Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 Planning Board Minutes Oct-Dec FINAL • DRAFT TO CLERK 101195 APPROVED TO CLERK l V T D Minutes of the Regular Meeting �LANSING PLANNING BOARD 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall LAN )ildG C{I i CLERK 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan; Ruge; 6 members present; one vacancy. New member Ricardo R. Robinson expected at 8 p.m. , late because of a previous commitment. Ex officio Councilmembers: Lilly, present; Jones, not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary; Emil Winnicker, Development Manager; and William C. Rieske, Principal Planner. D. Approval of Agenda - approved as presented. II. HEARINGS A. Consolidated Plan-CIP Hearings Chairman Goolsby said this is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to express preferences for use of federal funds to address housing and priority non-housing community development needs in the City and preparation of the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan for Fiscal Year 1996-97. The City expects to receive a total of approximately $3.3 million dollars in funds through the Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant programs during the next fiscal year commencing July 1, 1996 and ending on June 30, 1997. It is also appropriate at this time for citizens to comment on their needs and priorities in regard to projects that should be funded through the City's Capitol Improvements Program for Fiscal Years 1997 to 2002. Any person in the audience wishing to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and address, sign the sign-in sheet, and provide us with your comments. Written proposals and requests will also be accepted for consideration. It is required that all verbal proposals made at this time also be submitted in writing to the Planning Department prior to November 10, 1995. MARY MARGARET MURPHY-WOLL, 210 FERGUSON. I represent the Lansing Neighborhood Council; thereafter I will change character. The Lansing Neighborhood Council has presented a budget. I ask you to look at it kindly, and note that we have not asked for any more money. I feel that the quality of service and our cooperation with the City in projects has been noteworthy. We ask that you consider it, and allocate PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 32 1995 - P. 2 us our funds for the next year. I will answer any.questions you may have because I am treasurer. I have a question to direct to Mr. Winnicker. Emil, when you are reallocating the CDBG funds from year to year, you have tasks or moneys that you have at one time said would be used for demolition of housing or the acquisition of housing to be demolished. My question is, is that money left in reserve to accomplish that purpose if it was not done in the year in which it was labelled to be done. Thank you very much. EMIL WINNICKER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. The answer is yes. ROSE NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER. The Housing Resource Center is located at 300 N. Washington Square in the Community Services Building here in downtown Lansing. We are an agency that has existed for over 22 years now, serving the Lansing community with housing issues, everything from helping homeless people find housing and obtain housing through home ownership programs including pre-home ownership counselling, one- on-one home ownership counselling through our home buyers program, down payment assistance and mortgage default counselling. Thank you for past support because our programs are supported in part by CDBG and HOME dollars. Another program we also have is transitional housing which is a supportive program to help homeless people gain important life skills so that they won't be homeless again. That is also a program that has been supported by the City in the past. In the last year we have certified over 470 clients with our home ownership program with our counselling. In addition to that, we have served over 50 people with one-on-one counselling where we have sat down and done intensive budget counselling and worked with them to get them ready to be stable homeowners. We have also helped people actually get into home ownership situations. We have a very effective program for getting people who normally would not be able to buy a home into a home ownership situation. I urge you to continue to support that program. While counselling is not always an easy issue to recognize as important, unlike a brick-and-mortar program such as building houses, it is very important that we take care of the families who are going to be home owners in the City as much as we take care of the physical structure. I urge you to continue supporting housing counselling activities, both the homeless assistance, the transitional type housing and the home ownership programs. One other point: I would also urge the City to continue working. Right now the City is working with community development organizations helping us form a partnership so that we can work stronger and closer together. I urge the City to continue with that kind of programming. Thank you. JIM HARKEN, 315 BINGHAM, REPRESENTING ASSOCIATION FOR THE BINGHAM COMMUNITY. I don't know why the area around Pennsylvania and Michigan is zoned multi-family. Whatever reason it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 3 was zoned multifamily has long since passed its usefulness. I would like you to consider rezoning that area as single-family. That is your part, and our part would be to possibly upgrade that neighborhood. With the number of people there, in terms of those single-family homes, if you look, there are four and five mailboxes on a single-family house. I would like to see that converted back to a single-family neighborhood. Another thing, I have petitions from the neighbors in that area, over one hundred. One group is from Green Oaks, and the other is from our neighborhood. The petition says, we the residents and property owners in the vicinity of 223 S. Pennsylvania are in opposition to Special Land Use petition SLU-14-95 (at this point interrupted by Chairman Goolsby who instructed Mr. Harken to comment under III Comments from the audience) . We do have a group organization and I would like to see our neighborhood association possibly, even though we do not have a proposal before you, get some of that money to buy up some houses in our neighborhood that are vacant right now and let us fix them up and maybe rent them. We do not have a proposal, but I would like you to at least think about that. If you want a proposal, we will give it to you. SUSAN CHRISTIAN, , LISC (LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION), 301 ALLEN, LANSING. This is the sixth time that we have come to you with a request for funding for our technical assistance and training program to pass the building program here in Lansing, supporting the nonprofit housing developers in the City who are producing affordable housing in the center-city neighborhoods. You have a five-page packet with a PR piece about our program. I want to explain how LISC works (held up visual aid) . LISC is a national organization. The Lansing office is a field office of the national LISC program. They provide us with funding directly from the national donors, like major insurance companies, corporations and foundations. We do local fund-raising here--corporations, foundations, banks--and we send it out with a lot of value added with additional training and technical assistance programming as well as operating support, and send it out to the nonprofit housing groups that are doing housing development and neighborhood revitalization activities in Lansing's neighborhoods. In the material provided, you will see that for every dollar that the City has invested with LISC, we have been able to generate about $5. Well over $1.5 million dollars has been generated from outside sources and brought into the City. I urge you to consider providing funding again this year for the LISC program. Thanks for your previous support for LISC. PAMELA DZIESUPEK, 1028 BEMENT STREET. We are both asking that you safeguard the money for 1997 for demolition. A house next to me has been boarded up now for over two years. The foundation is caving into the basement. The windows have been broken and were boarded up after I called Building Safety. I was also told that the house was going to be demolished, but that there was no money for demolition. I am asking that you save the money for '97 so that we can use it towards PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 4 homes that do need to be taken down. The house is an awful sight. It smells. I have to smell this house. There are rodents and cats that go underneath. Children broke in before the windows were boarded. It is an eyesore. The neighbors are asking. If a petition is needed, I will do it. The house needs to be torn down, and the money needs to be saved for that purpose. TROY SPITZLEY, 1208 BEMENT, here in support of Pam. The house is next door to her at 1100 Bement Street. It is our understanding that there was money set aside to have this house demolished this year, that there was $85,000 allocated in the budget for demolition. This house is beyond saving. It has been boarded up for two years, the foundation is missing under most of the house. It is ready to fall in on its own. Pam called this year to have the house demolished, as the City instructed, but was told there are no funds to do this. We are asking that you safeguard that money and consider money for demolition purposes. Chairman Goolsby asked if anyone else wished to speak. Seeing no one, that concludes the public hearing. This matter is referred to the Urban Development Committee, meeting next on Tuesday, October 10, 1995 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room in the City Hall Annex, Second Floor. Chairman Goolsby belatedly introduced Councilmember Lilly, an ex officio member of the Board. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Chairman Goolsby read communications received today regarding Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan Avenue. Letter from David L. Muylle, 301 Rumsey Avenue, addressed to the Planning Office. "My name is David Muylle and I reside with my family at 301 Rumsey Ave. , which is one block north of the site under consideration. I am opposed to changing the zoning on this site to one which would allow the destruction of three residential houses, and construction of a commercial type building. I drive past this site at least once a day to reach my home. The residential homes currently on the site provide a nice buffer, or "gateway" into our neighborhood. Changing the zoning to allow the destruction of these houses would mean not only the loss of our gateway, it would also mean the permanent loss of potential homes for people moving into our neighborhood. The changing of the zoning of this site to allow for more intensive use is contrary to the whole idea of keeping commercial and residential areas separate so they can both thrive. I understand that the current landowner has needs that can't be met with the current facilities. However we, the neighborhood and the landowner, need to explore more creative solutions than just knocking down houses and building a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. Again, I urge you to leave the zoning as it is and allow the houses to stay as a logical barrier between the commercial, and residential areas in our neighborhood. Sincerely, David L. Muylle.11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 5 Also received a memorandum addressed to Mr. Greiner, Chairperson, Zoning and Ordinance Committee from Brian C. Jeffries, Attorney for petitioners of Z-9-94 concerning a neighborhood poll of residents on Jerome and Rumsey Streets at the request of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. We will be taking a recess after public comments for the Urban Development Committee to consider two items. At that time, the memorandum will be placed on the table for audience perusal during recess. FR. WILLI" J. KOENIGSKNECHT, PASTOR, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, 1531 E. NHCHIGAN AVENUE. I am here tonight to seek approval of Z-9-94. We are asking that our entire property be rezoned to a residential classification in order to construct a new parish hall. This new hall will be placed on the northeast corner of our property, at Jerome and Rumsey. This project will necessitate the removal of three houses, along with our cafeteria building. We were very cognizant of the residential character existing across from our property. Accordingly, we believe we have designed a parish hall that is residential, not institutional, in nature. We see the construction of a parish hall as absolutely necessary if we are to be able to provide all the necessary services to our parishioners. It is vital to our survival as a church and as a parish. I have asked two speakers to provide details and to address concerns raised by planning staff and the Zoning and Ordinance Committee last Wednesday. These speakers will need eight to ten minutes. Mr. Chairman, could we have permission to do this? Fr. Koenigsknecht also asked supporters to stand; approximately 56 people arose. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to allow two speakers to speak for up to ten minutes each; voice vote; Ayes 6; nays: 0; motion carried unanimously. KEN DARGA, 220 ALLEN ST., REPRESENTING CHURCH. I would like to address two sets of concerns raised at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting: intensity of use and blockface integrity. When planners talk about intensity of use, there are several concerns, namely, aesthetics, noise, traffic flow and parking. Regarding aesthetics, appearance of church property will be improved in two ways. The new church hall will look better than the old cafeteria proposed to be razed. The fence around the main parking lot would be moved back, and landscaping would be added between the fence and the sidewalk along Jerome Street. Regarding noise, the new hall has been designed to minimize noise. The windows of the building would be nonopening; there will be no building entrances on the Jerome St. side of the building. Entrances would be toward the center of the church property. Another way of reducing noise deals with the ox roast. Some outdoor events could be moved into the new hall, thus reducing noise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 6 Traffic flow would improve because the Jerome Street parking lot entrance and exit would be eliminated. There would be an entrance on Michigan Avenue, which would result in a slower exit from the lot. Concerning parking, the biggest events of the church are the services on Christmas and Easter. There is no parking problem even then. I surveyed parking during the 9:30 Mass on Easter Sunday and counted eight street parking spaces available on every side of the church block except Michigan Avenue. The hall is proposed for 400 people; the church capacity is 507; parking within 300 feet of the church is adequate for a church accommodating 700 persons. Excessive parking demand would result only during large simultaneous events in the parish hall, church and/or gymnasium. Resurrection does not hold simultaneous Sunday events except worship services. There is no way to guarantee that policies won't change in the future, but if you plan a big event, you should first check the day and time for other events that may be scheduled. We could not have 700 people at an event even if we wanted to. We do not want to have a parking problem, for parishioners or for neighbors. If you look at parish events, you will see that most are not subject to size expansion. School events are limited by the number of school families (about 128 families) . Elementary schools basketball games don't draw huge crowds and don't bring in a lot of traffic. After the parish hall is built, canceling activities because of space conflicts will be less likely, so the gym can be used as a gym--for classes and basketball practice. Other events currently in the gym can be in the parish hall. These gym activities would cause little or no parking or traffic. A final comment about parking and the ox roast--it involves parking on residential streets because tents take up the parking room on the parking lot, pushing parking onto residential streets. If the hall is built, events could be moved indoors and the parking lot used for parking. A second issue is maintaining blockface integrity--the planning principle of having residential housing located across the street from other residential housing. This principle manages the interface between residential and nonresidential uses, and is behind the City's reluctance to allow the church to demolish three vacant houses on Jerome and Rumsey Streets. The ideal of having residential facing residential has not been a universal requirement on the east side (cited Allen St. School, Bingham St. School, Fairview School, Foster Community Center, and Pilgrim Congregational Church) . It is not uncommon on the east side for community use facilities to have houses across the street from, but not in front of them. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the entire block for community use facility. For further information, see the handout which discusses the concern about the three vacant houses, the demand for east side housing, and housing vacancy rates in area census statistics. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 7 BRIAN JEFFRIES, 3229 MOORES-RIVER DRIVE, LANSING, REPRESENTING CHURCH. (Presented history and background of project, issues addressed, and actual and proposed accomplishments.) Church representatives attended Eastside Neighborhood Organization meetings, and as a result reduced square footage of the proposed hall from 15,000 sq. ft. to 13,000 sq. ft. ; reduced occupancy from 500 to 400; and removed Jerome St. curb cuts. The church received a resolution of support from ENO. We appeared before the Board about a year ago and asked that the matter be tabled. We were instructed by Planning Board staff to look at other alternatives, including bringing the hall from Jerome and Rumsey out to Michigan Avenue. A feasibility study and economic analysis indicated a cost of $1 to $1.5 million more to do that. The initial estimate of the hall cost was $1.5 million. Moving the hall to Michigan Avenue is not economically feasible. We met with Planning staff regarding saving the three houses by moving them to new locations in the neighborhood. There are no lots available, based on tax records we have looked at. We have discussed a pay-to-take program where we will offer the money that it would cost to demolish the homes to someone who will take the homes off our hands. We have tried to deal with the housing preservation issue. Lastly, we took a poll of the neighborhood. We presented the Zoning and Ordinance Committee with petitions of over 750 signatures. The Committee also asked us to poll affected houses along Rumsey and Jerome. Of the six surrounding houses, only one is in opposition; the remainder support this and have signed the petition. Of the rest of the houses along Jerome, two oppose it, and the rest support it. We feel we have the support of the neighborhood. We listened to the concerns of the Planning Office and have worked very hard this year to address the concerns. We asked the issue be removed from the table and are back before you with the proposal of a year ago. It is not an issue of not wanting to change it; it's an issue of money or circumstance that we can't do. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land use, the Master Plan designates the block for community facility. The whole block is community facility. We are not asking to expand our boundaries. We want to develop within the boundaries as a community facility, which is consistent with the Master Plan. Some benefits to the neighborhood: We are going to remove curb cuts on Jerome. One thing absent from the staff report is that as the Sparrow expansion develops, traffic that currently goes down Jerome toward the schools and Sparrow on Jerome will lessen. There will be greater setback requirements and landscaping. The facility is residential in nature; it looks like a big house. We are downzoning at least half of this property from commercial to residential, for community use facility. Please consider the whole context of issue. The Master Plan talks about social, economic and physical impacts; look at these when considering the implementation of the master plan and the rezoning. This provides a good transitional character for the neighborhood--you've got commercial, residential, and community facility right in the middle of it. Residents use the facility; this is a Catholic church based on a parish; people attending the church live in the parish surrounding the church. They are going to utilize the parish hall. The church is an integral part of the neighborhood. From an economic point of view, they must do some things to survive. They are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 8 losing parishioners, so it is an economic issue for them. They are doing what they have to do on a long-term basis to survive and to maintain their presence there. Lastly, on the use issue, it is being downzoned to residential, "DM-3". People using the facility must be parishioners. They must provide security and insurance and observe time limits. We have done everything possible to conform with the Master Plan; we will continue to work with you and with the neighborhood. We ask that you approve this. RICK KIBBEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, FOR MANY YEARS CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. SERVED TWO TERMS ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. PROFESSIONAL PLANNER IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Speaking tonight as an individual, on the question of process. Reviewing the way neighborhoods work with the Planning Department, neighborhoods and the City work on a comprehensive plan to iron out differences before it gets to the Board. The neighborhood agrees to learn the code and to keep within the guidelines of the code and plan. Communication is facilitated between the neighborhood and petitioners. The neighborhood does a lot of work on petitions. The Board's role is to reinforce the negotiation process. A petitioner might hire an attorney, go to the Planning Director and Mayor, but up to now, nobody has caved in. The result is sending people back to the negotiating table for an outcome acceptable to all parties. The process requires a commitment to neighborhoods, good planning, and the ability to take heat. We have a petitioner who refuses to negotiate. The neighborhood met with them almost a dozen times. It appears to us that there are solutions that allow a parish hall. We are talking about orientation and size of the hall, solutions that won't intrude into the neighborhood. The petition only adds 6 parking spaces--it hasn't changed. Instead of looking at new options, the petitioner hired an attorney and created a PR campaign. It looks like a petition on the north side from a couple years ago. This deal can be worked out; all you have to do is nothing. Until the petitioner creates a plan conforming to standard site plan review principles, that doesn't intensify commercial uses in a residential neighborhood, that puts high traffic uses on the arterial on the south side of the traffic, your alternative is to cave in and toss out the planning process that has worked, and toss out the staff analysis. If you do so, word will get out to the neighborhood groups that when they turn up pressure, the code goes out the window. You set the rules for good planning and negotiated settlement. The neighborhood determines when their concerns have been satisfied. I urge you to table the petition pending serious negotiation. KATE KOSKINEN, 1409 JEROME, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF EASTFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE CHURCH PROPERTY. I am not here to talk for the group but rather on my own personal behalf. I have worked for a year to enrich and build our neighborhood, to create an environment that will attract new residents, to encourage neighborhood growth. I want to share with you all the photo album of our neighborhood that shows a clear picture of our perceptions of our neighborhood. The church is a good neighbor; it is an integral part of our PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 9 neighborhood; we need it to be healthy. The same for Sparrow, Fabiano's Candies, and Bancroft Flowers, but we can't allow zoning changes to eat into our neighborhood. When it happens, the houses along the commercial properties do not do well; they do not maintain their single family status as well as properties that border other residential properties. Zoning changes are detrimental to the integrity of most neighborhoods. We are going to be faced with this repeatedly. It will be hard to encourage home ownership if we can't guarantee residential next door because a business might locate there. We need to draw the line against rezoning, and stop it now. We have enough parking lots bordering homes, enough rental homes caused by those infringements. We don't need any more. (Also distributed copy of Eastfield Neighborhood brochure.) DON AYERS-MARSH, 1531 JEROME STREET. I have a comment about the poll that was taken. We were not polled, nor were the Woods, who live in the third house down from the corner. I also know that a couple on Rumsey are split on their opinion of the parish hall. It is not true that one of the six houses is in opposition. The poll is not accurate. (Read statement in opposition by Mrs. Ayers-Marsh, who was not present, and showed photo of their house at corner of Jerome and Rumsey, and photos of bottles on yards, taken during ox roast. The letter stated concerns about demolition of the three homes, the church's indifference to neighborhood complaints about church renters and also about the annual ox roast, potential traffic congestion in the neighborhood, landscaping and maintenance of the proposed hall; and the role of alcohol consumption in the use of the building. JIM HARKEN, 315 BINGHAM. I have a petition with 85 signatures in opposition to a special land use for 223 S. Pennsylvania. Probably 30 or 35 from Green Oaks are also in opposition. Joe and Cliftine Bunkley bought the house at 223 S. Pennsylvania. They want to put ten kids from Highfields there. Their primary goal is financial (they don't live in the neighborhood) . I asked them if they would sell the house to the neighborhood association; they said if the price was right. Their primary concern is not for the kids, it's monetary. I have the highest regards for Highfields. They have 48 kids, and probably that many and more staff. Before the kids came, they were in the lock-up under twenty-four-hour guard, having committed some of the most violent crimes imaginable. They will be under twenty-four-hour security at 223 S. Pennsylvania. I object to someone buying a house, and going to Highfields proposing to get about $100 per kid to put them in the neighborhood, strictly for the money and not for the kids. I ask that you uphold our objections in the petitions. We are trying to get the area downzoned, for more single-family rather than multifamily. We ask for your help. Chairman Goolsby thanked Mr. Harken for his understanding that this is the appropriate time to bring this matter to the Board's attention. The item is before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, to be taken up Wednesday, October 11, 1995 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room. Chairman Goolsby welcomed the newest member of the Board, Mr. Ricardo R. Robinson, sworn in at last night's City Council meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 31 1995 - P. 10 JANE NELSON, 15172 JEROME STREET. I live directly across from Resurrection Church. I want to go on record as opposing this rezoning. I appreciate the downzoning from commercial to residential, but I oppose tearing down 3 homes and the erection of a community facility, and I oppose traffic congestion at high intensity use times. Traffic problems will not be alleviated by the new facility. No one polled either me or my landlady. I have lived in the second-story flat of the home directly across for two years. I hope to own property in this area. I would not purchase property across the street from a community facility. If the facility goes up, I would not be interested in buying here. WAYNE WOOD, 1521 JEROME. A social hall to be located in a residential neighborhood would have a negative impact on the quality of life of those neighbors whose residences face the petitioner's property on three sides. I have resided for forty years across the street from the proposed site, and contended with several nighttime activities carried out in the present meeting facility. One activity is bingo, operated like any other commercial bingo game around town. At present it is operated in the commercial area on Michigan, but probably it would be moved into the proposed hall. Would this gaming activity improve the quality of life in the neighborhood? I think not. Another use of the present meeting hall is for weekend nighttime gatherings of several hundred people often not ending until midnight or later, with highly-amplified dance bands and alcoholic beverages. Sometimes they have been an embarrassment to parish officials, and a frustrating maddening experience for neighbors. The proposed hall would bring these events even closer to the residential blocks. A newer larger rental hall will draw more people more often, with more frequent nighttime gatherings in our residential area. Lansing neighborhood organizations' primary mission was to stabilize and improve the quality of life in older parts of the City. If viable neighborhoods are to be encouraged and maintained in Lansing, please give precedence to neighborhood community rights over proposed commercial intrusion. Deny the petition. DOLORES WOOD, 1521 JEROME. The issue is not does the church have the right to build a parish hall, it is do they have the right to build a parish hall that intrudes into our neighborhood. Must this enormous building, taking up more land than the church itself, be built when it could be downsized and placed closer to Michigan Avenue? Good cities encourage places to hold celebrations, and vibrant cities also foster residences to keep people living in the City. They do not permit depletion of housing so that people can celebrate. The three houses across the street from us are empty; forty years ago, there were six houses plus the convent. The proposed hall would be an immense intrusion into the residential area of a fragile neighborhood. It threatens our stability. If you deny this petition, the church can come up with a suitable gathering place at an appropriate location. Nonbinding goodwill assurances have done in many a neighborhood. I hope the integrity of the staff analysis, based on fact and impartial judgment and not promises, will be maintained. The solution is compromise. A parish hall can be built, but not at the sacrifice of housing, south of the proposed location. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 11 DICK INGERSOLL, 124 RUMSEY across the street from the proposed hall. The church has been a good neighbor. There has been noise from time to time, but where hasn't there? If down the road, Resurrection goes out of business, what will happen? Will it revert back to single-family residential? MS LOVE. The south half of the block is zoned commercial east and west along Michigan. The northwest corner of the block is zoned for multiple family residential, 11DM-3". The remaining property where the houses are located is "C" Residential, a one- or two-family classification. Once a property is rezoned, it is changed, with no reverter clauses. Zoning goes with the property. The requested zoning is "DM-311, which is multiple family. If rezoned, and the church left and the entire block leveled, it could be used for multiple-family residential (apartment buildings) . It could be used for single- family--they are not prohibited--but that is not the most intense use for the property. MR. INGERSOLL. If the church leaves, let's set a precedent and revert the property back to single-family. MS. LOVE. This would be conditional or covenant zoning. By federal and state law, it is not legal. You cannot condition something in the future. It's either right or not right for the property. We don't have the ability to change this. DELIA THRASHER, 1530 VINE, one block north and one door down from the proposed site, speaking in opposition. The properties have been poorly maintained. They are an eyesore. I don't believe a building on the property will be well-maintained. They make promises about that and about respecting the integrity of the neighborhood, but I don't know that has been shown in the past with their events and their lack of respect for residents' complaints. There hasn't been much respect shown here tonight regarding adherence to the time frame, nor the booing and other noises. How will they respect an on- going relationship with the neighborhood when these issues still prevail? Thank you. BETH MONTEITH, 1435 VINE ST. I live in the Eastfield Neighborhood Association area, Holmes-Marshall and Vine-Michigan, with about 160 houses. I love churches, and Resurrection, and have attended many events there, and believe it is an important stabilizing part of our community. I also support and believe in win-win. We can figure out a good solution, how to allow Resurrection what they need and allow the community to enjoy making a come- back. This is not the first or last instance of church encroachment--we had it at South Baptist, at Immanuel Lutheran--we have it here. Houses are purchased, not to improve the neighborhood, but to eventually turn into another use. You stood firm with the Baptists and the Lutherans; now here are the Catholics. I think they may deserve the same consideration. We want you to help Resurrection be the neighbor it wants to be; we want to be good neighbors to Resurrection. This can have a win-win outcome; we appeal to you to help that happen by not changing the zoning but by going back to the table for a solution we can all live with. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 12 TIM MADDEN, 1530 VINE. I am a block north and around a couple corners; I join in the spirit of David Muylle's letter, who lives across the street. When I come home from teaching on the south side of Lansing, I love to enter into a residential area. I know that a rectangular prism set at 1500 Jerome Street would block neighborhood integrity. I moved from a rental dwelling across to 1530 Vine because of the improvements and enrichment that I saw going on in the area. It isn't just the ell-shaped configuration of houses that oppose the construction site; what will be lost will be the block-integrity idea. Three homes are now in a dilapidated state. What will happen to a new construction on that site? Will it be maintained in the same way? I oppose the construction and I hope you feel the same way. GARY NOVAK, 1445 VINE. I have lived in the neighborhood for 12 years. The main issue here is the idea of scale. Our neighborhood is composed of small homes with small features integrated into a composition of small delicate features. To place in that neighborhood an incongruous, large-scale building would be offensive and disruptive to the whole. I love Resurrection, and the area, but I believe there is a harmonious compromise we could all live with that would require more planning, a scaled-down proposal, and negotiation. I recommend this proposal be denied. Public comment portion concluded. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, for a 15-minute recess for an Urban Development Committee meeting to consider Act-16-95; voice vote; Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Goolsby announced the appointment of Mr. Robinson to the Urban Development Committee; Ms. LeBlanc will also serve tonight as the fourth member. A. RECESS IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 19, 1995 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of September 19, 1995, with the following emendations: P. 4, fourth paragraph, The proposed special land USE. . . ; P. 9, Paragraph 9, .have to show they do not ea:iy need ANY more than 43 spaces. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; minutes of September 19, 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Greiner, 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 13 three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. The Committee met on September 27, 1995 in a special meeting to address this issue. After much debate and consideration, a motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole, which will meet later on this evening. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, October 11, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. a. Act-16-95, N. Capitol Ave. at North St, Vacation of Capitol Ave. ROW The Urban Development Committee met and considered two items: (1) Act-16-95, N. Capitol Avenue at North St. , Vacation of N. Capitol Right-of-way. The Committee met several times on this, and after some discussion, a motion was made and seconded, to recommend vacation of North Capitol Right-of- way between North Street and the former Willis St. right-of-way, reserving easements for public utilities and access by emergency vehicles, and further that the right-of-way be vacated only after the City attorney's acceptance of mutual easement agreements, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to all properties, including refuse collection and the ability to extend private utilities within the right-of-way, and also the approval of all proposed improvements within the vacated right-of-way by the Department of Public Service and Parks and Parks and Recreation Department. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend vacation of North Capitol Right-of-way between North Street and the former Willis St. right-of-way, reserving easements for public utilities and access by emergency vehicles, and further that the right-of-way be vacated only after the City attorney's acceptance and approval of mutual easement agreements, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to all properties, including refuse collection and the ability to extend private utilities within the right-of-way, and also the approval of all proposed improvements within the vacated right-of-way by the Department of Public Service and Parks and Parks and Recreation Department. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 14 Ms. LeBlanc asked Mr. Ruge if he would accept additions: In "mutual easement agreements", we added "IN RECORDABLE FORM," and in the next line down, "access to all properties", we added "ABUTTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY." Mr. Ruge accepted the additions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-16-95, N. Capitol Ave. at North St, Vacation of Capitol Ave. ROW was APPROVED. b. Seven Block Citizens District Council (CDC), ordinance to reduce the required CDC board membership. This ordinance amendment is to implement the August 15 Planning Board recommendation to reduce the size of the Seven Block CDC. The reduction was at the request of the CDC to facilitate its decision-making process. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The staff recommended approval. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment, and more importantly, to give the amendment immediate effect. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment, and to give the amendment immediate effect. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; the motion to reduce the size requirements of the Seven Block Citizens District Council was APPROVED. Mr. Ruge announced that the next meeting of the Urban Development Committee would be TUESDAY, October 10, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3. Executive Committee The Executive Committee met tonight, continuing to review and revise the procedures of operations for this body. This evening we voted to recommend to the Board the approval of the revised rules of procedure; the revisions will be in the next Planning Board packet. C. Committee of the Whole Z-9-94, 1500B1k. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, 11DM-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. Chairman Goolsby said for purposes of the Committee of the Whole, the Vice Chair of the Planning Board sits as Chair of the Committee, but, because Mr. Greiner is still serving as Chair of the Zoning and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 15 Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc will act as Chair of the Committee of the Whole so that Mr. Greiner can freely discuss Z-9-94 in his position as Chair of Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Chairman LeBlanc called the Committee to order. Mr. Greiner presented 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. Z-9-94 consists of construction of a parish hall on the site which includes removal of three homes on the northeast corner of the block bounded by Jerome, Custer and Michigan and Rumsey. The houses are zoned "C" Residential; the portion on Michigan is zoned "F-1" Commercial; the northwest portion is zoned "DM-3" Residential. To meet the parking requirement of the Zoning Code, "DM-3" was proposed over the entire site. The Zoning Ordinance allows public parking to be utilized within 300 feet of the site. "DM-3" would allow the church to be a conforming use and also would make the parking situation conforming. The site plan increases the number of parking places by seven, increases parking lot buffering and removes curb cuts along Jerome Street. The recommended site plan now includes access through the site from Custer to Rumsey, an exit on Michigan Avenue, and an increase in buffering along Custer and Jerome Street. The structure would be residential in nature, 13,500 square feet, one-story with shingle roof and brick siding. Access and orientation would be toward the other uses on the site. Proposed is a 20-foot setback, which does not exist with the existing houses. In the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan, the entire block is recommended for Community Facility use. Conversely, the current policy is to keep residential facing residential, where it exists. This proposal takes away residential structures from those fronting across Jerome and Rumsey. When it was tabled, the suggestion from staff was to keep residential uses of the church on the north side; their response was there is inadequate space and remodelling is too costly, therefore the original proposal stands. The church hall would be used on a daily basis, for feeding school children and for meetings and such special events as wedding receptions and funeral dinners. The Eastside Neighborhood Organization recommended approval, though it was not a unanimous decision. Issues discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting included the new facility which will increase both the number of functions and the size of the functions, resulting in an increased use of residential street parking. The current uses of the various church buildings would compound that problem. The facility is designed for sit-down functions of 400 persons, although the stated capacity of the building could be far in excess of that number, and legally could not be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 16 limited below the stated capacity, which probably would be close to 1,000. Hours of operation will generally be limited to 11 p.m. , with the exception of the annual ox roast, for which the church gets a variance to operate until midnight. The church intends to limit the facility's use to church members, since renting it out for non-church-related activities would require commercial zoning. While the church cannot vouch for the conduct of individuals attending functions, noise and other problems such as those mentioned relative to the ox roast are expected to be reduced, as the building will be air- conditioned, and not have windows that open on the residential sides. Food distribution at the ox roast is intended to be indoors. Although three residences will be removed, the church has offered those structures for moving to other sites, with financial assistance up to the cost of demolition. Once the property is rezoned to "DM-311, the City would have no control over any permitted use in "DM-3", other than setbacks, screening and buffering. Committee members expressed to the petitioner their desire and the importance of receiving current input from those residents facing the proposed site on both Jerome and Rumsey Street. The motions to recommend approval and denial of the petition both expired for lack of support, which brought us to recommending and bringing this matter to Committee of the Whole. Chairman LeBlanc passed the gavel for the purpose of making amendments to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report on Page 8, Paragraph 5. "I would PREFER TO SEE COMMERCIAL ON THE MICHIGAN AVENUE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAN HIGH-DENSITY APARTMENTS OVER THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY ]A-k to s-^^ Nischan wished to make a similar clarification, on Page 9, Paragraph 2. "In the time between the original analysis and now, THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS CHANGED THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OR RECOMMENDATION 1 haven't seen anything that tehangc -the analysis, in ." Mr. Nischan said it was his intent to reflect the continuity of their recommendation, rather than his own opinion. Mr. Goolsby said, so that the other members of the Board would know, he made the motion in committee to approve Z-9-94, and it failed for lack of a second. "My feeling, as I stated in the committee, going in, I was leaning against approval of this project, but the more questions we asked, the more I looked at the committee report, and importantly, the responses we received from the petitioner. I gravitated toward a position that I thought that the request should be approved. I understand the concerns of the neighborhoods regarding traffic, noise, etc. , and I think the petitioner knows we are sensitive to that, given the questions we have asked. But I am satisfied, after considering this matter, that having this hall for the functions probably would reduce the noise in the neighborhood with windows of insulated glass facing Jerome Street that do not open. Insulated glass makes a big difference. One thing we have to keep in mind, people kept referring to this as a commercial activity. In committee, I asked the question, can they conduct commercial activities on this property, and the answer is no, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 17 they cannot, if it is rezoned to "DM-3", because commercial activity is not permitted in this zone. It would be in violation of the zoning code if they conducted commercial activity, such as renting this out as a wedding hall to people who do not belong to the church. In response to a question about that, they indicated that they currently do not even let nonparishioners use their hall for a wedding. That policy will not change. The only increased use I can see after looking at all the facts and figures is perhaps an increase in wedding receptions. I understand that where they meet right now, it's very small and it's not conducive to larger wedding receptions. This facility would afford them an opportunity to have the larger wedding receptions. Except for the ox roast, they have a policy that all activities are concluded at 11 p.m. at night, which is not unreasonable. We have heard that the ox roast has created some problems in the neighborhood in the past. It is hard to assess. This facility in my opinion would facilitate, if there have been problems, eliminating those problems because many of the activities are going to be moved inside. Those are some of the concerns the neighbors have expressed. The crux of the issue for me, however, has been the three houses, and whether those three houses should be demolished. I don't like tearing down houses. I understand that efforts have been made to look at places to move these houses. It is costly. Apparently there is no property in a short distance that could accommodate these houses. The church has offered to pay up to the cost of demolition_ for the removal of the houses, moving them to another site, but it is an expensive proposition, and not likely to happen. The question is waste in the houses--did they create the waste? I am not satisfied with whether they did or not, but I am told the houses are not functional because they have lost major systems in the physical plant. Those things wear out in houses. I don't know that you can force somebody who doesn't want to, to put that kind of money back into the house. That doesn't deter my concern across the City about demolition of houses, but when we look at this zone, we are up against two policies that this Board is always struggling with, and these are the tough decisions when these policies butt heads. One is the whole issue of the houses, two is this facility in the Master Plan is designated for community facilities, and this hall would be a community facility. We can talk about architectural aspects; they have kept it to a single floor, which will help a lot. We get some positive things if we approve this; one, there will be no access on or off Jerome Street, which there currently is; and two, the whole property will be subject to our screening and buffering provisions, and through that process we can make the whole property look better. For all those reasons, as someone who was leaning against it, I felt, given all policy considerations, that the best thing to do was to approve this request." Mr. Nischan said "By way of background, since I introduced the other motion, I know the neighborhood well, and I live there; it is about a block-and-a-half neighborhood. There are two streets in it. When I hear the word commercial used, I know most of the people saying that aren't saying it having read the zoning ordinance. I take that to mean nonresidential kinds of use. The reason I introduced that motion: The original staff analysis concluded it would introduce a higher and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 18 incompatible level of intensity of nonresidential use than is present in the rest of the area. It cited a number of difficulties, parking, for example. We tend to minimize the statements about parking because if we redefine "DM-3", the parking standard drops. That defines away the problem; it does not define away the number of cars, by changing the definition. The original staff analysis concludes the intensity of use was higher; there was the issue of loss of housing stock versus that area being considered community facility; the third thing was the residential character of the neighborhood. The term used to describe the edifice is residential in style. I saw, for the first time the architect's sketch at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. It is a very attractive building, but to call it residential in style--I am not used to seeing residences that cover most of the block have vaulted ceilings. We don't have a lot of residences that look like that in our part of Lansing, so I don't know how it can be called a residential style. It doesn't look like the buildings downtown here, steel and glass, but it is noticeably not like other buildings in which people live in this area. So the staffs original recommendations made a great deal of sense to me. A year later, the project was resubmitted; the staff reaffirmed its position recommending that it be denied, because none of those issues had been addressed. On that residential appearance, were this building to go in, that would leave this neighborhood between Marshall and Pennsylvania one intersection with residential use on all four corners. One intersection only. That is why I characterized it as taking a very significant and large chunk out of the residential appearance and residential character of the neighborhood. In sum, I agreed with and understood the analysis that the staff made a year ago and reaffirmed again recently, and the elements that I put into it, just explained now, provided so you know why I felt it was important to support that." Mr. Ruge said "This has been a very difficult proposal for me. I have been dealing with this, it seems like forever. My problem is, whichever decision I make, I know that somebody in my neighborhood organization is going to be upset with me and think that I am a traitor, but I have this a lot. What it really gets down to is, it's a trade-off between the benefits to the church and the benefits to the neighborhood for doing this versus the harm to the neighborhood. I think the benefits to the church are self-evident, and while the people who oppose it probably don't think there are any benefits to the neighborhood by this development, I do see several. The biggest one I see is that harsh terrible parking lot that would never be allowed to develop today will be vastly improved, along with a lot of vegetation along the north side of the building. The way I have come down with all the juggling I have been doing trying to figure out how to vote is that the benefits to the church and the fact that this was going to become more unified and much softer in its appearance are going to outweigh the harm that is going to occur by the increased parking on the City streets. Thank you." Mr. Greiner said "I looked at this for a long time and have found it is one of the most difficult to decide, primarily for the reason that there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 19 are conflicting policies that we have to deal with, in relation to the fact that the Master Plan says that this is a community facility, and having residential facing residential, and preserving housing wherever possible. We have heard from people on both sides of the issue. It is apparent that no matter what we do, we are not going to please everyone. Although it was noted that it was not a unanimous decision, they did get approval from one of the neighborhood groups, and they do have approval from at least a majority of the property owners who will face this facility. One of the things that I started thinking about, though, when I listened to the people who did talk against this proposal, is that no matter what we do, or whether or not we turn this down, they are not going to get what they want on that corner, namely, three respectable, inhabited houses. The houses are not habitable now, or for the most part are not, and as long as the church is in a position where they do not have the parish hall, or a place or a means to build that parish hall, I don't see them repairing the houses and putting tenants in them. The only thing that is likely to happen is that the houses will deteriorate to the point where they have to be torn down. That won't solve the problem either, because then the houses won't be there. The only thing we can look forward to is some development on that corner, and the only logical thing is something church-related. For that reason, I am leaning toward favorably approving this, only because I don't see a viable alternative." Mr. Goolsby said "I concur in what Mr. Greiner said. Staff suggested that they look at putting this facility on another part of the property more toward Michigan Avenue. The church looked at that and supplied us with figures saying it is not feasible because of the cost. I am not sitting in judgment whether or not I should deny something that the Master Plan recognizes because the church has made a decision based on economics. I think they are in the best position to judge that. What Mr. Greiner and Mr. Ruge said about softening this with this facility where it is really does cause great benefit to the neighbors. I realize that right now they don't think that is the case; I think that long term it will be, with the landscaping and traffic improvements near Sparrow. I think the traffic is going to be greatly reduced over the next four or five years, and this project is going to help by closing off Jerome. At least it will be greatly reduced over what it is right now. From that standpoint, I am not about to deny something to someone because they make a determination that it is not economically feasible to put it onto another piece of property. As Mr. Greiner points out, Mr. Ruff has told the church that he would not approve a demolition permit while this matter is pending. The reality of the situation is that whatever our decision is, and City Councils, there is nothing to prevent the church the day after this is denied to come in and pull demolition permits for these houses. From the information we have about these houses, that is exactly what is going to happen. Then we are nowhere. We are in the same position; then it is a lose-lose for both; they don't have their facility, and the neighborhood has a barren spot at the corner of Jerome and Rumsey. While we all may think that this facility would be served better at a better position on this .site, the fact is that this fits PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 20 in with the property, and I personally think it will benefit the neighborhood." Mr. Nischan said "What is troublesome to me is, I feel a similar kind of dilemma. I see a parish that has people very highly committed, enthusiastic and dedicated to getting a parish hall and to. having functions that can appropriately support parish membership. One can't help but being supportive of that. The other side is that most of those appearing in advocacy don't live in the area affected. Of the people who are colored green on the handout I have, one showed up. Part of what is troublesome to me is, while I want to support it, I am hearing two other troublesome things contrary to that. One is leaving a very shallow-in-depth neighborhood with only one residential intersection on Jerome. The other thing is the tenor of accommodation, rather than suggesting that the church engage on good-faith negotiation around alternatives suggested by the staff. It is troublesome when I hear accommodation-oriented discussion that says they could do even worse if we don't cooperate. That is what a lot of it sounds like to me: Let the houses deteriorate, and we should approve it, because if not they will let them deteriorate further and remove them. If we say they will finally do something about the strip of parking on the other side where the houses aren't as well maintained and about greenery and so on, that is troublesome, because it says if you don't let us do what we want, we will make it even worse. That should not be a criterion for us to respond favorably. Otherwise we put ourselves in a position of rewarding a certain recalcitrance toward the objectives of neighborhood participation and cooperation and good will. Those things are troublesome. I want to support the parish having adequate facilities, but I also want to support the neighborhood being able to maintain its residential character, which is hard with only one intersection that is residential. The barrier that seems to me to exist has simply been willingness of the petitioner to consider alternatives. So having said that, I want to return to the fact that it seems important not to focus on benefits that could accrue, or things that could be made worse if we don't approve it, but rather to return to the analysis, the staff criteria, the bases for decision-making." Ms. Marshall said "I want to agree with everybody else who has said that this is a really difficult issue. It is a decision between the principles and the practicalities of the situation, because, I agree, it seems somewhat manipulative, if you will, helping out the neighborhood with green space, and getting rid of unsightly buildings as a condition of the church having its facility. I understand the need for the facility, and I support the church's efforts and all that any church does, but I feel that there is some manipulation of the sense of the principles of the zoning process, bringing in different people to the meeting than maybe live right in the neighborhood. I am not sure how I am going to vote at this point, because I feel our position as a Board should be based more on the principles of the zoning and the staff recommendations than some of the practical issues or the problems that could happen if we don't support the change. Not unlike what many of you have said, I am torn about this, too." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 21 Mr. Goolsby said "Regarding the staff recommendations, I think the staff report pointed out some problems in this neighborhood that exist today, and we are trying to deal with that. The question is, can we make the neighborhood better by approving this? I think we can. In regard to the houses, I am not clear precisely about the history of them, how long the church has had them, etc. , but the church has not come in and threatened us. The church has said we would like to put our community facility on this corner, the northeast corner of our property. From what I understand, they have compromised to a degree. The only thing they have not compromised on is the placement of the facility, where they feel it is going to serve their needs. They have compromised on the size of the facility, they have compromised on the number of people to use the facility; for example, they have agreed to post it for 400, and yet this building, if you figure the square footage, can handle far greater numbers than 400. They have also agreed to remove the curb cuts on Jerome, which means that the traffic will not be directed toward Jerome, they are going to have to exit either on Michigan Avenue, onto Rumsey, or the other outlet, Custer. The only thing that I can see that the church has not compromised on is the placement of the facility. I think they have compromised on a number of other items. In terms of the green space, what brings that into play is the fact that since we are rezoning the property, it has been the position of the Planning Department, that then subjects the entire piece of property to screening and buffering. That principle is what they used to require the screening and buffering of South Central Baptist. Anyone who goes around Resurrection, with all due respect, would say that it is a very ugly site because there is no screening and buffering. If this is approved, we can impose that, and the parking lots can be hidden, and green space, trees, and other vegetation added to make this site far more attractive than it is today." Mr. Nischan said "I have a question in terms of compromise. Maybe I am misunderstanding. My understanding is the only compromise was adding seven parking spaces, because what was submitted a year ago is exactly the same proposal that was submitted this year. The only difference was that they added seven more parking places. So there may have been some adaptations based on staff discussions before, but there hasn't been any adaptation or compromise based on what they submitted a year ago when they got the staff analysis, and on what they have resubmitted. Again, my issue isn't even fundamentally, have they compromised. Our issue is incompatible intensity of use, and although community facility is certainly permitted in that block in the plan, it doesn't mean it is required. On the other hand, there is the criterion of maintaining housing stock. In the plan there are lots of things about the decline in housing stock and maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. Not long ago we denied a proposal on the south side of town that would have eaten half of a front yard with about 25 feet of buffer. We have always held fairly strongly to that. Here we have a situation in which again we have to imagine a neighborhood that you are asking people to move into that has one residential intersection. All the rest are nonresidential--high schools, parking lots, hospital, or, if this were added, a church facility and another parking lot. To PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 22 me, if you leave only one residential intersection in a neighborhood, it is tough to say you are maintaining the residential character of that neighborhood. Again, the reason I repeat this is that was one of the two major criticisms and reasons for recommendations of denial that the staff used, and the reason I wanted to say there hasn't been any movement or show of interest in movement by the petitioner. There has been no compromise on either one of those two issues. Removing a curb cut on Jerome is probably a good idea. It is not going to make a very significant difference in traffic, because it is easier to get out on Jerome than it is to get out on Michigan anyway, because of the parking and the light placement. So I don't count that as a major benefit. The green area would be a major benefit. It would not be enough of a benefit to offset leaving only one residential intersection in the neighborhood. If there was a great deal of interest in making that particular contribution, nothing is stopping them from doing the green area now. In my mind, that would not be enough to offset the staff analysis and recommendation on intensity of use and the effect of placement here on the residential character of the neighborhood." Mr. Goolsby said "This is really the purpose of Committee of the Whole, so we can openly discuss this. I think you are right, they could put in greenery now, but because of the way the whole block is faced, they would have to take out parking. Taking out the old cafeteria reconfigures all on-site parking; that gives the additional room for green space. In fairness to them, I don't think right now that they really could do it and still have adequate parking, or as much as they have right now on-site. A major reason that they could have the room to put in the greenery is because the whole facility would be different in terms of the parking." Mr. Nischan said "Shift all the parking and that would allow that buffer area." Mr. Goolsby said "Right." Mr. Nischan said "But that's why I said even if they did green it, it wouldn't offset the dent to the residential character. I do understand your point." Mr. Goolsby said "In terms of when compromise took place, whether in the last year or before, is really unimportant. It did take place as this project came forward. The project was actually before this Board for a vote, and we referred it back on an issue dealing with accessory buildings. It's an issue that came up in discussion, and we sent it for a city attorney's opinion, because the question was worth exploring. But the fact is, they did compromise on those three points that I made, and in the last year they did look at this facility to determine whether or not to locate it someplace else. That is when they determined that it was not feasible, so that is why they went back to saying that the only part of the property that this facility would fit on is the part that they proposed initially." PLANNING BOARD NHNUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 23 Mr. Nischan asked, "But is it not correct that Scheme 6B is the scheme that was submitted a year ago, and is the same scheme that was submitted this year?" Mr. Goolsby said "It very well could be." Mr. Nischan said "The only difference in this year's submission was seven parking places, and that is what the staff analysis was based on, Scheme 6B. So on what they actually submitted, despite the staff concern and recommendation, they made no changes in that. But again, whether they did or did not make changes is not the thrust of my concern and comments. The thrust of my concern and comments is the staff analysis of the higher intensity of use than is compatible with the surrounding area, and knocking a big chunk out of the residential character of the neighborhood, again, leaving one intersection with residential appearance. So unless we can find a way to get prospective home buyers to come up Ferguson Avenue, it would be very difficult for them to identify this as a residential area." COUNCILMEIMBER LILLY said "This board has struggled over the last two years with two other churches. It was raised again tonight, both with Immanuel Lutheran and South Baptist. I wanted to remind you that the work that you did in putting some of the conditions on there made those places much better for those neighborhoods. I wanted to say that because these are key things, you have the ability to look back and see where this has worked. You are faced with the same concerns of the neighborhoods here as well. You have two examples in the last two years that worked well." Mr. Goolsby said "There was a difference between those two proposals- -those were special land use requests. We cannot attach conditions to a rezoning." Mr. Robinson asked about the three vacant houses. "Can they contribute to any kind of illegal activities? With vacant houses, things happen." Mr. Goolsby said "It is my understanding that no illegal activities are taking place there. The church has close supervision of the homes." Ms. LeBlanc said "This has been an extremely difficult situation. Resurrection Church is a stabilizing influence on the east side. On the other side is the effect on the immediate neighbors. As I look at this, I cannot support it. You are talking about a large-scale building. It is long. It won't look in place in a residential neighborhood. We talked about the three houses. The houses will not be converted back to residential usage. We are looking at the residential scale, the parking, the noise associated with parking, and intrusion into the neighborhood. There is no guarantee of hours and usage. I cannot support it. This is the hardest issue I have seen." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 24 Mr. Lilly said "This is consistent with other Catholic churches in the City. They are in residential areas." Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recuse Mr. Robinson from voting on Z-9-94. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion to recuse Mr. Robinson from voting on Z-9-94 was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Mr. Robinson was recused from voting on Z-9-94. In Committee of the Whole, Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, to deny Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, 11DM-3" Residential and "F- 1" Commercial Districts to 11DM-3" Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. An Aye vote is a vote to deny. Greiner Nay LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Nay Goolsby Nay Chairman LeBlanc called for discharge of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, that the Committee will arise; voice vote; Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; the Committee of the Whole was discharged. Ms. LeBlanc reported Committee of the Whole action. Mr. Robinson, who is a new member, was recused from voting since he is a new member. In Committee of the Whole, a motion was made and seconded to deny Z-9-94; Ayes: 3; Nays; 3. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, 11DM-3" Residential and "F-1" Commercial Districts to 11DM-3" Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. Mr. Greiner then made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recuse Mr. Robinson from participating in the Planning Board voting since he is a new member; voice vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Mr. Robinson was recused. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion by Mr. Nischan was as follows. An Aye vote is a vote to deny. Greiner Nay LeBlanc Ave Marshall Aye Nischan Ave Ruge Nay Goolsby Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Nays: 3. The motion failed to garner the required number of affirmative votes (6), and receives NO RECOMMENDATION. Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-1" Commercial Districts to 11DM-3" Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall, will be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 25 referred to the City Council with no recommendation, but the letter to the mayor will include all applicable information and an explanation of the 3-3 vote. Mr. Robinson resumed his seat. Councilmember Lilly commended the Board, saying the City Council has made good choices on Planning Board membership. He was pleased with the way the case was handled. Chairman Goolsby thanked both sides for coming tonight and expressing their views. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. Ms. Love said at the next UDC meeting, Bill Rieske will present the Act 285 review cases for BWL well sites. Ms. Love took exception to the recent newspaper article concerning the Census Bureau's claim that Lansing has lost 7,500 population. These numbers are inaccurate. We looked at voter registrations remained constant) ; we looked at building permits a four-fold increase); and income tax returns remained even) . "We have called the Census Bureau and asked for a copy of the report; their response was that it is not ready yet. I have a hunch that they made a mistake." Since the last meeting, letters have been written on behalf of the Board to our congressional delegation concerning local government regulation of telecommunications towers and satellite dishes. They will be sent out. Ms. Marshall was our celebrity this week, appearing on local TV stations, in the newspaper and on National Public Radio, in connection with the state-wide Food Bank program. Regarding renaissance zones legislation, the City of Lansing is looking at creating a renaissance zone, probably in the Seven Block Development Area. We are working on the Capital Improvements Program, putting a document together. At the Mayor's direction, the seven large departments are moving toward decentralizing to make services more available to citizens. An informational meeting will be held on October 4, 1995 at Wainwright School at 7 p.m. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee held per continuance request) Chairman Goolsby said the following two cases, inadvertently omitted from tonight's Agenda, are still pending. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT - OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 26 b. SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility (Staff held) C. SLU-14-95, 223 S. Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to ten male teenaged youths (Committee held) VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Subcommittee Chairs and Vice Chairs, 1995-96 Chairman Goolsby said elections will be held at the next subcommittee meetings. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby said the Planning Board received a letter from Don and Evelyn Ayers-Marsh, 1531 Jerome, in opposition to Z-9-94; also 23 letters opposing SLU-14-95; also a petition opposing SLU-14-95 containing 80 signatures of people in the area. VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Goolsby distributed flyers from MSPO, and from Ingham County concerning groundwater protection. Ms. LeBlanc and Mr. Goolsby will attend the MSPO conference. Chairman Goolsby agreed with Councilmember Lilly, that the Board did an outstanding job of handling Z-9-94. We were all committed to the preservation of neighborhoods. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Ruge reminded members that for the Urban Development Committee meeting of October 10, he will be absent; Ms. Marshall and Mr. Robinson will need some help. Chairman Goolsby appointed Ms. LeBlanc to the committee for the October 10 meeting. Rather than have a postponement of election of officers scheduled October 10, 1995, the Committee held elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman. By acclamation, Mr. Ruge was reelected Chair and Ms. Marshall was reelected Vice Chair. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn100395 a:\25 Approved Oct. 17, 1995 with one emendation P. 15 7th paragraph (Ln 9.5" Pos 4.9"). CONcurrent uses of the various church . . . APPROVED 101795 TO CLERK 102395 I (-Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD City Council Chambers �a,� )- T_ h Floor, Lansing City Hall Let�S�� v C; i CL4 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan; Ruge; 6 members present; one vacancy. New member Ricardo R. Robinson expected at 8 p.m. , late because of a previous commitment. Ex officio Councilmembers: Lilly, present; Jones, not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary; Emil Winnicker, Development Manager; and William C. Rieske, Principal Planner. D. Approval of Agenda - approved as presented. II. HEARINGS A. Consolidated Plan-CIP Hearings Chairman Goolsby said this is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to express preferences for use of federal funds to address housing and priority non-housing community development needs in the City and preparation of the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan for Fiscal Year 1996-97. The City expects to receive a total of approximately $3.3 million dollars in funds through the Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant programs during the next fiscal year commencing July 1, 1996 and ending on June 30, 1997. It is also appropriate at this time for citizens to comment on their needs and priorities in regard to projects that should be funded through the City's Capitol Improvements Program for Fiscal Years 1997 to 2002. Any person in the audience wishing to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and address, sign the sign-in sheet, and provide us with your comments. Written proposals and requests will also be accepted for consideration. It is required that all verbal proposals made at this time also be submitted in writing to the Planning Department prior to November 10, 1995. MARY MARGARET MURPHY-WOLL, 210 FERGUSON. I represent the Lansing Neighborhood Council; thereafter I will change character. The Lansing Neighborhood Council has presented a budget. I ask you to look at it kindly, and note that we have not asked for any more money. I feel that the quality of service and our cooperation with the City in projects has been noteworthy. We ask that you consider it, and allocate PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 2 us our funds for the next year. I will answer any questions you may have because I am treasurer. I have a question to direct to Mr. Winnicker. Emil, when you are reallocating the CDBG funds from year to year, you have tasks or moneys that you have at one time said would be used for demolition of housing or the acquisition of housing to be demolished. My question is, is that money left in reserve to accomplish that purpose if it was not done in the year in which it was labelled to be done. Thank you very much. ENHL WINNICKER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. The answer is yes. ROSE NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER. The Housing Resource Center is located at 300 N. Washington Square in the Community Services Building here in downtown Lansing. We are an agency that has existed for over 22 years now, serving the Lansing community with housing issues, everything from helping homeless people find housing and obtain housing through home ownership programs including pre-home ownership counselling, one- on-one home ownership counselling through our home buyers program, down payment assistance and mortgage default counselling. Thank you for past support because our programs are supported in part by CDBG and HOME dollars. Another program we also have is transitional housing which is a supportive program to help homeless people gain important life skills so that they won't be homeless again. That is also a program that has been supported by the City in the past. In the last year we have certified over 470 clients with our home ownership program with our counselling. In addition to that, we have served over 50 people with one-on-one counselling where we have sat down and done intensive budget counselling and worked with them to get them ready to be stable homeowners. We have also helped people actually get into home ownership situations. We have a very effective program for getting people who normally would not be able to buy a home into a home ownership situation. I urge you to continue to support that program. While counselling is not always an easy issue to recognize as important, unlike a brick-and-mortar program such as building houses, it is very important that we take care of the families who are going to be home owners in the City as much as we take care of the physical structure. I urge you to continue supporting housing counselling activities, both the homeless assistance, the transitional type housing and the home ownership programs. One other point: I would also urge the City to continue working. Right now the City is working with community development organizations helping us form a partnership so that we can work stronger and closer together. I urge the City to continue with that kind of programming. Thank you. JIM HARKEN, 315 BINGHAM, REPRESENTING ASSOCIATION FOR THE BINGHAM COMMUNITY. I don't know why the area around Pennsylvania and Michigan is zoned multi-family. Whatever reason it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 3 was zoned multifamily has long since passed its usefulness. I would like you to consider rezoning that area as single-family. That is your part, and our part would be to possibly upgrade that neighborhood. With the number of people there, in terms of those single-family homes, if you look, there are four and five mailboxes on a single-family house. I would like to see that converted back to a single-family neighborhood. Another thing, I have petitions from the neighbors in that area, over one hundred. One group is from Green Oaks, and the other is from our neighborhood. The petition says, we the residents and property owners in the vicinity of 223 S. Pennsylvania are in opposition to Special Land Use petition SLU-14-95 (at this point interrupted by Chairman Goolsby who instructed Mr. Harken to comment under III Comments from the audience) . We do have a group organization and I would like to see our neighborhood association possibly, even though we do not have a proposal before you, get some of that money to buy up some houses in our neighborhood that are vacant right now and let us fix them up and maybe rent them. We do not have a proposal, but I would like you to at least think about that. If you want a proposal, we will give it to you. SUSAN CHRISTIAN, LISC (LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION), 301 ALLEN, LANSING. This is the sixth time that we have come to you with a request for funding for our technical assistance and training program to pass the building program here in Lansing, supporting the nonprofit housing developers in the City who are producing affordable housing in the center-city neighborhoods. You have a five-page packet with a PR piece about our program. I want to explain how LISC works (held up visual aid) . LISC is a national organization. The Lansing office is a field office of the national LISC program. They provide us with funding directly from the national donors, like major insurance companies, corporations and foundations. We do local fund-raising here--corporations, foundations, banks--and we send it out with a lot of value added with additional training and technical assistance programming as well as operating support, and send it out to the nonprofit housing groups that are doing housing development and neighborhood revitalization activities in Lansing's neighborhoods. In the material provided, you will see that for every dollar that the City has invested with LISC, we have been able to generate about $5. Well over $1.5 million dollars has been generated from outside sources and brought into the City. I urge you to consider providing funding again this year for the LISC program. Thanks for your previous support for LISC. PAMELA DZIESUPEK, 1028 BE CENT STREET. We are both asking that you safeguard the money for 1997 for demolition. A house next to me has been boarded up now for over two years. The foundation is caving into the basement. The windows have been broken and were boarded up after I called Building Safety. I was also told that the house was going to be demolished, but that there was no money for demolition. I am asking that you save the money for 197 so that we can use it towards PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 4 homes that do need to be taken down. The house is an awful sight. It smells. I have to smell this house. There are rodents and cats that go underneath. Children broke in before the windows were boarded. It is an eyesore. The neighbors are asking. If a petition is needed, I will do it. The house needs to be torn down, and the money needs to be saved for that purpose. TROY SPITZLEY, 1208 BEMENT, here in support of Pam. The house is next door to her at 1100 Bement Street. It is our understanding that there was money set aside to have this house demolished this year, that there was $85,000 allocated in the budget for demolition. This house is beyond saving. It has been boarded up for two years, the foundation is missing under most of the house. It is ready to fall in on its own. Pam called this year to have the house demolished, as the City instructed, but was told there are no funds to do this. We are asking that you safeguard that money and consider money for demolition purposes. Chairman Goolsby asked if anyone else wished to speak. Seeing no one, that concludes the public hearing. This matter is referred to the Urban Development Committee, meeting next on Tuesday, October 10, 1995 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room in the City Hall Annex, Second Floor. Chairman Goolsby belatedly introduced Councilmember Lilly, an ex officio member of the Board. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Chairman Goolsby read communications received today regarding Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan Avenue. Letter from David L. Muylle, 301 Rumsey Avenue, addressed to the Planning Office. "My name is David Muylle and I reside with my family at 301 Rumsey Ave. , which is one block north of the site under consideration. I am opposed to changing the zoning on this site to one which would allow the destruction of three residential houses, and construction of a commercial type building. I drive past this site at least once a day to reach my home. The residential homes currently on the site provide a nice buffer, or "gateway" into our neighborhood. Changing the zoning to allow the destruction of these houses would mean not only the loss of our gateway, it would also mean the permanent loss of potential homes for people moving into our neighborhood. The changing of the zoning of this site to allow for more intensive use is contrary to the whole idea of keeping commercial and residential areas separate so they can both thrive. I understand that the current landowner has needs that can't be met with the current facilities. However we, the neighborhood and the landowner, need to explore more creative solutions than just knocking down houses and building a commercial building-in a residential neighborhood. Again, I urge you to leave the zoning as it is and allow the houses to stay as a logical barrier between the commercial, and residential areas in our neighborhood. Sincerely, David L. Muylle.11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 5 Also received a memorandum addressed to Mr. Greiner, Chairperson, Zoning and Ordinance Committee from Brian C. Jeffries, Attorney for petitioners of Z-9-94 concerning a neighborhood poll of residents on Jerome and Rumsey Streets at the request of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. We will be taking a recess after public comments for the Urban Development Committee to consider two items. At that time, the memorandum will be placed on the table for audience perusal during recess. FR. WILLIAM J. KOENIGSKNECHT, PASTOR, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, 1531 E. MICHIGAN AVENUE. I am here tonight to seek approval of Z-9-94. We are asking that our entire property be rezoned to a residential classification in order to construct a new parish hall. This new hall will be placed on the northeast corner of our property, at Jerome and Rumsey. This project will necessitate the removal of three houses, along with our cafeteria building. We were very cognizant of the residential character existing across from our property. Accordingly, we believe we have designed a parish hall that is residential, not institutional, in nature. We see the construction of a parish hall as absolutely necessary if we are to be able to provide all the necessary services to our parishioners. It is vital to our survival as a church and as a parish. I have asked two speakers to provide details and to address concerns raised by planning staff and the Zoning and Ordinance Committee last Wednesday. These speakers will need eight to ten minutes. Mr. Chairman, could we have permission to do this? Fr. Koenigsknecht also asked supporters to stand; approximately 56 people arose. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to allow two speakers to speak for up to ten minutes each; voice vote; Ayes 6; nays: 0; motion carried unanimously. KEN DARGA, 220 ALLEN ST., REPRESENTING CHURCH. I would like to address two sets of concerns raised at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting: intensity of use and blockface integrity. When planners talk about intensity of use, there are several concerns, namely, aesthetics, noise, traffic flow and parking. Regarding aesthetics, appearance of church property will be improved in two ways. The new church hall will look better than the old cafeteria proposed to be razed. The fence around the main parking lot would be moved back, and landscaping would be added between the fence and the sidewalk along Jerome Street. Regarding noise, the new hall has been designed to minimize noise. The windows of the building would be nonopening; there will be no building entrances on the Jerome St. side of the building. Entrances would be toward the center of the church property. Another way of reducing noise deals with the ox roast. Some outdoor events could be moved into the new hall, thus reducing noise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 6 Traffic flow would improve because the Jerome Street parking lot entrance and exit would be eliminated. There would be an entrance on Michigan Avenue, which would result in a slower exit from the lot. Concerning parking, the biggest events of the church are the services on Christmas and Easter. There is no parking problem even then. I surveyed parking during the 9:30 Mass on Easter Sunday and counted eight street parking spaces available on every side of the church block except Michigan Avenue. The hall is proposed for 400 people; the church capacity is 507; parking within 300 feet of the church is adequate for a church accommodating 700 persons. Excessive parking demand would result only during large simultaneous events in the parish hall, church and/or gymnasium. Resurrection does not hold simultaneous Sunday events except worship services. There is no way to guarantee that policies won't change in the future, but if you plan a big event, you should first check the day and time for other events that may be scheduled. We could not have 700 people at an event even if we wanted to. We do not want to have a parking problem, for parishioners or for neighbors. If you look at parish events, you will see that most are not subject to size expansion. School events are limited by the number of school families (about 128 families) . Elementary schools basketball games don't draw huge crowds and don't bring in a lot of traffic. After the parish hall is built, canceling activities because of space conflicts will be less likely, so the gym can be used as a gym--for classes and basketball practice. Other events currently in the gym can be in the parish hall. These gym activities would cause little or no parking or traffic. A final comment about parking and the ox roast--it involves parking on residential streets because tents take up the parking room on the parking lot, pushing parking onto residential streets. If the hall is built, events could be moved indoors and the parking lot used for parking. A second issue is maintaining blockface integrity--the planning principle of having residential housing located across the street from other residential housing. This principle manages the interface between residential and nonresidential uses, and is behind the City's reluctance to allow the church to demolish three vacant houses on Jerome and Rumsey Streets. The ideal of having residential facing residential has not been a universal requirement on the east side (cited Allen St. School, Bingham St. School, Fairview School, Foster Community Center, and Pilgrim Congregational Church) . It is not uncommon on the east side for community use facilities to have houses across the street from, but not in front of them. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the entire block for community use facility. For further information, see the handout which discusses the concern about the three vacant houses, the demand for east side housing, and housing vacancy rates in area census statistics. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 7 BRIAN JEFFRIES, 3229 MOORES RIVER DRIVE, LANSING, REPRESENTING CHURCH. (Presented history and background of project, issues addressed, and actual and proposed accomplishments.) Church representatives attended Eastside Neighborhood Organization meetings, and as a result reduced square footage of the proposed hall from 15,000 sq. ft. to 13,000 sq. ft. ; reduced occupancy from 500 to 400; and removed Jerome St. curb cuts. The church received a resolution of support from ENO. We appeared before the Board about a year ago and asked that the matter be tabled. We were instructed by Planning Board staff to look at other alternatives, including bringing the hall from Jerome and Rumsey out to Michigan Avenue. A feasibility study and economic analysis indicated a cost of $1 to $1.5 million more to do that. The initial estimate of the hall cost was $1.5 million. Moving the hall to Michigan Avenue is not economically feasible. We met with Planning staff regarding saving the three houses by moving them to new locations in the neighborhood. There are no lots available, based on tax records we have looked at. We have discussed a pay-to-take program where we will offer the money that it would cost to demolish the homes to someone who will take the homes off our hands. We have tried to deal with the housing preservation issue. Lastly, we took a poll of the neighborhood. We presented the Zoning and Ordinance Committee with petitions of over 750 signatures. The Committee also asked us to poll affected houses along Rumsey and Jerome. Of the six surrounding houses, only one is in opposition; the remainder support this and have signed the petition. Of the rest of the houses along Jerome, two oppose it, and the rest support it. We feel we have the support of the neighborhood. We listened to the concerns of the Planning Office and have worked very hard this year to address the concerns. We asked the issue be removed from the table and are back before you with the proposal of a year ago. It is not an issue of not wanting to change it; it's an issue of money or circumstance that we can't do. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land use, the Master Plan designates the block for community facility. The whole block is community facility. We are not asking to expand our boundaries. We want to develop within the boundaries as a community facility, which is consistent with the Master Plan. Some benefits to the neighborhood: We are going to remove curb cuts on Jerome. One thing absent from the staff report is that as the Sparrow expansion develops, traffic that currently goes down Jerome toward the schools and Sparrow on Jerome will lessen. There will be greater setback requirements and landscaping. The facility is residential in nature; it looks like a big house. We are downzoning at least half of this property from commercial to residential, for community use facility. Please consider the whole context of issue. The Master Plan talks about social, economic and physical impacts; look at these when considering the implementation of the master plan and the rezoning. This provides a good transitional character for the neighborhood--you've got commercial, residential, and community facility right in the middle of it. Residents use the facility; this is a Catholic church based on a parish; people attending the church live in the parish surrounding the church. They are going to utilize the parish hall. The church is an integral part of the neighborhood. From an economic point of view, they must do some things to survive. They are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 8 losing parishioners, so it is an economic issue for them. They are doing what they have to do on a long-term basis to survive and to maintain their presence there. Lastly, on the use issue, it is being downzoned to residential, "DM-3" . People using the facility must be parishioners. They must provide security and insurance and observe time limits. We have done everything possible to conform with the Master Plan; we will continue to work with you and with the neighborhood. We ask that you approve this. RICK KIBBEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, FOR MANY YEARS CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. SERVED TWO TERMS ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. PROFESSIONAL PLANNER IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Speaking tonight as an individual, on the question of process. Reviewing the way neighborhoods work with the Planning Department, neighborhoods and the City work on a comprehensive plan to iron out differences before it gets to the Board. The neighborhood agrees to learn the code and to keep within the guidelines of the code and plan. Communication is facilitated between the neighborhood and petitioners. The neighborhood does a lot of work on petitions. The Board's role is to reinforce the negotiation process. A petitioner might hire an attorney, go to the Planning Director and Mayor, but up to now, nobody has caved in. The result is sending people back to the negotiating table for an outcome acceptable to all parties. The process requires a commitment to neighborhoods, good planning, and the ability to take heat. We have a petitioner who refuses to negotiate. The neighborhood met with them almost a dozen times. It appears to us that there are solutions that allow a parish hall. We are talking about orientation and size of the hall, solutions that won't intrude into the neighborhood. The petition only adds 6 parking spaces--it hasn't changed. Instead of looking at new options, the petitioner hired an attorney and created a PR campaign. It looks like a petition on the north side from a couple years ago. This deal can be worked out; all you have to do is nothing. Until the petitioner creates a plan conforming to standard site plan review principles, that doesn't intensify commercial uses in a residential neighborhood, that puts high traffic uses on the arterial on the south side of the traffic, your alternative is to cave in and toss out the planning process that has worked, and toss out the staff analysis. If you do so, word will get out to the neighborhood groups that when they turn up pressure, the code goes out the window. You set the rules for good planning and negotiated settlement. The neighborhood determines when their concerns have been satisfied. I urge you to table the petition pending serious negotiation. KATE KOSKINEN, 1409 JEROME, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF EASTFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE CHURCH PROPERTY. I am not here to talk for the group but rather on my own personal behalf. I have worked for a year to enrich and build our neighborhood, to create an environment that will attract new residents, to encourage neighborhood growth. I want to share with you all the photo album of our neighborhood that shows a clear picture of our perceptions of our neighborhood. The church is a good neighbor; it is an integral part of our PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 9 neighborhood; we need it to be healthy. The same for Sparrow, Fabiano's Candies, and Bancroft Flowers, but we can't allow zoning changes to eat into our neighborhood. When it happens, the houses along the commercial properties do not do well; they do not maintain their single family status as well as properties that border other residential properties. Zoning changes are detrimental to the integrity of most neighborhoods. We are going to be faced with this repeatedly. It will be hard to encourage home ownership if we can't guarantee residential next door because a business might locate there. We need to draw the line against rezoning, and stop it now. We have enough parking lots bordering homes, enough rental homes caused by those infringements. We don't need any more. (Also distributed copy of Eastfield Neighborhood brochure.) DON AYERS-MARSH, 1531 JEROME STREET. I have a comment about the poll that was taken. We were not polled, nor were the Woods, who live in the third house down from the corner. I also know that a couple on Rumsey are split on their opinion of the parish hall. It is not true that one of the six houses is in opposition. The poll is not accurate. (Read statement in opposition by Mrs. Ayers-Marsh, who was not present, and showed photo of their house at corner of Jerome and Rumsey, and photos of bottles on yards, taken during ox roast. The letter stated concerns about demolition of the three homes, the church's indifference to neighborhood complaints about church renters and also about the annual ox roast, potential traffic congestion in the neighborhood, landscaping and maintenance of the proposed hall; and the role of alcohol consumption in the use of the building. JIM HARKEN, 315 BINGHAM. I have a petition with 85 signatures in opposition to a special land use for 223 S. Pennsylvania. Probably 30 or 35 from Green Oaks are also in opposition. Joe and Cliftine Bunkley bought the house at 223 S. Pennsylvania. They want to put ten kids from Highfields there. Their primary goal is financial (they don't live in the neighborhood) . I asked them if they would sell the house to the neighborhood association; they said if the price was right. Their primary concern is not for the kids, it's monetary. I have the highest regards for Highfields. They have 48 kids, and probably that many and more staff. Before the kids came, they were in the lock-up under twenty-four-hour guard, having committed some of the most violent crimes imaginable. They will be under twenty-four-hour security at 223 S. Pennsylvania. I object to someone buying a house, and going to Highfields proposing to get about $100 per kid to put them in the neighborhood, strictly for the money and not for the kids. I ask that you uphold our objections in the petitions. We are trying to get the area downzoned, for more single-family rather than multifamily. We ask for your help. Chairman Goolsby thanked Mr. Harken for his understanding that this is the appropriate time to bring this matter to the Board's attention. The item is before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, to be taken up Wednesday, October 11, 1995 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room. Chairman Goolsby welcomed the newest member of the Board, Mr. Ricardo R. Robinson, sworn in at last night's City Council meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 10 JANE NELSON, 15171 JEROME STREET. I live directly across from Resurrection Church. I want to go on record as opposing this rezoning. I appreciate the downzoning from commercial to residential, but I oppose tearing down 3 homes and the erection of a community facility, and I oppose traffic congestion at high intensity use times. Traffic problems will not be alleviated by the new facility. No one polled either me or my landlady. I have lived in the second-story flat of the home directly across for two years. I hope to own property in this area. I would not purchase property across the street from a community facility. If the facility goes up, I would not be interested in buying here. WAYNE WOOD, 1521 JEROME. A social hall to be located in a residential neighborhood would have a negative impact on the quality of life of those neighbors whose residences face the petitioner's property on three sides. I have resided for forty years across the street from the proposed site, and contended with several nighttime activities carried out in the present meeting facility. One activity is bingo, operated like any other commercial bingo game around town. At present it is operated in the commercial area on Michigan, but probably it would be moved into the proposed hall. Would this gaming activity improve the quality of life in the neighborhood? I think not. Another use of the present meeting hall is for weekend nighttime gatherings of several hundred people often not ending until midnight or later, with highly-amplified dance bands and alcoholic beverages. Sometimes they have been an embarrassment to parish officials, and a frustrating maddening experience for neighbors. The proposed hall would bring these events even closer to the residential blocks. A newer larger rental hall will draw more people more often, with more frequent nighttime gatherings in our residential area. Lansing neighborhood organizations' primary mission was to stabilize and improve the quality of life in older parts of the City. If viable neighborhoods are to be encouraged and maintained in Lansing, please give precedence to neighborhood community rights over proposed commercial intrusion. Deny the petition. DOLORES WOOD, 1521 JEROME. The issue is not does the church have the right to build a parish hall, it is do they have the right to build a parish hall that intrudes into our neighborhood. Must this enormous building, taking up more land than the church itself, be built when it could be downsized and placed closer to Michigan Avenue? Good cities encourage places to hold celebrations, and vibrant cities also foster residences to keep people living in the City. They do not permit depletion of housing so that people can celebrate. The three houses across the street from us are empty; forty years ago, there were six houses plus the convent. The proposed hall would be an immense intrusion into the residential area of a fragile neighborhood. It threatens our stability. If you deny this petition, the church can come up with a suitable gathering place at an appropriate location. Nonbinding goodwill assurances have done in many a neighborhood. I hope the integrity of the staff analysis, based on fact and impartial judgment and not promises, will be maintained. The solution is compromise. A parish hall can be built, but not at the sacrifice of housing, south of the proposed location. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 11 DICK INGERSOLL, 124 RUMSEY across the street from the proposed hall. The church has been a good neighbor. There has been noise from time to time, but where hasn't there? If down the road,Resurrection goes out of business, what will happen? Will it revert back to single-family residential? MS LOVE. The south half of the block is zoned commercial east and west along Michigan. The northwest corner of the block is zoned for multiple family residential, 11DM-3". The remaining property where the houses are located is "C" Residential, a one- or two-family classification. Once a property is rezoned, it is changed, with no reverter clauses. Zoning goes with the property. The requested zoning is "DM-311, which is multiple family. If rezoned, and the church left and the entire block leveled, it could be used for multiple-family residential (apartment buildings) . It could be used for single- family--they are not prohibited--but that is not the most intense use for the property. MR. INGERSOLL. If the church leaves, let's set a precedent and revert the property back to single-family. MS. LOVE. This would be conditional or covenant zoning. By federal and state law, it is not legal. You cannot condition something in the future. It's either right or not right for the property. We don't have the ability to change this. DELIA THRASHER, 1530 VINE, one block north and one door down from the proposed site, speaking in opposition. The properties have been poorly maintained. They are an eyesore. I don't believe a building on the property will be well-maintained. They make promises about that and about respecting the integrity of the neighborhood, but I don't know that has been shown in the past with their events and their lack of respect for residents' complaints. There hasn't been much respect shown here tonight regarding adherence to the time frame, nor the booing and other noises. How will they respect an on- going relationship with the neighborhood when these issues still prevail? Thank you. BETH MONTEITH, 1435 VINE ST. I live in the Eastfield Neighborhood Association area, Holmes-Marshall and Vine-Michigan, with about 160 houses. I love churches, and Resurrection, and have attended many events there, and believe it is an important stabilizing part of our community. I also support and believe in win-win. We can figure out a good solution, how to allow Resurrection what they need and allow the community to enjoy making a come- back. This is not the first or last instance of church encroachment--we had it at South Baptist, at Immanuel Lutheran--we have it here. Houses are purchased, not to improve the neighborhood, but to eventually turn into another use. You stood firm with the Baptists and the Lutherans; now here are the Catholics. I think they may deserve the same consideration. We want you to help Resurrection be the neighbor it wants to be; we want to be good neighbors to Resurrection. This can have a win-win outcome; we appeal to you to help that happen by not changing the zoning but by going back to the table for a solution we can all live with. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 12 TIM MADDEN, 1530 VINE. I am a block north and around a couple corners; I join in the spirit of David Muylle's letter, who lives across the street. When I come home from teaching on the south side of Lansing, I love to enter into a residential area. I know that a rectangular prism set at 1500 Jerome Street would block neighborhood integrity. I moved from a rental dwelling across to 1530 Vine because of the improvements and enrichment that I saw going on in the area. It isn't just the ell-shaped configuration of houses that oppose the construction site; what will be lost will be the block-integrity idea. Three homes are now in a dilapidated state. What will happen to a new construction on that site? Will it be maintained in the same way? I oppose the construction and I hope you feel the same way. GARY NOVAK, 1445 VINE. I have lived in the neighborhood for 12 years. The main issue here is the idea of scale. Our neighborhood is composed of small homes with small features integrated into a composition of small delicate features. To place in that neighborhood an incongruous, large-scale building would be offensive and disruptive to the whole. I love Resurrection, and the area, but I believe there is a harmonious compromise we could all live with that would require more planning, a scaled-down proposal, and negotiation. I recommend this proposal be denied. Public comment portion concluded. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, for a 15-minute recess for an Urban Development Committee meeting to consider Act-16-95; voice vote; Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Goolsby announced the appointment of Mr. Robinson to the Urban Development Committee; Ms. LeBlanc will also serve tonight as the fourth member. A. RECESS IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 19, 1995 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of September 19, 1995, with the following emendations: P. 4, fourth paragraph, The proposed special land USE. . . ; P. 9, Paragraph 9, .have to show they do not a4ly need ANY more than 43 spaces. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; minutes of September 19, 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Greiner, 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 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 13 three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. The Committee met on September 27, 1995 in a special meeting to address this issue. After much debate and consideration, a motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole, which will meet later on this evening. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, October 11, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. a. Act-16-95, N. Capitol Ave. at North St, Vacation of Capitol Ave. ROW The Urban Development Committee met and considered two items: (1) Act-16-95, N. Capitol Avenue at North St. , Vacation of N. Capitol Right-of-way. The Committee met several times on this, and after some discussion, a motion was made and seconded, to recommend vacation of North Capitol Right-of- way between North Street and the former Willis St. right-of-way, reserving easements for public utilities and access by emergency vehicles, and further that the right-of-way be vacated only after the City attorney's acceptance of mutual easement agreements, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to all properties, including refuse collection and the ability to extend private utilities within the right-of-way, and also the approval of all proposed improvements within the vacated right-of-way by the Department of Public Service and Parks and Parks and Recreation Department. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend vacation of North Capitol Right-of-way between North Street and the former Willis St. right-of-way, reserving easements for public utilities and access by emergency vehicles, and further that the right-of-way be vacated only after the City attorney's acceptance and approval of mutual easement agreements, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to all properties, including refuse collection and the ability to extend private utilities within the right-of-way, and also the approval of all proposed improvements within the vacated right-of-way by the Department of Public Service and Parks and Parks and Recreation Department. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 14 Ms. LeBlanc asked Mr. Ruge if he would accept additions: In "mutual easement agreements", we added "IN RECORDABLE FORM," and in the next line down, "access to all properties", we added "ABUTTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY." Mr. Ruge accepted the additions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-16-95, N. Capitol Ave. at North St, Vacation of Capitol Ave. ROW was APPROVED. b. Seven Block Citizens District Council (CDC) , ordinance to reduce the required CDC board membership. This ordinance amendment is to implement the August 15 Planning Board recommendation to reduce the size of the Seven Block CDC. The reduction was at the request of the CDC to facilitate its decision-making process. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The staff recommended approval. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment, and more importantly, to give the amendment immediate effect. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment, and to give the amendment immediate effect. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; the motion to reduce the size requirements of the Seven Block Citizens District Council was APPROVED. Mr. Ruge announced that the next meeting of the Urban Development Committee would be TUESDAY, October 10, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3. Executive Committee The Executive Committee met tonight, continuing to review and revise the procedures of operations for this body. This evening we voted to recommend to the Board the approval of the revised rules of procedure; the revisions will be in the next Planning Board packet. C. Committee of the Whole 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. Chairman Goolsby said for purposes of the Committee of the Whole, the Vice Chair of the Planning Board sits as Chair of the Committee, but, because Mr. Greiner is still serving as Chair of the Zoning and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 15 Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc will act as Chair of the Committee of the Whole so that Mr. Greiner can freely discuss Z-9-94 in his position as Chair of Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Chairman LeBlanc called the Committee to order. Mr. Greiner presented Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, 11DM-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. Z-9-94 consists of construction of a parish hall on the site which includes removal of three homes on the northeast corner of the block bounded by Jerome, Custer and Michigan and Rumsey. The houses are zoned "C" Residential; the portion on Michigan is zoned "F-1" Commercial; the northwest portion is zoned 11DM-3" Residential. To meet the parking requirement of the Zoning Code, 11DM-3" was proposed over the entire site. The Zoning Ordinance allows public parking to be utilized within 300 feet of the site. 11DM-3" would allow the church to be a conforming use and also would make the parking situation conforming. The site plan increases the number of parking places by seven, increases parking lot buffering and removes curb cuts along Jerome Street. The recommended site plan now includes access through the site from Custer to Rumsey, an exit on Michigan Avenue, and an increase in buffering along Custer and Jerome Street. The structure would be residential in nature, 13,500 square feet, one-story with shingle roof and brick siding. Access and orientation would be toward the other uses on the site. Proposed is a 20-foot setback, which does not exist with the existing houses. In the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan, the entire block is recommended for Community Facility use. Conversely, the current policy is to keep residential facing residential, where it exists. This proposal takes away residential structures from those fronting across Jerome and Rumsey. When it was tabled, the suggestion from staff was to keep residential uses of the church on the north side; their response was there is inadequate space and remodelling is too costly, therefore the original proposal stands. The church hall would be used on a daily basis, for feeding school children and for meetings and such special events as wedding receptions and funeral dinners. The Eastside Neighborhood Organization recommended approval, though it was not a unanimous decision. Issues discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting included the new facility which will increase both the number of functions and the size of the functions, resulting in an increased use of residential street parking. The CONcurrent uses of the various church buildings would compound that problem. The facility is designed for sit-down functions of 400 persons, although the stated capacity of the building could be far in excess of that number, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 16 legally could not be limited below the stated capacity, which probably would be close to 1,000. Hours of operation will generally be limited to 11 p.m. , with the exception of the annual ox roast, for which the church gets a variance to operate until midnight. The church intends to limit the facility's use to church members, since renting it out for non-church-related activities would require commercial zoning. While the church cannot vouch for the conduct of individuals attending functions, noise and other problems such as those mentioned relative to the ox roast are expected to be reduced, as the building will be air- conditioned, and not have windows that open on the residential sides. Food distribution at the ox roast is intended to be indoors. Although three residences will be removed, the church has offered those structures for moving to other sites, with financial assistance up to the cost of demolition. Once the property is rezoned to "DM-311, the City would have no control over any permitted use in "DM-3", other than setbacks, screening and buffering. Committee members expressed to the petitioner their desire and the importance of receiving current input from those residents facing the proposed site on both Jerome and Rumsey Street. The motions to recommend approval and denial of the petition both expired for lack of support, which brought us to recommending and bringing this matter to Committee of the Whole. Chairman LeBlanc passed the gavel for the purpose of making amendments to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report on Page 8, Paragraph 5. "I would PREFER TO SEE COMMERCIAL ON THE MICHIGAN AVENUE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAN HIGH-DENSITY APARTMENTS OVER THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY 4ke to see + •, apai+ + ;ts an the b , f theprep „+t ." Mr. Nischan wished to make a similar clarification, on Page 9, Paragraph 2. "In the time between the original analysis and now, THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS CHANGED THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OR RECOMMENDATION 1 haven't seen anything that ehanged-the analysis I,ewe$." Mr. Nischan said it was his intent to reflect the continuity of their recommendation, rather than his own opinion. Mr. Goolsby said, so that the other members of the Board would know, he made the motion in committee to approve Z-9-94, and it failed for lack of a second. "My feeling, as I stated in the committee, going in, I was leaning against approval of this project, but the more questions we asked, the more I looked at the committee report, and importantly, the responses we received from the petitioner. I gravitated toward a position that I thought that the request should be approved. I understand the concerns of the neighborhoods regarding traffic, noise, etc. , and I think the petitioner knows we are sensitive to that, given the questions we have asked. But I am satisfied, after considering this matter, that having this hall for the functions probably would reduce the noise in the neighborhood with windows of insulated glass facing Jerome Street that do not open. Insulated glass makes a big difference. One thing we have to keep in mind, people kept referring to this as a commercial activity. In committee, I asked the question, can they conduct commercial activities on this property, and the answer is no, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 17 they cannot, if it is rezoned to "DM-311, because commercial activity is not permitted in this zone. It would be in violation of the zoning code if they conducted commercial activity, such as renting this out as a wedding hall to people who do not belong to the church. In response to a question about that, they indicated that they currently do not even let nonparishioners use their hall for a wedding. That policy will not change. The only increased use I can see after looking at all the facts and figures is perhaps an increase in wedding receptions. I understand that where they meet right now, it's very small and it's not conducive to larger wedding receptions. This facility would afford them an opportunity to have the larger wedding receptions. Except for the ox roast, they have a policy that all activities are concluded at 11 p.m. at might, which is not unreasonable. We have heard that the ox roast has created some problems in the neighborhood in the past. It is hard to assess. This facility in my opinion would facilitate, if there have been problems, eliminating those problems because many of the activities are going to be moved inside. Those are some of the concerns the neighbors have expressed. The crux of the issue for me, however, has been the three houses, and whether those three houses should be demolished. I don't like tearing down houses. I understand that efforts have been made to look at places to move these houses. It is costly. Apparently there is no property in a short distance that could accommodate these houses. The church has offered to pay up to the cost of demolition for the removal of the houses, moving them to another site, but it is an expensive proposition, and not likely to happen. The question is waste in the houses--did they create the waste? I am not satisfied with whether they did or not, but I am told the houses are not functional because they have lost major systems in the physical plant. Those things wear out in houses. I don't know that you can force somebody who doesn't want to, to put that kind of money back into the house. That doesn't deter my concern across the City about demolition of houses, but when we look at this zone, we are up against two policies that this Board is always struggling with, and these are the tough decisions when these policies butt heads. One is the whole issue of the houses, two is this facility in the Master Plan is designated for community facilities, and this hall would be a community facility. We can talk about architectural aspects; they have kept it to a single floor, which will help a lot. We get some positive things if we approve this; one, there will be no access on or off Jerome Street, which there currently is; and two, the whole property will be subject to our screening and buffering provisions, and through that process we can make the whole property look better. For all those reasons, as someone who was leaning against it, I felt, given all policy considerations, that the best thing to do was to approve this request." Mr. Nischan said "By way of background, since I introduced the other motion, I know the neighborhood well, and I live there; it is about a block-and-a-half neighborhood. There are two streets in it. When I hear the word commercial used, I know most of the people saying that aren't saying it having read the zoning ordinance. I take that to mean nonresidential kinds of use. The reason I introduced that motion: The original staff analysis concluded it would introduce a higher and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 18 incompatible level of intensity of nonresidential use than is present in the rest of the area. It cited a number of difficulties, parking, for example. We tend to minimize the statements about parking because if we redefine "DM-311, the parking standard drops. That defines away the problem; it does not define away the number of cars, by changing the definition. The original staff analysis concludes the intensity of use was higher; there was the issue of loss of housing stock versus that area being considered community facility; the third thing was the residential character of the neighborhood. The term used to describe the edifice is residential in style. I saw for the first time the architect's sketch at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. It is a very attractive building, but to call it residential in style--I am not used to seeing residences that cover most of the block have vaulted ceilings. We don't have a lot of residences that look like that in our part of Lansing, so I don't know how it can be called a residential style. It doesn't look like the buildings downtown here, steel and glass, but it is noticeably not like other buildings in which people live in this area. So the staffs original recommendations made a great deal of sense to me. A year later, the project was resubmitted; the staff reaffirmed its position recommending that it be denied, because none of those issues had been addressed. On that residential appearance, were this building to go in, that would leave this neighborhood between Marshall and Pennsylvania one intersection with residential use on all four corners. One intersection only. That is why I characterized it as taking a very significant and large chunk out of the residential appearance and residential character of the neighborhood. In sum, I agreed with and understood the analysis that the staff made a year ago and reaffirmed again recently, and the elements that I put into it, just explained now, provided so you know why I felt it was important to support that." Mr. Ruge said "This has been a very difficult proposal for me. I have been dealing with this, it seems like forever. My problem is, whichever decision I make, I know that somebody in my neighborhood organization is going to be upset with me and think that I am a traitor, but I have this a lot. What it really gets down to is, it's a trade-off between the benefits to the church and the benefits to the neighborhood for doing this versus the harm to the neighborhood. I think the benefits to the church are self-evident, and while the people who oppose it probably don't think there are any benefits to the neighborhood by this development, I do see several. The biggest one I see is that harsh terrible parking lot that would never be allowed to develop today will be vastly improved, along with a lot of vegetation along the north side of the building. The way I have come down with all the juggling I have been doing trying to figure out how to vote is that the benefits to the church and the fact that this was going to become more unified and much softer in its appearance are going to outweigh the harm that is going to occur by the increased parking on the City streets. Thank you." Mr. Greiner said "I looked at this for a long time and have found it is one of the most difficult to decide, primarily for the reason that there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 19 are conflicting policies that we have to deal with, in relation to the fact that the Master Plan says that this is a community facility, and having residential facing residential, and preserving housing wherever possible. We have heard from people on both sides of the issue. It is apparent that no matter what we do, we are not going to please everyone. Although it was noted that it was not a unanimous decision, they did get approval from one of the neighborhood groups, and they do have approval from at least a majority of the property owners who will face this facility. One of the things that I started thinking about, though, when I listened to the people who did talk against this proposal, is that no matter what we do, or whether or not we turn this down, they are not going to get what they want on that corner, namely, three respectable, inhabited houses. The houses are not habitable now, or for the most part are not, and as long as the church is in a position where they do not have the parish hall, or a place or a means to build that parish hall, I don't see them repairing the houses and putting tenants in them. The only thing that is likely to happen is that the houses will deteriorate to the point where they have to be torn down. That won't solve the problem either, because then the houses won't be there. The only thing we can look forward to is some development on that corner, and the only logical thing is something church-related. For that reason, I am leaning toward favorably approving this, only because I don't see a viable alternative." Mr. Goolsby said "I concur in what Mr. Greiner said. Staff suggested that they look at putting this facility on another part of the property more toward Michigan Avenue. The church looked at that and supplied us with figures saying it is not feasible because of the cost. I am not sitting in judgment whether or not I should deny something that the Master Plan recognizes because the church has made a decision based on economics. I think they are in the best position to judge that. What Mr. Greiner and Mr. Ruge said about softening this with this facility where it is really does cause great benefit to the neighbors. I realize that right now they don't think that is the case; I think that long term it will be, with the landscaping and traffic improvements near Sparrow. I think the traffic is going to be greatly reduced over the next four or five years, and this project is going to help by closing off Jerome. At least it will be greatly reduced over what it is right now. From that standpoint, I am not about to deny something to someone because they make a determination that it is not economically feasible to put it onto another piece of property. As Mr. Greiner points out, Mr. Ruff has told the church that he would not approve a demolition permit while this matter is pending. The reality of the situation is that whatever our decision is, and City Councils, there is nothing to prevent the church the day after this is denied to come in and pull demolition permits for these houses. From the information we have about these houses, that is exactly what is going to happen. Then we are nowhere. We are in the same position; then it is a lose-lose for both; they don't have their facility, and the neighborhood has a barren spot at the corner of Jerome and Rumsey. While we all may think that this facility would be served better at a better position on this site, the fact is that this fits PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 20 in with the property, and I personally think it will benefit the neighborhood." Mr. Nischan said "What is troublesome to me is, I feel a similar kind of dilemma. I see a parish that has people very highly committed, enthusiastic and dedicated to getting a parish hall and to having functions that can appropriately support parish membership. One can't help but being supportive of that. The other side is that most of those appearing in advocacy don't live in the area affected. Of the people who are colored green on the handout I have, one showed up. Part of what is troublesome to me is, while I want to support it, I am hearing two other troublesome things contrary to that. One is leaving a very shallow-in-depth neighborhood with only one residential intersection on Jerome. The other thing is the tenor of accommodation, rather than suggesting that the church engage on good-faith negotiation around alternatives suggested by the staff. It is troublesome when I hear accommodation-oriented discussion that says they could do even worse if we don't cooperate. That is what a lot of it sounds like to me: Let the houses deteriorate, and we should approve it, because if not they will let them deteriorate further and remove them. If we say they will finally do something about the strip of parking on the other side where the houses aren't as well maintained and about greenery and so on, that is troublesome, because it says if you don't let us do what we want, we will make it even worse. That should not be a criterion for us to respond favorably. Otherwise we put ourselves in a position of rewarding a certain recalcitrance toward the objectives of neighborhood participation and cooperation and good will. Those things are troublesome. I want to support the parish having adequate facilities, but I also want to support the neighborhood being able to maintain its residential character, which is hard with only one intersection that is residential. The barrier that seems to me to exist has simply been willingness of the petitioner to consider alternatives. So having said. that, I want to return to the fact that it seems important not to focus on benefits that could accrue, or things that could be made worse if we don't approve it, but rather to return to the analysis, the staff criteria, the bases for decision-making." Ms. Marshall said "I want to agree with everybody else who has said that this is a really difficult issue. It is a decision between the principles and the practicalities of the situation, because, I agree, it seems somewhat manipulative, if you will, helping out the neighborhood with green space, and getting rid of unsightly buildings as a condition of the church having its facility. I understand the need for the facility, and I support the church's efforts and all that any church does, but I feel that there is some manipulation of the sense of the principles of the zoning process, bringing in different people to the meeting than maybe live right in the neighborhood. I am not sure how I am going to vote at this point, because I feel our position as a Board should be based more on the principles of the zoning and the staff recommendations than some of the practical issues or the problems that could happen if we don't support the change. Not unlike what many of you have said, I am torn about this, too." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 21 Mr. Goolsby said "Regarding the staff recommendations, I think the staff report pointed out some problems in this neighborhood that exist today, and we are trying to deal with that. The question is, can we make the neighborhood better by approving this? I think we can. In regard to the houses, I am not clear precisely about the history of them, how long the church has had them, etc. , but the church has not come in and threatened us. The church has said we would like to put our community facility on this corner, the northeast corner of our property. From what I understand, they have compromised to a degree. The only thing they have not compromised on is the placement of the facility, where they feel it is going to serve their needs. They have compromised on the size of the facility, they have compromised on the number of people to use the facility; for example, they have agreed to post it for 400, and yet this building, if you figure the square footage, can handle far greater numbers than 400. They have also agreed to remove the curb cuts on Jerome, which means that the traffic will not be directed toward Jerome, they are going to have to exit either on Michigan Avenue, onto Rumsey, or the other outlet, Custer. The only thing that I can see that the church has not compromised on is the placement of the facility. I think they have compromised on a number of other items. In terms of the green space, what brings that into play is the fact that since we are rezoning the property, it has been the position of the Planning Department, that then subjects the entire piece of property to screening and buffering. That principle is what they used to require the screening and buffering of South Central Baptist. Anyone who goes around Resurrection, with all due respect, would say that it is a very ugly site because there is no screening and buffering. If this is approved, we can impose that, and the parking lots can be hidden, and green space, trees, and other vegetation added to make this site far more attractive than it is today." Mr. Nischan said "I have a question in terms of compromise. Maybe I am misunderstanding. My understanding is the only compromise was adding seven parking spaces, because what was submitted a year ago is exactly the same proposal that was submitted this year. The only difference was that they added seven more parking places. So there may have been some adaptations based on staff discussions before, but there hasn't been any adaptation or compromise based on what they submitted a year ago when they got the staff analysis, and on what they have resubmitted. Again, my issue isn't even fundamentally, have they compromised. Our issue is incompatible intensity of use, and although community facility is certainly permitted in that block in the plan, it doesn't mean it is required. On the other hand, there is the criterion of maintaining housing stock. In the plan there are lots of things about the decline in housing stock and maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. Not long ago we denied a proposal on the south side of town that would have eaten half of a front yard with about 25 feet of buffer. We have always held fairly strongly to that. Here we have a situation in which again we have to imagine a neighborhood that you are asking people to move into that has one residential intersection. All the rest are nonresidential--high schools, parking lots, hospital, or, if this were added_, a church facility and another parking lot. To PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 22 me, if you leave only one residential intersection in a neighborhood, it is tough to say you are maintaining the residential character of that neighborhood. Again, the reason I repeat this is that was one of the two major criticisms and reasons for recommendations of denial that the staff used, and the reason I wanted to say there hasn't been any movement or show of interest in movement by the petitioner. There has been no compromise on either one of those two issues. Removing a curb cut on Jerome is probably a good idea. It is not going to make a very significant difference in traffic, because it is easier to get out on Jerome than it is to get out on Michigan anyway, because of the parking and the light placement. So I don't count that as a major benefit. The green area would be a major benefit. It would not be enough of a benefit to offset leaving only one residential intersection in the neighborhood. If there was a great deal of interest in making that particular contribution, nothing is stopping them from doing the green area now. In my mind, that would not be enough to offset the staff analysis and recommendation on intensity of use and the effect of placement here on the residential character of the neighborhood." Mr. Goolsby said "This is really the purpose of Committee of the Whole, so we can openly discuss this. I think you are right, they could put in greenery now, but because of the way the whole block is faced, they would have to take out parking. Taking out the old cafeteria reconfigures all on-site parking; that gives the additional room for green space. In fairness to them, I don't think right now that they really could do it and still have adequate parking, or as much as they have right now on-site. A major reason that they could have the room to put in the greenery is because the whole facility would be different in terms of the parking." Mr. Nischan said "Shift all the parking and that would allow that buffer area." Mr. Goolsby said "Right." Mr. Nischan said "But that's why I said even if they did green it, it wouldn't offset the dent to the residential character. I do understand your point." Mr. Goolsby said"In terms of when compromise took place, whether in the last year or before, is really unimportant. It did take place as this project came forward. The project was actually before this Board for a vote, and we referred it back on an issue dealing with accessory buildings. It's an issue that came up in discussion, and we sent it for a city attorney's opinion, because the question was worth exploring. But the fact is, they did compromise on those three points that I made, and in the last year they did look at this facility to determine whether or not to locate it someplace else. That is when they determined that it was not feasible, so that is why they went back to saying that the only part of the property that this facility would fit on is the part that they proposed initially." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 23 Mr. Nischan asked, "But is it not correct that Scheme 6B is the scheme that was submitted a year ago, and is the same scheme that was submitted this year?" Mr. Goolsby said "It very well could be." Mr. Nischan said "The only difference in this year's submission was seven parking places, and that is what the staff analysis was based on, Scheme 6B. So on what they actually submitted, despite the staff concern and recommendation, they made no changes in that. But again, whether they did or did not make changes is not the thrust of my concern and comments. The thrust of my concern and comments is the staff analysis of the higher intensity of use than is compatible with the surrounding area, and knocking a big chunk out of the residential character of the neighborhood, again, leaving one intersection with residential appearance. So unless we can find a way to get prospective home buyers to come up Ferguson Avenue, it would be very difficult for them to identify this as a residential area." COUNCII24E IBER LILLY said "This board has struggled over the last two years with two other churches. It was raised again tonight, both with Immanuel Lutheran and South Baptist. I wanted to remind you that the work that you did in putting some of the conditions on there made those places much better for those neighborhoods. I wanted to say that because these are key things, you have the ability to look back and see where this has worked. You are faced with the same concerns of the neighborhoods here as well. You have two examples in the last two years that worked well." Mr. Goolsby said "There was a difference between those two proposals- -those were special land use requests. We cannot attach conditions to a rezoning." Mr. Robinson asked about the three vacant houses. "Can they contribute to any kind of illegal activities? With vacant houses, things happen." Mr. Goolsby said "It is my understanding that no illegal activities are taking place there. The church has close supervision of the homes." Ms. LeBlanc said "This has been an extremely difficult situation. Resurrection Church is a stabilizing influence on the east side. On the other side is the effect on the immediate neighbors. As I look at this, I cannot support it. You are talking about a large-scale building. It is long. It won't look in place in a residential neighborhood. We talked about the three houses. The houses will not be converted back to residential usage. We are looking at the residential scale, the parking, the noise associated with parking, and intrusion into the neighborhood. There is no guarantee of hours and usage. I cannot support it. This is the hardest issue I have seen." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 24 Mr. Lilly said "This is consistent with other Catholic churches in the City. They are in residential areas." Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recuse Mr. Robinson from voting on Z-9-94. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion to recuse Mr. Robinson from voting on Z-9-94 was as follows: On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Mr. Robinson was recused from voting on Z-9-94. In Committee of the Whole, Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, to deny Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, 11DM-3" Residential and "F- 1" Commercial Districts to 11DM-3" Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. An Aye vote is a vote to deny. Greiner Nay LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Nay Goolsby Nay Chairman LeBlanc called for discharge of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, that the Committee will arise; voice vote; Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; the Committee of the Whole was discharged. Ms. LeBlanc reported Committee of the Whole action. Mr. Robinson, who is a new member, was recused from voting since he is a new member. In Committee of the Whole, a motion was made and seconded to deny Z-9-94; Ayes: 3; Nays; 3. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marshall, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Z-9-94, 1500 Blk. E. Michigan, "C" Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-1" Commercial Districts to 11DM-3" Residential District; Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new parish hall. Mr. Greiner then made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recuse Mr. Robinson from participating in the Planning Board voting since he is a new member; voice vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Mr. Robinson was recused. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion by Mr. Nischan was as follows. An Aye vote is a vote to deny. Greiner Nay LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Nay Goolsby Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Nays: 3. The motion failed to garner the required number of affirmative votes (6), and receives NO RECONZIENDATION. 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, will be PLANNING BOARD AUNUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 25 referred to the City Council with no recommendation, but the letter to the mayor will include all applicable information and an explanation of the 3-3 vote. Mr. Robinson resumed his seat. Councilmember Lilly commended the Board, saying the City Council has made good choices on Planning Board membership. He was pleased with the way the case was handled. Chairman Goolsby thanked both sides for coming tonight and expressing their views. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. Ms. Love said at the next UDC meeting, Bill Rieske will present the Act 285 review cases for BWL well sites. Ms. Love took exception to the recent newspaper article concerning the Census Bureau's claim that Lansing has lost 7,500 population. These numbers are inaccurate. We looked at voter registrations remained constant); we looked at building permits a four-fold increase); and income tax returns remained even) . "We have called the Census Bureau and asked for a copy of the report; their response was that it is not ready yet. I have a hunch that they made a mistake." Since the last meeting, letters have been written on behalf of the Board to our congressional delegation concerning local government regulation of telecommunications towers and satellite dishes. They will be sent out. Ms. Marshall was our celebrity this week, appearing on local TV stations, in the newspaper and on National Public Radio, in connection with the state-wide Food Bank program. Regarding renaissance zones legislation, the City of Lansing is looking at creating a renaissance zone, probably in the Seven Block Development Area. We are working on the Capital Improvements Program, putting a document together. At the Mayor's direction, the seven large departments are moving toward decentralizing to make services more available to citizens. An informational meeting will be held on October 4, 1995 at Wainwright School at 7 p.m. E. Pending items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee held per continuance request) Chairman Goolsby said the following two cases, inadvertently omitted from tonight's Agenda, are still pending. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1995 - P. 26 b. SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility (Staff held) c. SLU-14-95, 223 S. Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to ten male teenaged youths (Committee held) VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Subcommittee Chairs and Vice Chairs, 1995-96 Chairman Goolsby said elections will be held at the next subcommittee meetings. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby said the Planning Board received a letter from Don and Evelyn Ayers-Marsh, 1531 Jerome, in opposition to Z-9-94; also 23 letters opposing SLU-14-95; also a petition opposing SLU-14-95 containing 80 signatures of people in the area. VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Goolsby distributed flyers from MSPO, and from Ingham County concerning groundwater protection. Ms. LeBlanc and Mr. Goolsby will attend the MSPO conference. Chairman Goolsby agreed with Councilmember Lilly, that the Board did an outstanding job of handling Z-9-94. We were all committed to the preservation of neighborhoods. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Ruge reminded members that for the Urban Development Committee meeting of October 10, he will be absent; Ms. Marshall and Mr. Robinson will need some help. Chairman Goolsby appointed Ms. LeBlanc to the committee for the October 10 meeting. Rather than have a postponement of election of officers scheduled October 10, 1995, the Committee held elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman. By acclamation, Mr. Ruge was reelected Chair and Ms. Marshall was reelected Vice Chair. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn100395 a:\25 v N S DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 1 19 N.WAS]IIN(,ION SQUARE• LANSIM�,;Ml 48TO-1668 • (517)483-40h6 • FAX:(517)483-6036 71, I C G �'z PLANNING OFFICE HI David C.Hollister,Mayor M E M O R A N D U M September 13, 1995 TO: Zoning and Ordinance Committee Members �n FROM: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner RE: Z-9-94, Church of Resurrection, 1500 Blk. E. Mich Additional Information STAFF ANALYSIS OF CHURCH OF RESURRECTION THE CHURCH OF RESURRECTION The Church of Resurrection was requested, by the City of Lansing, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, to provide in writing data supporting their position that trying to revamp buildings on Michigan Avenue to provide a Parish Hall would be impractical and financially prohibitive. The church' s architect, Ricardo Anselmo, provided "A Site Analysis and Building Program" . Listed below is a summary of the information provided. Staff provided an analysis of the information. The Church of Resurrection is requesting the City' s support of their proposal . Building Program for a Parish Hall Design a new Parish Hall 13,500 - 14 , 000 sq. ft. attractively landscaped building, compatible with existing to replace an existing one-story wood frame cafeteria at the southeast corner of Jerome and Custer to accommodate 400 people for banquets . The floor area may be divided into smaller areas by partitions . The church needs adequate kitchen area to serve various types of meals for school lunches to banquets . Other amenities needed are: toilet and storage facilities, conference room, office, bride ' s room, lounge area, coat room, mechanical/electrical equipment room, covered entry porch. The site requirements included: ( 1) accessibility to vehicular traffic and parking (2) entrances oriented towards the church and school buildings, not towards the residential neighborhoods or to the north (3) site and building must not reduce present parking capacity. The architect prepared a survey of the buildings : I . Parish Church Building II . Gymnasium/Classroom Building ® please Recycle "I?qual Opportunity Employer" Z-9-94, Church of Resurrection, 1500 Blk. E. MI, Add' 1 Infor. P. 2 III . Classroom Building IV. Parish Office and Rectory Building V. Cafeteria/Kitchen Building VI . Resurrection Convent Building VII . Heating Plant VIII . Residential Structures A description of the type of structures, floor area, HVAC system and condition of the facility was described (See attached) Sites Considered for the Proposed Parish Hall A. Along Jerome Street - Fourteen (14) schemes were studied for different locations along the northern edge of the block. Renovation of the convent, a 16, 800 sq. ft. three story structure would cost $1, 175, 000 to renovate to code and a 4500 sq. ft. addition would need to be added to create a banquet room and kitchen. Demolition of the convent is estimated to cost $98, 000 - $110, 000 Retention of houses were equally expensive B. Along Michigan Avenue Only three ( 3) structures worthy to transform into a parish hall : gym/classroom building, three-story classroom, rectory building Using either the gym or classroom would mean the replacement of a building with a new one. Joining two structure together would mean the disruption of school activities, displacement of classroom and a much higher cost. There were nine reasons identified which the church indicates does not fit and/or meet and serve the needs of converting the existing Parish Office and Rectory Building into a Parish Hall . The Church concludes that converting the existing Parish Office and Rectory building into a Parish Hall has been estimated to cost more than a new building. Demolition $50, 000 - $64,000 . Rectory replacement $850, 000 - $915, 000 . A new parish hall which would need to be two stories on this limited site would cost $1 . 65 - $1 . 76 million. Z-9-94, Church of Resurrection 1500 Blk. E. MI Add' 1 Infor. P. 3 Several schemes were developed. The Church of Resurrection recommended scheme #6B which identifies a 13,521 sq. ft. parish hall and saves the convent, removes residential buildings, removes the cafeteria. Scheme #6B shows 109 parking spaces . This site plan has since been modified to illustrate additional landscaping and a few more parking spaces ( 115 parking spaces) . The Church made its recommendation for the location of the parish hall at the northeast section of the church property. STAFF ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, the Church of Resurrection, 1500 Block of E. Michigan, is interested in rezoning the entire block at the southwest corner of Rumsey and Jerome from "C" Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-l" Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential Districts . The church developed several schemes and selected scheme #6B as the only option to meet the needs of the church. Scheme #6B consist of a 13,521 sq. ft. parish hall, removal of three residential structures 'and a cafeteria, saving the convent and provision of 115 parking spaces . In consideration of rezoning the property from "C" Residential and "F" Commercial to "DM-3" Residential, staff evaluated the rezoning case based on the following criteria: Compatibility with surrounding Land Uses, Compliance with the Master Plan, Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic, Impact on Public Service and Impact on the Environment. The proposed scheme is the same information that was submitted last year. Section 1256 . 03 (1) of the Zoning Code allows churches in the "DM-3" Residential District under special conditions . The conditions are as follows : ( 1) The church is located on a collector, principal arterial or minor arterial, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The lot on which the church is located meets the parking requirements of Section 1284 . 13(b) ( 1) . If, however, the requirements of Section 1284 . 13(b) ( 1) cannot be met on the lot, off-site parking spaces may be used to meet the requirements of Section 1284 . 13(b) ( 1) as follows : A. The off-site parking spaces are not more than 300 feet from the perimeter line of the lot on which the church is located. B The off-site parking spaces consist of either leased private parking spaces or available public parking spaces . The Planning Division shall, via Z-9-94, Church of Resurrection 1500 Blk. E. MI Add' l Infor. P. 4 the site plan review process determine what constitutes available. Therefore, if the conditions as stated above are met and the site is zoned "DM-3" Residential, no special land use or parking variances are required. Section 1284 . 13 (b) ( 1) of the Zoning Code indicates that one parking space for each three seats or six linear feet of pews in the main unit of worship is required. According to scheme #6B, there are 115 accessible on-site parking spaces illustrated on the proposed site plan. There is 1, 015 linear feet of pews in the main unit of worship. Therefore, 169 parking spaces are required. 1 . COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The predominant use in the surrounding area consists of commercial uses on the Michigan Ave. frontage and residential to the north. The construction of a parish hall would serve as an accessory structure to the conditionally permitted use of the church in a DM- 3 Residential District as aforementioned. The proposed location is directly adjacent to and across local streets from residential structures in the neighborhood. The proposed parish hall is not compatible with surrounding land uses due to the potential encroachment into the adjacent residential neighborhood. 2 . COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The North East Area Plan designates this block for community use facility. The proposed parish hall could be considered a community facility, however, the increase in the intensity of the use conflicts with the residential land uses . 3 . IMPACT ON CIRCULATION The parish hall will allow up to 400 people/event which will increase the amount of traffic in the area. The proposed facility will increase the number of vehicles which would result in an increase in the amount of traffic in the residential neighborhood. Furthermore, such a facility, used for functions such as weddings and social dances, will increase traffic. Functions directly associated with church services, would not impact traffic. However, the proposed expansion will have a direct impact on the traffic circulation and number of people in the area. The proposed parish hall will not protect the integrity of the established neighborhood. One positive aspect of circulation is the elimination of the curb cuts along the south side of Jerome in this block, but overall there would be an increase in the number of vehicles in and around the site. Z-9-94, Church of Resurrection, 1500 Blk. E. MI Add' 1 Infor. P. 5 4 . IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICE There are existing utilities in place however, if needed, the applicant would be responsible to relocate electrical facilities at his/her expense. 5 . IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES There will be an increase on the environment with noise, dust and other factors associated during construction period. Also, a potential increase in the amount of noise associated with vehicles and people may definitely have an impact on the environment. OTHER The existing facility is nonconforming due to the lack of 54 parking spaces . The rezoning to "DM-3" Residential District would bring the property into conformance. Staff understands the Church of Resurrection' s need for expanding the facilities because of the increase in the number of activities /people. The Church has been in the community and the Eastside neighborhood for more than 70 years with many of the parishioners residing in the area. The square footage of the church facing the residential properties will change the face of the neighborhood. The proposed landscaping and buffering would enhance the area. Furthermore, the information provided by the church is the same information submitted last year. Based on the information provided, the applicant is adamant about providing scheme #6b with no other options . According to the architect, the cost estimated for construction of a new parish hall is estimated at $1 . 65 - $1 . 76 million. However, the demolition and restoration cost were estimated substantially lower than one million dollars . Staff recognizes the report information, and understands the difficulties with the options, yet does not change its recommendation. A copy of the original report (September 14, 1994 - Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report) is included. b:ressz994 .dmw SURVEY Or BUILDINGS WITHIN THE BLOCK OF MICHIGAN AVENUE, RUMSEY AVENUE, JEROME STREET AND CUSTER STREET I. Parish Church Building A. Type of Structure One story building with a choir loft, brick with masonry back-up, reinforced concrete and steel frame, concrete floor. B. Floor Area: Gross Area Maui Floor 11,440.87 sq. ft. Choir Loft 1,990.87 sq ft. Total: 13,431.74 sq. ft. C. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems Hot water system from a central boiler, air conditioning. D. Condition Excellent II. Gymnasium/Classroom Building A. Type of Structure Two story building, brick exterior, reinforced concrete and steel frame, concrete floors. B. Floor Area: Gross Area Main Floor- Gymnasium 8,236.80 sq. ft. Upper Floor 8,236,80 sq, ft. Total: 16,473.60 sq. ft. C. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems Hot water system from a central boiler, no air conditioning. D. Condition Good IIl. Class Room Building A. Type of Structure 3 story building, brick exterior, reinforced concrete and steel frame, concrete floors. B. Floor Area: Gross Area Basement Level 7,126.74 sq. ft. First Floor 7,480.84 sq. ft. Second Floor 7,480,84 sq, ft, Total: 22,088.42 sq. ft. C. Healing, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems Hot water system from a central boiler, no air conditioning. D. Condition Good IV. Parish Office and Rectory Building A. Type of Structure 2 story and basement building, brick and block exterior bearing walls, wood frame interior, wood floor system, wood truss roof system, wood stud interior bearing walls. Built in 1964. B. Floor Area: Square Feet Levels 9EM Net Useable Basement 3,720.00 sq. ft. 3,450.00 sq. ft. Main Floor 4,200.00 sq. ft. 3,720.00 sq. ft. Second Floor 2,250.00 sq. ft. 2,020.00 sq. ft. Garage 1,240.00 sq. ft. 1,240.00 sq ft. Totals: 11,410.00 sq. ft. 10,430.00 sq. ft, C. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Syslems Residential type furnaces and air conditioning units. D. Condition Excellent V. Cafeteria/Kitchen Building A. Type of Structure 1 story wood frame structure, elevated wood floor off ground, residential type construction. B. Floor Area: Gross Area Main Floor 2,159.75 sq. ft- C. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems None D. Condition Poor VI. Resurrection Convent Building A. "Type of Structure 3 story and a basement level, brick exterior with a masonry back-up, reinforced concrete and steel frame, concrete floor, interior bearing walls. No elevator. B. Floor Area: Gross Area First Floor 4,495.14 sq. ft. Second Floor 3,916.44 sq. ft. Third Floor 3,916.44 sq. ft. Basement Level 4,495,14 sa ft. Totals: 16,823.16 sq. ft. C. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems Hot water system from a central boiler, no our conditioning. D. Condition Fair E. Present Use Offices for church affiliated organization. VII. Heating Plant A. Type of Structure 1 story structure, brick exterior, masonry back-up, steel frame and concrete floor. B. Floor Area: Gross Area Main Floor 3,288.00 sq. ft. C. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems None D. Condition Good VIII. Residential Structures A. Type of Structures 3 single family residential buildings on the corner of Rumsey Avenue and Jerome Street are typically wood frame construction, 2 story with basements. B. Floor Area: Gross Areas House#1 2,009.00 sq. ft. House 42 1,701.00 sq. ft. House 93 2,315.00 sq. ft. Detached Garage 199.00 sq. ft C. Heating, Venlilatio)a and Air Conditioning Systems Deteriorated heating and plumbing systems. D. Condition Poor to very poor E. MICHIGAN� AVENUE FEASIBILITY STUDY \ FOR A \\\ \\\1 `\\ \ \\� N. \ \ \\ PARISH HALL \ �\� \ ` H Ro`�\ �\ RE\Q\\ cs5 •oa\ \\ \ SEPTEMBER 1993 CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION LANSING,MI W W tC_ \ U EA I G \ CA \ ` i EXISTING SITE PLAN RESIDENCES \ \ I '� 109 PARKING SPACES J E R O M E I RIURDO D.MNSEU10 6 ASSOCIATES SCALE 1:40 FT. 1� ���uw..•a,u.o..�.a.�.y...,w•u�m�..•.. 7 O �V U715nO. J,a r. n — — It X. n i i i W CO z �i��j % > i _ Lli ------------- --- U w y e r31 �l. / A7SWnu i -- E. M1CH1GA IV AVENUE RECTOR CLASSfjOOMS,- / �/• C, tlg CyH/ W / RAG W N SERVICE, 2 N D - HE�ATICIG% v IP .CONVENT U J IJ I SAVED P L/A j/ _Tiec, KITCHEN SCHEME 1 Seri. stor. J.. p t / Stor• ! _ PARISH HALL 15.200 SF ��Foi4 r r QU. EXISTING 4,400 SF Patl[Ions ��i^ 6 Ramp ('� NEW 10,800 SF RESIDENCES SAVED 40'x6o' I 40 x6o' I 40 x60' / SAVES CONVENT I ,--__L I > U� SAVES 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING i n Stor.i� I L� REMOVES 1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDI 116 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 10 I J E FZ O M E RICARDO D.ANSELMO S ASSOC IV A_,T(RS•InT[[100.DFSLv(eI SCALE 1:40 FT. r' 1• +..••..•.-,,,,,,.�.:,,.o-•t,....n . E_ MI CH IGAIV AVE IV LJE I } SERVICE N \ I Ramps (� PG Dock 4 V SCHEME 1a P. Kitchen ♦R 1 St. Ramp: I V. T. PARISH HALL 15,914 SF S&v. sl. EXISTING 4,385 SF NEW 11,529 SF F I Y \p (� SAVES CONVENT Ramps �Folding Partition, GQ 7, I I CONVE SAVES 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENCES SAVED40' x 58' 10' x 58' I 40' x'58' `,\\\ SAVED: L I V. ` REMOVES 1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING � I St. � REMOVES CAFETERIA v 107 PARKING SPACES (REMOVES 2 J E FZ O M E RICARDO 0.ANSELMO&ASSOCIATES N �® -C�ns�s•i�Ttuoa otter taf SCALE 1:40 FT. "is-�•,•••.ti --+• ..•"'n"""' i E_ MICI--IIGAN AVEfV IJE T/j// /� /// / _ f! ASS .. L SERVICE Li' Remp U. Y, 40'X70' 61 Faldlrio . SCHEME 2 Partl tlans KITC y` T. 40'X70' PARISH HALL 1400SF 4 `� Ramp v. EXISTING ,400 SF NEW 11,000 SF /tor 40'X70' RESIDENCES SAVED ( Loun� SAVES CONVENT NT SAVES 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SAVED CONVE e REMOVES 1 RESIDENTIAL BUILD! 109 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 3 J E F2 CD M E RICARDO D.ANSELMO 6 ASSOC r+T� 0 .1s,c— SCALE 1:40 FT. �• ,,,, ,---� E_ MICH IGAN AvEN VE ECO fi CI,A$S O GY\ O C \\ u \�� w N ,SERVICE: N vJ a U. � I St. A� . Rec. I \�\ I 40,.X 50' M.F J I SCHEME 2 Kitchen y i a. Eire S_t. Coati 40' X 50' PARISH HALL 14,452 SF FRI P. V. (I SAVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ConL T. l Foldingon l REMOVES CONVENT F2ESA ENCE$ !Rm. Partl tli savEo \ REMOVES CAFETERIA 7• I 40' x so'' C, \ \ 'Lounge L 107 PARKING SPACES (REMOVES it V. st. L 0 AL N RIURDO 0.AN5ELM0&A55CKIA' J E FZ O M E scmn SCALE : cii•t`�uio■ouiG lcs E 140 FT. I 1 w.•'•-•4-•�• ....`-'" "' ' � E_ MICHIGAN AVEN LIE i RECTORY, CLASSROOM$ YM ! ••i/ /;�� m � SERVICE N / e �-V. R. 40'x55= K. St. 61 ` ` " I 40'X55' I SCHEME 3 KITCHEN p• V I Faldlnp—I PARISH HALL 14,000 SF !/ .. Partition, /i: a '� T: 7: I 40'XSSs I C� C�• SAVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDING`, RESIDENCES !, 0 J, SAVED /! L� L� REMOVES CONVENT : / /�•� Lounge Stor. 114 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 8 �'/ / r� RICARDO D.ANSELMO&ASSO Nil' wno+�nas• son osscnu J E F20ME SCALE 1:40 FT. I' �� • s-. -o-r ,.�.u.•.«.•..,•� EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE W W N j BR (Ej �_ - Caunga V � T f f.l C—f. T ec E Kitchen I 53 ' x 75' SCHEME 3a v 4 PARISH HALL 13 SF 55' x 40' 53' x 49 SAVES RESIDENTIAL AL BUILDINGS I� RESIDENCES REMOVES CONVENT 175 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 9 SPACES) JEROME N RICARDO D.ANSELMO 6 kS50ClATE5 SCALE 1:40 FT. nccN,*ccii• ,.`[cas o1s�'css r i E_ MICHIGAN AVENUE RECJORY' 'CLASS Rd01.15 %GYM N SERVICE E' -71 1 N J IT V K. / U or SL^ /AT)N�G KITCHEN FF4x50' / I i r If SCHEME 4 CO VEIJT 45'x50' T. P — / Folding � T. � PARISH HALL 19,500 SF � artlflon:� _ ' ---yl I LF� SAVES CONVENT BUILDING �,� /� REMOVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 45'x50' ^ Lounpe _ III PARKING SPACES (ADDS 11 SPACES, rk.r V A RICARDO 0.ANSELMO L ASSOCIATES J E FL O M E �acnncos•ivna�0a ouicnszs SCALE 1:40 FT: !� ,,,�,..—n........:.....w•..,,r.n.nv,..-.. , E. MICHIGAN AVENUE • RE TOR,Y,, CLASSR/ %�i /GYM /A AG W W CN �, L SERVICE (� —' KITCHEN �J"t° T. T. �4 SCHEME 5 S— V •( S tor. PARISH HALL 16,400 SF F°Iding�� U .II' {l j O'X50' Pertltlons C. REMOVES CONVENT I fi0'X50' 50'XSO' Lounge LL` REMOVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS i 7 f V I� 195 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 29 SPACES e L� N RICARDO D.ANSELMO b ASSOCIATES J E F2 O M E wac�run�s• .ma�o�°�s�cnaas SCALE 1:40 FT. 3 E_ MICHIGAN AVENUE R G SERVICEIT N Fowl Rec. 'Kt T. KITCHEN - v SCHEME 6 I, IV -- Stor. — Sem. — r.J: V pyF r �( coat: orr PARISH HALL 17,500 SF \Folding SAVES CONVENT Per4ltlon: / REMOVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS S D'X65' Lounge,� 50'X65' i SD'R65' 111 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 5 SPACES tor. v N RICAH UO D.AN5ELNiO 1.ASSOCIATES j�F.0 M E I �� uumscis i�aioc oss�c�us SCALE 1:40 FT. i MIOHIGAN AV,r—..N 4-J E , T RY• Q ``.•Y \ \�,.\CHURC\H:;\\;�� } w w ►- N � N L N` SERVIC. P. SCHEME 6a Kltchnn S[. M.V. Br � PARISH HALL 14,036 SF v. I �----- SAVES CONVENT I Cost: tt REMOVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS I 50' x 73' I 50' x 65' S. Lounge � I tog PARKING SPACES t. I VII i L St. Cont. V I Rm. i RICARDO D.AN M SELO 6 ASSOCIATES J E R O M E nC[..n lCli tu1IR04 gfG'f of SCALE: 1:40 FT. t .•�.,...... f. ri/IICHIGAN EIV UE — AC } L W 1 � I E Vic SCHEME 6b a� SF Covered Welk Cti to�npa V. M. Kitchen P S PARISH HALL 1�,521 SAVES CONVENT Loon � 1 53' X 29 I REMOVES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS It 0" u — LLJJ 55' x 65' REMOVES CAFETERIA Conf. T. 109PARKING SPACES R rn. Br. T. 55' X 29. N A FIURDO D.AINSELMO a ASSOCI'TES .J E FL O M E �I'. ��Ai �wccnmrn;i.��u�os ou�c�us i E- MICH IGAN AVEN LJE IiEQ CLA5$R09MS /C%�� // ; /�/ P RPIG XC JED W ///, N W SERVICE F. N K. St: HEAY)tJG Rec. / Ei r. KITCHEN /= Serv. 4 ' Star. SCHEME 7 orr. cgec: I 4o xso. PARISH HAIL 12,500 SF R V. Folding PnrtlUons ISAVED Stor. SAVES 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS C,� REMOVES CONVENT RESID � 40'X50, 40'X50' REMOVES 1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING l L' 110 PARKING SPACES (ADDS 12 SPACES) N RICXRDO D.ANSELMO S ASSOCIATES J E F2 0 1v1 E l 0® AcrWIIRS INTl4iO4 D[SiGN[45 1 w SCALE 1:40 FT. '"""—•.. "-.". . .... "' E- MICHIGAN AVENVE ' CLA SR6OM YM/ } IO u w �- (n N L� H�a;Y N j P SERVICE v SCHEME 8 Cal KITCHEN K• Stor. V. O L� Reo. Serv. St. PARISH HALL 72,700 I"' / (� �11V— — UI— II_' — Lounge RESIDENCES .l oIdIngI SAVES 0 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Frtltio SAVED / �-� I Pertl lion I — " 40'X50' I 40'X 50' � 40'X REMOVES CONVENT50' o St r. T. T. 107 PARKING SPACES (ADDS t SPACE Br. N RICARDO D.ANSELMO s ASSOCIATES JE F40 ME SCALE 1:40 FT ,....eAc 4nlos-4.In�o_oa�csics .,, . } Z-9-94 •'C"Residential, "DM-3" Residential and "F-l" Commercial Districts to "DM-3" Residential Dh hall Mrict Church of the Resurrection, Remove three houses and cafeteria building and construct new p GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Church of the Resurrection, on behalf of Bishop Kenneth J. Povish, Diocese of Lansing, owner STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner . REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone from "C" Residential, "DM-3"Residential and "F-l" Commercial to "DM-3" Residential EXISTING LAND USE: Church of the Resurrection and three residential structures (4 units) EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential, "DM-3" Residential and 'IF-l" Commercial Districts PROPOSED ZONING: "DM-3" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 330 ' x 428 . 25 ' = 141, 325 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: One - Two Family Residential S: One - Two Family Residential and Commercial E: One - Two Family Residential and Commercial w: One - Two Family Residential - and Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential S: "F-l" Commercial E: "C" Residential and "F-1" Commercial F-1" w; rrC11 Residential and Commercial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North-East Area Development Plan recognizes this site as community facility and church CASE HISTORY: On July 26 , 1948, City Council approved the rezoning of property at 1500 Block of Jerome Street from "C" Two-Family District to "D-M" Multiple Dwelling District - 7 - PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 Z-9-94 SPECIFIC INFORMATION AMERITECH• AMERITECH has no objections to this proposal . AMERITECH will need a path for telephone facilities to the new building. Assessor: Church should be instructed to contact our office about. combining tax descriptions as residences are demolished. BWL: ELECTRIC UTILITY: No objections or concerns . Relocation of electric facilities , if required, may be at the developer' s/owner' s expense. WATER UTILITY: Per Ken Simon of Clark Construction, the project requires 4" fire and 2" domestic water. Need site plan showing locations . Contact Terry Robison 371-6494 . Building Office: The parish hall when constructed shall be subject to the Site Review and Building Permit processes of the Building Safety Office . A soil report shall be submitted which substantiates suitability of soils for construction purposes . Consumers Power: Will not affect CP Co . facilities . Fire Marshal: No comment. Transportation Engineer: July 20 , 1994 . There will be traffic and parking impacts associated with this proposed rezoning. Therefore, a site plan should be submitted for preliminary review prior to approval of the rezoning. July 29 , 1994 . The site plan for the proposed rezoning has been reviewed for compliance with access , egress and site circulation requirements and found to meet all requirements . - PAGE 9 Z-9-94 PLANNING BOARD The plan indicates use of existing on-street parking spaces to meet the development requirements . The current Resurrection complex and the proposed plan utilize existing on- street spaces during peak demand periods . Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed plan are intensity and frequency of use of the on-street spaces . To the degree that on-site proposed is reduced by the development, the dependency upon on- street parking is increased during demand periods which exceed parking supplied within the complex. There will be a greater and more frequent use of on-street parking spaces if the new facility generates higher peaks . Should the proposed facility expanding generate new demands by P g services and activities and these new demands exceed the on-site parking availability, then there will be a corresponding of increase the onn the frequency of use street spaces . The parking impacts have been evaluated using a simplified conventional approach to supply and demand. Additional study and evaluation of the specific activities and parking demands for the Resurrection Complex would be required to quantify the prop osed impacts . Eastside NH Org. : See Resolution attached. ANALYSIS BACKGROUND The Church of the Resurrection, 1531 E . Michigan Ave. , is requesting the rezoning of an entire block bounded by Jerome Street on the north, Rumsey Ave. on the east, Michigan Ave . on the south, and Custer Street on the west, from "C" and "DM-3" Residential and "F-1" Commercial Districts to "DM-3" PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 Z-9-94 Residential District. They are proposing the removal of three houses : 125 Rumsey, 129 Rumsey, 1526 Jerome, and an old cafeteria building, to construct a 13 ,500 sq. ft. parish hall at the southwest corner of Jerome and Rumsey streets . The purpose of the parish hall is to hold social-type functions (i.e. , funeral dinners, luncheons, bazaars , school activities , etc. ) . Currently, the church uses the rectory basement to hold these functions . However, if the capacity exceeds 75 people, the gymnasium or old cafeteria building is used. Every week, two activities are held (Sunday coffee and Bingo) which yield several hundred people. In addition to weekly activities, the church holds several annual events which include a two-day bazaar, membership potluck, Christmas party, spring play, band concert, etc. These events are attended by hundreds of people. The Church of the Resurrection operates a church, school and offices . The hours of operation are as follows : Days of Operation Hours of Operation Church Mon - Sat 1 hr. /ea. (2 masses) Sunday 1 hr. /ea. (4 masses) School Mon - Fri 7 . 5 hrs/day (Aug - June) Office Mon - Fri 6 . 5 hrs/day The Church of Resurrection started in 1922 and currently has 1, 066 registered families . Section 1256 . 03 (1) of the Zoning Code allows churches in the "DM-3" Residential District under special conditions . The conditions are as follows : ( 1) The church is located on a collector, principal arterial or minor arterial, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The lot on which the chinch is located meets the parking requirements of Section 1284 . 13 (b) ( 1) . If , however, the requirements of Section 1284 . 13 (b) ( 1) cannot be met on the lot, off-site parking spaces may be used to meet the requirements of Section 1284 . 13(b) ( 1) as follows : a . The off-site parking spaces are not more than 300 feet from the perimeter line of the lot on which the church is located. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 Z-9-94 b. The off-site parking spaces consist of either leased private parking spaces or available public parking spaces . The Planning Division shall, via the site plan review process determine what constitutes available. Therefore if the conditions as stated above are met and the site is zoned "DM-3" Residential, no special land use or parking variances are required. Section 1284 . 13 (b) ( 1) of the Zoning Code indicates that one parking space for each three seats or six linear feet of pews in the main unit of worship is required. There are 115 accessible on-site parking spaces illustrated on the proposed site plan. This is an increase of 7 spaces to what is existing . There is 1,015 linear feet of pews in the main unit of worship. Therefore, 169 parking spaces are required. The church has met the requirements of parking as identified in the parking diagram (300 ' parking diagram) . Even though the church is short of on-site parking, they have identified parking spaces within a 300 ' perimeter as provided for in the Zoning Code. The current facilities are not handicap accessible, convenient, or adequate to meet the needs of the church. The proposed parish hall will be designed as a single-story brick structure to seat 400 people. It will include a conference room and lounge, kitchen facilities and will be handicap accessible. As the Church of the Resurrection reviewed the layout of their property, at least two possible locations were examined: Southwest corner of Jerome and Rumsey (Proposed Plan) - removal of three existing houses and an old cafeteria building. Convent - North of the Church of Resurrection - raze the convent building, which is currently being leased to the Work of Christ Community, and three offices to a State Catholic Charismatic group. 7 . COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The predominant use in the surrounding area consists of commercial uses on the Michigan Ave. frontage and residential behind. The construction of a parish hall would serve as an accessory structure to the conditionally permitted use of the church in a "DM-3" Residential District, as aforementioned. The proposed location is directly adjacent to the south and west, facing houses along Jerome and Rumsey residential PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 Z-9-94 neighborhoods . Ideally, the proposed one-story brick structure would better fit into the characteristics of the facade of commercial businesses along the blockface of Michigan Avenue, as proposed in the East Michigan Revitalization Plan (700 - 1200 block of E. Michigan Ave) . Also, it would be better to keep the residential uses of the block on the north side of the block. If at all possible, it would be better to even relocate the residential uses of the church and the rectory to the north side of the block and place the parish hall along Michigan Avenue. The proposed parish hall is not compatible with surrounding land uses due to the potential encroachment into the adjacent residential neighborhood. 8 . COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The North-East Area Plan designates this block for community use facility. In addition, one of. the strategies identified in the North-East Area Plan addresses the following land use issue: Protect the integrity of established neighborhoods and prohibit attempts to add or extend nonresidential use of land into established residential neighborhoods . The goals and objectives of the Planning Board address the following residential goals : ( 1) Make preservation and conservation of existing housing a priority, and seek alternatives to demolition resulting from public and private development expanding and/or 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/safety risks in the area. In reference to complying with the Master Plan, the area is defined as "community facility. " The proposed parish hall could be considered a community facility; however, the increase in the intensity of the use conflicts with the residential land uses . 9 . IMPACT ON CIRCULATION Currently, there are at least two events held weekly, Sunday coffee and Bingo (Bingo is held every Thursday, 5 : 30 p.m, averaging 150-200 people/week; Sunday Coffee is held every Sunday, 10 : 30 a.m. , averaging 100-150 people/week) . There are other activities held annually which yield several hundred people. The purpose of this structure is to better accommodate the existing social aspects of the church by providing a modern facility and accommodating larger groups of people. The parish hall will allow up to 400 people/event, which will increase the amount of traffic in the area. The PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 Z-9-94 church is proposing 115 parking spaces on site with an additional 50-70 parking spaces within a 300 ft. perimeter. The more accommodating facility will increase the number of vehicles , which would result in an increase in the amount of traffic in the residential neighborhood. A facility used for functions such as weddings and social dances will increase traffic. Those functions directly associated with church services would not impact traffic. Therefore, the proposed expansion will have a potential impact on the traffic circulation as well as number of people in the area. The proposed parish hall will not protect the integrity of the established neighborhood. The proposed plan does eliminate curb cuts along the south side of Jerome in this block, which does improve one aspect of circulation, but overall, an increase in the number of vehicles in and around the site would increase. 10 . IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICE At the present, existing utilities are in place . The potential impact on utilities may be minor. For example, there may be a need to relocate electrical facilities at the applicant' s expense. A site plan identifying utilities is attached. 11 . IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES As with any type of construction, there will be an increase in noise, dust and other factors associated with construction. However, the environment will be interrupted for a short period of time, until the parish hall is completed. The proposed increased buffering along the north boundary will enhance the surrounding area. Also, a potential increase in the amount of noise associated with vehicles and people may definitely have an impact on the environment. OTHER The church currently uses the rectory building located at the northwest corner of Michigan Ave. and Rumsey Street for housing facilities for three priests, four offices for priests , bookkeeper and a secretary-reception area. There are three small meeting rooms in the basement. The convent building is currently leased to the Work of Christ Community and three offices to a State Catholic Charismatic group. The existing facility is nonconforming due to the lack of 54 parking spaces . The rezoning to "DM-3" Residential District would bring the property into conformance . PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 Z-9-94 The church needs to expand due to the increased number of activities and outmoded facilities . However, it would be desirable if the church could expand so as not to encroach upon the residential neighborhood. The parish hall would be more compatible if it were placed along Michigan Avenue. The proposed placement of the parish hall will change the face of the neighborhood. Its brick facade, single story profile and substantial landscaping will soften the impact. However, the proposed placement will require the removal of three single family homes and extend non-residential uses farther north into the neighborhood. Area residents are also divided on this issue. The Eastside Neighborhood Organization in its general membership passed a resolution on June 1, 1994 supporting the following: • construction of a parish hall at the corner of Rumsey and Jerome streets • rezoning of the block owned by Resurrection Church as "DM-3" Residential, and • request for a special land use permit which would have a maximum occupancy and posted sign for 400 persons However, others are strongly opposed. SUMMARY There are advantages and disadvantages to the request of the Church of Resurrection. The church is stable in the community and has been on the eastside since 1922 . Many of the parishioners reside in the surrounding neighborhoods . The church appears to be a positive attribute in the neighborhood. The proposed landscaping and buffering will enhance the area. The rezoning would bring the property into conformance and eliminate multiple zoning districts on one land use. 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 to 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 f(2j public and private development expanding and neglect; Limit removal of housing as an extremely selective activity, PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 Z-9-94 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. The proposed request generally conforms with the land use patterns established in the North-East Area Plan. The property is recommended for community facility use. It is anticipated that increases in the volume and circulation of traffic will occur as a result of this proposal . The proposed request will have minor, if any, impact on utilities . The proposed request will have an adverse impact on the environment during construction of the facility but will provide for better landscaping. RECOMMENDATION Staff had wished to explore the option of developing a new structure between the school and the gymnasium to satisfy the need for a more modern parish hall facility. The applicant rejected this proposal as insufficient to address the need and too restrictive of a site. Removal of the convent would eliminate a landmark and necessitate developing more office space for existing parish business . Removal of the three homes is also not desirable for all the reasons explained previously. Whatever option is selected, all efforts and care must be taken to make this expansion compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the request based upon the proposed orientation of the parish hall . If the parish hall could be located along the Michigan Avenue frontage, it is possible that the staff would support the rezoning. c:\wp\data\p1anbd\z994fe.dmw PAGE 16 (�lunc�i a� tie �edun� �1 �j. 1531 East Michigan Avenue r to�Lk� Lansing, Michigan 48912 May 9 , 1994 Mr. James Ruff Planning Department City of Lansing Lansing , Mi . 48933 Dear Mr. Ruff : As per your request in our meeting of May 3 , attached is a list of activities currently held in the school gym, rectory, or school cafeteria. As you can see not even considering church masses , this is a busy place. I am also sure there are activities that have been overlooked. If you have any questions , please call me. Yours sincerely, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION Arthur C. Radke Admin. Asst . Attachment Phone: 485-2759 PAGE 17 PARISH ACTIVITIES CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION Description of Number of Annual Activity People Frequency First Communion Reception 200 + Once a year Confirmation Reception 120 Once a year Senior Banquet 100 Once a year Sunday Coffee 100 - 150 Weekly Family Lenten Program 100 Three a year Grade Level Retreats 40 Three a year Confirmation Retreat 50 + staff Once a year Parent Sessions for Penance 50 Once a year Eucharist 50 Once a year Confirmation 150 Two sessions Bazaar 300 Once a year-2 days Membership Pot Luck - 100 Once a year Altar Society Meijers Salad Luncheon 200 Every 3 years Day of Recollection 75 + Once a year PAGE 18 -2_ Description of Number of Annual Activity People Frequency Mother-Daughter Breakfast 300 Once a year Installation of Officers 30 Once a year Altar Society- Board Meeting 15 - 20 Monthly Funeral Dinners 50-250 Average 2 - 3 month Annual Christmas Party 300 Once a year Pastoral Council Dinner 20 - 30 Once a year Sports Award Night 170-200 Once a year Shamrock Club Home School Council Meeting 12 - 15 Monthly Home School Council 70 - 90 Once a year Potluck Dinner Reception - May Crowning 200 Once a year First Friday Coffee 30 Monthly School Christmas Program 200 - 300 Once a year Band Concert 150 - 200 Once a year Spring Play 250 - 300 Once a year Altar Society Night 200 - 300 Once a year PAGE 19 Description of Number of Annual Activity People Frequency Bazaar Workshops 30 Four times a year Altar Boys Breakfast 200-250 Once a year Senior Citizen Potluck 30 - 50 Monthly Girl Scouts 20 - 30 Various Boy Scouts 20 - 30 Various Blue & Gold Banquet 100 - 150 Once a year Festival Committee Meetings 15 12 - 14 times Newcomer' s Dinner 75 - 100 Once a year Bingo 150 - 200 Weekly R. C.I .A. Reception 100 Once a year Rummage Sales 200 - 300 Two a year Parish Dances 125 - 150 Two a year Ox Roast Several hundred 3 days - once a year (outdoors) Receptions - 25 to 250 Varies Wedding - Anniversary - Retirement - Family E .N .O. Souper 150 to 200 Once a year PAGE: 1l Resolution Submitted 6/1/94 Regarding Parish Hall for Resurrection Church WHEREAS: 1. Healthy community institutions contribute to the vitality and stability of neighborhoods. 2. Resurrection Church7&va new parish hall with more space, larger kitchen facilities, and handicap access in order to better accommodate parish events such as wedding receptions, dinners, school lunches, funeral luncheons, and social gatherings. 3. Resurrection Church has agreed to request a special land use permit for the new building with an occupancy limit of 400 persons. 4. On-site parking and nearby public street parking are adequate to meet the needs of both the church and neighborhood residents. 5. If zoning for the block owned by the church—including the o ion currently zoned commercial—is changed to DM3 residential, a parking variance ant be required and the property cannot be sold for commercial use without being rezoned as commercial. 6. The proposed design of the hall minimizes noise, minin-dzes pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Jerome St., and provides adequate setback and landscaping. 7. The church considers the corner of Jerome and Rumsey to be the most suitable location for the proposed parish hall: a. There will be convenient access to the hall from the school. (The most frequent use of the building is likely to be for school lunches.) b. The area between the school and the new hall will continue to be available as a play area for the older school children, and the new hall will serve as a buffer between the play area and Jerome Street. c. The noise associated with parking, pedestrian traffic, and vehicular traffic associated with the hall will be concentrated toward the center of the church property rather than along the perimeter near residential housing. d. There will be convenient access to the building from the church. (Many activities to be held in the hall, such as Sunday coffee and wedding receptions, occur after attending services in the church.) e. The largest parking area will continue to be adjacent to the church, which provides the greatest demand for parking. f. There will continue to be a driveway running from Custer St. to Rumsey St. to provide for service access to the parish buildings acid vehicular traffic between the parking lots. BE IT RESOLVED that the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, in its general membership meeting: 1 . Supports-the construction of a parish hall at the corner of Rumsey and Jerome Streets. 2. Supports rezoning of the block owned by Resurrection Church as DM3 residential. 3. Supports a request for a special land use permit which would have a maximum occupancy and posted sign for 400 persons. PAGE 21 NORTH Z-9-94 , 1500 Block E. Michigan "C Reddcatial "DMJ^ R er cddeutial ■ud"F4- Cummdd Dd`� to DM-3- Redd-ztUd DuMd �G I zz 8 ; H i H arrs r 1 �► •n�r 86.3 r [6367.0 �S0a❑ ❑ Y� D 86" zJ Z'f zT J JS El 1efl �9 w a ❑ re ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 86/J iF 'iF '❑ J9F rr `Ak►a 'dcn�l t if ch` El 1F . JJ JO r9 rT JJ a T SS r r9 rF ro „ J: rs � 1 IF �F 1F L] Tf 860 - BSS-S 855.5 ct�o- JEROME 85B.a 30 a ZT JZ i� t e- IF P RKI a �- J♦ ` e °� gi�len�ia J+ IF D i9 ❑ ❑ ® U P KIN N WA CIF ✓ L Lam_ R SSUR C- N 7 PARKING \ I \ PARKING J0 J9 ♦♦ PARKING JZ �_� .ef rr tQ Jr /O i7 B51.O AV f = 851.8 8508 MICHIGAN /T i6 13 Z J/ Z9 Jr r9 JO J/ M J J1 t� au it 1. Q I ❑ PARKING Z` ZJ U JI ❑ i ' i J� 0 I J� II BC:.0 0 85 JJ I. A749 5 I Tn c V [MT ►a1pFN6AH AKNIK a °ITS 6 04 E 4 Cyr �4� cl, Cis — Kirm Mat Et , Nara _ CA LM c; can [ uwu r. pax L . off. � —•I MY✓� {zy Ud. -..._... .. ----• -- -—._— w maw waca i D�-s rc PAP_1 K U SPACES j E R 0 m E A V E u E ---------- ............ - ----- --------------- �v I 71 +0 .....................�� Ile 1 1 1g WjjL8C4 4 >. 1 -1 :,.x.. , :11, 1*1!Iniln K I r_r MI. 40.,4 E, it Ip Y E PAGE 24 Parking Within 300 Feet of the Resurrection Church Property :.. e o C COE cc / o . ('�JUufJ('1J11I1 I-, C[ i LEI Im � Ala ID_ ................_._._.._.._. — Pdmt ap.m 11 Ooa loet(l6 Osc Our a and 6 ka d rp.a Dn..®on1 1�=25 f t.Oa-d lur Mc 4�dn°a u rm.m-.d I., �n ►co to r�Q—d r.r—.iw d s o eG °ec d 8e ST rpm wed b mm p.hat R` o e --dme 6E_• --'p•y c+P -•16k-WA)CO rm d Ce c6.um pmpvq. Lli �. ' /• �i �' .�.�:'�' .:fiirilr�lGU1�Xa#,• _.. � F V. 1 1 rx r ... rur I u o n I k;;i rrc AIL 4 �' COlf lw I '. I I UwAd Cna Wd is! t11 I: ��''�,,,^///�r I� l_ ._ .fa'ta.YYhr ... .. ur_-rl.w+ � •. lu C: i I i J I I 1 I l hI I ._.. ur•r I ' Y•� a CITY OF LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION �r PLANNINGOFFICE ui DATE: October 4 , 1994 TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner RE: Lot Coverage for Church of the Resurrection, 1531 E . Michigan Avenue Per the Planning Board' s request, please find the lot coverage of structures for the Church of the Resurrection at 1531 E . Michigan Avenue. In calculating the maximum lot coverage, there are two percentages used: ( 1) the percentage of lot coverage for buildings and parking (600) and (2) the percentage of lot coverage for only the structures (40%) . These calculations do not include any landscaped areas . In other words, building structures and/or parking areas are used to determine the maximum lot coverage. Section 1256 . 11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage in a DM-3 Residential District shall be not more . that 60% of the total lot area. The total square footage of area which may be covered by all structures shall not be more than 40% of the total lot area. Church of the Resurrection: The square footage of the property is 140,536 . 67 sq. ft. (427 .54 ' x 328 . 7l ' ) . 40% of 140,536 . 67 = 56 ,214 . 668 sq. ft. 60% of 140,536 . 67 = 84 , 322 . 004 sq. ft. The footprint of the property includes the following buildings : church, gym, school classroom, rectory, convent, heating plant and the proposed parish hall . The total square footage of the structures should not exceed 40% . Page 2 The square footage of each of the buildings is as follows : Buildings Church 11,445 . 6 sq. ft. Gym 8, 172 . 6 sq. ft. School Classroom 7 ,480 . 84 sq. ft. Rectory 5,755 . 66 sq. ft. Convent 4 ,495 . 14 sq. ft. Heating Plant 3,288 . sq. ft. 40, 637 . 84 sq. ft. Proposed Parish Hall 13, 672 . sq. ft. 40, 637 . 84 sq. ft. + 13 , 672 sq. ft. = 54,309 . 84 sq. ft. 54,309 .84 sq. ft. is 390 of the total square footage of the property. Parking The total area of parking is 48, 356 sq. ft. Building Total + Parking Total = Total Lot Area 54 , 309 . 84 + 48, 356 = 102 , 665 . 84 sq. ft. 102 ,665 .84 sq. ft. is 73% of the total lot area of the property. The Church of the Resurrection meets the total square footage of area at 39% for structures only but exceeds the allowable lot area at 73% for the maximum lot coverage in the DM-3 Residential District. The present site arrangement without the parish hall does not meet this requirement. A positive attribute is the proposed landscaping and buffering along the north boundary which enhances the surrounding area of the proposed parish hall . The number of on-site parking spaces ( 115) is one element used to determine the lot area. If on-site parking is reduced, the church could potentially meet the requirement, however, this would not be in the best interest of either the neighborhood or the church. The City Attorney is expected to provide an opinion as to the application of height restrictions for accessory structures in the DM-3 Residential District at the October 4 , 1994 Planning Board Meeting. Approv!e4,yith corrections, P. 3, second para., Ln. 4.17- Pos. 2.3" XgNTAT.Ly-.M 64't.0'a1W fragile; P. 5, dth para., Ln. 7.33" Pos. 2.8" GULK31 5ZTIiY, next to last line: P. 13, Ln. 1011, Pos. 11, on the vote, ............... APPROVED 112195 TO CLERK 113095 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD �A 'Y3 7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1995 I . OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . He noted that because city election results are carried on Channel 28, chambers must vacated by 9 p.m. A. Roll Call . Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan; Robinson; Ruge; six members present; one absent; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers : Lilly, Jones, not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - Marshall (requested and granted at meeting of October 17, 1995 . C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Donna Wynant, Senior Planner. D. Approval of Agenda - approved as presented. II . HEARINGS A. SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons Ms . LeBlanc asked to make a statement as President of the River Forest Neighborhood Association. This parcel, though not within the official boundaries, is an area that the Association has been involved with in the past. The Association received a referral request asking for neighborhood comments . At the Board meeting two weeks ago, Ms . LeBlanc explained the SLU process and then left the room, so she does not know whether or not the neighborhood has taken an official position. She does not think she is. in conflict but wanted to notify the Planning Board. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Clinton-Eaton- Ingham Mental Health Board to purchase property and get a special land use permit for the 7-acre parcel for a residential care facility for eight to ten persons . It is zoned "All Residential District, which allows residential care facilities with a special land use permit. The Master Plan designates the area for low- density residential land use. Ms . LeBlanc said there are septic tanks in the area. There are no storm sewers . She asked if comment has been PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7 , 1995 - P. 2 received from Public Service about drainage and sewers . She asked Planning staff to look into what further development in this area would mean. There are no sidewalks . "People don't want sidewalks , even if they didn't have to pay for them. If there were an accident, is there any kind of liability to the City or anyone else because there are no sidewalks? They were thinking specifically of the residents of the home. " Mr. Ruff said the whole neighborhood is without sidewalks, and there is no requirement for everybody living in that neighborhood to be able-bodied or mentally able. "I don't know if the City has to incur a liability because there is no sidewalk. " Mr. Ruge noted the large size of the parcel . If this is successful, in two years, could they add on to house 20 people? Mr. Ruff said they would have to have an expansion of the special land use permit. The entire parcel may not go for this use. 'We are evaluating a request for the City to acquire part of the property from the Walter Neller Company for access and park expansion to nearby Horsebrook Park. " MIKE STURLEY, CLINTON-EATON-INGHAM COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, 1744 WILLOWBROOK, DELTA TOWNSHIP (HOME) ; 808 SOUTHLAND (BUSINESS) , LANSING. The Community Mental Health Board is an agency which has operated a wide range of programs, including adult foster care, for about 25 years . Currently, we operate about 42 homes with over 250 beds in the Tri-County area. We routinely develop new homes on an annual basis . The Mental Health Board attempts to contact neighbors in the area surrounding a proposed development. The proposed home is requested for ten beds; however, we anticipate operating it with eight. The house itself will have eight individual bedrooms . We want the flexibility because occasionally we have a person needing a temporary residence. State law provides that homes with six beds can be developed in this kind of location without the requirement of a special land use. Our needs are to operate the home more efficiently; we can operate at less cost if we have more residents . I heard some questions about storm and sanitary sewer. We engaged an architect to investigate those matters before application. He indicated there is no storm sewer; however, the Reynolds Drain is immediately adjacent to this property. When we develop a home, we account for storm water runoff, and we will do that here. There is a sanitary sewer available in the neighborhood; however, the elevation of that sewer is such that we will have to install a sewage lift pump (permitted under code) . As to increased size in the future, when we request permission PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 3 to operate with ten beds, we cannot exceed that without further approval. As to park land, the Neller Company had requested that they be granted the right to delete a portion of the seven-acre parcel from the sale and donate it to the City. That would include approximately a 30- foot right-of-way running west from Westwood along the south property line to give access to Horsebrook Park. We have agreed to that stipulation in the buy-sell agreement. A number of these homes have been developed in the City of Lansing in the last several years--ranch- style, extremely attractive, and extremely well- maintained. Mr. Ruge asked how mobile are the residents, generally? Mr. Sturley said there is a wide range of mobility, but this residence is intended for residents who are elderly or �4 NSA t.. did" 7 T. ' fragile. The homes are supervised twenty-four burs ay ay, seven days a week; residents are free to move about, but in this home, it is less likely. Mr. Ruge asked how many staff, and how much parking is proposed. Mr. Sturley said during the day three or four staff people would be there; in the evening, probably two persons . There will be a two-car attached garage; we like to provide an additional four parking places . In most instances, we would not have more than four or five cars . At once-a-month staff meetings, you might see more cars . A lot of vehicular traffic is not associated with these homes . With over seven acres, we will be able to site the house away from Westwood, and provide parking. Ms . LeBlanc said on the western part of the property, it drops away. Are you planning to fence? Mr. Sturley said fencing depends on the need. With the drain and the slope, it is possible. Ms . LeBlanc said currently the property is wooded; are you planning to retain trees, particularly along the south border? Mr. Sturley said yes . Part of the City's requirement is a screening and buffering plan. There is so much vegetation there now, we didn't feel it was necessary to provide the buffer plan, because we want to keep as much of the trees as possible. We only need one-half to two-thirds of an acre to be cleared in order to build the structure. Chairman Goolsby noted receipt of three communications regarding SLU-16-95 : A letter from Ms . Lucille Crouch, 3123 Westwood. She is neither for nor against the proposal, but raised concerns about railroad tracks in the area, train whistles, and problems associated with railroad tracks . A telephone message from Janet Daley, who resides on Shady Oak Lake, in opposition. Chairman PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 4 Goolsby read a letter from Ernest G. Cummings , 3229 Westwood, concerning the only storm drain, in front of his property, that crosses to Reynolds Drain with an eight-inch tile. In a heavy rain, water fills Westwood Avenue and flows into the sanitary sewer in the center of the street. Water has backed up in basements at 3217 and 3229 Westwood Avenue (Tom Bellgowan' s and Mr. Cummings ' basements respectively) who police and clean the drain to prevent flooding. In the worst rains, storm water runs across Mr. Cummings ' property to Reynolds Drain. He is concerned about additional paved area that would require drainage across his property. The problem could be solved by a separate storm drain at the end of Westwood or a larger drain across Mr. Cummings ' property. JAMES C. McDANIELS, JR. , 1732 SHADY OAK LANE. Opposed. The proposed use is not proper in a neighborhood such as ours . I have several concerns . What affect will a structure have on the wooded area? In the springtime, part of the land floods . Our neighborhood has been putting together a petition officially registering our strong opposition to SLU-16-95 . The lack of sidewalks may pose a lability issue for the City of Lansing. The petition has 123 signatures, the majority of our neighborhood. The pamphlet states that residents may have mental or emotional problems, substance abuse problems, or developmental disabilities . I asked the representative at my door if they could bring in individuals from state hospitals; he said yes . We don' t think our neighborhood is the place for an institution such as this . There may be a contamination problem on the property, but I do not know details . CLARENCE P. DOERR, 3221 GREEN OAK AVE. The agenda says "elderly persons" ; the literature we received says "elderly persons with mental problems . " We don' t feel this is conducive for a neighborhood with small children. The other thing mentioned in the literature and tonight was two to four staff people there, during the day. The literature said during the night there would be only one person. The second consideration is the nature of the land to be built on. It is long narrow triangular strip of land; the building location is 100 feet from the nearest house. The building couldn't be put anywhere in the triangle of land where it wouldn't be next to a busy railroad track. Some trains come through fast with empty cars and make a lot of noise. Elderly people awakened by a train rumbling past twenty feet from them would be terrified. Most neighborhood people here tonight think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995_ - P. 5 BARBARA A. HOES, 3211 GREEN OAK AVENUE. Elderly people will be frightened the first time the trains go through. Some trains have three and four diesel engines; it does shake the house. You get used to it, but I don't know if anybody on medication will get used to it. The thing that has not been addressed is the Horsebrook Creek that runs through the property. In the spring of the year, Horsebrook Creek has high water. I asked the person who came around if they planned for a fence. When the high spring waters come, if someone walks off the property, which is not level ground, it be dangerous . It should be considered. Stephen Ring, 1724 Shady Oak Lane, right next door to Jim McDaniels . One of my concerns is kind of employees working there and rate of pay. The reason I ask is I used to work for a pharmacy and delivered medications to AFCs and nursing homes . I have been there third shift, and it is no different than late-night Burger King, the kind of people working there. I am concerned about psychiatric patients taking Haldol and Prozac that this is going to get done. We used to go through our inventories in the Pharmacy, and a lot of times pills weren't passed out, thinking people got out with the high security and whatever they have. I am very concerned. MIKE OSMUN, OWNER OF PROPERTY AT 1714 SHADY OAK. I am opposed because it will change the character of the neighborhood. I enjoy the buffer zone that exists behind my property. If we do have a development, the parklike setting will be gone. It' s great to have an easement to the park, but maybe we should expand our park and incorporate it into what already exists, instead of turning it into a commercial facility. DOROTHY SULKYS , 1806 SHADY OAK, lived there for 48 years, before it was in the City. Now there are a lot of young children in the neighborhood. I think it is a detriment to the young families . The railroad is a big problem. I am used to the noise, but for an elderly person on medication, it would be devastating. CHERYL KLINE, 1604 BILTMORE. I feel this will lower the property values . I live two streets up from where this is going to be. I don't want this in my neighborhood. ROD SHANGLE, 3203 WESTWOOD. My concerns would be the people living there, the close proximity to the railroad tracks , and where the drain is going be. I don't want to pay special fees for a drain when I don't see the need for it myself. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7 , 1995 - P. 6 NICHOLAS ROACH, 1820 SHADY OAK LANE at Westwood. My concern touches on the value. The handout we had said property value would not be affected. People always think the worst, when they come in to view the property. VIOLA VERHOUGSTRAETE, 1820 SHADY OAK LANE, opposed. Besides the trains, we also have to deal with planes . There are times when you cannot talk on the phone when a train is going by and a plane is going over, too. Another thing, many years ago, the State Health Dept. used to dump toxic materials back there. We don' t know if that has been examined. JEFF WICKHAM, 3109 GREENOOAK AVE. , which runs parallel to Westwood. Opposed. JEFF BEDARD, 1800 SHADY OAK LANE. I am concerned for my children, as well as my neighbor' s children, for this facility being put up. This woodland that is going to be built on should be a protected woodland. BRIAN YUSTAN, 3119 WESTWOOD. Opposed. A fence has not yet been considered. The terrain is rough where Horsebrook Creek winds through. There is limited access where a 30-foot right-of-way access to the park is proposed. When you come south from the area, there is no visible dividing line for the park. People trying to get to the park will have to come close to the creek, which is dangerous . In the spring, the water overflows the bank. The majority of the park is on the opposite side of the creek. Currently, there is one bridge, a road culvert type structure that is hard to walk over, if you are not in good walking condition. There is another small structure, a 2x4 framework with an unstable railing, that gives access to that part of the park. Something would have to be done to protect the City from liability. The location of the facility would be somewhere beyond the end of Westwood Street. Where is street end? How far will it be from the property line? The mention of 100 feet in--is that from the property line, or from the end of the street? JANET DAILY, 1717 SHADY OAK LANE. My husband and I assume the worst. We feel an eight- to ten-bed facility will become a 10-12 bed facility; elderly people with slight mental disorders will become a half-way house for substance abusers . We talk about railroad and airport noise--you may wonder why we don' t just move. There is a lot of charm in the neighborhood, and good people, and many young children. We deserve better than this . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 7 Chairman Goolsby explained the process to Mr. McDaniels and others in the audience. Ms . Love explained the process after the Planning Board forwards the issue. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. B. SLU-17-95, Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S . end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons Mr. Ruff presented the case, a very similar request by Clinton-Eaton-Ingham Community Mental Health Board, but for a different piece of property, located at the south end of Coulson Court in the south end of Lansing. To the north is single family residential along Coulson Court and adjacent streets, and to the south and east are apartments . The land does not abut Edgewood Blvd. , but it is adjacent to Edgewood Boulevard. MIKE STURLEY, CLINTON-EATON-INGHAM COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, 1744 WILLOWBROOK, DELTA TOWNSHIP (HOME) ; 808 SOUTHLAND (BUSINESS) , LANSING. This is coincidental, two homes virtually identical . Interestingly, this is also a very large parcel of vacant land, at the end of a dead street. It also has no storm sewer. We also did the same investigation of this parcel that we did with Westwood. We are confident we can build this type of structure and be in compliance with building codes . The program is virtually identical with the same population and staffed the same way. Mr. Ruge asked what is the potential population? Mr. Sturley said they are people with mental illness, generally elderly adults and/or medically fragile. We may have some people who may not be considered elderly by age but have high medical needs that require them to be in this type of home. JERRY GOFFIN, STAFF PERSON WITH COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH. I live in Grand Ledge. The vast majority of people who will be in this home will be elderly. Younger people would be an exception. An example is somebody who might have multiple sclerosis, is in their 40s, and also has a mental illness . They have a dual diagnosis, they are medically fragile, and they have a mental illness . If all they have is a medical problem, they would not be suitable for this home. Mr. Nischan asked who licenses the home, and what are the terms of licensure regarding the client population. Mr. Sturley said adult foster care homes are licensed by the Michigan Dept. of Social Services, Under the terms of an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. S adult foster care license, only three groups of persons may reside in such a home: persons who are elderly; persons who have mental illness; and persons with developmental disabilities, which is a term that covers a broad range of problems, though most people would think of it as mental retardation. The Mental Health Board operates a great many of those homes within the City and in the Tri-County area. Those are the only three groups permitted in adult foster care. People with criminal histories or substance abuse problems would not be eligible for this type of home. My organization also runs those types of program; in fact, we have a home in the City for people who have a history of substance abuse and criminal background, but this is not what we are talking about. It is a distinctly different population, and is specifically not permitted in this type of use. Mr. Nischan asked about what kinds of mental illness . Mr. Goffin said the majority of people have a diagnosis of schizophrenia or a bipolar illness or a major depression. If we feel clients present a dangerous type of behavior, we would not place them in the home. The majority of people live in a foster home in the community right now or are in a nursing home. We are trying to place them out of the nursing home, because they don't meet the criteria for being medically fragile enough for a nursing home. They don't present a risk to the community. For six years, an home identical to this has been in the neighborhood south of Lansing Mall . I don't know of one problem that we have had with the neighbors . Mr. Nischan asked about high police traffic with the homes . Mr. Goffin said we've never had the police there in six years of operation. We do have a medical doctor who comes regularly to see to people' s needs . Chairman Goolsby said two communications regarding Z-17- 95 came from the same household. One is from Michelle Collins, 6426 Coulson Ct. , stating she is concerned about the property values and wants only single family in the area. Opposed. The other communication is from Mr. Robert Collins, 6426 Coulson Ct. , also in opposition. ROBERT COLLINS, 6426 COULSON CT. An "Adult Foster Care" facility would provide for placement of people who are aged, mentally ill, developmentally disabled or physically handicapped who require supervision on an ongoing basis but who do not require continuous nursing care. I feel granting the special use permit would violate the Lansing ordinance, because one is already located at the Edgewood Living Center, 200 W. Edgewood. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 9 The neighborhood is going to be destroyed if you put it in there; it' s also going to be in direct violation of the Lansing ordinance as written. RUTHETA STEVENSON, 6517 ROSEDALE RD. I live on the other side of the woods from Mr. Collins . The business zone is creeping in and trying to take over. It used to be fields and woods, but the elderly folks home went up on Edgewood and if anything else goes up, it is going to be destroyed. The woods is a buffer zone between the residential areas and these business areas . I am concerned about property values being lowered and property taxes being raised. Mr. Ruff said the land is zoned "A" Residential, generally, for single family residential development at no more than seven units per acre. In the past it was platted for a number of homes and a cul-de-sac. The plat was never finalized, but potential uses in the "A" Residential District include special land uses such as this, or, for condominium uses where the land is not platted, a Planned Residential Development. That would require a hearing before the Planning Board, but not the City Council . Chairman Goolsby called a recess in order to vacate the chambers, reconvene in the Council Conference Room, and continue the public hearing. Upon resumption, no one else spoke. Referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. C. Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts Mr. Ruff presented the case. The property, Trappers Cove Apartments, was developed under a Community Unit Plan, which is an old zoning district, the predecessor of the Planned Residential Development. In any residential district, you can have a Planned Residential Development, whereas before, if you wanted a multiple-building apartment complex, you had to get a Community Unit Plan, a separate zoning district. That leaves us now with apartment properties that have a specific plan which they cannot deviate from. An amendment would require rezoning to the current district in the present ordinance. That is what is happening here. Trappers Cove Apartment Complex has some land that they are not developing; they have already developed the land to its fullest extent apartment-wise (900-odd units) . It was approved at over 1, 000 units . They have received a request to purchase and to rezone property to "F" Commercial which is part of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 10 the Community Unit Plan property. That is on the north side of the site, abutting Dunckel Road. There is an eight-acre area, part of which is zoned Commercial . It was zoned Commercial when the Community Unit Plan went in; some of it is not usable because it is in a wetland. They want to develop the frontage of Dunckel Road commercially, leaving the back part in woodlot and wetland. To do that, they have to have to have the frontage zoned Commercial; that also takes away land area required for the Community Unit Plan development. We are looking at putting the apartment complex into a current zoning district, the "DM-1" District, which would allow the density of the apartments . The proposal is to rezone the Dunckel road frontage, which brings everything into conformance with the present ordinance, and would also allow the commercial development. It looks like we are making a dramatic change to Trappers Cove, when in fact we are not. It is the only legitimate way we have to accommodate this type of a change. Because this piece of property is zoned Community Unit Plan, and it was an integral part of the original Trappers Cove Plan, and they want to use some of this commercially, this whole zoning district should be changed so they are not left in a nonconforming status . Mr. Ruge asked what is going to be the effect if you have the same number of apartments but less property. Mr. Ruff said some apartments and a road were proposed but never developed. They were approved for over 1,000 units but they have less than 1,000 units , so the "DM-1" will accommodate what they have built without this piece of land. They are built out. The density level will be accommodated. Ms . LeBlanc said we don't inadvertently want to permit them to build more apartment units . Ms . Love said they are already fairly close to the maximum number of two- bedroom units . Mr. Ruff said there are 965 units , 661 of which are one-bedroom, 304 two-bedroom units, and 1,700 on-site parking spaces . Ms . LeBlanc said she would like to have those figures, plus the remaining acreage, for the Z&O Committee meeting. Mr. Ruff said the staff report should include an evaluation of that. Mrs . LeBlanc said either have that or the figures so that she can figure it out for herself . Mr. Ruge was concerned about curb cuts . Mr. Ruff said the Transportation Engineer' s comment mentioned restricting curb cuts to one, and secondly, "the cross section may need to be reconstructed to three lanes in that area to handle the increased traffic volume and to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 11 allow proper turning movements . Other changes may be needed along the curb line for safety' s sake. " Mr. Greiner said the property across the street on Dunckel is zoned "A" Residential. Is there a possibility that sometime that can be developed? Mr. Ruff said right now most of it is Consumers Power right-of-way and Bear Lake drain, so probably no development will occur. Chairman Goolsby asked if the developer has provided the amount of square footage of the commercial development. Mr. Ruff said the initial development would be a convenience installation for gas and food. They do not have a plan yet for the other section of commercial property. They have a sample of how it could be developed that shows a wetlands line. They would be concentrating on the north side of the site. Chairman Goolsby asked if Traffic has a formula to determine the number of vehicles expected, in terms of commercial square footage, and for information to be provided to the Z&O Committee. Mr. Ruge said the site plan is not realistic in terms of the one curb cut Transportation is recommending, and the five curb cuts currently existing. Mr. Ruff said access can be handled in many ways; one main access could be provided, with a good circulation pattern. JOHN PECKHAM, 1111 MICHIGAN AVENUE, MARTIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE PURCHASERS, here with representatives of Edward Rose & Sons, owners of Trappers Cove. It is not their intent, if the "DM-1" zoning is approved, to add additional units to the Trappers Cove portion. The purpose is to bring it up to the current ordinance from the CUP zoning to the "DM-1" zoning district, so that they are in compliance. They are not proposing additional units . It is our intent to develop a gas station, convenience store, car wash, with possibly a fast food installation in the convenience store. We are in the process of developing the final site plan. There are site constraints--wet lands, high slopes . We have confirmation from DNR of the wetland, so we know what line we are dealing with terms of possible development. We will know what makes the most sense for this location when we complete our market study. JERRY SPEEDY, EDWARD ROSE & SONS, 6100 NEWPORT RD. , KALAMAZOO. We are concerned with assurances that the remaining land is in conformance with the zoning designation. We do not want additional apartments there. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7 , 1995 - P. 12 Chairman Goolsby asked Mr. Speedy to bring graphics to the Z&O meeting. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee. III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval : October 17, 1995 Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of October 17 , 1995 . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; minutes of October 17 , 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. a. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, November 15, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time the following cases will be considered. b. SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility C . SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths d. SLU-15-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Construct 320-ft. -tall AM Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplain e. SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons f . SLU-17-95, Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S. end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons g. Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting TUESDAY, November 14 , 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 13 Washington Square Annex at which time the following cases will be considered. a. Acts 18- to -23-95, BWL Well Sites b. Act-24-95, Kingsley Court C. Act-27-95, Relocate Johnson Drain Easement 3 . Committee of the Whole, Mr. Greiner. a. Historic Preservation Grant This is a proposal for an intensive historical and architectural survey of the North Lansing- Old Town area, the downtown area, and the depot project areas . Presented to us this evening was a draft outline of this proposal . After much discussion by the Committee, the Committee moved and approved unanimously to recommend approval to City Council of the application. This is a 60-40 match grant proposal. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, that the Board recommend approval of the draft outline of the Historical Preservation Grant. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 6; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; the draft outline of the Historical Preservation Grant was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Rules of Administrative Procedure The Planning Board Executive Committee has met numerous times to review, revise and rewrite the Rules of Administrative Procedure, which have not been amended since October 2, 1979 . We did extensive rewriting; the results were presented to the Committee of the Whole this evening for further revisions . As the document was revised, the Committee voted unanimously to approve. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that the Rules of Administrative Procedure that were presented to the Committee of the Whole this evening and recommended for approval, be approved by the full Board. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye MARSHALI R081' C N Aye Ni s chan Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7 , 1995 - P. 14 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 6 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; the Rules of Administrative Procedure were recommended to be APPROVED. 4 . Executive Committee - did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. Ms . Love noted that members received copies of Planning Magazine. We are going to try to do Planning Board evaluations earlier in the year. Planning Board evaluations will be mailed out this week yet, and a preliminary budget for review should be ready for the first meeting in December. The Council has recommended $50, 000 for an economic development program for Historic Preservation in North Lansing for next year. E . Pending Items : Future action required 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held per continuance request) b. SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility C. SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths VI . NEW BUSINESS - None VII . COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby called members ' attention to one additional communication, SLU-14-95, a letter dated September 13 , 1995 from Carl Latona to Steven L. Hayward, new information with three attachments . VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Goolsby commented on the project on Edgewood Blvd. , Lansing Villas, which was approved about a year ago. It is a gorgeous project. Ms . Love said, regarding one comment tonight, there is an independent living facility on Edgewood for seniors, the Edgewood Retirement Center. It is not an adult foster care facility. Chairman Goolsby said given the decision in Washington, Clinton-Eaton-Ingham Community Mental Health Board may not even have to go through the process . Chairman Goolsby asked if a second meeting will be held in December. "We will discuss it at our next meeting. If we do meet, I will need an excused absence. " PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - P. 15 IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Nischan asked if, in planning for 1996, there will be any revision of the Master Plan. Ms . Love said yes, but we have more work than people available to do it. Ms . LeBlanc said the Public Service Dept. has applied to the USEPA for a Brown Fields Grant--Brown Fields are the opposite of green fields . The purpose is to redevelop brown fields . "I got a request for the neighborhood organization to submit a letter of support, which I did. In the course of that, I mentioned the Planning Board' s Goals and Objectives . They are looking at studying the Stadium property, Action Auto property, Lindell Drop Forge property, and the Heatherwood Farms property. " Ms . Love said she is concerned about the location because of its proximity to residential development, its location both in the floodplain and at the east entrance to the City, and its industrial zoning. Because of the property use, there may be some degree of contamination. By having the Brown Fields grant, we will have some control over what will go in there. The state has a number of grants for buildings and equipment for businesses that or make recycled products or materials in their manufacturing process . Chairman Goolsby said since we are the host city next year for the MSPO, the Executive Committee should meet and discuss what our role as the Planning Board to showcase the city during the conference. That may be a home-garden tour in the city. We should work on this at the beginning of 1996 so we can let MSPO know we are interested in playing an active role in the conference. Since our rules do not become effective until approved by City Council, I hope we can get them approved and to Council by the end of the year so we can begin operating under the new rules by the first of January, and posting new meeting times, 7 p.m. as opposed to 7 : 30 . Mr. Nischan asked about obtaining a copy of Mason' s Manual . Ms . Love said the cost is $44, and she has one copy for the Board. Chairman Goolsby said we should put together something applicable for the use of the Board, as an appendix to our Rules . Mason' s is the most widely used; also City Council uses it. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 :56 p.m. Respectfully submitted i i Eleanor K. Love, S cretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn110795 a:\25 Approved with corrections, P. 1,.I,..A.., Ln. 3.55" Ln. 3.9" ROBINSON, Rvge; G 7 members present; ; P. 5, 4th para., Ln. 7.33• Poo. 2.8• mea�ail. fra ile aacta]a. .iptidie[!!ly..fragile;_,P.,_8,..Pars..9_.Ln. 8.5" Pos. 2" - - , - "'_'' been t:4iik��29:OG':'?4 0 :?tt11:!Q:i:kO?TBY#l:::R :.�? �U .DYlt:4::.. P. 10. Ln.~2.83", Pos. 2.1" ... .. .. ::. ....:::: ...:1. .. .:,. yx� fdkjEi�c:�A Q i l�GX. p:•::ii.::1�'aYa.:.l.:.Lri. 2 '1d'e:.:�..�.....:...... AfOblew4. h l.. .. Yk6;:;.: bICl ltlt7&fihM3:W ::.::....................... APPiM l�b69 TO CLERK 122295 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD ERK 7 . 30 m. , City Council Chambers � l��i 'i CL�r�r� P• Y Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 I . OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. A. Roll Call . Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan, ROBINSON, Ruge; § 7 members present; P1e absent Re insert; one vacancy. Ex officio members : Councilmembers Lilly and Jones, not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None C. Introductions . Staff present: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager. D. Approval of Agenda. Under V. Business Session, B. 2 . Urban Development Committee, add Act-27-95, Relocate Johnson Drain Easement. II . HEARINGS - None III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE MIKE STURLEY, CLINTON-EATON-INGHAM COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD. Here with a colleague to answer any questions . WALT KYES, KYES ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT FOR Z-16- 95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail. Mr. Peckham may arrive late. JOHN GORMLEY, REPRESENTING MS. PATTI HOLLAND, SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility. Here to answer any questions . JIM JENSEN, REPRESENTING NEW TOWER, INC. . Here representing SLU-15-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Construct 320- ft. -tall AM Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplain. Mr. Robinson arrived at this point. JIM McDANIELS, 1732 SHADY OAK. Regarding SLU-16-95, Vacant 7- acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons . Many neighborhood people oppose this . We have given you a petition. We are concerned about safety. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 2 CLARENCE P. DOERR, 3221 GREENOAK AVE. regarding SLU-16-95 . The site is near both railroad tracks and the airport. The trains would be a safety hazard. Mentally impaired people pose a threat to neighborhood children, and the facility would devalue homes . BERT CARTER, 3122 WESTWOOD. I am concerned for all the aforementioned reasons, and for inadequate drainage. BARBARA A. HOES, 3211 GREENOAK. In opposition. Eight to ten people will have to have deliveries, which will add to neighborhood traffic . The land is not fit to be built on. The map is unrealistic . MARY CLARK, 223 S . 8TH, REPRESENTING GREEN OAKS TARGET ORG. , HERE REGARDING SLU-14-95, 223 S. Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths . I want to read comments into the record. Our understanding of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is that in creating the SLU designation, it was an opportunity for review of proposals on a case-by-case basis to determine if a given proposal would have a positive or a negative effect on the surrounding uses, those utilizing the SLU, and the community as a whole. The SLU process gives you three options . You can grant permission for uses that are found to be positive; you can impose conditions on proposals to protect the public interests from negative impacts, or you can deny an SLU request if it is deemed negative. The Code specifies certain criteria to be considered. In looking at those, we have some particular concerns . The first one asks if it is harmonious with the surrounding land use. In this proposal ten adjudicated teen- aged males would be housed and be supervised by a paid, rotating staff working in shifts over a twenty-four-hour day. This will require a parking lot for staff, support personnel,and visitors . We don't see an institutional use such as this as harmonious with residential use. Another criterion is interference with the general enjoyment of the surrounding property. Ten teen-aged males living in a house of this size on a lot of this size with no recreational facilities in the area, under ideal conditions, would have an affect that most people would consider negative on the enjoyment of their property, based on noise and traffic flow considerations if nothing else. The fourth consideration is, does it represent an improvement to the property and the surrounding area? Improvements have been made to the property, but the only improvement for this particular proposal would be that the house would be occupied, but we are presuming that the house would be occupied, whether it was used for this or for some other use, so we don't see that this particular proposal is going to be an asset. Another consideration is that it should not involve uses detrimental to the health, safety or welfare PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 3 of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, etc. Again we feel that this particular proposal would inevitably generate excess traffic and noise the number of teenagers being proposed there. Another consideration is whether the SLU is adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or if those servides could be provided by the applicant continually and adequately. The lack of parks and recreational facilities in our area has long been identified as an area problem. It ' s not a problem caused by this proposal, but the fact is that there is a lack of facilities available to meet the needs of this youthful population. Another consideration is that the SLU should not place demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity. This area has been cited as a high-needs high-risk area in countless surveys by Sparrow Hospital, Michigan State University, Lansing School District, Lansing Police Department, and a variety of social service agencies over the last ten years . Numerous grants and programs have been awarded to meet the needs of our residents . Because of our high rate of transients, those needs are never met. We always have a new set of people with a new set of problems . It is a never-ending process . The use proposed would simply bring to our area an additional group of needy individuals that would constantly be replenished. The time frame would be a ten-month stay, so every ten months we get a new set of needy individuals . So again, you would never meet the needs of people living there; you would constantly have a new set of people. We do not believe, given the age and the needs of the youths and the nature and needs of our neighborhoods, that this SLU would be beneficial either to these needy youth or to the residents of the surrounding area. I recognize the need of this Board to be consistent in its recommendations . We believe the Code allows you to consider each SLU proposal on the basis of its effects on "the well-being of those who will use the SLU and on the community as a whole. " We believe that the potential population has needs and impacts far different than those of frail seniors, and handicappers . I would ask you to vote to deny. PAUL M. SCOTT, 412 S. KILBORN. I am shocked to see the number of care facilities on your agenda. Lansing is becoming a dumping site for the region. Placing ten teen-aged males in that neighborhood with those lot sizes with the problems of the neighborhood is not very wise. CLIFTINE BUNKLEY, OWNER OF 223 S . PENNSYLVANIA. I have some visual aids and some handouts to correct misinformation about the density on the property. The report of the Planning Office indicated that the density in the area was 2 . 05 persons per unit. I put together a sheet called "Let' s add it all up" that uses the 2 . 05 persons per unit. I multiplied that by the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 4 total number of units in the structure which equals the total number of people occupying a building equal to or less than the size of my property. I see some discrepancies here on what I am required to provide on my property and what other people can do on theirs . If you notice on the map, all the orange section indicates the letters of support came from the neighbors . All the adjoining neighbors are in agreement to let the care unit come in, as well as the neighborhood association that the property sits in. We have met the zoning ordinance criteria as well as the nine criteria for approval . All we are asking for is our legal right, mine as the owner; the right of Highfields; and the rights of these children, to come back into the community and assimilate in the mainstream of life. We are asking for the right of these kids to have a traditional home and family. I feel you should vote yes . CHERYL VALLEAU, 228 S. 8TH ST. I am going through the addresses you were just given. 200 S . Pennsylvania was down- sized to a 4-unit. 1022 Eureka and 1020 Prospect were built as apartment buildings because the Planning Board at the time was not thinking clearly and allowed these buildings to be built. 211 S. 8th St. was enlarged to a five-unit prior to 1980 . 900 Eureka was a 4-unit that was built as a 4-unit, again, inappropriately. 230 Bingham is a day-care center, and I totally agree. They don't have five parking places; they shouldn' t be approved. What we have been trying to do over the last 14 or 15 years, is to reduce the density in the neighborhood. We are talking about ten adjudicated youths . They have five bedrooms, and three other rooms . I don't know about anybody here, but can you imagine ten teenaged boys in one living room which is not particularly large, trying to live a life? There will be no privacy. They will not have any of the things that make a home. They will have staff in - and out; they will have regular meetings ; they will have to -go out and sit--and we did figure it, it is 10,000 square feet on the lot--but the lot is absolutely there. Legally, they can go with six. It makes sense for them to go with six, and look at whether or not it is a problem for the neighborhood and then come back and talk about this . The neighborhood groups are willing to accept six. Legally we have to, but ten young people in this building is absolutely irresponsible. I am going to hand you the letter that Mary read. I cannot see where this is going to be harmonious with the neighborhood, or that it is going to be positive. We ask you to say no. A. RECESS Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, for a 15-minute recess for the Urban Development Committee to consider Act-30-95; voice vote; Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 5 IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval : November 7, 1995 Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of November 7, 1995, with corrections, P. 3, second para. , Ln. 4 . 17" Pos . 2 . 3" MEDICALLYt fragile; P. 5, 4th para. , Ln. 7 . 33" Pos . 2 . 8" T { "next "to last line: P. 13, Ln. 10" Pos . 1" , on the vote, ft 14.8 M. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; minutes of November 7 , 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. a. SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility The applicant is requesting a special land use permit for property located at 3016 Risdale Avenue. The application proposes the construction of a 24 ft. by 38 ft. addition onto the front of the present residential care facility in order to increase the capacity from nine to twelve persons . In addition, the application implies construction of facilities necessary for a second dwelling unit in the basement of the structure. The committee found that the proposed expansion of the building is potentially inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan. The size of the structure proposed (and therefore its value) is out of character with the general conditions of the neighborhood. If the use of a residential care facility were ceased, it would be very unlikely that the building would be sold for use as a single family residence; it is probable that the building would be proposed for some other use that may be economically viable (such as a multiple family unit, a rooming house, child care, or . . . ) but would not be in character with the single family neighborhood. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the special land use request to increase the existing adult foster care facility from 9 to 12 elderly persons would not significantly impact the surrounding community, nor would traffic patterns or public facilities be adversely affected. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried (Ayes : 3; Nays : 1) to approve SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility, with the four conditions as follows : PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 6 1 . Construction, completion and final Building Office approval of an addition to the house at 3016 Risdale to provide a maximum of 12 bedrooms in the structure. 2 . Accommodation of the adult foster care facility by continuation of the existing four (4 ) parking spaces on the site as requested by the applicant. The reduction of parking spaces may continue as long as no more parking is requested or required. 3 . Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities . 4 . Approval of the Special Land Use permit does not include an approval of the construction or use of any second unit(s ) in the building as appears to be suggested by the applicant. Any such construction or use would require submission and approval of a rezoning petition which would have to be granted prior to considering the construction and/or use of the second unit. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-11-95 , 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility, subject to the above four conditions . Mr. Ruge said he was concerned for several reasons . When the first SLU was received for nine residents, City Council said that they would not support an increase in size of the home. The size of the building will be three times larger than any other building in the neighborhood. By the time they put on the new addition, it will be worth more than twice what any other property in the neighborhood. Both the size and value would be a problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Nischan said special sensitivity is needed to the intent of the Plan. In many areas, we face the loss of the residential character of neighborhoods for a variety of reasons . When it comes to the criteria we rely on, counts of people, ratios of structures to square footage of land, etc . , it is difficult to draw lines . It is less difficult if you ask what is the long-term effect on the long- term area. "Mine was the nay vote. " Ms . LeBlanc said her vote was based partly upon the US Supreme Court case; also the case involving the City of Taylor. There has been a definite statement that AFCs for elderly individuals are compatible with single family neighborhoods . The definition of compatibility has been made for us by the Michigan courts . Chairman Goolsby, passing the gavel to Ms . LeBlanc, said part of the case referred to does allow restrictions if the application does not adhere to size requirements or public health and safety codes of a local unit. Adding onto a facility to make it larger than surrounding homes is an economic decision; whether or not it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 7 is a wise economic decision is not for us to decide. It is still within the size requirements of the neighborhood. Mr. Nischan said if adult foster care is the use, the issue of size enters--at what point does it cease to be a residential use. An expensive house may be built for use as a family dwelling in contrast to others built for uses incompatible with a family dwelling. You couldn't sell the expensive house as a single-family unit. Because of the intensity of the use, the additional support, ancillary staff, etc. , the facility is made incompatible with use as a single-family dwelling. It jeopardizes residential character if the AFC use should ever be abandoned. Mr. Ruge said he is bothered about the prior limitation put on by the City Council . When we approve an applicant once but stipulate don't come back and ask for more because you are not going to get it, it concerns me that this applicant four years ago was told she could have three more people, but don't come back later and ask for more, and now she is back. Chairman Goolsby passed the gavel to Ms . LeBlanc. Mr. Goolsby said a legislative body cannot bind a future legislative body, and, in his opinion, the limitation in the resolution has no force and effect in law. Mr. Ruge said we make suggestions all the time about what we think is the right thing. I would like to think in the future people would look at them and take them seriously. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Nay Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 6 ; Nays : 1; carried; SLU-11- 95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing AFC Facility, with the four conditions was recommended to be APPROVED. b. SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths Considerable discussion ensued. It was moved, seconded to approve SLU-14-95; Ayes : 2; Nays : 2 . Subsequently a motion was made to refer the issue to the Committee of the Whole. It was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to refer SLU-14-95 to the Committee of the Whole. C. SLU-15-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Construct 320-ft. -tall AM Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplain PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 8 The applicant is proposing the construction of a 320-foot-tall AM radio tower and equipment building in the floodplain of the Red Cedar River. The use is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District. Therefore, the basic consideration is the construction of the structure in the floodplain. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the property is zoned industrial and is surrounded by nonresidential uses, and that this site is appropriate for this type of development. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve SLU-15-95 , BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, to construct a 320-ft. -tall AM radio tower & transmitter building in the floodplain with the conditions as follows : 1 . Approval of a height variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals ; 2 . Act 285 Review by the Planning Board; 3 . Implementation of a landscape plan approved by the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development and the Board of Water and Light. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-15-95 , BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Construct 320-ft. -tall AM Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplain with three conditions as above. Ms . LeBlanc said the Board of Zoning Appeals has already met and approved the height variance. The view from the River Trail, a concern of the Parks Department, was considered; the landscape plan will help alleviate this concern. Tewer-s have alreadybeen lased: 1 ThO .: U. :.::...:::.:; .::.:.. .. . ...::.. . .::: :.:: . :... .::::..... parks .........:........:.... ...................... PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Greiner Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 9 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; SLU-15-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Construct 320-ft. -tall AM Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplain with conditions was recommended to be APPROVED. d. SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons The applicant proposes to construct a residential care facility for 8-10 elderly persons . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the public services and facilities are available to accommodate the residential care facility. Further, the committee' s approval is conditioned upon: 1 . Construction, completion and final Building Office approval of the structure at the north end of Westwood Avenue. 2 . Accommodation of the adult foster care facility by permitting four (4) parking spaces on the site. 3 . Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities . In committee, a motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously to approve SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons . The committee also wished to express its concerns for the safety of potential residents . Safety concerns, drainage, and landscape screening and buffering of the property should be reviewed by staff during the site plan review process . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons, with the conditions as listed above and approval of the site plan for the construction. The Board, concerned for the safety of residents, stated that safety concerns should be reviewed during the site plan review process . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 10 As a friendly amendment, Ms . LeBlanc proposed that drainage concerns also be considered under site plan review; amendment accepted by Mr. Greiner. Chairman Goolsby asked Ms . Love to address the drainage issue. Ms . Love said Public Service states sanitary sewer is adequate. At one time, with combined sanitary and storm sewers , with curb and gutter, when dirt gets into sewer lines, and they clog and need to be cleaned ^per t3 . VEN..-fi . . The site for the building is large, and they sho'ul"d'`not...*l ave"problems . Sanitary sewer can be accommodated with the existing facilities . Regarding contamination, the Michigan Public Health Department in the past did some dumping in the area; however, the contamination does not extend to this site. Concerning devaluation of property values, a study done by the Planning Division shows no reduction in housing values caused by adult foster care facilities . The last issue was the previous use of the property. Walter Neller Company did own the property. They applied for a plat which would have included 12 houses . The plat went through the preliminary process but was never finalized. Mr. Ruge asked for clarification of clients ' backgrounds . JERRY GOFFIN, SUPERVISOR OF COMMUNITY PLACEMENT, C-E-I COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, applicant, said residents are elderly, frail, and have a background of mental illness . There are no plans for placement of criminals; we are a mental health agency, not a substance abuse treatment agency nor a criminal justice program agency. MIKE STURLEY. Under Michigan licensing regulations for adult foster care, only three types of persons can be placed in these homes : elderly, persons with developmental disabilities, and persons with mental illness . By law, substance abusers and criminals are not treated in these homes . To my knowledge, there is no record of complaints that would justify neighbors ' concerns . Ms . LeBlanc asked if the SLU is issued for an AFC for ten individuals , are changes permitted without returning to the Planning Board? Ms . Love said if you make this applicant-specific, if there is a change in the client population or in the program of the provider, the intent of the ordinance is at minimum to require reevaluation, and probably an amendment to the SLU depending upon the reevaluation. You can make the application applicant-specific . Mr. Nischan offered two friendly amendments, first, to make it applicant-specific, and second, regarding sound buffering, to maintain the net amount of vegetation on-site in the site plan review. Chairman Goolsby said the site review process is an administrative action; we could add it to the list of concerns . Ms . LeBlanc said landscape, screening and buffering is currently required by the Code. The amendments were accepted. LANSING PLANNING OFFICE {' - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT �ti r'S it CITY L �� SECOND FLOOR, WASHINGTON SQUARE ANNEX czTr or r a 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE David C. 8olliaterstar, Mayor LANSING MI 48933-1668 The Lansing Planning Office is pleased to provide the attached ma erial. If we may be of further assistance, please contact us. These reports are to be attached PHONE 517-483-4066; FAX 517-483-6036. to the Planning Board minutes of November 21, 1995 "and made PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 11 Mr. Robinson said consideration should be given to having two attendants on duty at night rather than just one. Another concern of neighbors was safety of their children. Mr. Ruge said there are two AFCs in his neighborhood, both for mental nr�.,ATRH problems . .................................... ................. I.E. .......... Ms" . eB anc said ........... is facility could be for six wl' * no special land use review. The question before us is the approval for four additional people. We must consider the code-required questions . Mr. Nischan said he is protective of neighborhoods . I am two houses away from such a facility that we value very highly. . - - In this case, I see not much effect on residential character of the neighborhood. " Ms . LeBlanc asked Mr. Greiner if he would accept inclusion of the nine-step analysis in the motion; Mr. Greiner assented. Chairman Goolsby said for the record the Board received two letters, both alike, from Brian Yustan, and Lauri Yustan, of 3119 Westwood Avenue, in opposition. As a friendly amendment, Mr. Ruge said Condition 4 is not appropriate; he asked that it be struck from requirements; amendment accepted. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons (with three conditions as listed above, that it be applicant-specific, that consideration be given during the site plan review process to landscape screening and buffering and that the nine-step analysis be incorporated) was recommended to be APPROVED. e. SLU-17-95, Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S. end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons The applicant proposes to construct a residential care facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons on a vacant 3 . 37-acre parcel off south end of Coulson Ct. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the proposed residential care facility for 8-10 elderly persons on a vacant 3 . 37-acre parcel off the south end of Coulson Ct . , that public services and facilities are available to accommodate the residential care facility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 12 Further, the committee' s approval was conditioned upon: 1 . Construction, completion and final Building Office approval of the structure on a vacant 3 . 37-acre parcel off the south end of Coulson Ct. Avenue. 2 . Accommodation of the adult foster care facility by permitting four (4 ) parking spaces on the site. 3 . Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities . In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve SLU-17-95 , Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S . end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons with conditions 1-4; approved. The Board wishes to express its concerns for the safety of potential residents . Safety concerns, drainage, and landscape screening and buffering of the property should be reviewed by staff during the site plan review process . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-17-95, Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S . end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons (with conditions 1, 2 , and 3 as listed above, that it be applicant-specific, that consideration be given during the site plan review process to landscape screening and buffering and that the nine-step analysis be incorporated) be recommended to be approved. Mr. Ruge said SLU-17-95 is very similar to SLU-16-95 . Mr. Robinson asked what would be clients ' age range and how many would not be elderly. Mr. Goffin said the program is for elderly people. "We prefer not to place anyone who is not older; however, periodically, there are people who meet the criteria based on medical fragility. " The program has been in operation for six years . Medically fragile does not refer to limited mobility but rather to a serious physical problem that requires greater medical services . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 13 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; SLU-17-95, Vacant 3 . 37-acre Parcel off S . end of Coulson Ct. , Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons (with three conditions as listed above, that it be applicant- specific, that consideration be given during the site plan review process to landscape screening and buffering and that the nine-step analysis be incorporated) was recommended to be APPROVED. f. Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, Z-16- 95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail The applicant proposes to change the zoning from Community Unit Plan to "DM-1" and "F" Commercial Districts . The "DM-1" zoning is being sought to bring the existing apartment complex into compliance with the present zoning code. The "F" Commercial portion is being sought to develop property close to Dunckel Road for nonresidential uses . The committee found, based on testimony and evidence and the staff report, that changing the zoning of the apartment complex from C.U.P. to "DM-1" would bring the complex into conformance with the zoning code with minor lot size adjustments . The "F" commercial expansion area appears to have wetlands and woodlands which are of concern. Another primary concern is traffic generation and potential for accidents at the Dunckel curve due to speed volume and curb cuts . The "F" Commercial zoning appears to be generally appropriate, but the committee is concerned over safety and environmental issues . In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM- 1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts with the staff conditions as above, and mandating that the concerns of the traffic engineer and other responding agencies be addressed during the site plan process . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-16-95, 2700- 3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts be approved. Mr. Ruge commented that his big concern is the "F" Commercial part, and the City having to pay to widen the street to allow commercial PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 14 development to occur. "I don' t think that is appropriate because the Traffic Dept. says it is going to have to be made into a three- lane road. . . . Without some indication that the developer is going to pay to alleviate the problem the developer is going to create, I can' t support this . " Mr. Ruge proposed a friendly amendment that the developer be responsible for all needed improvements to Dunckel Road. Ms . LeBlanc asked if we can do this . Ms . Love said she will seek clarification on her understanding that improvements that are directly related to the site adjacent to the site can be mandated in the same way that when plats are put in, we can mandate deceleration and acceleration lanes, left turn lanes, etc . and generally those are at the developer' s expense. "I would see that being a necessary element of this . It is not a condition of the zoning, it is a condition of the site plan requirements . " Chairman Goolsby said if the road is widened to three lanes, he did not know if the developer should be required to do this . A deceleration lane differs from widening three lanes . Secondly, it is not a mandate, it is part of administrative process of staff review. But if we are talking about widening the road, "I think it is unprecedented, where we have required a developer to pay for that third or middle lane. A deceleration lane probably is appropriate, and would be appropriate for a developer. A turn lane I am not sure about. " Mr. Ruge said whatever road improvements have to be made as a result of this development should be borne by the developer. On Pennsylvania Avenue, the developer shouldn' t have to pay for five lanes wide. In a case like this where it is obvious that it is the only development in the area that is going to benefit from any road improvements, those costs should be borne by the developer. Chairman Goolsby said this should be held for more information regarding similar types of developments and what the Board has agreed to over time. Staff can gather information for the December 5th meeting. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded Mr. Greiner, to table Z-16-95 , voice vote, Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously, Z-16-95 , 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts was TABLED. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, December 13 , 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair: a. Act-27-95, Relocate Johnson Drain Easement This is a proposal by the Eyde Company to provide drainage improvements for a light industrial park which is currently under development. The applicant has designed a stormwater drainage retention system that will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 15 require relocation of a portion of an existing drain easement, the Johnson Drain. The Board of Water and Light voiced concern that their sludge line, within the railroad right-of-way, should remain undisturbed. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality was concerned that any work within the wetlands should obtain the proper permits . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the relocation of the drain was appropriate . It was moved, seconded and carried unanimously that the drain be relocated with the following conditions : ( 1) That all engineering and construction of the affected portions of the drain be approved by the Public Service Dept. and the County Drain Commissioner as appropriate; (2) That new easements to both the City and the County as appropriate need to be in place along with other necessary drain improvements prior to release of the current drain easement; (3) That all other state, county and city regulations be complied with, including wetlands permits from the State of Michigan and site plan and/or subdivision review by the City; (4 ) That any contaminated soil be disposed of legally; (5) That the work have no impact on the adjacent Board of Water and Light sludge line and that the developer bear all costs associated with engineering, construction, and recording of instruments associated with this project. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, that Act-27-95, Relocate Johnson Drain Easement, be approved subject to conditions 1-5 above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Greiner Aye Ruge Aye Robinson Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Act-27-95, Relocate Johnson Drain Easement was recommended to be APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 16 b. Act-30-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Private Use on Public Land This is a proposal to place an AM radio tower east of the Board of Water and Light sludge pond on an approximately five-acre parcel . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that placement of the tower on this property was appropriate. A motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to approve the request, subject to approval of SLU-15-95, which was approved tonight, and subject to the approval of FCC and other regulations . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that Act-30-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Private Use on Public Land, AM Radio Tower subject to the approval of SLU-15-95 and subject to the approval of FCC and other regulations . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Ruge Aye Robinson Aye Nischan Aye Marshall Aye LeBlanc Aye Greiner Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Act-30-95, BWL Property Aurelius Rd. & Main, Private Use on Public Land, AM Radio Tower, was recommended to be APPROVED. Next meeting TUESDAY, December 12 , 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3 . Committee of the Whole, Mr. Greiner. a. SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths This item was considered at length in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. A motion to approve failed 2-2 . Subsequently the matter was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Ms . Love said this is a request by Cliftine Bunkley and Camp Highfields to locate"a residential care facility for up to ten male teen-aged youths at 223 S . Pennsylvania. The Planning staff originally recommended denial based on the intensity of use for the age of the group, and the amount of activity that would be generated. The second reason was that no park space is available in the general vicinity. This is already a problem for area residents, as was pointed out in the Green Oaks Plan. The Zoning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 17 and Ordinance Committee also looked at the density question relative to the fact that if you have two units in this house, you could have unrelated people in each unit according to the Zoning Code, two groups of five being equal to the ten. The committee then recommended that any renovation to the building would have to have Building Safety Office approval; that we would require only four parking spaces on-site, and that it must meet all licensing requirements for federal, state and local ordinances . Ms . LeBlanc had a concern about the staff report. The map shows letters of support and opposition. At the place where it is found, it looks like it is something that the Planning Board has found to be true and agreed with. As Ms . LeBlanc went through the petitions and additional letters, "I found some of these addresses where people came down on both sides of the issues . I found a lot more people opposed than are shown here. I believe this map came from the petitioner and the information they had at the time it was submitted to us; however, it is no longer what I as a Planning Board member have found to be true, and if it is included, I would like some kind of explanation that this is where it came from. " Ms . Love said "As Submitted by Petitioner. " Mr. Greiner passed the gavel to Mr. Ruge. He objected to the staff position originally taken on this project; he enumerated his reasons . Counting this one, there are four SLUs on the agenda this evening for residential care facilities . All four would have qualified for six residents under existing zoning without any action by the Planning Board. All four are before us for an increase in allowable residents, one for up to twelve units, and three including this one for up to ten. All four meet the three requirements for residential care facilities regarding lot size, twenty-four-hour supervision, and being over 1,500 feet from an already-existing facility. Staff recommended approval of three of the SLUs but did not support this one and in the staff report gave two basic reasons . One reason was that the number of unrelated people is not consistent with the average of 2 . 05 persons per unit in the surrounding area; therefore, the operation of this facility is not compatible with the area and would generate a level of residential activity in excess of what is characteristic of a dwelling unit of the surrounding area. The three recommended SLUs are currently zoned "A" Residential; this one is zoned "DM-3" , which is a more intense zoning. While we don't have the average number of persons per unit in the other three areas, one of the SLUs is a 12-unit 12-bedroom proposal surrounded entirely by single family dwellings . It is for a proposal that will be in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. ; the average size of the single family units in that area is under 1,000 sq. ft. The other two SLUs appear to be in areas of single family residences, although verifying information is not available. SLU-14-95 is in an area of more intense uses which includes multiple dwellings and a day care center which we recently approved. The second staff reason given is that SLU-14-95 is not adequately served by parks, an essential public service, and it is not demonstrated that the persons responsible for the proposed SLU are able to continually provide adequately for this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P . 18 service deemed essential . Many areas in the city are not served by a park, but that is not a criterion for special land uses . There are three reasons, the twenty-four-hour supervision, the lot size, and location of 1,500 feet from another facility. If this area is so dependent upon a park, or if a park is lacking in this area, why do we allow any of these other kinds of uses which are more intense than a single family residential use to be in an area that does not have a park. "I can't deny that there is a need for recreation for home-servicing of people of this age, but I believe that is a program problem that needs to be addressed by the petitioner, not a zoning or special land use problem that we should act on. . . . I don' t personally like this proposal in this neighborhood. " Mr. Greiner felt he could not vote for denial in this case after voting for approval in the three other cases . Ms . LeBlanc said she did not support SLU-14-95, first, because this is the only one of the four before us tonight that was not an adult foster care home. It does not fit the criteria for an adult foster care home. The population is not elderly, nor developmentally disabled, nor mentally ill; in fact, these are healthy teenagers . That is another reason why she could not support SLU-14-95 . As healthy teenagers, they have a lot of energy that elderly people unfortunately don't usually have. Also, they are more mobile and can create more problems for their neighbors if they don't have an outlet for their energy. This large house still is not large enough to accommodate ten normal teenagers; the lot is not enough for recreational needs . The other lots were 7 acres, and 3 1/3 acres, and without the room on the lot for teenagers to use up energy, recreational facilities need to be located in the area. Regarding the others, we talked about accommodating needs of senior citizens, for example, no sidewalks in the area. We also addressed the fact that because of the size of the lot, the exercise needs of the residents could be met on site without having to walk in a neighborhood without sidewalks . In this case, the need for recreation cannot be met on-site because there are no parks in the area. Exercise needs won' t be met and will spill over into the adjacent residents . The other thing was the needs of working with teenagers . Elderly people are not expected to learn to go out and make a living and be self-sufficient. The counselling and teaching processes will impact the neighborhood. "For these reasons , I will oppose this request while I have supported the other three. " Mr. Ruge agreed with Ms . LeBlanc. "We really can' t compare this proposal with the other proposals . " There are two big differences . These youths have had problems with the law, conforming their behavior to societal norms . While they are working on improving, they have had trouble. The second thing is that they are young, and they don't have health or mobility problems . Ms . Bunkley illustrated with her photographs what the problem is with the neighborhood. In the past it has been allowed to developed too intensely; it has caused many of the current problems . Houses are cut up into apartments . Adding this facility to an area that is already too dense according to most of our criteria is not appropriate. Even the fact that this house is zoned 11DM-3" shows PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 19 the poor planning that has gone on in this neighborhood in the past. The neighborhood organization has been working to rectify the problems . "I won't be able to support this . " Mr. Nischan said in committee his was the only nay vote. In addition to the reasons already iterated, he would be opposed to the petition because of the intensity of use in the already- struggling neighborhood. At six, we don't have a choice. Four more in the house that size does make a difference. It is a high- intensity group with a high-intensity service. In context of the neighborhood, with concern for maintaining the area as a neighborhood, Mr. Nischan would maintain his no vote. Mr. Robinson asked if the numbers are valid. Mr. Greiner said we voted on 3016 Risdale this evening, and we voted on 230 Bingham a month or two ago. There is a multi-family apartment complex around the corner at 1020 Prospect. Mr. Ruge lives about five blocks away. The numbers appear accurate. The problem is that the City has allowed this density to build up. The neighborhood has been trying to rectify the problem, but it is a long process . Mr. Robinson said his other concern was the teenagers ' lives on a day-to-day basis . What school and recreational activities at what times? How structured would their lives be, and how well supervised? Teenagers in his neighborhood congregate, play music, bounce basketballs . It does create a problem on hot summer days with windows open when homeowners would like some peace and quiet. Mr. Goolsby said at ages thirteen to seventeen, they would be in school in the daytime during the school year, and they would be home in the summer. Most would need a work permit, but some would not qualify. Loud music is not confined only to teenagers . We do have youth who have had difficulties, but to get into this plan, they have to turn their life around to return to mainstream society. These youngsters deserve a second chance. Highfields has an excellent reputation. "I would suggest the applicant start with six or seven to make sure it is going to work here. I have some concerns because it does meet the lot size requirement and size requirement per resident, but only by a small amount. " Mr. Goolsby said he will support the proposal . Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, to approve SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths, with upon four conditions : 1 . Completion and final Building Office approval of all renovation to the house at 223 S . Pennsylvania. 2 . Accommodation of the foster care facility by requiring only four (4 ) parking spaces on the site. The parking arrangement may continue as long as no more parking is requested or required. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 20 3 . Operation of the foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of foster care facilities . 4 . That this be applicant-specific . COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows . LeBlanc Nay Marshall Nay Nischan Nay Robinson Aye Ruge Nay Goolsby Aye Greiner Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 3; Nays : 4 ; SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths; motion failed. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, to recommend denial of SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths, based the following: 1 . The number of unrelated people, staff, speakers, and visitors is not consistent with the average of 2 . 05 persons per unit in the surrounding area; therefore, the operation of this facility is not compatible with the area and would generate a level of residential activity in excess of what is characteristic for a dwelling unit of the surrounding area, and 2 . The proposed special land use is not adequately served by parks, an essential public service, and it is not demonstrated that the persons responsible for the proposed special land use are able to continually provide adequately for this service deemed essential to the special land use under consideration. Mr. Goolsby commented on the one condition, not adequately served by parks and other public services, believing that it is served. The staff report says it is served adequately by public services . While there is no park within sight, Hunters Park is within five or six blocks . Thirteen- to seventeen-year-old kids are quite capable of getting to a park five blocks away. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows . A yes vote is a vote to deny. Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Nay Ruge Aye Goolsby Nay LeBlanc Aye Greiner Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 4; Nays : 3 ; motion carried; SLU-14-95 , 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths was recommended to be DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 21 Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that the Committee of the Whole now arise; voice vote; Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; the Committee of the Whole was discharged. Mr. Greiner presented the report of the Committee of the Whole. The committee met and considered SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths . A vote to deny the special land use passed 4-3 . Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny SLU-14-95, 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths . The SLU is not supported by staff, nor by the Committee of the Whole, for the following reasons : 1 . The number of unrelated people, staff, speakers, and visitors is not consistent with the average of 2 . 05 persons per unit in the surrounding area; therefore, the operation of this facility is not compatible with the area and would generate a level of residential activity in excess of what is characteristic for a dwelling unit of the surrounding area, and 2 . The proposed special land use is not adequately served by parks , an essential public service, and it is not demonstrated that the persons responsible for the proposed special land use are able to continually provide adequately for this service deemed essential to the special land use under consideration. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows . A yes vote is a vote to deny. Greiner Nay LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Nay Ruge Aye Goolsby Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 4; Nays : 3; motion carried; SLU-14-95, 223 S. Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths was recommended to be DENIED. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. Ms . Love said members received evaluation report forms during the past week; to date she has received several completed evaluations . The evaluations are due by December 5, 1995 . A preliminary budget should be available for our meeting on December 5, 1995 . Mr. Ruge said his wife is Director of Neighborhood Council . He inquired about the confidentiality of the document. Ms . Love said it is an open piece of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21 , 1995 - P. 22 information that she shares with City Council, and there is no reason why Mr. Ruge cannot share it with her. We have had some requests to change the nonconforming section of the Zoning Code to make some additional clarifications, generally related to abandonment of use, as a result of a recent court case. We want to create a clear definition that abandonment of use does not mean that the entire structure has not been abandoned but rather the unit that made the structure nonconforming. That will be coming to the Board sometime in December. Council will not meet after December 11 . They may not meet on January 2 , and it is unclear if they will meet on January 8 . For upcoming cases, nothing will go to Council before the first of the year. We need to discuss whether or not we want to have a second December 19 meeting. Possibly the Executive Committee may have to meet to review final revisions to the Budget, but that will be a daytime meeting. Mr. Goolsby said after December 16 , he will not be here. Ms . LeBlanc said she would be away between December 27 through the first week of January. Mr. Ruge who will be away December 19th requested an excused absence. Ms . Love said we could meet on Wednesday, January 3, but in 1995 January has 5 weeks . It would be appropriate if we could meet January 9th and January 23 . Martin Luther King' s birthday is celebrated on January 15 . It would work out better for us for January meetings to be January 9th and 23 . For the December 5th meeting, we will prepare the list of next year' s meetings, which will begin meeting at 7 p.m. For a December 19th meeting, no hearings would be held; it would be an action meeting. With only five members present, no action could be taken on zoning matters . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, that Chairman Goolsby write a letter to the Mayor, indicating we have been without an eighth person for about a year, and that we would strongly and urgently request that an eighth person be appointed. It causes problems with the Board being able to complete its work, because we cannot get a quorum. For that reason, we will not be able to have a December meeting to address issues . Ms . Marshall said requests take long enough for a decision, without another month being required because of a vacancy on the Board. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : Chairman Goolsby said it has been moved and seconded that Chairman Goolsby write a letter on behalf of the Board suggesting to the Mayor' s office that this Board would operate more efficiently if we did have an eighth member; Voice Vote; Yeas : 7 ; Nays : 0; motion carried unanimously. SLU-11-95 3016 Risdale Avenue Addition onto Existing AFC Facility GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Patti L. Holland 1401 W. Jolly Lansing, MI 48910 OWNER: Same REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use Permit DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: This request is for property located at 3016 Risdale Avenue. The application proposes the construction of a 24 foot by 38 foot addition onto the front of the present residential care facility in order to increase the capacity from nine to twelve persons . In addition, the application implies construction of facilities necessary for a second dwelling unit in the basement of the structure. EXISTING LAND USE: Adult Foster Care Facility LOCATION: North side of Risdale Avenue between Ballard and Wainwright EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE: 65 ' x 2501 ; 16,250 Square Feet; 0. 38 acres SURROUNDING LAND N: Single Family Residence USE: S: Single Family Residence E: Single Family Residence W: Single Family Residence SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for residential use at low density (0-7 units/acre) . CASE HISTORY: The applicant currently owns and operates a for profit adult foster care home licensed by the State of Michigan on this PLANNING BOARD SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue PAGE 2 Addition onto Existing AFC Facility site. In 1988, the applicant applied for a Special Land Use Permit to "house 12 senior adults in a licensed adult foster care home for 12 or less" (SLU-13-88) . This request was denied by Lansing City Council in April, 1989 . Subsequently, in June 1991, the applicant applied for an SLU to expand from 6 to 9 (SLU-13-91) which was approved by City Council in December 1991 with conditions . These conditions are listed in the attached Council Resolution. AGENCY REFERRALS DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: No comments from the perspective of the development office. Long term proposal is still out of character with the predominantly single family residential area. Check consolidated plan regarding clientele to be served. FIRE MARSHALL: Approved. TRANSPORTATION: Adequate off street parking must be provided for staff, residents, and visitors. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 foot by 38 foot addition onto the front of the present residential care facility in order to increase the capacity from nine to twelve persons . No additional improvements to the property are proposed. See Figure 1, Site Plan. Description of the Site The topography of the subject property and the surrounding area is relatively flat, and tends to slope gently towards the rear of adjacent properties to the north east. Storm water drainage could tend to accumulate in this area. The subject property contains the existing residential care facility which resembles a single family residence when viewed from Risdale Street. The most recent addition constructed onto the rear of the building fairly well hides the fact that this building is PLANNING BOARD SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue PAGE 3 Addition onto Existing AFC Facility significantly larger than most homes in the area. The current driveway is 11 feet wide and approximately 100 feet long; this arrangement does not provide parking adequate to meet Zoning Code requirements (6) for a twelve bed home. There is adequate space on the lot for expansion of the parking if necessary. The subject property is located in a well established single family residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is characterized by widely varying lot sizes ranging from 7,200 square feet to over 22,500', square feet (approximately two tenths of an acre to one half acre plus) . In addition to variations in lot size, homes in the neighborhood vary considerably in assessed value; homes within the same block as the subject property vary from a low of $25,813 . 00 to a high of $55 . 519 . 00 (not including the subject property) . $89,482 . 00 is the current assessed value of the subject structure, which is 62 percent higher that the next highest valued residence in the same block (Figure 2 , Assessed Value of Housing Units) . ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL LAND USE 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? Design and construction of the addition to appear similar to the existing house will be necessary to assure a harmonious appearance. Operation of the expanded facility, if it continues in its present manner, will not may necessitate expansion of the off street parking area. Any significant expansion of the off street parking would not be harmonious with the surrounding uses by virtue of its larger size and increased storm water runoff. 2 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY? While the proposed building addition will decrease the front yard set back of the existing house, it will still be more than the setback of neighboring houses and greater than the minimum required by the Zoning Code. See Figure 3, Established Front Yard Setbacks. The mass of the structure may appear large and out of place given the smaller scale of existing homes in the neighborhood. The structure, as proposed, would contain 3,008 square feet on a single floor. Figure 4, Square Footage of Housing Units shows the size of each home in the block containing the subject property. PLANNING BOARD SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue PAGE 4 Addition onto Existing AFC Facility The number of housing units is 15 (not including the subject property) , which range in size from 816 to 1,216 square feet with an average size of 982 square feet. The subject structure, already larger than other homes in the area, would become more institutional in size; this size and use is not characteristic for the neighborhood. 3 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY? The additional residents will likely have an imperceptible impact on the ability of the owners of adjacent property to enjoy their property. The applicant has not provided any information regarding landscaping, screening, or buffering as part of this proposed expansion. 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? Staff anticipates little impact on the natural environment except for a small increase in surface water run off. The appearance of the home from the street will still be that of a single family residence. Staff s concern centers on the impact of future changes that may occur to the property if an attempt is made to replace the current use with another use that is not as compatible with the single family residential neighborhood. 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? Additional storm water runoff from the larger building should not significantly impact accumulation of storm water drainage in the low area north east of the applicant' s property. 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? There seems to be adequate storm sewer facilities located within the public streets adjacent the site, there is no means for draining the low area in the site' s north east corner. Any proposed future expansion of the facility may require installation of additional drainage facilities . PLANNING BOARD SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue PAGE 5 Addition onto Existing AFC Facility 7 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY? No; as stated above, the only foreseeable problem is how to get storm water drainage to the storm sewer system. 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? Staff believes that the proposed expansion of the building is potentially inconsistent_ With the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the Objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the size of the structure proposed (and therefore its value) is out of character with the general conditions of the neighborhood. If the use of a residential care facility were ceased, it would be very unlikely that the building would be sold for use as a single family residence; it is probable that the building would be proposed for some other use that may be economically viable (such as a multiple family unit, a rooming house, child care, or . . . ) but would not be in character with the single family neighborhood. As shown above, the current value of the subject building is sixty percent higher than the assessed value of any other single family home in the block. 9 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEET THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED? Yes . The established front yard setback for this street frontage is 28. 6 feet; the setback of the proposed building addition is 40 feet. Side and rear yard setbacks will not be changed. The area of the lot covered by buildings and parking is 4, 108 square feet (approximately 25 percent) which is less than the maximum lot coverage limit of 55 percent. The proposed height of the building is one story. SUMMARY The application proposes the construction of a 24 foot by 38 foot addition onto the front of the present residential care facility in order to increase the capacity from nine to twelve persons . The house, when the new construction is complete, will have twelve bedrooms and will certainly be large enough to accommodate a group adult foster care home for twelve persons . It is anticipated that no substantial amounts of additional traffic will be generated by the addition of three elderly persons. No environmental hazards are expected and the surrounding neighborhood should continue to enjoy the use of their properties . The proposal appears to meet the minimum Zoning Code requirements if certain conditions are met. PLANNING BOARD SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue PAGE 6 Addition onto Existing AFC Facility This property has been subject of two previous Special Land Use applications; the first for 12 persons was denied, the second for nine persons was approved by City Council in 1991 . RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit to establish an adult foster care home for 12 elderly persons at 3016 Risdale subject to the following conditions : A. Construction, completion and final Building Office approval of an addition to the house at 3016 Risdale to provide a maximum of 12 bedrooms in the structure. B. Accommodation of the adult foster care facility by continuation of the existing four (4) parking spaces on the site as requested by the applicant. The reduction of parking spaces may continue as long as no more parking is requested or required. C. Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities . D. Approval of the Special Land Use permit does not include an approval of the construction or use of any second unit(s) in the building as appears to be suggested by the applicant. Any such construction or use would require submission and approval of a rezoning petition which would have to be granted prior to considering the construction and/or use of the second unit. Resolution#148 COMMITTEE ON PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT SLU-13-88 3016 Risdale WHEREAS,Patti Holland has requested a special land use permit to construct an adult foster care facility for up to twelve(12)elderly people at 3016 Risdale Street,more particularly described as: The East 65 feel of the West 155 feet of Lots 16 and 17,Eco Farms, being a part of the SE'/<of Section 31,T4N,R2W,City of Lansing, Ingham County,Michigan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the request and recommended denial based on the standards as outlined under Section 1282.02(f)of the Zoning Code;and WHEREAS,the Physical Development Committee of City Council has reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and concurs therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City Council denies the special land use permit for an adult foster care facility for 12 or less elderly people.The City Council considered the following standards in their denial: 1)The Board found that the development,as proposed,would not be constructed in a manner that would be harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area. 2) The special land use complies with minimum dimensional requirements of the zoning code, but does not show minimum required parking.The site plan submitted shows parking in the front yard which is not permitted. 3) Residents,whose homes abut the subject site,stated that the special land use would interfere with their general enjoyment of their property,particularly the use of their rear yards,due to loss of privacy. 4) The special land use would not be considered an improvement to the surrounding area in general since it would intensify the use and activity in the middle of the block,thereby creating develop- ment out of scale and architecturally incompatible with the neighborhood. 5) The special land use would increase traffic and activity not normally associated with a single family neighborhood. 6) Approval of this proposal may add to existing drainage prob- lems on site.Proper drainage techniques would have to be used to resolve any problems. 7) The Comprehensive Plan,which indicates residential use at 0 to 7 units per acre for the area, generally regards foster care facilities as compatible in residential areas provided no negative impacts are found. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be directed to notify the petitioner of said action. ADOPTED by the following vote: YEAS: Councilmembers Adado, Belen, Benavides, Blair, Creamer,Lindemann,Schmidt and Worthington i NAYS:None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION#716 August 22,1991 COMMITTEE ON PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT as no further physical expansion occurred. SLU-13.91 The resident at 3101 Risdale indicated that on occasion the elderly 3016 Risdale Avenue residents wandered from the house.If one of the elderly persons August 22,1991 were to wander into someone else's yard,some interference with the enjoyment of one's properly might occur.However,this would WHEREAS Patti Holland has requested a special land use to seem fairly innocuous and infrequent.I I would seem to be similar to increase the size of an existing residential care facility from six to a small child wandering or getting lost.It would appear that the nine(9)persons on property known at 3016 Risdale Avenue and increase in residents would have little significant impact on the use more particularly described as of adjacent properties. The east 65 feet of the west 155 feet of Lots 16 and 17 Eco Farms Impact on Environmental Features Subdivision,City of Lansing,Ingham County,Michigan:and No change in the exterior of the building or the lot is contemplated WHEREAS the Lansing Planning Board,at their meeting of August as a result of this request. No noise, air or water pollution is 20,1991,recommended approval of this request with conditions anticipated.No negative environmental impact should occur. and with the specific understanding that no further increase In the Served Adequately by Public Services intensity of use or in the physical dimensions of the structure will be Public services such as bus service are not directly available to the Supported or encouraged;and site but transportation for the residents is provided by the applicant. WHEREAS the Physical Development Committee of Council has Sidewalks and paved street are installed and accessible. reviewed the report of the Planning Board and concurs therewith: The proposal will not negatively impact the general availability of NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City public services in the neighborhood. Council approves a special land use permit for property at 3016 Risdale Avenue to increase the size of the existing residential care Impact on Public Ulililies A major concern at the lime of the last request for twelve persons ----._._ - •_ was the potential for standing water and/or runoff into the low spot facility for up to nine(9)elderly adults,subject to the following in the northeast corner of the lot which would adversely impact the conditions: neighboring properties. 1.There is no change in the parking area unless problems arise. According to one neighbor,no standing water caused by the adult Several additional spaces can be provided(if Planning Division foster care home has been observed, requires it)west of the addition.These must be heavily landscaped and adequately drained. No changes in the grading or amount of runoff is proposed as a result of this project.No additional parking area is being requested 2.There is no change in exterior dimensions of the structure. or required. 3.There are provisions for fencing along the rear of the open No other utility services are expected to be impacted as a result of backyard at 4314 Ballard. this proposal. 4. Final approval by the City Council of the Special land Use will Compliance with the Master Plan take place only after all Code requirements identified in the June It would appear to be in compliance with the Master Plan,which 26, 1991 inspection have complied with and approved by the indicates residential use at 0 to 7 units per acre for the area.The Building Division. comprehensive plan generally regards foster care facilities as This recommendation is made with the understanding that no compatible in residential areas provided no significant negative further increases in the number of beds or in the physical impacts are identified. dimensions of the structure will be supported or encouraged by Compliance with Zoning Code Requirements City Council. The structure and tot comply with city zoning ordinances relating to In making this decision the Lansing City Council has considered square footage and setback requirements.At present,nine parking the following: spaces would be required.Approximately four are provided in the single car width drive.However,to expand parking would change Compatibility with Surrounding Area the single family character.If the present arrangement is adequate, The structure at 3016 Risdale will retain single family residential the additonal parking which could be provided should be omitted. character.Even though it has a large rear addtion completed in If the present situation begins to present problems,several more 1969,where six of the nine bedrooms are located,the structure is spaces could be developed west of the addition which would have situated on a double lot(65 x 250)which contains 16250 square to be heavily landscaped and adequately drained to alleviate this feet There is ample rear lot area for gardens and outdoor passive problem. It would appear that all zoning requirements can be or active recreation. fulfilled;and The lot is similar to or larger than most of the parcels in the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lansing City Clerk be surrounding area.While the structure is large,it does not appear directed to forward a certified copy of this action to the applicant. overdeveloped because of the sae of the lot By Councilmember Canady The increase in number of residents should be generally compatible since the sae of the physical use will not increase and Carried unanimously adding three more persons should not generally cause more traffic than can be accommodated by the existing sdualk n. Impact on Essential Character Increasing to nine residents should not substantially change the character of the house or the area Some of These eldedy residents do not receive many visitors.Therefore,little change in the character of the area is antidpaled.However,if the facility were to try to expand beyond nine,either there would be people in every occupiable space upstairs and in the basement or a physical addition would be required.Eitherol these situations would change the character of the use and should not be encouraged.It would also necessitate an increase in parking requirements which would increase the intensity of the use beyond what would normally be associated with single family residential uses for parking.Parking for the structure is provided via a long single car paved driveway sufficient to house four vehicles.On street parking on one side of the street is also available for visitors.None of the residents have vehicles. Interference with Use of Adjacent Uses Previously neighboring property owners fell that having this facility would reduce privacy in their rear yards.Concerns voiced at the public hearing for this request ranged over several issues,but privacy was not mentioned.Two adjacent neighbors to the east supported the increase in the number of residents to nine as long SiT464�L'4'1/ LOT 17 N N F— tY � 0 z I" = 4 0' � x 26' M 44' HOUSE 6's LOT .iY 16 e-.< = 79 '-- yp' N FRogo5&D Yo, k 1365 R150' TO BALLARD ST. SI EWALK CURB RISDALE ST. lO�Cu,tB o 1/�PE2TyGwE This report Is Intended solely for mortgage purposes and no property lines were monumenled. No dimensions hereon are to be used to establish property lines or In the buliding of structures or fences.I hereby certify that we have Inspected the above described parcel of land and that all visible encroachments of a pe"anent nature upon said parcel are as shown on this report.Said parcel and or lot subject to all easements and restrictions of record. fl = Recorded Distance ` M = Measured Distance BnYAN LAND SURVEYS, P.C. = Distance NW to Scale 6019 Marsh Road r� = Deed Line HASLETT, MICHIGAN 48840 Ph. (517) 339-1014 DRAWN BY G J W SECTION 31, T4N, R2W LARRY A. BRYAN DATE FIELD WORK BY i S yc JOB NUMBER: �/ r-16U2E 2// �SSfSS ED V/��uE �ovSiti6 vtii FIEcD�NG IF TLI� �F IFTrl�.j IF IF IF q4 65 sy �4��BSa iF g A IF IF a I ,�/5'DAGE 4�p ;r- FFIAA � SOU- II- �S N 30�ro ��6oA�E - ►F �� IF F'r," IF � LE J nTll . LIF El - - • IF IF IF ,(F r ,� lF ED IE IF _ - ❑ A LIF 30 30 N 3dlo �150A�E M���M�� Fee rq�,,t-- of fleas1y6 aWl LL===-- - IF �D�� IF IF IF lF IF IF IF Jv zs� E 1rF� D5,�� - -, p1 �IUV I F Q IF ❑ N OF ol IF L \`�1 $ IF7 / �P/�IIAG� (F IF IF IF ❑ IF Eir: IF 1F ,/��M a C/t OF (JN/tS iUOT/NGL fJl� /Nl7 �S 301�0 �150Ar.E 14✓ER�hE Slz� t2ftN�E; SI(aTo 1,21Co SLU- 0014 -95 223 S. Pennsylvania Special Land Use for a "Residential Care Facility" GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Highfields Inc. P.O. Box 98 Onondaga, MI 48264 and Joe and Cliftine Bunkley 5207 Renee Street Lansing, MI 48915 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner: Joe and Cliftine Bunkley Lessee: Highfields Inc. REQUESTED ACTION: Request for a Special Land Use permit for property located at 223 S . Pennsylvania Avenue, PPN 3301- 15-329 -061 . The applicants propose to operate a "residential care facility" for a maximum of ten male youths ranging in age from thirteen to nineteen. EXISTING LAND USE: Residential (Vacant) EXISTING ZONING: "DM-3" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: Same PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 165 ' x 661=10, 890 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-3" Residential S : "DM-3" Residential E: "C" Residential W: "C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIG. : The North-East Area Plan designates this area for low-moderate density residential development (8- 14 units/acre) SLU- 0014 -95 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 2 The Consolidated Plan suggests the need for housing facilities to serve this special needs household category. No specific location is mentioned for within the City of Lansing. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant, Joe and Cliftine Bunkley (Owner) in conjunction with Camp I;�ighfields, Inc. (Lease) , wishes to establish a residential care facility at 223 South Pennsylvania Avenue. The facility would accommodate a maximum of ten male youths ranging in age from thirteen to nineteen. The facility will be staffed for 24-hour supervision. Residents will be placed by Camp Highfields through the following intake process . Intake preference and priority will be given to youth referred to this program from Camp Highfields (de-escalation, community re-entry) or from Ingham County Probate Court/Department of Social Service (respite, community stabilization) . Youth referred from other sources will also be considered for placement. Youth eligible for this program must be males aged thirteen through seventeen (at admission) , who: a) are currently appropriate for low security placement based on the state ' s Structured Decision- Making instruments; b) need a supervised community living situation to provide the supports needed to mature into positive independence; c) are unable to function productively in the community, either independently or with their family; d) have the ability to meet program expectations with some adult involvement (e.g. -school attendance, group participation) ; e) have demonstrated an acceptable level of behavioral control (e.g. -anger management) ; f) will not create danger for other youth, the staff, or the neighborhood by their presence or behavior; and g) do not require medication to maintain appropriate behavioral control . SLU- 0014 -95 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 3 The structure is a 2- story, 6-bedroom house, 1, 920 square feet in size. The lot measures 66 ' wide and approximately 165 , deep. The property is zoned "DM- 3 " Residential for single and multiple family homes . AGENCY RESPONSES Board of Water and Light No objections or comments . Public Service Dept. No response. Code Compliance No response. Police Department This is a neighborhood issue which is highly emotional . It is difficult to not support the neighborhood, but Camp Highfields has been effective also. Police sees this as a non-winner and chooses to remain neutral . Building Safety Office: Building permits will be required for any alterations . Sealed drawings are not required for this project. Consumers Power Company: No response. Assoc. for Bingham Com. : No response. Roger and Donna Lownsbery, Vice President and Secretary of the Association for the Bingham Community (ABC) are in support of the proposed facility. .Green Oaks NH Watch: No response. Mary Clark, President of the Green Oaks Neighborhood is opposed to this proposal . Transportation Eng. : Adequate off-street parking must be provided for staff, visitors and residents . Please provide a site plan for analysis and approval prior to any further action. Assessor: No response. Development Office: The Consolidated Plan suggests the need for housing facilities to serve this special needs household SLU- 0 014 -9 5 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 4 category. No specific location is mentioned for within the City of Lansing. SPECIFIC INFORMATION 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 1256 , 04 (e) (Spdcial Land Uses) states : A residential care facility which provides for more than six persons may be permitted in an "DM- 3" Residential District if it meets all the following conditions : i . The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area not less than 1, 000 square feet per resident. ii . Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a sponsoring agency. iii . 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 Camp Highfields 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 its proximity to other facilities and its required 1, 500 foot separation from any facility accommodating over 6 residents . r The standards which are established within Chapter 1282 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code, 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 expected to have minor changes. The structure is similar in size to other homes in the area. No additions onto the structure are planned. A required second means of egress, however, SLU- 0O14 -95 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 5 would result in an additional stairway from the second floor. The house sits on the largest residential lot within a 300 , radius on South Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff believes the proposed residential care facility structure would be maintained in a manner harmonious with the surrounding area. Operation of this facility will include the housing of up to ten teenage males referred to this facility by Camp Highfields or from Ingham County Probate Court/Department of Social Service. Youth referred from other sources will also be -considered for placement. In examining block group statistics of the 1990 Census, it appears that there is an average of 2 . 05 persons per unit within this area. Therefor, the quantity of 10 teenagers plus staff appears to be out of context with this area. 2 . WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY? The subject structure is located on South Pennsylvania Avenue, which features a mix of single and multiple family residential properties . The overall area is predominantly comprised of single and two-family homes . It has been stated that residents will be allowed friends and guests . Ten unrelated men living in the subject property plus any visitors and/or speakers would be a level of activity that is not 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 Camp Highfields proposal was expressed by the residents of 217, 229 , and 231 South Pennsylvania Avenue, the adjacent properties . See attached map for residents in support/opposition. Mary Clark, President of the Green Oaks Neighborhood and Mary Margaret Murphy Woll, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization are both opposed to this proposal. Roger and Donna Lownsbery, Vice President and Secretary of the Association for the Bingham Community (ABC) are in support of the proposed facility. The facility is located within the ABC neighborhood. SLU- 0 014 -9 5 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 6 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 use of the structure would appear to neither be an improvement or prove to have a negative effect on the use and character of the house. It is preferable that this structure remains a single family unit, which would be supported by the Camp Highfields proposal . Since this structure is within the "DM-3" zoning district, this structure' s character could be destroyed be dividing into a multiple family unit. However, the number of unrelated people, staff, speakers, and visitors is not compatible with the area and would 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 ten teenage males in the subject property should not have a direct detrimental effect to the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. There may be a detrimental impact due to noise if programming and supervision of the residents allow outdoor activities during the early morning or evening and night hours . However, the proposal is a residential use adjacent to other residential uses so incidental noises shouldn' t be detrimental . 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 Camp Highfields program cannot have their own cars on site, thereby reducing needed parking spaces. The two or three staff would need SLU- 0 014 -9 5 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 7 parking spaces, which are available behind the house. There are numerous churches within the area, but this area of the City is lacking in park space. The nearest facility would be the Bingham Elementary school which would not be appropriate for the proposed age of the residents . The nearest larger park facilities include Hunter Park on E. Kalamazoo and Riverfront Park along the Grand River. 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 by structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical inspectors and an inspector from the Fire Marshal ' s office. The results of the inspections show that minimal changes to the structure are necessary. 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? This special land use permit meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. The North-East Area Plan designates this area for low-moderate density residential development (8- 14 units/acre) 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 . SUMMARY 1 . The proposed special land use is designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding use. However, the operation of the property is not consistent with the average of 2 . 05 persons per unit in the surrounding area. 2 . Ten unrelated men living in the subject property plus any visitors and/or speakers would be a level of activity that is not compatible with the surrounding area. SLU- 0014 -95 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 8 3 . The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property. Adjacent residents and the neighborhood in which the proposal is located in appear to be supportive. Neighboring neighborhood groups are opposed. 4 . The proposed use of the structure would appear to neither be an improvement or prove to have a negative effect on the use and character of the house. 5 . A residential care facility for up to ten teenage males in the subject property should not have a direct detrimental effect to the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. There may be a minor impact due to noise. 6 . This house is adequately served by essential public services, with the exception of park space. The nearest facility would be the Bingham Elementary school which would not be appropriate for the proposed age of the residents . The nearest larger park facilities include Hunter Park on E. Kalamazoo and Riverfront Park along the Grand River. 7 . The proposed special land use does not appear to place demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity. 8 . This special land use permit meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. The North-East Area Plan designates this area for low-moderate density residential development (8- 14 units/acre) 9 . 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 acknowledges the Neighborhood Development Office' s reference to the Consolidated Plan, which suggests the need for housing facilities to serve this special needs household category. However, this special land use request is not supported by staff for the following reasons: 1) The number of unrelated people, staff, speakers, and visitors is not consistent with the average of 2 . 05 persons per unit in the surrounding area. Therefor, the SLU- 0 014 -9 5 223 S. Pennsylvania Page 9 operation of this facility is not compatible with the area and would generate a level of residential activity in excess of what is characteristic for a dwelling unit of the surrounding area. 2) The proposed special land use is not adequately served by parks , a essential public service, and it is not demonstrated that the person responsible for the proposed special land use are able to continually provide adequately for this service deemed essential to the special land use under consideration. C:\WP\DATA\PLANBD\SLU294.FE Prepared by: Steven L. Hayward, Planner From:Craig Anderson To:Steve Hayward Data:9111/95 Time:08:58:49 Page 2 of 2 1990 Census Of Population And Housing - Block Statistics 040 Michigan 050 Ingham County 060 Lansing city 070 Lansing city (pt.) 080 Tract 65 090 BG 5 100 Block 508 Housing Units and Units in Structure Universe: Housing units Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1 Unit Detached or Attached. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 or More Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Mean Number of Rooms Universe: Housing units Mean Number of Rooms. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Tenure Universe: Occupied housing units Owner Occupied Housing Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Renter Occupied Housing Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Mean Value Universe: Specified owner-occupied housing units MeanValue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,300 Mean Contract Rent Universe: Specified renter-occupied housing units paying rent MeanContract Rent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Housing Units With 1.01 or More Persons Per Room Universe: Occupied housing units Total Occupied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RenterOccupied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Persons In Occupied Housing Units Universe: Occupied housing units Persons In Occupied Housing Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Housing Unit Occupants Universe: Occupied housing units One-Person Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Family Householder, No Spouse Present With 1 or More Persons < 18. . . 10 Persons Universe: Persons Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Race Universe: Persons White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Asianor Pacific Islander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Persons of Hispanic Origin Universe: Persons of Hispanic origin Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Age Universe: Persons Under18 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 65 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - AVE- - �- - - E -—MICHIGAN -— r. .,.r' I!./' c ,1 •.>!!f' •a fe' rY Yc as as illo i�t. I' I 133•I ` o\ ati SCE I \\ O \\y I I 00 0 ^ 2 1 S 4 3 2 I I • 4 13 ! 4 I I 2 + t I �I I 6 3 ter 6 fit ,t 6 7 Sv 6 � 7 \ 0 6 -a 9 I Q •��. 6 Q26 9 F- 6 BINGHAM ST. 9 ,) i0 in 0 to I II p41 i! ; 05110 0 It ° SCHOOL p► 0 I I 12 ST. / EU 1! REKA ' as ..• . 'n,' ••.I' , a ' MI• •1° .le aL .. i•.a .N I v ee/ n 1; ,4 o I. I . . b` y• �\ tit In°/ is i for t\ \ ` v •i d ti ti4. 53 Lol j ! o• Irk •J/ a 'moo"tom �I. Q �: .d` 5\' , y; °•\ 10 .:.,^I ;. ti: r .• Z\1�_. •`j' y> Ov\• 15` '�\ -;y/ I; io ,/mot •I a. . - ,� a; _ 0UJI tit 0 , 0 011" 12 ,t.fl' /./l lel] trot .. 111 i• PROSPECT 1.. I t.r /.• Ir I• i1�• /o,o /K I/! ///I //tr I I/, Olt r rsi � I ti- \\ T\� ti= 031u• '• Ln� ' • � \ r I 11 moo Z 7 v 60 co 1 :� ; 0 v a •'' \Lt fyl e i as I� ' '_ +. 0 il 10 11 , 014 I 4y Q j\0 j \ ..61 01 1 d \. + 0 ° /v I./r• .. ^i • I •I1`ai' n 3 0 10 1 0�` it lit ear• 00 12 !I 1./ Iq bf ql ^ Q f' fl' •.• p1 „r a •!-r• - ST. ` E KALAMAZOO ST Irr f14 ffe IJr a.. Poo F.v we Its /.rc r•r /./,u!c ,.r . r .r.r n.•e nr• n r nr• nrI utr /ru ry n• 3// 1 Zfl =IJ t`J ]' 2al !}1 I I I I Ir• I � I i qel ,t I Sol t71 iy1 t,l t�l t,l i 131� ti 011 y s 14 13 12 11 10 9 ! 7 6 S 4 I ! 1 2 1 1 19 I le I li 116 IS 14 13 12 I Ir I'• 10 °,9 I E 7 6 ! 4 3 I 2` 9 3 I }f1 ; erl R 2 2 r l •a w 24 2S 2t 27 211 29 30 SI !2 33 N 3S` r � L �v i 3 12 It S 26 27 29�29 30 31 !2 33 !4I 3S !6 37 3E '/7 +•II 12 ;I I`I el/ efl e1/ Irl Il' ,�I f7' 16' 177 ' Q eJr .� ^` eft • \ 01' r1r lit 7. /Ll q1 r4r ISI ,yl Itr ICI I�r •0 05\ ,°y 0 /,f lr I// .r Nr /►f f.r N Nr /.r lr/ , ..•/ ..r/ •n Ir.r . /l. „ . „ ' rI' is i i1• is a, M/.,l •.Ir /.1/ rr, r•lf • ICKORY ST. 9 HICKORY b. Ira oil /. ttl,. h . • ' ... a/ .. �U• i, ' IL I' . . JI• .. . . IRr ,� oel ,..' I•.r ,• '. ,aa ... Irf •' .. .. If• 1. l,' ,.,. 11-a ,111 •~ Q. 13: fi t lil til t0,= t31 ' 0` 'lel I ^,•'yl•''\I ,�1 3;1 �tl 111•30l t'I t,F t^,` Is51 i41 t'7 '.°i t4\ .t•11 2 1 `10 ! 7 6 S 4 3 Jre _ '`19e'IS `17 K IS I I ! 12 II 10 S 6 LEGEND e 'r n..• A,Q Jr•tS �t , rir 'i � e" t • i6 . I p,�� ,.� •i q0Y \0\ ,\ t 7l.l I sl I 16 19 20. •20 21; 22 231 24 25 'zs 27 I2E 124 Letters Of Support y e o• o I I % Z = Opposed to Proposal �qy ST. � BEMENT J4• V r �I® 7 �. .I .... jeel I ., , l t�' f./J yF.q �T/ lbws i w .c 1 +\ �'� `'` ,5\` ts` t�l t9` tt` tpl t,i t''tl 23` ts' t'` t 1 1^ 1 1 'o°F 1 I%owj lit I I Ln 41 AVE. I I h In y `GRAND L_AJ L— y I I I L_ L L_ 5. GR4 ND J AVE' L.. j L IJU iN C ART/N 1 2 PLAT [CHER 57 "' —� ma I RI 15 �"� 35�WL(i C_E DA R - � LAB rLn � C_" - •� liti� I I= 2 \ `-_ J L ARCHrz S- I -J --- �L ARCH- rLL� 111 ; ,�l L LW L �� rcn —s � � EEC y ST ji lr n g£fcti I ; rn a U) c� B E-J h-J L-� J h_EAST I �1 S, RAIL -1 s LYONS AV£. "� % r � ' l i i H/L L S r DONORA --- ST A0� ~ I'I Q) - F i ^~i • R /D_AER I. cn'El�tTH r Fif r ti NT/AC S A /A _ AVE IJ�_J ! ~ L� ? PL 1' L " VANIA ALPH AVE la b �j�d� fMORGA \`\ \\\` B/IV,�r/AM l T J �' F - ? _ a 2 O • P4RWERJ L 1 ft� Z O [SHI��M� AVE. p r 2 r� �\ a ~ �j r i I}v Fit I sI 1fO ^ HOLMES � J ST l Ik J 1: L I I �~ e I IHOI �IS t — • r �.L r Z I BENSJ'L!�� �---J � V d - LF PA KINER SON' • OS OND a --- y * MC CUc euch � ST I� J CLr' f -i ry I CUS R r C a LATRO - ST � l __� r j 4 :' OP L' SJ Flk- I �'j 1 Lam. L9LIRU_MY L. -- -J I ---- —� Lam' SHE RD ST -- - � M ARSHAL L ST O a CZ //ff L. SHEPA S f-- 11 -� I ST LESL/E _ST -J c~ �ELV;v U v RD TI REGENT ST ( HOR 'ON_ - A� CL EMEN _J T=� Sj �CL EMENS' 1 AVE N E S V \/ - L-- r A(/RE[ /US RD. , /%�S FA/RV/E14 _I l J Ih AVt I� J ] N. FA/RV/fW J L� AVE C LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lot 8 , Block 9 , - GREEN OAKS ADDITION to the City of Lansing, Section 15 , T4N, R2W; Ingham County, Michigan according to the recorded plat thereof . �. lij 3 J v if 71 41 N //. ' CrAvc/ Drivc 1 4'x45' / /5' Porch / 3' 35' wa/.E O1 Slmalk 2-Story 5' iczarne House O 0.511, Cone. . / /9, � I 00 r..,j j a34. ' Ga�aga z 3 �� z b K W h i6� F. Lfl.n - 5 E. w 3'X.3' .5'X 9 N aining d X"O0M n /3 WAI living room X/D'1" ZZ!31'f�c /3'7" Rsmo €e de tec to' r~ *wi nJow S)ZE Ln �r inn d F L R uJiN ��w 0. - &I= ILX l� S fa i rs xa�3C" t. Se7f'A13'31' 13'/0"X I f 3' SA-TI+ NORTH SLU-14-95 SLU-14-95, 223 S. Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths I \ PA.RKIr 2, PARKING 869.l 38 BINSHAM s2 n� }�,� STREET WALL Y //r9/'S5HOOL 32 X 868.8 IL - I 859.0 152- 321 35 3/ 22 28 37 28 J2 33 8 26 35 40 I _ — 1 33 1 29 N ,� -314 71.8 34 J/ 30 G32 30 (' 28 30 \ 33 JO 29 31 30 29 8 8.4 - 29 30 68.8 I G � �3/ J2 30 26 27 ram+ I 65.7 �P05�EC 8673 S T 867,3 32— 3 - 1�/Nl� 26 30 26 28 29 3a Y• �� 29 1 �� 1 ' SLU-15-95 BWL Property at Aurelius Road and Main Street ACT-30-95 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: New Tower, Inc. 3420 Pine Tree Road Lansing, MI 48910 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Leasee REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: No Change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 4 . 92 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Railroad S: Railroad E: Red Cedar/Grego Park W: Aurelius Road and Single Family SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "A" Residential W: "B" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial/warehouse. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 320 ft. tall AM radio tower and equipment building in the floodplain of the Red Cedar River. See letter from applicant for other general information. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: None PLANNING BOARD, PAGE 2, SLU-15-95 AM Radio Tower, BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. & Main Street ACT-30-95 BWL: Electric Utility The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns regarding the request to build a 320-foot tall AM radio tower and equipment building in the floodplain at Aurelius Road and Main Street. Contact Person: Kellee Christensen 371-6831 . Water Utility Site plan approved. No water service available. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 . Project Engineering This property is a part of the "Riverside Sludge Ponds" property. Building Safety: The construction of radio towers are subject to the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code and the site review process administered by the Building Safety Office. Contact Christine Segerlind, Plan Analyst for further information. Continental Cable: The construction of this radio tower should not directly impact continental cable at this time. Development: No comment Fire Marshal : Approved Parks and Rec. : Any tower within a highly scenic and natural river corridor is not desirable. Our rivers and lands are unique geographic features in the Lansing region which is devoid of many water based facilities compared to the rest of Michigan. We strongly recommend denying this request. They can locate this structure in a more PLANNING BOARD, PAGE 3, SLU-15-95 AM Radio Tower, BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. & Main Street ACT-30-95 appropriate location. This would have a significant impact to the River Trail users especially in this section at the trail . Trans . Engr. : Access to the parcel should be restricted to the existing "gated" drive used by the Board of Water and Light personnel. ANALYSIS The use is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District. Therefore, the basic consideration is the construction of the structure in the floodplain. 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 proposed AM Radio Tower ad equipment building will be located at the Board of Water and Light property at Aurelius Road and Main Street. The surrounding uses consist of railroad tracks to the north and south, Red Cedar/Crego Park to the east and Aurelius Road and Single Family to the west of the proposed tower. The use of a tower is permitted in the "H" Light Industrial District. 2 . CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The construction of a radio tower and equipment building in this location will not change the essential character of the area. 3 . INTERFERENCE WITH GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates areas where towers and antennas can be located. This proposed location is within the accepted limits of the FCC and should not interfere with other station on the same frequency. Staff has no reason to believe that the proposed tower will create any interference with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties . The Parks and Recreation Department recommends its denial due to its proximity to the River Trail. The tower site is visible from the River Trail across the Red Cedar PLANNING BOARD, PAGE 4, SLU-15-95 AM Radio Tower, BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. & Main Street ACT-30-95 River. The site proposed for the tower has minimal depth of landscaping along the river bank. Additional vegetation planted between the tower and the river will soften the visual impact of the tower on the general public that uses the River Trail . Over the trail itself, a substantial canopy of trees exist which prevents much upward view, but the view across the river to the site is reasonably open. 4 . IMPROVEMENT TO PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA The proposed tower and its supports are a minimal impact to the surface coverage .of this area of floodplain and should not adversely impact the flow of flood waters 5 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed radio tower and equipment building will be located in the floodplain. The base flood elevation is approximately 835 . 7 ' . The proposed structure is approximately 833 . 8 ' or 1.9 ' below the flood elevation. The transmitter building to be elevated above the base flood elevation is only a small garage size building. Other than being in the floodplain, there should not be any other type of environmental impacts . 6 . IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES A positive impact is that the Board of Water and Light, property owner of the proposed location for the tower and equipment building is a potential user of the tower at no cost to the city. There are no other impacts on public service anticipated due to the construction of this radio tower and equipment building. 7 . IMPACT ON UTILITIES None anticipated. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial/warehouse use. A radio tower is a use permitted in the "H" light industrial district. 9 . COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS A radio tower is a use permitted in the "H" Light Industrial District. A Special Land Use is required because the PLANNING BOARD, PAGE 5, SLU-15-95 AM Radio Tower, BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. & Main Street ACT-30-95 tower/equipment building is being located in the floodplain of the Red Cedar River. SUMMARY The proposed special land use is compatible with adjacent land uses . The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the area. The proposed special- land use should not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties with the addition of recommended tree plantings between the river bank and the tower. The proposed special land use should not have any adverse impact on the surrounding area. The proposed special land use should not have any negative impact on the environment or floodplain. The proposed special land use should not have any impact on public services . The proposed special land use should not have any impact on utilities . The proposed special land use complies with the North East Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed special land use complies with the "H" Light Industrial District. The height of the tower will require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval contingent upon approval of the following: - Height variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals - Act 285 Review by Planning Board. - Implementation of a landscape plan approved by the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development and the Board of Water and Light. PLANNING BOARD, PAGE 6 , SLU-15-95 AM Radio Tower, BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. & Main Street ACT-30-95 In review of the applicant' s request, an Act 285 Review is required for the use of public land for private use. Act-30-95 AM Radio Tower and Equipment Building BWL Property at Aurelius Rd. and Main Street The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the- Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285) . LOCATION: The proposed AM radio tower will be located at the BWL property at Aurelius Road and Main Street. The surrounding uses consist of the railroad tracks to the north and south, Red Cedar/Crego Park to the east and Aurelius Road/Single Family to the west of the proposed tower. The site is extremely large and part of the 43 acre site of BWL for the storage of lime. The site proposed for the tower has minimal depth of landscaping along the river bank. Additional vegetation planted between the tower and the river will soften the visual impact of the tower on the general public that uses the River Trail. CHARACTER: The 320 ' tall tower will extend approximately 290 ' above the top of the bank of the sludge pond, which will obviously be visible from a considerable distance. This would be the only real change in the character of the property. EXTENT: The parcel is approximately 4 .92 acres. The proposed tower is a use permitted in the "H" Light Industrial district. The height of the tower will require a variance. SUMMARY The location, character and extent appears to be reasonable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Act 285 Review. c: \wp\data\planbd\slul595. fe SLU-15-95 NOU►+ BWL Property Aurelius Rd &Main, 320' Radio Tower & Transmitter Bldg. in Floodplam Iz7 - SSA- s I rE G.T.W ti RR. r 4 J r AfT HOPE I RD. _ - `4SgE ' R.zw. a9a cAre Fb57 7r. Loc.RrloN M.aP CONCREIE `` 1 <••'� Z N 9 �q1 ;ae oil 4 l WO a �n 1•1 j f31A 7�sJ7 N, V 7 1 DI c�55 S16h 3 I�i10 3 J0! h VI Y I�1 n• 1� 4 A' '► I vl CLEW-YEM COwl CLEW- HARI wuT anz I I 06 1 11 �O n-=II.W AREA 1 b N8939'S7'E "` Q n z I A 11 W J es,(AQel cl H/? IU $ 9 J Cre- o ( rK S B 492 A ry o ��h tic 06� 0 S5N COR.EA OF \` \ \ / i$Uflf�N40M \X/ R89.29' -E 757,09. \� 5 9'�W 05.9 _ 58929'00W 86599� OR THERLY RAIL Of RAILROAD 0 0 SENT BY: ; 11— 2-95 ; 10:34AM Ligget" _-oadcast-+ 517 483 6036;K 2 TO: Doris Witherspoon City of Lansing Fax: 483-6036 FROM; Jim Jensen DATE: 11/2/95 RE: Contruction of AM Radio Tower Doris, bSlow you will find answers to your questions of yesterday. 1. WHY BUILD IN THIS LOCATION? The FCC (Federal Communications Commission)regulates the broadcast industry. The FCC issues radio frequencies to licensees with such considerations as power output and frequency. AM radio station's signal patterns are somewhat inexact and controlled by the FCC issuing licenses which regulate power output and in some cases restrict signal patterns. Because stations throughout the country share frequencies or are located adjacent to other frequencies any overlap of signals creates major problems. The FCC issues licenses and permits accordingly. Prior to a station moving to a new transmission point(tower)an application is submitted to the FCC asking for approval The FCC reviews the application to ascertain that no other station with like or adjacent frequencies is harmed by the move. We conducted a study through Munn&Associates of Coldwater,Michigan(a consulting broadcast engineering company)to determine the area which we could relocate the tower in accordcance with FCC regulations.In this case, a move to the proposed location is within the accepted limits of the FCC. However any move of more than a mile or so in any direction beyond this point would certainly be rejected by the FCC because of problems it would create for other stations. We were lucky to have been able to find property within these boundaries, property which has little usability other than to locate a tower. 2. WHY MOVE,WHY NOT CONTINUE THE CURRENT LEASE? Presently, WLNS TV has an agreement with Gross Telecasting,Inc.to lease property on which to locate a tower. This lease expires in eight years at which time the owner of the property(Gross Telecasting)has indicated it will exccpt no further leases.WJIM AM inherited a lease from the previous owner of the radio station which allows the radio station to use the television tower until the termination of the lease between WLNS and Gross Telecasting,Inc. We understand that it is Gross Telecasting,Inc.'s intention to remove the tower at the termination of the lease and either sell or develop this valuable piece of property. SENT BY: ; 11— 2-95 ; 10'35AM ; Liggstr --oadcast- 517 463 6036;# 3 It is of utmost importance to the owner of WJIM radio to insure the future of the radio station by locating property on which to build a new tower.Because of the restrictions placed on licensees by the FCC the property needs to be close to the present location(as covered above). Another positive outcome of this move will be the improved coverage for the station. This will prove valuable not only for the station but for the City of Lansing as well. WJIM AM is a primary source of news and information for many residents of The City. The existing tower's structure and ground system were built in the 1940's and current technology will improve the station's coverage. 3. Why a 320 foot tower. Again, the height of the tower is relative to the type of license granted by the FCC. In order to adequately cover the City of License with a legal signal the tower must be built to 320 feet. C.E.S. (a consulting engineering firm from Cleveland, Ohio) specified the size of the tower based upon the parameters Specified by the FCC. SLU-16-95 vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Clinton-Eaton-Ingham Community Mental Health Board 808B Southland Lansing, MI 48910 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Parcel EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 7 acres, irregularly shaped SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Railroad S: Residential E: Railroad W: Vacant land SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential and "H" Light Industrial S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential and "H" Light Industrial W: "A" Residential and "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Master Plan designates this area for low density residential land use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: Construct a residential care facility for 8-10 elderly persons (See attached description of the proposal) PLANNING BOARD SLU-16-95 PAGE 2 vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: Ameritech currently has no facilities on Westwood, north of 3309 Westwood. Bd. of Water & Light: Electric Utility- The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns regarding the request for a special land use permit at the north end of Westwood Avenue. Water Utility- Water Technical Support site plan approved. BWL needs water service requirements and site plan as soon as available. Cont. Cablevision: Continental Cablevision will work along with other utilities to provide our service to this property. Fire Marshal: Approved, providing water supplies can be achieved and all fire safety rules are complied with. Transp. Engineer: Adequate parking for staff, visitors and if necessary residents should be provided. There are currently no sidewalks in this neighborhood. This type of land use could increase pedestrian activity, so sidewalks should be considered. Care should be taken in the design of a driveway off of a dead end street. The drive should be designed so that it does not give a driver the impression that the driveway is a continuation of the roadway. Building Safety Office: Adult Foster Care Facilities with an occupant load of less than 20 are treated as Group R Division 3 Facilities by the Building Safety Office. The use will be subject to PLANNING BOARD SLU-16-95 PAGE 3 Vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons the issuance of a building permit for a residential structure. Development Office: See response for SLU-17-95 (Any plan or expectations for rest of property? Does petitioner own entire parcel? Expansion probably should be considered on evaluation. ) ANALYSIS Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code specifies the criteria to evaluate the special land use request. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The subject site is surrounded by single family homes along its southern border, railroad tracks to the east, north, and south. The proposed 3 ,700 square foot single story residential facility on this vacant 7 acre parcel is substantially larger than nearby single family homes. It however is located at the end of Westwood Avenue in a wooded area, and will not be that visible from the street since it will be located behind houses along Shady Oak Lane. The extremely low density residential development proposed should therefore be compatible with the surrounding area. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The proposed residential care facility will not change the essential character of the area which is predominantly comprised of single family homes. The facility in effect provides a buffer between the lower density single family area along Shady Oak Lane and Westwood Avenue and the railroad tracks to the north. IMPACT UPON THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY The use of this property as an 8-10 bed residential care facility should not adversely impact the use of the adjacent property. The applicant has indicated that a portion of the subject site has been offered to the City of Lansing to give the neighborhood access to the Horsebrook Park to the west. This offer is currently being reviewed under the City's Act 285 Review Process. IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE SITE PLANNING BOARD SLU-16-95 PAGE 4 Vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons No negative impact on the environment is anticipated. The applicant has indicated that approximately a half acre of this 7 acre wooded site would be cleared for development of the structure and parking spaces. IMPACT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY The proposed use of the property should not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living within the facility or in the surrounding neighborhood. Residents at the Care Facility are typically elderly who are either medically fragile and/ or have mental health needs. Twenty four hour supervision will be provided by 2-4 staff people during the day and 1-2 people in the evening. IMPACT UPON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES The residential care facility will not adversely impact public services or facilities in this situation. According to the Public Service Department, sanitary sewer is available to the site. Storm water sewer is also available in the area. However, public improvements such as sidewalks, curbs and gutters do not exist in this area. Though this is a distinguishing characteristic of this neighborhood, which some say is part of its charm, it was pointed out by several people at the public hearing to be a detriment to residents of the facility who may want to walk through the neighborhood. The site is large enough to provide for protected walkways if this is part of the health care regimen. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN AND THE INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE The Northeast Comprehensive Plan identifies this general area for low density residential land use (0-7 dwelling units per acre) and is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. The facility meets the intent of the "A" Residential Zoning District which is "to provide for an environment of predominantly low-density one-family dwellings, along with other residentially related facilities which- serve residents in the Districts. " COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE Residential care facilities are allowed in the "A" Residential District with the approval of a Special Land Use permit. The Zoning Ordinance states: A residential care facility which provides care for more than six persons may be permitted in an "A" Residential District, it meets all the following conditions: 1. The residential care facility provides a minimum PLANNING BOARD BLU-16-95 PAGE 5 Vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons lot area of 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 six persons. The proposed facility will easily meet the setback requirements of the "A" Residential District on the subject 7, acre parcel. Four .on-site parking spaces will be provided in addition to the two spaces provided in the attached garage. The facility as proposed meets all of these requirements and is therefore in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If this facility were for six residents, it would be able to go in here without any review, therefore it is only for the additional 2-4 residents this SLU is for. OTHER Many concerns were raised at the public hearing held November 7, 1995. These generally related to the residents themselves as to what types of mental health needs they would have; and the location of a facility near railroad tracks in a neighborhood with no sidewalks for the residents to walk on. Also, some people felt that the rough terrain found along the Horsebrook Drain would be a problem for the residents to negotiate. Some people expressed concern about any increase in the number and/or type of residents the facility would accommodate in the future. (Since this Special Land Use permit is site and applicant specific, any changes to it would require another public hearing. ) A petition with 123 signatures in opposition to the facility was presented to the Planning Board at the public hearing. SUMMARY Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. 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. PLANNING HOARD SLU-16-95 PAGE 6 Vacant 7-Acre Parcel at the N. End of Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Special Land Use Permit be approved to allow the use of the subject property for a 8-10 bed residential care facility owned and operated by Community Mental Health provided that the requirements of all responding agencies are complied with. Westwood property 3 . Description of Proposal The Community Mental health Board is proposing to develop an adult foster care home for eight elderly individuals who have mental health needs. These individuals will come from various places including nursing homes, state hospitals or other residential homes. The Community Mental Health Board would also like to be granted authority to expand the size of the home to a total of ten beds to permit for future flexibility in providing care to our sizeable population. The program to be operated within the home is primarily residential with trained and experienced staff providing care on a 24-hour per day basis. Our primary =effort will be to increase the resident's social skills and to help them to become integrated into our community. At no time will residents be left unsupervised. The home will be licensed as an adult foster care home by the Ingham Department of Social Services and will comply at all times with all rules established by DSS. The proposed home will be of residential construction with approximately 3 ,700 square feet of living space. The home will have a residential style fire sprinkler system, an integrated fire alarm and be attached to all city utilities. Based upon City of Lansing records, there are no other adult foster care homes in the immediate area and the development of this home will not create a substantial concentration of like homes. We also believe that this home will provide a buffer between the single family residential homes on Westwood and Marquette Streets and the railroad tracks and heavy commercial property that surrounds the balance of this property to the north. The Community Mental Health Board proposes to clear a minimal amount of land on this substantial acreage for the development of the home. The balance of the heavily wooded property will remain as is. 4.C. Landscape, Screening and Buffering Plan Due to the large size of the parcel, the presence heavy mature vegetation and the residential character of the proposed home, the Community Mental Health Board proposes to provide residential style landscaping. Due to the distances between the proposed home and existing neighbors, no additional screening or buffering appears to be necessary. SLU-16-95 NORTH Vacant 7-acre parcel N. end Westwood Ave. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons 8273 e36.s - 9�0 36.1 \ BZ6.4. `\ e39.0kt \' Ps l�' �► ' B`o5 El II ,- V / ( B 4.7 Bc2i BI —143 n 27f El I A1gROUE Tl"E 23+.3 �� 1 I I I•• .�c 0 ElBsc.2 8444 n SLU-17-95 Vacant 3.37 Acre Parcel at the S. End of Coulson Ct. Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Clinton-Eaton-Ingham Community Mental Health Board 808B Southland Lansing, MI 48910 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Parcel EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 3 . 37 acres, irregularly shaped SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Vacant land E: Residential W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "DM-1" Residential E: "DM-1" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Master Plan designates this area for low density residential land use. BACKGROUND: A Subdivision Plat was approved for this site in 1989 for 10 single family homes by Walter Neller. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: Construct a residential care facility for 8-10 elderly persons (See attached description of the proposal) PLANNING BOARD SLU-17-95 PAGE 2 Vacant 3 . 37 Acre Parcel at the S. End of Coulson Court Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: None Bd. of Water & Light: Electric Utility- The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns regarding the request for a special land use permit at the south end of Coulson Court. Water Utility- Water Technical Support/Distribution site plan approved. Need water layout as soon as available. Cont. Cablevision: Continental Cablevision will work along with other utilities to provide our service to this property. Fire Marshal: Approved, providing water supplies can be achieved and all fire safety rules are complied with. Transp. Engineer: The neighborhood has no existing sidewalks. The proposed land use may result in an increase in pedestrian activity. Installation of sidewalks should be considered. Adequate parking for staff, visitors and residents (if necessary) should be provided. Design of the driveway at the existing dead end may be difficult and should be reviewed at the site plan stage. Building Safety Office: Adult Foster Care Facilities with an occupant load of less than 20 are treated as Group R Division 3 Facilities by the Building Safety Office. The use will be subject to the issuance of a building permit for a residential structure. Development Office: Any plan or expectations for rest of property? Does petitioner own entire parcel? Expansion probably should be considered on evaluation. PLANNING BOARD SLU-17-95 PAGE 3 Vacant 3 .37 Acre Parcel at the S. End of Coulson Court Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons ANALYSIS Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code specifies the criteria to evaluate the special land use request. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The subject site is surrounded by apartments to the south and east and single family homes to the north and west. The proposed 3,700 square_ foot single story residential facility on this vacant 3 . 37 acre site is substantially larger than nearby single family homes. The extremely low density residential development proposed should therefore be compatible with the surrounding area. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA The proposed residential care facility will not change the essential character of the area which has a variety of dwellings in the area. The facility in effect provides a buffer between the lower density single family area along Coulson Court and Rosedale and the area of apartments to the east and south which includes the Villas of Woodgate Apartments and the Willowwood Apartments, but does not tend to improve the character. IMPACT UPON THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY The use of this property as an 8-10 bed residential care facility should not adversely impact the use of the adjacent property. IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE SITE No negative impact on the environment is anticipated. The applicant indicated approximately a half an acre of wooded area would be cleared for the facility and its required parking. This will not significantly change the character of this 3 .37 acre wooded site. This proposal compared to the previous proposal for a subdivision plat for 10 single family homes will allow the site to retain additional wooded area and will generate less traffic and activity. IMPACT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY The proposed use of the property should not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living within the facility or in the surrounding neighborhood. Residents at the Care Facility are typically elderly who are either medically PLANNING BOARD SLU-17-95 PAGE 4 Vacant 3 . 37 Acre Parcel at the S. End of Coulson Court Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons fragile and/ or have mental health needs. Twenty four hour supervision will be provided by 2-4 staff people during the day and 1-2 people in the evening. IMPACT UPON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES The residential care facility will not adversely impact public services or facilities in this situation. According to the Public Service Department, sanitary sewer is available to the site. Storm water sewer is also available in the area. Hpwever, public improvements such as sidewalks, curbs and gutters do not existiin this area. Some people at the public hearing pointed this out as a detriment to residents of the facility who may want to walk through the neighborhood. The site is large enough to provide for protected walkways if this is part of the health care regimen. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN AND THE INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE The Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifies this general area for low density residential land use (0-7 dwelling units per acre) and is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. The facility meets the intent of the "A" Residential Zoning District which is "to provide for an environment of predominantly low-density one-family dwellings, along with other residentially related facilities which serve residents in the Districts. " COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE Residential care facilities are allowed in the "A" Residential District with the approval of a Special Land Use permit. The Zoning Ordinance states: A residential care facility which provides care for more than six persons may be permitted in an "A" Residential District, it meets all the following conditions: 1. The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area of 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 six persons. The facility as proposed meets all of these requirements and is therefore in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If this facility were for six residents, it would be able to go in here without any review, therefore it is only for the additional 2-4 residents this SLU is for. PLANNING BOARD SLU-17-95 PAGE 5 Vacant 3 .37 Acre Parcel at the S. End of Coulson Court Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons OTHER Many concerns were raised at the public hearing held November 7 , 1995. These generally related to the residents themselves as to what types of mental health needs they would have; and the location of a facility near railroad tracks in a neighborhood with no sidewalks for the residents to walk on. Some people expressed concern about any increase in the number and/or type of residents the facility would accommodate in the Future. (Since this Special Land Use permit is site and applicant specific; `any changes to it would require another public hearing. ) SUMMARY Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Special Land Use Permit be approved to allow the use of the subject property for a 8-10 bed residential care facility owned and operated by Community Mental Health provided that the requirements of all responding agencies are complied with. Coulson property 3 . Description of Proposal The Community Mental health Board is proposing to develop an adult foster care home for eight elderly individuals who have mental health needs. These individuals will come from various places including nursing homes, state hospitals or other residential homes. The Community Mental Health Board would also like to be granted authority to expand the size of the home to a total of ten beds to permit for future flexibility in providing care to our sizeable population. The program to be operated within the home is primarily residential with trained and experienced staff providing care on a 24-hour per day bdsis. Our primary effort will be to increase the resident's social skills and to help them to become integrated into our community. At no time will residents be left unsupervised. The home will be licensed as an adult foster care home by the Ingham Department of Social Services and will comply at all times with all rules established by DSS. The proposed home will be of residential construction with approximately 3 ,700 square feet of living space. The home will have a residential style fire sprinkler system, an integrated fire alarm and be attached to all city utilities. Based upon City of Lansing records, there are no other adult foster care homes in the immediate area and the development of this home will not create a substantial concentration of like homes. We also believe that this adult foster care home will provide a buffer between the single family residential homes on Coulson and the apartment complexes to the south on Edgewood Blvd. The Community Mental Health Board proposes to clear a minimal amount of land on this substantial acreage for the development of the home. The balance of the heavily wooded property will remain as is. 4.C. Landscape, Screening and Buffering Plan Due to the large size of the parcel, the presence heavy mature vegetation and the residential character of the proposed home, the Community Mental Health Board proposes to provide residential style landscaping. Due to the distances between the proposed home and existing neighbors, no additional screening or buffering appears to be necessary. SLU-17-95 NORTH Vacant 3.37-acre Parcel off S. end Coulson Ct., Res. Care Fac. for 8-10 Elderly Persons :1 / 6 963. I J ♦ bb % o.arwG r/ N 424.500 El El e � � 6� : , x / ,?� N \ = N ..e77,2 N 424.000 _r �`--•_.._ 1 e,9.a �. � '� � . 9 ! 600 Le69. 0 wig (r 1 9 \ � 672.9 C. e79.o 74 e76.J i e77 s ees.1 �— `eeo COULSON COURT PROPERTY Topographic Map Aox 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - P. 23 E. Pending Items : Future action required 3 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee held per continuance request) Chairman Goolsby said Mr. Ruff will write a letter instructing the applicant that the case will not be held any longer, because the lapse of four years, approaching five, would require a new public hearing anyway. 3 . Urban Development Committee: a. Acts-18 through -23-95, BWL Well Sites VI . NEW BUSINESS - None VII . COMMUNICATIONS Letter dated November 16, 1995, Carl J. Latona to Steven L. Hayward - invitation to visit 223 S . Pennsylvania Reference was made to the two identical letters from Brian and Lauri Yustan regarding SLU-16-95 . Chairman Goolsby read a letter from the FCC regarding pre- emption of local zoning regulations of satellite earth stations . VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11 : 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn112195 a:\26 S �RTMENT OF PLANNING AND c N , NBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT I� tit ON SQUARE• LANSING,MI 48933-1668 • (517)483-4066 • FAX:(51 7)483-6036 PLANNING OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor TO: Clerk_, City Council, City Hall Lobby Bulletin Boards , Planning Lobby Bulletin Board 4 FROM: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager g cc: File DATE: December 18, 1995 RE: Cancellation of Regular Planning Board meeting December 19 , 1995 The regular meeting of the Lansing Planning Board, to be held on December 19 , 1995, at 7 : 30 p.m. , in City Council Chambers , has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in City Council Chambers on Tuesday, January 9 , 1996 . EKL:LC ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" APPROVED 010996 TO CLERK 011696 Minutes of the Regular Meeting \ Li R U LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 : 30 p.m. , City Council Chambers „1 17 C Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue LAN"SlI L1. CITY CLERK, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1995 I . OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers : Lilly, Jones ; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator. D. Approval of Agenda - approved as presented. II . HEARINGS A. Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District Mr. Ruff presented the case. The house at 318 Beaver St. was razed during November. The units at 320 Beaver and 1425 Center Street exist at present on the site. The applicant proposes to continue the residential unit in 320 Beaver and a nonconforming duplex in 1425 Center, and do some renovations there. The property contains about 8, 000 square feet of lot area. Mr. Ruge said the surrounding zoning to the East is shown as "H" Light Industrial and the map indicates the zoning to the east is Residential; Mr. Ruff said the correct zoning is "C" Residential . The Master Plan update is leaning toward residential for the block face north of the intersection just to the south. HENRY RILEY, 6100 POLLARD, E. LANSING. The City wrote me a letter saying I was supposed to improve the house. I put siding on the house. There was a restroom stubbed in the floor with an old garage behind it, so I converted that to a one-bedroom with a bathroom off it. The foundation was approved by the inspector. He came back out and said I didn't have a building permit, so I tried to get a building permit; I couldn't because they said I could only put so much money into the house. I didn't PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 2 know what that was all about, so they told me to do this, so that is what I am doing. Mr. Ruge asked if his understanding was correct, that part of the request is to convert a garage into living space? Mr. Riley said that is what happened; he already did it. The garage was already there, at 1425 Center. Mr. Ruge asked if the house will be for one family and the garage will be for a second family; Mr. Riley said no, it is a main floor apartment, with another apartment. They had a shed on the back of it. I utilized that space there to put a bedroom and a bathroom there. I dug footings . I didn't take up no more space than was already taken. Then I re-sided the house. Ms . LeBlanc asked if Mr. Riley added onto one of the existing apartments, using the space to add a bedroom onto an existing apartment. Mr. Riley said added space to an existing apartment? Yes, but there was a garage on the back of this place, so I knocked a hole in the wall, dug footings and built that the same dimensions as the garage that was already there. It would be adding living space, and a bathroom. Ms . LeBlanc said "The question was whether it was adding a unit, but it is just adding living space. " PETER GUINS, 1407 CENTER. In favor of the rezoning. I have lived 1407 Center for fifteen years, and I have been struggling to get it rezoned. In the Master Plan of 1980 I understood the block should be rezoned residential. I am now a member of the committee working on the new master plan. I am eager to see the block rezoned back to residential, because I would like to rehab my house. Rezoning 1425 is a step in the right direction. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. B. Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S . Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Mr. Ruff presented the request by Michael Hourani to rezone the above property for the purpose of constructing a medical office building and parking. The property now has on it single- and two-family homes . The proposed zoning is "D-1" Professional Office. Also mailed with the Planning Board packet were site plans prepared for the public hearing. Mr. Ruge asked if there is a height restriction in the "D-1" Professional Office District; Mr. Ruff answered 40 feet, compared with 35 feet in the Residential District . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 3 FRED ABOOD, 603 S. WASHINGTON, ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM ABOOD, ABOOD AND RHEAUME. Our reason for petitioning for this property is to have the Capitol Medical Center consider it for an addition because they have no other space to expand. Also in your packet should have been a letter from the Hospital indicating their interest in this property. The original idea was not shared with the hospital administration but rather with a few doctors, whose specialization is urology, for a dialysis center. Dr. Michael Hourani, a urologist associated with those specialists, has that as a priority consideration; however, he also chairman of the Board of Medicine at MCMC, and possibly in the next few years he may be chief of staff. To avoid any conflicts, his reason for going to the hospital administration first was that he wanted them to have the first option. I am not here on behalf of the hospital, but I want you to know the hospital ' s interest. There are approximately 12 pieces of property, acquired by option to purchase, conditioned upon the rezoning. The property owners want to know the future of this site. There is a private road access into the center of the property. If we receive favorable consideration on our petition, we will request that the access be vacated since there will be no need for an access road. Park usage and enjoyment will not be involved. It will be a substantial addition, whether as a part of the hospital or part of a private medical clinic. JoAnne Jager, 3131 Boston Blvd. , member of Colonial Village/Logan Square Neighborhood. I am interested in Washington Park. The parking for this particular zoning classification--are there size limitations and what is the formula for numbers of parking spaces? Mr. Ruff said size of building is based on how much building can be on the site, balanced with setbacks and parking. Medical offices require one parking space for every 150 sq. ft. of usable floor area devoted to office, waiting, etc. , not including storage, bathrooms and mechanical rooms . General office nonmedical in nature is one parking space for every 200 sq. ft. Setbacks are 20 feet front and rear, and 10 feet on each side, minimum. Parking must be hard-surfaced with asphalt or concrete, and no parking is allowed in the front yard. MS. JAGER. What will be the effect on the environment at Washington Park, and its usability, not just as a park, but also as a site for another recreational facility? In the course of that study, some terrain considerations have come to light. I am concerned about increased storm water runoff in the park. Will we have increased PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 4 drainage problems? Will there be visibility or other obstacles to the visibility? Mr. Ruff said we do not have constructions plans at this time, just general schematics . We cannot dictate architectural style. Runoff is required to be handled on-site. Storm detention is generally required. Ms . Jager said "So there are restrictions on the environmental impact on the park?" Mr. Ruff said yes . BRUCE JOHNSON, 510 ROSADELL, JUST EAST OF WASHINGTON, WITHIN EASY WALKING DISTANCE OF WASHINGTON PARK. My concern is the property involved here. Mr. Ruff said the property involved is west of Washington. JENNIFER LAURITZEN, 2810 S. WASHINGTON. On October 3, 1995, I signed a contract for the purchase of my house. I started working outside the home full time in December after nine years of running a daycare. My husband was working an average of 75 hours a week, and I was diagnosed with a chemical imbalance which caused depression. At that time, our marriage was struggling, but I thought that our love was strong enough to withstand that. Unfortunately it wasn't, and my husband left me November 3. I now stand before you as a single parent of four children ages 151, 131 , 12, and 7 . In the spring of 1990, my husband and I purchased the house at 2810 S. Washington as a sweat equity home. We worked very hard. We relocated rooms and remodeled. At that time we paid $38,000 for the house; we signed a contract for $81,000 after the realtor's commission. It seems like a fair price, but not when you are pending divorce. My home is approximately 1,600 sq. ft. , 4 bedrooms, 1i baths, a first floor laundry and a full basement. The mortgage payment on this house is $394, taxes, insurance included. I am currently employed as a safety director. In May, my hours were cut to 15 hours a week, $6 per hour. I have a high school diploma. Mortgage companies don't find me a good risk to be able to purchase another home. In order to provide an adequate home for the children, it would cost me approximately $750 per month. This would eat up my portion of the equity in four years . Yesterday, my estranged husband called the Friend of the Court and found out how much he would have to pay in child support. His income is $1,700 per week. Last evening he phoned and proposed giving me all the equity from the sale of the house if I would reduce his child support to $250 per week. It would be extremely difficult to raise, house, feed and clothe children on $250 per week. He has cut off all money, and I am now living $80 per week. At 4 :30 today, George Abraham called me, making threats of lawsuits, bringing up the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5 , 1995 - P. 5 name of Mr. Abood. My divorce attorney had left for the day. I probably will not be able to provide a home for my children. If I had known the future, I would never have signed the contract. ROY O-DELL, 1627 LINDY, REPRESENTING MS. EVELYN PIPER, 2726 S. WASHINGTON, owner of the houses bordering Willard Avenue. Mrs . Piper has lived at the property for over 50 years . I have lived in the south end not far from Washington Park. Speaking for Mrs . Piper, she thinks it would be a great addition for the south end. We have also dealt with the gentleman here, and have had nothing but success, and we hope it is approved. Referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. C. Z-19-95, 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a petition by Quest 5, Ltd. to remodel the first and second floors of the existing structure for commercial use for restaurant/lounge. Mr. Greiner asked about parking provisions in the "G-1" Business District. Mr. Ruff said in the "G-1" Business District, both districts would allow restaurants or retail uses . The "G-1" Business District allows residential uses without a special land use permit. It does two things . The "G-1" Business District eliminates the parking requirement, just as in other parts of the downtown where we have the major office center, and allows residential as a conditional use. Mr. Ruge said it seems from the letters we received that parking is getting to be a problem in the area. We encouraged development, and we were concerned about parking, realizing that it was going to be a problem. Is there any long-range plan to alleviate that? Ms . Love said we are working on a five-year parking plan. We have begun to gather information regarding parking demand, availability, and potential sites for additional parking east of the river as well as west. We are investigating potential sites . The idea in the "G-1" Business District is for the municipality to provide the parking, as opposed to an industrial district. Mr. Greiner said on the southwest corner of the intersection is a city parking lot which was recently expanded by 90 spaces . Mr. Ruge said the Blue Coyote tried to help that by providing valet parking, but during the evening, it does not seem like everyone is taking PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 6 advantage of that service. Ms . Love said the valet parking is in that city lot across the intersection. They contract with the city for more than 100 spaces of the over-300-space parking lot. During the day, it is permit parking, except for the part by Liskey' s which has not as yet been opened to permit parking. The baseball stadium will have handicap spaces on-site in front, and another 140 spaces to the north. We are working with CATA to develop a trolley system to bring people from the North and South Grand ramps . Studies for parking indicate that over 2,000 parking spaces are available in the evening when the games will be played. Chairman Goolsby said the petitioner was not present. Three letters have been received. One, from Carol Hoyt, fiscal officer of Michigan Humanities Council on Pere Marquette, addressed to Mr. Steven L. Hayward of the Planning Office, states they have experienced the negative effects of one new building in the area without on-site parking. "Our spaces are in jeopardy every day because visitors to one new building abuse the private parking restrictions . What will happen when there are two new buildings, three with the ballpark? Renovations to this area should be encouraged but only with provisions for proper parking. " We have also received a November 28, 1995 letter from Thomas Galyon, Greater Lansing Convention and Business Bureau. "I support the development of downtown Lansing. An additional restaurant so close to the soon-to-be baseball stadium is great, but the need for parking must be addressed. The current situation with the Blue Coyote Restaurant has already proven that this area needs additional parking before any new additional establishments can open. A plan for parking must be in place before any rezoning occurs . " A letter dated December 5 was received from Rossman and Martin. BRIAN HUGGLER, 1515 W. ALLEGAN, ONE OF THE OWNERS OF 119 PERE MARQUETTE. The Pere Marquette Group, consisting of three partners, myself, Martha Mertz and Marlene Skehan, actually support this development. We realize that the only way to make this work is without the requirement of on-site parking, because there is no on-site parking available. We would encourage you to look at the possible solutions for parking in the immediate future. We realize there is a plan. Baseball starts in less than six months, and everyone is concerned about the lack of parking and the safety issue along Pere Marquette Drive. There are no sidewalks . If the properties along Michigan Avenue continue to be rezoned, the development in the whole area must be looked at, and parking plans . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 7 ROGER MARTIN, PRESIDENT OF ROSSMAN-MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM, 119 PERE MARQUETTE BUILDING. In April, we celebrate our eighth year of doing business in downtown Lansing. We are excited about developments in the downtown area. The Blue Coyote is a fine establishment, and we are excited about the baseball stadium. The concern is for parking and for public safety. Since the Blue Coyote opened, we feel like oddballs walking up and down Pere Marquette from the parking spaces we rent north of Clara' s to our office. Traffic has increased three-, four- and five-fold. We have to walk down the middle of the road. To give you an example of how severe the parking problem has become, just yesterday, the City of Lansing granted tenants in our building the power to write parking tickets for our private lot. Not a day goes by that we don't come back from lunch or a meeting that we don't find patrons, probably of the Blue Coyote, parking in our spot. We have made extraordinary efforts to identify these as private spots . We have clear signs with yellow paint and big numbers, but people ignore it. I would ask you to encourage development in that area, but don't approve development without parking. The businesses who have been committed to downtown will have to look elsewhere. . If our customers can't park and move about safely, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. HARRY L. HEPPLER, 113 PERE MARQUETTE, 619 E. MICHIGAN. I am in support of this area being redeveloped. My concern is that 601 E. Michigan has requested a lounge and restaurant, and on the card it was a reggae-jazz club. I am concerned if they are going to be on the first or second floor. The concern for the second floor is that 603 E. Michigan Avenue, a building that I rezoned "G-1" about a year ago, has a luxury loft apartment there. They pay about $850 per month plus utilities . They would not coexist well with a bar-restaurant or a lounge-restaurant on the second floor. I believe they would coexist if it was only on the first floor. I have heard they want both first and second floors and also rooftop, so they can sit outside. The loft at 603 E . Michigan has a 9 ft. x 7 ft. skylight in the middle of the bedroom and the kitchen. This could create some problems if they were up on the roof looking down over the skylight. I do support an entertainment district; I would like to see a restaurant/lounge in that building on the first floor, not on the second floor, or any other buildings on the lot. It is important to know that for 603 and 619, both my buildings, I put in two plans sealed by architects, detailing as much as I could the directions of the buildings . Cornell-Baldwin, an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 8 interior design firm and tenant in 603 E. Michigan, also support entertainment on the first floor, but are concerned about hours and noise and how they would coexist. I want to see the building redevelop. I was interested in the building also. It is a beautiful building, with beautiful tin ceilings, and is a structure that should be saved. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee D. Z-20-95, vacant property southeast corner N. Pennsylvania & May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Gerald Rowley to rezone the above property to develop a multitenant commercial building to include a laundry, barbershop and retail space on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. GERALD ROWLEY, 737 N. PENNSYLVANIA, right across the street from the vacant lot. I want to improve the area. I am retired from the military and want to start my own business . A laundromat would be an asset to Northtown. I have a petition of 68 signatures in support of the project. Everybody would like a laundromat. SGT. MARY STEVENS, A SERGEANT IN THE NORTH PRECINCT OF THE LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT. I have received input from various public service agencies, and from Gary Carrick, Code Compliance office. We have had problems in the area. I was a patrol officer assigned to work that district in the afternoon shift for 4J years . I was promoted to sergeant a little over a year ago; most of that year I have spent as the supervisor on the afternoon shift. Area problems have revolved around drug dealing with five shootings within three blocks of the intersection. There are many good houses and good residents, but there are many people out on foot. We have tried to develop programs to deal with problem property. Unfortunately, when we stamp out one problem, another crops up in its place. Drug dealers constantly vie for control . I am concerned about a laundromat as a hangout for drug dealers . At Massachusetts and Grand River is a similar building, with a carwash attached, but the comparison is good. Eric ' s Market attracts a lot of people to the area. Problems occur anywhere people congregate--drug dealers take advantage of the situation. If there is a pay phone in the area, they claim they are not loitering but have legitimate business on the phone. "I 've got stuff in the laundry. " The owners at PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 9 Massachusetts and Grand River have been cooperative, but they have problems controlling people who congregate there. This area is in serious trouble. It has the potential to be turned around, but we have to clean up the problem properties first. There are three big problem houses, all interconnected. People go back and forth. This summer I set up a surveillance. They went out three nights in a row, and shot up another house, at the corner of Johnson and May, one block east of this intersection. Even knowing what was happening, we couldn' t catch them. People being shot at wouldn't cooperate. If this is approved, I would like to see their plan for developing security, because there will be problems . Mr. Ruge asked about the site plan approval; Mr. Ruff said the site plan was received about the same time as the application; it has been examined. A driveway to the east would serve the residents . Commercial parking is proposed to the front. Mr. Ruge was concerned that large trucks would find the driveway on May convenient. Mr. Ruff said landscape screening and buffering is needed on the east side of the building. A square site with two front yards is difficult to work with, balancing the size of the building and parking requirements . JEAN PURVIS, 829 JOHNSON RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. I have lived there 18 years . My daughter goes to Eastern, walks to and from school . I fear for her and other children in the neighborhood. We have an ongoing problem. HAROLD KING, 1563 N. HIGH STREET. I am representing Northtown Neighborhood Association. I read the notice to a meeting of 29 people who were concerned about the trafficking that can go on in laundromats . They seem to be a target area where people congregate. The question is not knowing how the laundromat is going to be run and open hours . There is potential for drug dealing. We see the potential for good with a new business developing. Mature pine and walnut trees there. BILL HOUGHTALLING, 4824 SYCAMORE, HOLT. I have property across from the site, and I have had problems myself. If you've never experienced a drug house, you haven't lived. I had one set up and operating next door to me; within twenty-four hours, they had hookers on that corner, and they were selling drugs . If it wasn't for the police department in that area, we were really going to have a problem. The building code compliance officer helped us, and we were able to control it, but we don't need any more problems . Another problem is semi traffic from PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 10 Pennsylvania down May Street serving the industrial area. It gets congested. With parking on either side, the trucks can't get down through there. Semis go by shaking your windows at 1: 30 a.m. to make deliveries . It is just not a quality neighborhood for residents . It' s fine for this gentlemen now, but what if he sells it and the laundromat is open twenty-four hours a day? What if the use downstairs changes? It' s a long-term investment for the residents . We put money into cleaning up the graffiti from the gangs . On Johnson Street at the corner, that house is a problem for the Police, for Building Code Compliance. We still have the drugs in there. It' s not an easy thing. Mr. Ruge asked for an explanation of Mr. Houghtalling' s statement that there is industrial use down May Street. Mr. Ruff said east off Pennsylvania there are offices and nonresidential uses down May Street. There is some access off Oakland, but there is a circuitous connection through there, but not any direct access from May to Oakland. On Oakland, there is a glass company--behind those businesses on May Street, there are also businesses . On the south side of May Street is Snell Environmental Group. They are buried right in the middle of the neighborhood between Saginaw and Oakland, ten to fifteen businesses . Chairman Goolsby said Robert G. Fultz, 1701 Mary Avenue, owner of property at 1009 Main Street, wrote the Board a letter objecting to the rezoning because there will be more cars parked on May Street, more traffic, big semis, and higher traffic volume because of a laundromat, barbershop, and another retail business . It is conducive to more rowdyism in the neighborhood. There have been enough shootings and other incidents in the last year. His daughter resides at 1009 May with her children. She is also against the rezoning. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee. III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) HAROLD KING, NORTHTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT. I have worked with Eleanor Love in a couple matters . Northtown is in the process of implementing its new bylaws which set up committees for planning, economic, and physical development. We have come a long way in the three years since I moved to Lansing. We are in a position to go forward with many innovative ideas . IV. RECESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 11 V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 21, 1995 Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of November 21, 1995 . Mr. Ruge proposed the following emendations : P. 1, I .A. , ROBINSON, :7 members present; one absent Rebinsen; P. 5, 4th para. , Ln. 7 . 3 Pos . 2 .8" ,ne,a_.._, ,,, #' . fragile; mentally M� fragile; P. 8, Para. 9, Ln. g.:.5." Pos. 2" Te,.er-s- �a�r�a �a�vc�?? plac-ed ....................... . :................::.....,. P 10 L n. 2 . Pos 2 . 1'Y "o :N '> ;4tJ .........P. I1.�....Para. 1. Ln. 1 : , Pos .. 5 . " . . . .Hk TH roblems . TH: ..: it'S ::::::EES :>:> 1Q: ? t4 M ::> H.., 5 .::: ` C ": ' P PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; minutes of November 21, 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. a. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, December 13, 1995 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time the above cases will be considered. 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. a. A meeting scheduled for Tuesday December 12 ,. 1995 has been canceled. Next meeting TUESDAY, January 9 , 1996, the same day as the first 1996 Planning Board meeting, at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 4 . Executive Committee - did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. The preliminary budget is not complete. The Department is tentatively requesting several new items, including consultant funds to do a downtown strategic plan in conjunction with the parking study. We are also requesting another senior planner position, and a full time job coordinating city-wide decentralization which would also be responsible for the beautification program, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 12 and for working with neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Council to develop neighborhood involvement. We are also asking for a contract employee to do sign enforcement. That camera that we requested last year and didn't get so that we can provide visuals--the Assessor' s Office has indicated an interest in utilizing the same camera so they can update their records of city housing stock. Resurrection did pass the Physical Development Committee this afternoon, 2-0 . It will be on Council ' s agenda on Monday, December 11, 1995, with some changes since you last saw it. The church has reduced the square footage of the building by about 1,000 square feet, down to about 12 ,500 square feet. They have agreed to break up the long expanse of wall to make it less intimidating; to put in mature landscape screening and buffering; to change the 180-foot roof line by putting on a full-sized gable roof, and possibly two gables on the two wings that would be offset from that; and add additional window detail to break up the massive bulk of the building. They have tried to add more green space; they will cut 14 feet off the end of the building. Ms . Love said, regarding the continuing mistake of the U.S . Census Bureau counting Lansing's population, we have forms to take exception to their numbers . You calculate population using a variety of methods--real numbers of births, deaths, school district in- and out-migration, building permit and demolition numbers, etc. We figured they underestimated Lansing's population by about 8 . 8 percent. We will meet with the mayor tomorrow to go over the numbers and then submit them to the Bureau of the Census . Mr. Nischan asked, regarding the Board evaluations, will we receive a summary? Will the recommendations go with you to the budget meeting with the mayor? How are evaluations used? Ms . Love said they are used in several ways . We haven't usually sent them to the mayor, but that is not a bad idea. Normally, they are reported to the City Council and are used at the deliberations at the City Council. Every year, by charter, each board and commission is required to report its activities and recommendations for the following year. Many times that hasn't happened for us until January or February. By that time, the budget is well under way. By getting them earlier this year, we can use them to our benefit in presenting to the mayor. Mr. Nischan wanted to be on record as encouraging that. "I thought of it as sort of an executive-branch-related activity because of the nature of the questions. . . . I would like the mayor to know that we are supportive of the staff, and we see a need for more things, in addition to the coffee at the meetings . . . . The second question is . . . . with the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 13 reductions that we have, there are many areas that pertain to planning, development and enforcement that are too numerous to keep up with without a large staff. Do you know of other cities or programs or approaches that partner with neighborhood associations ?" Partnering with neighbors with, for instance, a quality- of-life checklist, collects data, strengthens neighborhood involvement, intensifies enforcement, leverages staff time, and gives citizens an alternative to calling five times a week. Has it been tried? Ms . Love said code enforcement officers do attend neighborhood meetings . They do encourage people at these meetings to come forward, but some areas don't have neighborhood associations . Neighborhood organizations facilitate two-way communication. We receive information, and we disseminate information about zonings, police work, or whatever. Mr. Ruff mentioned problem-solving meetings where citizens and department representatives work toward solutions . Ms . Love said we have a team that meets every two weeks on Friday mornings . Members from every department are on the Decentralization Team. We are working with two neighborhood organizations, one north and one south. Ms . Love has not heard anything from Mr. Roberts regarding the Administrative Rules of Procedure. E. Pending Items : Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee Held per continuance request) VI. NEW BUSINESS - A. Cancellation of December 19, 1995 meeting. Chairman Goolsby and Mr. Ruge will be away. There will not be enough members present to vote on zoning matters; rezonings will be handled at the January 9 , 1996 meeting. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, to cancel the December 19, 1995 meeting; voice vote; Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; December 19 , 1995 meeting was CANCELED. Chairman Goolsby said Council meets on December 11 for the last time of the year. Items from the November 21 meeting will not be considered until 1996 . B. Board Meeting Dates - 1996 . Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, that the new meeting starting time be at 7 p.m. ; voice vote; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 14 Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; new meeting time of 7 p.m. was APPROVED. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, to adopt the Board meeting dates for 1996 meetings as submitted; voice vote; Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; 1996 Planning Board meeting schedule was APPROVED. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby said communications had been noted. VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Goolsby offered his best wishes for a good safe holiday and a productive new year. He did write the letter to the mayor urging appointment of an eighth Planning Board member. "I explained that we were in all probability canceling our December 19th meeting because we would not have enough members present to pass any rezonings . " IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Ms . LeBlanc said in the latest Michigan Historic Preservation Network News, on the case in Ypsilanti where the Presbyterian Church was not allowed to demolish a historic house, they took that to the State Historic Review Board and were upheld. It has gone to County Circuit Court, where the decision was upheld. The judge made two points : demolition by neglect, which is church ownership for many years without maintenance, then they said it's falling apart, and we need to demolish it. This is prohibited. It was upheld. Secondly, they claimed they were a church, and their parishioners were not interested in maintaining historic structures; they were interested in churchly things . Also, the churches were not given a special exemption; that they were also subject. Those were the two things that he mostly mentioned. " Mr. Ruge referred to the November 1995 National Association of Officials Planning Magazine writeup about Sparrow Hospital . Eleanor and Jim both are quoted. Mr. Ruge advocated sending a letter to the mayor supporting acquisition of a part-time person for sign code enforcement. Considerable discussion ensued about the letter. Ultimately, Ms . Marshall made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to authorize the Executive Committee to meet, consider the budget, take action on behalf of the Planning Board, and subsequent to that, write a letter to the mayor on behalf of the Board, indicating the Board's support of the budget and the specific items discussed this evening, including the consultant funds, sign code enforcement officer, senior planner, as-yet-unnamed coordinating position, and camera. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 - P. 15 Chairman Goolsby said the letter would be on his law firm letterhead. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : Voice Vote, Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; motion was APPROVED. Mr. Ruge said he would be unable to attend the Executive Committee meeting because he would be out of town. Ms . Marshall will attend in his place. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 :58 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn120595 a:\26