERMIT LIMITATIONS, continued
Authority granted by this permit does not waive permit requirements
under the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, Public Act 347,
or the need to acquire applicable permits from the County Drain
Commissioner.
The 100-year flood elevation at this location on the Red Cedar River
is 836 .0 N.G.V. Datum.
The project is located within a community which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program and requires that the lowest floor,
including basement, of all new or substantially improved residential
construction be elevated to or above the 100-year elevation.
Nonresidential construction must be elevated or floodproofed.
Basement construction below the 100-year flood elevation is not
authorized.
Roland Harmes
Director, Department of Natural Resources
by-
Daniel H. Morgan .E.
Floodplain Regulation
CC: District 11 LWMD
Lansing Building/Planning Dept.
IPARKING � i2
x B40
8403
85/.4.
-1/.6 853.5 jy
x
830.7
O ,
x �L4W
8494 PARKING
x 2/
x B3/.o
830.5
20
PARKING
85/.6
5/ 85 O
830.2
831.0
MICHIGAN f
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BZA 3296 . 94
NORTH
PARKING
IUII
940 -•
� 8403
x
/o
huEli - �T
Pa xl G
a.;2.4
Y Z/
83/.O
830.5
PARKING
wall
8sc.2
B3I.0
MICHIGAN- 83L0 AVE
�r�m v jpp yc�rA"
any 3.
LOT PLAN f PARTIAL PHOTO COPY OR "+.P.5.C. FLOOD PLAIN MAP > NO
( 5HOWING APPROXIMATB LOCATION OF AOJACBNT =XI57,,NG 577RUCTURES >
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BZA 3296 . 94
EAST
+v LI ,a I ._.o __I ,o• ./•.O%TAT. c_ee/ I (\\\CST LOGiiO4�J +� xK\77 nnn
I^ 67
56 ..�• r m o4■u y 1 -
n AIL inin n -
� I sa I se I I�T I I I I I If
,
1nni1 I I tl• I I r o 5Ii'4 °P erlar
1 I i L
I' IL nu•
I I I U N _ O j I :rr !r•
W
74 I� QI I I I I I �'
CD IT
/ Q
I 1 I I :�so. la.-� —
II
7J 72 I-. ..II.7 i —-I 70
II' I I I f I I c 57 nn
58 ' f�
I I= I I I f I I -
/I 2
5s
i
.ELOCA-E •�t1a TRG GRa CJ1
Aa REOt.REO.
R S T R E E T r s owe R.Y r ��` CC
PARKING PROVIVON5 I
ZONE_] :
/ C01:1'eRC:AL rE
J5= GROUP
51- �
RET.1L/V• LEGAL■
L=�•(=i. ._ C�I� ICN: .RECL'IREL7 ?sRKfNG
SnU.LRE FOOTAGE , !t•ACaa Ca.S.'z_:O"+%+i..GL.-.fi-:r�C ?'•a•T•�aTC T�.:4O•:r LM'I rr1.•?C7.-�7.-_.VRi.a 7C-w•?`7.7.C•,E OR.•.-:],uw..r•r..7 l.alC.L_s+V.E.:.�..t..:IT.L 7- .•1�.l�.
. E.-o a♦
01 -LA10 -a,
_Ts, .. yco._ •eG•C]EO aOGT10M!
a+Jrw1 CTJ4T'. :0101 aM:..S•AT._l7)�a7:Arae
CYIiECE'_1vQU.,
G/I•Ef7O
we -_'Teo •CJACE41
L.075 C) :QC C TOT.L
USEABLE ARE -¢OVICED
E!
II �P.G
lJYAeE roorAGA ,:ran a lr..o..o .mvlcEO I
e..u.R •ReR lI.cea
OTAL YSgAaLE.AEA :I:II !a�u I •OT.L N.,,AC!!
Aiel.
517& ,�, •,� ----
SLU-08-94
BZA-3297 .94
1130 S . Pennsylvania Avenue
Built in the flood plain
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Board of Water and Light
123 W. Ottawa Street
Lansing, MI 48901
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance and Special Land Use Permit to
make alterations to a building in the
floodplain
EXISTING LAND USE : Equipment storage and service yard with
associated office space
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Heavy Industrial and "I" Light
Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
SIZE & SHAPE : 1140 ' x 14141 , Irregular shape
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial and residential
S : Industrial and Residential, Red
Cedar River
E: Industrial and residential
W: Industrial and residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Industrial and residential
S : Industrial and residential
E: Industrial and residential
W: Industrial and residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial/Warehouse; Parks and Open
Space adjacent to Red Cedar River
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Developer' s Proposal:
The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the second floor of
Warehouse "A" (a one-story warehouse) and the second floor of
Warehouse "B" to office space. Since these buildings are located
in the Red Cedar River floodplain, approval for this project must
include a Special Land Use Permit from the Planning Board under
Section 1288 . 06 of the Zoning Code, a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals under Section 1288 . 10, and separate approval from
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources . The floor of
Warehouse "A" is 6 . 9 feet below the floodplain of 834 . 5 feet. The
second floor of Warehouse "B" is actually above the 100 year flood
level .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 - SLU-8-94
Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in Floodplain
ANALYSIS
This property is located on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue
and north of the Red Cedar River ( figure 1) . The site is presently
used for multiple purposes, i .e. , outside storage; service vehicle
repair and storage; parking; warehouse; and office space facilities
( figure 2 ) . There are over 250 off-street parking spaces for
passenger vehicles on site.
The entire site is located below the 100-year flood elevation. The
western two-thirds of the site is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial; the
eastern one-third is zoned "H" Light Industrial ( figure 3) .
Most of the adjacent properties to the north and west are also
zoned industrial . North of Hazel Street and east of Pennsylvania
Avenue are residentially-zoned areas .
Variance Procedures :
Section 1288 . 10 of the Zoning Code outlines the procedures that
must be followed in order for the Board of Appeals to grant a
variance to permit construction in the floodplain. Listed below is
an analysis of each of the procedures that apply to this request:
1 . Variances shall not be issued within any designated regulatory
floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
2 . This proposal is to renovate the inside of existing buildings;
the project will cause no increase in flood levels over
existing conditions .
3 . Variances shall only be issued upon:
a. A showing of good and sufficient cause:
@The Board of Water and Light is in need of
additional office space, and permitting it to
renovate existing facilities to meet this need is a
good cause for the utility company' s customers .
b. Failure to grant the variance would result in an
exceptional hardship to the applicant:
•Denial of the requested variance may force the
applicant to acquire additional property to meet
their office space needs .
C. A determination that the granting of a variance will not
result in increased flood heights, additional threats to
public safety, or extraordinary public expense; create
nuisances; cause fraud on or victimization of the public;
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances :
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 - SLU-8-94
Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in Floodplain
Granting the variance will not result in any
additional impact to future floods, public safety
or expense, than that already caused by the
existing warehouse buildings . To avoid substantial
damage to permanent fixtures in the event of a
flood, all mechanical equipment shall be elevated
above the floodplain. To avoid substantial damage
to temporary fixtures, the Board shall prepare an
evacuation plan.
d) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that
the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the
flood hazard, to afford relief .
•Permitting the conversion of the upper floor of
the existing Warehouse "B" , providing the new
office space at an elevation above the flood
elevation, is certainly a minimal encroachment into
the flood zone. Only a portion of Warehouse "A"
will be converted to office, which will minimize
the potential hazard to property improvements .
Summary:
1 . The proposed office space will be constructed inside existing
buildings and thus will have no effect on the floodplain.
2 . Conversion of warehouse space to office use in this existing
utility company complex will have no additional impact on the
character of the surrounding area .
Recommendation:
Because the impact of this project is negligible and meets all of
the procedures outlined in Section 1288 . 10 of the Zoning Code,
staff recommends approval, with the following conditions :
1 . Proposed fixed mechanical equipment shall be elevated above
the 100-year floodplain.
2 . An evacuation plan shall be prepared, submitted to the City of
Lansing Planning Office and kept on file by the Board of Water
and Light in order to prevent a loss of property and protect
the public health.
3 . Flood insurance may be required.
-\w\data\P1anbd\e1u894.fe
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BZA 3297 . 94
SGU-Sy�
_NORTH
' L c. I L L MICHIGAN �I AVE. ' Lu
Ct
n �
� Y � EUREKA E
��
F, � n
cn RNARD v�
? Q
O Z 2 h �
I Q p 3 V PA PRO CT Q ST.4 Z 1 3 O h h y
PL. O
�I Q E. KAL M « m ST n E.
y � QtiP G FS2,� �L HICKORY T.
N4 E ST. M ST. J
W ~ ! BEMENT ST. 4
m LARNED EL B H ST.
_ U � dqLSL LE ST n
n
n SrJOS£PH FUL L
ST. E a
JOS PH
Mal
lIA/N p ST.
ST.
4
� CL/MAX
W LQGR ST.
SPR G y Q 4 N H
HAZ ST. Z e e HAZEL �n h
y
~ WALSH SZ
Q W y ~ W WALSN y
ELM
QCkti PARKV/E T, y y y
Q C.3 o y PERK/NS ST.
tu W
OR
SOU fH
J
AN Q CHR/ ANCY FA TTE V POTTER PARK
3 � ✓ASO j E
BAKER Q' srV L SYCAMORE /NO
PARK SUNNY Gy
TOR AN `r�0
�GARDENZ �� W/L
j AVON sr y MO TO
AVE ST. OO PARKDA
o
Q
PER /NG KJG
o as J LU k PE N NO lu RMA n O
m SNUB£L
Q �/ /� J Q Q 4 J PARK
E.QFAVE. Q h Ll 0 E. MT. HOPE
-7/1 n inn ,,. A,. F-7 nnn
FTarMF 1 - Vi rri ni tv Man
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BZA 3297 . 94
NORTH
7 -+. �I .. it •li�. 'li' _; _ I ....-....._ ��i .� I ; -
fit
,� (• / .V' I 1:1 I: i' it• -.F �. , ,.,.. -�.-. 1 1'`,,i r
:_\�'•��'�.�li�,�\' t j lt! r:pi�"ur �A.I�� �I:.� �L�/IY 1 f I` �� •^.., - � �'1 I
'•iv,
Lhl 1i7.11 a,killTi !
"�,�'1� ` :�`�'�F^ � . . �.1 .•. -I,t._10. `'''?� t -r• --—=— _ i �•ti I i �•I �� �1��� ' � I ��' ��i !f 1
Lr
41
'i`..`.. '`•• .lr� .. .I:. ,.... _.` _ :.1. �.,.,,Wit,,,/ .•I'I�.�.�. �i'f} sf. ,,t,i, .jam ..r• .a =Lt.," •^.•. 5,"� �� ri'r.t'-I;,r,y�,:��' •I %' "�9'
w1' r. _ '�I -�sc �• '��::. -15'� L-.,�.1. �� i _ ^t. •.!c`'T�..7..' .i •o .• `I -
�`,;�Jir J.�.:'C7?.��(� ..1..:•J. .�I �<71'l:'.. _.1• �Yti.•`•` - .' -- .r :l•. •�. ..
mh
177
SIP
- rt+-�;,.y�• '.�l'; ewe 1.��~`',+ ''•�'/,�•f`•1`:s-�:wk�jr, i�,�:' ''-``L_ti-.iv'r''�'•.•. ' ':; `'�a. �,�:/ - .. _ _
_.�__--- �� ..r. :T�p. i/•� i. ir�:', .`- r.'..'�:i�:. .. rlr'%�.�• _s � "ram{.`I• �`�. � ��.
Q�s� •• i,�n - y..-., , ��-a-��"- `= 11
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BZA 3297 . 94
SLu—S-9�
NORTH
tit
r. is 1
° 0 o0�J306 odd CoDo
'�.•., •�� ~ \ �°`a D'�a�. � ,'I . f�� -s � �_y�� ° 1% Qom'
CS C30
Cl ZI
CD
ClCl
6.0_�
13-D CG
t --- _
c --- --- t aQo11 Op00�pQ!.o
oCp
Nw 1/a Sr.C-I
FIGURE 3: Adjacent Land Use & Zoning
ACT-3-94
4900 Block of Tranter - Reduction in Drain Easement
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Roy Markey
4900 Block of Tranter
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review
PURPOSE : Reduction of a twenty-five feet drain
easement to twenty feet.
EXISTING LAND USE : Light Industrial
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 172 ' x 60 ' = 10, 320 sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Light Industrial
S: Light Industrial
E: Light Industrial
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S: "H" Light Industrial
E: "H" Light Industrial
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Plan designates this
area as light industrial
CASE HISTORY: City Council approved a 25 ft.
drain easement reduction on this
property, December 19 , 1977 .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting a five
(5) feet reduction from 'a twenty-
five (25) feet drain easement in
width along the east to west
direction of the south edge of the
Wiegman drain easement so that a
business building can be situated
better on the lot.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
ANALYSIS
Public Service
The Public Service denies any further reduction in the
easement. A reduction was granted by City Council December
17 , 1977 . The City has a 72" storm sewer centered in the
easement and a 18" sanitary sewer south of the storm.
Evaluation
Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of
all proposals which involve the sale, acquisition or
substantial alteration of public property be evaluated.
Character
A five (5) foot reduction in the drain easement will
probably change the character of the property. If the five
foot easement is granted, the petitioner states that adjacent
property to the east would be better situated on the lot. The
Public Service Department indicates that a five foot reduction
in the drain easement would compromise the intensity of the
building.
Location
The property is located at the 4900 block of Tranter
street, just north of Jolly -road, specifically, the northeast
corner of Tranter/Jolly, the southern part of the property.
An drain easement was granted on this property in December
1977 and Public Service would not recommend any additional
reduction on this property.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3
Extent
The request for a five foot easement reduction is not
unreasonable . The current easement is twenty-five and a
reduction of five feet would allow this to be in line with
adjacent properties to the east. It is recommend that no
further reduction is done on this property because any type of
new development would require building up to the property line
which is not permitted.
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the comments received from Public Service, staff
recommends not approving the five foot drain easement.
NORTH
ACT-3-94
4900 Block of Tranter - Reduction in Drain Easement
82
0
_ - - - 0
Lb h
l 56 � Q
y I81 I �.
I � p
. I
157 �, � I80
ie J
158 `' ; 179
C
^t ti t f3b/
RENSEN
�1 159 N 178'
7Y•d'
177
J O
�( v%
n du5 �d� n n
16 I s } y 1 7 6
�r 1 72, 7 T I�
I16 2 �? 17 5 �o1 v n 'n 0�
I t
� � I
rl74 313
MI
�� /72
/71
— — 0 3 ", -�i RAIN EASMIT ' 3 nr
Y"r 164 V� \o ° 1 73 3�`' C v j Q9 �'
165 17 2 y 33= CJA
iYe•95 � � 1 1 r O
l66 o -171 3LA3 o z
Q
r67
o Cr_
� � , ` �3 f I \0
17 0
h 1
I
� v � 3io2 � � ��• 1
°' 168 0 169 ,
y //S•9 l 172 — — t-
6
10LLY RD. I I -
Act-4-94
1000 Filley Street
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Michigan
Lansing City Hall
120 East Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48933
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 review to sell city-owned Filley Street
warehouse
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 100' by 200'- irregular; 17,076 square feet
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial
S: Industrial
E: Industrial
W: Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S: "J' Parking
E: "H" Light Industrial
W: "H" Light Industrial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990, map
of Proposed Land Use to 1990, designates the site
and its immediate vicinity for industrial development
ANALYSIS
Background
This building was formerly a Lansing Township fire station; it is presently used for storage
of old city records and files. The City is presently considering an offer to purchase the
property. The building is a one story brick and block biding of approximately 2440 square
feet. The City's appraisal report estimates the building was built in 1949: a more recent
appraisal estimates the building value at $71,000.00.
LOCATION
The property is located on the north side of Filley Street approximately 400 feet west of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (MLK Blvd). Filley Street is classified as a collector
street connecting MLK Blvd, a major arterial, with Turner Street, a minor arterial.
CHARACTER
The character of the vicinity of Filley Street and MLK Blvd is primarily industrial: this
character is maintained eastward on Filley Street until just before Taylor Street,where the
character of land uses changes to residential. The property is zoned for industrial use: its
location makes the present zoning appropriate. The present use of this building to
warehouse files is appropriate given the character of other land uses in the vicinity.
EXTENT
The sale of the building will free the city from the cost of maintenance, provide funds
needed to convert the old records to a more efficient storage media, put the building in
private hands, and generate tax revenue for the City.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Staff recommends that the building and property should be returned to the
private sector. The records and files stored in the warehouse should be sorted and
microfilmed or transferred to some other suitable media for more efficient storage.
Sr
ARL IN TON
u _ u-� - -- - ... - A TON Pt Aq
OEL lA
NUNG .._ _
C ERFOA T hr
� �, y Hl. Y
CITY •C/L/1S _ t r0•
r
LL ARC -- 1T s
H TN O
.. .. ..ST SUrfSFT AVf. = 2 2 a RD .a
Y YAHL EY STANL£Y lD
iD� x _. ❑ �� DURANT ST ; Y �n
� r DUO
2 �
,14 y y VfRL/NDE a M 4/ANuacruflcRs BELT LIN£ H.R. 2 �X
i 2 VERL INOfN AV£. Y r-- m i wESTW000 Avg'
ST. MILH/GAN L£N THA! R L '
O YCfq`/NpE- O n Z I 1 -LA w00 ❑ YST O O O M CJ F GNE£NOA.Y
yC� LOI/FOR 'i ST T c
z FL Avf. CE v�i =F -T l� OMfO Y n:q4
O2 EMAP ANLj
aJENISON Y O In �T UU
a�� JENISt AVf���� J£NISO AVE ,,[[�..�� /LOR£O "n
3 2
7 p TAIOH ANO a OWESTM LA U
61fNR05£ AVE. I
L rn w000 IU
Y 'NURO `A ^ i'/'SMpPE n L YTON ; O ROSfLAWN �D �yti '�
L ISON r1 A/ O n O [IOLLYW000
Z CAREY 2 ^� t- �"
T L O _� �CAREY n MOLTEN p 2 �_ a o ROJER T.SON Ot�d
n� RID 2 L Tom, LL CL YO O L w oD i _ LOGA r
M � e � BART� T AL £ N. LOGAN ST _ _-
1 K/RHY�J N N O �. i^
J r
ST � a �� •� I a
a
M j][]MHUn '
a nrf/ PRI ETON AvE. LANSIH 2AVE.e ~ m CN/ '® �r a ROOSfVELT COOLIOGE ST
RUYL S `, n
^1 �n A y AVE. RIVERSIDE cr
O 1 $"JI y O KNO[L OD y_ d Z
ECA.
\ WSL IH AT ST Qi � � 0 IILINFR II ON LFI TEA SYCAAI ST ❑ a CLI[IL. ti cu[VfR ti5� LmSYCAMORE m O n
❑� amn F ; r �AG40R 1 r ANO/RA YMONOy R PINE ST RSONM N LL T
H /1.v£ T N SPIKES L N f
NL � S. PfNf Sr p i- � ��1-..l �❑ r r ❑❑�r r
TA YL OR ST L N p I
LJ LH£S THU I h � o �
• � _ � � � �i �Z �❑ o n H w L N r � J
/UT _(�� ,nuj2^� S���� a❑I� 12 sEv uRsTGRAND RIVE /S 2
n p L—J
r S£YM H SY a ; �
Sr J TO SfNO sT. �
N a dd n
PI OL a AVE. ❑� ^�
CA a TOL
CA OL AV = a o 0
a ry x AVE
Z k:][lAJlO
NGTAV HIVE
CRESTON -MO T
^ y # N/ UN CIN.AN Gr '� a a '' °
Yal
H wALKfR ST.
:r L RALE TURNER ST.ni n x D
H -� -/-� os y SCNDL l7
N �� r M fAC n m
c fR sr. d3 G�kA`D_ RIVER ���
s n a
II
D �.� n �a o s ❑ m POL L r n J L—J CEDAR ST
+ o L y a c n
jr
z 15 c 9 N035�t/li CEDAR ST. L �b TNOMPS POLLY c N
L IrTNOMPSON 2 2
L O u1 ��� L L # [ARCM Sr p
O L m ( p 2 ti 2 L
$T2 N NA[L ; 2 p ? _
LARClI ST --- LL AR�I~ t °o f ~ v I I L ` 2
a I -- IIIJI sT L—� —
a a '-NE vA.v.Iue Il: H n EAST m o a
m
_ — -_~ -- —,� _ _�onR�,�_ _ _ a . _. :�� � --� n n n m r� N n a
SAY -�
s
:ss.z
661.0
o PARKING g60 I
x 649.9
01,3
/ F7 wa LLI �i`u _ pARY.ING -
2, \
- 861.3 11
x �849.4 I}� i
I „ 6575
847.9 - l
r
346.6
(—�RKING
l �\\Y(f �/i � SFr
0
c'2 /7
9S_9
2J`
_ I
Q 643 9 .
642J \ \ \
\� 832.5
4/.Z / I
06-16-94AO8 : 24 RCVD
DRAFT TO CLERK 061594
A
�� APPROVED
1 Li TO CLERK
ZMinutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, May 17 , 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 38 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Thelen. Absent: Ruge. Seven members serving
at this time; one vacancy. Ex officio members
Councilmembers Jones and Lilly - not in attendance .
B. Excused Absence - None.
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present : Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior
Planner, Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary;
William Burleson, Associate City Attorney.
D. Approval of Revised Agenda. Approved as printed.
E . Presentations .
On behalf of the Board and staff, Ms . Love, presented a
certificate to Ms . Witherspoon in recognition of her
service on the Planning Board. She also presented Mr.
Barnhart with a clock engraved IN APPRECIATION in
recognition of his 23 years of service. Mr. Barnhart
resigned recently; he is moving out of the City.
II . HEARINGS '- None.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
RONALD ALLEN, 2311 S, CEDAR, SUITE B. (Distributed documents
addressing various concerns of the Board, pertaining to
parking on South Cedar, Z-8-94 . ) I have a total of 16 parking
spaces . One space is designated for handicapped; another is
for vans with lifts ( 18 feet wide) , to comply with Americans
With Disabilities Act, which requires an extra 6 feet over the
state requirement of 12 feet. That leaves 14 regular spaces .
My tenant, Interim Health Care, has five employees; I have
four employees . That leaves five spaces for patients and
tenant clients . My employees have been parking elsewhere, and
my tenant and I have been coordinating busy times . My tenant,
starting as a new business with a minimal parking requirement,
has been very successful and now has five employees and field
employees whom he interviews and trains at the office
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 2
location. Friday is payday, with lots of traffic in and out.
Another thing: When Cedar Street was widened, an error was
made in the survey, and the sidewalk is up to 18 inches on my
property. The State has asked to purchase 2 feet on Cedar
Street; they want to trade me this property that is under
consideration for rezoning. I have an option to purchase.
The State is ready to settle. Regarding the handicap parking
situation, when the parking lot was installed, it was done to
the builder' s and -the City' s satisfaction. It was changed
from close to the building to the other side of the parking
lot because of the grade there and concern for the
handicapped. The new federal requirement is for an 18 ' width.
This parking is essential to the full use of my building.
Mrs . Horne asked the location of employee parking "elsewhere" ;
Dr. Allen said employees have been parking on the grassy area
next to the skywalk, on the property that is up for rezoning.
FRED DOHERTY, 531 EDISON. I am here on my behalf and the
members of the Maplewood PTA, in opposition. The lot- is
adjacent to the skywalk that serves the Maplewood Elementary
School . The traffic patterns for children walking to the
school are such that all elementary students living on the
east side of Cedar are funneled to this skywalk in order to
safely cross Cedar, a very dangerous street. They would cross
in front of the curb cut that would provide access to this
drive way up. to four times a day, at least three of which
would be during the peak hours of parking lot use. One
student fatality has occurred at Cedar and Mt . Hope, also one
serious injury. It is a serious safety problem for Maplewood
students . There are 16 parking spaces; assuming 2 are
designated handicapped, that would leave 14 . The tenant has
5, leaving 9 spaces . There were fewer spaces when Dr. Allen
had his original building. He has enough parking for his
staff and his patients . He knew the parking situation when he
elected to build the building. To allow him to expand the
parking now after the fact would jeopardize the school
children who are directed to this particular area. It is a
recipe for disaster. A driver is not going to be able to see
a child just off the sidewalk. A kindergartner who is coming
off the skywalk after school is not going to be looking for
cars . The child will leave the skywalk, make a hard right
turn, and in about four steps be in the path of any incoming
or outgoing vehicle. It is a dangerous situation, and the
request should be denied.
ANDREW BRODIE, 1114 W. GLENN ST. regarding SLU-4-94 , 907 W.
Saginaw, Church. I would like to extend my thanks for your
hard work for the decision to allow us to use the city parking
north of Saginaw street. We appreciate it. Thank you.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 3
JAMES L. BANKER, 2014 EAST SYRINGA DRIVE, regarding Z-5-94 ,
4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial
District. Mrs . Horne said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee
requested Mr. Banker make a presentation to the Board. He
will exceed five minutes . Mrs . Horne made a motion, seconded
by Mr. Fountain, to allow Mr. Banker to speak beyond five F
minutes .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; to allow Mr.
Banker more than five minutes to make his presentation;
carried unanimously; APPROVED.
In February, Mr. Banker and neighborhood watch coordinators
met with Mr. Maguir.e to discuss the possible rezoning of the
Hacker property at 4720 S . Cedar Street. Mr. Maguire stated
"We don't build on speculation; we will build only for a
specific tenant; however, we are thinking of a hardware store
or neighborhood pharmacy. " We asked why have 61 parking
spaces; no response. Mr. Maguire said neighborhood concerns
would be addressed. We attended the Planning Board meeting on
March 1, 1994 and voiced our concerns .
An inventory of existing "F" Commercial property on Cedar
Street from Mt. Hope to Willoughby showed over 20 vacant or
unoccupied commercial properties . Existing commercial
properties should be utilized before creating more. On April
15 , 1994 , we sent a letter to the Zoning and .Ordinance
Committee opposing Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District . We requested denial
of the petition; however, we recognize this is a valuable
property and proposed a compromise. We would accept a split
of the property to conform to the existing established north-
south property lines . We propose one-third on the west remain
"A" Residential and the remaining two-thirds on the east be
rezoned "D-1" Professional Office and eliminate the exit drive
onto Syringa.
Another meeting requested by Mr. Maguire, was held, attended
by Jim Sturdevant, Joe Maguire, Vernon Fountain, Mr. and Mrs .
Charlie Dart, Jan Patrick and James Banker. Mr. Maguire
proposed another compromise, for "F" Commercial for the east
253 feet of 4720 S . Cedar, with the west 60 feet to be given
to the subdivision as a playground plus $5 , 000 of playground
equipment. Mr. Maguire was told that we cannot make this
compromise; however, a neighborhood meeting was set for April
26 when the modified proposal will be presented for
consideration.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 4
At the meeting on April 26, 1994, the modified plan was
presented. After discussion, the property owners voted to
oppose rezoning of property at 4720 S . Cedar from "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District, recommend denial of
Z-5-94 , and consideration only of their compromise proposal .
Mr. Banker submitted a complete copy of his report, pictures
of property inventory, copy of newspaper article, and petition
with 74 signatures, for the record.
TOM BIRCHMAN, WOLVERINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. I call your
attention to a letter to the Planning Board, in care of Mr.
James Ruff, dated May 12 , 1994 . I support the original
petition.
IV. RECESS - None.
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : May 3 , 1994
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barnhart, to
approve the minutes of May 3, 1994 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion, was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were : Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; minutes of the meeting of May 5, 1994 were:
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Z-8-94 , SE Cor. S . Cedar & Pacific Ave. , "B"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional
Office District
This is a request by Ronald T. Allen to rezone vacant property'
located at the southeast corner of S . Cedar Street and Pacific
Avenue from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District. The applicant proposes to create a parking lot for
8 cars for staff who work in the adjacent office building at
2311 S . Cedar Street.
In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve the requested
rezoning, recognizing the need to properly lay out the parking lot,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 5
with landscape screening and buffering, saving the existing trees
with the idea of reversing the parking arrangement and maintaining
child safety. The item was reported out of committee on a vote as
follows : Yeas : 2; Nays : 2 .
The Committee was divided upon the use of the property. Some
members were of the opinion that there is no need for the
additional parking and that it may be better left green space,
seeing little other use of the property; while other members were
of the opinion that the proposed use was a reasonable use of low
intensity, and they recognized the need for an appropriate site
plan with buffering and reorientation of the lot.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to deny Z-8-94 ,
SW Cor. S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows .
Mr. Goolsby asked about school hours beginning at 8 : 40 and ending
at 3 p.m. , and timing of employees arriving at 8 a.m. and leaving
at 5 p.m. , and impacts upon the request; also what were discussions
concerning buffering. Mr. Doherty raised an excellent question
about pedestrians coming off the skywalk and being directed toward
the parking lot on a diagonal direction. That situation is
probably dangerous . Also was there discussion concerning how
parking will be controlled, with parking for employees only.
Mr. Thelen said the Committee had not seen Dr. Allen' s letters
prior to this evening when he distributed them. About employee
hours and school hours, there was some discussion. Regarding
screening and buffering, potentially, the lot could be rotated or
mirrored, so that cars could be closer to the street than to the
building. There was no discussion of any monitoring of
unauthorized parking by other than employees .
Mrs . Horne said the design could not be flipped because of driveway
locations and locations of mature trees .
Mr. Fountain said with reference to Dr. Allen' s letters , we did
have one letter dated May 6 that was in the packet. We did talk
about, through the site plan review process, putting the driveway
to the east of the skywalk, to give more visibility to anyone
leaving the skywalk and walking to the sidewalk. We talked about
preserving a large tree in the public right-of-way and another one
on the lot itself. The one on the lot could very well eliminate
one parking space, reducing the number of spaces to seven. We
talked about keeping a low profile for .the lot, to provide clear
visibility for anyone on the sidewalk, whether child or adult.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 6
Mr. Goolsby asked about lighting in the area. Mr. Fountain said
lighting would be addressed in the site plan review process .
Mrs . LeBlanc asked about flipping the lot and moving the entrance
to the east away from the skywalk. Mr. Fountain said he thought it
could be done; it would be a narrow driveway, but it is supposed to
be a low-intense lot. Mr. Ruff mentioned in the Z&O meeting
designing the curb cut so as to encourage going west towards Cedar
Street rather than towards the residential area.
Mr. Thelen said the committee considered whether or not the lot is
being used and being filled. The information Dr. Allen gave us
tonight appears to make the use of the lot more intense than what
we in reality had seen it. That is a new bit of information; I had
never seen that many cars in it. The second thing is that the
handicapper situation is illegal . I brought it up at the Z&O
meeting, but staff made no acknowledgment of it whatsoever. If we
are going to do a rezoning so they can have a parking lot, and the
current lot is illegal, I have doubts this can be done correctly.
This is the only first time we have had in writing that the
handicapper situation is nonconforming. If he can' t get his
current lot in shape and there is no need to fill that lot, why
rezone another one? The lot is small, and if it is not going to be
used as parking, it could only be used for an addition onto the
structure, or existing green space .
Mr. Fountain said on the site plan there was a 10-ft. setback to
the first parking place. If it were in the "D-1" District, he
would be required to keep it back at least 20 feet, so he would
lose another space there, which could conceivably reduce it to 5
spaces at the most, with the preservation of the tree. We did not
encourage parking on the L-shaped part going out to Cedar Street.
Mr. Goolsby asked if Mr. Thelen had talked to Lansing School
officials? Mr. Thelen said no, but in the Board packet, the
president of the Maplewood PTA phoned and mentioned her concern
about unsafe and hazardous conditions .
Chairman LeBlanc said, in Mr. Doherty' s phone message, the
principal, Ms . Kane, will be calling. Mr. Goolsby said there were
no direct communications from the Lansing School officials , and no
comments from them about the proposal .
Mr. Fountain, based on Mr. Goolsby' s questions, in all fairness to
the petitioner, made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to table Z-
8-94 until we get an updated site plan. Mr. Goolsby noted that the
motion to table would take precedence. Mr. Fountain reiterated
that the updated site plan should include relocation of the curb
cut, preservation of the trees , the proper setback in the "D-1"
Office District, we should determine how many cars will be parked
in there, and get some response from the School District.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 7
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
Z-8-94 , SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District was :
TABLED.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, that the
matter be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee on June
15, 1994 . i
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
Z-8-94 , SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential
District to "D-1" Professional Office District was referred to the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee on June 15 , 1994 .
APPROVED.
b. SLU-4-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church
NCU-1-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church Parking Lot
This is a request by Rev. Andrew Brodie,
representing St. Luke ' s Community Baptist
Church, for property located at 907 W.
Saginaw. The special land use request is
being considered simultaneously with NCU-1-94,
a nonconforming use request for property
located at 907 W. Saginaw. The special land
use request is for use of the building for
church services on Sundays between 11 a.m. and
1 p.m. for an average attendance of about 20
people (maximum capacity 90 people) . Also,
since the property has no parking associated
with the building, the Board is considering
the use in accordance with Section 1294 . 07 (e) ,
in the Nonconformities Chapter of the Zoning
Code.
Regarding SLU-4-94 , the Committee found, based on the staff report,
testimony and evidence:
1 . The proposed special land use is compatible with adjacent land
uses .
2 . The proposed special land use will not cause an essential
change in the character of the area.
3 . The proposed special land use should not interfere with the
general enjoyment of the area.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 8
4 . The proposed special land use would not have a negative impact
on improvements to surrounding uses . Clarification of the
parking arrangements of the church is necessary.
5 . The proposed special land use will have no negative impacts on
the environment.
6 . The proposed special land use should not require any
additional public services .
7 . The proposed special land use should not require any
additional utilities .
B . The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan.
9 . The proposed special land use is in compliance with the Master
Plan. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for commercial and business use. The proposed
special land use is compliance with the zoning districts .
There are mixed zoning uses in this area. A special land use
permit is required for a church in a commercial district.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
r
In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to
approve SLU-4-94 with two conditions :
1 . The parking lot is identified and a written contract
specifying the seven conditions of the off-street parking
agreement as defined by the City Attorney' s office. If a
parking contract is received, the nonconforming substitution
is not necessary.
If a contract cannot be arranged with Mr. Covello and Mr.
Park, there is adequate City parking available across Saginaw.
2 . Ingress and egress is clearly defined for church members and
others entering the parking lot.
Regarding NCU-1-94 , the Committee found, based on the staff report,
testimony and evidence, that the use was no more intense than the
previous commercial uses and that if it did become more intense
with the addition of activities, additional review and approval
will be necessary.
In committee, it was moved, and seconded to approve NCU-1-94 with
conditions; motion carried unanimously, 4-0; NCU-1-94 , 907 W.
Saginaw, Church, Class B Nonconformity was approved in committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17 , 1994 - PAGE 9
The Committee recommended approval of the Special Land Use permit
and the substitution, based on the following conditions :
1 . The parking lot is identified and a written contract
specifying the seven conditions of the off-street parking
agreement as defined by the City Attorney' s office. If a
parking contract is received, the nonconforming substitution
is not necessary.
If a contract cannot be arranged with Mr. Covello and Mr.
Park, there is adequate City parking available across Saginaw.
2 . Ingress and egress is clearly defined for church members and
others entering the parking lot.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve SLU-4-
94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, with the two conditions in the staff
report. Mr. Fountain offered, as a friendly amendment, a
recommendation that the contract be place prior to City Council
action, so that it does not become an enforcement action later.
Mr. Thelen and Mrs . Horne accepted the friendly amendment.
PLANNING BOARD on the motion was as follows .
Ms . Love asked for a point of clarification. The NCU is for the
parking. In case they are not able to work out the contract, then
they don't get the .SLU, or the NCU? Mr. Fountain said they had two
options, one coming up with a contract with the adjacent property
owner to give the church the required parking, and the other coming
up with the spaces to satisfy the issues of the NCU. Ms . Love said
he would still need the SLU for the church and what you in effect
do by holding it up before Council is , they can't use the NCU
because there is no parking. What you have done is give them only
one way to go. Mr. Fountain said is the contract issue necessary at
all? Ms . Love said she didn't think so, the SLU is for the church,
and the NCU is for the parking in case the church doesn' t have
parking. Mr. Fountain said the contract issue isn't necessary at
all , if you look at it that way. Chairman LeBlanc said we are
stating our preference that the contact be obtained, and offering
the City parking as a fall-back measure. Ms . Love said she did not
think it was an either-or. Your original motion is the one that is
in order. Mr. Fountain withdrew his motion.
Mr. Thelen and Ms . Horne accepted the withdrawal of the motion.
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0 ; carried
unanimously; SLU-4-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, was APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 10
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve NCU-
1-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, Class B Nonconformity, Parking Lot.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0 ; carried
unanimously; NCU-1-94 , was APPROVED.
C. SLU-5-94 , 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Church
Parking
NCU-2-94 , 549 E . Mt. Hope Ave. Church Building
Addition
This is a request by Bethlehem Lutheran Church
for a special land use permit for property
located at 559 E. Mt . Hope Avenue. The
special land use permit is being considered
simultaneously with NCU-2-94 , a Class A
nonconforming use request for the church
located at 549 E . Mt. Hope Avenue. The
special land use request is for expansion. of k
the church parking lot, while the Class A f
nonconforming use request is to allow a
building addition and renovations to the
existing church facilities . Approval of the
Special Land Use request will .make the church
more conforming to the Zoning Code, and must
be done before the criteria necessary for
granting of Class A status are met.
Regarding SLU-5-94 , the Committee found, based upon the staff .
report, testimony, and evidence, that the Special Land Use meets
the criteria set forth in Section 1282 . 03 ( f) ( 1) -( 9 ) , which will
allow the requested permit to expand the church parking lot.
Approval of the Special Land Use request will make the church more
conforming to the Zoning Code, and must be done before the criteria
necessary for granting of Class A status ate met.
Much discussion took place regarding circulation and the Norman
Street exit.
In committee, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved to
approve the Special Land Use request with the conditions ( 1) that
the landscape screening and buffering of the site be improved, and
( 2) that the results of leaving the Norman Street exit open be
reviewed by the Planning Board after one year following the
completion of the requested improvements, and ( 3) that, if the exit
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 11
onto Norman Street caused undue pressure on the neighborhood during
the first year, the exit may be required to be closed or controlled
to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
The Committee also recommended that if further expansion is
contemplated, ( 1) that expansion of the parking be along
E. Mt. Hope, and (2 ) that the lot fronting Norman Street be
returned to a residential lot (possibly relocating the house at
565 E . Mt. Hope to Norman Street frontage) , thus eliminating
Norman Street access , and ( 3 ) the church building be reoriented
toward the neighborhood. It was anticipated that the neighborhood
organization, the community policing officer, and the staff would
be asked to give a report as to any problems that would have been
created by having continued egress onto Norman Street .
The Committee found with regard to public health, safety, and
welfare that the request for Class A was favorable, that Bethlehem
Lutheran Church serves as a community facility as required in the
Master Plan, and that the request does not expand the main hall of
worship.
In committee, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved to
approve Class A status to make the requested improvements , with all
the conditions and considerations as stated above for SLU-5-94 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve SLU-
5-94 , 559 E . Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking, citing the conditions
and considerations in the staff report, as well as the revised site
plan sketch, which is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0 ; carried
unanimously; SLU-5-94 , 559 E . Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking
was APPROVED.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve
NCU-2-94, 549 East Mt . Hope Avenue, Church Building Addition, based
on the three conditions listed in the staff report which is
attached hereto and made a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17 , 1994 - PAGE 12
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; NCU-2-94 , 549 East Mt . Hope Avenue, Church Building
Addition was APPROVED.
d. SLU-6-94, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. , 3003
Partners, Renovate Building, Additions to and
Renovation of Building in Floodplain (Public
hearing was not required) .
This is a request by Victor Design,
representing 3003 E . Michigan Avenue
Partnership, to construct two additions onto
the building at 3003 E . Michigan Avenue, which
is in the 100-year floodplain. One of the
additions requires a setback variance of
Section 1268 . 06 (a) , and both have a floor
elevation below the 10.0-year flood elevation,
requiring a variance of Chapter 1288 of the
Zoning Code. As a corner lot, the property
has two front yards facing Homer and Michigan
Avenue.
The Committee believes this to be a reasonable
request, and recommends that the substantial
improvements be approved with conditions .
It was moved and seconded in committee, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, to recommend approval of SLU-6-94,
3003 E . Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners, Additions to and Renovation
of Building in Floodplain, modified with the six conditions
following:
1 . That the DNR permit applied for be approved (Received
5/11/94 ) .
2 . That the Board of Zoning Appeals variances be approved
(Approved 5/12/94 ) .
3 . That floodplain insurance be purchased for the property in
accordance with federal guidelines .
4 . That all permanent mechanical devices installed be elevated
above the base flood elevation, and that any hazardous
materials stored on-site be stored in accordance with Ingham
County Health Department regulations .
i
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 13
5 . That an evacuation plan for persons , temporary items and
products be developed, submitted to the Planning Office, and
be kept by the property owner/tenant.
6 . That the landscaping of the site, to soften and aesthetically
improve it, be completed by time of occupancy.
It was moved, seconded and unanimously approved in committee to
approve SLU-6-94 , 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners , Additions
to and Renovation of Building in Floodplain.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to approve SLU-6-
94 , 3003 E . Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners , Additions to and
Renovation of Building in Floodplain, based on the six conditions
referenced in the staff report, which is attached hereto and made
a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-6-94 , 3003 E . Michigan Avenue, 3003 Partners ,
Additions to and Renovation of Building in Floodplain waAPPROVED.
e. SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 E .
Willoughby Rd.
A letter has been received from Lee Helman
requesting withdrawal of the Special Land Use
permit application.
In committee, a motion was made to accept the
withdrawal and place the letter on file;
motion carried unanimously; SLU-1-94 , Mill
Pond Village, 1600 E. Willoughby Rd. was
withdrawn.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horn, to withdraw
SLU-1-94 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 14
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 E . Willoughby Rd.
was WITHDRAWN.
f . Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District
A letter has been received from Mr. Maguire
submitting an amendment plan for rezoning the
corner of Cedar and Syringa, from "A"
Residential to "F" Commercial District, "J"
Parking and "A" Residential Districts .
It was moved and seconded in committee to deny
the original request to rezone the entire site
to "F" Commercial District as filed, based
upon the following:
1 . Establish line of residential/nonresidential .
2 . Residential should abut residential front and rear.
3 . The Master Plan Master Plan recommends Professional Office or
Commercial . Commercial development at this corner would be
too intense for the adjacent residential properties . The
"D-1" Professional Office District would better fit, since
across Syringa Street is office use and zoning.
4 . The proposal presents potential and real traffic circulation
problems for the intersection as well as Syringa, which is a
local residential street.
5 . Syringa does not line up well with Cedar Street for proper
traffic circulation.
Further, understanding that the Council may consider an
alternative, it was moved and seconded in committee that if the
property is rezoned, the Board recommends "D-1" Professional Office
District along the Cedar Street frontage east of rear line of the
commercial zoning for that block face, and that the remaining
westerly portion of the site maintain "A" Residential zoning. The
motion carried, Yeas : 2; Nays : 1 .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to deny the
original request for Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District. (We will deal with the attachment in
a separate motion; at that time we will discuss the five points . )
Mr. Goolsby asked about the proposed amendments in the letter dated
May 6 from Wolverine Development. The proposed amendment is
different from their original application. In denying the request,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17 , 1994 - PAGE 15
the amendment was not really discussed. Mr. Thelen explained the
Committee discussed the original rezoning request at length and was
not in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Maguire, in an attempt to
negotiate a compromise, submitted an amended request to try to
salvage the rezoning request. He appeared before the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee with no warning, and it was discussed then.
Ms . Love referred to two letters from Wolverine in the packet, one
dated May 6 , requesting an amendment to the petition, and a second
dated May 12, 1994 . The legal problem here is that "J" Parking is
mentioned as zoning district that they are requesting. In the
legal notice placed in the State Journal, there was no mention of
the "J" Parking District; therefore, we do not have the latitude to
introduce a new zoning district when it has not been advertised as
part of the public hearing process . Neighbors were not given the
opportunity to have a public hearing, so we do not have the
latitude to open a new zoning district not previously mentioned.
Chairman LeBlanc reminded members that a "yes" vote is a vote to
deny the petition.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; the original request, Z-5-94 , 4720 S. Cedar Street,
"A" Residential to "F" Commercial District, was DENIED.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to send
correspondence to City Council that if the property is rezoned,
that the Board recommends "D-1" Professional Office District along
the Cedar Street frontage east of the rear line of the commercial
zoning for that block face, and that the remaining westerly portion
of the site maintain "A" Residential Zoning. We also wish to
reference the five points listed in the Zoning and Ordinance
report.
Ms . Love said regarding the second letter in the packet that the
Board needs to be clear that its action is not in any way tied to
, the previous denial; in other words, that this is a letter simply
stating the Board' s opinion regarding this particular piece of
property. It is not a request to have the Council take any
particular action, it is simply a point of information for the
Council .
Mr. Goolsby said his intention is to vote no, because once we have
determined that we do not agree with the requested rezoning and we
send that recommendation to City Council, it is then up to- them to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17 , 1994 - PAGE 16
act on our recommendation; giving them a sense of what we feel the
property should be rezoned to in the future is premature, because
once we have determined we cannot accept the petitioner' s request
to zone the property "F" Commercial, we have no request for
rezoning before us .
Mrs . Horne said we have many times sent things to Council, and they '
have reversed us without any background information as to what we
have used in our rationale for denial .
Mr. Goolsby said given the recommendation that is going forward in
this case, with the background information, I think it is adequate
for them to determine that the Planning Board is not in favor, and
the reasons are well laid out in support of our recommendation.
Mr. Goolsby said Planning Board recommendations have been
overturned very seldom. It is within their purview to do so when
they feel justified. It sets a bad precedent to talk about a
recommended rezoning when we do not have a petition before us .
Mr. Fountain said we also do not have a site plan to react to.
Mr. Thelen said we are not setting precedents, because we have done
this before, it hasn't, approving site plans that we kind of voted
on with a shot in the dark. We have done that quite a few times .
To say we don't want to approve something that we don' t know of,
ironically, it is kind of funny because we have approved too many
site plans without review on a regular basis .
Ms . Love said we send a complete copy of the staff report now with
the Board' s letter of recommendation to the Mayor. It appears in
the Council packet.
Mr. Fountain said we agreed and voted we were not going to support
the "F" Commercial to its entire depth; that is reasonable, and the
neighborhood deserves that protection. To further recommend the
office zone on the front, since it is a sensitive corner based on
adjacent land uses , would not be all that bad if another petition
came to the Board for us to consider rather than just make a motion
in the dark. We have no site plan to react to for "D-l"
Professional Office District right now.
Mr. Thelen withdrew the motion communicating the Planning Board' s
recommendations on the use of the land; Mrs . Horne withdrew the
second. Mrs . Horne said she would like to have the neighbors '
comments and petitions attached to the report. Ms . Love said they
would be included, together with the staff report.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 17
g. SLU-8-94 , 1130 S . Pennsylvania; Board of Water
& Light, Improve Building in Floodplain
i
The applicant proposes to convert a portion of
the second floor of Warehouse "A" (a one-story
warehouse) and the second floor of Warehouse
"B" to office space. Since these buildings
are located in the Red Cedar River floodplain,
approval for this project must include a
Special Land Use Permit from the Planning
Board under Section 1288 . 06 of the Zoning
Code, a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals under Section 1288 . 10, and separate
approval from the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources . The floor of Warehouse "A"
is 6 . 9 feet below the floodplain of 834 . 5
feet. The second floor of Warehouse "B" is
actually above the 100 year flood level .
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
impact of this project is small, and meets all
of the procedures outlined in Section 1288 . 10
of the Zoning Code.
Regarding SLU-8-94, it was moved and seconded in committee to
recommend approval with conditions of SLU-8-94 , 1130 S .
Pennsylvania. Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in
Floodplain. Motion carried unanimously, The Committee ' s approval
is subject to the following four conditions :
( 1) Proposed fixed mechanical equipment shall be elevated above
the 100-year floodplain.
( 2 ) An evacuation plan shall be prepared, submitted to the City of
Lansing Planning Office and kept on file by the Board of Water
and Light in order to prevent a loss of property and protect
the public health.
( 3 ) Compliance with flood insurance requirements may be required.
(4 ) Add landscape improvements to the site and soften parking
lots .
NOTE: This approval is not intended to jeopardize Lansing' s
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve SLU-
8-94 , 1130 S . Pennsylvania, Board of Water & Light, Improve
Building in Floodplain.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 18
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows .
Mr. Thelen said the area was flooded in 1975 in a fifty-year flood;
however, we did approve it in committee. The applicant should
consider this in their long-range planning. Mr. Fountain had
reservations about this . BWL admitted there was three or four feet
of water on the area to be modified for office space . The next
fifty-year flood could come along any time and flood them out
again. My other question is, do they carry flood insurance? A
Board of Water & Light representative in attendance said they
either have it or they are going to get it . The BWL risk manager
is in the process of working it; we have had it in the past. If
that is a condition, we will have it.
Mrs . Horne asked the estimated cost of the renovations; answer,
roughly one-half million dollars for the office and warehouse.
Barnhart Yea Fountain No
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 5; Nays : 1; carried
unanimously; the original request, SLU-8-94 , 1130 S . Pennsylvania,
Board of Water & Light, Improve Building in Floodplain was
APPROVED.
h. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15 , 1994, at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room.
7 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Barnhart, Chair.
a. Act-3-94 , East Side 4900 Blk. of Tranter St. ,
Drain Easement Reduction.
The petitioner, Roy C. Markey, is requesting a
five ( 5) feet reduction from a twenty-five
( 25) feet drain easement in width along the
east to west direction of the south edge of
the Wiegman drain easement so that a business
building can be situated better on the lot. A
recommendation was made in committee to
approve the reduction; however, upon receipt
of more information, a report from the Public
Service Department, the Committee rescinds its
previous action and now makes a new motion to
deny the request, based upon the analysis and
comment from the Public Service Department.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to deny Act-3-
94 , based upon input and analysis from the Public Service
Department .
G
t
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17 , 1994 - PAGE 19
i
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above action was as follows :
k
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yes
Horne Yea Thelen Yea
k
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; ACT-3-94 was DENIED.
b. Act-4-94 , 1000 Filley Street, Sell City-owned
Filley Street Warehouse
The City is presently considering an offer to
purchase the property. This building, a one-
story brick and block building of
approximately 2 ,440 square feet, was formerly i
a Lansing Township fire station; it is
presently used for storage of old City
records and files . The City' s appraisal
report estimates the building was built in
1949 ; a more recent appraisal estimates the
building value at $71, 000 . 00 .
Regarding, Act-4-94, it was moved and seconded in committee to
approve Act-4-94 , disposition of property subject to regulations of
k�
Section 208 and that the proceeds be used to microfilm the records
and files presently stored in that facility.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on the
staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
thereof, to approve Act-4-94, 1000 Filley Street, disposition of
property subject to the regulations of Section 208 and that the
proceeds be used to microfilm the records and files presently
stored in that facility.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
Thelen Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-4-94 , 1000 Filley Street, was APPROVED.
C . Act-5-94 , River Street Vacation, a request by
the City Transportation Engineer, David A.
Berridge, on behalf of the City of Lansing, to
vacate River Street right-of-way between
Kalamazoo Street and S . Grand (Cesar Chavez)
Avenue. INFORMATION ONLY.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 20
The street, once vacated, is proposed to be
used as part of a 391-space surface parking
lot on the corner of Kalamazoo Street and S .
Grand (Cesar Chavez) Avenue. The vacated
property will go to the Lansing Building
Authority.
d. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14 , 1994, at 4 j
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex
3 . Executive Committee - Did not meet.
C . Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said on June 7 , 1994, the Board will have a
fairly extensive agenda. We will have the Enterprise
Community presentation, the East Michigan Avenue
Revitalization Study presentation, Act-5-94 River Street
Vacation, two special land use petitions , plus several
other items . Bring your sleeping bags .
D. Pending Items : Future action required.
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held) '
c . . Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI . NEW BUSINESS - None.
The Planning Office has received a referral from the
Public Service Department and the Board of Water and
Light for conversion of the Washington Mall and Michigan
Avenue lighting. The 141 mall lights are 34 years old
and need to be replaced; 138 units have had breakdowns .
Our annual rental rate is $553/unit, and the total annual
rental rate is $76 , 314 . Kinds of lights available are
historic lights , as on E. Michigan Avenue; a contemporary
style as on King Boulevard; or a standard style as on S .
Cedar from Mt. Hope to Jolly Road. They want feedback as
to preferences, so that, instead of having another public
hearing at our board meeting on June 7 , and the Public
Service Board having a separate public meeting, a joint
board informational meeting can be held.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 21
Mrs . Horne asked if the information would be referred to
the Historic District Commission; Ms . Love said yes . Mr.
Goolsby inquired if the mall lighting on E . Michigan
would be from Shiawassee to Kalamazoo; Ms . Love said yes .
Mr. Goolsby asked if there were cost estimates for the
three styles . The historic lighting proposal would
increase the number of units required from 141 to 276 ;
the cost would be $227 , 976 . Since the City is already
paying $76,314 , the net increase would be 151, 662/year.
For the contemporary style, a net savings of $29 , 868 per
year would result.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to
hold a joint informational meeting with the Public
Service Board at the regularly scheduled Board meeting on
Tuesday, June 21, 1994 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
a joint informational meeting with the Public Service Board
regularly scheduled Board meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1994 was
APPROVED.
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Wolverine Development, and three communications
from Dr. Allen; the May 6 letter is in the packet . Dr. Allen
distributed copies of the other two letters to Board members .
v=zz. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Members should submit their vacation calendars and submit them
at the next meeting. Three new neighborhood groups in the
south part of the City have formed, one bounded by Jolly and
Holmes , Pleasant Grove and Waverly, east of Lansing Eaton
Neighborhood Association; another near Coscarelli ' s, a
neighborhood watch interested in taking the next step; and the
third is the group that was here this evening, Mr. James
Banker' s group near Aurelius and Robinson.
Chairman LeBlanc also gave the Board an update on her
participation in the Ingham County Groundwater Protection
Strategy on a task force and work group to make
recommendations for a model ordinance for groundwater
protection. Ingham County will ask the various municipalities
and townships to adopt the draft model ordinance drawn up by
the task force. The model ordinance is primarily to ensure
proper storage of hazardous materials .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 - PAGE 22
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Fountain had three areas of comment on his position on the
Board of Water and Light' s construction in the floodplain, to
be recorded in the minutes .
1 . BWL is a public citizen-supported utility. They know,
and acknowledge, that the site is in the floodplain. It
has flooded up to three or four feet in the building.
They didn' t really say tonight whether they had flood
insurance; they said they might try for it . If they
install the improvements, and the equipment is lost and
they do not have flood insurance, we pay the bill .
2 . Being a public building, I think there is something in
the flood insurance program that cautions cities against
utilizing flood insurance for public buildings .
3 . I looked at this one differently from the one on E .
Michigan Avenue, which is privately owned. Renovations
there will be minor, to a storage area in the rear. We
recommended that electrical, or anything that could be
damaged, be elevated above flood level . In the future,
BWL should look for other places to build this type of
facility, as opposed to putting more construction in the
floodplain. When the facility was built, the area was
used for storage. It is subject to flooding, but not
subject -to being destroyed, so if it floods, the cable,
conduit, etc . can still be used.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn051794
05-27-94 P03 : 45 I N APPROVED 051794
TO CLERK 052794
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, May 3, 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 30 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Ruge, Thelen (seven members serving at this
time; one vacancy) . Ex officio Councilmember Jones
arrived at 7 : 45 p.m. ; Councilmember Lilly - not in
attendance .
B. Excused Absence - None .
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present : James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator; William Burleson, Associate City Attorney,
City Attorney' s Office; Louise H. Christian, Planning
Board Secretary.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
II . HEARINGS :
A. Z-8-94, SW Corner S . Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B"
Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office
District
Mr. Ruff presented the request to rezone vacant land,
excess property left over from the Cedar Street widening.
A pedestrian overpass was relocated to a portion of the
property. Dr. Allen' s property adjoins the 88 . 75 ' x 87 '
parcel, which has a corner taken out of it for the
pedestrian overpass . Dr. Allen wishes to expand his site
to provide for additional employee parking. The new site
is north of the existing building, having access off
Pacific . There would be parking for eight cars on site,
and additional screening and buffering.
Mr. Fountain asked about the location of the curb cut and
if it is desirable to have the curb cut there. Wouldn't
it be better to have it shifted back, with the parking in
front and driveway on the east side. This would prevent
conflict with the pedestrian overpass . Also, the cars
would be parked away from the homes, and headlights would
not shine into residential areas . Mr. Ruff said it
depends on the curb cut. They are required to have the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 2
entire curb cut in front of the property. Flipping the
plan may be an alternative .
Mr. Barnhart asked if the pedestrian overpass is fenced
off so that pedestrians are prevented from walking into
the parking lot. Mr. Ruff said at present it is not
fenced, but fencing would be a good idea.
Councilmember Jones came in at this point.
DR. RONALD ALLEN, 2311 S . CEDAR STREET. I am the
potential owner of the property. There was some comment
about having access on Cedar Street, but I am not sure it
is wide enough ( 18 . 5 ft. ) . Mr. Ruff said this would not
be wide enough for a commercial cut, but it depends on
the use. That would have to be discussed.
FRED DOHERTY, 531 EDISON. In opposition. The base of a
skywalk is located there for elementary students to cross
Cedar Street on their way to Maplewood Elementary School .
The proposed parking lot anticipates a curb cut currently
in place off Pacific. As a result, elementary school
students living on the east side of Cedar will have to
cross in front of traffic . Existing parking, sixteen
spaces , at this location is sufficient. The location is
just down the street from my house, and the parking lot
is never full . Originally, the location was a converted
home, which was demolished and replaced with an office
structure. Parking is adequate for current and
anticipated needs . The safety of elementary school
children would be affected by the addition of the parking
lot. If the curb cut could be off of Cedar, these
concerns would be alleviated. The existing plan would
have students crossing the driveway in front of the
parking lot, morning, noon and afternoon, during the peak
hours of parking lot use. I ask denial of the request.
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, which meets
Tuesday, May 11, 1994 at 2 : 30 p.m. in the Planning
Division Conference Room, 119 North Washington Square.
B. SLU-4-94 , 907 W. Saginaw, Church, and NCU-1-94 ,
907 W. Saginaw, Church, Class B Nonconformity
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Rev. Andrew
Brodie for a special land use request to utilize the
property in the "F-1" Commercial District at 907 W.
Saginaw for church use. The building is a converted
commercial building used for church services primarily on
Sundays for a maximum attendance of 90 people. The
property is located along Saginaw Street between Butler
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3, 1994 - PAGE 3
and King, on the south side of the street . The case is
associated with a substitution use request, since it does
not have on-site parking. There is city-owned parking
across Saginaw Street, behind the commercial uses on the
north side of Saginaw. In the "F-1" Commercial district,
a church is not required to have 2 acres of land, but is
required to have a Special Land Use permit.
Mrs . Horne asked if the church owns the building; Mr.
Ruff replied the church rents the building. Chairman
LeBlanc asked about the relationship of a bar locating
near a church; Mr. Ruff said the ordinance addresses
location of a bar regarding a church. When you have two
existing locations next to one another, such as a bar and
a church, the bar cannot expand toward the church
facility, only away from the church facility.
Mr. Barnhart asked about parking. Mr. Ruff said there is
parking behind the buildings in the area, and city
parking across the street. At present, 20-25 people
attend, with maximum attendance predicted at 90 . Mr.
Ruff said the property was in place for about a year; it
came to our attention when a bar was a potential use
adjacent to it . We proceeded to request a special land
use by the church. The church received no real review
except for the time when the liquor license came to the
City Council ' s attention. That is when it was
discovered, and we acted upon it from there.
GEORGE W. SMITH, 1401 ROBERTSON. I am a deacon at St.
Luke Community Baptist Church. My pastor is sorry he
can' t be here; he is in the hospital . We are buying the
building. We requested to have parking across the
street. Since that time, I have a letter from Mr. Neal
Park, who owns several businesses in the area. He said
we could use his parking at any of those businesses any
time we would like, to help us out.
Chairman LeBlanc read the letter from Mr. Neal R. Park,
owner, Parks Furniture and Jewelry, 927 W. Saginaw,
regarding St. Luke ' s Community Baptist Church, 907 W.
Saginaw. I , Neal R. Park, am the owner of several
pieces of property, 920, 922 , 927 , and 1000 and 1010 West
Saginaw, and I feel that having St. Luke ' s Community
Baptist Church in our neighborhood will be a great asset
for the entire community.. Should additional parking be
necessary, the church congregation is more than welcome
to use the parking lot at the rear of my store located at
927 W. Saginaw. "
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 4
JOE COVELLO, 1005 THOMAS L. PARKWAY. WEST. I own the
property next door to the church, and I own the parking
lot next door to the church. Neal Park, I have had more
trouble with him, because I own the parking--his trucks
go through my parking lot all the time. I have put up a
post with a sign, that this is no access for Park' s
Furniture. He won't pay me $5 a month for ingress or
egress . Trucks and semi trailers , his delivery trucks
and his people and his customers go through there. I
don' t get a nickel from him. I put up security lights in
the parking lot, and he won't help pay for that. Mr.
Brodie--they park there. On Sundays , that parking lot
behind me is full, the parking lot from Butler. I asked
Mr. Brodie for a paper stating that he would pick up the
papers , the broken bottles and sweep up trash for the use
of the parking. The parking is available and they use
it, but I can't get it on paper what they will do, or
even give me $10 a month, and I will do it. For them to
say they will park in Neal Park' s parking lot, they are
going to drive through my parking lot to get to Neal
Park' s parking lot, just like Neal Park does . The
parking is available . My tenant at 909 W. Saginaw, he
pays for parking for his church. He keeps the front
sidewalk clean; he cleans the parking lot. Saying they
will park in the parking lot across the street is
ridiculous . People are not going to walk that far, they
are going to keep on parking where they are parking now,
in my parking lot. If I put a barricade across to keep
people from going to Neal Park' s furniture store, it
would put Falsettas out of business, because his
customers come through my parking lot too. I am asking
for maybe $10 per month for parking; I have been turned
down, even for a piece of paper to relieve me of
liability of the church-goers . I don' t think they need
the special use permit. I am not going to ticket their
cars ; I am only asking $10 per month for rent. On
Sundays, the lot has 40 cars in it. Half of them
probably belong to Rev. Hinton next door, who pays me for
parking. I don't know why this man can' t pay me too.
Somebody buying property without parking (and then asking
for special benefits) is going to get it cheap because
there is no parking. I don' t think it ' s fair for the
City to give them benefits for the property. He can rent
the parking from me. I don' t think it should be granted.
I don' t want to have the cars hauled away on Sundays , but
even if this permit is granted, they are going to be
there. I don't think it ' s fair for somebody to buy
property that has no parking -and have the City make it
worth more money by giving them something.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 5
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee Tuesday, May
11, 1994 at 2 : 30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference
Room, 119 North Washington Square.
C. SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt . Hope Avenue, Church Parking; NCU-2-
94, 549 East Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Building Addition
Mr. Ruff presented the case for a special land use permit
and a Class A designation. The special land use is for
an addition to the church parking lot at 559 E . Mt. Hope
Avenue adjacent to their property and current parking
lot, and NCU-2-94, which would allow a Class A for an
addition to the building for classrooms, offices and
ancillary uses . The uses surrounding are residential ;
across the street is Clifford Park. The property is
nonconforming due to lot area, which is less than 2
acres . Surrounding zoning is "C" Residential . The
special land use is for the additional lot, which is 66
ft . x 181 . 5 ft. and which would provide 107 or 108
parking spaces . The design has not yet been approved.
At present, there is a small single-family home in poor
shape on the lot .
RICHARD E. GAUS, 3424 HAROLD STREET, REPRESENTING
BETHLEHEM LUTHERAN. We started a study of the church
facilities in 1991 and found that we are outgrowing the
present facility. We need more parking. We also found
we did not have enough space in the present building.
The chancel was constructed in 1950 and the gym in 1960;
the facilities need renovation. We had an architect do
the study and some drawings . His proposal is for a new
addition for classrooms and offices, and renovation for
the older building for the Community Police Officer, Food
Bank Kitchen, Lansing Rotating Sanctuary, Boy Scouts and
other groups meeting there. We had purchased the
property at 559 E. Mt. Hope (distributed pictures) ; the
house is not livable. We intend to demolish it. We have
submitted a new parking plan tonight.
Mr. Fountain asked if the addition will remove parking
spaces; Mr. Ruff said four or five spaces will be
removed. ' Mr. Fountain asked if the church would be
willing to remove driveway access to Norman Street
because that is a residential street . Mr. Gaus said not
particularly.
DAVID EMMONS, A LANSING POLICE OFFICER CURRENTLY ASSIGNED
TO THE COMMUNITY POLICING BUREAU. My neighborhood is
Baker Street; I represent Neighbors United In Action. My
office currently is in the Bethlehem Lutheran Church.
Neighbors United in Action- are aware of the expansion;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 6
the church does have the support of the neighborhood.
They are writing a statement . The church has a wonderful
relationship with the community. They provide a lot of
support to the community. They participate in community
activities ; helped implement the Share program in our
neighborhood; helped out numerous families in the
neighborhood. I don' t see any problems with the
neighborhood with regard to the vacant house to the east;
it is an eyesore.
RICHARD ROLLIS, 3014 WAVERLY HTS . RD. , a member of
Bethlehem Lutheran Church. We have visited with the
Mt. Hope neighbor, Mrs . Sara Cotton and her son, David
Cotton. They are aware of the parking lot that is going
to be adjoining their property. We had favorable
response from them. They are happy that the lot next to
them is going to be changed, and the looks improved. We
told them if they have any concerns, they should contact
us, and we will work out what is necessary. We left a
plan with them, describing the parking lot and the
landscaping and plantings .
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting
Tuesday, May 11, 1994 at 2 : 30 p.m. in the Planning
Division Conference Room, 119 North Washington Square.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
JOE COVELLO, 1005 THOMAS L. PARKWAY, WEST. I have a question:
Does a person get any benefits as far as building codes if
they were granted the SLU and NCU. I own the property next
door that is a church. The Building Department is coming down
like gangbusters because they thought a bar was going in
there. They have been after my tenant to do a lot of things .
I wondered if the SLU would alleviate some of the things that
have to be done. Mr. Ruff said if there is a change in use of
the building, depending on the building' s previous use
compared to its proposed use, it is very possible that a
building inspection will be necessary. We will have to
examine that in this process . One of the differences between
what we are asking for here, and what you encountered, is that
an inspection for an assembly group was already done, so we
had previous information. So there was a difference of action
there . One was already in place, and the other was going into
place . There are some timing differences, but the potential
is that there would be an inspection.
Mr. Covello asked if his tenant would have to comply with more
than St. Luke ' s Community Baptist Church. Mr. Ruff said no,
unless it had previously been used for an assembly use . There
are different types of building use qualifications . If that
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 7
building previously was an assembly use, they may not need
anything additional, but that is an unknown. Ms . Love said
generally the same set of codes apply to every building,
regardless of whether or not it has a special land use. If an
inspection reveals a problem, you are obligated to remedy it.
The special land use, in fact, will probably trigger as many
or more inspections as if it was not granted.
Mr. Covello said he thought the petitioner and his tenant both
deserved a break. He is concerned about the parking available
for a minimal fee. If they get the use of the parking behind
Park' s Furniture, I am going to have to be down there to
direct traffic and keep them off my property. They are going
to use the back door of the church.
GEORGE W. SMITH, 1401 ROBINSON AVENUE. Mr. Covello said he
wanted us to sign a paper that we would clean the parking lot.
When we first moved in the building, we cleaned the parking
lot, and we do it all the time . I talked to my pastor about
it; he said we don' t need to sign anything. If he charges us
$10 per month, who is to say that a couple weeks later,
because he wanted to open up a bar, he would say he wanted
$100 a month, and keep going up. So we keep the parking lot
clean; we have been doing that since before the other church
moved in. I talked to the other business owners there, when
this deal was drawn up, that the other businesses had access,
to drive through this parking lot. Anyone driving through the
parking lot has permission to get to the other businesses . We
had permission--we are buying the building. Also, we have
spent a lot of money bringing the building up to code. We
will do whatever is necessary. The neighborhood is glad we
are there. Before, the alley was littered with glass and
broken bottles .
Mr. Covello said there is no public easement through there.
D&C Dimestore paid for ingress and egress .
Ms . Love asked Mr. Covello if he had anything in writing to
indicate his continued possession or his legal position, to
submit it to Mr. Ruff for review.
GUS P . CARANTZA, 3624 DELTA RIVER DRIVE. I was the person who
was going to put a bar in that property. With the church next
door, and the Liquor Control and the Council, that was not
permissible. There will not be a bar in that place . I wanted
to get that straight.
IV. RECESS - None.
V. BUSINESS SESSION
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3, .1994 - PAGE 8
A. Minutes for Approval : April 5 , 1994 , and April 19 , 1994 .
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barnhart, to approve
the minutes of April 5, 1994 .
Mrs . Horne requested to have the action regarding her excused
absence appropriately placed in the minutes directly after her
request, on page 8 .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion, with the above-noted
correction, was as follows :
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Yea
LeBlanc Yea Ruge Yea
Thelen Yea
On a roll call vote, there were : Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; minutes of meeting of April 5, 1994 were:
APPROVED.
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve the
minutes of April 19, 1994 .
Mrs . Horne said since she was absent for that meeting, she did not
feel she should vote on the minutes . The consensus was that she
should abstain from voting.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Horne Abstain
LeBlanc Yea Ruge Yea
Thelen Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; Abstentions 1;
carried unanimously; minutes of meeting of April 19 , 1994 were:
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. The Committee has not met. Next meeting
Wednesday, May 11, 1994, at 2 : 30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 9
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Barnhart, Chair:
a. The Committee has not met. Next meeting
Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Division Conference Room, Second Floor,
Washington Square Annex. There are two items
on the agenda so far. Mrs . Horne volunteered
to attend as a fourth committee member.
C . Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said she had received Mr. Barnhart ' s
resignation. We will be losing a valuable, positive,
rational, clear-headed person who has been very
supportive of the City of Lansing. His resignation is
received with much regret.
We are moving along on the Enterprise Community, and with
Seven Block. A request for disbursal of funds will
appear in Thursday' s paper for the purchase of the five
houses on St. Joe and the Church of Greater Joy. We are
continuing negotiations for the Triangle, and we are
meeting with the Citizens ' District Council on May 11 .
We have also submitted another batch of houses to them
for review; we are starting now with the houses on the
north side of Kalamazoo and the north and south side of
Washtenaw for the Commercial Center. I have also been in
contact with the owner of the printing company who is
excited to be moving ahead in this venture. We are in
the midst of writing the Section 108 Loan Application.
At that meeting, Bill Hartwig and some people from the
MDOT will be giving a presentation on a preliminary
planting plan for the west end of the Capitol Loop
starting at St. Joe and moving to Ottawa Street. That
will be on the agenda for May 11 .
The Historic District Commission ordinance has been
reported out of committee. We are reviewing it, as well
as the Attorney' s Office . When the review is completed,
it will be scheduled before the Planning Board. Probably
it will be in City Council early in September.
Resurrection Church is working on a plan to tear down
their old parish hall and put in a new one. The new
location would require razing the last three remaining
houses on that block, on the corner of Jerome and Rumsey.
In tearing down the old facility, they would end up with
the same number of parking places they have now, 108 ,
which is nonconforming for the size of their sanctuary.
They have had several meetings with ENO. ENO has not
decided whether or not they are interested in supporting
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 3 , 1994 - PAGE 10
all, none, or parts of the plan. I would like to create
a win-win situation. A meeting has been scheduled for
May 19 in the Sparrow Auditorium. It would be a good
thing for Planning Board members to attend to get a
flavor for the issues that are involved, the housing,
parking, and neighborhood activities issues . An official
application has not as yet been made.
VI . NEW BUSINESS i
i
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said three communication have been received;
they are in the packet; the first from Mr. Barnhart regarding
his resignation; the second a notice of the Aquifer Task Force
meeting; and the third a letter from Lee Helman of Mill Pond
Village ,
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman LeBlanc said there was a meeting with chairs of the
Planning Board, River and Waterfront Board, and Historic
District Commission. The Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals
was unable to attend. We all agreed the Planning Office needs
more staff . Staff is being run ragged, but if we are going to
progress as a City, we need to increase Planning staff, and we
need more secretarial staff . I have schedules of these board
meetings . Mrs . Horne is interested in acting as liaison with
the Historic District Commission, meeting at 1207 N. Turner,
at the Otherwise Gallery. Chairman LeBlanc is acting as
liaison with the Board of Zoning Appeals . The River and
Waterfront Board meets at noon on the third Friday, if anyone
is interested. Board mail boxes are placed in the library for
communications from the board. There is a need to coordinate
issues in common. These meetings will continue on the last
Friday of the month.
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS - None.
X. ADJOURNMENT was at 8 : 50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn050394
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B . Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II. HEARINGS
A. Z-8-94, SW Corner S. Cedar and Pacific Ave. , "B" Residential District
to "D-1" Professional Office District
B. SLU-4-94, 907 W. Saginaw, Church; NCU-1-94, 907 W. Saginaw,
Church, Class B Nonconformity Parking Lot
C. SLU-5-94, 559 E. Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Parking; NCU-2-94, 549
East Mt. Hope Avenue, Church Building Addition
III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: April 5, 1994; April 19, 1994
B. Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Next meeting Wednesday, May 11, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Next meeting Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington
Square Annex
3. Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
APPROVED 050394
05-72-94P02 : 01 RCVD TO CLERK051304
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 19, 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 38 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby,
LeBlanc, Ruge, Thelen (seven members serving at this
time; one vacancy) ; absent: Horne. Ex officio members
Councilmembers Jones and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - At the meeting of April 5, 1994 , Mrs ..
Horne requested and was given an excused absence.
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator, Louise H. Christian, Planning Board
Secretary. William Burleson, Associate City Attorney, is
away this week.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved, with
correction of date noted, from May 3 to April 19 , 1994 .
II . HEARINGS - None.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
JENNIFER COLLINS, 2035 ROBINSON ROAD. In opposition to
Z-3-94 . If there are two 3-bedroom duplexes, that can create
the same problems with cars as apartments . We are concerned
about inadequate parking, and people parking on Robinson Road.
Also, the entire neighborhood is single-family dwellings, and
duplexes would not fit in with the surrounding houses . I
don' t see the need to add any more duplexes or rental units in
the area. Directly across from Robinson on Aurelius, and also
just down the road just north of Robinson, there are duplexes .
Often I see rental signs out in front; existing rental
properties aren' t filled to capacity. Rental units are not
kept up as well as home owner-occupied units .
WILLIAM KREJCIK, 2133 ROBINSON ROAD. In opposition. I
purchased my home 21 years ago, because it is a single-family
area. I am happy with the area and would like to see it stay
single-family. The road is narrow and cannot handle
additional traffic . I am also concerned that existing empty
lots will be spot-zoned for other apartments or duplexes .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994_ - PAGE 2
RUTH CALKINS, 2025 ROBINSON ROAD. In opposition to both
apartments and duplexes . I have a petition with 50 signatures
from residents on Robinson Road and Scarborough. Probably 95
percent of people living there signed it. Robinson is a
narrow 2-block-long road. I bought there 30 years ago,
because of the character of the neighborhood, the big lots,
and narrow road. The added traffic is a concern, particularly
for the adult foster care home almost across the street from
the proposed duplexes . The duplexes would take away from the
character of the neighborhood. When I circulated the petition
Sunday, no one said we need the duplexes .
Chairman LeBlanc noted receipt of the petition with 50
signatures, in opposition to Z-3-94 , 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius
Road, "A" and "C" Residential Districts to "DM-l" Residential
District.
BARBE PRESSICK, 3012 SCARBOROUGH DRIVE. My husband Dave and
I bought our home here 4 years ago, because we wanted to get
out of the rental community; we don' t want to be next to a
rental community. They cause increased traffic, and they do
not keep up their properties . They don't care as much; it' s
not theirs . The road is narrow, and in need of repair. It is
hard for 2 cars to go down it at the same time. Turning this
into a rental community would be wrong.
ALLAN TRAPP, 3106 MANLEY DRIVE. I bought here 28 years ago,
on the corner of Robinson Road. In that time, I have seen the
road put through to Robinson, and many single-family homes
built on Scarborough. I am not opposed to progress, but I am
opposed to developments that are out of character with the
neighborhood. I saw the conceptual plan. I get uneasy with
conceptual plans, because it may not be the ultimate
development. If the rezoning is approved, the developer can
put in anything he wants . I am opposed to the rezoning.
PEGGY GRANT, 3009 SCARBOROUGH. I hand-delivered a letter this
afternoon to the Planning Office. I am opposed to development
of apartments , duplexes or rental property in this area.
There are many short narrow roads in this area with no ingress
or egress onto Aurelius . Robinson intersects with
Scarborough, then dead-ends into Manley, which dead-ends into
Wabash. Any apartment or duplex development is not practical
in the area and is unacceptable to neighborhood residents . I ,
too, am concerned with a conceptual plan.
Chairman LeBlanc noted receipt of a letter from Tony and Peggy
Grant.
MARK NELSON, 2110 ROBINSON ROAD. A duplex there would not be
in keeping with the neighborhood. I bought my place to have
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 3
some space around me. I am sure Mr. Stowe has no intention of
living on the property. I join everyone else in opposition.
MIKE TUCKEY, 2104 ROBINSON ROAD. In opposition. I am against
it for the same reasons as have been discussed. The unique
character of Robinson Road is that the lot sizes are large.
My lot is 2/3 of an acre . The property in question already
has a duplex and a single-family rental house on it. Two more
duplexes would increase the density and not be in character
with the present neighborhood.
IV. RECESS - None.
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : March 22, 1994; April 5, 1994
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barnhart, to
approve the minutes of March 22, 1994 .
Mr. Ruge noted a correction on p. 8, seventh paragraph, i
"Me . " Goolsby should read "MR. " Goolsby.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion, with the above-noted
correction, was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Thelen Yea
LeBlanc Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
ugpnimously; minutes of rescheduled meeting of March 22, 1994 were:
APPROVED.
Consideration of minutes of April 5, 1994 was deferred to the
meeting of May 3, 1994 .
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional
Office and "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional
Office District
This is a request by Nelson E. Gilroy to
rezone property located at 810 W. Saginaw from
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to
"D-1" Professional Office District. The
applicant proposes to construct an addition to
the building at 810 W. Saginaw, which would be
constructed on a portion of the property
i
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 4
formerly known as 814 W. Saginaw. The change
in zoning is needed to permit expansion of an
existing office building from 1,474 sq. ft. to
approximately 3,200 square feet.
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
request is consistent with the Master Plan, is
compatible with the surrounding land uses,
will not adversely impact vehicular traffic,
pedestrian traffic, the environment or future
patterns of development.
The Committee discussed the site plan and its
conformance to the Zoning Code and stressed to
the staff that the site plan meet all Zoning
Code requirements and commended Mr. Gilroy for
his improvements to the property.
It was moved and seconded in Committee to
recommend approval of Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw,
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to
"D-1" Professional Office District; motion
carried unanimously 4-0; approved in
committee .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve
Z-7-94 , 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking
to "D-l" Professional Office District, citing the reasons in the
staff report, which is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Z-7-94 , 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and
"J" Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District was :
APPROVED.
b. SLU-2-94 , 1017 E . Grand River, Lansing Teen
Challenge, Residential Care Facility for 8 Men
The applicant, Rev. Jeffrey Pokone, in behalf
of the Lansing Teen Challenge program, wishes
to establish a residential care facility on
the subject property. The facility would
accommodate up to 8 men under its Christian
growth and development program. The facility
will be staffed for 24-hour supervision and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 5
will process students entering the program
before sending them to long-term residential
care facilities in Detroit or Muskegon.
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
request is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance, and is compatible with the
character of the area.
It was moved and seconded in Committee to
recommend approval of the special land use
request, SLU-2-94 , 1017 E . Grand River,
Lansing Teen Challenge, Residential Care
Facility for 8 Men, including staff . Motion
carried unanimously 4-0 ; approved in
Committee.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve SLU-
2-94, 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge, Residential Care
Facility for 8 Men, including staff, citing the reasons in the
staff report, which is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Ruge Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-2-94 , 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge,
Re.Sidential Care Facility for 8 Men, including staff : APPROVED.
C. SLU-3-94, 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania
Avenue, Development of Sales Lot for New and
Used Vehicles
This is a request by Capitol Cadillac
Corporation of 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue for
a special land use permit to utilize the "J"
Parking District of the properties at 5839 and
5902 S . Pennsylvania Avenue for the sale and
display of new and used vehicles . The
dealership is expanding their business onto
the former Ponderosa Restaurant site after
removal of the restaurant building. Other
improvements to the dealership are being made
in conjunction with the expansion of the site.
The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial
District, with the exception of the west 69 . 75
ft. along the Pennsylvania Avenue frontage.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 6
Section 1278 . 04 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance
allows for the "J" Parking District to be
utilized in this manner with the approval of a
special land use permit.
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
request meets all nine criteria found in
Section 1278 . 04 . (c) of the Special Land Use
Chapter of the Zoning Code.
It was moved and seconded in Committee to
recommend approval of the special land use
request to utilize the "J" Parking District
found adjacent to Pennsylvania Avenue on the
properties at 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania
Ave. for the display of new and used vehicles .
The Committee understood that all Zoning Code
requirements, including site plan improvement
requirements, will be adhered to . Motion
carried unanimously 4-0; approved in
Committee.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve SLU-3-
94, 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, Development of Sales Lot
for New and Used Vehicles, Capitol Cadillac Corporation, citing the
reasons in the staff report, which is attached hereto and made a
part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea Thelen Yea
Ruge Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; SLU-3-94, 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue,
Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles , Capitol
Cadillac Corporation, was APPROVED.
d. SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 E .
Willoughby Rd. , Mobile Home Park - Held in
Committee.
e. Z-5-94 , 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District - Held in Committee
f. Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road, "A"
and "C" Residential Districts to "DM-1"
Residential District --
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 7
This is a request by Trent Stowe to rezone the
property at 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road
from "A" and "C" Residential Districts to "DM-
1" Residential District in order to develop
the property with an 8-unit apartment
building. Following the public hearing on
March 1, 1994, Mr. Stowe presented an
amendment request to this petition to rezone
the property to "C" Residential instead, for
the development of two duplex buildings . The
Committee received this request at their March
meeting and asked staff to review the
alternative proposal as well .
Based upon the staff report, testimony and
evidence, the Committee found that neither the
original request for "DM-1" Residential nor
the alternative request for "C" Residential
would be consistent with the single family
residential character of the Robinson Road
neighborhood or the Goals and Objectives of i
the Planning Board. Further, the original !
request and the amended request would
adversely affect the vehicular circulation on
Robinson Road, which is a narrow, rural type
road.
Based upon the Committee ' s findings, it was
moved and seconded to deny the rezoning
request Z-3-94 , 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius
Road, "A" and "C" Residential Districts to
"DM-1" Residential District, and further, that
the amended request by the applicant also be
denied. In Committee, the motion carried
unanimously 4-0; and was denied.
The Committee requested that the Board' s
official communication to the Mayor and City
Council include the petition in opposition,
the four letters received in opposition, the
petitioners ' amended request, and a suggestion
that the Council ' s hearing publication include
the original and amended request.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to deny the
rezoning request Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road, "A" and
"C" Residential Districts to "DM-1" Residential District, citing
the reasons in the staff report, which is attached hereto and made
a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 8
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Thelen Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0 ; carried
unanimously; Z-3-94 , 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road, "A" and "C"
Residential Districts to 11DM-1" Residential District, was DENIED.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, that the amended
application be denied and that the Board' s official communication
to the Mayor and City Council include the petition in opposition,
the four letters received in opposition, the petitioners ' amended
request, and a suggestion that the Council ' s hearing publication
include the original and amended request.
Mr. Thelen accepted a friendly amendment to include the petition
received this evening and any other communications which may be
received.
Mr. Barnhart asked what was the amended request. Mr. Ruff
explained that the amendment was to rezone the property entirely
from "A" to "C" Residential, which would allow the single-family
house to be converted to a duplex, and for the construction of two
additional duplexes .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Thelen Yea
Ruge Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote to deny the amended application and to
recommend that the Board' s official communication to the Mayor and
City Council include the petition in opposition, the four letters
received in opposition, the petitioners ' amendment request, the
petition from this evening and any other communications received on
Z-3-94 , and a suggestion that the Council ' s hearing publication
include the original and amended request, there were: Yeas : 6;
Nays : 0 ; motion carried unanimously; Z-3-94 amendment was DENIED.
g. Z-6-94 , 5721 Valencia, "A" Residential
District to "F" Commercial District
The owner wishes to install parking and
landscaping improvements for an existing
plumbing company.
The applicant is seeking to expand an existing
--- "F" Commercial District in order to improve
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 9
off-street parking, loading facilities, and
landscaping, and buffer the yard area of an
existing business .
Staff recommends approval with the
understanding that the parking, driveway, and
landscaping improvements will be required,
according to the Zoning Ordinance, and that
these improvements will be completed within 90
days after passage of the ordinance.
Discussion took place regarding location of
site in the context of the area, and the
Master Plan, which does not support strip
commercial development on King Blvd. , but does
support the accommodation of the existing
businesses, and the specific site.
The Committee found, based upon the staff
report, testimony and evidence, that the
expansion of this commercial property was
minor, yet will provide for a better
transition between the residential and
commercial property by providing for a better
buffering plan, to allow trucks to get off the
street, and without adversely affecting
adjacent residential properties .
Based upon the Committee ' s findings, it was
moved and seconded that the rezoning request
Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia, "A" Residential
District to "F" Commercial District, be
approved with the understanding that this
action is intended solely to provide for the
special needs of this commercial property and
is not to be viewed as establishing a line for
the premise of supporting strip commercial
development on King Blvd. In committee, the
motion carried unanimously, 4-0 , and was
approved.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain, to approve
Z-6-94 , 5721 Valencia, "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial
District, citing the reasons in the staff report, which is attached
hereto and made a part thereof .
Mr. Fountain offered a friendly amendment, beginning solely
to provide special needs, " delete the word "special" and insert
" . . . . to provide for the needs of this commercial property and not
to be viewed as establishing precedent to increase the commercial
zoning depths of other properties off King Boulevard or supporting
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 10
strip commercial development on King Boulevard. " The word
"precedent" is preferable to "or the promise of supporting" .
"It was also understood that the balance of the lots from which
this 20 feet was taken from is approximately 100 feet in width and
is sufficient to support the development of a single-family home. "
Mr. Thelen said this deletes the word "special" and the word
"precedent" . This was acceptable to Mr. Thelen. Mr. Fountain
said, regarding the word "special" , that every case could be
interpreted to be "special . "
Mr. Barnhart said he viewed it as an incursion into the "A"
District. Mr. Williams should take the needed land area out of his
residential parcel, which is "F" Commercial, even though he is
living there. - He is nonconforming, living there. Why doesn't he
keep the "F" Commercial that he has requested on the "F" Commercial
lot? Mr. Ruff said the reason is to get employee parking out of
the way so that delivery trucks don't have to park in the street.
The present home on King/Logan is developed in such a way that if
parking were to be put there, existing vegetation that he wants to
keep at his home would be destroyed. If he moved the parking to
the south side of the business, he would have to develop a
different type of area to accommodate vehicles; he would have to
create a bay of parking, not just a strip, and go into his lot
quite a bit farther than just partially the depth of the vehicle.
Mr. Fountain said the location of the 20 feet associates with his
business as opposed to putting it off on the side of his house. It
is more readily accessible to his business . Mr. Ruge said that, by
taking the 20-ft. strip out of the 120 ' lot which could have been
divided into 2 lots, the lot is now a 100-ft. lot and can only be
sold as a single lot. Any house that might be located there would
bL- quite far from the "F" Commercial area. Mr. Barnhart said that
once this is done, the map line will zigzag again, and the
rationale will not show on the map, only the lines and zoning
designations .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows .
Thelen Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia, "A" Residential District to "F"
Commercial District was APPROVED.
h. Next meeting Wednesday, May 11, 1994 , at 2 : 30
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 11
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Barnhart, Chair.
Mr. Barnhart thanked Mrs . Horne, who filled in
for our absent Board member.
a. Act-20-93, 2003 Pleasant View Avenue. This is
a request by Peter Robert Allen, 2003 Pleasant
View Avenue, for a 5-ft. reduction in a
sanitary sewer easement, from 8 ft. to 3 feet.
The applicants propose to construct a new
garage adjacent to their single-family home.
The Board found, based on testimony and
evidence, that the location, character, and
extent of the reduction in the drain easement
from 8 ft. to 3 ft. will have an adverse
effect on the public use of the drain
easement, and that the property owners may
potentially locate a garage elsewhere on their
property. The Public Service Department
states they must retain the entire easement
for maintenance.
In committee, the motion carried unanimously,
4-0, and was approved.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to deny
Act-20-93 , 2003 Pleasant View Avenue, a request by Peter Robert
Allen, 2003 Pleasant View Avenue, for a 5-ft . reduction in a
sanitary sewer easement, from 8 ft. to 3 feet, citing the reasons
in the staff report, which is attached hereto and made a part
thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Thelen Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
Goolsby Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0 ; carried
unanimously; Act-20-93, 2003 Pleasant View Avenue, a request by
Peter Robert Allen, 2003 Pleasant View Avenue was DENIED.
b. Act-21-93 , 616 Beechwood Avenue, Reduction of
Drain Easement Reduction of Sanitary Sewer
Easement.
This -is a request by Jerry and Joan Gunthorpe,
616 Beechwood Avenue, for a 10-ft. reduction
of a drain easement, from 75 ft. to 65 feet.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 12
The applicants propose to construct a new
garage adjacent to their single-family home.
The Committee found, based on testimony and
evidence, that the location, character, and
extent of the reduction in the drain easement
from 75 ft. to 65 ft. will have no adverse
effect on the public use of the drain
easement, and that the potential benefit to
the property owners will promote additional
private investment in a vital residential
neighborhood.
In committee, the motion carried unanimously,
4-0, and was approved.
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve
Act-21-93 , 616 Beechwood Avenue, reduction of drain easement from
75 ft. to 65 feet, citing the reasons in the staff report, which is
attached hereto and made a part thereof .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Thelen Yea
Ruge Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-21-94, 616 Beechwood Avenue, reduction of drain
easement was APPROVED.
C . Act-16-85, Disposition of 119 North Washington
Square, Washington Square Annex
This is an Act 285 Review for disposition of
property at 119 N. Washington Square, also
known as the City Hall Annex.
The Urban Development Committee ' s
recommendation to the Board is, that if the
City Departments presently occupying the Annex
can be suitably moved to an appropriate
location in close proximity to the City Hall,
and the sale of the building will be to a
private concern where the property returns to
the property tax rolls , that the approval to
sell the annex be granted. In committee, the
motion carried unanimously, 4-0, and was
approved.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 13
Mr. Barnhart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, that the
approval to sell the Annex be granted, citing the reasons in the
staff report, which is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Ruge Yea Barnhart Yea
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Thelen Yea LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Act-16-85, for the disposition of 119 North Washington
Square, the Washington Square Annex, was APPROVED.
d. Next meeting Tuesday, May 10, 1994 , at 4 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room, Second
Floor, Washington Square Annex
3 . Executive Committee - Did not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love reminded members attending the MSPO Advanced
Training Workshop at the Holiday Inn South that the date
is Wednesday, May 4 , 1994 . Registration starts at 8 : 30
a.m. and the program begins at 9 a.m. , concluding at 4 : 30
p.m. . Mr. Fountain, Ms . LeBlanc, Mr. Ruge and Ms . Horne
are scheduled to attend.
The City Council last night held a public hearing for
Z-6-93, 5400 Block S . Waverly Road and SLU-9-93, 5400
Block S . Waverly Road, Mobile Home Park, Mrs . Ettinger's
properties . With the exception of the petitioner,
everyone who spoke was opposed. At the Physical
Development Committee meeting today, the Committee Chair
indicated to Mrs . Ettinger that she could continue to
pursue the 11DM-1" Zoning and face a 99 percent chance
that it would be denied, or she could work with the
Planning Office and neighborhood to plan a PRD over the
existing "A" zoning classification that would be
acceptable to the neighborhood, that would fulfill
drainage requirements and solve drainage problems, that
would lessen traffic and circulation problems, and would
be more acceptable in terms of site development. She
chose to work with the Planning Office to do the PRD.
She would technically be developing it in the "A"
Residential District. It would allow some creative
clustering of the units, and a reduction in density. For
her site plan to be acceptable, it will have to come back
before the Planning Board. We can come up with a
reasonable alternative, using the PRD system.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19 , 1994 - PAGE 14
We are moving along on the Enterprise City application.
In May, we will be consolidating and blending the
proposals to come up with a coordinated, comprehensive
strategic plan.
There will be a meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20
regarding Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District. The case was tabled until
the neighbors could meet with the petitioner. Everybody
is invited.
D. Pending Items : Future action required
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. SLU-1-94 , Mill Pond Village, 1600 Blk. E.
Willoughby Rd. (Staff Held)
b. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
C. Z-5-94, 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential
to "F" Commercial District
d. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
e. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92 , Kaplan Street
VI . NEW BUSINESS - None.
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Two communications were received, copies of which were
distributed to the Board. The first was from Mary Kramp at
1009 E . Grand River, opposing SLU-2-94, 1017 E . Grand River,
Lansing Teen Challenge. Mr. Goolsby suggested having Liz
Dotzlaf, President of Northtown Neighborhood Association, talk
with her. The second was from Tony and Peggy Grant, 3009
Scarborough, opposing Z-3-94 , 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road,
"A" and "C" Residential Districts to "DM-1" Residential
District.
vii2. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None.
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS - None.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn041994
Z-7-94
810 W. Saginaw
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to "❑-1" Professional Office District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Nelson E . Gilroy
810 W. Saginaw St.
Lansing, MI 48915
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone property at 810 W. Saginaw
EXISTING LAND USE: Parking for adjacent office building
EXISTING ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office and "J"
Parking District
PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 91 ' x 150 ' Approx. ( 13, 650 sq. ft . ) ;
Rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Residential
S : Commercial (Beauty Shop)
E: Commercial (Barber Shop, carry-
out)
W: Commercial (Rental Center,
Pizza Restaurant)
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential
S : "D-1" Professional Office
E: "F" Commercial
W: "F" Commercial; "J" Parking
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Amendment Plan 1986
shows the area north of Saginaw
Street and south of the "Englewood"
alley as having commercial land use
with residential located to the
north.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct
an addition to an existing office
facility. This zone change is
required to permit the addition.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH No objections to the rezoning or the
proposed building addition.
Trans . Engr. : I do not believe the one-way
driveway will function properly.
Please provide a full-scale site
plan for further review prior to
proceeding with this request.
BWL: No objections or concerns regarding
the rezoning. The applicant should
contact the BWL Marketing Dept. ,
371-6270 and provide information
regarding new electric service
requirements .
Assessor: Applicant should be directed to
combine the 2 tax descriptions into
1 for the 1995 tax year onward.
Currently, the 2 lots are 3301-08-
486-041 810 W. Saginaw, and 3301-08-
486-051 (vacant on W. Saginaw) .
ANALYSIS
The potential impact of the proposed zone change is discussed
below.
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
The proposed use is compatible with surrounding commercial
land uses and should have no additional effect on the
residential neighborhood to the north.
COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN
The proposed zone change is consistent with the River Island
Amendment Plan 1986 , which designates the subject location for
commercial uses .
IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
Staff foresees no impact on vehicular traffic from a use of
this scale. The site will maintain its existing access
driveway to Saginaw Street. There may be some minor impact
from parking spaces abutting the alley north of the site.
This aspect of the plan will require site land review before
any new construction can begin.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3, Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
Approval of this project would have a desirable impact on
future development patterns by encouraging new investment in
an area that has not recently received significant new
investment.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from "J"
Parking and "D-1" Professional Office to "D-1" Professional
Office District for a property located at 810-814 West
Saginaw. The change in zoning is needed to permit expansion
of an existing office building from 1,474 sq. ft. to
approximately 3,200 square feet. Site plan review will be
required before any new construction can begin.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval . New investment by the private
sector at this location can only be an asset to this area.
c:\wp\data\planbd\z794.fe
Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-l" Professional Office and 'T Parldng to"13-1" Professional Office District
7 7 TORT[{
uRfOW O ST OU N Y OS O I y W. RTN
2 v O CR S O JT ❑ Q p g SE NE SLAG
2 � = h Kf£N D
1 W 2 h 2 A i �^R/V PEARL
T WILLOW S7 w e k WILL ST.
T OD 57. THEODOR O
MAPLE 57 a MAPLE ST. h W.MAPCo ❑ ST j
� Z MAP ` J
~ ��❑❑� `❑ �_� 4,
O ATE V
Q BRO �' ❑ PO
ADA
p 00 x W "L£FORD ElK S 3 v
w L WEST Y W ` o HULL �ND a p AU5
2 2 ASH
j SIDE W 3 z o AN VE A
SN£R/DAH
h [MAD], ST E� NO E Y N
u E U
ENO EU 0 3 MAN EST£ �
O W. SAG/NAWti 0 0 S T, 1:1❑❑ L ❑ (I i
i ❑El GENES �+ a
a�� LAPE£R ST O a SCNOOLCR EGE ❑ K
P t� III^AII t FRIf
Q W t NE Cl�t7F h L] '•N LANSIIND OAK
OSBORN yo DR O G£N Ef T O CCO Z PARK L
Ct
S.GENES f£ a � �G ES ���F5r9
� ❑ � i � j � � ENFS£f SLW SN/AWA EE W " v I i � SH/ W SE J T xEi
2 D11 h Ua J o/ON/A �' Z : �a I I 7 J O .V
O ST b 3 h Z' lON/AI I ST. `p y/AT
P Z �� W OT TAWA ST O F,1 Fw I OTT A N [S, QI I OTTA 2c
MICHIGAN n AVE NDE
t y Fe.1
ALLEGAN St � ALLEGAN ST. I-! !� I�
SEXTON NS. y LS ❑ ;Y 41 Q
q TENAW ST. p [WA11r:.11 [] ST NARD
KALAMAZ00 p !!! O
2X
x W
h RX
Sr O� PRO
✓OSEPH :' W. KALAM 00 ST.N E KAC
PARK
/L ALE a^ ,t x LENAWEE Sr
i � LEN f sr. f
LU
OHILL ALE STD h m h = N/V ALO b ST ❑ ARM£N O C� S JOI J£PN I S
xx 27
MAIN ST. p 6 2 J h MAIN Sr
2 WIL L IAM
SPR 6 N c
� AVE.
O HAZ Sr ? ¢
_ Q N
OJ 99 ELM sT F1! (-c�i�� ELM h
h ° I N
. t
Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-l" Professional Office and "P' Parldng to"D-l" Professional Office District
NOAT1t
N07—
LoT-11
-�-
jJ
L L4
CD,
I —
24
Litv
- - _ - --
�� I
c"2 a v
_
77
V11, 514
714MW S l •
• �t� 7t7�i 1� 7o9-d
-
1.9
45;
S El
I
12 25 ?5 23 17 i 27 2? 1 79 25 13 i Lr
I-� � —1 I I I: � _ i I � � I I I � Ir I I� j •1 o e /. � !1
2f u
Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-1" Professional Office and'T Parking to"D-1" Professional Office District
tom► o ' o o r
NORTH .. F n 1154
-siQ `
O tJflQ G:Rt51DG�NTIAi , `� f- .l �'
7.
_ r
LL1 0
�= .{ _ ra L r 1,•�}i _ ,�/ _ aNEC`F _.. _.. _- -� ^w
C
� TO _ 'E 1 Illy-Es-IILCI►!G _ +7 -r. .Y''
cc
�.
, —�2'111111F3G.wnu:.: ao -: ■ ••-
an
EXYlfS7&:W=NCi_3,4'K55Y _ CL
r �r�' r 1 - } r_�uiliLc_Y1rt11•tN4--'•k�.srncr V.=1 � .�
- l,k �' '�' e l� i •hitE RLrgV IRF.O.r 1 x 16y I y •:y t
'I ZONFD J •:t K�4` 1 3-���C �,�aai��avLC�'j j=r�ry
- - - .•i.
L la
COt ' - - —1= ZI �� I
a
•
- S LNDE9"C-TICs1oe1.2Tlhl_.:. - ..:;' .-ZONCD:.O•' ... O �
Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw
"D-1" Professional Office and"P' Parldng to"D-1" Professional Office District
NORTI I
ami
LOT SURVEY LOT SURVEY
FOR: FOR:
Nelson Gilroy Nelson Gilroy
8i4 W. Saginaw 810 W. Saginaw
Lansing, Michigan 48917 Lansing, !!ichigan 48917
LEGAL OTSCRT-10N (as provided): Lot 7, Englewood Park Addition, LEGAL DESCRIM04 (as provided): Lot 6, Englewood Park Additicn,
C_Cy of Lansing, Ingha.'n County, Michigan, according co the recorded Ci t7 of Lansing, Ingham County, Hic`._Jgan, according to the recorded
plat thereof, as recorded in Liher 2, Page 10, Ingham County Records. plat thereof, as recorded in Liher 2, Page 10, Ingham County Records.
I
/ALLEY,
u45.10'
PWCH PIPE 1 R95.59'1 ;Irz•e_a ALLEY
nl M45.60'1
V 112-BAR I R45.49' ,�Ir$•PEE
ASPHALT�-
LOT/7 S'-ASPHALT -
/ 1 II'e
2Im
F-
F /
0 Q
QO 1 0 Z h ^O Z CONCRETE 0.25'
30•30'
v 1 I CONCRETE
HOUSE _ in\ \ R-E i LVG
\\N\ 'ALL
PaRKwG PARKING
PORCH I c•Ra cuae LOT 6 � o
N
I PORCH ASPHaL'I' \ASPHALT C
3
A176.4r TO CwC.sGO ST. ` M45.42'� �-7
1 P95.99' JLO.' / I
III 1 ll 1145A2'
SY:E'xALK R45.49' I'O .R9o.9B'TO K6COHSN ST.
50Ex LK
c•ae�
W. SAGINAW ST.
W. SAGINAW ST.
,n••.eF�•In an r nv w•+••n«.o•,na......•••••n•a.a r.a«nr.a•a4 P.•w..w ale..a.•<Her rL,.,4 wl..n«.lounf e.
«L«ro b n.,aA P..••,...,,I m.n.n lu•lI Ae„W,.el•.r w w wI w.I.rI..,,..e.eW,.,o oI•p.•e.�,.a K.r.uoen..e Iw...•. 1� n.,.rK P•••••.•••K„•.,r.n,..•w n«. a.a Ia'w ma a w.d..wK..��w..•a...++e.a rA.w u,.l..n...Iw�,a w
r.'wI.•....�.sa4 a•ew.a r w.«.,••.a..,a,..Kaur,.e1�.�a a nIF....r.sr AK..re r r.«.•.w..•r....,,A,r,.a nA.,a P•.•.�•.•K i,.I W..vo..aa KK.....
Y Y.•r„•a DUWv
Y •Yr,w.a DWKs
" ow— BRYAN LAND SURVEYS,P.C. " •".mwDr...• BRYAN LAND SURVEYS,P.C.
sw 1?•■r w,c.P sr 1iC•.rJty
6019 Marsh Road •
C •Fu.,a Hen Ha.e FI 0 •Fe••^.6a_Haw 6019 McFsn Road
..4 ASLET7,A1IGHIGAN da810 Ph.(6171 OJ9-101�
—•D LYr�-�� NASL ETT.MICHIGAN 48840 Ph.(617)779-1014
�f•-•Drlw Na r/Jx.y DRAWN BY PST SECTION 8,T4N,R2W -lw�.I Drr,,..H.�Jr sy, DRAwNBY PST SErnoN B,T9N,R2W
'�•� N FIELD WORK BY �w JOB NUY BER. /. �' LC. Ln� S-/4-9L JDa NUUBER:
L[RRY A.BRYAN DATE 4RRY A.•AYAN I DATE FIELD wORK er JI
I 92•L-37396-I
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR N0.25122 SHEET I OF 1 LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR No.25132 SHEET 1 OF 1 92-L-37396-2
SLU-2-94
1017 EAST GRAND RIVER
Lansing Teen Challenge, Residential Care Facility for 8 Men
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Rev. Jeffrey Pokone
P.O. Box 80435
Lansing, MI 48908
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 66 . 33 feet x 177 feet ( 11, 740
sq. ft. ) ; rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single a n d two- family
Residential
S : Single, two-family Residential
and Commercial
E: Single and two- family
Residential
W: Single and two- family
Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-4" Residential
S: "F" Commercial
E: "F" Commercial
W: "F" Commercial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: North East Area Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 15+ du/acre
CASE HISTORY: This is the third application by
Teen Challenge for a foster care
facility. (Former applications were
at 224 W. North Street and 1017 E.
Oakland. )
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Developer' s Proposal : To establish a residential care
facility for a total of eight men,
including staff.
PLANNING BOARD SLU-2-94, 1017 EAST GRAND RIVER PAGE 2
Agency Responses :
Assessor: No comments .
AMERITECH: No objections .
Trans . Engr: No comments or requirements .
BWL: No objections or concerns .
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Rev. Jeffrey Pokone, in behalf of the Lansing
Teen Challenge program, wishes to establish a residential care
facility at 1017 Grand River Avenue. The facility would
accommodate up to 8 men under its Christian growth and
development program. The facility will be staffed for 24-hour
supervision and will process students entering the program
before sending them to long-term residential care facilities
in Detroit or Muskegon, Michigan.
The structure is a 2-story, 5-bedroom house, 1, 620 square feet
in size. The lot measures 66 . 33 ' wide and approximately 177 '
deep. The property is zoned "B" Residential for single family
homes . A residential care facility may be permitted by
Council in this district "in accordance with the procedures
and conditions described in Chapter 1282, " if all conditions
listed below are met and "if all federal, state and local laws
are met . "
Chapter 1248 . 04 (Special Land Uses) states :
A residential care facility which provides for more than six
persons may be permitted in an "A" , "A-l" or "B" Residential
District if it meets all the following conditions :
1 . The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area
not less than 1,000 square feet per resident.
2 . Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a
sponsoring agency.
3 . The proposed residential care facility is located more
than 1,500 feet from an existing residential care
facility which provides care for more than 6 persons .
The Teen Challenge facility as proposed will meet these
three conditions . (A site plan and floor plan are
attached. ) The location of existing residential care
facilities is also shown on a map attached, indicating
PLANNING BOARD SLU-2-94, 1017 EAST GRAND RIVER PAGE 3
its proximity to other facilities and its required 1,500
foot separation from any facility accommodating over 6
residents .
The standards by which a special land use must be
examined by the Planning Board to determine whether to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny are as follows .
1 . IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE DESIGNED,
CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER
HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY
AND THE SURROUNDING USE?
The existing site and floor plan is not expected to
change. The structure is similar in size to some
of the other homes in the area. No additions onto
the structure are planned. A required second means
of egress, however, would result in an outdoor
stairway from the second floor. The house sits on
one of the largest lots on Grand River Avenue.
Staff believes the proposed residential care
facility would be operated in a manner harmonious
with the surrounding area.
2 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CHANGE THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
The subject structure is located on E. Grand River
Avenue, which features a mix of residential and
commercial properties . The overall area is
predominantly comprised of single and two-family
homes . Eight unrelated men living in the subject
property plus any visitors and/or speakers would be
a level of activity that is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE INTERFERE WITH
THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY?
The operation of a residential care facility will
not directly interfere with the continued use of
adjacent properties . Support for the Teen
Challenge proposal was expressed by the President
of the Northtown Neighborhood Association, Liz
Dotzlaf .
4 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENT AN
IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND
WILL THE USE BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT?
PLANNING BOARD SLU-2-94, 1017 EAST GRAND RIVER PAGE 4
The proposed use of the structure appears to be an
improvement to the use and character of the house,
and the number of unrelated people, staff,
speakers, and visitors is compatible with the area
and would not generate a level of activity in
excess of what is characteristic of the surrounding
area.
5 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE HAZARDOUS TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES,
MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY
THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE,
SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE?
A residential care facility for up to eight men in
the subject property would seem to be compatible
with other activity along Grand River Avenue.
Other conditions, such as air or water pollution,
smoke, odor or fumes, should not be a problem.
6 . CAN THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE ADEQUATELY
SERVED BY ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
OR IS IT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO
CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND
FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE
UNDER CONSIDERATION?
This house is adequately served by essential public
services . Residents in the Teen Challenge program
cannot have their own cars on site, thereby
reducing needed parking spaces . The two or three
staff would need parking spaces, which are
available behind the house, and accessed by an
alley off Grand River Avenue.
7 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE PLACE DEMANDS ON
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT
CAPACITY?
An inspection of the property was conducted on
Wednesday, April 13, 1994 by structural,
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical inspectors and
an inspector from the Fire Marshal ' s office. The
results of the inspection are forthcoming.
B . IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
PLANNING BOARD SLU-2-94, 1017 EAST GRAND RIVER PAGE 5
This special land use permit meets the dimensional
requirements of the Zoning Code. The Master Plan
designates the future land use of the area as high-
density residential development.
9 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEET THE
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
The special land use permit meets the dimensional
requirements, such as minimum lot area per
resident, and the 1,500 ' separation between
facilities with more than 6 residents .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends this special land use request be approved
since it meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for
residential care facilities and is not out of character with
the surrounding neighborhood.
C:\WP\DATA\PLANHD\SLU294.FE
WFUT IS LA:VSI`MG TEEN CHALLENGE ABOUT?
Lansing Teen Challenge began in 1987. Since its involvement in the
tri-county area, they have helped hundreds of men and women of all
ages.
There are five Teen Challenge centers within the state ofMichigan;
,�:uskegon, Lansing, Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit. Together they
provide residential help for over 400 men and women with life
controlling problems. In Lansing we are wanting to provide 30 day
housing and teaching for men, before transferring them to Detroit,
.Muskegon, or Saginaw.
Teen Challenge is a non-profit religious organization, with over
one hundred centers throughout the nation and over twenty around
the world. Lansing, Teen Challenge has a Board of Directors and is
directly accountable to the Michigan District of the Assemblies of
God.
Below is an outline of the ministries of Lansing Teen Challenge.
I. Basic confrontational evangelism. The purpose and method
is to conduct evangelism outreach directly to the people,
i.e. , jail and prison services, helpline substance abuse
prevention programs, and drop-in counseling.
II. Crisis intervention, pre-induction, and referral. Persons
with life controlling problems are provided a place to stay
long enough to meet the immediate crisis, to receive a
clear witness of the gospel, and to evaluate whether they
need or desire the long term discipleship training offered
by Teen Challenge.
III. Reentry. This process is commonly initiated by the
induction centers and frequently provides one or more of
the following: temporary housing, personal and family
counseling, assistance in finding suitable employment, and
a vibrant church fellowship.
Lansing Teen Challenge .P.O. Box 80435.Lansing, MI 48908-0435.(5171 627-8,,!s
History of Teen Challenge
During the year 1958, Reverend David
Wilkerson a reacher from the hill count of
p country
Pennsylvania, fathered an organization that
R: Lansinghas become international in scope and 32
years later has astounded not only the
religious, but has attracted the attention of the
scientific community.'The Teen Challenge Teen
ministry was generated out of this one man's ►"
desire to offer hope to a generation of
alienated youth and adults. To this end, the 1 ` ''.` Challenge
Biblical approach was put into action to solve .
the comtemporary problems of desperate Rev. Jeff Pokdne is our new Director of
people with life-controlling problems. Lansing Teen Challenge. Jeff comes with a
Lansing Teen Challenge was started in great deal of Teen Challenge experience. He
1986 with its first center located in the has served with Detroit Teen Challenge. He
downtown area and operated as a street was Interim Director and Director of
ministry and counseling center. With the Minnesota Teen Challenge in Minneapolis.He
relocation of its main offices to a farm west has also served at one of our Teen Challenge
of Lansing, a residential program for 10-12 centers in California.
men was begun in 1988.In 1991 Lansing Teen
Challenge, called to renew its downtown
street ministry,moved to a temporary location
just north of the downtown area while seeking
permanent facilities. This permanent center
will provide offices for the Director and staff,
housing for staff and 10-12 men, and serve as Lansing Teen Challenge Helping Youth, Adults, and Families
an education and counseling center , as well P. O. Box 80435 overcome life-controlling problems
as an evangelism center. Lansing, Ml 48908-0435
Confident that God has brought Lansing
Teen Challenge into this new beginning, we For help or information, please
earnestly solicit your prayers, inquiries, and Call:
financial support. (517) 484-6050
Just What Is Lansing Teen and evaluate whether they need or desire the Does Teen Challenge Work?
Challenge? long-term discipleship training offered in A Health, Education, & Welfare
Teen Challenge.
It is a non-profit, transdenominational Department study of the largest Teen
Re-Entry Program. This is provided for
Christian organization dedicated to helping graduates of the one-year live-in residential Challenge center in America indicates that it
youth adults and families overcome life- does. Dr. Catherine Hess study director,states
program who need assistance in finding '
controlling problems. Our answer for these that whereas treatment for a drug addict in a
suitable employment and a good home church
problems is Jesus Christ. fellowship. _ detoxification facility results in a 1% cure rate
Teen Challenge is not a drug rehabilitation and the therapeutic community's rate is about
center. Our goal and desire is to see lives
What is the Cost for Help at Teen 10%Challenge? the Teen Challengeram in
e program g
changed through a personal relationship with g Rehrersburg, Pennsylvania, had an 86% cure
Jesus Christ. The Teen Challenge program is The only charge is a small one-time, non- rate (based on those interviewed 5 years after
based on four principles. refundable induction fee. Many of the people completing the program).
1. There is hope for a person with we help have little funds available.
life-controlling problems. How Is Lansing Teen Challenge What Some Have Said?
2. Sin, not drugs, alcohol, etc., is the Supported? In my opinion, Teen Challenge is doing
major root problem. Our support comes through the generous the best all-around job of providing the kids
gifts and donations of people, churches, and with something meaningful in their lives. And
3. The only cure for sin and its organizations that care about other people and
symptoms is Jesus Christ. g p p that's what they all need...I thank you for your
believe in the work of Teen Challenge. All continuing support for Teen Challenge.—Art
4. Jesus Christ living within a person gifts and donations to Lansing Teen Challenge Linkletter
takes the desire for sin out of that are tax-deductible. We have long been aware of the
person's life. Is There an Age Limit? tremendous ministry of Teen Challenge. I
How Does It Help People? No. We help youth, adults and families of consider it a real privilege to endorse this
Counseling. Using Bible-based, Christ- all ages in various centers across the United work. Thank God for places like Teen
centered counseling, our staff and workers States. Challenge that not only understand the
offer hope to hurting people who come to our problem, but know God, who can set young
Does Lansing Teen Challenge people free and transform them into whole,
office or call on the phone. Belong to a National useful, caring people.—Ruth Graham
Life-Controlling Problem Prevention. We Organization?g Ever since I endorsed Teen Challenge
hold programs, seminars, and workshops to Yes, it sure does.There are more than 110 back in the 1970's when I was Governor of
educate young and old alike on the dangers of Teen Challenge centers nationwide. Although California, I've always been impressed with
life and present to everyone a positive and each center is autonomous and governed by its their work and their people. Not only does
fulfilling alternative. own Board of Directors, there is an Teen Challenge help our young people deal
Live-In Rehabilitation. People with life- interworking among centers. Today Teen with their substance abuse but it also gives
controlling problems are provided a place to Challenge is helping people all across the them something to live for: a relationship with
stay long enough to meet the immediate crisis, country.We here in Lansing work very closely God, a healthy self-esteem, and a direction in
to receive a clear witness of the Gospel, to their lives that finally leads somewhere.
p � with the other centers here in Michigan.
begin the pre-induction phase of discipleship, —Ronald Reagen
Lansing Teen Challenge
Rules and Regulations
Student Agreement
1. No smoking.
2 . No Cursing.
3 . No Gum chewing or candy allowed at any church service.
4 . Students are not permitted to talk about their past street
life, drugs, ar past sin.
5. A student will be subject to dismissal for possession or use
of drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.
6. All prescribed medication with Director ' s approval will be
kept safe by staff and given to the student by staff.
7 . A student will not be allowed to write or date members of the
opposite sex while in the program. A married person would be the
exception.
8 . No male student is to be allowed with someone of the opposite
sex.
9 . A student is never to leave the property of Lansing Teen
Challenge. Unless permission and supervision is given by a staff
member.
10. It is expected that a student be on-time to all activities.
11. Radios are not permitted on the property by a student.
12 . Cassettes and cassette players must be approved by staff, and
are not to be taken out of a sudents room.
13 . respect must be given to all Teen Challenge staff and volun-
teers.
14 . Permission must be given to leave church services and Teen
Challenge activities.
15. All money the student has will be locked up and only used as
personal needs arise.
16 . There is a non-refundable induction fee of $125 . 00 to enter
the program. All monies recieved by the student will apply to
this until induction fee is paid.
17 . If a student leaves the program there is a 2 week waiting
period for possible re-admittance.
18 . No foolish talk, jesting, horse play, or arguing is permit-
ted.
1
19 . A student' s personal property may be examined at any time by
a staff member.
20. No student is allowed to accept clothing or any personal item
from another student or staff.
21.Personal Hygiene- clothes must always be clean, shoes must be
polished, no hair past collar length, no beards, baths or shower
must be taken once a day, nails and fingers must be kept clean,
and deodorant must be used daily.
22 . A student will never murmur or complain.
23 . No worldly hair styles or earrings for men.
2
. .. CYCLONE FENCE"/
i t7 _ PO�ST7
CYCLONE FENCE' i .• •y c"'} I�1 ',t - '
• '< I, i t •h' ' u ' ,' •h2.25'
- .• , .` N ��r•' NEIGHBOR'S
0.5' TO 'FENCE = GARAGE
::;: I
CYCLONE FENCE
PARKING
. •• SNEO NEIGHBOR'S
PARNNNG
2.5'
• __ op
� 1�e ,..
LLJ
A 1.
25
3.0'' „:
' ai1L� '• .• NEIGHBORING
NEIGHBORING W
I - 't� i..•f ,(' �' ; HSE
HOUSE ,v .i`:. f•:
-.CYCLONE FENCE
�• 1 ••'. '•, I 9OEWALK L � .
u
4
l, .. I
GRAND. RIVER;AUE' �
EE'MTH NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS-,ARE' MEASURED. FROM PROPERTY LINE.
L!f IE.
NO OTHER .STRUCTURES ARE,WITHIN 25' OF PKPRETI
u
V 3T 16u LT--
KITCHEN DINING ROOM
5EE PLAN—
5HEET(o
DN
1
I
DS - III UP
DEN LIVI►JG ROOM
I '
i
PARLOR
PORCH II
I
NORTH
FIRST FLOOR, PLAN
6
D 1�1
$TO'RAG>r
NORTHWEST NORTHEAST
6-E0P00M
5EE PL.^N-
�ET 7 �
r) � I ICI
EAST
HALLWAY &ecRocm
I �
BATHROOM
qEE PLAN-
rjFl EE.T $
II n
UP
SOUTH EAST
6ED�200 M
SOUTH W EST
BEDRAO►vt
NOZTH
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ye' 1%O
CRAWL 5 PAC E;
IT
L.s.UNGZ`f ?C�65
I
� UP
� I
i
BASEMENT
FL.DOR CxL",1N
GAS S�RV IG.c
C11 I M ri tr-f CLEAN O UT i
WAr� H EAT E R
WATcR T,,cRVICE
ELE-CT;ZJC Sc VICc.
NC ZTi4
BASE-ME NT PLAN!
SLU-2-94, 1017 E. Grand River Ave. , Res. Care. Facility for 8 Men
Child Care Facility
x 1557.2
L
74; j,
/I r-- 5 GRAND
El ------- i T- I ! i RIVEp.• 2--
J SCH,
7
\I / / •\ 29 Q)
Tj
9
Q.
27
29
L
-U)
2
17 Gi
1 6. 2r-
T 32
AL S
1,9v lmr M-7 /OZf /03y
r. 16J-97
955.6
.,GRAND RIVER AVE
r
/f 26
27-
34
.3 26
29
P2.7
LN
24
85-J
2..9
-7"7-
WALL 2820? 1=2E7
29
7- El E�51
3.7
17
29
. E�D
47)
954.-9' PERSONS
23
39 30 25
'9 22 I I . �� _ !, ,
SLU-3-94
SLU-3-94, 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue
Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Capitol Cadillac Corporation
5901 S . Pennsylvania
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use
EXISTING LAND USE : New and Used Vehicle Sales
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial and "J" Parking
Districts
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: See attached site plan; 4 . 46 acres .
SURROUNDING LAND USE : N: Fretter Appliances
S : Light Industrial
E : Heavy Industrial
W: Light Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S : "H" Light Industrial
E: "I" Heavy Industrial
W: "G-2" Wholesale
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive
Plan designates this area for
commercial and light industrial
uses .
CASE HISTORY: November 30, 1964 : City Council
passed a resolution to rezone
portions of lots 34-36 to "J"
Parking and "H" Light Industrial .
March 3, 1969 : City Council passed a
resolution to rezone a portion of
vacated right-of-way to "J" Parking
(Z-105-68) .
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The front 69 . 75 ft. of the property
is zoned "J" Parking District, which
allows for the sale and display of
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , SLU-3-94
5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue
new and used vehicles if a special
land use is granted. The special
land use will allow the petitioner
to develop 5839 S . Pennsylvania Ave .
as an expansion of their existing
vehicle sales and service facility
at 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue. The
expansion will require the removal
of the former restaurant building.
AGENCY RESPONSES :
BWL: No objections or concerns .
Trans . Engr: I believe that this proposal
encroaches on the City right-of-way.
Please provide a full-scale plan
with the proper certification by a
registered land surveyor before
proceeding with this request .
Assessor: Have petitioner contact Assessor' s
office about combining the two tax
parcels into one description.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner' s goal is to develop 5839 S . Pennsylvania Ave.
as an expansion of the existing vehicle sales and service
facility at 5901 S . Pennsylvania, and, in order to do so, the
the former Ponderosa restaurant building must removed.
Section 1278 . 04 (c) states that sales of new and used motor
vehicles may be permitted in a "J" Parking District . The
front 69 . 5 ft. of the property is zoned "J" parking.
Evaluation
Section 1282 . 03 ( f) ( 1) - ( 9) sets forth the criteria which must
be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The
criteria and evaluation are as follows .
1 . IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED,
OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE
CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE?
The area to the north of 5901 S . Pennsylvania is being
proposed as an expansion of new and used vehicle sales .
The old restaurant building, concrete wall, and sign will
be removed, and curbing and driveways on the west side
will be removed. New asphalt and paving is proposed.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3, SLU-3-94
5839 and 5901 S. Pennsylvania Avenue
The existing greenbelt and curbing will remain north of
the restaurant building; however, there will be some new
greenbelt and curbing. There is a proposed island of
landscaping of evergreens along the south and west sides
of the proposed expansion lot for new and used vehicles .
The proposed expansion is an addition to an existing
facility with landscape improvements . Based on the
foregoing information, the proposed expansion can be
operated in an manner harmonious with adjacent land uses .
2 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
The proposed special land use would not change the
essential character of its use in relation to the
surrounding property. There is no negative impact or
encroachment to the adjacent areas .
3 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE INTERFERE WITH THE
GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY?
The proposed expansion is being proposed to include
islands of evergreen landscaping which will enhance the
area. The special land use should not adversely impact
the general enjoyment of the adjacent properties .
4 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENT AN
IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL
THE USE BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE
LOT?
The proposed special land use would represent a positive
change. Presently, the old Ponderosa restaurant building
is vacant, and, if the special land use is granted, will
be removed to accommodate the use for displaying old and
new vehicles . With the proposed landscaping
improvements, the environmental character of the lot
should be improved.
5 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE HAZARDOUS TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES,
MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH
THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR,
FUMES OR GLARE?
The expansion of the existing vehicle sales and service
facility for new and used vehicles will not adversely
impact the surrounding land uses .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4, SLU-3-94
5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue
6 . CAN THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES, OR IS IT
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED
SPECIAL LAND USE IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE
ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEEMED
ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER CONSIDERATION?
Considering that this request is an expansion of an
existing facility, no additional public services are
required for this special land use permit.
7 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE PLACE DEMANDS ON
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT
CAPACITY?
No additional public services are required for this
special land use permit.
8 . IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
Section 1278 . 04 (c) allows the sale of new and used
vehicles from property zoned "J" Parking District if a
special land is granted according to the four conditions :
( 1) The parking area shall be covered with portland
cement or asphaltic concrete.
( 2 ) Each point of vehicular ingress and egress to the
lot shall be not less than 60 feet from the
intersection of any 2 streets .
( 3) Any repair or refinishing which is done on the lot
shall be done within the confines of an enclosed
structure.
(4 ) Lighting shall be directed away from any adjacent
residential district.
The expansion is being proposed with new asphalt paving.
The ingress and egress points to and from the lot are
more than 60 ' from Pennsylvania and from Jackson Drive.
The paint and shop area addition will be done within the
confines of the existing structure. The surrounding land
uses consist of light and heavy industrial; therefore,
lighting would not directly impact any adjacent
residential neighborhoods .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5, SLU-3-94
5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue
9 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEET THE DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED?
Since a structure is not being proposed for construction,
building setback and height requirements do not apply.
SUMMARY
Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit,
it meets all of the nine principles required. Staff
recommends approval of the special land use.
The proposed special land use is harmonious with the
character of adjacent property and surrounding uses .
The proposed special land use will not change the
essential character of the surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the
general enjoyment of adjacent properties .
The proposed special land use will have no negative
impacts or environmental issues .
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to
adjacent properties .
The proposed special land use will not place any demands
on public services and facilities in excess of current
capacities .
The proposed special land use is consistent with the
intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current
comprehensive plan.
The proposed special land use does not require any type
of construction, building setback, and height
requirements .
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\8LU394.FE
SLU-3-94 , 5901 S . PENNSYLVANIA
Capitol Cadillac - Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles
::mw
I
1
z �\ j ��\
J ?p PaQKIN�� —
z
Q
5
PAR K I ry�
813�5 \
21
'\ /7
\ l \ \ .PA KING\
I E871.5 I I A N PRE W !,ACK-504 DR 5.8 \\
"F"
872.4 877.3
LLJ
>
a u s-rr iLLI
(� I x \
\ Lil
/5 I
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Rd.
AMENDMENT TO Z-3-94 REPORT
At the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting held on March
16 , 1994, Mr. Trent Stowe proposed an alternative plan for 2
duplexes instead of an 8-unit building as originally proposed.
The following is an analysis of how the two proposals compare :
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL NEW PROPOSAL
( 8-Unit Building) ( 2 Duplexes )
Existing Duplex 2 units Existing Duplex 2 units
Existing single 1 unit Existing single 1 unit
family family
New 8-unit Apt. 8 units New Duplex 2 units
Bldg.
New Duplex 2 units
11 units 7 units
Lot Size: 49, 005 sq. ft. = 1 . 125 acres
Original Proposal : 9 . 77 units/acre
New Proposal : 6 . 2 units/acre
The new proposal would be 6 . 2 units per acre compared to the
original 9 . 77 units per acre.
The comments made at the Planning Board public hearing
included concern over congestion of traffic at Robinson Road
and concern regarding additional rental property in an owner-
occupied area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends this amendment to the original request be
denied.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\z394.fe
Z-3-94
3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road
"A" and "C" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Trent Stowe
1308 Chartwell Carriage Way
East Lansing, MI 48823
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner/Optionee
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone from "A" and "C" Residential
to "DM-1" Residential District
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
EXISTING ZONING: "A" and "C" Residential Districts
PROPOSED ZONING: "DM-1" Residential District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 165 ' x 297 ' (49 , 005 sq. ft. ) ;
Rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single-Family Residential
S : Single-Family Residential
E : Single-Family Residential
W: Single- and Two-Family
Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N "A" Residential
S : "A" Residential
E : "A" Residential
W: "DM-1" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as Residential
0-7 units/acre
CASE HISTORY:
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct an 8-unit apartment
building while maintaining existing 1- and 2-family dwellings .
Assessor: Will the applicant be requesting a
lot split on this? Three parcels
are involved now, #3301-26-352-001;
-012-; -291 .
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Rd.
are involved now, #3301-26-352-001;
-012-; -291 .
Building Office: ( 1) The building is subject to
compliance with the Lansing Uniform
Building Code 1991 edition. (2) The
part 4 Building Code rules
pertaining to Barrier Free Design.
( 3) A soil report to determine soil
suitability will be required. (4 ) A
Building Permit is required. (5 )
The project is subject to the Site
Plan Review Process . Please contact
Christine Segerlind for additional
information 483-4381 .
Fire Marshal : No comment.
BWL: BWL has no objections or concerns
regarding the rezoning at the above
addresses .
Trans . Engr. : The concept is acceptable. However,
a detailed, dimensional site plan is
required by a licensed professional .
I suspect that this plan does not
meet city design requirements .
Cont. Cable: The development of this apartment
will not affect us at this time.
ANALYSIS
The applicant, Trent Stowe, is requesting that the subject
property, measuring 165 ft. wide by 295 ft. deep, be rezoned
from the existing "A" and"C" Residential Districts to the "DM-
1" Residential District, which is a low-density multiple
family zoning district. He proposes to construct an 8-unit 2-
story apartment building with 4 lower and 4 upper units (see
attached written proposal, site and floor plans) .
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
The site is located in an area that is predominantly single-
family in nature. Some duplexes exist along the west side of
Aurelius Road, and some townhouses owned by the Lansing
Housing Commission exist farther south at the corner of Hoyt
Avenue and Aurelius Road. The overall area is an established
neighborhood, comprised of large deep lots, with a high rate
of home ownership. Many people who spoke at the public
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Rd .
hearing strongly expressed their desire in keeping the rural ,
single-family character of their neighborhood intact and felt
that the proposed multi-family development was not harmonious
with the surrounding area and was inappropriate for the
location.
COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN
The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area on
the proposed land use map as low density residential, ranging
from 0 to 7 units per acre. The number of units, including
the existing single- and two-family homes, totals 11 units .
The density on this overall parcel, measuring 49, 005 sq. ft .
in size, is approximately 10 units per acre. This proposal
exceeds the recommended density for this area and is therefore
not in compliance with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan.
As mentioned at the public hearing, the southeast area of
Lansing appears to have clustered zoning with much of the
multi-family development located in the area of Jolly and
Dunckel Roads . The area therefore does not appear to be
lacking in multiple family development.
IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
Multiple family development at this intersection, located
behind a single- and a two-family home, would add to the
congestion that already exists on Robinson Road, which is a
narrow two-lane road with no curb or gutter.
A few cars currently park on Robinson Road in front of the
foster care facility located to the north of the subject site.
The plan shows 16 parking spaces to the south of the proposed
8-unit building, with egress onto Robinson Road. Any visitors
to the property would probably have to park on the street,
further adding to congestion in the area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The level of density as proposed on the property is actually
much higher if it is figured strictly for that vacant portion
of the site behind the existing single- and two-family homes .
Much of the site would be covered by impervious material and
would therefore have to be adequately drained of any storm
water. If developed, the site would most likely be separated
from the other two structures, leaving very little open space.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
The requested multiple family zoning district may be
considered a spot zoning request, since it is contrary to the
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Rd.
surrounding zoning which is predominantly comprised of single-
family zoning. The development as proposed is a multi-family
structure located between single- and two-family homes, which
is generally considered not to be good planing or zoning
practice. It is better to provide a transition of land uses
from more to less intense uses . This does not provide a
transition of uses or density. Such development would most
likely add to speculation of higher density development to be
done in a spotty manner along Aurelius Road, contrary to the
Southeast Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY
The zoning as requested is contrary to the established zoning
pattern and the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, which
designates this area for low density residential development.
OTHER
A petition signed by 65 people opposed to the requested
rezoning was presented to the Planning Board at the public
hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the request to rezone this property from "A"
and "C" Residential to the "DM-1" Residential District be
denied.
Attachments
c:\wp\data\planbd\z394.fe
March 1, 1994
Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development
Washington Square Annex, Second Floor
119 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48933-1668
Members of the Planning Board:
In regards to my request for rezoning (Z-3-94), 3103 and 3111 and 3113 Aurelius Road, "A"
and "CO Residential Districts to "DM-1" Residential District.
My plans are to construct an Eight (8) Unit Apartment Building, it would be a Two-Story Building
with Four (4) Lower Units and Four (4) Upper Units. Each unit will be Two (2) Bedroom, Two
(2) Bathroom, spacious apartments, with washer and dryers included in each unit. The lower
level units would be completely handicap accessible.
Research that I have done show there is a shortage and a strong need for apartments that are
handicapped accessible In this area. This size of apartment and building would be desirable to
someone with a handicap, because of its floor plan, its parking layout, and easy accessibility.
These units are designed more the their needs and convenience as opposed to whats available
in other larger apartment complexes who provide them only because it is required by law.
I am enclosing a proposed site plan, floor layout, and a photograph of a building very similar to
what we would want to build. This picture Is a building of a Sixteen (16) unit building In Mason
MI recently completed. Its located on Cedar Street, on the south side of Mason, and its part
of the Beacon Lake Apartments, being developed by Ben Wickens. Also, enclosed is a aerial
photo of the site, highlighting other multiple family sites nearby.
I believe the development of this property would enhance the neighborhood, and would fulfill a
need in housing for this area.
Sincerely,
Trent Stowe
• i
F
' I
,1
/C-O, �3 7
�(�_�ntZaL,wed S ptic�i
t 1_
J
{ Q {,
o \ ALC
3 U N 1T 2 s�Drzy 2-,31z J
LAC \ea oN ��T 11001 X l(05' �E« L—j—
k9
�� L
111- 30� APPROV ED BY:
SCALE:
PI12ri�N6� �� 5}^CeS' ` DATE: q- ��
\ V N tTS _ �•QSS v,.�,Tr p ED �1J 1T A
°X /Q.z vNJrS �/ /�c`!�c KC2o►.9tN6-
11117 "lNTE00NN0 1000HCL"RPRINT.
Z-3-94 , 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road
"A" and "C" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District
W.n
NORTH
829.3 I c�
a�
14
LLJ
I i'
826.1
830
35.5 1 ^ f
833.0 �� 1
834Lj
/6 /B
828.5J`ly1 I
/6
� r
PIZ
STD 8406
5.2 I 3
rf _ 848.8
-
7 — --
aFQI PLANNING OFFICE
Department of Planning and Neighborhood
Lf �r 41 Development
= Washington Square Annex, Second Floor
* * 119 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48933-1668
'�I���y�►� PHONE (517) 483-4066; FAX (517) 483-6036
MEMORANDUM
David C. ?Mayor
DATE: April 12, 1994
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Jim Sturdevant, AICP, Senior Planner .
cc: File '
RE: Z-5-94, 4720 South Cedar Street
Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia
Z-5-94
The zone change request on South Cedar Street at Syringa is being held
in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee pending a request by the applicant
to bring it out of committee . At staff' s last contact, the applicant
indicated that he was not making any progress in setting up a meeting
with the neighborhood representatives to resolve their differences about
the rezoning. Apparently, the neighbors have decided not to meet with
the applicant if the request remains for "F" Commercial zoning.
Z-6-94
The zone change to add parking to Mr. William' s plumbing business off of
South Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd was sent back to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee by the Planning Board at their April 5, 1994
meeting. The purpose of sending this request back to committee is to
give the committee and opportunity to review their recommendation to the
full Planning Board.
"Equal opportunity Employer"
Z-6-94
5721 Valencia
"A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Wayne A. Williams
Williams Plumbing
5721 Valencia Blvd.
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning
EXISTING LAND USE: Plumbing Company
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 20 ' x 179 . 51 , 3590 sq. ft . ; . 08
acres; rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant Residential Lot
S : Commercial & Residential across
King/Logan
E: Commercial
W: Grocery & Residential across
Valencia
SURROUNDING ZONING: N "A"' Residential
S : "F" Commercial
E : "F" Commercial; "A" Residential
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan
designates area for office fronting
on King/Logan; with residential use
to the rear. Valencia is unpaved
local street; King/Logan is
designated a major arterial .
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL:. The owner wishes to install parking
and landscaping improvements for an
existing plumbing company.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 , Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia
AGENCY RESPONSES :
Trans . Engr. : No comments , requirements or
recommendations .
Fire Marshal : No comment.
BWL: BWL has no objections or concerns
regarding the rezoning at the above
address .
Assessor: Will this be accompanied by a lot
split application? Looks like SE LY
20 ' coming off 3305-05-302-059, a
vacant residential parcel .
ANALYSIS
The proposal will add a 20 ' x 180 ' strip to an existing
business so that the business may improve its off-street
parking and loading facilities . It would also permit
additional landscaping or screening of adjacent properties .
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land use
because it will allow an existing business to make
improvements that include additional off-street parking,
landscaping, and off-street loading space for trucks .
COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN
Strictly speaking, the proposal is not consistent with the
Master Plan' s map designation of office uses; however, it is
consistent with the character of the surrounding area and will
help improve existing conditions .
IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
The proposed improvements should help improve traffic flow and
pedestrian safety by permitting vehicles to get farther off
the street and remove the need for vehicles to back out onto
the public street.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Potentially, additional storm water may run off from the
additional paved parking area. According to the plan as
submitted, an additional 2,250 sq. ft. of lot area will be
hard-surfaced.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3, Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
There would be minimal impact on future patterns of
development. It may establish a northerly limit for future
commercial expansion of adjacent properties .
SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking to expand an existing "F" Commercial
District in order to improve off-street parking, loading
facilities, and landscaping, and buffer the yard area of an
existing business .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the understanding that the
parking, driveway, and landscaping improvements will be
required, according to the Zoning Ordinance, and that these
improvements will be completed within 90 days after passage of
the ordinance.
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\z694.fe
Clill"I'I1'1CA'I'L OI' I'ROl'hRTY SUH'.VL Y
Descriation. The Northwesterly 48.50 Eeet of Lot 12, and the
{ ' Northwe-9terly 73.50 feet Of the SJutheaSterly 190.00 feet of l.()t l'1,
++ Supervisor's Plot of Valleau's SubdivioLon of a part of the Soith-
hest 1/4 of Soction 5, T311, RN, City of Lansing, Ingham County,
Michigan.
M 90�J4%O'
\ -CE 3-15C7-Y Z 1,V f
rIce—
r h
7-0
J_i cI-uS-
5-7 z 1 r,�E,UC/s1 ,BL vd. r5c' 4/yo6 �?O.WJ 4'.Z4 VE e-
' I
I hereby certify that I have surveyed the property hP_rein
de9sibed, and that there are no visible encrcts ,
open t}2 above property, e.Y•cept as --+xx�n herecn. ,
I further certif y tl•a t I have f tlL y canp.Lied with the
reguixc-�- is of Sectim 3, Public Act L32 of 197/0, ar4 David R. Lohr, L. L. S. # 30090 �!
t7at the ratio of error of c!csure of this survev is Ranee Finders. Inr.- !
7GOW l__i� �ppp�lw W Ri 2 O �+ O LORA/NE 4 AV£. �J� WASN/NSTON
o � 4J P F PA RX 4r£ C1 /
i � 3 W. RUNOLE AVf. � � �/ {p °
415T1NE a r
O DR. 2 R L
VICTOR AV£. V/[TOR AVf,
ERARY DR. 1
HOLLY WAY �{ pp� WILLARD 3Q
{Qa W/LLARO Si
ROCK_WA Y
2 P LN. FAUNA AVEV �' y P, ROSA LL
gK o 4i V j BOSTON v ��{ DUNLAP 1 Sr h
DLD
1 , � DUNLAP ST
R R/C£ > UNLA h ST. O COY==------GGY �p {
2 LARD/F e 2 P�EGGY Q LOA h Sr i '�� ASTOR AV£.
2 ARGYLE = ih 2Z ¢ RoW SOUTHLAHDcxLit
h AVE. W til
C W W BERRY AVF.
41 2 2
L ME-7 RD. o ¢ HOL MES RD. 5 HOL MES RD.�
sussiExl
DR. DR. Q W h
_ W SIMX£N OR. O Ocz
W O 2
m GL BR 2 O 3Wi a
a
� GgAN i DR� W RWj G O
F£RROL ST WARW�
A-O �R- i R POMPTON /R L£GRAND DR. ZGIBSON ST. PLEASANT VIEWARDS N/L LLR£ST ST. � m MA
2i i 1. 3 J RTH 2 2
m 3 EP R W LABOT OR LARVfL EArON �` EVERETT N.S. WI
l Q J Ji
J � WGREENBELT DR.
2 O ❑�MARY AV£. i LT `� CAI�gN 3 tii
F/ELOING DR 2 O ¢ qU CAVANAUGH hi
7• � u R/SO Z GRAHAM
a
¢ R/SDALE Sr k N Pl£ALE RD. LAVANAUBH
9 ST 2 PARK EV
Q LEYBUEVf TC.
m ST Lr RISOALE
PARK ¢ REO RD. J ¢ SP P-'
h � � � UCH-y,0 PlN£ OD
N J Ou V/NC£NT LT. 9FL RE VAN j
RED RD. FO. i V 4, BEE[ OOD W LT.
h U �
i S r 2 N y ti R m
AREA O Z W Z BR/ARf L p0a� Q h Oi
In O W >'
STx RAYN£L ? 20 v i R BR/ARF/fL0 041
O
h Q W. ~ ✓OL LY RD. J
0
h
MIOWOOD ST ¢ i rU 4 DAHL/A
W 99 w ti
o N o o
4. W 2 a QJ ¢ j
3 k J ` BRADW L m F£RL EY
R VIOL DR W/NSFOI?O h MOFF/T Sr o BLUE L
WANE£ D y BEN✓AMIN F DAVIS PARK 2 ATR/!'IA
2 P£NROS£ = MEL 3 O 2 J Q O
O ¢ O MfL AVE. 4+
NONETTE U DR. VILLAGEk R. Z
3 HORAL£ RD. D� MARK TW �qN Sr NORTHRUP R ST. 4
uj
POLLARD RD. Nam!„ �� BOG °
O O c^y +, W£YMWT Z AT TWDOD
at cca
HARRY C] y RADFORD R poc�" fF{P ASHL�'+ , Sr DOR15 c
DESOTO lP Ev 4 L G R Y
ell
HILL H.S. {� 11 LA J
e �. 2 � � �a pP eRAD sr
OQ`P ° ° otu
h Y WEBSTER ST 5 C 'K Lry
fp° 3 W R 2 v R.D.CURT/S AV ¢ O LLAREMO _
RAO
'oaf OA BURY NEWARK AVE. Z1. ENN Y DR. �� HE/N AVE. HE/ N J
CROSSROAD �NZFWARK AVE. W
P sArrw000 E-I'T" Ro
HE/ ¢ AR AN 1
/NOEPENOENLE ¢ W ¢ O U h y PARK �.
BL/ES£NE 4h`i 4 OO 2 u yk J O EL WA F
L N. . LER i wAR croN L
M L L ER RD. a d
r SOUTHFI£LD t
O
� C j
TTA
L 0p lLTOR/A I I 3 H W
GEORG OWN61
J
d Z Q h ¢
Q W W
k Q h
Z-6-94 , 5721 Valencia
"A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District
\ it
74 \�7�-
it
f P
'� _ ,�,� � � • -�, O 1, � /
{�
76.E
/ / 4
87G.4
974.2
CORRECTED AGENDA
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II. HEARINGS - None.
III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: March 22, 1994; April 5, 1994
B . Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and "J"
Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District
b. SLU-2-94, 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge,
Residential Care Facility for 8 Men
c. SLU-3-94, 5839 and 5901 S. Pennsylvania Avenue,
Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles
d. Z-3-94, 3103 and 3111-13 Aurelius Road, "A" and "C"
Residential Districts to "DM-1" Residential District
e. Z-6-94, 5721 Valencia, "A" Residential District to "F"
Commercial District
f. Next meeting Wednesday, May 11, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Act-21-93, 616 Beechwood Avenue, Reduction of Drain
Easement
b. Act-20-93, 2003 Pleasant View Avenue, Reduction of
Sanitary Sewer Easement.
C. Act-16-85, Disposition of 119 North Washington Square,
Washington Square Annex
d. Next meeting Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington
Square Annex
3. Executive Committee:
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA APRIL 19, 1994 PAGE 2
C. Report from Planning Manager:
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. SLU-1-94, Mill Pond Village, 1600 Blk. E. Willoughby Rd.
(Staff Held)
b. NCU-2-93, 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
C. Z-5-94, 4720 S. Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "F"
Commercial District
d. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
e. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held)
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H. CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-
4088 TDD.
C:\WP\DATA\PLANBD\4-041994.AG
n --- v ,moo.
05-12-94P02 : 01 RCVD TO CLERK051394
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 5, 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 35 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Ruge, Thelen (seven members serving at this
time; one vacancy) . Ex officio members Councilmembers
Jones and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - None .
C . Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: William Burleson, Associate
City Attorney , City Attorney ' s Office ;
Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
II . HEARINGS :
A. Z-7-94 , 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and "J"
Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District
Ms . Love presented the case, a request by Nelson Gilroy,
property owner, to rezone a portion of the property from
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1"
Professional Office District to expand the existing
building and to provide consistent zoning on the site.
Adequate parking spaces will be provided.
NELSON GILROY, 810 W. SAGINAW. I own the property; I ask
that you approve the petition. We did submit a site plan
with our application, but not a specific building plan.
We are at stage one, to find out if it can be rezoned.
Mr. Thelen asked about paving on the site . Mr. Gilroy
said there was a building at 814 , the property to the
west, which was demolished two years ago; then the state
repaved Saginaw Street. We took that opportunity to
repave the entire parking lot; the new paving is at 814
W. Saginaw. Mr. Fountain said the hardsurfacing would be
allowed in tandem with an office building; it does not
necessarily have to be zoned "J" Parking.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 2
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting April
13, 1994 .
B. SLU-2-94, 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge,
Residential Care Facility for 8 Men.
Ms . Love presented the case, by Lansing Teen Challenge,
represented by Rev. Jeffrey Pokone, for a Special Land
Use for a residential care facility for eight men.
REV. JEFFREY POKONE, 1206 STREAMWOOD, APT. 1B,
representing Lansing Teen Challenge, temporarily located
at 430 Pearl Street. This is our third attempt to find
a location for our residential home. Out of the three
houses that we have looked at, this is the best house to
meet our needs--the size of the home is 1, 900 square feet
and has 5 bedrooms upstairs, a bath and a half
downstairs, a large parlor, dining room; living room,
den, and downstairs is a basement. There are 2
stairways . It would lend itself to use by 8 people.
There is a nearby alley, with parking off the east side
of the home, for about 5 cars . It is not paved as yet,
but we could do that. Our program is well supervised,
top-notch, twenty-four hour supervision. Over the past
year, our residents have been able to get involved with
community projects . I have met with several neighborhood
leaders and talked with residents and have tried to
answer questions . We have not had any complaints by
neighbors to the Police Department. The Neighborhood
Police Officer for the area was doing to do a police
check. He has not done that as of yet. We want to keep
our facilities in top shape to eliminate any problems .
Regarding our screening problems, we don' t help people on
any type of mind- or emotion-altering medication. We
basically deal with people who are not on any type of
prescription medicine; we also do not take people who
have outstanding warrants . People must be willing to
submit to and obey the rules of the program; willing to
attend church services, bible study, etc . ; and be willing
to participate in community and work programs . I believe
we can be a positive influence in the neighborhood.
LIZ DOTZLAF, 1315 VERMONT, PRESIDENT, NORTHTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. (Read a letter describing her
contacts with the Teen Challenge house residents, and
their help in completing painting a paint blitz house
that had to be done before bad weather. ) Neighborhood
residents could not be found to help. With the help of
the Teen Challenge residents , the entire job was
completed within 2 weeks . The community was relieved and
grateful . In November, Teen Challenge helped with 2 more
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 3
projects . They mapped out all the storm drains, many of
which were blocked by debris . Knowing their locations ,
we were able to get volunteers to help keep them clean as
a community service. Teen Challenge residents also
passed and collected a large area of the North Lansing
Community survey. The area they choose was deemed a
safety concern by others in the survey group. They
handled the survey very professionally. The Teen
Challenge is great, and I feel very privileged that they
choose our neighborhood as a permanent residence. I
welcome them. They have an 86 percent cure rate 5 years
after program completion. I support Teen Challenge' s
purchase of 1017 East Grand River.
GARY C. BROOKS, 1313 N. FAIRVIEW, Pastor of First United
Brethren Church, 1330 E . Grand River, just 4 blocks east
of the proposed location. My wife and I have had a 30-
year relationship with Teen Challenge organization,
beginning with the New York City ministry. My wife
actually stayed at the Clinton Avenue Teen Challenge
Center in Brooklyn, New York. Just this evening, before
I came, she said that they really helped her. As a
pastor of the First United Brethren Church in Lansing,
I invited Rev. Pokone and several residents of the
Lansing Teen Challenge to speak in one of our services
last year. The church members were enthralled by the
dramatic presentation. They are returning Oct. 23 , 1994;
we want them back. The members of my church support the
ministry of this fine organization, and would welcome the
residential care facility into the North Town area. Teen
Challenge tackles the difficult task of restoring those
with life-controlling problems back into the productive
segment of our society. The reputation of the Lansing
Teen Challenge has been above reproach and merits our
approval and support. Thank you.
Mr. Fountain said this property has a long history. At
one time it was used for used car sales . NDA #3 restored
it to residential use; public moneys were put into the
building. I would see this as another step in retaining
and restoring the residential use, which was intended for
the area.
Chairman LeBlanc said 2 communications were received, the
first from Liz Dotzlaf, 1315 Vermont Avenue, in favor;
the second from Darlene Ingler, 1223 North High St. , in
opposition.
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 4
C. SLU-3-94 , 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue,
Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles
Ms . Love presented the case, a request by Capitol
Cadillac to purchase the building directly north of their
existing facility, remove it, and expand their parking
and sales lot to the north and then expand the existing
sales and service rooms .
RICHARD LaGASSE, 7323 GOLF GATE, LANSING. JEFF ROTH, 554
E. MAPLE, Roth and Associates, Architects and Engineers ,
Troy. We prepared the site plan. I would be happy to
answer questions .
Mrs . Horne asked about landscape buffering. Mr. Roth
said we are proposing landscape islands . Mr. Fountain
said some consideration should be given the front, so
there is not an abrupt change from the front of the cars
to the sidewalk; have a minimum setback.
Mr. Roth said there are 2 properties here. The old
Ponderosa will be removed. Two curb cuts will be removed
to create a greenbelt . East of that near the property
line is the existing sidewalk. We propose a 3-4 '
greenbelt east of that to receive new bases for new BWL
light poles . We are proposing to park our display
approximately 3-4 ' east of the property line. The green
belt area is 2-3 feet wide, similar to that along
Pennsylvania Avenue, with no boulevard trees, top soil
overlain with either sod or seed; the landscaped island
areas contain plantings, trees , et cetera. Mrs . Horne
asked for more details concerning the landscape plan.
Referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : March 22 , 1994 . Not available .
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen Chair.
a. The Committee has not met since the last
Planning Board meeting. Next meeting
Wednesday, April 13 , 1994 , at 2 : 30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 5
b. Urban Development Committee:
C . Next meeting Tuesday, April 12 , 1994 at 4
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. Mrs .
Horne has volunteered to attend as a fourth
committee member.
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love was in Washington, D.C. last week at the
Enterprise Community National Housing Conference. It was
refreshing to see federal level people excited about
their jobs and working as a team. At 7 : 45 a.m. ,
Wednesday, April 20, Senator Riegel ' s staff will be
meeting with us in special workshops the Senator has
arranged for Michigan communities applying for either the
Empowerment Zone or the Enterprise Community.
Representatives from HUD in Washington and Detroit, SBA,
Agriculture, HHS, and State of Michigan MSHDA people will
also be there, to review our application to this point
and to talk about strategies to make sure we are
competitive. The State of Michigan would like to review
our application on May 23 . We will have several of their
staff people sit in on all of our deliberations
throughout the process, so they are familiar with the
programs and involved in the planning process throughout
the entire time. Mr. Ruge asked what was the involvement
of the State with the Enterprise Zones . Ms . Love said
the whole process is geared toward forcing communities to
work together, and also forcing the state to work with
the communities . When the application is submitted, the
state, in addition to the communities, makes the
guarantees that when we establish criteria for evaluating
our program or project, we also have to set forth what
evaluation criteria we will use to determine or measure
how successful we have been. The State of Michigan has
to make assurances, right along with us, that they are
going to back us up and that they are going to be in on
the performance elements . Michigan has been a much
better partner than many states . Gov. Engler has been
very supportive of the whole process, and has made state
people available, both in MSHDA and through DSS, to
facilitate the process .
Mrs . Horne said Committee members wanted Mr. Goodrich' s
new proposals , and the things Mrs . Kruger did 5 years
ago, 2 sets of reports . We want to compare what was done
5 years ago and what is proposed at present. Mr.
Fountain said the Committee wanted to know what
activities required permits now and then, to find out if
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 6
the total investment amounted to 35 percent. Mr. Thelen
asked if this met the definition of remodeling or
replacement. Mr. Barnhart asked who originally
determined the amount was 35 percent. Mr. Thelen said it
is an ordinance requirement. Mr. Fountain said they did
not have a good list of proposed alterations, and that is
what he has provided now. Mr. Thelen said by definition
that is a Class A, based on 35 percent. Mrs . Love said
they did not ask for an itemized list, but rather for a
total figure, and looked at that relative to the value of
the building. Mr. Fountain said they were trying to sort
out what required permits and what didn' t, which fell
under a permit and which didn't, because that would
change the amount of money either way. Mr. Goolsby asked
is this the distinguishing factor, whether or not
something requires a permit. This sheet mentions paint,
carpeting, and window replacement. Ms . Love said paint
and carpeting do not require permits; window replacement
does . Mr. Goolsby said he was told by the Building
Office that window replacements required permits . Ms .
Love said she has signed permits that say window
replacements , size not specified. Mr. Goolsby said there
has to be some calculation before we get to that, and we
should exclude those items that do not require a permit
and whether it is appropriate to include or exclude some
items . Mr. Fountain said another reason they applied for
Class A was that with Class A there is more protection
for the investment. Mr. Thelen said the matter would be
discussed with Planning and Attorney' s staff at the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, and the Committee
would either remove the current recommendation from the
table or make a new recommendation.
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said a communication was received from Thomas
L. Lapka concerning Mill Pond Village Mobile Home Park;
another communication was from Goodrich and Associates .
Members have received copies .
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman LeBlanc said she, Ms . Love, and Mr. Sykes met with
Mark Nixon of the State Journal regarding Mr. Goolsby' s
concern, namely that the Journal editorials claim Lansing
needs a plan. We told him that Lansing has many plans and
gave him a copy of the Goals and Objectives; however, from our
conversation, it was obvious he was thinking only of the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 7
Central Business District. The plan for that area is old. It
was a productive meeting; he promised to do a favorable
editorial, probably at the time of the Enterprise Community
plan being written is released. We also talked about the
Riverwalk and the river plans . That Friday, we had a meeting
with Ms . Love, Mr. Sykes and the Board chairs of Planning
Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, River and Waterfront Board,
and Historic District Commission. We talked about lack of
coordination among Boards and the desirability of having a
liaison person from each Board, for example, one person being
liaison to Board of Zoning Appeals, which I am doing, as an
official member of the Board, but in the case of the other
Boards, having an ex off icio member--one Planning Board person
for the Historic District Commission, and one for the
Waterfront Development Board. If any Board member is
interested in that, please let me know. The other Boards
would have a member attending our meetings , or acting as
liaison. We also asked if we could get agendas of each
other' s meetings . We were told that, yes , we will . Mr.
Barnhart said minutes would be more valuable than agendas .
Ms . Love said the Planning Office is setting up a mailbox
system for each of the four boards where Boards can trade
things back - and forth, to avoid proliferation of paperwork.
Chairman LeBlanc said we would exchange agendas and minutes,
have a mailbox for each board, exchange the year' s meetings
schedules and member lists ( lists with phone numbers) . Ms .
Love said there will be a monthly meeting; the next meeting is
Friday morning, April 29 at 8 : 30 a.m.
Chairman LeBlanc also reported on progress on a county
groundwater protection effort. This has been going on for
years . At one time, Ingham County proposed a groundwater
protection ordinance and had a public hearing, but after that
did nothing further. Since then, they have appointed a
committee to draft the ordinance . This is yet another
committee under the County Board of Commissioners to come up
with a strategy for a groundwater protection. Ingham County
gets all its water from groundwater. If something happens to
our groundwater, it will be expensive to build a pipeline from
Lake Michigan. Economic development would be impossible at
that point. Our water in Lansing could be contaminated by a
pollutant introduced in Mason. At this point, I think they
will continue with the Ingham County Health Department
inspection efforts of facilities handling polluting materials-
-oils, petroleum products, etc. --and the site review process .
Lansing and Delhi Township . takes advantage of this . They
can' t force any township or municipality to send site plans in
for review because of Michigan home rule, but there is talk of
developing a model local ordinance which they will then ask
each governmental unit to pass , requesting site plan review
for industrial facilities handling these materials to.__ be
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 8
submitted to the County for inspection. If the county
inspectors find it later, it will be costly to retrofit, so it
may as well be done at the beginning, when it is cheaper and
.easier.. If we can get a model ordinance, we won' t have to
write our own.
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Thelen said on City Council agenda yesterday, there was
correspondence from the Lansing Neighborhood Council
pertaining to budgetary items . This letter is a copy of that
letter, so basically they are asking for more money, because
the correct budget was not submitted. Mr. Ruge said he had
some knowledge of what happened. Priscilla Holmes submitted
a budget; Planning Board approved it. After Jennifer Grau
took over, the budget was revised and resubmitted. For some
reason, the resubmitted budget was never presented to the
Urban Development Committee, only the original budget was
considered.
Mrs . Horne had a communication from the Tri-County Planning
Commission about visioning Michigan' s land use future . The
meeting is April 6 , 7-9 : 30 p.m. Mrs . Horne will be attending
and asked if any other Board member was interested in also
attending.
Mr. Thelen said he and Mr. Ruge were pleased with the Planning
Conference at Olivet.
Mrs . Horne requested an excused absence for the next Board
meeting; she will be attending a conference in Columbus on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barnhart to excuse Mrs .
Horne.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows :
Goolsby Yea Thelen Yea
LeBlanc Yea Ruge Yea
Barnhart Yea Fountain Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 6; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; Mrs . Horne was given an excused absence;
APPROVED.
Mr. Fountain said, regarding Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1"
Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional
Office District, a detailed site plan should be obtained from
them. Even though they have not illegally blacktopped their
property, they may have gotten into the public right-of-way.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5, 1994 - PAGE 9
On the other hand, the Professional Office District does not
allow them to park in the front yard. We may be able to get
something that looks good 20 feet back. Mr. Ruge said it is
not 20 feet back now; there is a little 3-ft. berm. Mr.
Fountain said many places hard-surface right up to the
sidewalk, and it leads to illegal parking over the sidewalk.
It could be taken out with a good site plan.
Mr. Goolsby asked if the State Journal is moving. Ms . Love
said no, they are only moving their printing operation to
Delta Township. They are maintaining their newsroom, and
classified at the existing location. "If they were moving
some people out, and not reallocating the space to new people,
would they consider allowing the owner of 533 S.. Grand, who is
rehabing it for office use at the northeast corner of
Hillsdale and Grand Avenue, to lease 4-5 spaces . He needs
more parking and wants to raze 213 E. Hillsdale in the
Historic District for parking. I asked about the Journal
lease 4-5 spaces for parking. He thought it was a good idea,
and he gave me the name of their property manager. We have
since passed that name on to the owner of 533 S . Grand, in
hopes they could work out a deal for parking spaces without
razing 213 E . Hillsdale. "
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed Mr. Burleson, who will now be
working with the Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood
Development. Mr. Burleson said he would be working with both
the Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood Development and with
special projects . He has a prior commitment and will be
unable to attend the meeting of April 19 , 1994 .
X. ADJOURNMENT was at 8 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, )Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn040594.Ag
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1994
AGENDA
I. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B . Excused Absences
C. Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II. HEARINGS:
A. Z-7-94, 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to
"D-1" Professional Office District
B. SLU-2-94, SLU-2-94, 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge,
Residential Care Facility for 8 Men
C. SLU-3-94, 5839 and 5901 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Development of Sales
Lot for New and Used Vehicles
III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: March 22, 1994
B . Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Next meeting Wednesday, April 13, 1994, at 2:30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee:
a. Next meeting Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 4 p.m. , Planning
Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington
Square Annex
3. Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
04-22-94A08 : 30 RCVD.
DRAFT TO CLERK 042194
17-WIN
A TO CO VED
R LERK
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 5 , 1994
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 3 5 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Barnhart, Fountain, Goolsby, Horne,
LeBlanc, Ruge, Thelen (seven members serving at this
time; one vacancy) . Ex officio members Councilmembers
Jones and Lilly - not in attendance.
B . Excused Absence - None.
C . Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: William Burleson, Associate
City Attorney , City Attorney ' s Office ;
Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
II . HEARINGS : i
A. Z-7-94 , 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1" Professional Office and "J"
Parking to "D-1" Professional Office District
Ms . Love presented the case, a request by Nelson Gilroy,
property owner, to rezone a portion of the property from
"D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1"
Professional Office District to expand the existing
building and to provide consistent zoning on the site.
Adequate parking spaces will be provided.
NELSON GILROY, 810 W. SAGINAW. I own the property; I ask
that you approve the petition. We did submit a site plan
with our application, but not a specific building plan.
We are at stage one, to find out if it can be rezoned.
dr. Thelen asked about paving on Mr. Gilroy
the site . y
said there was a building at 814 , the property to the
west, which was demolished two years ago; then the state
repaved Saginaw Street. We took that opportunity to
repave the entire parking lot; the new paving is at 814
W. Saginaw. Mr. Fountain said the hardsurfacing would be
allowed in tandem with an office building; it does not
necessarily have to be zoned "J" Parking.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 2
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting April
13 , 1994 .
9
B. SLU-2-94 , 1017 E. Grand River, Lansing Teen Challenge,
Residential Care Facility for 8 Men.
Y
Ms . Love presented the case, by Lansing Teen Challenge,
represented by Rev. Jeffrey Pokone, for a Special Land
Use for a residential care facility for eight men.
REV. JEFFREY POKONE, 1206 STREAMWOOD, APT. 1B,
representing Lansing Teen Challenge, temporarily located
at 430 Pearl Street. This is our third attempt to find
a location for our residential home. Out of the three
houses that we have looked at, this is the best house to
meet our needs--the size of the home is 1 , 900 square feet
and has 5 bedrooms upstairs , a bath and a half
downstairs , a large parlor, dining room, living room,
den, and downstairs is a basement. There are 2
stairways . It would lend itself to use by 8 people.
There is a nearby alley, with parking off the east side
of the home, for about 5 cars . It is not paved as yet,
but we could do that. Our program is well supervised,
top-notch, twenty-four hour supervision. Over the past
year, our residents have been able to get involved with
community projects . I have met with several neighborhood
leaders and talked with residents and have tried to
answer questions . We have not had any complaints by
neighbors to the Police Department. The Neighborhood
Police Officer for the area was doing to do a police
check. He has not done that as of yet . We want to keep
our facilities in top shape to eliminate any problems .
Regarding our screening problems, we don' t help people on
any type of mind- or emotion-altering medication. We
basically deal with people who are not on any type of
prescription medicine; we also do not take people who
have outstanding warrants . People must be willing to
submit to and obey the rules of the program; willing to
attend church services , bible study, etc . ; and be willing
to participate in community and work programs . I believe
we can be a positive influence in the neighborhood. ,
LIZ DOTZLAF, 1315 VERMONT, PRESIDENT, NORTHTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. (Read a letter describing her
contacts with the Teen Challenge house residents, and
their help in completing painting a paint blitz house
that had to be done before bad weather. ) Neighborhood
residents could not be found- to help . With the help of
the Teen Challenge residents , the entire job was
completed within 2 weeks . The community was relieved .and
grateful . In November, Teen Challenge helped with -2 more
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 3
projects . They mapped out all the storm drains, many of
which were blocked by debris . Knowing their locations,
we were able to get volunteers to help keep them clean as
a community service. Teen Challenge residents also
passed and collected a large area of the North Lansing
Community survey. The area they choose was deemed a
safety concern by others in the survey group. They
handled the survey very professionally. The Teen
Challenge is great, and I feel very privileged that they
choose our neighborhood as a permanent residence. I
welcome them. They have an 86 percent cure rate 5 years
after program completion. I support Teen Challenge's
purchase of 1017 East Grand River.
GARY C . BROOKS, 1313 N. FAIRVIEW, Pastor of First United
Brethren Church, 1330 E . Grand River, just 4 blocks east
of the proposed location. My wife and I have had a 30-
year relationship with Teen Challenge organization,
beginning with the New York City ministry. My wife
actually stayed at the Clinton Avenue Teen Challenge
Center in Brooklyn, New York. Just this evening, before
I came, she said that they really helped her. As a
pastor of the First United Brethren Church in Lansing,
I invited Rev. Pokone and several residents of the
Lansing Teen Challenge to speak in one of our services
last year. The church members were enthralled by the
dramatic presentation. They are returning Oct . 23 , 1994;
we want them back. The members of my church support the
ministry of this fine organization, and would welcome the
residential care facility into the North Town area. Teen
Challenge tackles the difficult task of restoring those
with life-controlling problems back into the productive
segment of our society. The reputation of the Lansing
Teen Challenge has been above reproach and merits our
approval and support. Thank you .
Mr. Fountain said this property has a long history. At
one time it was used for used car sales . NDA #3 restored
it to residential use; public moneys were put into the
building. I would see this as another step in retaining
and restoring the residential use, which was intended for
the area. .,a
Chairman LeBlanc said 2 communications were received, the
first from Liz Dotzlaf, 1315 Vermont Avenue, in favor;
the second from Darlene Ingler, 1223 North High St. , in
opposition.
Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 4
C . SLU-3-94 , 5839 and 5901 S . Pennsylvania Avenue,
Development of Sales Lot for New and Used Vehicles
Ms . Love presented the case, a request by Capitol
Cadillac to purchase the building directly north of their
existing facility, remove it, and expand their parking
and sales lot to the north and then expand the existing
sales and service rooms .
RICHARD LaGASSE, 7323 GOLF GATE, LANSING. JEFF ROTH, 554
E. MAPLE, Roth and Associates, Architects and Engineers ,
Troy. We prepared the site plan. I would be happy to
answer questions .
Mrs . Horne asked about landscape buffering. Mr. Roth
said we are proposing landscape islands . Mr. Fountain
said some consideration should be given the front, so
there is not an abrupt change from the front of the cars
to the sidewalk; have a minimum setback.
Mr. Roth said there are 2 properties here. The old
Ponderosa will be removed. Two curb cuts will be removed
to create a greenbelt. East of that near the property
line is the existing sidewalk. We propose a 3-4 '
greenbelt east of that to receive new bases for new BWL .
light poles . We are proposing to park our display
approximately 3-4 ' east of the property line. The green
belt area is 2-3 feet wide, similar to that along
Pennsylvania Avenue, with no boulevard trees , top soil
overlain with either sod or seed; the landscaped island
areas contain plantings , trees , et cetera. Mrs . Horne
asked for more details concerning the landscape plan.
Referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ( 5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : March 22 ,.,�94 . Not available.
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen Chair.
a . The Committee has not met since the last
Planning Board meeting. Next meeting
Wednesday, April 13 , 1994 , at 2 : 30 p.m. ,
Planning Division Conference Room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 5
b. Urban Development Committee :
C . Next meeting Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 4
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. Mrs .
Horne has volunteered to attend as a fourth
committee member.
C . Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love was in Washington, D.C. last week at the
Enterprise Community National Housing Conference. It was
refreshing to see federal level people excited about
their jobs and working as a team. At 7 : 45 a.m. ,
Wednesday, April 20, Senator Riegel ' s staff will be
meeting with us in special workshops the Senator has
arranged for Michigan communities applying for either the
Empowerment Zone or the Enterprise Community.
Representatives from HUD in Washington and Detroit, SBA,
Agriculture, HHS, and State of Michigan MSHDA people will
also be there, to review our application to this point
and to talk about strategies to make sure we are
competitive . 'The State of Michigan would like to review
our application on May 23 . We will have several of their
staff people sit in on all of our deliberations
throughout the process , so they are familiar with the
programs and involved in the planning process throughout
the entire time. Mr. Ruge asked what was the involvement
of the State with the Enterprise Zones . Ms . Love said
the whole process is geared toward forcing communities to
work together, and also forcing the state to work with
the communities . When the application is submitted, the
state, in addition to the communities , makes the
guarantees that when we establish criteria for evaluating
our program or project, we also have to set forth what
evaluation criteria we will use to determine or measure
how successful we have been. The State of Michigan has
to make assurances , right along with us, that they are
going to back us up and that they are going to be in on
the performance elements . Michigan has been a much
better partner than many states . Gov. Engler has been
very supportive of the whole proc,Q;s, and has made state
people available, both in MSHDA and through DSS , to
facilitate the process .
Mrs . Horne said Committee members wanted Mr. Goodrich' s
new proposals , and the things Mrs . Kruger did 5 years
ago, 2 sets of reports . We want to compare what was done
5 years ago and what is proposed at present. Mr.
Fountain said the Committee wanted to know what
activities required permits now and then, to find out if _
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 6
the total investment amounted to 35 percent. Mr. Thelen
asked if this met the definition of remodeling or
replacement. Mr. Barnhart asked who originally
determined the amount was 35 percent. Mr. Thelen said it
is an ordinance requirement . Mr. Fountain said they did
not have a good list of proposed alterations, and that is
what he has provided now. Mr. Thelen said by definition
that is a Class A, based on 35 percent. Mrs . Love said
they did not ask for an itemized list, but rather for a
total figure, and looked at that relative to the value of
the building. Mr. Fountain said they were trying to sort
out what required permits and what didn' t, which fell
under a permit and which didn ' t, because that would
change the amount of money either way. Mr. Goolsby asked
is this the distinguishing factor, whether or not
something requires a permit . This sheet mentions paint,
carpeting, and window replacement. Ms . Love said paint
and carpeting do not require permits ; window replacement
does . Mr. Goolsby said he was told by the Building
Office that window replacements required permits . Ms .
Love said she has signed permits that say window
replacements , size not specified. Mr. Goolsby said there
h.as to be some calculation before we get to that, and we
should exclude those items that do not require a permit
and whether it is appropriate to .include or exclude some
items . Mr. Fountain said another reason they applied for
Class A was that with Class A there is more protection
for the investment. Mr. Thelen said the matter would be
discussed with Planning and Attorney' s staff at the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, and the Committee
would either remove the current recommendation from the
table or make a new recommendation.
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said a communication was received from Thomas
L. Lapka concerning Mill Pond Village Mobile Home Park;
another communication was from Goodrich and Associates .
Members have received copies .
�r
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman LeBlanc said she, Ms . Love, and Mr. Sykes met with
Mark Nixon of the State Journal regarding Mr. Goolsby' s
concern, namely that the Journal editorials claim Lansing
needs a plan. We told him that Lansing has many plans and
gave him a copy of the Goals and Objectives ; however, from our
conversation, it was obvious he was thinking only of the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 7
Central Business District. The plan for that area is old. It
was a productive meeting; he promised to do a favorable
editorial, probably at the time of the Enterprise Community
plan being written is released. We also talked about the
Riverwalk and the river plans . That Friday, we had a meeting
with Ms . Love, Mr. Sykes and the Board chairs of Planning
Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, River and Waterfront Board,
and Historic District Commission. We talked about lack of
coordination among Boards and the desirability of having a
liaison person from each Board, for example, one person being
liaison to Board of Zoning Appeals, which I am doing, as an
official member of the Board, but in the case of the other
Boards , having an ex officio member--one Planning Board person
for the Historic District Commission, and one for the
Waterfront Development Board. If any Board member is
interested in that, please let me know. The other Boards
would have a member attending our meetings , or acting as
liaison. We also asked if we could get agendas of each
other ' s meetings . We were told that, yes , we will . Mr.
Barnhart said minutes would be more valuable than agendas .
Ms . Love said the Planning Office is setting up a mailbox
system for each of the four boards where Boards can trade
things back and forth, to avoid proliferation of paperwork.
Chairman LeBlanc said we would exchange agendas and minutes,
have a mailbox for each board, exchange the year' s meetings
schedules and member lists ( lists with phone numbers ) . Ms .
Love said there will be a monthly meeting; the next meeting is
Friday morning, April 29 at 8 : 30 a.m.
Chairman LeBlanc also reported on progress on a county
groundwater protection effort . This has been going on for
years . At one time, Ingham County proposed a groundwater
protection ordinance and had a public hearing, but after that
did nothing further. Since then, they have appointed a
committee to draft the ordinance . This is yet another
committee under the County Board of Commissioners to come up
with a strategy for a groundwater protection. Ingham County
gets all its water from groundwater. If something happens to
our groundwater, it will be expensive to build a pipeline from
Lake Michigan. Economic development would be impossible at
that point . Our water in Lansing could be contaminated by a
pollutant introduced in Mason. At tLiis point, I think they
will continue with the Ingham County Health Department
inspection efforts of facilities handling polluting materials-
-oils , petroleum products , etc . --and the site review process .
Lansing and Delhi Township take advantage of this . They
can ' t force any township or municipality to send site plans in
for review because of Michigan home rule, but there is talk of
developing a model local ordinance which they will then ask
each governmental unit to pass, requesting site plan review
for industrial facilities handling these materials to be
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 8
submitted to the County for inspection. If the county
inspectors find it later, it will be costly to retrofit, so it
may as well be done at the beginning, when it is cheaper and
easier. If we can get a model ordinance, we won ' t have to
write our own.
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Thelen said on City Council agenda yesterday, there was
correspondence from the Lansing Neighborhood Council
pertaining to budgetary items . This letter is a copy of that
letter, so basically they are asking for more money, because
the correct budget was not submitted. Mr. Ruge said he had
some knowledge of what happened. Priscilla Holmes submitted
a budget; Planning Board approved it. After Jennifer Grau
took over, the budget was revised and resubmitted. For some
reason, the resubmitted budget was never presented to the
Urban Development Committee, only the original budget was
considered.
Mrs . Horne had a communication from the Tri-County Planning
Commission about visioning Michigan' s land use future. The
meeting is April 6 , 7-9 : 30 p.m. Mrs . Horne will be attending
and asked if any other Board member was interested in also
attending.
Mr. Thelen said he and Mr. Ruge were pleased with the Planning
Conference at Olivet.
Mrs . Horne requested and was given an excused absence for the
next Board meeting; she will be attending a conference in
Columbus on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. Fountain said, regarding Z-7-94 , 810 W. Saginaw, "D-1"
Professional Office and "J" Parking to "D-1" Professional
Office District, a detailed site plan should be obtained from
them. Even though they have not illegally blacktopped their
property, they may have gotten into the public right-of-way.
On the other hand, the Professional Office District does not
allow them to park in the front yard. We may be able to get
something that looks good 20 feet back. Mr. Ruge said it is
not 20 feet back now; there is a 15ttle 3-ft. berm. Mr.
Fountain said many places hard-surface right up to the
sidewalk, and it leads to illegal parking over the sidewalk. -
It could be taken out with a good site plan.
Mr. Goolsby asked if the State Journal is moving. Ms . Love
said no, they are only moving their printing operation to
Delta Township. They are maintaining their newsroom, and
classified at the existing location. "If they were moving
some people out, and not reallocating the space to new people, _
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 5 , 1994 - PAGE 9
would they consider allowing the owner of 533 S . Grand, who is
rehabing it for office use at the northeast corner of
Hillsdale and Grand Avenue, to lease 4-5 spaces . He needs
more parking and wants to raze 213 E. Hillsdale in the
Historic District for parking. I asked about the Journal
lease 4-5 spaces for parking. He thought it was a good idea,
and he gave me the name of their property manager. We have
since passed that name on to the owner of 533 S . Grand, in
hopes they could work out a deal for parking spaces without
razing 213 E . Hillsdale. "
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed Mr. Burleson, who will now be
working with the Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood
Development. Mr. Burleson said he would be working with both
the Dept . of Planning and Neighborhood Development and with
special projects . He has a prior commitment and will be
unable to attend the meeting of April 19 , 1994 .
X. ADJOURNMENT was at 8 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn040594.Aq
APPROVED 100494
TO CLERK 102194
Minutes of the Regular Meeting _
LANS ING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambgr
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall`
124 West Michigan Avenue ,, „�.},�,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994LAIV`""U U'1 l CLERK
I . OPENING SESSION
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7 : 35 p.m.
A. Roll Call . Present: Fountain, Goolsby, Horne, LeBlanc,
Marshall, Ruge, Thelen; seven members present. Ex
officio Councilmembers Jones and Lilly - not in
attendance.
B. Excused Absences - Ted Forrest
Mr. Forrest, who had another commitment, requested an
excused absence. Mrs . Horne made a motion, seconded by
Mr. Fountain, to excuse Mr. Forrest; on a voice vote,
there were: Yeas : 7; Nays : 0, motion carried
unanimously. Mr. Forrest was excused.
C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator, who will be speaking on zoning matters;
Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary, and
William (Burt) Burleson, Assistant City Attorney.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
E. Election of Officers .
Chairman LeBlanc passed the gavel to Ms . Love, who called
for nominations for the position of Chairman of the
Planning Board. Mr. Goolsby, supported by Mr. Fountain,
nominated Ms . LeBlanc as Planning Board Chairman for the
upcoming year. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by
Mrs . Horne, that nominations be closed. On a voice vote,
there were: Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
nominations for Chairman were closed. Mr. Goolsby made
a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to cast a unanimous
ballot for Mrs . LeBlanc. On a voice vote, there were:
Yeas : 7, Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Mrs . LeBlanc was
elected chairman.
Chairman LeBlanc called for nominations for Vice
Chairman. Mr. Fountain made a motion that Mr. Garry
Goolsby continue as Vice Chairman for the next year; Mrs .
Horne seconded the motion. Mrs . Horne made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Ruge, that nominations be closed. On a
voice vote, nominations were closed; there were: Yeas : 7 ;
Nays : 0; carried unanimously; nominations for Vice
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 2
Chairman were closed. On a voice vote on the matter of
Mr. Goolsby for Vice Chairman, there were: Yeas : 7 ; Nays :
0; carried unanimously; Mr. Goolsby was elected Vice
Chairman.
II . HEARINGS - None.
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) .
Prior to Audience Comments, Chairman LeBlanc read into the
record a letter from Resurrection Church.
"Dear Mr. Ruff, we are planning to attend your meeting Tuesday
evening, September 20 , and would very much appreciate your
reading this letter at the meeting. On May 18, we met you and
the matter of zoning was discussed. It was suggested that
changing all of our property to "DM-3" would best suit our
situation. This zoning, as explained, allows for churches ,
schools and ancillary facilities and allows counting public
parking within 300 feet to meet code requirements . It was
stated many churches utilize this zoning. We were therefore
disappointed when the Zoning Committee rejected our request .
We were invited to attend this meeting in case Zoning members
had any questions for us . There were none . The Zoning
Committee essentially brought up the same concerns we heard
and discussed several times at ENO meetings : the possibility
of more and larger activities , noise, parking, and the
facility being too close to Jerome Street. Our attempt to
explain why these concerns would not be problems, in fact, the
whole situation as it is today would be vastly improved in
every respect was given no credibility. It is very clear the
Zoning Committee was accepting the posture of a very few
members of the ENO that this building should not be at the
proposed location, but closer to Michigan Avenue. It was
suggested that we build the hall on the present rectory site
and rehab -the houses for the rectory. We regard this as an
unreasonable suggestion. The houses could not be made into a
suitable rectory, and to build both a new hall and a new
rectory would be financially impossible. We hereby appeal to
the entire Planning Board for an unbiased review of this
project. Please do not ignore the future well-being of our
church, school, and community in favor of the mind-set of a
very few people . We are and hope to continue to be good
neighbors and a stabilizing force for the East Side . We have
seriously considered many alternative proposals, and we will
appreciate any help you can give us to facilitate this project
becoming a reality. Signed by William J. Koenigsknecht,
Pastor. "
Chairman LeBlanc opened the floor for comments .
t
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 3
JAMES FOUNTAIN, 219 HORTON, MEMBER OF THE EASTSIDE
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. We went through a long and
involved process with the Eastside Neighborhood Organization.
Initially the Land Use Committee rejected the Church' s idea
for building the new parish hall . After about six months of
debate and presenting the parish ideas and plans for the new
parish hall, we got a consensus of the entire ENO, an
overwhelming majority of the ENO in favor of the plan as it is
set forth by the parish. I don't know how it was presented to
you, and the fact that the ENO was not in favor of this plan
is erroneous and is not true. We took a vote of ENO members ,
and there was an overwhelming majority in favor of the plan.
I want you to be aware of that. As a member of the parish and
the ENO, it is frustrating that we are going to have to go
through a long process, when the majority of the people in the
neighborhood and the church are in favor of the project.
MAXINE MURDOCH, 411 N. CLEMENS . Member of Resurrection Church
all my life. I feel that any improvements made to the campus
of the church is a great improvement to the neighborhood.
There is much low-cost housing in the area, and I think one of
the complaints is "Don't tear down the low-cost homes . " The
church did not buy the homes for the purpose of being a
landlord; the church bought those homes for expansion and had
planned on building a hall for the last 15 or so years .
Circumstances beyond their control prevented starting. The
homes are not in good condition. As you drive around the
neighborhood, many rental properties have "For rent" signs on
them, so there is no absence of low-cost housing. One house
is not livable now, and will have to be torn down, whenever
the hall is built, or if the hall is not built, that home
would have to be demolished, which would only leave two homes .
Building a hall is necessary for the health of the parish
because the people are moving out of Lansing and we have to
have activities to keep them coming into the church. When the
only hall is a gymnasium which is occupied most of the time by
sports, there is little room for social activities . The
church is a stabilizing influence; it helps to keep the East
Side stable. It will be a great asset to the community and to
Lansing to have a nice facility as opposed to some old homes .
CINDI CURRIE, 2500 TULANE DRIVE. Member of the Eastside
Neighborhood Organization; also parishioner of Resurrection
Church. I too have been attending the ENO meetings where they
have discussed the issue Resurrection is presenting. There
was an overwhelming majority that voted to support it. There
was strong dissention, but it was a minority of the
organization. I appreciate their objections; however, the
strength of their voice is what the Zoning Commission was
listening to, and maybe not looking at all the specific
concerns . The opposition was based on the worst-case
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 4
scenario, talking about how there will be no parking available
in the neighborhood. That would be great, having Michigan and
all the side streets taken up by parking for these events .
But I don' t believe that is realistic. The activities
sponsored now, some are sporadically attended; some have a
fair showing, but not to the extent of tying up all the
parking spaces . Probably the biggest is the Ox Roast, once a
year, that does affect a lot of the street parking. It is a
positive function for the neighborhood. People from the
immediate neighborhood attend who are not members of
Resurrection Church. There are church organizations that help
destitute people, help them find housing, provide food,
clothing, etc . It is not Resurrection' s job to maintain them
as a landlord. Whether or not the hall is there, eventually
those houses are going to be gone anyway. What is going to be
there, more parking space? Asphalt? We are trying to offer
something usable by the community. I would like a more
realistic look at the positives that the hall could bring to
the neighborhood and to the church, and the likelihood of the
worst-case scenarios happening.
RICK KIBBEY, 300 SHEPARD STREET. I am not here to speak for
ENO or for the Land Use Committee. I am not taking an
advocacy position on this issue, but there is a point of
clarification useful to make here. It was alleged in the
letter that the Zoning Committee was advocating a position
from ENO members . A review of the process would identify that
what happened was that no one argued the need for a parish
hall . That is a matter of church business . ENO has a Land
Use Committee which tried to identify problems with the
proposal as it was being made. The ENO Land Use Committee,
and ENO in general, has worked with Planning Board and
Planning staff for over fifteen years, has played a helpful
role in trying to identify policies for neighborhood
revitalization and for development in the area. The policies
in the Master Plan have been a product of 15 years of
negotiation and development between the neighborhoods and the
Planning Staff . The Land Use Committee tried to identify
those areas where the proposal was likely to run into
problems . At the Zoning Committee, there was a predictable
series of technical issues and policy conflicts, and an
opportunity ahead of time to correct the problems . There was
no indication or no willingness to correct the problems . It
would be a mistake to review this, and I don't think as a
Planning Board you are allowed to review this on the basis of
whether or not they NEED a parish hall . What this is about is
whether or not this particular configuration, proposal, land
use, design, zoning is in conformance with the policies and
Master Plan of the City of Lansing. ENO Land Use Committee
tried to identify where the problems were going to be. They
identified virtually every issue that the Zoning Committee
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 5
raised at the meeting. I hope there is an opportunity to
review this and reconfigure the proposal . Thank you.
RIC ANSELMO, 1024 N. MAGNOLIA, PLANNING AND DESIGN OF PARISH
HALL. I want to make a point about master planning. Just
because this is in the zoning codes, it cannot be inviolate.
This town would not be what it is if we followed all zoning
codes, ordinances, and master plans . Master plans are made,
but a few months after it has been presented, it becomes
obsolete. If you look at the various neighborhoods around us,
if they had followed all the master plans and zoning codes,
they wouldn't be like what we have today. Master plans and
zoning codes change. Not too far from the site is Sparrow
Hospital . Around Sparrow Hospital are neighborhoods that were
mainly housing too, but I invite you to drive over there and
take a look at what it is now. Those were in the zoning
codes, too, but they were changed for the good of the
community. That is what you are here for, because master
plans are subject to interpretations and changes . If that is
so inviolate, there couldn' t be any other issue except what is
printed in the codes . We would like to make it known. Also,
during the hearing for the review last Wednesday, there were
issues there that were not really sacrosanct to zoning. They
were making proposals regarding where to put the buildings,
the hall, what to do with the land. The question before this
board was Would you grant us a change in zoning for the
parcels of land that remain on the northeast corner. " But it
got beyond that. The issue was for a request of change in
zoning, not what is being planned there, how it is going to be
used. It was never addressed that way. There were a lot of
nonconforming remarks made during the meeting, and when I
brought that before the group, they said I was off-base. But
this was a reaction to what was discussed by the four members .
I think it would be good for the rest of the board to read the
minutes of the particular meeting. Thank you.
Chairman LeBlanc called for other remarks; since there were
none, the public comment section was concluded.
IV. RECESS - A brief three-minute recess was called.
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : WEDNESDAY, September 7 , 1994
Chairman LeBlanc noted that minutes -were received only
this evening, not mailed with the packet; she wished
consideration deferred to the October 4 , 1994 meeting.
Ms . Love observed that, because of the Labor Day holiday,
the meeting was held one day later, on Wednesday rather
than on Tuesday, thus reducing by one day the time
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 6
available for minutes . Also, the CDBG needs hearing
minutes must be transcribed verbatim; in addition, Ms .
Christian was away for two days .
B. Committee Reports
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Z-9-94 , 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C"
Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-1"
Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential
District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove
three houses and cafeteria building and
construct new parish hall .
The Committee found, based on testimony,
evidence and the staff report, that even
though it is apparent that the Church of the
Resurrection needs a parish hall, the proposed
plan is not compatible with the surrounding
land uses in its orientation. Further, from
the report, the Committee finds the following:
There are advantages and disadvantages to the
request of the Church of Resurrection. The
church appears to be a positive attribute in
the neighborhood. However, there would
definitely be an increase in the intensity,
which should not be placed in the residential
neighborhood. A 13,500 sq. ft. facility
facing residential properties will change the
face of the neighborhood. The intent of the
North-East Area Comprehensive Plan is to
protect the integrity of residential uses as
well as prohibit the expansion of non-
residential uses into abutting residential
uses . The parish hall would better serve the
neighborhood and fit the land use arrangements
if it were placed along Michigan Avenue .
Also, two of the residential use goals of the
Planning Board are: ( 1) Make preservation and
conservation of existing housing a priority
and seek alternatives to demolition resulting
from public and private development expansion
and neglect; (2 ) Limit removal of housing as
an extremely selective activity, which may be
in accordance with neighborhood plans for
reducing overcrowded conditions and
elimination of blight or removing health and
safety hazards in the area.
t
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 7
In committee, a motion was made and seconded
to deny Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E . Michigan, "C"
Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-1"
Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential
District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove
three houses and cafeteria building and
construct new parish hall, based on testimony,
evidence, and the staff report. Motion
carried unanimously, 4-0; and was denied.
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, to deny Z-9-94,
1500 Blk. E . Michigan, "C" Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-
1" Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential District; Church of
the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and
construct new parish hall .
In ensuing comments, Mr. Thelen asked for discussion on a statement
in the Zoning Code. The staff report notes a church is allowed in
"DM-3" Residential District. The Zoning Code in 1256 . 02 under
Principal Uses Permitted under §(c) does say that accessory
structure is allowable. Staff does identify this as an accessory
structure. Also in the Zoning Code under 1256 . 10, §(b) , it says a
detached accessory structure shall not exceed 15 ' in height. I
believe the accessory structure exceeds 15 ' in height. Under
1240 . 03, §(2) Definitions, Accessory structure means a structure
which is used exclusively for an accessory use. In §( 3) An
accessory use means a use which meets all the following criteria:
(a) it is clearly incidental to the principal use; (b) it is
customarily found in connection with the principal use; (c) it is
subordinate to the principal use; (d) it is located on the same lot
as the principal use, except as otherwise permitted in the Zoning
Code.
This may not apply to this particular situation. Mr. Thelen asked
that the Zoning Code be clarified before continuing with the
motion. Ms . Love said that, while on the face of it, this is
considered an accessory structure, it is a use which, if it weren't
conducted by a church, is a use which could stand by itself .
Someone could make a business out of this particular use. A
garage, which is a typical accessory structure, which is what is
intended in a residential district as an accessory structure, has
a maximum height of 15 ' , is not a use which would stand by itself,
or a structure which would be there by and of itself, and would
have no purpose without the accompanying residential structure.
This particular use, on the other hand, could have a life of its
own and could stand on its own as something substantially more
intense in use than an accessory structure such as a garage or a
shed. In this instance, we are looking at something which does not
and is not used just by the people who own it. If you had a single
family home, people using the garage generally would only be the
people who lived at the home; whereas, in this instance, you may
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 8
have a wedding where, out of 400 invited guests, only 50 guests
actually belong to the church. So you have other people who would
be utilizing the facility who don't necessarily belong to the
church. There is a question of intensity and a question of the
difference between something used by the people who live on the
lot, which is why that definition is the way it is . A parish hall,
which, while it is in conjunction with the church, would be owned
by the church and booked by the church, and would not necessarily
be only used by the members of the church.
Mr. Ruff said the section regarding height was added to help
support the building code requirements for garages on residential
property. When you look at requirements for accessory structure
sizes in the single family districts, you look at trying to keep
the accessory structures garage smaller than the primary structure.
We get applications for accessory structures that are in excess of
the size of the house on the site, both in bulk and area . This was
added to support the building code which also refers to accessory
structures of 15 ' height that have certain code requirements
associated with them. The application Mr. Thelen is making is not
the intent of that section of the ordinance.
Mr. Thelen said an accessory structure as defined by the Zoning
Code is making reference to a garage, but a parish hall is not
allowed in a "DM-3" Residential zone as a standard use . ' If this is
not a garage, and if the only reason it is acceptable in a "DM-3"
Residential District is because of an accessory use, that is
circular logic. If it is only allowed in a "DM-3" Residential
District only because it is an accessory structure, and an
accessory structure is defined as a garage, they are asking for the
wrong zoning. They need a special land use by law.
Mr. Ruff said, to continue, they would also have to request a
variance, which would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals . Mr.
Thelen asked for the City Attorney' s opinion. Mr. Burleson said,
relative to definitions in the Zoning Code, it is subject to many
interpretations . There is a literal interpretation, a staff
interpretation, case law-- . The question is , is the parish hall
an incidental use to the church, in light of the definition, and
how do you define "incidental . "
Mr. Thelen said it was not his intention to exclude or to include
anyone; it became apparent that the church and the hall were
allowable in a 11DM-3" under a special condition. In reading the
special conditions, restraints could be read this way; that is why
he asked.
Mr. Burleson said it is a legitimate observation. Mr. Thelen said
he would like the conversation to appear in the minutes , that we
discussed the legalities of it.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 9
Mr. Goolsby said the question has been raised, and he would like
some insight into it. The point is well taken. We should give Mr.
Burleson an opportunity to look at this . It is a question that
could arise again. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr.
Fountain, to table Z-9-94 until next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously;
Z-9-94 was TABLED.
Mr. Burleson said he would prepare an information memorandum
relative to the issues raised concerning Z-9-94 .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, for a short
recess; voice vote; unanimous; carried. A short recess was called
at 8 : 17 p.m. ; the meeting resumed at 8 : 30 p.m.
2 . P-1-94 , New Horizon Subdivision, Final Plat
Approval
This is a request by Richard Remsing and Dave
Bowker for final plat approval of a proposed
subdivision to be known as New Horizon. This plat,
containing approximately 7 .2 acres, is located in
the 6700 Block of Aurelius Road, south of Dell Road
and north of Willoughby Road. The plat contains
thirty-seven (37 )1 lots for single family
residential development. The property is zoned "A"
Residential District and permits the development of
single family homes . The Southeast Area
Comprehensive Plan recommends low density
residential development in this area.
The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence,
and the staff report, that the final plat is in
substantial conformance with the preliminary plat.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and
unanimously approved to recommend approval of the
final plat of P-1-94 , New Horizon Subdivision, as
amended, subject to six conditions :
1 . That all public improvements as required by
the Lansing Subdivision Regulations and the
Michigan Subdivision Control Act be adhered
to;
1 See Review and Analysis .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 10
2 . That all lots be graded so surface water will
drain therefrom so as not to adversely affect
adjacent properties ;
3 . That the developer utilize an underground
electrical distribution system as specified in
Section 1238 . 08 of the Lansing Subdivision
Regulation of the Zoning Code;
4 . That the necessary easements be provided for
the installation of utilities;
5 . That the requirements of all responding
agencies be compiled with;
6 . That restrictions be placed on the face of the
Plat prohibiting access from Lots 22 , 23 , and
36 to Aurelius .
Mr. Thelen made a motion, seconded by Mrs . Horne, and based on the
staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
thereof, to recommend approval of the final plat of P-1-94 , New
Horizon Subdivision, as amended, subject to six conditions .
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows :
Fountain Yea Goolsby Yea
Horne Yea Marshall Yea
Ruge Yea Thelen Yea
LeBlanc Yea
On a roll call vote, there were: Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried
unanimously; P-1-94 , New Horizon Subdivision, Final Plat, was
APPROVED.
a. Next meeting Wednesday, October 12 , 1994 , at
2 : 30 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room
2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
a. Next meeting Tuesday, October 11, 1994 at
4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex.
3 . Executive Committee: Did not meet (Ms . Marshal had
to leave at this point) .
C. Report from Planning Manager:
Ms . Love said the Section 108 Loan Application ($3 . 85
million) and EDI grant application ( 15 percent of the
ti
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 11
Section 108 loan, or $572 ,500) were forwarded to
Washington on September 15, 1994 . It can be used to pay
back a Section 108 loan if you run out of money. Some
communities had to spend CD funds which were used as
collateral for the loan. They did not have other moneys
and had to use CD money to pay off the loan. HUD is
making the money available; it can be used to pay them
back; it can be used as collateral against a construction
loan for a developer.' It can also be used as a resource
for new businesses starting up, helping them with cash
flow during their first couple of years . We proposed
$150, 000 in a trust account held by EDC. The business
operator would be able to draw from this during the first
couple of years of operation to pay off debt service.
We are working on signs , as well as structural
deterioration, with Wild Bill ' s Bedding Warehouse and the
Hall of Fame and other buildings like that, which detract
from the aesthetics of South Cedar Street. I had a
discussion with Mrs . Allen about an effort to work on an
appearance ordinance; however, we do not get very far on
amending our own ordinances .
D. Pending Items : Future action required.
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
b. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
VI . NEW BUSINESS - None.
VII . COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said a letter from the Church of the
Resurrection was read under the Public Comment Section.
vlii. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman LeBlanc asked that the next packet include a form for
members to indicate preferred committee assignments .
The Chairman said that the Board would be invited to a public
hearing on October 6 regarding the Historic District
Commission ordinance. A presentation will be made to the
Planning Board at the October 4 meeting. After the
presentation, the Urban Development subcommittee will take up
the ordinance at the October 11 meeting and hopefully have a
recommendation to the Board at the October 18 meeting so that
the ordinance will be passed by the end of November. Sunset
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - PAGE 12
date is in December. Copies of the proposed historic district
ordinance were distributed to members .
Last month in the BZA we had an appeal of the sign code
brought by a developer protesting the difference between
ground pole signs and billboards . Ground pole signs are on a
pole stuck in the ground. There is a separate section for
billboards . Because billboards are in a separate section and
because they are not ground pole signs, requirements for
billboards are less stringent than for ground pole signs .
Ms . Love said we have been looking into the potential for a
moratorium on signs . The problem is that case law would
indicate that unless we have a date specific when the
moratorium will be lifted, and the conditions under which it
will be lifted, the moratorium would be found
unconstitutional . You can't suspend the rule for an
indefinite period of time . You can't do it for a definite
period of time without a specific outcome defined in the
beginning. You have to be very sure of what you will do and
be very clear about it before you enter into a moratorium.
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Fountain commented, regarding Z-9-94 , Z&O Committee report
Summary reasons ( 1) and (2 ) , reason ( 3) could be land use
compatibility. Land use relationships should be considered.
Mr. Thelen said regarding Section 1256 . 11 under maximum lot
coverages , 2 sentences, on P. 130, The total square footage of
area which may be covered by all structures shall be not more
than 40 percent of lot area. It appears to be more than 40
percent of lot area. He asked Mr. Ruff to get those figures
and include the 13,500 square feet of the new structure, and
of the other structures .
Mr. Ruff said it includes parking and drive aisles and other
buildings .
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 : 30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
9.
le
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
Attachments
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn092094
k
P-1-94
New Horizons Subdivision
Final Plat Approval
6700 Blk. Aurelius Rd. , S . of Dell Rd. ; N. of Willoughby Rd.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Richard W. Remsing, 756 N. Edgar
St. , Mason, MI 48854 and Dave
Bowker, 6350 Timberland Dr. ,
Dimondale, MI 48821; Surveyor:
Stevens-Kyes & Associates, Inc. ,
1401 East Lansing Drive, Suite 112 ,
East Lansing, MI 48823
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner-developers
REQUESTED ACTION: Final Plat Approval
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: "A" Residential District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 542 ' x 633 ; 7 . 2
acres; rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family
S: Single Family
E: Single Family
W: Single Family
SURROUNDING ZONING: N "A" Residential District
S : "A" Residential District; _
E: Delhi Township
W: "A" Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan:
Low Density Residential 0-7 DU/acre
Developer's Proposal :
This is a request by Richard Remsing and Dave Bowker for final
plat approval of a proposed subdivision to be known as New
Horizon. This plat, containing approximately 7 . 2 acres, is
located in the 6700 Block of Aurelius Road, south of Dell Road
and north of Willoughby Road. The plat contains thirty-seven
(37 )2 lots for single family residential development. The
property is zoned "A" Residential District and permits the
development of single family homes . The Southeast Area
2 See Review and Analysis .
27 _
PLANNING BOARD P-1-94 , New Horizons Subdivision PAGE 28
Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential
development in this area.
Review and Analysis :
The final plat as submitted appears to be in substantial
conformance with the final preliminary plat approved by the
Planning Board on June 21, 1994 . Initially, the developers
provided a street connection to the abutting subdivision,
South Pines, south of the proposed subdivision, which was
designated and recorded for "future road" purposes . The City
of Lansing met with the proprietor of Outlot "A" in South
Pines subdivision for the purpose of acquiring the deed to the
outlot. Subsequently, the proprietor of the proposed
subdivision, New Horizon, also met with the City to discuss
the future road. All parties agreed that, given the design
of the new subdivision, there is little necessity for the road
connection, and that these lots should be used for building
purposes as opposed to a connecting street.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of staff that the final plat of New
Horizon Subdivision be approved as amended with the following
six conditions :
1 . That all public improvements as required by the Lansing
Subdivision Regulations and the Michigan Subdivision
Control Act be adhered to;
2 . That all lots be graded so surface water will drain
therefrom so as not to adversely affect adjacent
properties ;
3 . That the developer utilize an underground electrical
distribution system as specified in Section 1238 . 08 of
the Lansing Subdivision Regulation of the Zoning Code;
4 . That the necessary easements be provided for the
installation of utilities;
5 . That the requirements of all responding agencies be
compiled with;
6 . That restrictions be placed on the face of the Plat
prohibiting access from Lots 22, 23, and 36 to Aurelius .
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\p194fppa
c:\wp\data\p1anbd\pbrept92.094
t
I i I I KwTlAND sUBur.biLIN I i
RETARDED IN USER 20 OF PLATS, 1 1
PAGE 2. '1JGHAM ' RECORDS. ' ' NEW HORIZON
I I I I I I 1
I
2 i 3 � a i s � a � a
SUBDIVISION
q — CITY OF LANSING. INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
g a 7
9 5 - a 2 —�
Kb' mo7 saw i07 3'k4r 124 rw
saw 7aoo• {
10 BOWER DPoVE r 1 ei ou yew
• - I � QM
I♦M•
�V+^ 1r• t1MR b0
LLr rpOA
Q 4
$ >> 31 32 33 N
.kl E g 34 35 3a S 37 + N SCA WAP
LE
B �
12
O �1 "al H
1
<
13 30 8 29 E 25 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 24 $ e$OPRIETOR
$ RICHARD W. REMSING
AND DAVID BOWER
at ItT 756 N. EDGAR ROAD
ur saeC �aoC �aoo oC MASON, MICH. 4885-4
PHONE. (517) 676-2712
14 k REMSING DRIVE
{a �a R
/ROfT
15
16 17 1a 19 tz 20 21 a 22 23
$ $ $ $ s d s
0x_w ROC
I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I
1 I I I I 1 1 I I I
a i 7 i a 1 i 5 i 4 i 3 i 2 t i olu..a rn
I SOUTH PINES' � i ST HENS—KYES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I I I I 1 I RETARDED IN USER 39 OF PLATS. I I CoxsnTDM Ii?7oval tE k BIJRFI7II1L1
I I I I I PACES 19 — 20. INGK M C'OU11SY RECORDS �'^"`�•"� n w 1`� d����/�+�
I 1 I I I
1 I 1 I I I
N
l0
PAGE 30
P-1-94, NEW HORIZON SUB.
OFF 6700 BLK. AURELIUS RD. S. OF DELL RD.; N. OF WILLOUGHBY RD.
. ... �. _
non•nt ,,, ., ,,, �13�. 1 -I.- - - --, ,- - - - - - - -�,'74�4;?:���,i�la��llj
lo
TTLrrrrr
I _ I I luul
/ -------------A� ----- 33�
I oPokd 05'
10
� �`loc
^ti6 o"nn. SE-Ir
- 5uhdvV151ar1
cl
._,
1.�.' '.•` '�, .;, err si' n
ST
ly
+ „
nv 1�
d
1 I•' f' . 1 I I
I I I I
T 16 I�,+i s • + O I ;s 1
I w1 i 1
1 I I
�',r . • r r . I i ,e ,i I
I I
0 p I 1 sl
Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 : 30 p.m. , Tenth Floor
City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
AGENDA
I . OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Excused Absences - Ted Forrest
C . Introductions
D. Approval of Agenda
II . HEARINGS - None
III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
IV. RECESS
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval : WEDNESDAY, September 7 , 1994
B. Committee Reports :
1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C"
Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-1"
Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential
District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove
three houses and cafeteria building and
construct new parish hall
b. P-1-94, New Horizon Subdivision, Plat Approval
C . Next meeting Wednesday, October 12, 1994, at
2 : 30 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room
2 . Urban Development Committee:
a. Next meeting Tuesday, October 11, 1994 at 4
p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room,
Second Floor, Washington Square Annex NOTE:
THIS MEETING MAY BE CANCELED.
3 . Executive Committee:
C. Report from Planning Manager:
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 2
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
a. Z-23-90, 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
b. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held)
C. Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, "DM-3"
Residential and "F-1" Commercial Districts to "DM-3"
Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove
three houses and cafeteria building and construct new
parish hall
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H. CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-
4088 TDD.
C:\WP\DATA\PLANHD\9-092094.AG