HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 Planning Board Minutes Oct-Dec FINAL Approved as written 1-9-07 Draft to Clerk December 14,2006
Approved January 9,2007
To Clerk February 22,2007
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers --
Lansing City Hall i
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 -� n,
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Bruch (late), Cordill, Czekai.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske.
C. Excused absences: Hollister.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Hollister for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (4-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from the Mayor addressed to Mr. Bob Johnson, Director of the
Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, regarding
SLU-11-2006
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consent Items
rLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 2
1. Act-14-2006, Groesbeck Drain Easement
This is a request by Patrick Lindemann, Ingham County Drain
Commissioner for an easement for the continued use of the ponds
in both the Groesbeck Golf course and Bancroft Park. This
easement will allow the Ingham County Drain Commission to
maintain the ponds as part of the Groesbeck Park Drain system.
The proposed drain easement is located south of David Street,
west of Wood Street, north of E. Grand River in Bancroft Park and
Groesbeck Golf Course. The easement itself has no impact upon
the City's sewer or street infrastructure. The character of the area is
primarily residential and park land and will not change as a result of
the drain easement. There should be an overall improvement to
the environment as a result of the drain easement. Several positive
amenities will result from the approval of the drain easement. The
Groesbeck Drain easement has been a discussion for years with
several public meetings/notices. The Supreme Court granted the
Drain Commissioner approval to proceed with the acquisition of the
Groesbeck Drain easement. Once approved, construction would
start by April 2007 to coincide with other construction activities in
the adjacent area and with Lansing/Lansing Township.
Again, if the drain easement is not granted, the applicant has
indicated that the project would be delayed resulting in a abeyance
of the Ingham County Road Commission's proposed reconstruction
of Lake Lansing Road between Wood Street and the city limits and
higher cost to the overall district. Also, there is a need to eliminate
flooding on Lake Lansing Road.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-14-2006 for an easement for
the continued use of the ponds in both the Groesbeck Golf course
and Bancroft Park.
APPROVED w/o Objections.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 3
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
C. Old Business
1. ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley, 3600 Block S. Cedar Street
This is a request by Speedway SuperAmerica to vacate the 16 foot
wide alley that runs between Glendale Avenue and Irvington
Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to allow for all of the
property that is owned by Speedway to be consolidated so that the
gas station can be rebuilt and expanded.
This request was referred back to the Planning Board by the City
Attorney's Office because the City Attorney determined that the
only condition that could be placed on the approval of an alley
vacation is the preservation of utilities through one of two means:
1) by easement, or 2) by relocation. The City Attorney's Office
therefore determined that the two conditions that were
recommended by the Planning Board (to require a sound buffer
where the alley is being vacated and the adjacent residential
neighborhood, and adherence to the City noise ordinance) exceeds
what is allowable for the right-of-way vacations and therefore
cannot be enforced. Their office is sending it back to the Board to
have the two conditions removed.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that both of these conditions are already
backed up by ordinance. The applicant has to comply with these
whether they are conditions or not. The City Zoning Ordinance
requires an 8' buffer (i.e. plant materials, fencing, berms or any
combination thereof) between this site and the residential
neighborhood.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that with the loud speakers, Speedway has
already turned the loud speakers completely down at this location
and they will adhere to that in the future especially now that they
know the neighborhood organization and the City are keeping
watch on it.
Mr. Czekai stated that he has seen it where City Council has
removed conditions that the Planning Board has placed on different
cases. He does not understand why this request is coming back
and why they just do not remove the conditions. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the Planning Office had asked the same question and
that all of the communications came through the City Attorney's
Office. The City Attorney's Office simply said they cannot accept
the recommendation because it has those two conditions on it. Mr.
Rieske stated that because of the nature of the conditions that were
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 4
placed on this request, they are sort of after the fact, after approval
type conditions.
Mr. Frederick stated that any condition that the Board can
legitimately levy on any kind of an action taken is always an after
the fact situation because if it were before the fact, it would not be a
condition that the Board would have authority to even consider.
The Board does not know ahead of time what is and is not required
and what the situation is until the case is heard. Everything is
going to be after the fact. He does not have any problem making a
motion to approve the vacation without the conditions. But, he is
very puzzled why all of a sudden the Board has such attention from
the City Attorney. He knows that there are perhaps issues that are
sitting up there that the Board has sent before that have never been
answered. If the Board is going to continue to get this attention
from the City Attorney, he will certainly welcome it because the
Board has needed it in the past and the Board has not gotten it. At
the same time, there are some by-law changes that have been sent
to their office from the Board of Zoning Appeals that have
languished there for approximately 15 years. Perhaps staff could
suggest along with all this attention that they could get around to
taking care of that too. Since the Board does not make official
rulings only recommendations, where is it written that they have to
take the Board's recommendations? In the past, a lot of times the
Board's recommendations have been totally ignored.
Ms. Bruch stated that the ordinance is going to require that the
applicant have a buffer but she does not know if they are required
to have a sound buffer which is different. A sound buffer comes.
from having the berms followed by a fence, and vegetation is really
not much of a sound buffer at all. It is a visual buffer. Dirt is the
best sound buffer. If the Board is going after a sound buffer, then
she is requesting during site review, that it is a berm and a thick
fence that are going to actually do more of the sound buffering than
the vegetation. Ms. Cordill asked if both the visual and sound
buffer are recommended. Ms. Bruch said yes.
Mr. Czekai said the issue is that it would appear that the City
Attorney is getting twisted on the word recommend. He asked if the
Board needs to change this to suggestions. Ms. Cordill stated that
the Board is not calling it a condition, so why not call it a
recommendation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is all the same. Mr.
Czekai stated that it was listed as a bullet point under original
recommendations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board cannot
do that. Ms. Bruch said it would have to happen during site review.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of
ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley, 3600 Block S. Cedar Street.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 5
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
Approved.
2. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit —
Community Center
This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to
utilize the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former
Northwestern Elementary School) for a faith-based community
center with living space for the operators of the facility. The
property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits community
centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing
City Council.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this request is being referred back to
the Board because the City Attorney said the recommendation was
not acceptable. In order to allow both the community center and
the residential use in the same building, it would take "D-V
Professional Office zoning. The "A" Residential District, even with
the special land use permit, simply does not allow dual use of the
building. City Council cannot act on it and the City Attorney
recommended to them that the public hearing not even be set until
it was resolved.
Ms. Cordill asked if the applicant understood that he would have to
have "D-1" Professional Office zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
the applicant was at the meeting. By the Board's recommendation,
what was essentially said to the applicant is that the Board supports
the dual use of the building. The City Attorney is saying that is fine
but the applicant needs to apply for rezoning. If the applicant stays
under the current district, the special land use would only authorize
the community center. If the applicant wants to do both, he needs
to request the rezoning.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of
SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community
Center.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the dual uses (i.e. home office, piano
studios, home daycare). Ms. Stachowiak stated that none of those
uses are primary uses and are all secondary uses. The primary
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 6
use of this building without question would be the community
center.
A discussion ensued about constructing a building next to the
community center for the applicant to live in, like the example of
church with a parsonage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would
have to get an opinion from the City Attorney.
Mr. Ruge inquired about churches having dual uses and asked
about clarification from the City Attorney for future use.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to table SLU-10-2006, 2908
Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community Center to allow the
applicant additional time to consider the idea of adding a house on the same parcel. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit
— Residential Care Facility
This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge for a Special Land
Use permit to utilize the building at 1030 S. Holmes Street (Holmes
Street School) for a residential care facility that would house up to
150 people. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which
permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if
approved by the Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-11-06 SLU-11-2006, 1030 S.
Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit— Residential Care
Facility, based upon its consistency with the criteria of Section
1282.03(f)(1)-(9) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the following
conditions:
1. The capacity of the facility be limited to 96 residents;
2. No additional asphalt be added to the site;
3. Approval of a site plan by the Planning Office for fencing
and/or landscape materials that would best screen any views
objectionable to adjacent neighbors and that will inhibit
trespassing;
4. Lansing Teen Challenge shall not allow any may with a
conviction for violence or criminal sexual conduct into the
Lansing Teen Challenge program;
5. Lansing Teen Challenge will make the persons in its
programs available for community and neighborhood
projects and requests as deemed appropriate and
harmonious with the scheduling and programming of
Lansing Teen Challenge;
6. Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in staff
members occupying and supervising the property at 1030 S.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 7
Holmes Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and
7. All doors shall have alarms that notify LPD of any problems
as currently used at the Muskegon Teen Challenge Facility.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this request was referred back to the
Board because the vote was a tie which does not constitute a
recommendation. Since the statute says that City Council cannot
act on the case without a recommendation from the Board, all they
are doing is sending it back to the Board for another vote.
Ms. Stachowiak typed up all the conditions on a separate sheet of
paper. There was a lot of time that went in to formulating these
conditions but when it came down to the vote, it was (2-2). All City
Council is asking the Board to do is essentially to revote on this
case tonight.
Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to take a 10 minute recess and
allow an opportunity for Board members to review a memo regarding this case. On a
voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, to recommend approval of
SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit— Residential Care
Facility with the following conditions: 1) The capacity of the facility be limited to
96 residents; 2) No additional asphalt be added to the site; 3) Approval of a site
plan by the Planning Office for fencing and/or landscape materials that would
best screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors and that will inhibit
trespassing; 4) Lansing Teen Challenge shall not allow any may with a conviction
for violence or criminal sexual conduct into the Lansing Teen Challenge program;
5) Lansing Teen Challenge will make the persons in its programs available for
community and neighborhood projects and requests as deemed appropriate and
harmonious with the scheduling and programming of Lansing Teen Challenge; 6) q
Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in staff members occupying
and supervising the property at 1030 S. Holmes Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week; and 7) All doors shall have alarms that notify LPD of any problems as
currently used at the Muskegon Teen Challenge Facility.
Mr. Frederick stated that since conditions in general are being
questioned by the City Attorney's Office, should the conditions be
sent up for approval and let them decide whether or not the
conditions can be levied on this special land use. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that most of these conditions are identical to the ones that
were placed on the first special land use which were approved by
the City Attorney's Office.
Ms. Cordill stated that she was looking at condition number 6
regarding staff levels and she was looking at the applicant's
response to the Board questions regarding the number of staff that
will be at the facility during the day and during the night. Their
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 8
information shows 11 staff members live on-site and are available
24 hours a day. Ms. Stachowiak stated that not all of those 11 staff
members are on duty necessarily. They are available for
emergencies and they live there, but only a certain number of them
are actually on duty. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board's
recommendation is different than Teen Challenge's response. The
Board can change its recommendation to be the same as Teen
Challenge. Ms. Cordill stated that condition number 6 was a
minimum number of staff.
Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant did testify that three staff
members were too many at the Willow facility and they dropped
back to two staff. He requested that the City pay special attention
to this condition to make sure that it is adhered to in the future.
Mr. Ruge stated that condition number 3 is vague. There is a fence
all the way around this site which is not very attractive and is very
high. He would like to have this softened by trees all around the
site. Mr. Czekai asked for a recommendation for changing the
language. Mr. Ruge asked for a reasonable amount of trees, a tree
every 25 feet with a starting size of 2 caliper inches, and offered
this as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bruch accepted it.
Mr. Frederick stated that since there is a landscaping and buffering
ordinance, he asked if the Board could impose a condition greater
than the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak said yes.
Ms. Cordill stated that she would be accepting of this proposal if the
Board went with the applicant's response. She offered a friendly
amendment that Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by the
following staff levels: first shift, 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 12 staff on
duty; second shift, 2:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., 8 staff on duty; third
shift, 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., 3 staff on duty. Mr. Ruge accepted it.
Mr. Ruge asked if there was a limit on the height of the pole barn.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the requirement is the same as any
residential garage which would be 15 feet to the midpoint between
the eave and the peak of the roof.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried.
Approved.
D. Report from Planning Manager— None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 9
E. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J"
Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. ACT-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000)
b. Master Plan Project
C. ACT-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate Alley
(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan project is a work in progress
and stays on. She and Mr. Rieske agreed that all three of the other cases
could be removed because they are considered dead projects.
With item 1 a, Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a building there and it is
a religious facility. The Pastor runs a radio show and TV program out of
there. He also visits schools and ministers to kids. As far as she knows,
he is not running church services out of that building and should he decide
to do that, he will need to come back for the special land use.
With item 2a, Ms. Stachowiak stated this case is almost seven years old
and this had to do with a sign at Sir Pizza in Old Town. The Planning
Manager at the time and the Senior Planner who were working on this
case essentially did not agree on how this was to be handled. It went for
an ACT 285 Review and it was tabled because that was when the City
decided to start taking on the overlay district project. Mr. Rieske stated
that the case would be in compliance if the overlay district had been
enacted as planned on drafting it. He stated that the case in not in
compliance at this point.
With item 2c, Mr. Rieske stated this case is a vacation of an alley and that
the Board of Water and Light continues to have an interest in it because of
a well or electrical location.
Mr. Rieske stated that it should take a Board vote to remove these items.
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to remove from the table
SLU-3-2002. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to remove from the table
ACT-1-2003. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to remove from the table
ACT-9-2000. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 10
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Czekai stated that if a case involves Old Town, the Board should make sure
to get Old Town's comments. Northtown actually does not represent Old Town
and are two different organizations. Mr. Rieske stated that Old Town already
commented on that portion of the drain that goes through Burchfield Park.
Mr. Czekai stated that it is not like the Board had a lot on the agenda but as
Chair, he apologized for the Board having to rediscuss these items. This was a
pointless waist of time and it is very obviously an act of politics that the Board is
being dragged into. He tries to shield the Board as much as possible but this was
unavoidable.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Bruch stated that there are a lot of items discussed that she feels the Board
is not moving forward on (i.e. overlay district, Master Plan, updating ordinances,
new members). She is wondering how the Board is going to get out of this
pending wheel and really start moving forward. Ms. Stachowiak stated that one
of the ways the Board is going to get out of it is that we are getting towards the
final stages of hiring another Planner. The Planning Office has restructured the
office a little bit. There are currently two Senior Planners and there has to be
someone who works at the permit counter everyday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
They lose quite a bit of time each week. The Planning Office is hiring a Planner
30 which is a lower level Planner position and this person is going to work at the
permit counter five days a week. This will free up the Senior Planners to do
actual Planning work. This will help significantly to get some of these projects off
the ground.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MILK Blvd. -landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003)
b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004)
e. Michigan Ave & Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building
(May 4,2004)
f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004)
g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005)
i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road. -registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005)
j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006)
k. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating
in a print shop (April 18, 2006)
I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs (July 5, 2006, July 18,2006& September 5, 2006)
m. Southeast Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence (September 5,
2006)
n. LaSalle Gardens near Midvale Avenue—RV parked in driveway in front of house (October 3, 2006)
Mr. Ruge stated that 400 Allen Street was remodeled and port holes were put in
for windows. There is someone living there now. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is
perfectly legal and that it meets building code.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 5, 2006 Page 11
A discussion ensued regarding Boca Code and Uniform Building Code. Mr.
Czekai stated that if Board members would like to further discuss this, it should
be placed on the January 2007 agenda. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like for
the Board to discuss the matter further.
With item n, Ms. Cordill stated that it has been taken care of.
Mr. Frederick stated that the Clarion Hotel has two goal post signs advertising
Great Lakes Condominiums, and one sign is very big and covers up the Clarion
Hotel sign.
Mr. Frederick asked about the requirements for The Firm with a fenced area
outdoors and not blocking the sidewalk. He asked if the Board required the
fence to be taken down during the winter time and not to block the sidewalk. Mr.
Czekai stated that it is referred to as three seasons and the owner may be
waiting until December 21st. He saw a blind guy come walking down the street
and almost fall over it because it is sticking out quite a ways. Mr. Frederick
stated that it is further out than what the Board intended and it looks more
permanent. He stated that it needs to be reviewed.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�4, a I Ij
William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board
PB Minutes.120506.doc
Approved as written 1-9-07 Draft to Clerk December 6,2006
Approved January 9,2007
To Clerk February 22,2007
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. � , a ►�
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske.
C. Excused absences: Cordill, Bruch.
CD
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Cordill for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (4-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS — None.
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consent Items
1. Minutes for Approval: October 17, 2006
The minutes of October 17, 2006 were
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14 2006 Page 2
2. Z-16-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1"
Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
This is a request by Richard Karp to rezone 3 properties in the 200
Block of E. Grand River Avenue, on the south side of the street,
more specifically described as:
The West 66 feet of the East 106 feet of the north 90 feet of
Lot 1, Subdivision of Block 12, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan
from "F-1" Commercial district to "G-1" Business district, for the
purpose of constructing a new building at this location that would
contain a mix of commercial and residential uses.
Staff recommended approval of Z-16-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand
River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report.
The Committee of the Whole also recommended approval of
Z-16-2006 by unanimous vote.
APPROVED w/o Objections.
3. ACT-9-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue, Conveyance of
Alley between Race Street and Factory Street
This is also a request by Richard Karp to vacate the alley south of
the three lots described above. The purpose of the vacation is to
provide additional space for the proposed construction.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-9-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand
River Avenue, Conveyance of Alley between Race Street and
Factory Street to permit conveyance of the 10 foot alley between
Race Street and Factory Street with the condition that the applicant
relocate all of the utilities located in the 10 foot easement south of
the subject lots at his sole expense, or provide easements for all
utilities, including rights of ingress and egress for vehicular access
to poles, cables and equipment.
The Committee of the Whole also recommended approval of
ACT-9-2006 by unanimous vote.
APPROVED w/o Objections.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14, 2006 Page 3
4. NEZ, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue, River North
Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Proposal
This is a request by Richard Karp for a Neighborhood Enterprise
Zone designation for The River North development on the 200
Block of East Grand River Avenue in Old Town. This project is
proposed for the former Classic Cat property, and is currently used
for surface parking.
By way of background: The NEZ program is a plan implementation
tool to encourage the construction and improvement of housing
units located within designated zones. It would provide property tax
abatements within the proposed zone to promote major housing
renovation and new construction in the subject area. The current
proposal establishes the zone in which these abatements are
available. Individual property owners wishing to avail themselves of
this incentive apply on an individual basis, based on the
rehabilitation or construction work they propose on properties within
the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone.
The boundaries of the proposed NEZ as recommended by the EDC
are: Grand River Avenue on the north, Burchard Park on the south,
the Grand River on the west, and Factory Street on the east.
The Planning Board's role in approving an NEZ is to make a finding
that the proposed NEZ is consistent with the Master Plan and the
neighborhood preservation and economic development goals of the
community. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan designates
the future land use for the subject property (200 Block E. Grand
River Ave.) as Retail/Commercial w/Upper Floor Mixed Use, with a
parking area to the south. With respect to the subject property, the
proposed Neighborhood Enterprise Zone is consistent with:
1. the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, adopted in August,
1999,
2. neighborhood preservation and economic development goals
of the City of Lansing,
3. the "Goals & Objectives of the 21st Century," as adopted in
May 1993, and
4. the goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan, as
prepared by the City of Lansing for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and already approved by the
Planning Board and City Council annually.
Staff recommended Planning Board approval of this finding and
endorsement of The River North Neighborhood Enterprise Zone
proposal.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14, 2006 Page 4
The Committee of the Whole also recommended approval of the
NEZ by unanimous vote.
APPROVED w/o Objections.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. Hollister stated that the Committee of the Whole met this
evening and took up three items for discussion: 1) Z-16-2006, 200
Block, E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1"
Business District; 2) Act-9-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand River
Avenue, Conveyance of Alley between Race Street and Factory
Street; and 3) NEZ, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue, River North
Neighborhood Enterprise Zone Proposal. All of these items were
approved with minimal discussion and were placed on the consent
agenda this evening for approval.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
C. Old Business — None.
D. Report from Planning Manager— None.
E. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J"
Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. ACT-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,
2000)
b. Master Plan Project
c. ACT-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate
Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14, 2006 Page 5
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Hollister asked about updates on new Board members. Mr. Czekai stated
that he spoke with the Mayor two weeks ago and he indicated that he has two
people in mind. Mr. Czekai does not know if their names were forwarded to Mr.
Rieske.
Mr. Hollister asked if the Mayor appoints new members. Mr. Czekai stated that
the Mayor's office has to contact the new member and make sure they are still
interested. The Mayor's office may be contacting him (Mr. Hollister) to take him
up on his offer of switching to a Ward seat to make it a little bit more loose on the
Fourth Ward. Mr. Czekai stated that the Board may not see much action until
after the new year. Mr. Czekai stated that one applicant is a Third Ward and
another applicant is the Second Ward.
Mr. Ruge gave his reservation for the annual dinner. Mr. Czekai is not able to
attend.
Mr. Ruge inquired about the request for Teen Challenge. Mr. Hollister stated that
the vote was (2-2). Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was a motion to approve but the
motion failed (2-2).
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003)
b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
e. Michigan Ave& Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building
(May 4, 2004)
f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004)
h. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005)
i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.- registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005)
j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006)
k. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating
in a print shop (April 18, 2006)
I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs (July 5, 2006, July 18,2006&September 5,2006)
m. Southeast Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence (September 5,
2006)
n. LaSalle Gardens near Midvale Avenue—RV parked in driveway in front of house (October 3, 2006)
With item k, Mr. Ruge stated that there are still four cars out front for sale. Ms. 1
Stachowiak stated that she does not know if it is illegal or not and she will look
into it. She stated that if the owner is licensed for it, then it is legal. Mr. Ruge
stated that he would like to see buffering.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14, 2006 Page 6
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,-
William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.111406.doc
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk December 1,2006
Pg 11,2"d para., Mr. Hollister closed the public comment period. Approved January 9,2007
To Clerk February 22,2007
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7-1 '
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Wednesday, November 1, 2006 -�
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Cordill, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske.
C. Excused absences: Ruge, Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve excused
absence requests from Mr. Czekai and Mr. Ruge for tonight's meeting. On a
voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Answers to questions from the Board regarding Teen Challenge
B. A proclamation from the City of Lansing from 1993
C. A letter from the Town Main Street program supporting Z-16-2006 &
ACT-9-2006, the development in the 200 block of E. Grand River
D. A letter from Habitat for Humanity regarding the 2008 Action Plan
E. A letter from the Lansing Community Micro Enterprise Fund regarding the
2008 Action Plan
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-16-2006 & Act-9-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1"
Commercial District to "G-1" Business District, Vacation of Alley
between Race Street and Factory Street
This is a request by Richard Karp to rezone 3 properties in the 200 Block
of E. Grand River Avenue, on the south side of the street, more
specifically described as:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1 2006 Page 2
The West 66 feet of the East 106 feet of the north 90 feet of Lot 1,
Subdivision of Block 12, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "F-1" Commercial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of
constructing a new building at this location that would contain a mix of
commercial and residential uses. Act-9-2006 is also a request by Richard
Karp to vacate the alley south of the three lots described above. The
purpose of the vacation is to provide additional space for the proposed
construction.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. She stated that in the aerial photo,
you can see that the alley is currently not serving much of a purpose.
Most of the parking is City owned and the alley really is not serving any
purpose.
Ms. Bruch asked if the parking lot would be turned into a building. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the front portion is where the new building will go.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is planning on doing some onsite
parking, most of which will be under the building to at least provide parking
for his tenants.
Mr. Hollister asked if the Race Street portion of the property was vacated.
Ms. Stachowiak said no and that it is public right-of-way. He asked if the
property will go up to Race Street. Ms. Stachowiak said yes.
Mr. Terry Terry, 1217 Turner Street, stated that proposal is not
supported in Old Town and a number of businesses oppose the request.
The OTCA Board was approached some time ago with a plan and they
endorsed it. Not all development is good development. He thinks that all
projects should be carefully scrutinized for future impact.
As a property owner, business owner, community developer and someone
who has invested a lot into Old Town, he believes that the project would
be detrimental for the following reasons: 1) Loss of parking would impact
the rest of the development in Old Town; 2) Parking is currently a problem
and with four to five buildings being rehabbed in the next year, it will put
an overflow demand on parking; 3) They fought to have the Classic Cat
building demolished to accommodate anticipated parking; 4) It will have a
severe psychological effect: removing the sense of open space, blocking
the view of the park, and eliminating their town square; 5) This will result in
an increase in crime and reduce the sense of safety since people will have
to park behind the building versus being able to see your car and be seen
going to and from it both day and night; 6) It will create an eye sore since
the design has garages right in the center of Old Town; 7) They have
worked with the City to design Lot 56 to accommodate their festivals which
serves as major marketing draws for Old Town; and 8) Traffic flow would
be disrupted and safety would be reduced. With congestion, traffic
accidents should be a major concern. He stated that things need more
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 3
thoughtful planning because they have changed. The landscape has
changed just in the last six months. The new Main Street Program just
moved into Old Town and he thinks that they really need to be more
thoughtful with development for the future.
Mr. Jerry Crandall, resident of 3715 W. Hiawatha, Okemos, stated that
he is interested in this matter as a member of the Old Town Business and
Arts Association. He is frequently in Old Town and has noticed that
parking is becoming a problem, more so than ever. Any effort to decrease
the amount of available parking will only add to the problem that currently
exists.
If people cannot find quick, easy and convenient parking to adjacent
stores, then they just keep on moving. There has been a tremendous
effort on the part of other organizations to rehab Old Town and to bring in
remaining commercial establishments to the City's historic district. This
plan certainly favors growth and expansion, and locations for new
businesses but it should be done in well thought out manner that will best
serve the entire Old Town business district and neighborhood. The
construction as proposed, will not only pose additional parking problems
and traffic congestion but will also result in increased safety issues. The
open view parking that currently exists would be partially obscured by the
structures limiting the view of parking that could result in unwanted and
unnecessary criminal activity.
The Old Town organizations and merchants have been successful in
turning Old Town from what was once a crime and drug haven into a
collective and fun place to live, work and visit. He asked for this project to
not be approved. The City and State have just invested considerable
dollars on the construction of a new bridge that greatly improves the
artistic value of Old Town and access to it. We should build upon that by
making sure that further expansion is done in a well thought out manner
that serves all purposes.
Mr. Richard Karp, 107 1/2 E. Grand River Avenue, stated that every
neighborhood and business organization in Old Town has submitted
letters of support for his project. He presented a study on in-fill
construction.
Mr. Harry Hepler, 113 Pere Marquette Drive, stated that he manages
212 E. Grand River, LLC, commonly known as Race Street Mill. There
are several hundred urban development plans, and studies which state
that gap and in-fill development is needed. Mr. Karp has kept in mind the
historical characteristics of Old Town and he has seen the renderings. His
building is very visible right now without the proposal moving forward.
This proposal would block the green field and visibility to the Race Street
Mill.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 4
He stated that he supports the request as long as the building remains all
brick and adequate parking is provided for the units. Everything that he
has seen so far has been done. He has seen several of Mr. Karp projects
move forward from beginning to end and Mr. Karp has always kept his
word. He believes that Mr. Karp will move forward in a fashion that
everybody will be proud of in Old Town.
Mr. Frederick stated from the staff report that the current zoning is 7-1"
Commercial District. He asked what the applicant could put there by right
under this zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that by right, under the "F-1"
Commercial District, Mr. Karp could have retail, office, restaurant, gas
station, car wash, or used car lots. In fact, more uses could be put in the
"F-1" district than the "G-1" district. The "G-1" district gives the applicant a
little more residential density and allows them to build lot line to lot line. In
the "F-1" commercial district, the only setback would be at the rear of the
property. The applicant would be able to have a zero front yard setback
and a zero side yard setback even under the current zoning district. Mr.
Frederick stated that the applicant could possibly construct the buildings
under the current zoning. Ms. Stachowiak said yes and that the applicant
would get a smaller building from the back and maybe a couple less units
because of the density.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public
hearing for Z-16-2006 & Act-9-2006, 200 Block, E. Grand River Avenue,
"F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District, Vacation of
Alley between Race Street and Factory Street.
B. 2008 Action Plan Needs Public Hearing
Ms. Boone gave a brief overview.
Mr. Mark Criss, City Rescue Mission located at 607 E. Michigan
Avenue, stated that most of his purpose is just sharing with the Board
what the mission has in store for 2007 and 2008. One of the goals is to
develop a larger by the end of 2007. They would like to have the women's
resource center available at the end of this year as well as the mission
free store. They are on track with it. The offices will be done in the first
quarter of 2007.
The City Rescue Mission has the capacity to expand the emergency
shelter for men as well. As they move their offices out of Michigan
Avenue, it will allow them to expand the shelter for men.
The City Rescue Mission can expand up to 75 to 100 men, if necessary,
by the end of 2007. By the middle of 2007, the City Rescue Mission could
probably house up to 50 men. This could be a work dorm that could be an
extended stay. The City Rescue Mission is flexible. He wanted the Board
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 5
to be aware that they will have added capacity by moving the offices out of
downtown Michigan Avenue if there is a need to expand the shelter
without ESG funding. He hopes that the Board will be supportive and he
stated that it does impact what the City does with the funding.
Mr. Carl Tielking, resident of 516 W. Saginaw, Apt. #6, stated that
CDBG funding would be able to provide a service for jobs. One of the key
things right now with community development is that there are different
areas that would really help out the City a lot if small business owners like
him wanted to start a small job and only employ 4 people, give them a
place where they do not have to stay at emergency shelters all the time or
bounce between the different services in the City. It would be able to give
them a full time job and he stated that is probably the most important
thing. His dream and desire is to build a garage that would service this
community and he would like to employ people with good skills to repair
vehicles and put people back to work in this community.
He stated that other people have the same kind of goals. The areas right
now in the City that could really use CDBG are: 1) part of the renaissance
area along MLK Blvd, down to Kalamazoo Street and over to Butler Street,
one block wide and two blocks in depth, could be made into small
business shops, 15 x 40 and 2 to 3 shops deep with parking right nearby;
2) Another area is over at the Willard Street and Aurelius Road block, by
arberitum park. The empty lot there is zoned "DM-1" and could be
rezoned to the "F-1" commercial district; 3) the L shaped area from the
bakery on MLK Blvd., going back into the park utilizing the rail system. If
we get the rail going and usable, we could put in a business park. These
are three areas that could easily be built into industrial and commercial
properties that could bring jobs to this area. CDBG funds would be a
great benefit to those three areas alone. He has this desire and several
hundred people out there have the same desire. CDBG funding could
make the difference to bring in other funds to make that happen. He has
several ideas and would like to sit down with detailed plans. He is actually
asking some of the LCC students to be able to be a part of this and be
able to draw up some plans to see how they can be able to make this a
self serve community.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public
hearing for the 2008 Action Plan Needs Public Hearing.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each)
Mr. Hollister made a quick comment concerning SLU-11-2006 and stated that the
Board has heard public comments at a number of meetings. He asked the public
that if they have additional comments that have not already been stated, the
Board would love to hear them. If there is no further information, the public is still
free to make comments but all previous comments are already on the record. He
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 6
stated that the Board certainly wants to hear their comments, particularly if they
have additional information.
Mr. Adam Pitcher, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that the petition count
has over 140 signatures who oppose SLU-11-2006. Teen Challenge has offered
to help rake leaves and to help with other tasks. They have the neighborhood
youth who do that to earn a little bit of money. Some of these things would be
taken from them.
When he canvassed the neighborhood getting signatures, many neighbors
expressed moving if this special land use is approved. This scares them and
most of the neighbors are home owners. He would hate to see this turn into a
rental neighborhood because then there would be less families.
He asked about how decisions are made, what the criteria would be, and how
much do they weigh on certain issues like the master plan.
He stated that the Board received a copy of the amendment of the Master Plan
regarding the sale of schools. It calls for the sale of schools to enhance
neighborhoods. Once again, there is no proof that the homes in the area will be
enhanced by Teen Challenge.
Mr. Walter Brown, resident President of the Knollwood/Willow
Neighborhood Association, stated that he has had the privilege of working with
the Teen Challenge organization for a number of years since they have been
located on Willow Street. Teen Challenge is an organization that does not
destroy communities; it helps to rebuild communities and make them more
vibrant. He has worked with Teen Challenge for a number years and they did a
number of programs for him at the North Network Center. They worked on a
number of programs out in the community and the people in the organization do
not roam around the street like some people may think they do. This
organization is very well organized and has helped many people in the
community and not just the community in the Knollwood/Willow area but also
around the North Network Center. Teen Challenge helps people in the
community all over Lansing. He thinks that oftentimes people have a perception
that is not true and people have to understand and have some knowledge of what
Teen Challenge does. They are very well organized and are an asset to the
community. He wanted everyone to know this and he stated that this if from
experience.
Ms. Gail Fournier, Representative of the Old Everett Neighborhood
Association, stated that the neighborhood association supports ACT-6-2006,
vacating the alley between Glendale and Irvington. The association is happy that
the plan shows that the building will be set back farther because this can be used
as a buffer between the business and the residential properties. Marathon
Petroleum and Paul Martin have been working with the association since before
the proposal went before the Planning Board with regards to neighborhood
concerns. There were concerns about trying to direct traffic back on to Cedar
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 7
Street. Mr. Martin has been willing to work on that. The association has talked to
residents around the area and she knows that there was a concern that people
are wanting to make Cedar Street more walkable to businesses. The Speedway
gas station it not considered a walkable kind of business. It is a gas station with
potentially a car wash or something else. Having to build setbacks to block the
lighting and the traffic is a very important issue to the association. The
association wants to go on record as supporting the request and the development
of this business.
Mr. Mike Jones, resident of 1222 Climax Street, stated that he has done
research on the Holmes Street school issue and has talked to a realtor who has a
house for sale on Climax Street. The realtor was not aware of the Teen
Challenge purchase option for the school. When he talked to her, she said what
would relieve her fears as a realtor attempting to sell that home, is if Teen
Challenge could put together a one page fact sheet explaining who they are,
what their security system is and what their track record is. She would be willing
to make that information available in the house so that potential buyers could
review it at that time. She said that it is true that she needs to give potential
buyers a disclaimer that this potential would be happening in the neighborhood.
If Teen Challenge could put together this information, it would be available for the
buyers. He is passing this information along for Teen Challenge and hopes that
they will draft a letter.
He called the Teen challenge office in Muskegon and their 96 capacity facility is
in a neighborhood. With security, all their doors are security alarmed and they
only have one person in the evening for night security. If anyone opens one of
the doors, the security alarm goes off. They call the Police Department first. It is
a partnership that the neighborhood worked out with the Police Department so
that it would help relieve fears that the neighbors had. If there was someone who
was leaving in the middle of the night, the Police would be willing to be alerted of
that and have that as part of a schedule of events if it happened. The community
could receive that as a solid positive response.
There were some comments last time about how many staff would be on night
time security. Their feedback was one person on night time security as long as
all the doors are monitored and that they always have a number of staff sleeping
at night, even though one person is awake being the security person. If someone
walks out into the neighborhood, they would call the police and staff would find
out who left the facility. There are number of staff in the building who are ready
to do that.
Ms. Stacia Pitcher, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that special land use
would change the essential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Jeff Turner, Teen Challenge, 510 W. Willow, stated that Teen Challenge
started out with three night watchmen and found out that they did not need them.
The doors are wired and are monitored.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 8
He stated that the Muskegon Teen Challenge only has one staff member on
midnights. They are also in a former school building and have been there for 25
years.
Mr. Frederick stated the special land use that was granted had a requirement of
three staff members at all times and Teen Challenge decided they did not need
them. Did they work with the City to have that requirement changed. Mr. Turner
stated that there are always 11 staff members in the building and that most of his
staff live at the facility. Mr. Frederick stated that there must be three staff
members on duty. Mr. Turner stated that he made a mistake.
Mr. Ray Cartier, resident of 510 W. Willow, stated that he is one of the staff
members at Teen Challenge and that he has worked with Pastor Jeff for the past
seven years.
There is a bus stop immediately in front of the building and Teen Challenge built
a nice shelter for people to take cover. If it is raining, kids will come under the
canopy because they are not threatened.
His petition is based on fact, starting with a proclamation from the Mayor in 1993.
This was 13 years ago. The closure here says: "In Lansing, he urges all citizens
to join with me to thank the people of Teen Challenge for helping with work and to
wish them success in furthering this outstanding position in our City."
There is crime in the City and it is obvious. In one month alone, by Hazel and
Holmes, there was 1 sexual assault, 1 burglary, 4 larcenies, 1 damage to
property, 1 obstructing police, 1 non-criminal and 2 multi-crime charges. As far
as the park which is 4 Y2 blocks away, he and Pastor Jeff went by there and how
many communities would love to have a nice park 4 '/2 blocks away. If it isn't
safe, then do something about it. The Police Department knows where the
problems are. Teen Challenge had zero occurrences in one month and that area
had 11 occurrences. With security, 2 versus 3 staff, he apologized and I don't
think we resolved that criteria for 3 staff. The proof is what they do works. The
evidence is that he can go out and get petitions too. He can work things and
make it sound like it is a good or a bad deal depending on his motive. His motive
is that he is investing in a ministry that helps people and the City has
acknowledged it 13 years ago. This is not a new deal and Teen Challenge is not
railroading anyone. It is time to act as the City needs it and the people need
help.
Mr. Larry LaBelle, resident of 510 W. Willow and Intake Director, stated that
he has been in Lansing with this organization for 5 months. He came from
Western Michigan Teen Challenge where he graduated from the program and
was on staff there for almost 2 years. He stated that the facility can hold up to 96
students. At the time he worked his 11 weeks after graduating the program as
the night watchman, he was the only one on staff. There was security on all the
doors and he monitored each door personally. Every hour he did a bed count
and a bed check, and if there is ever anything out of line, it is reported
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 9
immediately. If any alarms go off, all the doors are checked immediately. This is
something that one person can handle.
He resides at 510 W. Willow and resided at the center at Western Michigan. With
the position that he has there, he is always on duty. His door gets knocked on
quite frequently to deal with certain situations that come up. The staff does have
a handle on what goes on at the facility. There is never any question about
where people are and if there ever is, it is addressed immediately. The
gentlemen are not allowed to roam around especially at night. There is never a
question about where anyone is at.
He stated that he understands the concern but his office is open and please call
him. Teen Challenge guidelines to even let someone enter the program are very,
very strict and he thinks that people would be surprised at how strict Teen
Challenge is. He would love to explain this to any person in the neighborhood
who might have questions on what Teen Challenge requires.
Ms. Deb Biehler, resident of 913 Bensch Street, stated her property is very
close to the proposed site. She did some homework and visited the facility on
Willow Street. She has been there a couple of times and looked at the grounds.
She talked to the Old Forest Neighborhood Association and they were very
supportive of Teen Challenge being in their neighborhood. Contrary to popular
belief that the property values would decline, upon research, it appears that the
area has less crime and the property values have increased. She does not live
that far away. She is very supportive of Teen Challenge. She has a condemned
house next to her and another one that was burned out on the corner of Bensch
and Main Streets. She sees and hears nothing but support of Teen Challenge
being very good neighbors.
She is the secretary of the Potter/Walsh Neighborhood Organization and has
been a Board member since its inception. She is personally in favor of Teen
Challenge moving into the neighborhood and using the facility. She thinks that it
would improve things.
One of the reasons she is supportive of the proposal is because Teen Challenge
has strict control over the residents and the residents do not have cars. Parking
would not be an issue.
She was more afraid when the school was a school and was used for an
alternative education for teens.
She is supportive of this move and she looks forward to having Teen Challenge
in the area. The neighborhood organization has partnered with them when they
were in a smaller facility on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they were in the facility
on Willow, Teen Challenge helped with plantings and neighborhood cleanups.
Teen Challenge does go all over the City and assist with improving properties.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 10
Ms. Wendy Vela, resident of 1000 Parker Street, stated that she has been a
home owner in this neighborhood for 20 years and she supports Teen Challenge.
She is not at all concerned with supervision. She thinks that these men have
made a decision to improve their lives and if they do not follow the rules, they will
be asked to leave. Part of the reason that she is supportive is that she thinks
Teen Challenge will improve their neighborhood. She is a real estate broker too
and she does not feel that this is going to diminish property values. She supports
the request.
Mr. Paul Martin, representative for Marathon Petroleum Company, 539 S.
Main Street, Findley, OH, stated that he is addressing ACT-6-2006, a request to
vacate the alley on S. Cedar Street in order to rebuild the Speedway gas station.
At the last meeting, the Board requested a redesign where the store would be
located closer to S. Cedar Street on the north part of the property. He presented
the design to Speedway and there were a few concerns with the design. One of
the concerns is visibility for the cashiers of the fueling positions. In order for this
design to work, either the front or the back of the store has to be facing Cedar
Street. If the front faces Cedar Street, the cashiers do not have clear visibility of
the fueling positions. If there is an emergency at a fueling position, such as a fire,
the cashiers may not recognize it immediately and therefore not be able to hit the
emergency shut off switch which is located right near the cashier position. Also,
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality requires that there be a clear
line of vision for the cashiers and then during temporary obstructions, have
closed circuit monitors which are in all the stores. This is not a permanent fix for
visibility. Speedway would prefer to have the store located in the current location
which is set back off the street.
He stated that this design can be walkable by adding sidewalks to the area so
that people walking along Cedar Street can access the store and will hopefully be
a benefit to the neighborhood. As the Old Everett Neighborhood Association
stated, it will help block the neighborhood from Cedar Street and keep a
separation between the commercial district on Cedar Street and the
neighborhoods in the area.
Ms. Robin McDonald, resident of 1210 E. Hazel Street, stated that she does
not support SLU-11-2006. With regard to comments that came up this evening,
she would be interested in why the realtor thinks it is important to provide
statistics to potential buyers of homes that are for sale in the area. If she went to
an open house and was told that 30% of the men at this facility have a choice of
going there or going to jail, if 33% of them are on probation, and if 50% are not
from Lansing but rather a large metropolitan areas, she thinks this would give her
serious cause.
It seems that these men are moving into an area that has a bigger crime problem
then they are already in. She would like to know about the crime stats. It seems
that they have the ability or authority to affect crime stats one way or the another.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 11
She stated that Teen Challenge said they can help home owners with things like
snow removal and leaves. But on their website, they have made it very clear that
those in the program are not to have any contact with women. As a woman, she
would like to know how someone may approach her and a number of her
neighbors to help in any way. She stated that there seems to be some real
conflicts with regards to what they say that they can do versus what they said this
evening and on their website.
Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czeka+ Hollister closed the
public comment period.
6. RECESS was taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consent Items
1. Minutes for Approval: October 3, 2006
The minutes of October 3, 2006 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, November 8, 2006, at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Ms. Bruch stated that the Committee met and took up three
discussion items: Discussion with City Attorney regarding
conditions of approval, Architectural Guidelines, and Planning
Board Goals and Objectives. She stated that there were no
actions taken.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
C. Old Business
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 12
a. ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley between Glendale and Irvington
This is a request by Speedway SuperAmerica to vacate the 16 foot
wide alley that runs between Glendale Avenue and Irvington
Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to allow for all of the
property that is owned by Speedway to be consolidated so that the
gas station can be rebuilt and expanded.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to remove ACT-6-2006 from the
table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, to recommend approval of
ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley between Glendale and Irvington.
Mr. Frederick offered three conditions as a friendly amendment:
1) A sound buffer be constructed or installed along the back of the
alley between the gas station and the neighborhood that would
either be a solid fence or preferably evergreen trees which do a
good job of sound buffering and look better; 2) That sidewalks be
installed around the property; and 3) that loud speakers for
communication between the operator and the pumps or for any
other communication be prohibited in keeping with the ordinance.
Ms. Bruch accepted the amendments.
He read the City Sound Ordinance 654.07.b2 and stated that this
qualifies as a noise sensitive zone immediately behind the gas
station.
Ms. Bruch clarified that when it comes to sound the walls are much
better than the trees because they are solid. Mr. Frederick offered
trees because apparently Speedway has an agreement with the
neighborhood.
Ms. Bruch stated that the Board did mention sidewalks and trying to
connect it better so that people could actually get to the building
and not have to cross the whole asphalt area.
Ms. Bruch stated that with the big asphalt area to the north,
something should be done with it. It is not appropriate to be left
abandoned like that because it looks terrible. Whether the asphalt
gets removed or benches get added, have something so that it is
actually aesthetically pleasing and not just an empty lot. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it can be forwarded as an additional
recommendation.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 13
Mr. Rieske stated that as far as conditions go on the vacation of
rights-of-way, the only condition the Board can assign is the
reservation of easements for utilities. He stated what the Board
can do and he would suggest in this case that these 3 to 4
recommendations be added as further recommendations for
consideration in the site plan review process. They legally cannot
be conditions of approval of the vacation of the alley. Mr. Frederick
stated that he would recommend that the operator follow the City
code and not break it. Where issues of public safety are evident,
specifically nuisances, that the sound buffer along the alley is
certainly an issue of public safety and the Board should be able to
attach conditions regardless of the City Attorney's narrow
interpretation. He tends to believe that the Board can broaden it on
issues of public safety and he thinks this is one. He urged that the
requirement of the sound buffer be held as a condition and that if
the applicant believes that it goes beyond the Board's authority,
then they can raise that issue with the City. If the City Attorney
determines that it is absolutely not appropriate then the condition is
stricken. Mr. Rieske stated it sounds like a good idea.
Ms. Cordill stated that a sidewalk is a part of the concern for public
safety especially if there are cars entering off of Cedar Street. Mr.
Hollister concurred.
Ms. Bruch stated that with her comment on the asphalt, it would be
a recommendation on the recommendation for the site. Mr.
Hollister stated that it would be three conditions and one
recommendation.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the property to the north that has the S.
Cedar frontage and asked if it is to be landscaped. Ms. Bruch
stated that she is not sure what can be done with it. It looks like an
abandoned piece of property and during site review, she is not sure
if it will be addressed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it can certainly
be addressed in the site plan review.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1 2006 Page 14
b. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit
— Residential Care Facility
This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge for a Special Land
Use permit to utilize the building at 1030 S. Holmes Street (Holmes
Street School) for a residential care facility that would house up to
150 people. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which
permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if
approved by the Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-11-06 SLU-11-2006, 1030 S.
Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit— Residential Care
Facility, based upon its consistency with the criteria of Section
1282.03(f)(1)-(9) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the following
conditions:
1. The capacity of the facility be limited to 96 residents, or as
many as may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
upon request for a variance to the lot area requirement, up
to a maximum of 150 residents;
2. At least one parking space for each staff member on the
largest shift and 10 additional parking spaces be provided on
the site;
3. Approval of a site plan by the Planning Office for fencing
and/or landscape materials that would best screen any
views objectionable to adjacent neighbors and that will
inhibit trespassing;
4. Lansing Teen Challenge shall not allow any may who
currently has an open charge of criminal sexual conduct into
the Lansing Teen Challenge program;
5. Lansing Teen Challenge will make the persons in it's
programs available for community and neighborhood
projects and requests as deemed appropriate and
harmonious with the scheduling and programming of
Lansing Teen Challenge; and
6. Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in staff
members occupying and supervising the property at 1030 S.
Holmes Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
In Committee, the request was recommended to be forwarded to
the Planning Board and discussed in a Committee of the Whole
meeting, and the motion carried unanimously (2-0).
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to remove SLU-11-2006 from the
table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1 2006 Page 15
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, to recommend approval of
SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit — Residential Care
Facility with the following conditions: 1) The capacity of the facility be limited to
96 residents, or as many as may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
upon request for a variance to the lot area requirement, up to a maximum of 150
residents; 2) At least one parking space for each staff member on the largest shift
and 10 additional parking spaces be provided on the site; 3) Approval of a site
plan by the Planning Office for fencing and/or landscape materials that would
best screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors and that will inhibit
trespassing; 4) Lansing Teen Challenge shall not allow any may who currently
has an open charge of criminal sexual conduct into the Lansing Teen Challenge
program; 5) Lansing Teen Challenge will make the persons in it's programs
available for community and neighborhood projects and requests as deemed
appropriate and harmonious with the scheduling and programming of Lansing
Teen Challenge; and 6) Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in staff
members occupying and supervising the property at 1030 S. Holmes Street, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
Ms. Bruch stated that it bothers her that the City can go to the
maximum of 150 residents. She offered a friendly amendment to
change recommendation number 1 to say that the capacity of the
facility be limited to 96 residents. She said that 150 residents for
that area seems to be too much. According to the information that
Teen Challenge sent to the Board, 96 makes it a viable project.
Mr. Frederick accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Bruch stated that with staff, the largest shift and all the vehicles
plus 10 additional parking spaces, the neighbors are concerned
that there is already enough asphalt on this site. She does not
know if the Board really needs to require this much parking.
Chances are that the vehicles are being used during the day time
and she knows that the 10 extra parking spaces are for visitors, so
she does not want to add more asphalt to this area. She offered a
friendly amendment to eliminate recommendation number 2. She
thinks that Teen Challenge has a fairly large parking lot for the
purposes that they need. She would hate to require more parking
spaces and turn the little green space that is out there to an even
smaller space. Mr. Frederick stated that he would accept this as a
friendly amendment.
She stated that recommendation number 4 needed to be changed
to add with a charge or "conviction" of violence and sexual assault.
She stated that for recommendation number 6, the Board wanted
three staff members always on duty. Teen Challenge talked about
one staff member for a 96 people facility was okay at night
because of the secured doors and the system worked. At the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1 2006 Page 16
Willow facility, Teen Challenge originally had three staff members
at night and then found out that they did not need three staff
members. She did not want to force them to have three staff
members on duty. Teen Challenge has staff living there. Mr.
Frederick stated that when the special land use was granted for the
Willow facility he felt that three staff members was necessary, and
certainly if three staff members were too many, there was a way to
change that rather than just going against the special land use
recommendation or conditions, Teen Challenge could always
come back before the Board. That was with a facility of about half
the residents. He would be comfortable with having three staff
members on duty and if the applicant determines that three staff
members are not necessary, then he does not see any problem
with Teen Challenge coming back before the Board and requesting
that the condition be modified so that the special land use will
continue in affect rather than just deciding they do not need three
staff member and go to two staff members. This negates their
special land use. Mr. Frederick stated that if Teen Challenge come
back with enough evidence that three staff members is
unnecessary, then it would be fine.
Ms. Bruch stated that by walking around and looking at the site, the
green space is really stark and is just a green lawn. That green
space is lost to the neighborhood. She does not know how the
green space could be addressed and asked if there is a way to ask
whether the green space can be sold back to the neighbors. She
would love for the neighbors to get a chance to take back the green
space because they are losing it and Teen Challenge does not
really need it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the neighbors can
always buy a section of it and then it would be an Administrative lot
split to take some land from there and create a new lot where
someone would have to own and maintain it. Or, another option
would be to take a portion of the green space and split it amongst
the neighbors to make their lots bigger. She mentioned this to a
few of the neighbors over there. The neighbors would have to be
willing to purchase and maintain it. Ms. Bruch asked if the
neighborhood association could purchase it. Ms. Stachowiak
stated if there is one, then they could buy it.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that Teen Challenge's density is based on
their lot size. With 96 people, they need 96,000 square feet of lot
area. Ms. Bruch stated that this way Teen Challenge gets its
density and then do the lot split and the neighbors get their green
space. Ms. Bruch stated that she does not want to see more than
96 because she thinks that 96 is almost pushing it for that area.
She would hate to have the neighbors lose the green space. Mr.
Frederick stated that if there was an issue of the capacity if the
land was required to maintain the capacity, he thinks that the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 17
applicant could easily make a request to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a variance on the density. Teen Challenge would be in
a position to make a good argument that they really do not need
that much land. Ms. Bruch said especially if the neighborhood
gains it back. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if the neighborhood was
to approach her about splitting the property for green space, there
would be just a two step process: 1) Teen Challenge going before
the Board of Zoning Appeals and requesting a lot split for green
space for the neighborhood, and 2) The Administrative lot split.
This would be a fairly simple thing to do but the neighbors would
have to be the ones to initiate the request. Ms. Bruch asked if it
would be better if this happened before the sale to Teen Challenge.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not want to hold Teen
Challenge hostage at all based on what the neighbors may or may
not do with regard to the green space. No one has even
approached her asking to purchase a section of that property for a
neighborhood park. She stated that Teen challenge is under a
deadline with the school district to get this taken care of.
Mr. Frederick stated that if the Board is done before the sale and it
did require a variance, Teen Challenge would have to go to the
Board of Zoning Appeals and get the variance before anything
could be done, including the sale of the property. Ms. Bruch asked
if the sale needed to go first. Mr. Hollister stated that it has to
because right now it belongs to the school board. Ms. Bruch asked
if Teen Challenge could get together with the neighborhood and
make sure that the sale happens. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she
thinks the neighborhood has to be the ones to initiate the request,
not Teen Challenge. Teen Challenge does not even own the
property right now; they are the purchaser. We are dealing with
three parties here and one of them has not even mentioned a
desire to even obtain some of this property. From a Planning stand
point it could be a good idea but she does not know if they are
willing to purchase it and maintain it. Ms. Bruch stated that it would
be a gesture of a good neighbor to just sell it for $1.00 to them and
then the neighbors would have it. Mr. Frederick stated that this
might be a good place for a recommendation. It is not binding but
it gets the idea out there. He offered a recommendation to say that
Teen Challenge and the neighborhood association engage in
discussion regarding acquisition of green space for the
neighborhood's benefit. This should be broad enough so that if it is
going to happen, it will happen. Obviously now some of the
neighbors are aware of it and certainly Teen Challenge is aware of
it. It is up to them because it is their property and it is going to be
the neighborhood's resources that do it. There would be a lot to
work out with that. From a Planning and Administrative process, it
would be relatively easy. Ms. Stachowiak stated that other than
that, it is going to be difficult because now someone has to pay
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 18
taxes on it. The alternative is to get it into a 501.C.3 and get it tax
exempt. Otherwise, someone will have to pay taxes on it and be
responsible for its maintenance. Mr. Hollister stated that someone
would have to maintain the liability. Ms. Bruch stated that this is
the issue and that is what is keeping anybody from using the green
spaces from the school district. If it becomes owned by the
neighborhood association and if they can become a non-profit,
then they would not have to pay taxes on the property. They could
own it and it could be a community thing. If they sue each other,
they are suing themselves.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the density. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
the ordinance says that for each person in the facility who is being
given care, there has to be 1,000 square feet of lot area. It does
not speak to the building at all; it will fall under the housing code.
Ms. Cordill stated that they are pushing the window on the density
and that she understands the lot area. She asked what the density
would be for senior housing or a multi family house of 96 housing
units. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the same.
Mr. Hollister stated that the density here for this particular
neighborhood given what the applicant is trying to do is very
different than what is at Willow Street. He stated that he has a real
hard time with this particular facility. As much as he likes Teen
Challenge and as good a neighbor as they have been, he thinks
that this is a very different operation from the operation they have
on Willow Street. He is having a hard time seeing that this is going
to be a viable use in this kind of neighborhood given that they are
not on a main street and they have a very different facility than
what they currently have. If Teen Challenge is going to double
their operation, then he is not convinced.
Mr. Frederick stated that regarding the location, the City ordinance
says that a facility like this is permissible as long as it meets the
conditions and condition numbers 2 through 9 have been met.
Condition number 1 is the issue with public safety and he has not
been presented with any hard factual evidence tonight that there is
an issue of public safety based on the conduct and the track record
of the current Teen Challenge facility. This was an issue when
there was the public hearing for the special land use for the facility
on Willow Street. This was why three staff members were required
to be on duty at all times. He cannot honestly make any kind of a
decision because they are increasing the size to 96 residents and
that they are going to double or triple to the incidents or the
potential hazard to the public. Teen Challenge has done a great
job with the people they have had. It is a matter of their technique
and their program and he does not see why it would not work for
96 residents as well as it has worked for the number of people they
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1 2006 Page 19
currently have. This is why he will support the request. There was
no evidence that there is any kind of public danger or hazard in
having that facility in the neighborhood. If there was an issue of
not being allowed under the ordinance, that is a whole other issue.
He does not see how he can exceed his authority and say that it is
not suitable when the ordinance says it is.
Mr. Hollister stated that the question the Board has to answer on
the analysis is: Is the proposed special land use designed,
constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious
with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area?
He thinks this is different than Willow Street. Willow Street is a
main street and there is mixed residential and commercial in that
area. It is a very different feel than right in the middle of a
residential area. This is not a main street. Holmes and Climax
Streets are residential streets. He thinks it is a very different
situation and he is having a difficult time saying that this is not
going to change the surrounding area. He believes that it will
change the area. He thinks that Teen Challenge is great but he
has concerns about whether this is the appropriate place for this
size of a facility given the character and location within this
residential area.
Ms. Cordill stated that she visited both sites and is getting hung up
on the situation. It is not that she does not have confidence in the
program and what Teen Challenge does, it is just an entirely
different setting and some of the land uses are different. She
would have felt more confident in a lower number of people living
there.
Ms. Bruch stated that 96 people is a problem and she asked the
Board if there was a specific number they would be comfortable
with. Ms. Cordill stated that Teen Challenge is looking at a
minimum of 96 to make it viable. Ms. Bruch stated that she
struggled with this number and the school is huge so it can handle
the 96 people. Mr. Hollister stated this is his concern and the
number of people would increase over time. Ms. Bruch stated that
it would only increase if Teen Challenge was a good neighbor. Mr.
Frederick stated that it would only increase if a variance was
granted. The Board would be safe in saying that they will only get
more than 96 if the neighbors feel really good about it and there is
no real demonstrated hazard. A discussion ensued regarding
Teen Challenge having 80 people. Mr. Frederick stated that Teen
Challenge has to have 96 people and the Board goes with 80, this
is the same as voting no and the only other issue is that they can
have 96 people by right. He asked if the Board would be
overstepping its authority in this condition considering the
discussion the Board had with the City Attorney. Ms. Stachowiak
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 20
stated that she does not think the Board would be overstepping its
authority. The Board would have to back it up. She asked why 80
people versus 96 people. The Board would have to justify it.
Mr. Rieske stated that there were concerns about whether the
request would be harmonious with the neighborhood and how it is
different from Willow Street. He asked how the absence of
Consumers Power or a like use and the absence of a main street
would make this disharmonious with the neighborhood. Mr.
Hollister stated that it is a very different land use and in this area it
is all "A" and "B" Residential. You have to go a ways to find
commercial uses. To him, this sort of facility strikes him as being
plopped right in the middle of a neighborhood. Mr. Frederick stated
that if you look at it as behavior, it is no different than multi family
housing because they are residing in the building. The only
difference that he sees is that the residents have a history of
substance abuse and if it can be demonstrated that the history
creates a hazard in the neighborhood, then he will agree and vote
no. He needs some hard evidence that there is a hazard. He
stated that these are ordinary people, just like we see every day,
who have an admitted substance abuse problem. He asked if this
would be any different than any other physical infirmity. He does
not think so and he thinks the problem is that there is a fear of the
unknown and that people with substance abuses have been made
out in society to be evil, heinous and do all sorts of bad things.
When in fact, that is a very small number of people who do that
and these people are acknowledging that they do not want to do
that anymore. He stated that what Teen Challenge is doing is just
the same as residing in a neighborhood. The special land use is
there to approve this type of thing because there are issues that
could arise.
Ms. Bruch stated that she struggled with this proposal and asked
numerous people their opinions. The one opinion that convinced
her was her friend asked if it was her kid, where would you want
the treatment center to be. She said she would want it in a safe
neighborhood or residential area so that they could see good
examples of what the neighbors are like. This argument swayed
her to the other side.
Ms. Cordill stated that her hesitation on voting for it was whether 96
residents could be operated in a harmonious fashion in a
neighborhood. When she thinks about the facility that the Rescue
Mission purchased (Maplewood School), it is a different context.
The land uses are different yet there are some residential aspects
to it. Operationally, it seems like a higher number.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 21
Mr. Rieske stated that according to some of the testimony here
tonight, the residents do not drive. What we have is about 96 units
of people who do not drive and probably a lower trip generation in
the neighborhood than there would have been otherwise for other
uses that are permitted within the zoning district. It could be
argued that the impact on the neighborhood will be less than some
of the normally permitted uses in the area because of the fact that
the trip generation would be expected to be less.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 2; carried.
Failed.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the special land use did not pass but the
motion and vote along with all of the conditions will be forwarded on to City
Council.
D. Report from Planning Manager— None.
E. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J"
Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. ACT-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,
2000)
b. Master Plan Project
c. ACT-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate
Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
8. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Bruch for the November 14th meeting. On a voice
vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick inquired about a grant given to the City to improve Cavanaugh
Road. He asked about what the conditions of approval were from the previous
ACT 285 Review. Ms. Stachowiak stated it was obtaining some additional
property at the Cava naugh/Dunkel Road intersection to realign the street and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 1, 2006 Page 22
there were approximately 17 conditions. Mr. Frederick asked about the
conditions of approval. Mr. Rieske stated that he cannot answer that accurately
without looking into the record. The earlier proposal to deal with Cavanaugh
Road involved widening and beyond what the Board wanted to have happen.
There has been a little bit of philosophical change particularly in the
Transportation Office with regard to the width of roads and provision of bike
lanes. Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Rieske to look into the matter and see if the
conditions were still binding.
Ms. Bruch asked if the Board would get to see this request or would it be
forwarded without the Board reviewing it. Mr. Rieske stated that there is not a
routine referral to the Planning Board on these matters and it should be in the
context of the Capital Improvements Program, which they are not there yet. Ms.
Bruch asked if the Board could still review the plans even though it is a little late
in the process. Mr. Rieske stated that he would be glad to report on it and does
not want to introduce additional bureaucracy on the whole thing. He does not
know if the Board is able to approve or deny what is proposed. It could be
brought back for review and comment, and he can look into that.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003)
b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
e. Michigan Ave &Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building
(May 4, 2004)
f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.- no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005)
i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road. -registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005)
j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006)
k. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating
in a print shop (April 18, 2006)
I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5,2006,July 18,2006& September 5,2006)
m. Southeast Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence (September 5,
2006)
n. LaSalle Gardens near Midvale Avenue—RV parked in driveway in front of house (October 3, 2006)
With item m, Mr. Frederick stated that some cars are abandoned and there are
eight cars parked in the front yard.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Res ectfully submitted,
I �D
William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.110106.doc
Approved as written 11-14-06 Draft to Clerk November 3,2006
Approved November 14,2006
To Clerk November 16,2006
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall N
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
1. OPENING SESSION '5 ^'
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair.
C..
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister, Czel�ai.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak - !
C. Excused absences: None.
D. Absent: None.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Frederick moved that ACT-7-2006 and ACT-8-2006 be placed on the consent
agenda.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the agenda as
amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Petition of opposition regarding SLU-11-2006
Mr. Czekai stated that before the meeting the Board members received four
letters of support. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was a letter from Potter-
Walsh Neighborhood Association supporting SLU-11-2006; a letter from
Consumers Professional Credit Union, who is a neighbor in the vicinity of the site
on Willow Street, also in support of SLU-11-2006; a letter from the North Network
Center in support of SLU-11-2006; and a letter from Victoria Barron in opposition
to SLU-11-2006.
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each)
Officer Jeff Winarski, Lansing Police Department (LPD), stated that he has
been employed with the department for approximately 9 Y2 years and most of that
time was spent working in the district in which Teen Challenge currently resides.
Except for a one year stint in the undercover unit, he has never once responded
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 2
to a call there and never had any problems at that facility. He does not know of
any other officers that have either. When officers work a particular district, they
get to know the addresses that are problems and Teen Challenge has never
been a problem. He has never made a call there.
Ms. Cordill stated that as part of the staff report, the Planning Office has received
a copy from the Police Department on some calls that were made. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she is not sure if Officer Winarski has seen the list.
Before the meeting last week, she called Police Administration and had them fax
to her a list of all the calls for this address since 2002. There is about a half page
of call that were made; all but five of which say cleared. With five of the calls, it
says that there was a report taken. A lot of the calls say warrant and a couple of
them say assault. Ms. Cordill asked if there was an explanation of what the
Board is to make of the list. Officer Winarski stated that he was never provided
with a list and was told today to attend the meeting to talk to the Board. He
stated that he can only speak for himself and he works the afternoon shift, which
is 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
After looking at the list and the dates of the calls, Officer Winarski stated that
there looks like an average of about 6 to 7 calls per year. He is not sure of how
many people are housed at that facility. Ms. Stachowiak stated there are 64
residents. Officer Winarski stated that it looks like one call was for a parking
complaint. There were three calls where someone was dispatched there to pick
up someone on a warrant. There was a 911 hang up and could have just been
phone problems. There was a larceny and a follow up. Just looking at 2006 and
what he has in front of him, it is not much. It does not look like there have been
any major issues at this facility this year. With 64 residents, Officer Winarski
stated that is pretty good.
Mr. Ruge asked if there was any contact with people who have lived at Teen
Challenge but perhaps not at this address. Officer Winarksi stated not to his
recollection. He cannot recall ever having come in contact with someone in the
course of his patrol or stopping someone that related to him that they were living
at that facility.
Mr. Frederick asked when Teen Challenge opened this facility. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the facility opened in 2001. The list that was given to her goes back
as far as the administration could find. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is only
six months, at the end of 2001, that is missing.
Mr. Ruge asked if in the course of Officer Winarski's duties, did he have very
much contact with Teen Challenge and if he did, what was his overall impression.
Officer Winarski stated that he has never been there on a call in the five years
that the facility has been open. It has never been an address that was of interest
to the department because there haven't been any problems.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 3
Mr. Hollister asked if Officer Winarski ever had any experience or any other
contact with Teen Challenge outside of responding to call (i.e. community events,
community work). Officer Winarski said no.
Mr. Adam Pitcher, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that he has been a
resident at this address for 10 years. During that time, he has seen the number
of families increase in the neighborhood. What started off with a few children
riding bikes and playing at the Holmes Street School park has grown into dozens.
He constantly sees children playing on the play set. This is the same play set
that previous Council members and other communities work hard to fund with
Lansing dollars. He sees children riding bikes, playing football, all the way to full
blown soccer games. He is here tonight to answer any questions the Board may
have about the neighborhood. A large amount of the neighbors do not associate
with Potter-Walsh; they only represent a small fraction of the neighborhood.
He has looked up information on Teen Challenge and stated that it is a great
program. He is not here to bash who they are and what they do. He is here to
suggest a different location. He has only known about this purchase in the last
month, only two weeks before it was presented to the Board. Neighbors further
than 300 feet were not aware until other neighbors informed them. They heard
nothing from the Lansing School Board and were never contacted to help decide
what best fits in the middle of a growing neighborhood.
He has an actual quote from the Lansing School Board: "The buyers, Teen
Challenge, who did not inquire about potential uses of the property as part of the
offer agreement." He can tell that this process is on a fast track and the residents
are worried. They are trying to learn the process, and were able to canvass the
neighborhood and get 120 signatures on a petition in opposition to SLU-11-2006.
He stated that the neighborhood is growing and it is still fragile. Many families
rely on the green space. There are five different daycares surrounding the
school. The property values are increasing. A male adult drug and alcohol rehab
center will only lower the property values. Teen Challenge will not enhance and
attract families to buy homes to raise families here. Teen Challenge plans to
increase the parking lot and build two buildings in the green space. If that
happens, the residents will no longer have a green space or a place for the
children to play.
He stated that the neighborhood is offering its help to be part of the solution in
finding Teen Challenge a better home. There are various locations near the
business sector which are a better fit. The neighborhood is also offering to help
be part of a solution to find what works best in the retired school, which is still
functional. The school is on public land, purchased with public dollars and should
be used by the public. Right now the residents are wondering how the Lansing
School Board could let this happen to this community.
Mr. Dave Lambert, resident of 1106 Walsh Street, stated that he is in
opposition to the Teen Challenge facility in the neighborhood. His family feels
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 4
that this facility would decrease property values in the neighborhood and they are
worried about other affects of having a male rehab center in the neighborhood.
He stated that this is a private religious facility in many ways, although it
promotes itself as a community organization. It is very sectarian and is more like
a monastery. He said that it might be considered dangerous to the surrounding
neighborhood. If the Lansing School Board completes the sale of the property to
Teen Challenge, even though it is a nonprofit organization, it will be private
property and the owners will be able to do a lot of things with it. He suggested to
the neighbors who live immediately across the street from the facility, that it might
be in their financial interests to form an unlimited partnership and present a
competing offer to the Lansing School District; then develop the property for eight
single family houses and perhaps18 one-bedroom apartments in the existing
building. He believes that the neighborhood will support it and that the facility,
road and green space would be preserved for the neighborhood. He thinks there
are a whole lot of other things that could be done with that land and he hopes that
if the request is approved, Teen Challenge will be good neighbors. He
encouraged the Board to make a good decision.
Mr. Lawrence Green, resident of 1024 E. Main Street and 1825 Sunset, stated
that there are a lot of drug activities in the area and an alcohol establishment right
down the street. He asked if this would tempt the Teen Challenge residents. The
community itself has a lot of drug problems. The Board needs to think about
these too. As a community, are they tempting those teens?
He asked what Teen Challenge has to offer to the community. As a parent, he
has a daughter and he thinks about whether or not she is safe with alcohol and
the problems that some of the drug addicts have. Also, the residents need to
know more about Teen Challenge; not with the Police and the number of calls
that come out of the facility. The residents need to understand the in-house
problems and the types of problems in the facility. Awareness is a good thing
and the community itself needs to understand what this facility is going to bring to
the community.
There are a lot of high school kids in this area and there are a lot of things as a
community that they are trying to do other than bring in more problems. He is not
saying that Teen Challenge is a bad thing; it could be a good thing for the
community. The residents want their children to feel safe. He hopes that the
Board looks at the whole picture, including what steps Teen Challenge will take to
stop the its people from being tempted?
Mr. Kevin Webb stated that Teen Challenge has been nothing but super ever
since they moved to 510 W. Willow Street. As a matter of fact, they were trying
to get Walnut Street School which would have been great so that they could have
kept them it the neighborhood. The home is run about the same way as House
of Commons which is a division of Ingham County. Teen Challenge has helped
with neighborhood clean ups and gone out of their way to keep their property
clean. The only confrontation that he and Pastor Jeff had was he wanted to see
a 6 foot fence around the back side of the property to protect the Teen Challenge
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 5
residents from the drug haven at Willow Vista until it got cleaned up. He would
have Teen Challenge back in the neighborhood in a heart beat. Teen Challenge
has been super with Paint-a-Place and helping everyone in this town. They have
helped older people who were unable to put roofs on their homes. They helped
with houses that needed to be scraped and painted because the owners could
not afford it and Code Compliance Officer was climbing down their throat. Mr. Bill
Houghtaling is here tonight and he runs Paint-a-Place. He can tell you how many
houses Teen Challenge has done and how many of these guys have gone on
past their recovery time. They are now living in the City of Lansing and one of
them has eight people working for him.
The only thing he would say to this other neighborhood is not everyone is perfect
and if somebody makes a mistake, shouldn't they have a second chance? Teen
Challenge has been nothing but super. The biggest thing that he would say to
the people in this neighborhood that Teen Challenge is trying to move in to, is sit
down and talk with Pastor Jeff. Teen Challenge is a good and viable entity. He
lives not quite a block away and he can vouch for them.
Mr. Gregory Byrd, resident of 1103 Walsh Street, stated that his house is less
than three blocks from the subject property. He owns 42 rental units in Lansing
including one 12 unit apartment building. The remaining 30 units are single
family and duplex residences. Two of his investment rental single family homes
are located even closer to the subject property than his own home. He is
opposed to the proposed use of this facility because he believes that it will fail to
be properly supervised, staffed and maintained. He believes that historically,
unlicensed and unregistered facilities like this have shown him that once
authorized, they run on inadequate budgets and the result in cut backs make for
decay in the overall capacity to hold to their stated goals.
He believes that the neighborhood has exhibited a miraculous turn-around
recently; all on its own and without any federal, state or local funding or program
of any sort. His neighbors have simply reached into their own pockets and
funded improvements to their own properties. They take pride in their efforts not
only to keep their houses viable, useful, valuable and up to code, but they have
taken great care to maintain their sense of social safety as well. He does not
want to introduce any new and unknown factors into the socio economic formula
at this time. Neighborhoods are delicate organisms and they are under enough
threats now. His 19 month old daughter needs him to speak against this
proposed use now so that she does not ask him 10 years from now why he failed
to advocate for her safety. He believes that any time anyone speaks against a
proposal like this the speaker is obligated to provide a specific better alternative.
To that end, he hopes that the following suggestion is taken very seriously.
There exists a very bad neighborhood in Lansing. He calls it bad even though his
12 unit apartment building is located right at this entrance. South of Holmes
Street, between MLK Blvd. and Pleasant Grove, lies Simken Drive. Once a
neighborhood of nicely constructed new apartment buildings, now lies a Police
Department nightmare. Just ask the hard working policemen if they know where
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 6
Simken Drive is and they will give you the statistics: domestic violence, drug
distribution, thefts and many other crimes are a daily occurrence. Recently there
was a handy probation department office right on the corner. LPD frequented the
neighborhood so often that he honestly wondered if cars were sent there to
spend their entire shift.
Recently, the two multi-unit buildings across the street from his went into
foreclosure and will be auctioned off the bank rolls later this month. He thinks
that these two buildings should be used by this program due to their location.
Just think how easy it will be for LPD to respond to any problems. They would
already be there anyways. Also, he is sure the probation department would be
overjoyed to reopen their office on the corner as a matter of convenience. He is
serious about this location for Teen Challenge so much so that he will rent any of
his code certified apartments to any participant in the program at a reduced rate
or even sell his nice apartment building for the program.
Ms. Ethel Mather, resident of 1062 S. Holmes Street, stated that she is a half
block away from the proposed site. She said that this proposal was first
presented to her as Teen Challenge. Now she finds that it is for men, ages 18 to
50. The building should hold only 96 people; not 150. They want to build a pole
barn to work on building new cars. Where will they store these cars while they
are working on them? She hopes not on the lot. This neighborhood desperately
needs an after-school teen center. Many mothers in this area work out of
necessity and the residents do not need another problem in this area. Hunter
Park has new bike path and a new green house. This park is under utilized now
because of safety concerns. These few items would have gone a long way for a
child care and teen center. She is definitely opposed to this proposal.
Ms. Mary Beth Van Horn, resident of 1035 Parker Street, stated that she has
lived there for nine years and that her house is right behind the playground at the
school. She is concerned and opposed to the sale of the Holmes Street School
to Teen Challenge for many reasons. She is not against Teen Challenge and
their work. She is opposed to 96 to 150 men, ages 18 years and up, with life
problems living in the heart of a residential neighborhood. The size and nature of
this facility is huge. She has heard much in comparison of the Willow Highway
facility and Holmes Street School. There is no comparison. The Willow Highway
facility is on a main busy highway and next to a commercial building, Consumers
Power. All the information that she received is based on that. Holmes Street,
though well traveled, is by no means comparable to Willow Highway. This school
is in the heart of a neighborhood surrounded by single family homes. She stated
that 96 to 150 extra would be comparable to 48 new single homes with five
members in each home on a 2 plus acre plot of land. This is not a good fit and
would not benefit the neighborhood. At the City Council meeting last night, those
who attended had their own concerns and heard hers and agreed. One
gentleman mentioned that property values dropped for his home once a facility of
this nature came into his neighborhood. There are already two homes that have
lost sales once they knew it was Teen Challenge who was the pending buyer of
the school. The homes are the biggest investments and this is a major concern.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 7
At the zoning meeting, it was brought to her attention that the pole barns would
be raised for working on busses, vans and cars. Teen Challenge also has on
their web site that they take donated cars. She asked if this would become a
used car lot for the residents to work on donated cars and then sell them? What
about the environmental issues and standards on that? The more she hears
about this facility, the more questions she has. This is not a well thought out plan
for Teen Challenge and not a good fit for the community. As home owners,
community members and family members, she asked the Board if they would
want this in their neighborhood?
Ms. Andrelle Isabell, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that she lives right
across the street from the school and can see the school from her yard. She has
lived in this neighborhood since she was 3 years old and she is now 15 years old.
She has a lot of memories in this neighborhood. The Holmes Street School was
her first school and she walked to school and home everyday. She now attends
Eastern High School and she walks home. A lot of the other kids in the
neighborhood do also. A big concern that she has is her safety in walking home
everyday. These strangers coming in from other states and cities, and knowing
what the men would be in there for gives her cause for concern. She is also
concerned about the safety of the other children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Tyler Isabell, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that he also went to
the Holmes Street School for his first few years. He does not want to have drug
addicts at the school because then he would not be able to go to the park and
practice baseball.
Ms. Stacia Pitcher, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that she moved into
this neighborhood because of the school and the school yard. She would not
have moved there with her children if this building was there. Most of the people
in the neighborhood wouldn't either because there are lots of single women with
children in this neighborhood. This is a scary prospect. She comes from a family
with drug and alcohol issues and she keeps them away from her children.
Mr. Mike Jones, resident of 1222 Climax Street, stated that he took up the
invitation of Teen Challenge to visit their facility since that was one of the things
they asked of the residents in the neighborhood of the Holmes Street School. He
was impressed with how clean the facility was. He walked in almost every room
where a resident would live in the facility. He walked in the kitchen, the common
areas and the library. He walked in the back yard where they are working on the
cars. He talked to them about their vision for the future and if their goal was to
continue to do auto repair in the new facility. He looked at the privacy fences that
were put up. What he seems to see so far is that there are a lot of questions
about what might happen in that facility but he is not sure that he is seeing many
people going and visiting the existing facility to gain an understanding of what is
happening at that facility. He has heard a number of comments that the property
values in the neighborhood will go down. He thought the best way to determine
that himself was to ask the realtors who are selling homes in the neighborhood.
He will email the Board with those reports as they come in.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 8
What he is really impressed with is that Teen Challenge actually does well in
neighborhoods that are residential. The focus is actually to be a family in terms
of how they are interact, care and support each other. In his opinion, Teen
Challenge would actually be a positive impact in a residential neighborhood. He
does not believe that the counselors are licensed. They are people who have
been through similar situations in their own lives. As a counselor, he sees that
the most effective way to address these types of issues is to have people that
have found success in those areas journeying along side those who are currently
struggling. He is in favor of Teen Challenge being in his neighborhood.
Mr. Ron Boody, resident of 1041 Palmer Street, stated that people who come
to look at houses will see that there is a treatment center there and the
perception will be negative in their minds and they will not want to move into the
neighborhood as a result. It will definitely decrease property values and it is not a
good fit for a residential neighborhood. He has no arguments against Teen
Challenge. It is probably a good facility but it just has no place in a fragile
neighborhood that is really looking for something that will be an improvement to
the community to move in to that facility (i.e. community center, learning center,
Police precinct). It needs to be something positive that will have something for
the neighborhood and will encourage people to move into the neighborhood.
Ms. Ligia Romero, resident of 1031 S. Holmes Street, stated that she has
been a member of the Holmes Street Community for the last 37 years. Her
concern is that this is happening so quickly. She feels that the community is
being blindsided. The Lansing School District has always stood for protecting
children and having facilities or activities in their buildings. There are a lot of kids
in the neighborhood. When she wakes up in the morning at 7:45 a.m. there is a
line of 14 to 15 children at the corner of Parker and Hazel Streets waiting for the
bus. She does not know anything about Teen Challenge and she assumed that it
was going to be a group for youths, but when she looked at the information that
was given, it involves individuals ages 18 to 50. Her concern is the children who
walk in the neighborhood daily, to Eastern High School and to home. Is this
going to impact the senior citizens who live in that neighborhood who walk their
pets every morning? Is it going to impact the backyard of Holmes Street that is
used for recreational activities by all the neighbors in that area? She lives across
from the school and she sees kids go to the playground. She asked the Board if
they would be so quick to make a decision on this proposal if it were happening in
their neighborhood?
Ms. Beverly Foster, resident of 1224 S. Clemens and owner of the home
right across the street from the Holmes Street School, stated that she
purchased the home from her mother and is trying to sell the property. She was
talking with the realtor about whether painting the house would help it sell. The
realtor told her that according to the pending sale, she would not bet on it. She is
concerned about this and has her daughter and grandchildren living in the house
across from the school. The Holmes Street School was purchased by tax dollars.
The playground equipment was paid for by tax dollars. The only way that she
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 9
knew about this proposal was because her mother's house is right across the
street.
The people in her neighborhood knew nothing about this proposal but it is a part
of their neighborhood. She went door to door talking with the neighbors in the
four blocks around Clemens and Regent Streets. The neighbors knew nothing
and did not like it. She does not understand why they were not informed. The
Teen Challenge program does not pay property taxes. Shouldn't the neighbors
get someone in there who does? What happens to the playground equipment if
Teen Challenge moves in? Where will the children go to play? The closest park
is a half mile away and that is not a very safe park. She wouldn't let her
grandchildren walk a half mile to that park. They cannot walk to her house
because she lives on Clemens Street bordering Aurelius Road. They live on
Parker Street and cannot walk to her house through that neighborhood. She
stated that the whole idea should have been brought up to the neighborhood and
they should have had time to respond. It does affect them. She hopes the Board
will take this into consideration.
Mr. Charles Tassinare, resident of 1220 E. Hazel Street, stated that he only
heard about this because concerned neighbors were putting things on people's
doors. He went to a few meetings that were telling about the Teen Challenge
project. In the beginning, Teen Challenge said they would only have 96 people in
the building but they were going to try to increase it to 150. For an 8 to 10 hour
period overnight, there would only be 3 employees staying there with all those
people. That does not seem like any kind of a safe level for 96 substance abuse
people. He is opposed to the proposal. It should not be in his neighborhood.
Mr. Raleigh Schneider, resident of 1018 E. Hazel Street, stated that he was at
the last meeting and just wanted to say the numbers do not speak for the amount
of people who are in opposition of this proposal. He has talked to several other
people in his neighborhood. In the last meeting Pastor Jeff said the police record
will speak for itself and apparently it has been researched, no more than 6 per
year. That is an average of 1 every 2 months.
As far as the House of Commons being similar to Teen Challenge, he knows for
a fact that people leave the House of Commons every day. They relapse and
then go back to jail to finish the rest of their sentence. If this proposal is
approved, who is going to answer or be held accountable when an imminent
relapse or injustice should occur? Who will answer to the victims? Being a father
of three, he will plan on sleeping with one eye open.
Ms. Bree Witczak, resident of 1225 Mechanic Street, stated that she has lived
here for 7 years and is currently trying to sell her home. She has loved this
neighborhood and has had wonderful neighbors. They are good people and are
clean. In the 7 years that she has lived there, she has seen a remarkable change
in people keeping up their homes (i.e. painting, yard work). It is not like some of
these neighborhoods that you go through and there are four cars sitting on
someone's front lawn.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 10
She has had two accepted offers on her home since the first week in September.
Both of those offers were rescinded the minute they found out about the
possibility of Teen Challenge moving into the school. It was over and they did not
care that they lost their good faith money.
She is a former realtor and has multiple friends and associates who are currently
realtors. Every single agent in the greater Lansing area is aware of the possibility
of this program being put in the neighborhood. It was listed in the Time Out
which is the realtors' newsletter so that they all get that information. Everybody
who is looking at this and everyone she has talked to says that they will not show
anyone houses in this neighborhood. They know it is not going to go anywhere.
She believes that it is going to hurt property values now and down the line.
Ms. Eloise Lucas, resident of 1119 S. Holmes Street, stated that she has lived
there quite a few years and has raised three children there. She went to a
meeting last week at a church in the neighborhood and asked some questions.
One question was regarding the security at night. The gentleman earlier said
three people at night. She was told that there would only be two people at night.
This is going to be three floors and what if there is a disturbance on the third
floor? What is going to happen? When asked about the education of the staff,
she was told it was all going to be pastoral. They do not have any other degrees
to deal with these people (alcoholics and drug addicts). She is opposed to this
proposal. She stated that there could be other things, like senior housing, that
could go in this facility. She stated that as far as repairing cars nowadays, you
have to have really good technical equipment.
Ms. Robin McDonald, resident of 1210 E. Hazel Street, stated that she was
contacted by a reporter from the Lansing State Journal regarding her opinions on
this issue. She tried to write a brief summary of her conversation. She is very
concerned about the introduction of Teen Challenge into this neighborhood.
Pastor Jeff Turner told her that 33 percent of the residents are on probation and
30 percent had a choice of being there or in jail. Her understanding is that most
of the residents in the facility are from Chicago and Detroit. Regarding probation,
she is aware that as a condition of probation, certain individuals must attend a
program such as this. She calls into question their representation of this program
being voluntary. As to the 30 percent who had to chose between Teen Challenge
or going to jail, she knows what she would chose if she were in that position.
She was also told that the only skill the staff possesses is how to hold someone
down and she does not really understand why someone needs to be held down
when this is all voluntary. She understands that they are all graduates of the
Teen Challenge program but that is all she knows with regards to qualifications.
In terms of staffing levels, Pastor Turner told her that 15 maximum but only 2 staff
overnight. He also told her that the majority of the men would not be there during
the day. If there is a 15 maximum for 150 occupants, why do they need 13 staff
during the day? She really has serious reservations.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Paqe 11
Mr. Paul Martin, Marathon Petroleum Company located at 539 S. Main
Street, Findley, OH, stated that he is here to address Z-15-2006 and ACT-6-
2006 concerning the rebuilding of the Speedway gas station on S. Cedar Street.
He has been speaking with the neighbors and the Old Everett Neighborhood
Association (OENA) in the area. He has addressed many of their concerns. The
OENA at the last meeting stood up and showed their support for this project,
pending proper zoning, buffering and other issues involving traffic. They wanted
directional signage. Many of these concerns he believes can be resolved
through proper site planning and by abiding by the ordinances such as the
landscaping buffer that is required between residential and commercial uses
He stated that this is an investment into the neighborhood. If someone stands on
Irvington Avenue behind that area and look towards S. Cedar Street, they can
see right out to the street. Traffic and noise come through that area and back
into the neighborhood. With the location of the proposed building and the
canopy, this would separate the neighborhood from S. Cedar Street, which is a
major thoroughfare in that area and it would block the noise and keep the traffic
to the major road in that area. This would help improve the neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Houghtaling, S. Washington, stated that he has worked with Teen
Challenge for approximately nine years and has dealt with Teen Challenge
coming into his neighborhood, Northtown. He purposely listened to the citizens in
Northtown and they said the same things that these residents are saying. He has
done approximately 146 houses with Teen Challenge on a volunteer basis.
Northtown raises the funds and Pastor Turner sends the boys to do it. He has
personally been able to work with these gentlemen and they came from all types
of backgrounds. None of us are exempt from these problems and not all of these
men are alcoholics or drug addicts. He works with the court system when they
have to do community service. Teen Challenge is not the same thing as court
ordered work. He knows some of the graduates who came from Chicago and
other states and they have made Lansing their home after they graduated from
the program. They have come to be good citizens after being a part of this
program. They have the type of moral standards that the neighbors would want
in this facility. He can feel for the neighbors having this facility come in and he
can tell them that this is much better than any commercial use. He believes that
if the residents work with Pastor Turner, they will be very happy with the facility.
Pastor Jeff Turner, Director of Teen Challenge located on Willow Hwy.,
stated that he went to the Potter-Walsh neighborhood and sent out flyers. There
were quite a few people there and he answered their questions as best he could.
Teen Challenge would welcome some sort of committee or board to work with
them. He has welcomed anyone to come in and observe what they are doing at
their facility. He is not hiding anything. It is not dangerous.
He stated that the building is for sale and someone is going to buy it. It was a
great deal so Teen Challenge put a bid on it. They would love to have it and he
believes that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. It would not be an eye
sore. If someone came to the current facility, they would see that.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 12
He stated that there is not a lot of trouble over there. The judge tells the ones
who are on probation that if it does not work out for them here, then they have
another place for them to go that is not as pleasant as Teen Challenge. Teen
Challenge is teaching them life skills and these men are an asset to the
neighborhood. There are so many things that Teen Challenge could do to help
the neighborhood. Every neighborhood has its own needs. If there was a
committee, Teen Challenge could begin to help them and look at some of the
needs that they could help fill. He would be glad to do that and the men would be
glad to do that. However, they would not go anywhere that they were not asked
to go.
Ms. Betty Bossier, resident of 1015 Walsh Street, stated that she has been in
the neighborhood since she was 8 years old, over 40 years. She has seen a lot
of changes and saw the neighborhood go down hill. In the past few years, the
neighborhood is recovering. She has had to fight one battle with the owners of
the Hager Fox building when they wanted to expand their parking lot. If Teen
Challenge is planning on putting in an automotive garage over in the playground
area, what kind of fumes will the neighbors have to deal with? What was the
Master Plan if the school ever closed? She asked if anyone could answer her
question regarding the Master Plan.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Master Plan calls for an institutional type use for
all of these former school buildings. Ms. Bossler stated that she would still have
to live with the fumes and the noise.
Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consent Items
1. Minutes for Approval: (Minutes will be presented for consideration
at a later date)
2. ACT-7-2006, Gier Street Extension
This is a request by the City of Lansing Public Service Department
to acquire land from Motor Wheel/Good Year to be used as Public
Right of Way for the construction of 270 feet of paved road to
extend Gier Street between Rheamont Street and Commonwealth
Ave.
APPROVED w/o Objection.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 13
3. ACT-8-2006, Pedestrian Bridge over Alley between 200 & 222
N. Washington Ave.
This is a request by Kathryn Meninga of 222 N. Washington Sq. for
air rights between 200 and 222 N. Washington Sq. to erect a
bridge linking the adjoining buildings. The bridge would be 23 ft.
above ground level, located near the eastern end of the buildings,
and run in a north-south direction.
APPROVED w/o Objection.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. Z-15-2006, Rezoning from "J" Parking & "C" Residential
Districts to "F" Commercial District
This is a request by Speedway SuperAmerica to rezone the
property at the northwest corner of Hunter Blvd. and
Irvington Ave. from "J" Parking to "F" Commercial; the
property directly to it's north from "J" Parking & "C"
Residential to "F" Commercial and a small strip of land along
the road at 3631 S. Cedar Street from "J" Parking to "F"
Commercial district. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring
all of the property under the "F" Commercial district so that
the Speedway Station at 3631 S. Cedar Street can be rebuilt
and expanded.
Staff recommended approval of Z-15-2006, Rezoning from
"J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "F" Commercial
District, with the exception of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 6
that would remain zoned "C" Residential and would serve as
a landscape buffer for the neighborhood.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (2-0).
Ms. Bruch stated that she has several issues with the current
design. She stated that this is the kind of site design that the
Board does not want because the building is at the rear of
the site with the parking in front. She stated that Speedway
has proven themselves not to be great neighbors. The
neighbors have complained over and over about things and
finally when Speedway wants something, they are trying to
get some of the items addressed. She really wants the
design issue resolved before the Board actually takes action
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 14
on it. She stated that she does not feel comfortable with the
current design.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of
Z-15-2006, Rezoning from "J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "F"
Commercial District.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 2; carried.
APPROVED.
b. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use
Permit— Residential Care Facility
This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge for a Special
Land Use permit to utilize the building at 1030 S. Holmes
Street (Holmes Street School) for a residential care facility
that would house up to 150 people. The property is zoned
"B" Residential District which permits residential care
facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the
Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-11-06 SLU-11-2006,
1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit —
Residential Care Facility, based upon its consistency with
the criteria of Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the following conditions:
1. The capacity of the facility be limited to 96 residents,
or as many as may be permitted by the Board of
Zoning Appeals upon request for a variance to the lot
area requirement, up to a maximum of 150 residents;
2. At least one parking space for each staff member on
the largest shift, one parking space for each vehicle
that is owned by the facility and 10 additional parking
spaces be provided on the site;
3. Approval of a site plan by the Planning Office for
fencing and/or landscape materials that would best
screen any views objectionable to adjacent neighbors
and that will inhibit trespassing;
4. Lansing Teen Challenge shall not allow any may who
currently has a charge of violence or criminal sexual
conduct into the Lansing Teen Challenge program;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 15
5. Lansing Teen Challenge will make the persons in it's
programs available for community and neighborhood
projects and requests as deemed appropriate and
harmonious with the scheduling and programming of
Lansing Teen Challenge; and
6. Lansing Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in
staff members occupying and supervising the
property at 1030 S. Holmes Street, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
In Committee, the request was recommended to be
forwarded to the Planning Board and discussed in a
Committee of the Whole meeting, and the motion carried
unanimously (2-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to move SLU-11-2006, 1030 S.
Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit — Residential Care Facility to the
Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
C. Election of Officers
Mr. Ruge stated that the Committee decided to wait until the
next meeting because there were only two members
present.
Next meeting, Wednesday, November 8, 2006, at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair
a. Election of Officers
Mr. Frederick stated that he was elected Chair and Ms.
Cordill was elected Vice Chair of the Committee.
b. ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley between Glendale and
Irvington
This is a request by Speedway SuperAmerica to vacate the
16 foot wide alley that runs between Glendale Avenue and
Irvington Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to allow for
all of the property that is owned by Speedway to be
consolidated so that the gas station can be rebuilt and
expanded.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 16
Staff recommended approval of ACT-6-2006, to vacate the
16 foot wide alley located between Glendale Avenue and
Irvington Avenue, conditioned on the relocation of existing
public facilities in accordance with the standards of the
impacted public agencies.
Mr. Frederick stated that since the applicant agreed to pay
for moving of all of the utilities that are currently under the
alley, there was no objection to the actual vacation of the
alley. Since the rezoning was approved this evening, he
made a motion to approval ACT-6-2006.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill , to recommend approval of
ACT-6-2006, Vacate Alley between Glendale and Irvington.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like the gas station to be
redesigned so that it addresses the type of design that the
Board wants to see in the City. She stated that this needs to
be completely redesigned to protect the neighbors from the
lights, sounds and make better use of the frontage of the
street, and maybe even talk about the redesign of the
incoming traffic on Hunter Avenue. She asked if this could
be a friendly amendment to the recommendation.
Mr. Frederick stated that he would certainly accept a friendly
amendment regarding the design but if the Board wanted to
see a complete redesign presented before they voted on this
issue, they would probably have to move to table the request
until a later date. He stated that Ms. Bruch could do this one
of two ways: 1) Propose some redesign issues as a friendly
amendment, or 2) Move to table the request.
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to table ACT-6-2006, Vacate
Alley between Glendale and Irvington. On a voice vote, the motion carried (5-1).
C. ACT-10-2006, Saginaw Street, Pattengill School, Acquire
ROW for sidewalks
This is a request by the City of Lansing Public Service
Department for authorization to acquire the right-of-way
along Saginaw Street and Marshall Street for a public
sidewalk at the new Pattengill Middle School.
The site plan for the Pattengill Middle School was approved
in November 2004 showing the proposed location of the
sidewalk with a substantial portion of the public sidewalk
located on school property and the City also has an
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 17
easement through this portion of the Pattengill property for
the East Side Relief Sewer. The Lansing School District is
in the process of preparing a quit claim deed so the sidewalk
will be in public right-of-way.
Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Rieske presented the Urban
Development Committee with a resolution to give the right-
of-way to the City. There were a couple of conditions: 1)
That the City Attorney be satisfied that the donors have
marketable insurable title to the property, and 2) That the
owners present a good and sufficient quit claim deed prior to
the City Attorney transferring marketable ownership of the
property to the City of Lansing.
Mr. Frederick stated that the public school system is in
agreement and they have provided the Board with a copy of
a quit claim deed that presumably Dr. Banks will sign. He
also said that the Board was provided with a legal
description of the property.
Ms. Bruch asked if there could be trees, lighting, benches
and other amenities in the right-of-way as well. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that they would all have to be within the
road right-of-way. Ms. Bruch asked if this was already
planned and who would be paying for it. Ms. Stachowaik
stated that it was something that was taken care of during
the site plan review. The City Forester required so many
trees to be planted in the road right-of-way. Whether they
have already been planted she does not know. The school
district will have to do this as part of the overall
development. Ms. Bruch asked about the benches. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she does not know.
Ms. Cordill stated that with street furniture it probably would
be better enjoyed closer to the building.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to add a friendly
amendment to add benches and have them placed as close
as possible to the building. Mr. Frederick accepted the
friendly amendment.
Ms. Cordill stated that seating depends on how people come
in; whether it is by school bus, CATA bus or drop-off. It
seems that you would find the benches up by the building
along with trash receptacles, or by where people will be
meeting their rides; waiting for school busses or CATA
busses. Mr. Czekai stated that Ms. Bruch's friendly
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 18
amendment has the benches as close to the building as
possible.
Mr. Ruge asked about the friendly amendment. Ms. Bruch
stated that she would like to see benches added to the site,
where appropriate, but as close to the building as possible.
It would be appropriate to have benches close to a bus stop
or near the driveways where people are coming and going.
The number of benches would be as appropriate. Mr.
Czekai stated that the friendly amendment would be to add
benches as appropriate to the site plan as close to the
building as possible.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to adopt the resolution for
ACT-10-2006, Saginaw Street, Pattengill School, Acquire ROW for sidewalks with
the condition that benches, as appropriate, be added to the site and placed as
close to the building as possible.
Frederick Ave Bruch Ave
Ruge. Aye Cordill. Aye
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Tuesday, October 24, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the
Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
a. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use
Permit— Residential Care Facility
This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge for a Special
Land Use permit to utilize the building at 1030 S. Holmes
Street (Holmes Street School) for a residential care facility
that would house up to 150 people. The property is zoned
"B" Residential District which permits residential care
facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the
Lansing City Council.
Ms. Bruch stated that she is concerned about the design
issues and added as a recommendation that the pole barn fit
the neighborhood. Ms. Bruch recommended that the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 19
applicant keep the pole barn and parking area as close to
the building as possible.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-11-2006, 1030 S.
Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit— Residential Care Facility with the
following conditions: 1) The capacity of the facility be limited to 96 residents, or
as many as may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals upon request for a
variance to the lot area requirement, up to a maximum of 150 residents; 2) At
least one parking space for each staff member on the largest shift, at least one
space for each vehicle owned by the facility and 10 additional parking spaces for
visitors be provided on the site; 3) Approval of a site plan by the Planning Office
for fencing and/or landscape materials that would best screen any views
objectionable to adjacent neighbors and that will inhibit trespassing; 4) Lansing
Teen Challenge shall not allow any man with a charge of violence or criminal
sexual conduct into the Lansing Teen Challenge program; 5) Lansing Teen
Challenge will make the persons in its programs available for community and
neighborhood projects and requests as deemed appropriate and harmonious with
the scheduling and programming of Lansing Teen Challenge; and 6) Lansing
Teen Challenge shall be monitored by live-in staff members occupying and
supervising the property at 1030 S. Holmes Street, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week.
Ms. Bruch suggested a seventh condition requiring that the
pole barn be residential in scale, located as close as
possible to the building to maximize green space and
buffered by plant materials.
Ms. Bruch also suggested a condition requiring that any new
parking areas be constructed of permeable asphalt or
concrete.
The board members asked about staffing and if 2 to 3 staff
members would be adequate.
Mr. Czekai stated that the applicant has had numerous
opportunities to respond to the question about staffing and
all the Board hears is that it will be 2-3 people at night. He
stated that he intends to vote no on this project for that
reason.
Ms. Cordill stated that there are a lot of concerns from the
neighborhood about safety and security. She asked if the
residents of the facility can go off-site by themselves?
Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant left after the public
comment period. He stated that there are a lot of questions
that need to be answered. He suggested tabling the case
and putting together a list of questions for the applicant to
answer at the next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 20
The following is the questions that the Board would like to
have addressed.
1. Can the residents of Teen Challenge go off-site by
themselves?
2. What is the number of staff that will be at the facility
during the day? During the night?
3. How is it determined that the amount of staff is
adequate?
4. Will the proposal be viable if the facility is limited to 96
residents or less?
5. What is the minimum occupancy load necessary to
make Holmes Street School viable for Teen
Challenge?
6. What is the proposed height and square footage of
the pole barn?
7. Are there any industry standards for this type of
facility?
8. Are all of the Teen Challenge facilities in the U.S.
staffed and operated the same as the Lansing facility?
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to arise from the
Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
a. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use
Permit— Residential Care Facility
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to table SLU-11-06. On a
voice vote, the motion carried.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Czekai stated that the next Executive Committee meeting will
be November 1st at 6:00 p.m.
C. Old Business — None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 17, 2006 Page 21
D. Report from Planning Manager— None.
E. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J"
Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. ACT-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,
2000)
b. Master Plan Project
c. ACT-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate
Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
The Board members asked Ms. Stachowiak to get an update on the pending
items.
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Bruch asked about the status of new Board members. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that Mr. Rieske is working on getting new board members appointed.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003)
b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003)
c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004)
e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building
(May 4, 2004)
f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004)
g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005)
i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.-registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005)
j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006)
k. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating
in a print shop (April 18,2006)
I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5, 2006, July 18,2006&September 5, 2006)
m. SE Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunckel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence (September 5,2006)
Mr. Frederick stated that Keeps Party Store (item 1) has two new signs.
Mr. Czekai inquired about noise ordinance restrictions regarding industrial uses.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Res e ully su�miPeMta�ry-, Planning
Wa�
William C. Rleske, Board
PBMinutes.101706.doc
-Approved as written 11-1-06 Draft to Clerk October 27,2006
Approved November 1,2006
To Clerk November 3.2006
Minutes of the Regular Meeting �-
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers (10
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
1. OPENING SESSION
r�
The meeting was called to order at 7:0.0 p.m. by Mr. Frederick, Acting.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister (late).
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak
C. Excused absences: Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused
absence from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion
carried unanimously (4-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda as
amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Ms. Stachowiak added under New Business approval of ACT-1 1-2006, W.
Edgewood Blvd. ROW Acquisition.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from Brent Baker, applicant for SLU-10-2006
B. An anonymous letter in opposition to SLU-11-2006
C. Letter from Scott Thompson of Mount Hope Church in support of
SLU-11-2006
D. Email from Julia Smith expressing concerns regarding SLU-11-2006
E. Email from Ted Kluck in opposition to SLU-11-2006
F. Email from Kristin Kluck in opposition to SLU-11-2006
G. Letter from Robert Schaeffer, Jr. in opposition to SLU-11-2006
H. Letter from Stacy Proffitt in support of SLU-11-2006
I. Letter from Brian Krumheuer in opposition to Z-15-2006 & ACT-6-2006
J. Letter from James & Susan Tews in opposition to Z-15-2006 &
ACT-6-2006
K. Letter from KC & Cory Hornus in opposition to Z-15-2006 & ACT-6-2006
L. Letter from Stanley Levandowski of L&L Food Centers in opposition to
Z-15-2006 & ACT-6-2006
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 2
4. HEARINGS
A. SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use Permit—
Residential Care Facility
This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge for a Special Land Use
permit to utilize the building at 1030 S. Holmes Street (Holmes Street
School) for a residential care facility that would house up to 150 people.
The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits residential
care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing
City Council.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Ruge stated that this involves recovering drug addicts and it appears
that a lot of people are concerned. Teen Challenge is over on Willow
Street in a neighborhood right now. He asked if the Board could receive
police reports for the past few years to see what kind of problems there
were in the area. Ms. Stachowiak said yes.
Ms. Bruch stated Teen Challenge was a case that came before the Board
and expanded its number from about 46 to 64 at the Willow facility. At that
time, the Board did request police reports. There was nothing that really
involved the residents of Teen Challenge. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
current neighborhood is overwhelmingly supportive of the facility and they
love having Teen Challenge in the area. They all testified at that public
hearing that they participate in neighborhood clean ups and that there
have been no issues whatsoever with the facility. The neighborhood is
glad to have them. This is the testimony the Board heard.
Ms. Robin McDonald, resident of 1210 E. Hazel Street, stated that she
has done some research on Teen Challenge and not only do they serve
people rehabilitating from alcohol and drug abuse but they are also trying
to overcome pornography, gambling, abuse (and she wondered if they
leave out the word domestic) and other addictions. She is wondering if
there are any representatives from Teen Challenge here to address
various questions that she has. There are 16 parking spaces and she is
wondering for an operation that is open 24/7, if there are just 16 parking
spaces, how many staff will there be for each increment of eight hours? A
friend of hers worked at the Lansing women's Teen Challenge and she
told her that residents generally, for their benefit, will not attend programs
in their community. We are not talking about male individuals from the
Lansing area. To her knowledge, the majority of men are from Chicago
and she has heard Detroit. She has a very serious concern about the
nature of this facility and the individuals in this facility being integrated into
her neighborhood. She also has concerns about where the individuals are
from. She is wondering how voluntary this program is. Voluntary could be
mean just going in on your own volition or if someone got in trouble in front
of a judge and the judge said you can voluntarily go into a program for the
'PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 3
problem that you have or you can spend the same time in jail. She would
like to know how Teen Challenge plans to develop the property. The
Board has addressed parking but she knows that the residents can have
visiting days. When she talked to Suzanne, she said that the residents do
not get many visitors. Ms. McDonald stated that this is not something you
can control and everyone would be entitled to have a visitor. She does not
know what advantage Teen Challenge would bring to the neighborhood.
Ms. McDonald stated that with regards to the Willow neighborhood being
very supportive, if they are, great. If they were in her neighborhood and
she was not happy, would she air her grievances to a neighborhood they
might be moving to? No. These are her remarks for now.
Mr. Jimmy Walters, resident of 1236 Climax Street, stated that he was
elected by a group of his neighbors to speak for them and himself. He has
lived at this address for 35 years and misses the school and the kids
screaming and yelling. He is retired and now lives in Florida six months
out of the year in a town called Roskin, halfway between Tampa and
Brayatin Palmento on Tampa Bay. He had a group from the east coast
that wanted to buy up a bunch of acreage and they did right in his
community. They wanted to put in a troubled home for teenagers and
young adults who did not really kill anybody but they robbed and stole
cars, short of murder. No fences; no consatina wire; honor system. The
neighbors are all retired. He is 60 years old now and cannot really defend
myself against a young person in better shape than him. It hit the fan.
The papers picked it up. Petitions were garnered and they were basically
run out of town. It is now a center for vocational training in trades. This
neighborhood where he lives is actually no different, young people, kids,
older people and most of them are defenseless. As he understands, there
is going to be no fences, no counsatina wire. He asked if there would be
buzzers on the doors? How easy would it be for the residents to walk
away in the darkness when he is going to his car, put a knife at his throat
and they want his money. He has very strong qualms about this situation
and not in his back yard syndrome — its got to go somewhere. He is not
thinking this is the right place. He would like to see the police record on
Willow Street and know the record of Teen Challenge. He would like to
know the number of staff to the ratio of residents.
Mr. Walters stated that there is a problem with 1000, 1100 and 1200 Main
Street. These are rentals and he heard 13 gun shots go off last Friday
night. This is the first time since he lived there. There is a rental problem
with the landlords and there are enough problems with Main Street. The
residents do not need this if this is going to cause problems.
He stated that he is all for helping people but you cannot have 150 people
living at this facility. He believes that 90 people are too many. This needs
to be really looked at.
'PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 4
Mr. Ron Boody, resident of 1041 Parker Street, stated that this would
seriously impact the resale value of the homes in the area. Not to mention
the concerns that families would have regarding pedophiles and he asked
if any of the residents would be pedophiles and would they be walking
around in the neighborhood? He stated that the building would be better
served as maybe a daycare center, community center or something that
would positively impact the neighborhood. He does not feel that this is a
good idea at all.
Mr. David Lambert, resident of 1100 Walsh Street, stated that he would
like to differ a little bit with some of his neighbors who have just spoken.
He has lived in other neighborhoods and recently moved to this area. He
really likes the neighborhood around Walsh Street and around this school.
He thinks it is a shame that the school is no longer in operation. He would
much rather see a facility like this one in operation there rather than seeing
the building abandoned or perhaps the subject of an act of arson. He is
sure that would lower the values of homes across the street a lot more
than having an operational place where people live. When he thinks about
that, it could be that having a viable facility on that street could actually
help the police keep a better eye on their neighborhood and he would look
forward to that. He would recommend that the Board do a proper review
of police reports and other information to see whether this facility, in its
previous neighborhood, has operated as advertised. Other than that, he
recommends that the variance be approved.
Mr. Mike Jones, 1222 Climax Street, stated that as a counselor here in
Lansing, he works with individuals representing all of the perspectives that
anyone would imagine would reside in that facility. Most of you are aware
of how difficult it is for people to acclimate back into a community and how
often society's goal is to simply punish them. He works with the Michigan
Correctional Systems and three of the Michigan prisons in the same
capacity. He has lived in his neighborhood since 1982 and the largest
problem in the neighborhood is the actual residents in the area. The
single most effective way to deal with that is to get to know those
residents, interact with them and interact with the local police. He has
done that along with his neighbors ever since he has lived there. He is in
favor of having the facility use there because he believes that it is a much
wiser use of the facility rather than 1) it being vacant, and 2) than when it
was a truancy school through the Lansing School System.
He stated that the neighborhood is fairly well integrated in how it
communicates with each other and yet, it is very autonomous. Each
person stands alone and he thinks that is very unique. That is why a
number of residents have stayed in the neighborhood as many years as
they have. In lieu of that, if there is a problem in the neighborhood, the
residents will speak to each other, the Lansing Police Department and
actually address the issue. In addition, many of us are supportive of these
types of facilities because they have known individuals who have been
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 5
through these types of programs. He has himself. He has seen how
positive neighborhood support can encourage the residents to change
their lives and make a step forward. He believes that there are enough
residents in the neighborhood who are willing to make that stride forward
to actually meet the staff, make themselves available to that sense of
community, and in many ways welcome them and nurture them, not only
into their community, but back into the larger community of Lansing, in the
state of Michigan and beyond. He stated that he is in favor of this request.
Mr. Rick Kibbey, resident of 1614 Lindberg Drive, stated that he works
with the Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO) and he had a couple
of people contact him by email and ask if he would sort of be the collective
memory of the neighborhood on this issue. He has been working on
things like this for about 35 years. The eastside has considerable
experience with halfway houses and other facilities like this. The
neighborhoods in the past have been open to programs which deal with
neighborhood people and not necessarily outsiders, and are of a scale
appropriate for a neighborhood. The eastside has learned from opening
the neighborhood in the past on several occasions to programs. The issue
is often not the program participants themselves. While they are in the
program, either friends of the residents would show up or people who drop
out of the program or after they are in the program. If the residents drop
out of the program and are reverting to their prior problems, all of a sudden
the neighborhood has inherited Chicago's problems. He knows that the
language in the Code when it speaks specifically to special land uses and
uses subject to conditions. It speaks to conditions that are supportive of
the residential use of the neighborhood. It does not talk about opening
some sort of institution in the middle of the neighborhood. This is clearly
and by design, an institution and not integrative of the neighborhood but it
stands apart from the neighborhood. It does not involve the neighborhood
people. It involves important people from another state.
He stated that these types of facilities always seem to end up in
neighborhoods like his instead of more affluent neighborhoods that are not
already struggling with crime. If the social capital that the previous
speaker was taking about is important, then the ability of a neighborhood
to integrate folks into a neighborhood life is important. You would look to a
neighborhood that had an excess of social capital that was not already
struggling with issues to provide that sort of service rather than a
neighborhood that is challenged to keep its head above water right now.
The neighborhood does not need additional problems.
To its credit, he stated that Teen Challenge has a pretty decent track
record and have operated a program between Cedar and Larch Streets.
They took a real close look at that program when it opened up. It took
three houses that were essentially junk houses and put them to very good
use. That is the sort of program that you would expect to see in a
neighborhood. It was more neighborhood scale, smaller and more
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 6
intimate, and was the sort of thing that a neighborhood could swallow.
This program is of such a scale that is far more appropriate for commercial
zoning.
Ms. April Lee, resident 1111 E. Hazel Street, stated that she is a single
mom with a daughter and she does not want to become vulnerable to
these people who want to move into this building down on Holmes Street.
Her daughter takes the City bus to school. She has lived at this house for
five years and she does not want to become vulnerable to this type of
thing.
Ms. Shannon Turner, resident of 1012 Parker Street, stated that she
can see the school right from her front porch. She has a two year old
daughter who plays in the front yard and she walks her dog between dusk
and night. Having a facility like Teen Challenge would make her weary of
her own and her daughter's safety. People stated drugs, alcohol,
pedophiles or sex addicts. Why move this into a heart of a neighborhood
where there are three day centers surrounding the facility? There are tons
of children in this neighborhood who ride their bikes and play at the little
park all the time. Moving people who have problems into the heart of a
neighborhood can only cause more problems for the area, and having so
many people not welcoming them into that neighborhood could cause
more problems. There is a DJs party store down the street where you can
pick up alcohol and drugs. There have been shootings. What is the limit?
Do the residents have a curfew? Are the residents allowed to wonder
around in the neighborhood? She read that Teen Challenge has on-site
and off-site activities through the neighborhood. Like someone said "Not
in my back yard." She has lived there for four years. She moved there
because it was affordable for her, it was a quiet neighborhood, and it is
enjoyable. Having traffic of 96 extra people that are living there not
including the visitors,
She would like to see the police reports, not of the people of Teen
Challenge, because she heard it is not including the people of Teen
Challenge. What about their visitors or the people they used to hang
around with that would come visit them? These people would be in her
neighborhood and she is very uncomfortable with this matter.
Mr. Hollister stated that when the police reports are pulled, they pull the
police reports for that address, which would include any police report that
was affiliated with that address whether they were a resident or a visitor. If
they happen to be driving from somewhere out of town and happen to get
into an accident in front of that address, this is what will be pulled.
Mr. Raleigh Schneider, resident of 1018 E. Hazel Street, stated that he
has been at this address for the past four years along with his three
children. He hears a lot of good things. With staff vs. personnel, how
many people? On line it states that these people are going to be heavily
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 7
supervised. One thing that no one has really mentioned is that there is a
liquor store less than 100 yards from this location and God knows what
happens with all the things that happen around there on a nightly basis
along with a house full of crack heads right next to it that really has not
been taken care of. They open it up and they shut it down. They open it
up and shut it down. This has been an ongoing situation for the last
several years. He is concerned because he does have his children and
they play freely with supervision. With these types of people walking the
streets, how long is it before someone eventually relapses and the
neighborhood is victimized by this decision to be approved?
Ms. Sandee Wilson, resident of 1029 Parker Street, stated that she has
a 14 year old daughter and an 8 year old daughter and she is very
concerned about this. There are four single moms on her block alone and
there would be 96 men who have issues. She called and checked with
some people. In the current Teen Challenge facility, there are 3 to 4 full
time staff members. Overnight, there is no licensed staff member there.
The staff members who are there are recovered addicts who have gone
through the program and have graduated. Who will be supervising the
addicts at night and where are they going to go at night? They cannot
have a 100 percent success rate. They have to have some who do not
succeed and where do they go? Do they wander the streets or look for
money to get them home? She is very concerned about this. She
purchased her home 10 years ago because there was a school building at
that time and it was a very quiet neighborhood. This is why she purchased
her home. She did not purchase it to have a drug rehab be put in her
backyard. There are no other commercial buildings around this area
except for DJs party store. This is a very quiet neighborhood and the
residents enjoy it. Her neighborhood is not on a main drag and is in a
quiet little area. She really hopes the Board looks at this and thinks twice.
Mr. Ryan Savage, resident of 521 N. Magnolia, stated that rehab
requires social integration. You cannot take rehab, use drugs or anything
else and make it work. Without a sense of loss or value for the community
surrounding this facility, if these people are coming from out of state and
they do not have a sense of community or value for the people around
them, then there is no social integration and it cannot be even close to
successful. If Teen Challenge decides to use Lansing bound people,
these are wonderful people in this community. They may be the key to
saving someone else's life because they have had some wrong choices or
they have had some wrong role models in their lives.
Reverend Jeff Turner, applicant and Director of Lansing Teen
Challenge, stated he is hoping to address some of the public's questions
and hopefully dispel some of the myths. All of the male residents do have
background checks and they do run their social security numbers. Teen
Challenge does not allow anybody with violent charges or anything like
that. Maybe one third of the residents are put on probation and one of the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 8
stipulations of the probation is that they go to Teen Challenge's one year
program. The program is very structured and the day begins at 5:45 a.m.
and ends at 10:30 p.m. with activities going on all day long. Teen
Challenge does work projects in the community only at requests by the
neighborhood residents. Teen Challenge sends out volunteers. Last year
there were a minimum of 20,000 volunteer hours and in 2005, there were
30,000 volunteer hours.
With the staff, Teen Challenge does have at least 1 staff per 10 residents
and is more like 1 staff per 6 or 8 residents. At night, there are 2 night
watchmen. The residents are extremely tired by 10:30 p.m.
The residents are up at 5:45 a.m. and have church services and classes in
the morning. They work from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. and have more prayer and
more study time in the evening. When it is 10:30 p.m., the residents are
pretty tired.
Reverend Turner stated that the police record will speak for itself. There
were a couple of phone calls but not for anything serious.
Everyone who comes in to the program from out of town (approximate
ratio of 50%), has to have return bus fair and they agree that Teen
Challenge will put them on a bus out of town if they decide to leave and
not finish the program.
Reverend Turner stated that Teen Challenge has had a very positive
influence in the current neighborhood. Before the facility moved to Willow
Street, they were also on Grand River near Pennsylvania and that
neighborhood association really like them. Teen Challenge would do
some great projects for the neighborhood if anyone asks. It is done
voluntarily. He would be glad to stay after and answer any additional
questions.
Ms. Stacia Pitcher, resident of 1052 Parker Street, stated that she has
young children who play at the park and has seen a lot of kids over the last
twelve years come into the neighborhood. It would really be sad for the
residents to not see the kids down at the park or be free to play in the
neighborhood the way they are now. She knows some of the things about
not having violent people in the program. She comes from a family that
has had a lot of issues. Her brothers have been in and out of rehab and
she knows what they do outside of there. She knows what they do not get
caught for and you cannot tell her that people are going to be there that do
not have those problems. They just do not know it yet. Things do happen
that people do not know about. She does not want that in her
neighborhood. That is why she stays away from her family and why she
keeps her children away from them. She does not want them in her
neighborhood.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page_9
Mr. Ray Cartier, resides of Lansing Teen Challenge located at 510 W.
Willow, stated that he attended a meeting about six months ago with
Juanita Chapman and her organization (Potter/Walsh Neighborhood
Organization) because he did not want people to have some of the fears
expressed tonight. It was a nice meeting and lasted about a half hour. He
does not recall if any of the public here tonight attended that meeting or
are members of that neighborhood association that is accountable for that
area, they did review these issues to try to be ahead of the game and not
behind it. He is not from Lansing but has lived here for approximately five
years. He has attended the Lansing Police Citizens Police Academy, was
an operations manager for a single pouring company and has done high
rise construction in nuclear. He is not a licensed clinician or counselor but
he knows the program very well. He knows the community extremely well.
Walnut Street and Willow Schools nearby and it took Teen Challenge
almost a year to get approved at 510 W. Willow with no blemishes. Teen
Challenge is not leaving Lansing but is growing in Lansing because what it
is fighting is a growing issue. Get on a CATA bus, go to a local high
school and greet the police that are down there.
Ms. Nancy Burus, resident of 1233 Mechanic Street, stated that she
lives right across from the park and has lived there for almost 40 years.
She has been happy there and right now the neighborhood is getting lots
of young people moving in. Her area has a lot of single mothers and with
everyone she has talked to this request is a problem. Why are the
residents from another state? To her, this is one of the worst parts. She
watches kids play there all the time and they are not going to play out
there now. She does not know where they are going to play. The mothers
do not want Teen Challenge there. She feels bad for everyone. This is
not an area to put this type of facility. She stated that the value of their
homes is going to drop. There are two houses right on her street that
were up for sale and are not now.
Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing
and referred SLU-11-2006, 1030 S. Holmes Street, Special Land Use
Permit— Residential Care Facility to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, scheduled to meet on October 11, 2006 at 4:00 in the
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-15-2006 & Act-6-2006, Rezoning from "J" Parking & "C" Residential
Districts to "F" Commercial District, Vacate Alley between Glendale
and Irvington
This is a request by Speedway SuperAmerica to rezone the property at
the northwest corner of Hunter Blvd. and Irvington Ave. from "J" Parking to
"F" Commercial; the property directly to it's north from "J" Parking & "C"
Residential to "F" Commercial and a small strip of land along the road at
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 10
3631 S. Cedar Street from "J" Parking to "F" Commercial district. The
purpose of the rezoning is to bring all of the property under the "F"
Commercial district so that the Speedway Station at 3631 S. Cedar Street
can be rebuilt and expanded. ACT-6-2006 is also a request by Speedway
SuperAmerica to vacate the 16 foot wide alley that runs between Glendale
Avenue and Irvington Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to allow for
all of the property that is owned by Speedway to be consolidated so that
the gas station can be rebuilt and expanded.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Ms. Bruch stated that the Board has been talking about moving all the
designs for the buildings up to the front of the street so that there can be a
more walkable type of design for the community. The design that is
currently shown does not take into account a pedestrian sidewalk to
connect to the rest of the building. She would like to look at some
pedestrian friendly access to this building. Usually most of these buildings
have quick access for food so that it becomes actually a neighborhood
amenity rather than just a car accessible stop.
Mr. Frederick stated that the Board cannot put any conditions on a
rezoning and asked if conditions could be placed on an ACT 285 Review.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can put conditions on an ACT 285
Review.
Mr. Frederick asked about the issue with the utilities in the alley that the
applicant is requesting to be vacated. There seems to be problems from
Board of Water and Light regarding the utilities that are underneath the
alley way. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are issues with more than just
Board of Water and Light and may have come in since the staff reports
went out. The City Public Service Department also has issues with
vacating that alley as their sanitary sewer runs the entire length of that
alley. They will have issues with not only vacating the alley but also
having anything constructed over the sanitary sewer. There are ways of
dealing with that, including moving the sanitary sewer. Should this be
approved, it would be at the applicant's expense. The same thing applies
for the electric and water utilities as well.
Mr. Frederick asked if the applicant was aware of those issues. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the applicant may have been aware of this prior to
tonight's meeting.
Mr. Matt Gerrish, resident of 544 Irvington, asked about a berm for
shielding the noise, a fence and some trees and when it would take place.
Will the residents have to listen to the construction noise or could these be
put in before construction begins? He asked if this would be built by
Lansing contractors. He works for IBW and this is an issue with him. He
is opposed to this request. As the station stands right now, it gets the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 11
noise off the neighborhood from the pumps. The company put a light on
the canopy and it shines right in to the neighborhood. He has asked them
3 or 4 times to turn the light down and it took two months for someone to
get up on a ladder and fix it, something that would have been a five minute
job.
Mr. Gerrish stated that the old tanks are being removed. He asked about
getting the ground water tested. No one knows what condition those
tanks are in. He stated that if the fence could be put up before
construction starts, then the neighbors would not have to listen to the
noise.
Mr. Allan Jordan, resident of 521 Irvington Avenue, stated that the
problems he has right now with the gas station are the lights, employees
inside telling the customers at pump 6 to come inside and pay first (you
can hear this right through the neighborhood), the trash blowing through
the neighborhood, hearing the garbage truck at 4:00 a.m. and having the
late night deliveries at 11:00 p.m.
He asked if it would be Lansing workers building the facility. He stated
that it would be nice because the City has lost a lot of jobs, especially
factory jobs around here and it would put more money in people's pockets
in this area.
He stated that he would like to see an 8 to 10 foot noise wall put up
because he is tired of hearing the noise. If there is a bigger gas station
then there will be more noise.
He asked if the landscaping on the Irvington Avenue side would look nice
or will there just be a wall put up that does not look too nice.
Mr. Gary Patterson, resident of 528 Irvington Avenue, stated that his
biggest concerns are the noise and the lights. He is also concerned about
the amount of traffic that will be picked up on Irvington Avenue. He works
in his yard. He has gardens and he works in them all the time. You watch
most of the cars go down Irvington Avenue, go around the corner and pull
into the gas station. This would be a bigger gas station and more traffic.
He believes that something needs to be done on Irvington Avenue. He
would like to see speed bumps or a 4-way stop at the corner of Irvington
and Wildwood Avenues. There was an accident there last week.
Someone ran the stop sign and was hit broadside coming down through
there. Kids love it because there is a bill hill there and they will ride their
bicycles and skateboards down it. They do not stop for the stop sign
which they should. He stated that the City could close that end of the road
as far as he is concerned. He has the same problems that the others do
as far as the noise and every thing else. The gas station has one truck
and almost every night it comes in there between 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 12
It backs up and it has the loudest beeper on it for backing up that he has
ever heard. It is terrible.
Ms. Sherlyn Hogenson, resident of 523 Hunter Blvd., stated that she is
right across from the proposed site. She has some slides that show the
impact on her neighborhood. In her slides, is a view of her quiet, lovely,
tree-filled neighborhood which is the reason she bought her property two
years ago. The next slide shows the two nearest properties (523 & 515
Hunter Blvd.) adjacent to the Speedway project. The house will be
impacted dreadfully by the project. There is a view of the Speedway
property from the front of her property and lot is just right across a narrow
street. It is not very far at all. She has a double lot that will not be
enhanced by this project.
She stated that this project is really close to Immaculate Heart School.
There are school busses, children, parents dropping off kids and parking
for the church services that are right in the same vicinity. This is directly
across Irvington Avenue on to a street that runs in front of the school.
There is an example of the trash, lighting and the congestion of the
present station which will probably only get worse.
Her objections are the dangers to school children and the increases in
trash, noise, light pollution, traffic congestion on to Cedar Street and the
increase in traffic in her neighborhood. Cedar Street is already very busy.
She is glad to see in the drawing that there is no cut on to Irvington
Avenue so there would be no access. There is a cut on Hunter Blvd.
which is close to the Cedar Street intersection.
She feels that this request will decrease property values and she feels that
it will really have an impact. She would like to see a tall wall, landscaping,
light pollution control and no access on to Irvington.
Mr. Gary Andrews, resident of 560 Brooklyn Blvd. and Chairman of
the Land Use Committee for the Old Everett Neighborhood
Association, stated that this matter was taken up at their September
meeting and since then, there have been meetings with the petitioners'
representatives. He would like to request a 5 foot high berm and larger
trees with larger numbers of trees placed in the east and southeast portion
of the property in order to begin to alleviate the neighbors concerns
regarding the visual appearance, the light pollution and the noise. He is
more concerned about the impact that the cut on Hunter Blvd. will have on
traffic throughout the neighborhood. He has also requested that the
petitioner help alleviate that by installing directional signs redirecting
people to Cedar Street.
Several other environmental enhancements are included in the
neighborhood association's recommendation. One of the things that is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 13
going to have to be dealt with is the increase and cut through traffic that
the entrance on Hunter Blvd. will create. Hunter Blvd. connects close to
Pennsylvania Avenue and Cavanaugh Road and as the enhanced
development takes place, more people will find that route especially with
this entrance. The neighborhood association would like to request that the
City itself conduct pre and post development traffic and move towards
traffic control enhancements in the area. The neighborhood association is
not in favor of traffic bumps or speed bumps. Overall, the neighborhood
association feels that the project will be a positive development and will
create some immediate disturbances in the neighborhood. With a berm
rise of approximately five feet in the middle in the berm and the planting of
a larger number and more trees, this will begin to alleviate some of the
immediate neighbors' concerns. The association requests that the Board
approve the proposal with its recommendations.
Mr. Hollister stated that the Planning Department has not received the Old
Everett Neighborhood Association comments. Mr. Andrews stated that he
has it right here.
Ms. KC Hornus, resident of 532 Hunter Blvd., stated that she lives
directly across from the proposed site. She has some serious concerns
not only with traffic being a problem but with the lighting, the noise, etc.
She is tired of hearing someone needs to prepay on pump whatever. She
has worked very hard to build up her home and she feels like this is just
another thing that is going to make it harder to sell. She has a small
family with a four year old. She has a fenced yard. The fact that she
cannot walk on the sidewalks if there is going to be more traffic, there are
a lot of concerns here. Speed bumps, trees and fences can be put in but
the bottom line is that this is directly in front of her house. The few
neighbors who have to deal directly with this, there is not going to be big
enough trees to cut down on the noise or the traffic. The residents will
have to immediately deal with this and she thinks that it is something to
seriously consider. She has no problems with Speedway expanding along
Cedar Street. She does not feel that it should come back into the
neighborhood on Hunter Blvd and Irvington Avenue.
Ms. Carolyn Baumgart, resident of 5339 Aurelius Road, stated that she
has been in to get the site plan from Ms. Stachowiak and tried to
familiarize herself with all of the problems that there are to the community
in this area. She has a very close friend who lives on the 300 block of
Rouse Street. She worked at the grocery story there years ago and dealt
with those problems. There are a number of concerns that being a person
traveling the area can see.
She stated that traffic on Cedar Street between Mount Hope Avenue and
Cavanaugh Road is horrendous. The streets do not line up and Rouse
Street and Hunter Blvd. do not line up. People try to go directly across.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 14
There is not enough room in the turn lanes. She has talked with several
employees at the library who struggle getting in to the Everett Plaza.
She has talked to the people at Judson Memorial Church and they are
concerned for their parishioners as they afraid that traffic will go from
Hunter Blvd. to Glendale Avenue and pass by there.
Regularly, Hunter Blvd. is used for people to cut through to Pennsylvania
Avenue. Traffic now stacks beyond that ingress/egress for the sugar bowl
on Hunter Blvd. Traffic trying to come in off of Cedar Street and enter the
driveway on to Hunter Blvd. she thinks will really be a negative impact to
this area.
All the issues that are there with utilities and everything, she stated that it
is just to intense for this area with the amount of traffic as people try to
slow and enter all of these curb cuts along there in just a short radius.
There are semi trucks going into the old densteads and delivery trucks
comes in to play. She stated that DTN Management, who owns the
Everett Plaza where the library is, worked very hard to get a letter to the
Planning Office via fax just before or at 5:00 p.m. tonight and they wished
that the letter be part of the record.
The children from Cavanaugh School are traveling these roads with their
parents or on school busses. Most importantly, the high school students
from Everett are coming down Rouse Street, and are walking there during
the lunch hour. With young drivers is just an accident waiting to happen.
She hopes that the Board will consider it and she is very opposed to the
proposal.
Ms. Lori Patterson, resident of 528 Irvington Avenue, stated that
Irvington Avenue is the first throughway from Pennsylvania Avenue to
Cedar Street. It has a very sharp bend and in the winter, it is a solid glare
of ice. She can listen to the accidents where people go over the curb.
She knows that it will increase traffic because she sees cars that will come
down straight down. She does care about the kids and the kids love to
slide down with their skate boards. They do not look for the cars at all.
There have been lots and lots of near misses. She is worried about the
traffic that has come down. The vehicles love to fly down the street very
fast. The children also play on Old Everett field which is on the other side.
There are many, many children playing over there. Every night there is
soccer, football, and basketball. People take their dogs for a walk over
there. She has even had animals that have been hit by cars because of
someone going way to fast. She has called the police many, many times.
The squealing tires in and out of Speedway, and the constant chatter on
the intercoms is just irritating. Even sitting out in your back yard and trying
to have a barbeque, every five seconds you have someone talking on that
intercom. It is just very sad.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 15
Mr. Paul Martin, Marathon Petroleum Company, 539 S. Main Street,
Findlay, OH, stated that he would like to address the concerns about the
utilities on vacating the alley. He met with Lansing Board of Water and
Light on site today to discuss relocating the water main and they said it
was not going to be an issue. He met with the Department of Public
Works this afternoon as well and they said it would be possible to relocate
the sanitary sewer in that area. Speedway would be giving easements
across its property to relocate those and Speedway would be paying for
the relocation.
Also, he met with the phone company and they have a major service line
through there. Speedway would be relocating the phone utilities and the
phone company would be upgrading their services to their customers in
this area with this relocation. This is one advantage that he just learned
about this afternoon.
With regards to the rezoning, he knows a lot of concerns are involved with
the site plan and they have been expressed by the neighbors. He stated
that lighting is a major issue and Speedway uses cut off lighting so it
directs the light straight down so that it will not be projecting into the
neighborhood. He did see the spot light on top of the canopy and he is
not sure why it is there. He spoke with the District Manager of this
Speedway and she stated that when she took over the store, she heard
the complaints. She shielded the light down. He does not know why it
was not taken care of sooner.
He stated that these issues would not be as prevalent with the new store.
The lighting would be kept to the front due to the site plan with
landscaping and elevated berm, things of this nature and the building will
help screen the lighting, which should keep the lighting and the sound to
Cedar Street. What he sees this project being able to do is it would take
currently what is an open field, where someone can stand on the street
and look out and see Cedar Street and hear the cars moving down Cedar
Street, it will cut that neighborhood off from Cedar Street. It will provide
nice landscaping back in that area with trees so that the residents are not
looking at the sugar bowl, which is not the most attractive building and
they are not looking at the Speedway gas station, which currently is not
the most attractive building. What the residents will be seeing is the back
of the trees in the area which will cut off their neighborhood from Cedar
Street and will keep the Speedway business on Cedar Street instead of
letting it be visible and letting sound and light come back through to the
neighborhood.
As for the concerns of constantly hearing the intercom, he stated that the
Speedway is having a lot of issues with people filling up and driving off.
The employees have been greeting customers in an attempt to
acknowledge their existence so that way they will not be as likely to drive
off.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 16
As he has expressed to the neighbors, the noise will be cut down with the
new intercom system and it will be blocked by the Speedway building.
The new building will be between the fueling position and the
neighborhood. Whereas now, the fueling positions are open to go right
down the alley in to the neighborhood.
Ms. Bruch stated that there were some complaints about the deliveries
being at 10:00 p.m. with the late trucks. She asked if this was something
that could be changed so that the deliveries do not happen that late in the
evening where the trucks are so loud. Mr. Martin stated that the delivery
times can be adjusted and moved as necessary. As for the trucks backing
up, the Speedway currently has a tight site right now and it is very hard to
get in and out. With this site, the trucks should not have to be backing up
and jockeying around for position. The site is designed for good, safe
traffic flow on and off the site.
Ms. Sandy Bomquist, District Manager of Speedway and resident of
2338 Knotwood Drive, Holt, MI, stated that as far as the deliveries
happening at night, this is one of the things that Speedway has moved
toward in attempts to free things up inside the store for the customers. At
night, it is not as congested inside the store and as Mr. Martin has said, it
is something that can be adjusted. However, with the new stores that are
currently being built and with the traffic flow and having those deliveries at
night, the store is built in such a fashion that the deliveries and the way
that they come in to the store are not an issue.
Ms. Cordill asked about the existing and proposed square footage of the
building and the number of pumps. Mr. Martin stated that in terms of
pumps, there is going to be the same number of fueling positions. There
are currently five fueling positions and there is the one island off to the
side. There would be ten fueling positions at this store and it will stay the
same as the existing store. He stated that the existing square footage is
around 2,100 square feet and the new building would be approximately
3,900 square feet as proposed.
Mr. Frederick asked for clarification of the late deliveries. Ms. Bomquist
stated that it will not be an issue and if the Speedway will still continue to
have the deliveries at night, the way that the building is and with the berms
and the trees, if it is still an issue, she is willing to give anyone from the
neighborhood her business card. If it is still an issue, the Speedway will
adjust the times so that the deliveries can be made during the day. She is
willing to work with the neighbors because they are the customers and she
wants to make them happy. Speedway appreciates their business and it
will not be an issue.
Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to remind Ms. Bomquist of the
noise ordinance in Lansing and to familiarize herself with it because 10:00
p.m. is considered to be the cut off time for excessive noise. Granted the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 17
Speedway is located on Cedar Street and there is going to be a level of
noise that comes in from the highway itself. He suggested that she obtain
a copy of it to better understand exactly what constitutes noise and when it
is noise and when it is not an issue for the neighborhood.
As far as the intercom and greeting the customers because of drive offs,
Mr. Frederick suggested that Speedway figure out another way to deal
with the drive offs and keep the intercom noise down so that it is not
perceptible into the neighborhood. Ms. Bomquist stated that she will do
this. In fact a lot of things that she is hearing tonight are the first time that
she has heard them and she will be addressing all of those issues for the
neighbors because they are the customers.
With the light issue, she has been the District Manager since January and
when she heard about the light issue, it is not that big of a deal. She is not
sure why the light was not turned down or fixed. Mr. Frederick stated that
there is a very illustrative picture of the problem with that light and he
urged Ms. Bomquist to take a look at it. Ms. Bomquist could not believe
that herself and if the light is shining into the neighborhood, why is
someone not getting up on the ladder and fixing the light. She stated that
it is not that big of a deal. She will also find out which truck it is that is so
loud that it can be heard at the neighbors. She stated that is just not right.
Ms. Bruch stated that it was brought up that the neighbors had a problem
with the garbage truck coming in at 4:00 a.m. and asked if this is
something that is a typical service. Ms. Bomquist stated that this is
something that Speedway requests of the waste management vendor they
use. Speedway requests that the vendor come in during the night time so
that it does not interfere with the traffic flow at the stores. Ms. Bruch
stated that maybe that needs to be changed as well because it is actually
waking up the neighbors. Ms. Bomquist said absolutely.
Mr. Ruge stated that on the site plan it looks like a big portion of the
property on the north end of the site is not really being utilized for
anything. Mr. Martin stated that Speedway is not showing it as being used
for anything.
Mr. Ruge asked if it was possible to shift everything to the north and have
the two driveways onto Cedar Street. Mr. Martin stated that the issue with
that, as he understands it, is getting Speedways transports and customers
in and off the site safely. In order to have safe traffic flow on site for a car
that is parked in front of the store to back out without hitting someone who
is possibly at the pump. There needs to be that distance so that people
can back out and go in that direction. This could be something that
Speedway can look into. If the Board would like him to do so, he could
have his designers do that. For safe traffic flow this was the best plan.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 18
Mr. Martin stated that he met with the Old Everett Neighborhood
Association and with many of the neighbors to discuss this plan.
Speedway is considering and he will suggest to the store having
directional signage to point people back out to the main street and even
possibly looking into some sort of signage which said no through traffic on
the entrance of Hunter Blvd. just to try and eliminate that traffic so it
doesn't bother the neighbors. It would be safer for the church in the area.
Ms. Cordill echoed maximizing the S. Cedar Street section of the site plan
to pull it away from the residential area as much as possible. With the
intercoms, if there is a prepay situation, she does not know why there is a
dialog going on. She stated that it is customary especially if someone is
near the highway where it is easy access on and off. Ms. Bomquist stated
that at this particular store, the dispenser configuration is different. The
way they are laid out is called a dive-in situation and the way they are now
is where they are perpendicular to the building. The outside lane is
prepay because they are the furthest from the building and typically if
someone is going to drive off, they use the outside lane, fill up and drive
away. The dispensers that are the closest to the building are not prepay.
Customers do not like to prepay and you do not want to have to have
prepay but when the drive offs get to a certain point, there has to be a
decision. The number of drive offs can be cut in half by having the outside
lanes prepay and keep the inner lanes as post pay. This is what she
recommended and this is what this store went to. The risk that is there is
that customers get confused sometimes because one time they come in
and depending on which lane they pull to, it is either prepay or post pay.
The customer service representative has a challenge there that they have
to say "Welcome to Speedway. If you are on pump number 11, that one is
prepay. You will need to pay first." Ms. Bomquist stated that this is why
there is correspondence with the customer over the intercom. If the
customer pulls to the front dispenser, then there is a risk of a drive off.
One of the things that the employees have been instructed to do is that
people who are going to drive off do not like acknowledgement and that
customers usually do. Speedway has asked the employees to
acknowledge the customers.
Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see a site plan, however it can be
worked out, where the driveways are on Cedar Street. Mr. Martin stated
that another thing with laying out two driveways on Cedar Street, is that
you start putting driveways close to intersections. Speedway tries to stay
away from this layout because it is considered a very dangerous practice.
Mr. Hollister stated that Mr. Ruge has a great suggestion though and as it
was being discussed, he just sort of looked at a couple of configurations
that could work by pushing everything to the north and to the west, and
keeping it west of the alley way. He would like to see an alternate layout
as well at the Committee meeting. Mr. Martin stated that Speedway does
need the necessary depth to maneuver the traffic in and off the site. The
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 19
building needs to stay at that depth back. The building cannot be moved
closer to south Cedar Street or otherwise traffic cannot safely maneuver
on the site. Mr. Hollister stated that he understands and maybe he can
show some other ideas. If it is not doable, it is not doable but it is
intuitively doable to a number of the Board members. Mr. Martin stated
that maybe after the meeting, he could see the sketch.
Mr. Frederick stated that he has a request for staff. They have adhered to
an official policy of making a boundary between commercial and
residential up and down Cedar Street. There was a better map on the
Michigan Avenue gas station issue. He would like to see on that side of
the street what the boundary looks like north and south of this site.
Looking at the layout of the streets and having walked and driven that
neighborhood, it is going to be difficult to establish a straight line boundary
along there because of the way the streets are. He would like to see how
it looks a few blocks further north and a few blocks further south,
expanded and in color. Ms. Stachowiak said sure.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public
hearing for Z-15-2006 & Act-6-2006, Rezoning from "J" Parking & "C"
Residential Districts to "F" Commercial District, Vacate Alley
between Glendale and Irvington.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each)
Mr. Brent Baker, applicant for a special land use permit for a community
center in an existing school, and resident of 3074 Rolfe Road, Mason, MI,
stated that in the broad picture of his proposal he is asking the Board to consider
that the building has been vacant for several years. With regards to the safety of
the residents in the neighborhood and the benefit for the City and the residents in
that particular area, he asked the Board to consider how we might make this
work. As far as the concerns that anyone may have and the details and some
have come up, he asked that the Board dialog with him and maybe they can work
some of them out and implement some provisions that would make it a win for
everyone.
Mr. Baker stated that one of the items that came up was a discrimination policy
request. He asked if this is a requirement or a situation where it has been looked
at for other applicants or if it is being made for this particular location.
Mr. Gary Andrews, resident of 560 Brooklyn Blvd. and representative of the
Old Everett Neighborhood Association, stated that for several years the
association has been attempting to get the business owners and operators along
S. Cedar Street to pay more attention to the appearance of the thoroughfare. In
that endeavor, the association tried a voluntary thing called "The Cedar Street
Sweep" for a couple of years. It really did not work. The association went to the
legislative route and had an ordinance passed that would place a higher onus of
responsibility upon property owners to maintain the right-of-way. This is a long
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 20
standing problem and it goes way back to when Cedar Street was wide and
decorative, bricks were put in. Some of the business operators and property
owners do maintain the right-of-way pretty decently but most of them do not.
He stated that the association would just like to request that it become an issue
interdepartmentally and request that there be some over site on the right-of-way
maintenance issue in general as a quality of life issue.
Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Hollister closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consent Items
1. Minutes for Approval — September 19, 2006
The minutes of September 19, 2006 were
APPROVED w/corrections:
Pg. 5, line 1, "Mr. Cordill" s/b "Ms. Cordill".
Pg. 4, 3rd para. from the bottom, Ms. Cordill's statement s/b:
"Ms. Cordill stated that she does not object to the anti-
discrimination policy condition as long as the City does not dictate
what the applicant can teach with respect to the Christian doctrine."
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, October 11, 2006, at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the only person who was present was
Mr. Frederick. There was no quorum so there was no meeting.
Mr. Frederick stated that no business was conducted. He and Mr.
Rieske discussed a variety of things, mainly focusing on the Master
Plan work.
Next meeting, Tuesday, October 24, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 21
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None
C. Old Business — None.
D. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she brought invitations, per Mr. Rieske's
request, regarding some neighborhood meetings and that this has to do
with Lansing's Comprehensive Plan Revision.
Mr. Hollister asked if Ms. Stachowiak could send the Board members an
email that contains this information and stated that it would be helpful.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that at a previous meeting, the Board members
asked about the Forestry's regulations and requirements on street trees
because of the one on E. Michigan Avenue that had been removed.
Obviously it was not going to be replaced and the City Forester said that
the property owner was not required to replace it.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she included some information in the packet
but the City Forester said that really was not the information that would be
most beneficial to the Board. In front of the Board this evening, she
included the City Forester's guidelines. This is what he requires including
starting sizes, when a tree has to be replaced, if it has to be replaced and
if it cannot be replaced in the same location then where else. The City
Forester thought that the Board may have some questions after reading
this and she stated that he would be more than happy to attend a meeting,
probably on a night where there is not so much activity, and discuss this
with the Board, and answer any questions.
Ms. Bruch stated that she was interested in the fact that they were
supposed to pay for this tree if they remove it and she was wondering if
the tree they removed was paid for. Ms. Stachowiak assumed that it was
because they did pull a permit. Ms. Bruch stated that they paid for the
permit but not for the value of the tree. It is one of those things that gets
forgotten.
Mr. Frederick suggested that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee take
up a revision of this particular ordinance because he sees two problems.
First, there was one horse in the City of Lansing that escaped from
Beekman Center one day and while he was out raking, it ran down the
street. Five minutes later, two guys came along chasing after it and they
did finally catch it. He suggested striking fastening animals to a tree. The
other issue is the CityForester can issue a permit for a sign to be laced
p 9 p
on a tree. All of the trees that the City has are in the right-of-way and the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 22
sign ordinance says "No signs in the right-of-way". Ms. Stachowiak stated
that Public Service has sole authority over right-of-way except where it
goes up on trees. Then the City Forester has sole authority over it. The
sign ordinance only deals with signs on private property.
Mr. Frederick asked what prohibits signs on the right-of-way. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the Public Service Department has total control
over the road right-of-way, except where it involves tress. Then it is the
City Forester. Mr. Frederick asked what it is that prohibits signs in the
right-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a Public Service ordinance
but the Public Service Department has a separate ordinance or policy that
deals with neighborhood signs in the road right-of-way.
Mr. Frederick stated that the other issue he has is with animals, vehicles
and bicycles on grass lot plots. He asked if a park is a grass plot. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that this is not her ordinance. She got it today and she
cannot answer any questions. Mr. Frederick noticed that it was last
revised in 1987 and stated perhaps someone might want to take a look at
it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Forested did say he would be
happy to attend a meeting and address the Board's concerns. This is his
ordinance.
E. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee
a. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J"
Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. ACT-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,
2000)
b. Master Plan Project
c. ACT-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate
Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003)
3. Committee of the Whole
4. Planning Board
Ms. Bruch inquired about SLU-3-2002, ACT-9-2000 and ACT-1-2003. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she would check the status of all the cases.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit—
Community Center
This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to utilize
the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former Northwestern
Elementary School) for a faith-based community center with living space
for the operators of the facility. The property is zoned "A" Residential
District which permits community centers, with a special land use permit, if
approved by the Lansing City Council.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 23
Ms. Stachowiak stated that SLU-10-2006 was tabled at the last Planning
Board meeting. At that time, the concern was whether or not a residential
use should be permitted in the building. There were four Board members
present at that meeting who were split on whether or not it should be
allowed in the building. The staff was of the opinion that it should not be
allowed in the building and the staff report was written on that basis. In
fact, it was written right in the staff report that it is our opinion that a
residential use is not incidental to a community center. It is not typical of a
community center and therefore, it is our opinion that the only thing that
the applicant has the ability to request a special land use for is the
community center. Therefore, the analysis staff wrote only addresses that
aspect of it. She stated that there was a lot of discussion at the last
meeting about whether or not it should be approved. If was asked that
staff go back, do their evaluation and include the residential use to
determine if it met the nine criteria. Ms. Stachowiak did this and stated
that staff's opinion did not change. She expanded why their opinion is the
way it is because she did not think it was completely clear in the packet.
On page 6, item number 8, gives details regarding staff's opinion. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that there can only be one principle use on a lot and
then it has accessory uses. The principle use clearly is the community
center and that would mean the residential element of the proposal is
accessory. Now staff has to determine if it does meet the definition of an
accessory use. An accessory use is defined in the ordinance and it has to
meet all four of the criteria as clearly incidental to the principle use. She
stated that staff's opinion is that it is still not a use that should be permitted
in that district and staff's recommendation is still the same though a couple
of things have been changed. Item 6 was added, stating "The community
center uphold a non-discrimination policy on-site and with all community
center programs as defined by the City of Lansing. Ms. Stachowiak
included the City's nondiscrimination policy. The jest of this is simply that
they do not discriminate anyone based on race, religion, national origin,
age, political orientation, marital status, sex handicap, etc. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the applicant raised a concern under Comments
from the audience this evening that this has not been an issue any other
community center and that is true. There is no other community center, at
least certainly not in this City, that is not a 501(3)c. They are all directly
affiliated with some religious organization, the City of Lansing, or they are
funded in some other method but still a 501(3)c. They all receive funding
from the government, donations, a church or some religious organization.
That is not the case here. It is all privately funded. The issue is just
ensuring that if someone is not a Christian and they have no intentions of
converting to Christianity, will they still be entitled to all the same services
as someone who is of the Christian faith. That is the issue and that is what
Mr. Czekai was referring to when he drafted condition number 6. Staff
included it and agrees with it from a staff stand point.
Mr. Ruge stated that on the residential part of the proposal and personally
he does not have a problem with it. He likens it to down at the end of his
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 24
street where there is Resurrection Church and there is a priest who lives
there in the Rectory. The applicant will have some kind of leadership role
in this community that he is attempting to build. It is unusual but he does
not think that just because it is unusual that it should not be done. He
stated that he does not agree with staff. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if that
turns out to be the case when the motion is made, he can simply strike
item number four or change it to say "That residential use will be allowed
on site in conjunction with the community center." Then the Board will
need to limit it to one family because that the Board does not have any
control over it. It is single a single family residential district. The most that
the Board has the authority to approve is a single family use unless it
comes back with a rezoning.
Mr. Frederick stated that from a technical perspective, the analysis of the
ordinance is good. He is just not convinced that anything really terrible
would happen if the Board allowed one family to live there. It would almost
be as though they were being granted a variance. Nevertheless, he could
go either way. If someone else establishes a community center, there is
only going to be one family there anyways.
Mr. Frederick stated that the one he really has an objection to is the
nondiscrimination policy requirement. If it is privately funded, then within
all the Federal and State protections for nondiscrimination,
nonwithstanding that they may be subject to, he does not agree that the
Board has the authority to levy a nondiscrimination requirement on
someone who is establishing a private community center. He thinks they
should have the right to refuse services to anyone they want. If they are
using their own money and it is money that they are in control with, they
should have the right to withhold the money from whomever they want. He
does not think that he would have been in any kind of a position to say that
the applicant has to do this. Yes, it is a community center but it is privately
run. As long as there are private funds, it is not affiliated with the City, it is
not a 501(3)c or are not receiving funds from any other government entity,
then they are going to be subject to certain nondiscrimination issues. The
problem is going to be a fine one determining whether or not any money
they might get might not have some source in the government. He does
not feel comfortable with requiring the applicant to follow it.
Ms. Bruch stated that she agrees with Mr. Frederick but does not agree
that if it is going to be called a community center, then it should be a
community center. If it is going to be a private center, then it should be
called a private center, not a community center. Therefore, it is no longer
a community center and is no longer going for community center status.
Because it is being called a community center, she feels that the Board
does have to place the nondiscrimination policy there. She agrees with
the funds and cannot make it within their limitations. Then there are so
many community centers that also have limited funds that are 501(3)c and
cannot do every thing. They will just do whatever the funds can do. Mr.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 25
Frederick stated that they are subject to nondiscrimination requirements
under the funding sources. This proposal is not and if the Board is
defining community to mean all of the people in the city, then yes. But he
thinks that the community center is a use and is not a definition of what the
community is. He stated that the Board has control over the use but does
not have control over the definition for community.
Ms. Bruch stated what the City is saying is the applicant is establishing a
community center and has defined a community center as this. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that was where the staff was coming from and they did
not spell out the language like Mr. Czekai had done but it was addressed
in the staff report even the first time around. Staff said that if they were
going to call themselves a community center, they have to be open to the
community. Otherwise, the City will have to possibly look at considering
them a church or maybe where it is just an office use, the City will make
them rezone to offices. Ms. Stachowiak stated that when you restrict your
clientele, then you are not necessarily a community center. Anyone can
go into the Cristo Rey Community Center and make use of its services
regardless of religion. Mr. Frederick stated that this is the type of policy
that he would encourage on anyone because that is a good policy to not
discriminate. But for government to require that, he thinks stretches
beyond what the Board has the authority to do especially since community
is such a broad term. He thinks that the applicant defines the community
not the other way around. Ms. Bruch stated in that case, she would
request that this community center be the Christian faith community center
so that it is not where people would think is this public or private. The
public would need to know coming into those doors and something has to
identify it. Mr. Frederick stated that if the Board requires that the applicant
post their policy of who they will accept on the door and say that this is the
definition of our community, he could agree with that. Ms. Bruch stated
that it needs to be clear if this is going to be a private entity. Mr. Hollister
stated that the applicant is asking for a special land use. Ms. Bruch stated
that it is true that this may go away because the applicant thinks he will be
a 501(3)c anyway. Mr. Frederick stated that until that happens, they are
not subject to anything in his opinion other than their own bylaws and their
own good will of who they will serve.
Ms. Cordill asked if the Board could hear from the applicant as to how he
would identify the community center and how he would announce himself
to the community and who he would serve.
Mr. Brent Baker, applicant, stated that at the previous meeting he stated
publicly that the intent was to try to operate the center under a 501(3)c and
in studying a 501(3)c, there are stipulations the Federal government gives
towards religious organizations. A religious organization may not have a
discrimination policy that would line up with a government organization.
With that aside, the intent is that this would be a center that is open to
everyone in the community regardless of their beliefs or race. There may
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 26
be stipulations where there are certain services that are based on
geographic location. Example: If someone lives in the neighborhood, they
can partake in a certain service. If someone is not from the neighborhood
and lives a long ways away, he is not trying to draw people in from out of
town.
In his letter, Mr. Baker stated that the center would be open anyone in the
area regardless of religion. The intent is not a Christian club or church.
The intent is to offer a service to those people living in that area. He has
made that public in both meetings and on paper. He hopes that this would
stand to support the understanding that this could be defined as a
community center because it is intended for those in the community. As
far as what would be offered there if it has some sort of religious slant to it
or indoctrinated with Christian beliefs, it is a slippery slope because there
are other organizations that are characterized differently in the City that
also do things that are not necessarily consistent as defined in the staff
report. If you look at some of the other organizations offering different
services, especially religiously based ones, they have similar kinds of
things including sometimes worship services and ceremonial events that
are religiously based.
Mr. Frederick stated that if this was a church, this would not be an issue.
Mr. Baker stated that he knew that from day one.
Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant would not discriminate based on
religion on the services that would be provided and asked about the rest of
the classes that are mentioned in the nondiscrimination policy. Mr. Baker
stated that he is not sure and that his intent is that he would not operate
this as a sole individual. Even though the transition from private to 501(3)c
may take a little while, the intent is that there would be a board established
to make those kinds of decisions. Something desires that some would be
in the neighborhood and he has had several who have offered to be a part
of that. There is an excitement in the people around the neighborhood for
this and the intention is for them. They would speak into the programs and
the services, and he is very much desiring to listen to that.
Mr. Frederick stated this is the problem that he has with requiring the
nondiscrimination policy is that the organization intends to have a board
make the decisions. They may make a decision that would not necessarily
agree with the nondiscrimination policy but that is where he believes that
the Board oversteps its authority in dictating to the board of a private
organization what kind of decision they may or may not make. If this
organization is not a church and does not set itself out to be one, then
where the Board would clearly not be able to put a nondiscrimination policy
on it
When there is a private organization that the government imposes the will
on, he does not believe that is within the Board's authority. They may
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 27
have a case to go to court and argue that it is beyond the scope of this
Board's authority to apply that type of discrimination policy on a private
organization. He would not want to levy a nondiscrimination policy on that
kind of an organization unless the Board had the authority to do so. If the
applicant was getting public funds, that is another issue entirely. If it is
strictly private, then let it be private and let the organization do its good or
make its own mistakes.
Ms. Bruch stated she would agree except that again she has an issue
about the community center. If the applicant can post who is allowed so
that people can know when they walk through the doors. If it is called a
community center and is pretending to be a community center, it needs to
clearly state who the community is. How does the public know? They
need to know up front who is allowed. Mr. Hollister asked if there was
some sort of statement of purpose or something to that affect, would she
be comfortable with it. Ms. Bruch stated that would do it especially
because it is considered a community center. Mr. Hollister stated that it
has more than just a name but to have some sort of mission statement
showing who is served. Ms. Bruch stated that all community centers in
Lansing are nonprofit or related to a church. Therefore all community
centers in Lansing currently live by this nondiscriminatory policy. This
would be the only community center that would not. Therefore it needs to
identify itself that it is not following this. Otherwise, it is not a community
center as Lansing knows its centers to be. As a private entity, the Board
cannot tell the applicant who it can or cannot serve. A community center
must clearly state who it is and is not serving.
Mr. Frederick stated that the nine criteria addresses the use and does not
address the definition of the community. So he thinks that the center has a
right to define its own community and in doing so becomes subject to the
nine criteria. But, that does not define the community; it only defines the
use. The Board has authority under the use but not beyond that. Ms.
Bruch stated that the use is identified as a community center. Mr. Hollister
stated that is the premise under which the Board is making the approval
for a special land use. Mr. Frederick stated that the premise is the use and
not the definition of a community. It is freedom of assembly. He stated
that the applicant has the right if they are going to use their own money to
associate with whom they please. That is the definition of their community.
The Board has the right to address it for safety and use issues and that
type of thing. The Board does not have the right to say this is a church
and it has to behave in a certain way. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board
does say that if it is a church, the applicant is not going to be have church
because there will not be services. If services are held, therefore it is a
church. Mr. Frederick stated unless services are being held and say it is
not a church. The definition of a church is set by the people who
congregate. Ms. Bruch stated that Lansing has a definition of a church
use. Mr. Frederick stated that if a congregation groups together and
performs those same uses for nonreligious purposes then it cannot be
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 28
called a church even though the Board may have control over their use
behavior under the special land use. Mr. Frederick stated that traditionally
the Board looks at the definition of a church under the IRS code, which
says they cannot be taxed if they are a church. There are certain
organizations that perform exactly the same as any other church but they
are not granted church status because they do not meet the IRS code.
Therefore they are not a church even though they perform the same
activities. Ms. Bruch asked what defines a church and what ends up
defining a community center. Mr. Hollister stated that there is not one and
the Board has learned that. Ms. Bruch stated that in Lansing, this is what
the community centers do and that is what every center does. She asked
if the Board can now say that this a community center but it does not do
the same thing. Mr. Frederick stated that if his definition of what the
applicant is doing is they are providing services to a community and the
Board does not have the authority over the services. The Board does
have the authority over how the facility is used.
Ms. Cordill asked if the Board could move on because all the arguments
have been eloquently made on both sides. She is looking at condition
number 3 regarding the adult supervision on the ground. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that it was discussed a lot at the last meeting too and she left it in
there because there was never a decision made as to whether or not to
strike it. Ms. Cordill stated that Foster Community Center could use adult
supervision on the grounds. Ms. Cordill stated that it is appropriate for the
building when it is available but if the Board is not requiring it of other
community centers in the City, then it is overkill. It may be their policy but
she does not think that it should be a requirement to provide adult
supervision on the grounds unless there are activities outdoors.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve SLU-10-2006, 2908
Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community Center with the following
conditions: 1) On-site parking in accordance with City standards prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit; 2) Lighting of the grounds and parking lots in
such a manner as to afford adequate visibility from the street of all outdoor areas;
3) All areas of the building and grounds to have adult supervision during hours of
operation; 4) No residential use will be allowed on-site in conjunction with the
community center; 5) Activities will be limited to those typically provided by a
community center, as exemplified by the other community centers in the City of
Lansing; and 6) The community center uphold a non-discrimination policy on-site
and will all community center programs as defined by the City of Lansing.
Ms. Cordill stated that with condition number 3, add if activities are on the
grounds adult supervision would be required. Mr. Ruge stated he does not
think it would be needed because any insurance company that is insuring
the property is going to require the applicant to maintain things in a safe
manner. This is an unusual use and the Board does not see these private
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 29
kinds of things so the Board is concerned. He cannot see putting these
kinds of restrictions on them.
A friendly amendment was made to strike condition number 3 and Mr.
Frederick accepted it.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to strike condition number 4 because
she does not agree with it; she disagrees with staff. This is a new thing
and the Board is going past the customary stuff. She thinks the residential
use could be there.
Ms. Cordill stated that Ms. Stachowiak did a real good job on the report
and that it probably was not an easy thing to work through. She is glad
that Ms. Stachowiak took the time to look at things closely. She stated that
she was leaning towards having a single family residence as part of this
large former school building but if you look at the language, something
new is not customary so the Board does not have the liberty to introduce
something new. She asked if she was correct in that assumption, even
though it may be a good idea. There are four criteria and this proposal has
to meet all four. If one of those criteria is customary, it may be a wonderful
idea. She asked if the Board even have the discretion to allow the use.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is not customarily found in connection with
the principle uses in this City. It all comes down to how this is interpreted.
Mr. Ruge stated that the church down the street from his has the same
kind of functions as a community center. He does not really see the
difference. Mr. Frederick stated one minor difference is that they are
protected by the constitution. A community center is more broadly
protected and churches do have a special place.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to strike condition number 4. A
friendly amendment was made to strike condition number 4 and Mr.
Ruge accepted it. Mr. Ruge stated that he would find residential okay.
He thinks that it is unusual and that the Board would be taking a little bit of
a chance. He does not see where any great harm could come of it.
Mr. Hollister stated that the proposal is automatically limited to a single
family use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is covered by default. Mr.
Frederick stated that the Board could condition it so that the residential use
and the activities that the center provides be kept clearly separate. Ms.
Bruch wondered whether the residence could take up everything and the
one room be the community center. Mr. Frederick stated that there would
be no meetings in the residence.
Mr. Hollister stated that conditions number 3 and 4 would be stricken. Ms.
Stachowiak stated to change condition number 4 to limit to single family
residential use and keep the uses separate and the residential use
secondary to the principle community center use.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 30
Ms. Cordill stated that condition number 5 activities would be limited to
those typically provided by a community center. Someone posed a
question to her about this particular center. Not all of the programming is
set at this point and it could change or expand. They were worried about
drug rehab coming into the neighborhood. She asked if that was
something that could be considered part of a community center or is it a
different category. Ms. Stachowiak stated only to the extent that they
would come there for some type of counseling and then leave. They could
not live there. Otherwise, this would be a Teen Challenge type of situation
and the applicant would have to come before the Board for another special
land use permit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not see anything
wrong with people who are dealing with those issues coming to get
counseling at this community center. She does not have a problem with
that. Ms. Cordill stated that they could receive counseling but there would
be no overnights. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is on the order of Teen
Challenge which is a residential care facility.
Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to have condition number 6 stricken
because it is beyond the scope of the Board's authority. Ms. Cordill stated
that since this seems to be kind of a divisive issue, could the Board ask the
applicant because if he is going to go in preparation of this nonprofit
status, the Board could be arguing over something that is 12 months or
less. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board does not know that and
suppose for whatever reason it takes the applicant ten years. Mr.
Frederick stated that maybe the 501(3)c status could be denied also. Mr.
Bruch stated that if the applicant is going to head in that direction, could
the Board ask if the applicant whether he could live with that restriction.
Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant has already answered that and then
he is going to have a board that is going to establish their policies.
Mr. Frederick stated that he does not want to get into questioning the
applicant about each one of the classes in the nondiscrimination policy.
He does not want to put the applicant on the spot to say which ones he
agrees and not agrees with. Mr. Frederick stated that he does not think
that the applicant should have to be asked those questions nor should he
have to answer them.
Ms. Bruch asked if the Board strikes that condition, could it be replace with
something that clearly tells the people when they walk in to the center who
is allowed and not allowed. Something needs to be said about who is and
is not going to be served. It is a private place but the people coming in
have got to know which groups are not wanted. Ms. Stachowiak asked
what type of language she would propose. Mr. Ruge stated that he is not
comfortable with that because they will be reaching out and putting out
their advertising to the people they want to serve. If someone is walking
down the street, they just are not going to say look at that building or look
at that community center and say, I think I will go in there and see what is
going on. If they do, they will go in, see what is going on and they will
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 31
either get a good or bad vibe and they can leave. Ms. Bruch argued that it
is a community center and that she is hung up on this community center.
Mr. Hollister stated that he agrees with Ms. Bruch. If this is not going to be
called a community center then it would be a private center. He stated that
is out of the box and that the Board is having a hard time getting around it.
Even the next closest thing would be the whole idea of a rectory or
parsonage where there is a minister living in a place where there is also an
assembly nearby if not adjacent. That in itself has some issues because it
is church versus private.
Ms. Stachowiak asked if it was appropriate to vote on this proposal to see
who is in favor of leaving it as a center. If not, then the Board can vote on
the final motion. Mr. Frederick stated that it would come out in the vote
and under the rules, if it does not get struck as a friendly amendment and
be accepted as being struck then it stays in and the Board moves on to
vote. When all discussion is completed, then the Board finds out who
agreed and not agreed with it.
A friendly amendment was made to strike condition number 6 and Mr.
Ruge accepted it.
Ms. Bruch proposed to add another condition to state who the center
would serve. Mr. Ruge would not accept it because he does not see the
value of it especially since the applicant does not really know who they are
going to serve because there is not board. Ms. Bruch stated that the
applicant is putting a board together so that they can decide who will be
served. Mr. Ruge stated that she is trying to be too protective of people. If
someone is interested and they go in there, ask for help and they are
denied, then they leave. Ms. Bruch stated then it goes to the
discriminatory issues and they do not know that it is a private center. It
does not say anywhere that it is a private center; it just says community
center. Mr. Frederick stated that by being private, they still have the right
to discriminate. Ms. Bruch stated that people coming in do not know that it
is private because it is called a community center.
A friendly amendment was made to add a condition for the center to
state who it would serve. Mr. Ruge and Mr. Frederick did not accept
it.
Ms. Cordill stated that not to belabor it, but names may change. If there
were a name associated with it, there would be a sign associated with the
building. She does not know if that would satisfy everything. She would
vote either way, with condition number 6 or without it. She just thinks that
the Board needs to make a decision. Mr. Frederick asked if that is a
motion to call the question, which means if there is a support and the
Board votes on calling the question, that ends all discussion and the vote
is therefore required. Ms. Cordill said yes. Mr. Frederick supported it.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 32
Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to suspend all further discussion
and vote on the special land use as proposed. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously, (5-0).
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve SLU-10-2006, 2908
Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community Center with the following
conditions: 1) On-site parking in accordance with City standards prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit; 2) Lighting of the grounds and parking lots in
such a manner as to afford adequate visibility from the street of all outdoor areas;
and 3) The residential use is limited to one single family use which is to be kept
separate and secondary from the community center; and 4) Activities will be
limited to those typically provided by a community center, as exemplified by the
other community centers in the City of Lansing.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried.
APPROVED.
B. Discussion regarding street trees
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has said all that needs to be said.
C. ACT-11-2006, W. Edgewood Blvd, ROW Acquisition for CATA
Turnaround
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this request is being fast tracked basically at
the request of City Council. The City Council is responding to the
residents in the area and that is where this request has originated. She
gave a brief overview.
Mr. Frederick stated that this is one of the few pieces of a road that
actually goes on an interstate right-of-way and it goes back to a long issue
of a law suit that made it into the Federal court. The judge essentially
ordered this whole thing, so here were are.
Mr. Ruge asked if this proposal was west of Washington Avenue. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it is west of Washington Avenue and that the real
problem is between Cedar Street and Washington Avenue on Edgewood
Blvd. Those parcels are all either built up to the point where the City could
not get additional right-of-way or there was not enough land to take
additional right-of-way on the south side. The City actually wanted to get
it west of Washington Avenue so that more traffic could be picked up from
the apartment buildings north of this and also for the developing
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 33
commercial on the south side. Getting a little further to the west just helps
benefit even more parcels of land.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City received a grant that went into affect
October 1, 2006 for the Federal Government to do this work.
Mr. Ruge asked if this would be a new route. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it
will be on the new bus route and CATA will add some news stops in this
area.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve ACT-1 1-2006, W.
Edgewood Blvd, ROW Acquisition for CATA Turnaround. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Hollister asked about new Board members. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there
was one candidate that the Mayor's Office actually moved forward. It was a lady
who applied to the City Council and when she realized what kind of time
commitment would be involved, two evening meetings a month plus the
Committee meetings each month, she withdrew her name.
Ms. Bruch asked the status of the other applicants. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
there are several candidates right now; Mr. Rieske has some of them and the
Mayor's Office has some too. Ms. Bruch asked how these could be moved
quicker because the Board has been short for several months. She stated that
something needs to be done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would pass this
along to Mr. Rieske.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003)
b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003)
c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building
(May 4,2004)
f. 2702 S. Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18,2004)
g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
h. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005)
i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005)
j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006)
k. 1712 W.Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating
in a print shop (April 18, 2006)
I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5,2006,July 18,2006&September 5, 2006)
m. Southeast Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence(September 5,
2006)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 3, 2006 Page 34
Ms. Cordill stated that on LaSalle Gardens near Midvale Avenue there is a RV
parked in the driveway in front of the house.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.100306.doc