Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Planning Board Jan-Mar Minutes FINAL APPROVED 01239G TO CLERK 01309G Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD , 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers ' '"' Tenth Floor, Lansing City Haa-1 , ; 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1996 r_, i� tj CITY OLLii"1 I . OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call . Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers : Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary; Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner; Jenise Jefferson, Planning Intern; Emil Winnicker, Development Office Manager. D. Approval of Agenda. Add V. B. 2 . Urban Development Committee, add Acts 18- through 23-95 . Mr. Ruge asked if Z-19-95 will be handled this evening? He proposed moving Comments from the Audience in front of the 7 : 30 public hearing if the 7 p.m. public hearing for Z-21-95 is finished before 7 :30 . Chairman Goolsby said representatives present tonight for Z-19-95 have asked to speak; however, the case is tabled at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee which will not be meeting tonight . He explained that Z-21-95 was correctly advertised for 7 p.m. , and the Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 was correctly advertised for 7 : 30 p.m. For purposes of efficiency, if there is time at the conclusion of the first hearing, we will open the floor for Comments from the Audience, then stop public comment for the second hearing at 7 : 30, and then commence at the appropriate time with further Comments From the Audience. Without objection, the agenda was approved. II . HEARINGS - AT 7 p.m. A. Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Richard Johnson to rezone his property from residential to professional office in order to sell the property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 2 Ms . LeBlanc, asking whether or not sanitary sewer is available at the site, expressed concern about additional development given soil conditions . Mr. Ruff said houses here still have septic tanks . The status has not changed. Limitations on development exist on and around the property. RICHARD W. JOHNSON, 2917 E. MT. HOPE AVENUE, here regarding the possibility of having my "A" Residential home rezoned to a professional office. I have resided there since 1985 . That section of Mt. Hope is a 45 mph four-lane road. It is zoned residential, but it would not be the best place for a residence for a family with children with that speed limit. Next to me is a dentist who would consume a great deal of water per day. We don't have city sewer; we have septic tanks . I have been approached by people interested in my property for a business if it were rezoned. Over half the dwellings from the Lansing city limits to Aurelius Road are businesses; one rezoned just a year ago now has professional offices in it. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee Wednesday, January 17, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room. Chairman Goolsby said this concludes the 7 p.m. public hearing; we will now start Comments from the Audience. GARY SIMONS, REPRESENTING QUEST 5, LTD. , OWNER OF BUILDING AT 601 E. MICHIGAN (Z-19-95 , 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District) . This was tabled at the December 13, 1995 meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. We are in the final stages of obtaining a loan from the Economic Development Corporation. We have a signed lease with a renter who is eager to refurbish the building. We have a builder in there now stripping interior walls and readying it to start interior reconstruction. We have a signed letter of commitment from the bank for financing. Mr. Ruff called members ' attention to floor plans showing proposed development for the first and second floors and one side elevation. Mr. Ruge asked about using the rooftop; Mr. Simons said it would not be feasible economically and will not be part of the development. Mr. Greiner asked about sound mitigation between the second floor of 601 and the second floor apartment next door. Mr. Simon said it is a high priority, and we will be sensitive to that. We cannot do decibel testing until final wall configuration is complete. Mr. Ruge asked if PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 - P. 3 the tenant is planning to install sound deadening materials on the common wall; Mr. Simon said no, there is no plan to do that currently. Mr. Ruff said they have committed to work with the neighboring owner if there is a problem. Ms . Love said she was in the meeting with the prospective tenant who said the second floor would not include bands, it would be two pianos . "I am assuming it is not going to blast people out of the room. " Chairman Goolsby said the case, tabled by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, will be considered January 17, 1996 . JOHN PECKHAM, MARTIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. I am here to answer any questions regarding Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts . GERALD J. ROWLEY, 737 N. PENNSYLVANIA, concerning Z-20-95, Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District. It was said at the Board meeting that this would be a problem for the neighborhood as far as crime goes . Five lanes of traffic pass in front of my house--I don' t consider this a low-density area. I want to improve the area. I have pictures out my back window and around the block where I live showing a truck parked in the front yard, trash around somebody's garage. What do the city inspectors do in this area? I am going to spend half a million dollars in this area (it has been approved by the bank) . I want to build a laundromat, barbershop, retail store, and have two apartments above that. This is a preliminary plan; it is not set in stone. The neighborhood is in bad shape. There is crime. Next door is a 30-unit apartment with one washer and one dryer. Their trash container is overflowing. I would like the Board' s approval for this property. Chairman Goolsby said this concludes Comments from the Audience at this time. HEARINGS - AT 7: 30 p.m. B. Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 Chairman Goolsby said this is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed objectives, goals and projected use of community fund resources including Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant programs to be included in the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission for Fiscal Year 1996-97 . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 4 The City expects to receive and have available a total of approximately $4, 388, 000 in funds through the Community Development Block Grant Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Program during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 1996 and ending on June 30, 1997 . Any person in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board on this matter should come to the microphone, state your name and address, and provide us your comments . Written comments will be accepted for consideration. BARBARA SPRAGUE, 806 E. SHIAWASSEE, SPARROW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD, REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE that has formed with the Neighborhood Council Board, regarding the Model Block Grant Program, something we are suggesting for the 96-97 budget. As a representative of neighborhoods, we came together to discuss home and property improvement. This memo is to share some of the ideas our committee has discussed concerning the government' s reorganization plans . There is a need for beautification and small repair projects within each neighborhood. CDBG moneys are generally used for major repairs and do not include such things as fencing, landscaping, sidewalk repair, etc . We believe such projects are important to the appearance of the neighborhood and would fit within the proposed Model Block Grant Program. Currently it is not covered. The Block Grant money that we have right now, we can do private property. We are suggesting this so that we can do private property. The model area would be: neighborhoods identify area within the community specifically, such as a block or a corner that needs improvement. Target areas would be highly visible sites for the greatest impact, thus creating pride and interest in surrounding community members and property owners . Neighborhoods would seek the cooperation of 60 percent of the property owners in the target area. Property owners, business owners, home owners, etc . , agree to make minor improvements and property improvements that are visible from the street for the curb appeal . Property owners working with the committee would obtain however many bids we decide would be relevant. The scale we need to use is suggesting three bids that improve the expenses, and payments would be based on a sliding scale using the HUD guidelines . We are suggesting that this idea be pilot tested in two areas . The Committee will research additional resources for financing, and administrative organizations as well as look into the amount of money that should be allocated for such projects . Throughout various training efforts sponsored by the Lansing Neighborhood Council, six neighborhood organizations are already in the process of filing their 501(C) 3s . Some PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 5 have attended symposiums dealing with housing and repair and economic development. The Model Block Program is consistent with neighborhood improvement goals already set by the City. This program would in turn cause a perpetuating process of redevelopment and improvement while at the same time payback moneys would at least partially replenish funds needed to continue these projects . Each participating neighborhood would be responsible for identifying target areas within their boundaries in accordance with their own development plans . Such a joint revitalization and beautification activity would be coordinated with adjoining neighborhoods such as a cooperative effort creating even larger impact on the Greater Lansing area. I appreciate your taking the time to listen to me. I can answer any specific questions that we have so far. Right now we are just investigating the possibility, and we would like you to consider it as well. VANESSA SANDERS, ON BEHALF OF PARENTS JESSE AND EMILY CUNNINGHAM, 420 S . BUTLER IN THE SEVEN BLOCK AREA, as it is called on page three of your notice of public hearing. We would like to know if there is a time frame. They have been told for many years, several years, that their home is set for acquisition, and we would like to know if there is a time frame. I heard some mention of a date, I think you said July 196 through August 197, and I wasn't sure what that covered. Does that mean that this acquisition would take place within that time frame, or can you give us any idea when. . . ? Chairman Goolsby said "I can't give you a specific item tonight in terms of time, but I will tell you that this is an ongoing project. The Community Block Grant, as you know, occurs every year. The public hearing tonight concerns July 1 of 1996 through June 30, 1997, and it is a continuing process . I am not sure exactly what the acquisition schedule is . Perhaps after the meeting tonight, you can talk to Ms . Witherspoon about that, because she deals very closely with it. In terms of particular pieces of property, I am just not familiar with it. The fact that we are considering this for Fiscal Year 96-97 tonight may or may not impact on your parents ' home, because I don't know where they are in the process that has been ongoing in terms of the time frame for acquisition. Doris will be able to give you a better idea of that if you talk to her. " Ms . Sanders said "So if these issues are addressed, it is just going to carry over and over, like it has been for years?" PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 6 Chairman Goolsby said "I don't want to get too far afield in terms of this public hearing, but what I can tell you is that the Seven Block Plan has , as you know, been going on for several years . The process has been moving forward. They acquired houses on St. Joseph; those have been taken down, and there are other parts of the project that are being worked on, but it is kind of a domino type of a situation, if you will . Doris can give you better answers than I can this evening. " ROSE NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER. I first would like to say thank you for your past support. The Housing Resource Center provides a full continuum of housing counseling services . That is everything from homeless prevention through home ownership programs . I would like to talk to you tonight about our homeownership programs which the City helps fund. We have one-on-one counseling for potential home buyers which is through Community Development Block Grant funds . Potential first-time home-buyers who have barriers to overcome before purchasing a home, we help them with counseling, such as budget counseling, credit counseling, helping them through the issues they might have that are barriers to home ownership. Typically, within a six-month period, we are able to help people become home-owners, when, if they were on their own, they probably would not be becoming home buyers, or they would be doing it through land contracts, which is not always the best situation. In addition to our counseling for potential home buyers, we have down payment assistance. This is where we can provide $3, 000, which in effect is a grant, a second mortgage. This grant allows qualified first-time home buyers to be able to buy a home. This program is extremely successful in boosting home ownership in the City of Lansing. We typically have twice as many qualified buyers asking for participation in our program as the ones who we can. We can spend probably as much money as can be put into this program. It helps people who otherwise would not be able to buy achieve the dream of home ownership in the City, and we do that often because people are not able to save the money necessary for the down payment. This program has been successful; we have had a lot of success working with the local real estate and mortgage people making this program work, towards getting people into home ownership. The City supports this program through HOME dollars, primarily. I would encourage you to continue to support this program, because it has been very successful in helping people throughout the City. This is scattered, it is not concentrated within any one neighborhood, but throughout the City, people purchasing PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 7 a $60,000 home or less, and typically, our prices are anywhere from $25,000 up to $60,000, with the average home being right around $45,000 . We are able to help a low income buyer become a successful home owner. We've got this program up; with the counseling we make sure they get the counseling they need, and then maintenance classes, so that they are skilled home buyers . Once they are in that home, we don't want them hanging out there by themselves . So we have some very successful programs . We are achieving the goal of helping people become home owners in the City, and I know that is an important goal that everyone on this committee has, so thank you for your past support, and I look forward to working with you again this year. Thank you. ALMUS THORP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER LANSING HOUSING COALITION, 423 N. SYCAMORE. I am here to thank you folks for making it possible for the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition to be productive, and I would like to take a couple minutes to describe what we do, and the ways in which the City and LISC helps us do what we do. Programmatically, we are a four-legged stool . One of the legs is that we acquire, through the federal LIHPRA, existing rental housing, keeping it from going market rate, preserve it as affordable housing for low and moderate income folk. A good example of that is Edgewood Village in Meridian Township, 135 units which we bought last year and contract out the management of that, preserving those 135 units as low and moderate income housing. We are in the process of securing 220 units at Paddock Farms, also in Meridian Township. More locally, City of Lansing, we do transitional housing, leg #2 . We are a silent partner with Ballentine Stepping Stones, which is a kind of incubated situation for 16 homeless women and their children, moving from homelessness to independent living. On the west side, in a 29-square- block target area, we have in the last couple of years acquired and rehabilitated, own and manage six rental units, are about to acquire, rehab, own and manage another two, and thanks to the City, have incentive grants to acquire four more in 1996 . I spend most of my time raising money, pushing program, trying to do the hardest task, which is to acquire, rehab and sell to low and moderate income people, scattered-site single-family for home ownership in an area on the west side of Lansing which is anywhere from 75 to 80 percent rental (by definition unstable) needing revitalization and stabilization through the program of organizations like the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition. We would not be able to do what we do without the cooperation of the City of Lansing, particularly through the work of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 8 Emil Winnicker and his staff . We would also not be able to do what we do without the cooperation, the technical assistance, the loans and grants from Local Initiatives Support Corporation, in the person particularly of Susan Christian. Emil Winnicker and his staff, and Susan Christian at LISC have been invaluable in helping us rehab eight houses and sell seven in 1995 which compares very favorably with the two that we did in 1994, and the total of around seventeen or eighteen that we have done in the last seven years of our existence. Emil is quite generous in saying, well, it took us a long time to build capacity and get ready to be productive. That may be true. The bottom line is, you folks and the City and LISC have been instrumental in our becoming productive, and we thank you very much. SUE EBY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT FRANKLIN STREET COOP . Almus is a hard act to follow, because he has done more than I have, but I have only been there two months . First of all, I would like to invite you to an Open House on January 18 from 4 : 30 to 7 : 30 p.m. at 208 W. Grand River. The Mayor will be there at 5 : 30 congratulating Franklin Street on the completion of that project. As many of you probably know, that has been a slightly drawn-out affair. There were two houses moved from the Emmanuel Lutheran parking lot, and they are now at 208 W. Grand River and 1129 N. Capitol . We are having a tour of both houses that night, and 208 W. Grand River is just a magnificent thing. You really need to see it. It is a wonderful historic renovation, and it is really exciting. I would also like to congratulate the City staff; I have only been here two months, but in spite of what you hear about them, they are real good to work with. There is a lot of stuff that goes on in the community and talks generally about City staff, and a lot of the things are not true. Everything is running efficiently; they are very supportive and in my estimation, it could not be better than it is down there. The programs are flexible, and they are trying to get the dollars out into the community, and we are really grateful for that. I would also like to support LISC. Susan Christian has been very helpful, particularly to Franklin Street this year. They went through some rough times with the death of the previous executive director, and it was a real struggle for everybody. Susan provided lots of extra support. Another thing I would like to mention about LISC is that they bring in dollars from outside of the community to US . If they fund raise, there are matching national dollars that go with it. It is a very effective method of fund raising and very important for us to have that happen. Franklin Street is a 501(c) 3; we as the Greater PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 9 Lansing Coalition provide a vehicle for private dollars to get into communities that are struggling. We use City dollars to leverage state dollars . We bring things to the community because the City money is available. It is important that this continue; for instance, I was just talking to MSHDA today, and they are going to commit a commit a couple hundred thousand dollars because the City committed some, so it is a very effective program. So Franklin is increasing production. We have done nine houses since 1987, and three were sold to home owners . We intend to do at least six this year, and we are about ready to take off. We appreciate your support and the continuation of your programs . JENNIFER GRAD, LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I have come to talk to you about three things this evening. I spent today at a training with a lot of nonprofits and community development corporations working throughout the state on fund raising. I was really disturbed to learn that in other communities, groups like HRC and LISC and the housing nonprofits and neighborhood organizations fight each other over dollars and funding and don't work collaboratively on projects . I think it is a testament to this board and this City that in Lansing you set an atmosphere that we work together. You set that as a precedent, and we tend to toe the line, more or less . After this afternoon's experience, that became abundantly clear in listening to my colleagues talk about this . I think you should be congratulated as a group. I would like to talk a little bit about what Neighborhood Council has done in the last year and what we are planning on for this year. We changed the way we ran Paint Blitz last year, and as a result, we changed several thousand dollars and were able to recoup that money in materials that we will not have to buy this year. As a result, we expect to be able to paint thirty houses in Lansing in June, provided we can get the paint teams to do it. So any of you who have friends who want to paint in June, we are looking hard for teams this year, because we 've got more money to do the houses . Toward that end, we are going to try to target a couple of neighborhoods, so that we can try to do six or seven houses, all in a very tight area, to try to make the greatest impact. We will continue to do a house in each neighborhood that wishes to paint one, but we are going to try to get the biggest bang for the buck this year, because we have the money and the equipment to do that kind of concentration. We are also excited about helping again with Neighborhoods in Bloom and the Housing Fair. The Housing Fair last year was successful. We brought about 1,000 people to the Lansing Center to learn about Lansing' s PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 10 neighborhoods, mortgage products, how to work with realtors, get credit reports and the like. It was unfortunate that they ended up staying at the Lansing Center because really what we needed to do was show them the great houses in our neighborhoods, so this year we are going to try to take them into neighborhoods in the consecutive Sundays following the Housing Fair, where neighborhoods come together with realtors and possibly the trolley. We will see about touring neighborhoods, opening houses for people who live in the community who want to stay in the community and hosting coffee there and very much doing on a small scale what the West Side did this fall, which is a home tour of people who live there, side-by-side with property that is on the market. We are hoping that this will get more people into the community, once they get excited at the housing fairs, so the Housing Fair is at the end of April, and all through May people can tour neighborhoods . I would also like to invite you to the Bea Christy Dinner which is coming up next month, February 16 . We are back at the Lansing Center, and I promise this time you can eat meat--there will be chicken--we got some vegetarian complaints last year. We continue to do our quarterly newsletter. I still write the column for the State Journal, and we host quarterly Presidents ' breakfasts in addition to doing our monthly office updates to neighborhood presidents . We also did for the first time this year a training for six different neighborhood organizations to teach them how to file their 501(c) 3s . Emil asked me to come in earlier and work with MSHDA to do a training, along with City staff, to try to bring about NPP areas in Lansing, and one of the requirements for neighborhoods to become an NPP is that they need to have a 501(c) 3 . So six neighborhoods went through that training. One of them has filed the papers, two are close behind and I need to do a little kicking in the other cases . We are trying to move the neighborhoods to a position where in addition to Neighborhood Council. they are also able to seek funding on their own. I am deeply concerned about a Senate bill that passed during the wee hours of the evening on December 14 , 1995 . It has tremendous implications for the City of Lansing, as it falls within the jurisdiction of Planning, and that is Senate Bill 653 . It is a bill that could potentially obliterate our Building Code inspection rental registration program in Lansing. I have been speaking statewide with folks from the Neighborhood Association of Michigan, and locally with neighborhoods in Lansing. It appears that there will be a concerted opposition to this from law enforcement, from municipalities and from PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 11 neighborhood groups across the state, but I can't stress enough how important it is that municipalities react to this as well. It basically changes the building code inspection period from once every two years to once every six years only if there is a written complaint made by someone in the community, or the tenant, and also requires the tenant' s written consent before an inspection can take place. In Lansing, we have been successful in organizing neighborhoods, in large part because of community police officers and building code inspection officers, because it is through those two bodies of City government that we have gained credibility in solving our own problems . If we lose this opportunity to solve our own problems, I suspect you will have a great deal of neighborhood decay and apathy, so I encourage you to take some action in terms of speaking to either Representative Kaza, who chairs the Urban Policy Committee in the House of Representatives where this bill is now sitting, or Susan Grimes Munsell, who chairs the Regulatory Affairs Committee. There is a similar bill before her. It is probably the most important piece of legislation that has come across my desk in the three years that I have been doing this work. Thank you. Chairman Goolsby recognized Councilmember Leeman in the audience. SUSAN CHRISTIAN, 301 ALLEN, PROGRAM OFFICER FOR LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION, here proposing continuation of funding from the City Community Development Block Grant (distributed materials to the Board) . What you have is a brief proposal not unlike what I provided for you in October, with a budget of $45,000 . I would like to take a couple of minutes to go over some of the new programs that we are proposing for this year and next, and also point out that you have in the bright yellow pages a very detailed summary of all of the assistance that LISC has provided. This details both the loans and the grants and the financial assistance that we have provided to the nonprofit housing groups in Lansing since 1989, and it also provides some of the noncash assistance, technical assistance and training and other kinds of assistance that we have provided since we began working in Lansing. Briefly, for the future, we are looking at, and this is about the third page into the packet, we are working, as Jennie says, and I really have to thank her for acknowledging that, that groups in Lansing are working very well together, and I think, just in looking at this list, that what LISC is doing is a good indication of some of the collaborations that are going on in the City of Lansing. We really feel that we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 12 came through a very, very hard period, and in 1995 we began to round the corner, and I think all of us are looking forward to much higher levels of production, and much more success in neighborhood revitalization activities in the coming year. So I want to thank you again for your support of LISC, and the Neighborhood Council and all the programs that make this possible. We are looking to fund a home ownership program, which is a new way of looking at housing rehab in neighborhoods . It is a model where first-time home buyers are able to find the houses they want and get assistance with CDCs and fix the most houses up. We are talking with Neighborhood Council about figuring out how to do a targeted Model Block Program. This is a program that was recommended in the 1992 Housing Partnership Proposal, and we are trying to get it resurrected now. We are planning a trip to Flint to visit a group there that is doing a program like this . We are working with Greater Lansing Coalition and St. Lawrence, just in the early stages of designing an employer-assisted housing program like they have at Sparrow. I am very interested in that program, and we are going to see if we can't get that created there. We are working with the Old Town Commercial Organization, a new organization up on East Grand River Avenue in Old Town to bring about some commercial revitalization there. We are going to be working again this year with the Home Ownership Task Force to conduct another trolley tour. Hopefully, we are going to be bigger and more successful than before, and we continue to work with the United Way and the banks and nonprofits and neighborhood groups to form a Lansing Housing Partnership. It is as yet unnamed. The idea there is that we will improve efficiency in the housing rehab system and also seek ongoing multi-year operating support for CDCs so that they can keep their production high. We are talking with Neighborhood Council and some CDCs about doing joint training programs, and we are also planning to provide a property management training for staff and board members of CDCs who manage rental property. Those are some of the things we are looking at in 196 and ' 97 . I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Chairman Goolsby, seeing no one else wishing to speak, said that concludes the public hearing on the proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 . This matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee of the Planning Board which will meet on Tuesday, January 16 , 1996 at 4 p.m. to discuss the proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds presented this evening. The meeting will be held in Annex at the corner of North Washington and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 13 Ottawa on the second floor of the Planning Office Conference Room. III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - (5 minutes each) EMLY HORNE, 110 W. HODGE, here regarding Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S. Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. I am here this evening asking the Planning Board members to deny this rezoning as requested by the petitioners . Good stable housing must be preserved in the City. The petitioners should look for vacant land that already exists on the south side of the City. Vacant land does exist on S . Cedar, south of Cavanaugh. There are also sites on S. Cedar that can be redeveloped. Also, the County has some property for sale on S . Washington, but this is iffy. Before any more medical facilities are located on the south side, the Southeast Area Master Plan members should meet together with MCMC Directors and its related health providers concerning their long-range vision for this area. There has already been spot zoning of a medical facility on Stabler Street which has had an impact on our neighborhood. The West Hodge Neighborhood Watch residents are already experiencing traffic problems related to the hospital traffic. Let's not have the same intrusion to this neighborhood as we have experienced previously with the Sparrow expansion. Thank you. PAUL M. SCOTT, 412 W. KILBORN. I have three issues, first as Vice President of North Lansing Community Association, I would like to speak generally in favor of Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District. I also serve on the North Lansing Old Town Revitalization Committee. One of the general recommendations we have been discussing is rezoning to residential the entire west side of Center Street, which is currently zoned "H" Light Industrial but which is almost all residential as far as the land use. It makes a lot of sense. In regard to Z-20-95, Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District, I speak against that proposal . Currently, North Pennsylvania is generally residential. A laundromat exists on Massachusetts . By adding commercial on this corner, the downward spiral of the neighborhood would be exacerbated. It is not going to help. Between Oakland and Grand River, there is one institutional use, and no commercial uses . To put commercial intrusion there would be a mistake. Finally, as a citizen, I speak against Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S. Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-l" Professional Office District. These are stable housing units . The impact on Washington Park and on residential on the east side of Washington would be detrimental . Possibilities of encroachment into Mrs . Horne ' s neighborhood are exacerbated. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 14 Major traffic generators exist on this portion of Washington now; adding another traffic generator would be unwise and a detriment to nearby housing. ROBERT JOHNSON, INGHAM COUNTY COMMISSIONER. My district is from Ingham Medical south to Willoughby Road. I speak in opposition to Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S . Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. The homes along South Washington are best left in residential. I would agree with points brought up tonight. People in the area would like to see it remain as it is . JENNIFER LAURITZEN, 2810 S . WASHINGTON (distributed pictures) . I spoke December 4 , 1995 and explained my situation. I signed a contract to sell my house. I am a single parent of four children, employed at F.D. Hayes Electric Company. I work 15 hours a week at $6 per hour. If this zoning goes through, my children and I will lose the stable housing we have. I will never be able to own a house again. The stability of my children depends on where they live and how they are doing. After the last meeting, Mr. Abood contacted me and apologized for any threat made, and also offered to help me with any need I had. I explained my need to have affordable housing. This may be the last time that I can speak--my estranged husband is asking his lawyer to get a gag order against my speaking about the rezoning. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: December 5, 1995 Mr. -Greiner made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of December 5, 1995 . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; minutes of December 5, 1995 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. The Committee met December 13, 1995 . a. Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 15 The developer proposes to continue the residential uses of 320 Beaver Street and 1425 Center Street while removing the structure at 318 Beaver Street. The request is to rezone approximately 8,000 square feet from light industrial to residential zoning. The subject property currently contains one single family structure and one two-family structure on one of the two lots . In order to be in conformance with the requested zoning district, the subject property would be limited to two single family structures and would also require relocation of the lot line separating the two structures . The rezoning is in conformance with the current master plan in effect for the area. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the rezoning is in conformance with the existing Master Plan and the anticipated recommendations of the amendment plan in process, the land use for the blockface, and the adjacent residentially zoned properties . In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District; motion carried unanimously 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District. Mr. Ruge asked if there is an illegal conversion involved here. Mr. Ruff said some construction has occurred without a permit. According to our records, 1425 is a single family home; within the last couple years, it has been converted to a two-unit. This puts us on a course of resolving some issues existing with the property. He has trouble getting building permits without proper zoning and lot area. Lot area is restricted; there is only 8,000 square feet between the two structures . He will have to make decisions about future options--a variance, Class A. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District was recommended to be APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 16 b. Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S . Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District The applicant proposes to construct a medical office building and associated parking. The applicant is also requesting the vacation of Willard Avenue west of Washington adjacent to these properties . The proposed request is not in conformance with the land use patterns established in the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that increases in the volume and circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic will occur as a result of this proposal . Specifically, Washington Avenue will divide the campus , resulting in increasing the likelihood for conflicts from the traffic crossing Washington Avenue. The proposed request will have minor, if any, impact on utilities . The proposed request will have an adverse impact on the environment during construction of the facility. Furthermore, the proposed request removes a valuable and viable residential area and changes the residential character of this area of Washington Avenue which has been so finely preserved. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the proposed rezoning is not in conformance with the land use patterns established in the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan, and that increases in the volume and circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic are anticipated as a result of this proposal . Furthermore, the proposed request would remove a valuable and viable residential area and would change the residential character of this area of Washington Avenue which has been so finely preserved. In committee, it was moved and seconded by to deny Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S . Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-l" Professional Office District; motion carried unanimously, 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Z- 18-95, 2708 through 2816 S . Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D- 1" Professional Office District. Ms . LeBlanc said before considering any further rezonings for MCMC, she would like to see a plan for future development. "This is one reason, as well as the others listed, for recommending denial . " PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Chairman Goolsby noted that an Aye vote is a vote for denial . LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 - P. 17 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S. Washington Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was recommended to be DENIED. C. Z-20-95, Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District The applicant proposes to construct a multitenant commercial building anticipated to include a laundry, barbershop, and retail space on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. The committee 's findings included six points : 1 . The proposed change in zoning will foster an increased intensity of use for this property. 2 . Public facilities within this area were primarily designed for low density residential use. 3 . The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density (0-7 du/ac) residential use. This designation was recommended subsequent to its 1979 rezoning to office. 4 . The site plan as proposed does not adequately provide for parking, vehicular delivery, trash removal or buffering. It is questionable that this site can facilitate a use of this intensity. 5 . The proposed development would increase pedestrian activities that the Lansing Police Department considers to be problems within this neighborhood. 6 . The proposed development at this intersection could have a negative impact on patterns of development along Pennsylvania Avenue. Specifically, this would be a spot zoning where no contiguous property is similarly or compatibly zoned. Also, the potential commercial uses could adversely impact the adjacent residential uses . Staff recommends denial of this request to rezone the property located at the Southeast Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District. The intensity of the proposed use is not suitable for the size, location, or character of this site. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report with the six items summarized above, that the rezoning would constitute a spot zoning and begin a new pattern for commercial development which would not be conducive to the residential area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 18 In committee, it was moved and seconded to deny Z-20-95, Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District; motion carried unanimously, 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Z-20-95 , Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D- 1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follow. Chairman Goolsby noted that an Aye vote is a vote for denial . Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Nay Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 6; Nays : 1; carried; Z-20- 95, Vacant Property SE Corner N. Pennsylvania and May St. , "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be DENIED. d. Z-19-95, 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District The Committee also considered Z-19-1995 and tabled it, awaiting additional information from the applicant. e. Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts The Committee also considered Z-16-95 which has been tabled at the Planning Board level, but information was presented at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. f. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, January 17, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time Z-21-95 and Z-19-95 will be considered. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to remove Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts, from the table. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried; Z-16-95 was removed from the table and is now before the Planning Board. Mr. Ruff presented additional information. A plan has been developed to provide for proper ingress and egress to the property while protecting the Dunckel Road use for traffic movement as more PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 - P. 19 of a connector street. It involves a potential of three curb cuts along the frontage of the property, which is lengthy. One would be at the intersection of the two sites, one of which is already zoned commercial and the other one which is proposed in this rezoning for commercial . The other two curb cuts would be just outside that one some distance away. The central curb cut would be located a significant distance away from the curve to be able to handle a traffic light at some time in the future. That has been worked out with the petitioner, and with the Traffic and Planning Offices . This was the major issue needing resolution, at the last meeting. Improvements, in addition to the three curb cuts, would include widening asphalt pavement area to three lanes, one in each direction, plus a center turn lane to be used to go south. To the south of the main Dunckel roadway joining the curb cuts would be an acceleration\deceleration lane so that you can get out of the flow of traffic if you are going north and east before entering any of the curb cuts . The same is true if you are going south and west along Dunckel; you could enter the turn lane and get out of the flow of traffic. You would have a reasonable turning movement. The developer will be making these improvements at his own expense. Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts, and also the friendly amendment concerning the Board' s understanding that development is subject to approval of the site plan with the developer paying the costs of improvements as required in the site plan. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail, C.U.P. to "DM- 1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts was recommended to be APPROVED. 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Urban Development Committee met this afternoon to consider six Act 285 reviews, Acts -18, -20, -21, -22 and -23-95, all proposals by the Board of Water and Light to purchase six separate parcels of land on the south side of the City for use as future well site. The sites have two characteristics in common which make them economical for the Board of Water and Light to develop them. First, they are being sold by the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 20 Department of Natural Resources for a very favorable price, and second, they are relatively close to the Wise Road Water Conditioning Plant, which minimizes the length of water transmission lines, thus further reducing costs . All six sites are located in residential areas . BWL is required to own a 100-foot-radius isolation zone around each well . This is approximately one acre in size. Five of the six sites are substantially larger than the one-acre site. A concern of the Planning Office was that BWL not tie up large blocks of land unnecessarily. An agreement was worked out with the Board. The reviews were addressed in two groups, Acts -18, -20, -21, -22 and -23-95, larger parcels similarly situated, and one smaller parcel, Act-19-95 . The staff recommended approval of the five Acts . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the location, character and extent of the proposals was reasonable and would not interfere with the adjoining residential uses . It was moved and seconded to approve Acts -18, -20 , -21, -22 and -23-95, subject to the five conditions in the staff report. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0 . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to approve Acts -18, -20, -21, -22 and -23-95, subject to the five conditions in the staff report. Chairman Goolsby passed the gavel to Ms . LeBlanc in order to comment. The conditions that Mr. Ruge refers to are very innovative. The most important, for funding for a GIS system that would be jointly use by the City and the Board of Water and Light, takes excess moneys and places them in a fund that would grow with interest and additional income as BWL sells property, maybe for a larger amount than it originally paid. That would go toward the purchase of the multi-million dollar project. The second aspect is the use of a relatively new public act that passed in 1992 dealing with neighborhood revitalization. It would give the City an opportunity to use some of the land that BWL doesn' t need to develop some housing. "This is an innovative idea that they have come up with, and I commend them for that. " PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Robinson Aye Ruge Ave Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 21 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Acts -18, -20, -21, -22 and -23-95, subject to the five conditions in the staff report, were recommended to be APPROVED. Regarding Act-19-95, Mr. Ruge said though it is smaller, one-half acre in size, it is relatively similar. No housing could be developed on this parcel. The staff recommended approval. The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the location, character, and extent of the proposal was reasonable and would not interfere with the surrounding residential uses . In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve Act-19-95, subject to the three conditions in the staff report. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to approve Act-19- 95, subject to the three conditions in the staff report. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Act-19-95 Midwood St. West of Pleasant Grove, Acquisition for Well Site #2 was recommended to be APPROVED. a. The Urban Development Committee will meet on Tuesday, January 16, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 4 . Executive Committee - met on Thursday, December 14, 1995 to consider the work plan for 1996 and the budget. Chairman Goolsby wrote a letter to Mayor Hollister on behalf of the Board supporting the work plan. He wrote a separate letter emphasizing the importance of the part-time sign code officer. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. Today Ms . Love received copies of the final proposed budget; she will be mailing copies of the work program and budget in the next packet. She will be meeting soon with Jack Roberts to review the Administrative Rules of Procedure. She invited the Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 22 to a meeting of the South Area pilot program for decentralization of City services at the Wainwright School at 7 : 30 p.m. on January 11, 1996 . Ms . Love has sent a letter to the Mayor' s office regarding Senate Bill 653 . Our code enforcement office is vehemently opposed to this legislation. There are good reasons for code enforcement inspection. Ms . Love would be willing to write additional letters . Ms . LeBlanc said she also was going to request that letters of opposition be sent from the Planning Board. The code compliance officers have contacted neighborhood organizations requesting that they oppose the legislation. Representative Martinez in turn has contacted people asking them to express their opinions . Mr. Nischan asked positions of other planning boards in Michigan. Chairman Goolsby said that is hard to know. It is a controversial piece of legislation passed at the end of the session during the middle of the night. Ms . Love said this is another reason for contacting the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Society of Planning Officials . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to send letters to the Mayor, City Council, elected officials and Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Society of Planning Officials . Chairman Goolsby volunteered to send letters to the chair of the committee, Representatives Greg Kaza and Susan Grimes Munsell, and to local legislators, Representatives Lynn Martinez, Laura Baird and Lingg Brewer, and Dan Gustafson. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously. E . Pending Items : Future action required 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. Z-19-95, 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled 12/13/95) VI . NEW BUSINESS - None. VII . COMMUNICATIONS - Chairman Goolsby said that the Mayor in a letter to Ms . LeBlanc on December 22, 1995 asked for input in preparation of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9 , 1996 - P. 23 the State of the City address . He asked for ideas for programs by Friday, January 12, 1996 . Chairman Goolsby said he received a letter from the code compliance officers regarding S.B. 653 and asking for action. VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Regarding the MSPO meeting in Lansing in September, Chairman Goolsby asked for information from Ms . Love. MSPO has not as yet set the agenda. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Greiner said he has eleven working papers from the October 1995 MSPO for anyone who has not as yet read them. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 : 03 p.m. Respectfully submitted cif%h �kc:�� Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn010996 a:\27 ' �'..7 . . '1, (� Z-17-95 318 and 320 Beaver St . and 1425 Center St . "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT : Henry Riley 6100 Pollard St . E. Lansing, MI 48823 LOCATION: 318 and 320 Beaver St . and 1425 Center St . , northeast corner Center & Beaver REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District EXISTING LAND USE : Residential. 318 & 320 Beaver - one unit each. 1425 Center - two units . EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District PROPOSED ZONING: "C" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE : 7, 920 sq. ft . SURROUNDING LAND 'USE: N: Vacant Commercial S : Single family residential E : Single family residential W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial District S : "H" Light Industrial District E : "H" Light Industrial District W: "H" Light Industrial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for residential development. A Master Plan update is currently in process for the area which includes this property. SPECIFIC INFORMATION CASE HISTORY: DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant has filed this rezoning petition in response to enforcement action due to violations of City Housing and Zoning codes . Presently, the subject property contains three structures on two PLANNING BOARD Z-17-95 - P. 2 318 and 320 Beaver St. & 1425 Center St., "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential Dist. lots of record: on lot No. 1 ( see Figure 2, Site Plan) 1425 Center Street contains two units and 320 Beaver street contains one unit . On Lot No. 2, 318 Beaver contains a single family residence which has been converted to a warehouse use. All three structures were originally constructed as single family units . It appears to the staff that the house at 1425 Center was recently converted to a two family dwelling, and the recent improvements that were done without permit have formalized the two unit use. As a note, our office has worked with the applicant in the past and he is well aware of the need to get permits prior to doing construction work. The applicant proposes to continue the residential uses of 320 Beaver Street and 1425 Center Street while removing the structure at 318 Beaver Street . Two possible scenarios that may occur for the applicant to maintain residential use of the property and _ bring it into conformance with the "C" Residential zoning district are : 1 . Demolition of 318 Beaver Street, combination of this parcel with 320 Beaver/1425 Center, reconversion of 1425 into a single unit, and approval of a PRD (Planned Residential Development) for two structures on a single lot . 2 . Demolition of both 318 and 320 Beaver Street and continuation of the two unit (duplex) established in 1425 Center Street . AGENCY RESPONSES : ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Surrounding land uses are primarily residential and CANNING BOARD Z-17-95 - P . a 318 and 320 Beaver St. & 1425 Center St., "H" Light Industrial to C Residential Dist. commercial . The west side of Center Street in the block between Clinton and Beaver Streets is primarily used as residential, even though it is zoned for light industrial use. The entire east side of Center Street from one-half block north of Grand River to North Street is in residential land use; most of this area is in the "C" Residential zoning district . West of the subject site on Beaver Street and fronting on the east side of Turner Street is both zoned and used for light industrial and commercial use. There is a Conrail service spur which splits the block bounded by Center and Turner streets: this rail road track used to provide service to many industrial uses from the main line from the main track near Turner and Reasoner Streets to the Board of Water and Light' s Ottawa Street Power Station downtown. Currently, this track serves only one customer (Friedland' s) . Staff sees no negative impact on commercial development patterns in the vicinity which would be caused by this rezoning. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990 is the current master plan in effect for this area. This plan 'recommends residential development at eight (8) to fourteen (14) units per acre. This location is also included in a current effort to update the master plan for a portion of the North Lansing area (the North Lansing/Old Town Revitalization Plan) . While the zoning of the subject property is industrial, the current master plan recommends residential land use. Property owners have not, to this point, requested rezoning of these properties. Renewed interest in this area may have stimulated the current interest in preserving these homes and taking the necessary steps to provide the proper zoning. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Redevelopment of the subject property in conformance with the requirements of the "C" Residential zoning District would tend to generate less traffic than commercial development of the same property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Similarly, redevelopment of the subject property in PLANNING BOARD Z-17-95 - P . 4 318 and 320 Beaver St. & 1425 Center St., "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential Dist. conformance with the requirements of the "C" Residential Zoning District would tend to have less of an adverse impact on the natural environment than commercial or industrial development of the same property. Residential use of the property tends to create less impervious surfaces (and thus storm water runoff) than commercial or industrial development . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This rezoning has the potential to have a major impact on the future patterns of development in the area. As discussed earlier in this report, the current master plan prescribes residential development for this. area; rezoning this property may initiate a trend for rezoning of other similarly situated properties in the vicinity. SUMMARY The request is to rezone approximately 8, 000 square feet from light industrial to residential zoning. The subject property currently contains two single family structures and one two- family structure on two lots . In order to be in conformance with the requested zoning district, the subject property would be limited to two (2) single family structures and would also require relocation of the lot line separating the two structures . The requested rezoning is in conformance with the current master plan in effect for the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and further the applicant take action, with the proper permits, to make the property conforming. ". I / f I alco - oCL 5 co u I-- Q A d( 6 v N `w U N bE u J c o� m � A 6 VI � N Cl— Ln L � I S ~ E� �IlI � � 1 H-=, Z-18-95, 2708 to 2816 S. Washington Ave. "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office Medical Office Building and Parking GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Michael Hourani 405 W. Greenlawn Suite 230 Lansing, MI 48911 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone EXISTING LAND USE: Single and Two-Family Homes EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 105, 144 sq. ft. or 2 .4 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: South Washington Park S: Single Family E: Single Family & Michigan Capital Medical Center ( formerly: Ingham Medical Hospital W: South Washington Park SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential and "DM-4" Res . W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The South West Area Comprehensive Area Plan designates this area for residential . SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The petitioner is requesting to rezone properties from 2708 through 2816 S. Washington Avenue for the purpose of constructing a medical office building and parking. The applicant is also requesting the vacation of Willard Avenue, west of Washington Avenue adjacent to these properties . See attached drawings . The specific properties are: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 Permanent Parcel Number (PPN) Address 3301 28 301 091 2816 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 101 2810 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 111 2806 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 121 2802 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 131 2732 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 141 2726 S. Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 161 2712 S . Washington Ave. 3301 28 301 182 2716/2718 S . Wash. Ave. 3301 28 301 192 2710 S. Washington Ave. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: None Development: No comment INFORMATION The applicant is proposing to remove approximately nine residential structures, which are not located in a "blighted" area and do not appear to be deteriorating or in need of renovations, for the purpose of constructing a medical office building and parking in association with the Michigan Capital Medical Center (MCMC) . MCMC is interested in using the proposed building as an expansion of their existing facilities . During past discussions with the hospital, other development was suggested by the hospital such as expansion on their current grounds including a parking deck. The applicant has submitted two sample proposals for site development: Proposal 1 - ( includes Lot 6, Willard Ave) . This plan proposes the construction of a three-story, 15, 000 sq. ft. building with approximately 225 parking spaces to the north and south of the proposed building. Proposal 2 - (Lot 6, Willard Ave. ) remains a dedicated right-of-way. This plan proposes the construction of a three-story, 15,000 sq. ft. building to the north of the property with 150 parking spaces to the south. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The South West Area Comprehensive 'Plan designates this area for residential . The predominant use in the surrounding area consists of residential on the S. Washington frontage, including the McRee Guest House. This is a 14-bedroom home, residential in architecture guest house for the families of PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 patients at the MCMC across the street from the subject site. Also, the MCMC Greenlawn Campus is east of S. Washington Ave. and the South Washington Park is to the north and west of the subject property. The character of the park frontage would be changed from a low density residential park to a more commercialized park. Ideally, the. proposed medical office building and parking structure would better fit on the existing facility. The proposed medical office building is not compatible with all of the surrounding land uses . COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The South West Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential . The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Master Plan designation. Also, the goals and objectives of the Planning Board addresses the following residential goals : ( 1) Make preservation and conservation of existing housing a priority, and seek alternatives to demolition resulting from public and private development expanding and/or neglect (2) Limit removal of housing as an extremely selective activity, which may be in accordance with neighborhood plans for reducing overcrowded conditions and elimination of blight or removing health/safety risks in the area. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICE At the present, there are existing utilities in place because of the existing houses on S. Washington Ave. The potential impact on utilities may be minor. If there is a need to relocate facilities, it will be at the applicants expense. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The purpose of the proposed structure is to expand or supplement the facilities at MCMC. South Washington Ave. is considered to be a minor arterial . There will be an increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic as a result of the construction of a medical office building. Also, by expanding the campus across Washington, pedestrian and vehicular traffic will increase and result in increased turning movements and pedestrian traffic near the Greenlawn intersection. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT As with any type of construction, there will be an increase in noise, dust and other factors associated with construction. However, the environment will be interrupted for a short period of time, until the medical office building is completed. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT Staff believes that the removal of homes in a area designated for residential use, which are not located in a "blighted" area and do not appear to be deteriorating or in need of renovations, for commercial/office development could set a precedent in the city. This type of development should not be encouraged. SUMMARY The proposed request is not in conformance with the land use patterns established in the South West Area Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that increases in the volume and circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic will occur as a result of this proposal . Specifically, Washington Ave. will divide the campus, resulting in increasing the likelihood for conflicts from the traffic crossing Washington Ave. The proposed request will have minor, if any impact on utilities . The proposed request will have an adverse impact on the environment during construction of the facility. Furthermore, the proposed request removes a valuable and viable residential area and changes the residential character of this area of Washington Ave. which has been so finely preserved. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request to rezone 2708 to 2816 S. Washington Ave. from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office for a Medical Office Building and Parking. Z-18-95 Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S.Washington Ave., "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District NORTH 1 ,o /34 � w S'. \fVashln�bn -� \,y'4` 013 zzo �REENLAWN 136 •`_ ;a V7 C . ✓,tE.- ` titi 7 � Ya V� � 32 31 30 0 29 28 �(a/- lJ QS�r11n � . ;o-. 'v � ��V � ; u'7 c,. r.• v.•r I vao `: U rr.J•\ vrc \�1 Q YP� Yes, r/f vae PQ(K. s�• o ti r.• WILLARD ti AVE. -l• r,.?111 ya r,.e• rc• - rc• c.• �� v 4` /O a m /\`,°I: 00\ / 0 9�a 27 L t D 111 ti o �� 23 24 25 26 /0 y e I n of Yf.v Cr e of9 t° 21 2 713A 18 17ooz20otioa Q o `S.q c r 04/ ,ti,vv Q //oy af• Ylt 414 YIt 40' Y04 Y � 0p1 AVE. r,7 v.. .. to• 07 r. C C Q 0 ti ya\ 4 \ t\ 0\ Z51 2,41 131 111 211 2or 19 ` :: ` 07 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 2\ �`� a_5l 6 `' 0 1 00 v /n..c• Isar. ,r.r,• ♦t• ti ff Jr.�• 30 t�e Q3 I 1 b ty vJ \ 116 IIS IIa 113 112 III 4110 109 I 8 107 106 105 q4 IOD ly2 101 1 10 199 98 97 96 � v �\ u`` `\ A A\ 0�\ 0 011 O i 10 i Iytt y1t y31 y\t / O — 0 \ y \ \` 0 0 vv `ay'• _ 0 4 0 \\ 0 0 0 p \ fy. v• rt' I � ' � .. Q 3 Z-18-95 Z-18-95, 2708 through 2816 S. Washington Ave., "A" Residential to "D-l" Professional Office District t OFn WASHINGTON \ PARK \ 79.7 849.3 a4e.s x 85/. " '' 0 65 849.7 851.0 _ 3 84 .9 " H N 1 'v b ' t ► 355.0 x 856.6 ly 3 850.7 848.7 ,- 19 26 850 22 1ASHINGTON PARK w5" g I ti 2 O 853.0 � 20 - �aN —— 25 o�56.6 28 55.9 854.5 x 853./ S„ w Qom' O O 15 / 55.9 \ �5 857.3 Ox i7 ,gyp s 16 '- -852.5 854.5 X X 9 � 15 \ 23 1 WALL 24 El �� z° - 855.8 WALL o�� 7 r—f—] Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St. "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Page 4 public facilities that were designed for low density residential use. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The site plan shows spaces for 27 vehicles, which does not meet the minimum number of 29 required by Section 1284 . 13 (c) of the Zoning Code . The proposed site plan also utilizes a one curb cut configuration of Pennsylvania Avenue. Although this is favorable for limiting vehicular impacts on May Street, there is no contingency allowed for a turn around as would be necessary if all parking spots were full and an additional vehicle entered the lot . Additionally, the site plan does not show where delivery and trash vehicles could access this site without interfering with on site parking. Therefore, it is questionable that this site could meet all of these requirements at the proposed intensity of use as well as provide for the appropriate space for buffering. Additionally, the Lansing Police Department has stated a concern in regards to the amount of pedestrian traffic a commercial use would have on this neighborhood. A commercial use such as a barbershop and laundry promote .activity that the Police Department is concerned with, specifically areas where individuals can congregate to undertake drug related activities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No negative environmental impacts are anticipated. The former use of this site was residential, but the site contains backfill which may not have adequate bearing capacity for the proposed use. These and any other environmental concerns such as run-off will be addressed in the Site Plan Review process . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at this intersection could have a negative impact on patterns of development along Pennsylvania Avenue. Specifically, this would be a "spot zoning" where no contiguous property is similarly or compatibly zoned. It' s effect on adjacent residential property on May Street will be directly related to the quality and content of the screening and buffering to be provided. SUMMARY 1. The proposed change in zoning will foster and increased intensity of use for this property. 2 . Public facilities within this area were primarily designed for low density residential use . Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St. "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Page 3 wished to build a fourteen (14) unit structure. 1967 Petition to rezone from "C" Two Family Residential to "D" Apartment district granted. 1979 Petition to rezone parcel to "D-1" Professional Office District from "D" Apartment District. Request granted due to it' s less intense use on the neighborhood and public services . ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE All property surrounding the petitioner' s site is zoned and used residentially. Although the proposed site plan minimizes vehicular impacts to May Street, . the requested change in zoning will foster a more intense use than if it retains it' s "D-1" Professional Office designation. The character of Pennsylvania Avenue is residential except for commercial nodes at Saginaw, Oakland, and Grand River Avenue. A commercial use fronting onto Pennsylvania Ave. instead of a major arterial will be out of character for this neighborhood and for this section of Pennsylvania Ave. The size of the site and development does not allow for adequate buffering to adjacent residential uses. Also, a commercial type use on this property would tend to conflict with the - residential uses more than the potential office uses. Commercial use hours tend to vary greater and extend later into the evening and potentially to 24 hours. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The developer proposes to develop a multi-tenant commercial building anticipated to include a laundry, barbershop, and retail space on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. The North East Area Plan designates this area for Low Density (0-7 DU/ac. ) Residential Use. This property was rezoned from residential to office in November of 1979, prior to the recommendation in the North East Area Plan (1984) . As with the 1979 zoning, it is the Master Plan recommendation to decrease the intensity of use at this location and therefor it' s demand on Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St. "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Page 2 AGENCY RESPONSES Board of Water and Light : Public Service Dept . : Code Compliance: Police Department: Building Safety Office: The project is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as well as the site plan review procedure administered by the Building Safety office. contact a Building Safety Office representative for additional informant . Consumers Power Company: Eastside Neigh. Assoc: Transportation Eng. : Assessor: No Comment. Development Office: No Comment. Case History: 1966 Petition to rezone from "C" Two Family to "D-M" Multiple Dwelling District denied because sewers in the are were over loaded and an increase in density would compound the problem. Petitioner wished to build a six unit apartment house on the site. 1967 Petition to rezone from "C"Two Family to "D-M" Multiple Dwelling District denied because designation would exceed the density proposed in the Master Plan, compound sewer problems and promote declining values in the adjacent residential properties . Petitioner Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St. "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT : Mr. Gerald J. Rowley 737 N . Pennsylvania Ave. Lansing, MI 48908 STATUS OF APPLICANT : Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Re-Zone the property located at the SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St . from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District . EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 66 ' X 132 ' (8, 712 sq. ft . ) 66 ' X 132 ' (8, 712 sq. ft . ) 17, 424 sq. ft . total SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single and Two Family Residential S : Multiple Family Residential E: Single Family Residential W: Single and Two Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential S : "DM-3" Residential E: "C" Residential W: "C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIG. : The North East Area Plan designates this area for Low Density (0-7 DU/ac. ) Residential Use . SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The developer proposes to develop a multi-tenant commercial building anticipated to include a laundry, barbershop, and retail space on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St. "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial Page 5 3 . The North East Area Plan designates this area for Low Density (0-7 DU/ac. ) Residential Use . This designation was recommended subsequent to it' s 1979 rezoning to office . 4 . The site plan as proposed does not adequately provide for parking, vehicular delivery, trash removal or buffering. It is questionable that this site can facilitate a use of this intensity. 5 . The proposed development would increase pedestrian activities that the Lansing Police Department consider a problem within this neighborhood. 6. The proposed development at this intersection could have a negative impact on patterns of development along Pennsylvania Avenue. Specifically, this would be a "spot zoning" where no condtigues property is similarly or compatibly zoned. Also, the potential commercial uses could adversely impact the adjacent residential uses . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the patition' s request to rezone the property located at the SE Cor. N. Pennsylvania & May St . from "D- 1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District . The intensity of the proposed use is not suitable for the size, location, or character of this site . D:\DATA\WPERFECT\ZNG-20-9.WPD Prepared by: Steven L.Hayward,Planner Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Car. N. Pennsylvania &May St., "D-V Professional Off. to 'T' Commercial District NORTH I i - I / � RETAIL SPACE Q - �,� ,( �•�� "� r BLDG. OUTLINE — 30' z 86' 4 , FIR bE FIST FL COMRCIAL 2.580 SQ. F 2ND. FL TWO APTS. 2.580 SO. FT u BARBER LAUNDRY" ENTRY DRIVE OR .� � Y 1 Z-20-95 Vacant Properly SE Car. N. Pennsylvania & May St., "D-1" Professional Off. to T" Commercial District NORTH •u[r vac c v Iz.zon9ez tt\ 0 4 ti, �• 0.1 x _u x+ xb 79 iC ; •• --, ,C ,i x t�\ +\ �— x6 q,�l mz •L Ov / t\i : 4\, 1\ 1 \ \ 37 \ > :1i 03\ Zy 7 2 0 0 vpY 1°\ 0 6- 0 0 i � C C—3 t >° Q ;IF— y`- - - 6 .a 0 ' • 3o oCr3 -IVPC CP II-24-691 CADY GT .` _e._ -_ ;. 06\ 6 nj lz t6 'L JI CDt p F-- 35 13 ALLEY VAC CP. '31` :' _-_._.__- I^ pVI `ay NIx0 �a2 -_rz _TT Z 37 36 39 on 2 .n 1 JI e\�. v '�\� \ ,a,142 i 4, i 40 j 3y 0\ 0 0 :0a I Q C Y 0ti ,ti - :t va\ r L\' �ti I ry� " ^ ! •yM i.. - +,.J �._ I „-Idf°1`l liii3 ,,. � •:. "L 10 gee• e ' I ' ,°, „ .,. „, I„r•� .� — — E OAKLAND AVE (M-431 E OAKLAND \, ��� a± b ^ v N '�;•' 2 3 4 •I ^"57 ,51-!9 .6c 5 4 3 5 01 56 _ I 7 as I a W d' Otl, 7 �4` :1i i` °S S• +. 5 ---- g e Q 031 n6 0 .,, 5 ° 3 z.l .4 3 2 .� ' •� O4k I \ `43 '.a Ioi 50 \ 9 ` I ? 0 •0 0 0\.I OS\ 10\ \\\ ,- :05,�z \"r.. >ii �; ll(, 00 3 i6 \ !i :S. Q •9`ab •1 •6 � e=, J+r •e ,n u . . ., r. nt r.r .:, I ,... ... , ,•u . ,. . ,., o°r ,:., ,..r' w \Y 'ST :I MAY 377•Y .: .. „ e,r a Y'3+• :: IP - ,r. , ... . •i: \ \ \ I= 00\• til \ I 1 \ ` Q 4'1`+'�Ii I z_toj.'/1/�t �:q3WY•f•.:do7r, - '3`` 'S°\ �t4 , 1ry a •ti2' -1tI,yt1 v ` QJ 00\ 1 a5 . �I ° t' "\Z tbt •".6t .t11,1f°ti1\.e �I1'000\I1 1000 O093at3\t\ 1tt.414 7, ♦e 9 2 •z_ 23 0 26 zz .3Z W. p z 2.3 Ov, - 29 Z 24 0.9 /a/ \, , Oy 1 38 36 Z 35 04 ,a 71 ^ Dal 5 051 Z 6.7 z6/ `. "t•r \ r _ 08\ 3: f �s 7vl • 09z a 3: ttt a Z y \5 3 3z 33 34 '. ,. ,3 -x I t1 4q� �I: SAGINAW 1. Jill), "r '3s•._r..,_ E a,I.,r ." Itl •1! ,ir x+, •+1 117 i+, 7„ 1.1..„••r+ 1,f 7tl 1+! ST. - (M-43) F— f-SEE 3301-15.10C�� T i Z-20-95 Vacant Property SE Car. N. Pennsylvania & May St., "D-1" Professional Off. to "F Commercial Distract NOF rH i U 26,6 75 ---- —m -- i ZI _O - 7 03� �� m 10 N. 12a jr.� r • A h O I I M M \ 1 1 T ` —i 10 9 061 12 m Q �3 ^ 0 b 113 1 5 I 16 117 \ 19 120 �1 5 I 1 13 12 I o ?� a _ 14 I \ •• •• G� 825' !3' 1/3 92-7 /007 /009 /a// to? 3 /alb /035 Y (9IIt 9zo q 2Z 2/ /X 101(, /OLo /aiy le 1030 0 2 03� Go y5' 75 13 2S' 3i.5" 32' 40' 33' u u 33' r, ti ti 19 la ti 3 3 t 7V N 24 23 22 21 ry 16 I7 IB 1 1 7 18 19 I 20 i C 17z 20 Zak.7 ^ \ ^ a N M 1 1 3 ^ 2 I `1 U 2 7 ,LS \ 1 2 ^f r` 2 � ' 1 � 12 .: ' h 23 0� ti a\ nI _ Z ^ 28 h Cti v.3 1 I 11 24 �� Qq C 35 G� '_ a .. .. 05 C iV .77s 25 \a� i ^ ` �� C �� >a 29 'L - 24 11 I f o � OV 4 10to f 4 Z30 22 a 011 I\4 i ': 2 30 w. ,a/' r 1 f , 1 vs 08 f 1 Z 34 33 32 CY /033-35 /32' 33' � l 1q1. 3' 17�t' - '09-9//-7/3 9/9 U1 923 N `— ' S I �G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 119 N.WASHINGTON SQUARE• LANSING,M1 48933-1668•(S 17)483-4066• FAX:(S 17)483-6036 j C G PLANNING OFFICE H I Z-16-95 December 13, 1995 Trapper' s Cove/Dunckel Road Staff Report Addendum At the December 5, 1995 Planning Board meeting, the Board tabled action on the above request because of concerns regarding Staff' s recommended conditions for approval . Apparently, Legal Counsel has advised that a zoning change cannot be "conditioned. " This memo attempts to clarify Staff' s concerns and concisely explain the recommendations necessary for approval of the zone change. First, Staff recommends approval of the zone change from C.U.P . (Community Unit Plan) to "DM-1" Multifamily Residential . The adjustments in size for lots 3a, 4, & five will then be come necessary for the property owner to bring the apartment complex into conformance with the Zoning Code. The property owner will be motivated to follow through with the necessary action through self interest; most future plan approvals for any changes or other work will hinge on being in conformance with the Zoning Code. Staff' s concerns regarding the commercial rezoning center on the impact upon traffic on Dunckel Road. This concern is twofold: the effect of turning movements on traffic flow and safety; and the effect of additional traffic resulting from the additional commercial development . After a series of meetings between the applicant, the City' s Assistant Traffic Engineer, and planning staff, a plan to address staff' s concerns has been developed. This plan includes construction of three access driveways into the subject property, and construction of left and right turning lanes on Dunckel Road. City staff has determined that the improvements relating to the portion of the property presently zoned "F"Commercial (the two eastern curb cuts and the turning lanes) would be required of the proposed project under current site plan review regulations, independent of the pending zone change request . The applicant has submitted a letter and drawing indicating these plans (attached) . with these issues being clarified to staff' s satisfaction, staff recommends approval of the zone change request . 0 Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" Z-16-95 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail C.U.P . to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Martin Property Development Inc . 1111 Michigan Avenue E. Lansing, MI 48823 STATUS OF APPLICANT:Represents Owner OWNER: Edward Rose Realty 6100 Newport Road P.O. Sox 3015 Kalamazoo, MI 49003 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone the Trapper's Cove apartment complex from "Community Unit Plan" to "DM-l" Multiple Family Residential and "F" Commercial zoning districts EXISTING LAND USE: Proposed "F" Commercial portion is presently vacant (undeveloped) ; the remainder is primarily the developed portion of Trapper' s Cove Apartments LOCATION: South of Dunckel Road, north of Jolly Road, and west of US-127/I-496 EXISTING ZONING: ,C.U.P. " Community Unit Plan PROPERTY SIZE: Approximately 80 acres SURROUNDING LAND N:. Undeveloped USE: S: Multi-family residential E: Transportation (US-127/I-496) W: Single-family residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: ,C.U.P" Community Unit Plan residential E: "N/A W: ,C.U.P" Community Unit Plan residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for high density residential use and for a small area of commercial development. AGENCY RESPONSES : Ameritech: None PLANNING BOARD Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail PAGE 2 C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts Board of Water & Light: The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns . . . Water Technical Support/Distribution site plan approved. Need water main and service plan as soon as possible. Fire Marshall: Approved Transportation Engineer: The proposed rezoning could have a significant impact on Dunckel Road. A commercial use, generating a medium to large amount of traffic, with driveways onto Dunckel Road would change the character of the roadway. The reconstruction of roadway.. to a three lane cross section would be required to handle the increase in traffic volume in this area. No driveways should be allowed on the curved section of Dunckel Road. A drive on the curve could result in inadequate intersectional and stopping distances; resulting in severe safety problems . A traffic intensive commercial use for this property should not be considered unless substantial changes to Dunckel Road are proposed. Building Safety: Commercial building construction is subject to compliance with the site plan review process administered by the Building Safety Office. In like manner, the project will be subject to compliance with the provisions of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code 1994 edition. Contact . . . (483-4381) for further information. Continental Cable: Continental Cable does not currently service Trapper' s Cove properties . We would want to know if our services are requested at this site. Development Office: No Comment Michigan Dept. Transportation: The MDOT has no objections to the proposed rezoning. To preserve the functional integrity of Dunckel Road the Dept. would recommend that all access to the properties in question should be via Trapper' s Cove Trail. PLANNING BOARD Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail PAGE 3 C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "P" commercial Districts Forest View Citizens Association: Up to a point we realize that development must happen - we would like you to consider the traffic problems on this section of Dunckel Road before you make up your mind though. The traffic light at Dunckel & Jolly and Dunckel and the westbound entrance do not control the traffic at the east entrance to the Collins Road intersection. A high volume retail business would increase the congestion. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources : No response received. Ingham County Drain Commissioner: The drainage from commercial property will be Bear Swamp Drain. This drain is under jurisdiction of the City of Lansing. Our office has no objections . City of Lansing has erosion control responsibilities . If area is not constructed properly the large wetland to the north could be damaged. ANALYSIS Location The subject property is bounded by Dunckel Road on the north, Interstate 127/496 on the east. Beaujardin Apartments and Jolly Road are to the south. West of Dunckel Road is the eastern terminus of Cavanaugh Road and a single family residential neighborhood (Figure 1, Area Map) . Character Trapper' s Cove Apartments currently consists of 24 apartment buildings on seven lots approximating 65 acres : of the 965 apartments, 661 are one bedroom units and 304 are two bedroom units, for an overall residential density of 14 .8 units per acre. Table 1 tabulates the lot size, the number of units, and overall residential density for the Trapper' s Cove Apartments . Trapper' s Cove Trail provides access into the development from Dunckel Road. Dunckel Road has no other intersections or traffic flow interruptions between Trapper' s Cove Trail and the freeway exit/entrance ramps to the north east. Noteworthy physical characteristics of the site include a pond located on the northern portion of lot seven. This pond is adjacent to a low wooded area which straddles both Lot 7 and the adjacent outparcel proposed for commercial use. This wooded area PLANNING BOARD Z-16-95, 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail PAGE 4 C.U.P. to 'DM-10 Residential and 'F' commercial Districts contains some mature hardwood trees and possible wetland areas . This area drains to the northwest through the "Sear Swamp Drain. " The rezoning request also includes 5 . 4 acres of a 8 . 36 acre parcel (Figure 2, Survey of Commercial Property) . Approximately 3 acres of this parcel is currently zoned "F" Commercial; the applicant has requested the remainder of the parcel be rezoned from "C.U.P. " to "F" Commercial. This parcel has its only street frontage on Dunckel Road, and is adjacent to the freeway' s southbound entrance ramp. TABLE 1 Lot No. Acres Units Units/acre 1 6 .55 108 16 .5 2 5 .59 85 15 . 2 3 11.29 176 15 . 6 3a 4 .25 94 22 . 1 4 4 .3 94 21. 8 5 8 . 31 176 21.2 6 10 .41 130 12 .5 7 14 . 6 102 6 .98 subtotal 65 .24 965 14 . 8 Out-Parcel 8 . 36 0 N/A (existing and proposed commercial) Total 73 . 6 Density The DM-1 Zoning District permits residential development at a density ranging from 11 .4 to 19 .8 units per acre. Overall, the existing development falls into this density range; however, lots 3a, 4 , and 5 have densities slightly higher than this range. Traffic The potential for traffic to impact Dunckel Road is a major concern regarding this development. With the location of the subject property adjacent to a freeway interchange, the potential for high traffic uses (such as fast food, gasoline, hotels) amplifies the potential impact of higher traffic volume. In addition, the potential impact on operational characteristics of PLANNING BOARD Z-16-95 , 2700-3328 Trappers Cove Trail PAGE 5 C.U.P. to "DM-1" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts traffic flow caused by additional curb cuts and other interruptions to the traffic stream could severely impact the level of service for traffic using Dunckel Road. Environment Preservation of at least some of the existing trees and wetland area are an important part of protecting the natural environment and the visual environment, or aesthetic impact of the potential commercial development. As a condition of previous subdivision plat approvals, a concern for preservation of the woodland areas was expressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from CUP to "DM-1" Multiple Family Residential with the condition that parcels 3a, 41 & 5 need to be adjusted for lot size in order fall within the maximum density limits set for the "DM-1" Zone. There are potentially a number of ways to approach this problem, either through combination of existing parcels or using lot splits to make minor adjustments in property lines . Staff's recommendation of approval for the 5 . 4 acre parcel for. rezoning from "C.U.P. " to "F" Commercial is somewhat more qualified: staff believes that this is an appropriate location for limited commercial development if it is implemented in a manner sensitive to traffic flow on Dunckel Road and its impact on the adjacent woodland and wetland areas . Planning Staff ' s recommendations include mandating the Traffic Engineer' s recommendations , designating a minimum woodland preservation plan be prepared and implemented by the developer, and protection for any wetland areas on site. i CER11FICATE OF SURVEY i FOR: EDWARD ROSE REALTY SE CORNER 6100 NEWPORT ROAD , / - SECTION 35 PO BOX 3015 L ` ��'°� T4N, R2W KALAMAZOO. MI 49003 0� "���' ,-24'44'32"W CITY OF LANSING 0.63 INGHAM COUNTY N39°46'24"W M I CH I GAN 208.91' N00°033/'45"E N48°03'47"W 1455.54' 396.33, N 18°29'45"W 337.47' 1 EAST LINE SE 1/4 N52°19'45"N! SECTION 35 26920' LIMITED ACCESS ROW LINE I-496 N86009'45"W 281.71'—'' �(SO4°00'48"W 235.35') SOUTHERLY ROW S03'50'15"W 235.00' UNE DUNCKEL ROAD POBcl:-� M p 6 Y-O H Q O=� Z � 0 so to L� co co En Wu 0 d J tO � U= Li_l 'n °'ro �Z \/ 4m� Oo —S_ - w co ao zm o z cow (S03052'30"W 238.191) 1W ,m soo Q _ S03'50'15'W 237.94' SOUTHERLY ROW FOUND 1/2 UNE DUNCKEL ROAD c' BAR k CAP , M 33 0 = 39°O5'OS" 8.3 6 ACRES o L = 524.24' b 0 co Q, CH = 514.14 co cn = N74021'08"W - 4-0.43' Qi EDGE OF WATER ( ) ° cP (15' +/-) 0 = 3TO2'13" (15' R = 768.51 L = 5 24.10' CH = 513.55 = N74716'36 E N3TOO'00'E 4-0.00' 9,k\ (N3605V05"E 40.29') TRAPPERS COVE NO. 1 REC UBER 36, P 37&38 INGHAM COUNTY RECORDS I FrFNn I NORTH Z-16-95 /y,4 P Trapper's Cove Apartment Complex • EXIST 67 ' 'LONINL7 QRo4�se l� if i..a•.ra�ai I SE -- i oPoS� •�► , O r' Ilk - 0 eEoaxa Z-16-95 /H17 P TYapper's Cove Apartment Complex EXST�U • 2 �,vINC7 ' QROYos�� � ` SAL Po5L ,....,LL�,.. SE o 14TA 3 '- aej- - _ _ f _ Approved March 19, 1996 with corrections Pg 4 Ln 6.02" Pos 6.52" M,a Fg.�e PEBRUARY 20, 1996; Pg 4 Ln 7.57" Pos 6.54" M&Fe.-5,--1996 PEBRUARY 20, 1996; Pg 5 Ln 2.72" Pos 6.68" March 124, 1996 ' APPROVED 031996 TO CLERK 032996 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue = TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1996 c- -�- I. OPENING SESSION �= Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. LID A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, LeBlanc, Robinson, Ruge; four members present; one absent, Nischan; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers: Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences- Greiner. Ms. Marshall, who requested an excused absence (bronchitis), was given an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator. D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street, "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Scott McLc in, resident and owner of the property, to zone the property in accordance with its land use, single-family. The "C" Residential District, which allows single- or two-family development, conforms with the master plan. SCOTT McLAIN, 1405 CENTER STREET. We were denied a mortgage. If a fire occurred, it could only be repaired up to$35,000, not$45,000, the SEV. Ultimately we did receive a mortgage, after the mortgage company learned that it was in the master plan. It is a beautiful neighborhood of home owner-residents, but the zoning does not fit. The filter company is on the southwest corner, the only business on the block. PETER GUINS, 1407 CENTER STREET, next door. I speak in favor of the rezoning. On that block, there are five remaining incorrectly-zoned houses, which I am eager to see residentially zoned, preferably on the City's initiative. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting Wednesday, March 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, 119 N. Washington Square. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 2 B. Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland&Cedar Sts. , "C" Residential to"F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Thomas DeBoer, a commercial realtor representing the potential owner of the property at the southwest corner of Cedar Street and Oakland Avenue. The developer wishes to construct a commercial building of approximately 4,250 sq. ft. for use as an automotive glass service facility. The applicant wants to build the building up to the south property line, which is adjacent to other residentially-zoned property. Ms. LeBlanc asked if a site plan has been received showing an internal traffic circulation plan? It is on a hill and may pose traffic problems. Mr. Ruff said there is somewhat of a site plan. The land drops off to the west. They are looking at limiting access to serve the facility without jeopardizing the intersection. Mr. Ruge asked what are rear and side yard setbacks? Mr. Ruff said "F" Commercial zoning requires a 20-ft. front yard, 25-ft. rear yard, and a side yard varying from 0 to 25 ft. , depending on adjacent uses. They propose to minimize the setback on the south side, adjacent to a vacant residentially-zoned property and exceed setbacks around the other parts to maximize lot usage. The business proposed is an automotive glass business doing most business off-site-- they will come to you to repair your windshield. They will have a couple bays there, so they are required to have on-site parking. If the Planning Office determines that a setback, that they don't have, is required at the south property line, they could appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Love said as a corner lot, they have two front yards, but they can choose the side and the rear. Depending on what they choose, and adjacent uses, appropriate side yard setbacks can be determined for the building at the location. Mr. Ruge asked if billboards are allowed in"F" Commercial zoning; Mr. Ruff said yes, but they can't be within 75 feet of a residentially-zoned property, and they must meet the other setback requirements for the district. Mr. Robinson asked, regarding the master plan update, is the plan to keep it residential? Mr. Ruff said we have discussed this block in the past because of surrounding uses and traffic. I am not going to obligate the neighborhood group working presently on the plan. In the past, if the property is going to be rezoned, we would prefer it not be done piece-meal, but rather comprehensively, rezoning the entire Cedar Street blockface, for greater control. A master plan for the area is in process. Mr. Ruge said it would seem that this proposal may be premature, because it could set the character for the area. TOM DeBOER, PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES GROUP, 300 OTTAWA AVE. NW, SUITE 150, GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503. About five months ago, I was requested to do a property search here in the Lansing area for a new company out of Madison, Wisconsin, Auto Glass Specialists. One objective for site location PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 3 was high visibility, high traffic, and central location. Ninety percent of repair calls are off-site; the repair truck comes to where your car is parked. Less than ten percent of business is done on-site. They will have two bays minimum, but we want to stay within the ordinance requirements. We have already talked with Jim about that. Regarding deliveries, they do carry a fair amount of inventory, which will be made during evenings, between 10 p.m. and midnight. The next morning, trucks are dispatched to different locations as needed. Regarding the building itself, the company is concerned with the image and profile that they maintain for all their locations. It will look as nice as other buildings on corners-- Arby's, A&W, and Rally's. It will be a commercial look, with a sign. Oakland goes westbound, Cedar is southbound, so we are set back. We hope to create a green space on the corner, especially Oakland Avenue. There will not be a curb cut on Oakland, but we would ask for one curb cut along North Cedar. Ideally, the ideal situation would have been to purchase both this lot and the adjoining lot to the south. There is a letter of opposition in the file. We made proposals to them, and they have not responded; they said they are not interested in selling. I am not sure why. It is zoned residential, but as has been mentioned, this is a transitional area. Dr. George Bettman owns the property; the home was razed about five years ago. Sometime before that, the home on the property to the south was also torn down. We would prefer to buy the property just to the south. That would allow us to turn our building 90 degrees. The sign and curb cuts are issues we will address in the next stage. Mr. Ruge asked about the timeline; Mr. DeBoer said we would like to be operational by June if possible, for this or an alternative site. If we get the rezoning by April, then 90 days minimum, or 120 days, or into July when we can be up and operating. Mr. Robinson asked how many employees; Mr. DeBoer said three employees on site. Probably six employees to start, to drive the trucks, which would be stored inside the garage overnight. Some employees would be in during the evenings to stock trucks and ready them for next morning. Chairman Goolsby said, in terms of trucks coming in between ten and 12 midnight, can they drive in and unload. Mr. DeBoer said trucks will pull up to the door and unload; unloading will be done by hand by two people, the driver and a helper. Because they are delivering five nights a night, they don't have to carry a huge inventory. Mr. Robinson asked about hours of operation; they will begin at 7 a.m.; retail operations will close at 5 to 6 p.m. Mr. Ruge asked about parking; requirements will be for about fifteen cars to be parked at the western end and around the back; no problems are anticipated. Some employees will take trucks home with them. Mr. DeBoer reiterated that delivery trucks are not semi trailers, rather, they are like a big Ryder truck, about 24 feet long. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 4 GEORGE BETTMAN, 944 WALBRIDGE, EAST LANSING. I lived in the house that was there. My mother owned it for over fifty years; it was a rental for many years. It is not a residential area any more. That is why Mr. Spaulding tore his house down approximately ten years ago. We tore this house down maybe five years ago. This is the only corner that does not have the heavy traffic of fast food. I would like to see some buildings that would provide a tax base and look nicer. I encourage you to approve this. Referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting Wednesday, March 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, 119 N. Washington Square. Chairman Goolsby said it is not likely that this matter will be scheduled for March 13 given the sensitivity of the area. The petitioner would be notified if the case is considered before the next Board meeting March 19, 1996, or during the recess at that Board meeting. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: February 20, 1996 (not March 5, 1996) . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of Mai-eh 5 1996 FEBRUARY 20, 1996. Mr. Ruge said on Page 4, fourth paragraph, it should be "On a voice vote there were: Ayes: 6 . . . ,t PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; minutes of 5 "Mapeh vim 1996 FEBRUARY 20, 1996 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee has not met since February 14; the next meeting is Wednesday, March 14, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, at which time Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street, "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District following items will be considered. Probably Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , "C" Residential to "F" Commercial PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 5 District will not be considered. We will also consider NCU-1-963 1527 S. Washington, Addition to Single-Family Residence in "F" Commercial District. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. Mr. Ruge said the Urban Development Committee has not met since our last Board meeting. We plan to meet on Tuesday, March 123, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Division Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, at which time the following items will be considered: a. Act-2-96, SE Corner Case & Grand River, Sale for Parking, PPN 3301-10-302-001 & -011 b. Act-5-96, Blk. 2, Carroll's Addn. (Jerome& Vine Sts.), Vacation of E-W Alley C. ACT-7-96, S. Side of Miller Rd., 440' W. of Wise Rd. , Market for Development, PPN 3305-07-126-022 At the meeting of February 20, 1996, Ms. Marshall requested an excused absence for March 12. Mr. Goolsby volunteered to fill in for her. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. Department representatives have met several times with the Mayor and his budget staff regarding next year's budget. We originally bad a budget of$2,110,000; that has been trimmed to$2,023,672. The Mayor's budget staff asked all departments to cut less than one percent. We have accomplished that and maintained half a secretarial position and,one part-time inspector, whose primary responsibility will be mechanical permits, but who will be cross-trained on signs. The add-ons that we requested were money for the Economic Development Corporation services and a Downtown Strategic Plan, $30,000. If our Department can generate sufficient revenue they will give us the$30,000. We hope to do the Strategic Plan very soon. I attended the Committee on Development and Planning (Mr. Lilly's committee) this afternoon; the three items on the agenda were SLU-11-95, 3016 Risdale Avenue, Addition onto Existing sting AFC Facility, SLU-16-95, Vacant 7-acre Parcel at N. end of Westwood Ave., Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Persons. and SLU-17-95, Vacant 3.37-acre Parcel off S. end of Coulson Ct., Residential Care Facility for 8-10 Elderly Per-sons. The meeting, which started at 4 p.m., was over at 6:30. After much deliberation, they finally approved Risdale, and they tabled Westwood and Coulson. No residents were present from Risdale; however, there were residents from both Westwood and Coulson. None of the arguments PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 6 had changed from what we heard at the Planning Board level. What they are proposing to do is got together with the ward councilperson and the Pblu i g staff to work out what would be acceptable appropriate conditions to address appropriate reasonable concerns and yet make accommodation for the facility. We have set a meeting next Thursday at 5:30 p.m. to work on Westwood; the meeting has not as yet been set for Coulson Court. In some ways, it was a very good discussion because councilmembers began to understand ramifications of the Supreme Court decision. They are looking for ways to make this as much of a win-win situation as possible. At the last meeting, several Board members asked about 4720 S. Cedar Street, the question being the vote by Mr. Mark Canady, the attorney representing Mr. Hacker. The first case, Z-5-94, was withdrawn and so had no vote by Council. The second case, Z-11-95, 4720 S. Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and"F" Commercial Districts, did go to Council; it was denied on November 13, 1995 by a unanimous vote. Mr. Canady was in attendance. "I have a copy of both the resolution and the minutes for that evening indicating that Councilmember Canady was in fact present." Mr. Ruff said he has received a letter from Mr. Canady, in response to a letter to Mr. Candy asking for reasons for the application, since it is not different from the last one. It is more of a preapplication, because there wasn't any money enclosed. The letter said"We will be glad to sit down and discuss modifications to the request which are mutually agreed upon and warranted." MSPO is doing Board training on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, both for the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Board, two concurrent sessions to be held here in town. "I am going to send Louise for the Planning Board session, and Rhonda for the Board of Zoning Appeals session, because it is important for them to be congnizant of basics. All new Board members should also attend." We have prepared a public hearing notice for the March 19 meeting for Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment. This is the River Street triangle property owned by the City of Lansing. The City has received a proposed purchase offer tendered by Joel Ferguson, representing the Riverfront Limited Liability Company. Several issues must be dealt with, including the fact that, technically, the City of Taming does not own the property. It was purchased by the Lansing Building Authority, a quasi-public arm of the City with has its own board and funds. In addition to the terminal, there is the office building which has no parking. Approximately 200 parking spaces for the office building were to be leased through that parking lot. All of these variables must be considered; also it is riverfront property. The sales agreement does not indicate a proposed use, only purchase at fair market value. In meetings, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 7 Mr. Ferguson has said he could build a courts facility on the triangle, but the purchase offer does not specify that. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-95, Case and Grand River Ave. , Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot. Action postponed in committee February 13, 1996 VI. NEW BUSINESS - None. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby received a letter from Representative Martinez concerning Senate Bill 653 which he will bring for file and future reference. We have also received a communication regarding Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland&Cedar Sts. , "C"Residential to"F" Commercial District from Mr. Richard Endreson and Norm Spalding, who are the owners of the vacant piece of property. The letter indicates that they object to the rezoning for several reasons. "A.) The entire block should be rezoned to the same zoning classification. "Spot" zoning is not in the best interests of the City of Lansing or area property owners. Spot rezoning of this parcel of land does not utilize the potential of this last piece of unspoiled and uncontaminated land with a beautiful skyline view of downtown Lansing. B.) We do not want a commercial building constructed along our lot line inhibiting our view. Who wants to look at a block wall? We will fight the proposed site plan in court if necessary. C.) The proposed use (glass repairs, sun rods, bug shields) does not blend with the other businesses in the area. These businesses have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their facilities, which includes office buildings, restaurants and strip malls. Once again, we adamantly oppose this rezoning request." VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Ruge asked if progress had been made on Act-2-95. Mr. Ruff said that today he and Mr. Rieske took photos of the area. A meeting will be set up with Mr. Patenge to discuss the use of the property. Mr. Rieske will have a report ready for the committee, including polaroids. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996 - P. 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about a letter Mr. Ruff directed to the Lutheran church on Saginaw. Mr. Ruff stated he has written it; however, he has had some discussions with a church member. No enforcement action has been taken. Regarding the insurance company, Mr. Ruff said for drainage. They had a partially- asphalted front yard where a planter designated a no-parking area. The planter has been moved. A letter has not yet been written. Ms. LeBlanc said she wanted information from the Master Plan committee before taking up Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , "C" Residential to "F" Commercial. Chairman Goolsby said, "Over the last week, every time I run into people who live or work near the stadium, I am asked'What are you going to do about parking?' I always respond 'That is not our responsibility,'but it is something that people are concerned about." Ms. Love said the City recently initiated a new employee parking lot called Lot #50, at the southwest corner of Shiawassee and Pere Marquette. Various businesses along Pere Marquette and in the block of East Michigan Avenue and Larch have all been contacted about leasing employee parking out of this lot. Additionally, when the stadium is complete and all the equipment has been removed from in front of the stadium, there will be two lots each with 30 metered spaces, for a total of 60 spaces; 30 spaces on the corner of Cedar and Michigan and 30 at the corner of Larch and Michigan. These metered spaces will be available for public use. They will be used primarily by adjacent businesses. The new Quest live business at 601 E. Michigan Avenue can use the spaces. The Dugout will have spaces in the East Michigan lot directly east of them. That lot will become metered. The City has taken care of the Blue Coyote in terms of providing them with parking. An ice cream business called the Creamery is going in at the northwest corner of Michigan and Pere Marquette in the old Jan's Rooms. They have leased parking spaces from the old State Library on the other side of the tracks. All the businesses have parking available for employees and clients. People will walk from downtown, and also be shuttled in from the North and South Grand ramps. For the Michigan State game, they will be shuttled from East Lansing. Chairman Goolsby suggested that the City send a letter to property owners in the area explaining the parking situation. Seeing the City is dealing with the problem will qwell trepidation. Ms. Love said by now most of the businesses should have been contacted regarding parking. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn030596 a:\28 APPROVED 040296-WITH MINOR EDITORIAL EMENDATIONS Page 11. APPROVED 040296 TO CLERK 042296 Minutes of the Regular Meeting " LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; six members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers: Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence - Marshall. At the February 20, 1996 meeting, Ms. Marshall requested and was granted an excused absence for March 20, 1996. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. D. Approval of Agenda - approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Joel Ferguson, representing Riverfront Towers Ltd. Liability Co. , to purchase property located at the northeast corner of Kalamazoo and Grand River extending to the Grand River and north to the Washtenaw Street right-of-way. This property is under the jurisdiction of the Lansing Building Authority, created by the City of Lansing to acquire various properties in the central area of the city through a bond issue for parking purposes. The properties in this block were purchased by the City with the intent of being made into a parking lot. The property which is adjacent to the river contains various utility easements as well as an easement along the river for public purpose and a street easement. The surrounding properties are office or commercial--Davenport College to the south, the Grand Tower Building housing the State Department of Social Services to the north; to the west a parking lot and properties fronting on Washington Avenue which are retail and office in nature . The applicant is requesting to purchase the property at fair market value; however, he does not specify a use. In addition to the agency responses in the packet, Ms. Love distributed additional responses which arrived today from the Transportation Engineer, Public Service Director, River and Waterfront Board, Economic Development Corporation/TIFA, Downtown Neighborhood Association, BWL, Parks and Recreation, and the Development Office. The Dept. of Social Services had concerns about their parking. They say it would be irresponsible for the City to sell the property without a plan in place and a location to park in for state and private vehicles which would be displaced from this lot. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 2 The Board needs to understand the complex nature of the ownership and use of this property and how it is tied into downtown activities underway now or in the future. The property was purchased by the Building Authority with money from a parking bond issue, which specified that property must be used for parking purposes. The only way it could be used for private use is if the Lansing Building Authority declared it excess property and not needed for parking. The Lansing Building Authority has responded that it does not believe the subject parcel is excess property. Secondly, the property is tied to the development of the Ground Transportation Center. In the City Council resolution authorizing development, 200 spaces of the lot are promised to the GTC and to the office building. Thirdly, when the City refinanced its parking debt, TIFA became involved by agreeing to receive an asset in return for the financing that they were putting into the project. The asset was this parking lot; basically it is the collateral for the Tax Increment Financing Authority. It is a complex ownership system. The first question is whether or not this property should be for sale? Second, if it is for sale, under what conditions or circumstances should that occur? At this point, no agency having an ownership interest believes that it is excess property. Mr. Ferguson requested and was given a copy of the agency responses. Chairman Goolsby declared a five-minute recess for Board members to review the responses. Subsequently, the Board reconvened. Ms. Love said the City raised $36 or $37 million to buy parking, believing there was going to be a huge increase in the number of office buildings. In 1985-86, downtown businesses and developers were surveyed. Based on projections, the City issued a parking bond to buy downtown property. Because of changes that occurred--properties becoming more expensive, and relocation and demo costs increasing-- the City got only about two-thirds of the way through the program when they ran out of money. They needed to pay off the bonds, so TIFA stepped in at this point to refinance and restructure the parking debt. In order to do this, they had to accept collateral, in this case, the parking lot. Mr. Robinson asked Ms. Love to quantify the downtown parking situation. Ms. Love said it is tight; however, the City has gained control of several additional lots near 600 E. Michigan Avenue and can handle the traffic coming into that area. The only structure not now fully utilized, the South Capitol Ramp, will fill up after Cooley completes renovation of their building next door. Mr. Ruge asked about Mr. Berridge's suggestion of building a parking ramp as part of development. Ms. Love said Lansing Building Authority, TIFA and Economic Development Corporation all would have to agree. Mr. Goolsby, passing the gavel, requested a breakdown of downtown parking, the number of permits in each ramp, capacity both available PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 3 and rented, monthly parking charges, and usage on a given day, including this parcel and the four ramps. JOEL FERGUSON, 1341 CAMBRIDGE. My son, David, and I have a partnership to develop the property. As background, when I first developed Capitol Commons, it was financed by HUD, not MSHDA. I went back to the City and applied for a UDAG grant. We got a second phase. I am very proud of the eight-story building at Kalamazoo and Pine and the sixteen blocks we developed. The City forgot to buy the two apartments in the middle of the development that were a blight. I bought them and, working with MSHDA, redeveloped them as a third phase of Capitol Commons. Now we have a chance to cross Butler Street and clean up the development in that direction. I am also the developer of Riverfront; I am proud of Riverfront. I am hearing the same arguments today as then, that the area was needed for Fourth of July fireworks parking. I went in with Max Kuhn and Doug Johns to develop the Grandview property. Next to the ramp is the Grand Tower, the building everybody is saying the City has an obligation to provide parking for. When it was built, that was not a condition of the mortgage. The first five years the building existed, the Black and Tan was there, and everything else, and building occupants found a place to park. Gentilozzi was a competitor in this building development, but when but it got bogged down in the legislature, I interceded with Democratic legislators to vote for the development because I am committed to developing Lansing. I am pleased to be here this evening because I can rationally deal with the parking situation. I have been working with the courts to put the courts on this site, which is a much better location than the Grady Porter building. I have also been talking with MSHDA, to put them or some other state department on the other part of the site. Our proposal would increase existing parking. We planned to put 380 parking spaces under the building, and landscaped surface parking in front of the building. This development would provide more parking places for baseball than what exists today. The argument that we got was that we have a commitment to the Olympic Towers development for 200 parking places. I own half of that. I am certain I am going to waive that and figure out something. I understand the agreements I have. I like not having to deal with moving targets to see when I have a development that makes sense. When I see Doug and Max talk about, give us a second crack on Joel's idea, I love it because I will never waive the parking agreement we have with the City for them. So I guess that property really isn't available to them. As far as staging for CATA, since Granger is the contractor, I am certain that Granger will find another staging area for the GTC. I like this because I now don't have a moving target and we can move forward. I tease people and say I wish I was from some other city, because if I walked into Lansing as a developer and put my credentials on the table, people would greet me with open arms. Since everybody sees me every day, it's an obstacle course trying to put another new development together that makes sense for the people of Lansing. I feel we have done an excellent job PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 4 in providing service back to the people of Lansing and been a positive force in this community. I am eager to do this with my son who has a degree in design from the university; he is going to be a lead person on this development. I talked to Judge Houk this evening about amenities for the courts. I pointed out that the proposal they have for the Grady Porter site for $16 million for a district court I could do on this site for $14 million, which would allow for an expansion if the District Court is moved to this site in the future. If they want to spend an extra million, the Probate Court could be put on this site. Judge Houk said who are you talking to, to be our neighbor. I said MSHDA and he said great. We talked about enhancing the river--a plaza would be here. I have never heard of a progressive city that said let's maintain a parking lot to stop development. I didn't know this was coming, and I had already planned on increasing existing parking. It was natural to maximize the site. I said I will buy the property unconditionally. Mr. Goolsby, passing the gavel, asked how much square footage? Mr. Ferguson said up to 200,000 square feet; if we are dealing with MSHDA or anyone else, 100,000 square feet. I don't want to create a parking problem for tenants and neighbors and people who are going to use the facility. We would charge people to park, so it is a business. Neighbors would not lose spaces. For the courts, we propose 85,000 sq. ft. , but we hope the courts decide to take the necessary square footage they would need from the Grady Porter building (which is not 100,000 square feet, because there is a lot of dead space in the building--it probably would be 60-70,000 sq. ft. ) and put it on this site, which could very easily handle the parking and still have space left over. I want to take the Porter building in on trade, because I have a tenant for it; if I could get them to trade, they could move everyone into the next century. Then I could rehab the Porter building and make it Class B or Class A space. I'd like, when I take both tenants, at between 200-250,000 square footage on site, to have an atrium. I believe buildings should have super landscaping or some type of art. The developer should set space aside--it should not be bare and stark. Mr. Goolsby said you mentioned 280 below-grade parking spaces; how many surface parking spaces would be left? Mr. Ferguson said about 200, because of setbacks and floodplain and setbacks from the river. Developers can't encroach on natural space, because it is an asset. Mr. Ruge asked if all the courts, Circuit, Probate, District, will move there? Mr. Ferguson said probably the City could not move District Court. The new court reorganization, calling for the Probate Court and the District Court to be together, yes, I would like to put those courts with the Circuit Court. That is not a lot of square footage. I would like to put the Probate Court with the Circuit courts. With the new court reorganization, there is a good chance those courts will be merged. The way I have designed the building would allow that type of expansion. We are in 14 cities across the state; I have done adequate planning on these developments. We are full everywhere; we wouldn't PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 5 be if we hadn't adequately planned the developments and weren't treating the tenants properly. I am trying to plan this development in such a way that the City should be working with me to knock each of these arguments down. Chairman Goolsby said the item is referred to the Urban Development Committee which meets on Tuesday, April 9, 1996 in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, 119 N. Washington Square. CHARLES H. FRANK, 235 S. GRAND, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES. We just learned this afternoon of this proposal. We felt the need to address it, though we did not know the details of Mr. Ferguson's plan. We want the City to take into account the parking need for the Dept. of Social Services both for state cars and for state employees. The development of the Grand Tower was with the City's concurrence, that the City would move toward providing sufficient parking in the neighboring area. We are not saying the parking has to be on the site, we are saying by the fact that it is all rented out that the market is there for parking in the area. We want to make sure that as part of the considerations that the City takes meeting the need into account and in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Ruge asked how many parking spaces do you need with the building? Mr. Frank deferred to Mary Cook. MARY COOK, 1037 MORGAN, LANSING. I am the vehicle manager for the Dept. of Social Services for the State of Michigan. I manage a fleet of over I,200 vehicles statewide. Prior to the opening of Lot 6, the lot in question, I had 30 state cars parked on the roof of the S. Grand Ramp. We have had problems with vandalism because it is out of sight, out of mind. The night before we moved the cars, we had many cars vandalized, antennas bent, windshields broken, tires slashed, and gas tank lids thrown into the Grand River. We have not had any vandalism problems since we moved cars into the new lot. There are 475 spaces in Lot 6 with a waiting list of over 200. The South Grand Ramp has a waiting list of nearly 100. We are not against progress, we just like to help our employees find parking downtown. The City gets around $25,000 per month in parking permits. I have 36 cars parked in Lot 6, and we do pay extra for those spaces. I also have handicappers. The new handicap Act that went into effect May 1, there is free parking at City meters only if you meet very strict criteria concerning your handicap. Many people who have legitimate handicap disabilities can no longer park at those meters, so that has shifted them my way, because I handle the parking for handicapped persons. We don't have any more handicapped parking spaces; we have a list of people needing spaces. The City lots are full, and it is becoming a problem. We had a two-year agreement with the City for Lot 6, and it has one more year to go. Mr. Ruge asked how many spaces does the building need? Ms. Cook said there are 1,200-1,300 employees in the building the majority of whom park in the 475 spaces in the lot. There are an additional 200 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 6 persons on a waiting list. Many people park in the Ellis Lot west across Grand Avenue at $3.50 per day. Others park in the South Grand Ramp. Mr. Robinson said he noticed in the agreements with individuals that the maximum length was for five years. What is the time table for Mr. Ferguson's development as to starting and completing. Mr. Ferguson said it will take fifteen to eighteen months. While we are doing the development, the majority of the parking lot will still be in use. The commitment with the state could still be honored if we start this year. If we start next year, that commitment will be past. Mr. Ruge asked if the number of parking spaces could be increased; Mr. Ferguson said yes. Mr. Ruge said if more than 580 spaces were available, somebody could make some money. Mr. Ferguson said we will add more spaces so long as we don't ruin the character of the building. I would never put a parking ramp in front of the building; we could go down to another level. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None. IV. RECESS The Chairman declared a short recess; the Board subsequently reconvened. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 5, 1996 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, to approve the minutes of March 5, 1996. Mr. Ruge pointed out corrections: Pg 4 Ln 6.02" Pos 6.52" Mapeh 5�-1 FEBRUARY 20, 1996; Pg 4 Ln 7.57" Pos 6.54" Mai-eh 5, 1996 FEBRUARY 20, 1996; Mr. Robinson pointed out a correction: Pg 5 Ln 2.72" Pos 6.68" March 123. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of March 5, 1996 were APPROVED. B . Minutes for Approval: February 20, 1996 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to reapprove the minutes of February 20, with the corrections noted at the meeting of March 5, 1996 when only four members were present. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 7 On a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of February 20, 1996 were APPROVED. C. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Committee met on Wednesday, March 13, 1996. a. Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street, "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District. The applicant is requesting the zoning change in order to make the zoning, "H" Light Industrial, conform to the land use, which is single family residential. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the petition conforms to the residential land use, and the master plan for the area; also, the requested zoning will not adversely effect circulation or the environment. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street, from "H" Light Industrial to "C". Residential District. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto, and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street from "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Z-1-96, 1405 Center Street, "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , "C" Residential to "F" Commercial District The developer wishes to rezone the property to permit construction of a commercial building of approximately 4,250 square feet in size for use as an automotive glass service facility. The applicant is proposing to construct this building up to the south property line which is adjacent to other residentially-zoned property. The request is to rezone approximately one-third acre from residential to commercial zoning. The subject property is presently vacant. The small size of the site may present problems with meeting zoning requirements for its development. The site has excellent views of the City's skyline, and is situated within walking distance of downtown. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 8 The requested rezoning is not in conformance with the current master plan in effect for the area. In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the rezoning of the property at this time for this segment of the block was not in the best interest of the future land use of the block. Further, the committee found that the requested rezoning is not in conformance with the current Master Plan for the area and that development of the site as proposed would create an obstacle to the planning of the logical and efficient land use patterns for the block with regard to land use, traffic, access, and natural environmental features. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (4-0) , to deny Z-2- 96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , from "C" Residential to "F" Commercial District. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto, and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , from "C" Residential to "F" Commercial District. Mr. Robinson requested some clarification. Ms. LeBlanc said regarding the view of the Capitol, and being within walking distance, that is considering whether or not the property should be residential. Also, since the Master Plan committee is at work, the committee should make the decision, and not have it made for them by an action such as this request. Chairman Goolsby said the entire block is zoned residential, even though this property and the one next door are vacant. Mr. Ruff said the site plan is difficult because it is a tight site; the developer had concerns about how the project would fit. In trying to maximize site usage, they want to place the building up to the property line, which, though allowable by code, is not preferable, because it abuts residentially zoned property. The staff report mentions the block should not be developed in a piecemeal basis. The problem with developing such a small piece is that the next site is constrained, and it becomes a tight site, and a ripple effect is set up. It would be better to develop the entire block in a cohesive manner, utilizing the views and positive aspects of the block such as its location, recognizing traffic and commercial uses, and yet preserving positive features of the site. This is impossible under the present Master Plan, unless developed residentially. Mr. Ruge asked, given the current revision of the Master Plan, has holding this request for Plan completion been considered? Mr. Goolsby said the developer wants to move quickly, and in fairness to them, we need to make our decision now so they can consider other properties. Ms. Love said the whole block should be developed cohesively and with sensitivity because of its topography and proximity to downtown. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. An Aye vote is a vote for denial. LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye Goolsby Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 192 1996 - P. 9 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts. , from "C" Residential to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be DENIED. C. NCU-1-96, 1527 S. Washington, Class A Nonconforming status The applicant wishes to expand the existing single family house on a commercially- zoned parcel. It is nonconforming since single family homes are not permitted in the "F" Commercial District. The proposed expansion of the nonconforming single family home will not create any traffic, pollution, or parking problems for the area in which it is located. In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that granting Class A nonconforming status for the expansion of this single-family home in the "F" Commercial District will not adversely impact the surrounding land uses nor create any traffic, pollution, or parking problems for the area; and meets the criteria of Chapter 1294 for granting Class A status. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (4-0) to approve NCU-1-963 1527 S. Washington, Class A Nonconforming Status, subject to the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals variance request. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by David Greiner, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto, and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-1-96, 1527 S. Washington, Class A Nonconforming Status. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. LeBlanc said that last Wednesday the Board of Zoning Appeals did approve the variance of the required setbacks from the lot line. Because the lot is zoned commercial, it had a larger setback than required of a residential property. The applicant wants to construct a garage that would be three feet from the property line. Normally this would be allowed, but because the property is zoned commercial, a variance request was necessary. Considering the Class A status, it would not create traffic or pollution. A single family home is less intrusive than a commercial establishment. Mr. Ruge asked what the addition would be used for. GERRIT HEUER, 1511 S. WASHINGTON, applicant. My master bedroom, bathroom and a TV room. In order to maintain a straight line along the front and still have a two-car garage behind, this is what you end up with. My objective is to have living quarters on the main floor. I have been in business next door for thirty years. Mr. Ruff said with approval tonight, Mr. Heuer can get his permit tomorrow. No more action on the case is required. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 10 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; NCU-1-96, 1527 S. Washington, Class A Nonconforming Status, was recommended to be APPROVED. Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; NCU-1-96, 1527 S. Washington, Class A Nonconforming Status was recommended to be APPROVED. d. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, April 10, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee did not meet this month. We will meet on Tuesday, April 9, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room at which time the committee will consider: a. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment Urban Development Committee members will be provided with Mr. Ferguson's proposed purchase agreement. Chairman Goolsby appointed Ms. LeBlanc as a temporary UDC member. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. Ms. Love said she has been talking with Greg Burkhart, an attorney with the Michigan Jobs Commission, their expert on the new environmental regulations, trying to set up a brown bag luncheon meeting later in April for planners and Board members. A 12 noon luncheon was set for Friday, May 3. Ms. Love has been working with Bill Rieske on a process for revising the entire Master Plan. They presented it to Mr. Sykes who thinks it is a good process. It will mean some changes in regular staff assignments. "We will do this incrementally. We may have to limit the number of hearings in a given month. Normally, we would hear whatever comes before the cut-off date. If we have seven or eight cases, it is difficult to do them and get everything else done, too. With all the activities going on, change is becoming imperative. The proposal will be sent out in the next packet." A fall-out of the stormwater assessment is that the Public Service Department has found an incredible number of little pieces of property, 60 to 100, that they want to get rid of. Doing Act 285 reviews on them would be a nightmare. We have been discussing doing a three-tiered PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 193 1996 - P. 11 administrative review process where Tier I would be administrative, Tier II would Planning Board approval, and Tier III would be a full review, like Mr. Ferguson's Act-3-96. Criteria could include buildable vs. nonbuildable; $x value; and compatibility with the Master Plan. These criteria will hopefully be ready in the next few weeks; the City Council will receive them after Board review so that paperwork and process can be reduced in the Act 285 review process. An inter- department fee structure has been discussed. Ms. Love has been asked to be on a site location committee meeting for the first time on April 19 for a Ronald McDonald house in Lansing. Regarding the Administrative Rules of Procedure, they have been changed from the way the Board approved them. The City Attorney, who removed one line relating to the person being recused having to leave the room, believes the person's rights as a private citizen to be in an open meeting would be abridged. He asks the Board to have that one sentence removed or alter the word "may" as in "Any board member recused on a particular issue shall vacate the meeting room." His point is if you make it "may", they can stay or go. In the interest of clarity, he would like to have that one sentence removed. Considerable discussion ensued. Ms. Love said she would go back to Mr. Roberts and indicate that this version is the one we want, and provide the name of the seminar presenter. Mr. Goolsby asked if this issue is addressed in the proposed ethics code and if there has been any interpretation by the courts. We can make a statement to City Council and other City Boards that we have made a determination that we want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. We cannot anticipate every situation that may arise, but when we are confronted with it, we know what it is. Mr. Goolsby said we will continue with this in the Rules of Administrative Procedure, and if we have to modify it, we will. Ms. Love said if Jack asked me what would I substitute for "shall vacate the room" would it be appropriate to say "to remove themselves from the Board area"? Mr. Goolsby said that is the sense I get, that they would remove themselves from sitting with the rest of the members during the deliberations on that issue. Mr. Ruge said the person should remove himself from the sight of all the board members so that s/he cannot be seen. It's not enough to sit in the audience area. Mr. Goolsby said the person has the right to do that because that is the crux of the open meetings act. Ms. Love said two more adult foster care court cases have been decided in the federal courts. Board members wanting copies of the opinions can have them; Mr. Goolsby said he did. E. Pending Items: Future action required PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 19, 1996 - P. 12 3. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-95, Case and Grand River Ave. , Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot. Action postponed in committee February 13, 1996 VI. NEW BUSINESS - None. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mr. Keith Mulder, G.R. A&W Inc. , P.O. Box 99, Grand Ledge, Michigan, in support of Z-2-96, Vacant Land, SW Cor. Oakland & Cedar Sts "C" Residential to "F" Commercial District, mailed in packet. VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Greiner reviewed for the Board the fact that several months ago he disclosed that he is a principal at MSHDA who has been approached by Mr. Ferguson. He receives no remuneration related to lease activities, nor would he have any financial gain from accepting the proposal of the developers. Mr. Robinson, who will be out of town for the Tuesday, April 16, 1996 meeting, requested and was granted an excused absence. Mr. Ruge, who will be away for the Tuesday, April 2, 1996 meeting, requested and was granted an excused absence. Mr. Nischan, who was unavoidably detained out of town for the Tuesday, March 5, 1996 meeting and could not attend, requested and was granted an excused absence. Mr. Nischan, who is named as one of the petitioners on Act-5-96, Blk. 2, Carroll's Addn. (Jerome & Vine Sts.) , Vacation of E-W Alley, disclosed that if the review is approved, he will receive five feet on the back of his property. Mr. Ruff said he wants to expedite processing of NCU-2-96 so that it can be completed at the meeting of April 2, 1996. He will include a reminder of a Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting at 6:45 on April 2 before the regular Board meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn031996 a:\28 Z-1-96 1405 Center St. "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Scott McLain 1405 Center St. Lansing, MI 48906 STATUS: Owner ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING USE: Single family residential EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District PROPOSED ZONING: "C" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 165' x 39' = 6,435 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential S: Single Family Residential E: Single Family Residential W: Wholesale Establishment SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "C" Residential W: "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for residential use at up to 14 du/acre. A master plan update is currently in process for the area which includes this property. CASE HISTORY: SPECIFIC INFORMATION: DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting the zoning change in order to make the zoning, "H" Light Industrial, conform to the land use, which is single family residential. PLANNING BOARD Z-1-96 PAGE 2 AGENCY RESPONSES: Development Office: Recommend downzoning of entire residentially- developed area. Assessor: No comments. Parks & Rec: No comment. BWL: Electric Utility: No objections or concerns regarding the request to rezone the property at 1405 Center Street. Water Utility: No comments on rezoning. If addition or revamping of existing water is required, contact Terry Robison, 371-6494. ANALYSIS Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use The subject property is located on Center Street in the block between Clinton and Beaver Streets where the primary land use is residential. Each of the properties is presently zoned in the "H" Light Industrial District. The east side of Center Street is also residential; however it is zoned in the "C" Residential District. The land use of the subject property is compatible with the immediate surrounding area. Compliance with the Master Plan The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990, is the master plan for this area. It promotes residential land use in this location. It also recommends residential development at 8 to 14 units per acre. This location is included in a current effort to update the master plan for a portion of the North Lansing area (the North Lansing/Old Town Revitalization Plan). Current zoning in this area is industrial even though the current master plan recommends residential land use. Thus far, property owners have not pursued rezoning of these properties, with the exception of 1425 Center Street (Z-17-95). Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic An adverse impact is not anticipated. PLANNING BOARD Z-1-96 PAGE 3 Environmental Impact An adverse impact is not anticipated. Impact on Future Patterns of Development This rezoning has the potential to have a major impact on the future patterns of development in the area. As discussed earlier in this report, the current master plan prescribes residential development for this area; rezoning this property may create a trend for rezoning of other similarly situated properties in the vicinity. Summary The request is to rezone the subject property so that its zoning conforms to its residential land use. This location is included in a current effort to update the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning is in conformance with the current master plan in effect for the area and will not adversely impact circulation or the environment. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this request to rezone 1405 Center Street from "H" Light Industrial District to "C" Residential District. . � � .• � � � ®;� � :. =- i ml ■ - � 1111 � ► � "" I � �. .. /��Ii ., r � � � �, 1� � � '��II :: � � � r� � - � � ��` � � i � e�` r ��~ � � � t I ■ :/ � ■ � �a _ :.. . �, .,���:.. . . m � �' ■ � � 1 � -- r ! ; � �� � Y I! � ��_ _..._�_ �� '� �:. :, ' .il ;. . �.r. � =� � ��.,. /� R`. �� � ���� .: -�' � ' �' � - ' ' �! � , � �� � , � Z-2-96 821 N. Cedar Street 11"C" Residential District to "F" Commercial District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Thomas P. DeBoer 300 Ottawa Ave. N.W. , Suite 150 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 LOCATION: South west corner of North Cedar Street and East Oakland Ave. (see Figure 1, Site Location) REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F" Commercial District for construction of an automotive glass service facility. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant residential lot. EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 15, 741 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial (fast food restaurant) S : Vacant lot, residential E: Commercial (fast food restaurant) W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "E-211 Local Shopping District and 11H1' Light Industrial District S : "C" Residential District E: "F" Commercial District W: "C" Residential District (see Figure 2, Surrounding Zoning) MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for residential development. A Master Plan update is currently in process for the area which includes this property. SPECIFIC INFORMATION CASE HISTORY: This parcel was the site of a single family residential structure from 1886 to 1994 . Since the house was demolished in 1994 , it has remained vacant. DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The developer wishes to rezone the property to permit construction of a Z-2-96, Page 2 commercial building of approximately 4250 square feet in size for use as an automotive glass service facility. The applicant is proposing to construct this building up to the south property line which is adjacent to other residentially zoned property. AGENCY RESPONSES : Assessor: No comment Board of Water and Light: Electric Utility - The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns regarding the request to rezone the property at the southwest corner of Oakland Avenue and Cedar Street . Water Utility - No comments on rezone. If additional or revamping of existing water is required, contact . . . Development: No comment. Economic Development/IFA: The EDC/TIFA has only one comment . We are always concerned when a manufacturer or other heavy commercial entity encroaches to close to an existing neighborhood - because of the problems that will inherently occur due to expansion desires on behalf of company or the feeling by the neighbors that the company is not being sensitive to their needs . Transportation Engineer: Access and egress to a commercial property should be oriented on Cedar Street. Please provide a site plan for review and comment as soon as it is available. MDOT: . . . written request for break in access to the MDOT District Office . . . Developer must submit official site plan drawings with written request. Code Compliance: No response received. Fire Marshall: No response received. Z-2-96, Page 3 N. Lansing Community Association: The property should not be spot zoned. If the property is rezoned, the entire block should be rezoned. Public Service: No response received. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The subject property is a vacant lot located on a busy intersection opposite three different drive- through restaurants . The property, at approximately one third (1/3) acre, is smaller than the opposite commercial establishments . The site is situated at the north east corner of the block .bounded by Cedar, Oakland, Center, and Monroe streets . This corner sits at the top of a natural terrace to the Grand River at an elevation approximately eighteen (18) feet higher than the south and west sides ' of the block. The one hundred (100) year flood plain (828 . 5 feet) bisects the western portion of the block parallel to Center Street. Traffic flow adjacent to the site is one way west bound on Oakland and south bound on Cedar; both streets are designated as major arterial streets by the Comprehensive Plan. Access to both streets is regulated by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The configuration and alignment of Oakland Avenue is such that it curves slightly south-westerly as it approaches Cedar Street. This situation gives the site extremely good visibility from traffic stopped at the Cedar/Oakland traffic signal . This line of site, coincidently, is also directly in line with views of the City' s central business district skyline, including the State Capitol building. There are six single family residences (three of them owner occupied) and four duplex dwelling units in the associated block. The structural condition of these residential dwellings range from standard requiring maintenance to critical . ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990 is the current master plan in effect for this area. This plan recommends residential development at eight (8) to fourteen (14) units per acre. This location is also included in a current effort to update the master plan for a portion of the North Lansing area (the North Lansing/Old Town Revitalization Plan) . The subject property is part of a planned residential core Z-2-96, Page 4 forming the heart of the Cedar Street and Larch Street corridor north of Shiawassee Street and south of E. Grand River Avenue (see Figure 3 , Cedar/Larch Corridor Proposed Land Use) . This residential area is at a planned density of up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre which increases in density as it extends south to the recently redeveloped residential area west of Cedar Street and north of Shiawassee Street . This area is within walking distance of downtown Lansing' s central business district. The Comprehensive Plan also emphasizes that commercial development in the Cedar/Larch corridor should be strictly controlled so commercial strip development does not interfere with redevelopment and improvement of the North Lansing commercial district (now commonly referred to as North Lansing/Old Town) . The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes "In areas where non-residential uses of land have begun to "creep" into residential areas, steps should be taken to establish formal lines of separation, and policies developed to maintain the separation. " Strategies to develop adequate transition zones which promote gradual changes in the intensity of land uses, increased use of the screening and buffering ordinance, development and enforcement of a comprehensive noise ordinance, and stricter enforcement of existing laws to reduce conflict and increase the compatibility of land uses . . . are recommended. The Comprehensive Plan discusses the merits of encouraging land assembledge to more efficiently utilize the vacant land parcels which are available. The Comprehensive Plan states that the number of curb cuts along major streets should also be reduced when possible. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan stresses that all land development proposals should be carefully reviewed to assure they are in character with surrounding development, do not overburden the local street and sewer systems and are compatible with the future land use section of this plan. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Surrounding land uses are primarily residential and commercial . The requested rezoning would not be inherently incompatible with the adjacent commercial land uses . Many of the residential structures in the subject block are investment properties and are not well maintained. However, the site has insufficient room to meet the Zoning Code' s landscaping, screening, and buffering requirements in combination with the development request . Z-2-96, Page 5 If this small parcel would be zoned commercial, it would be extremely difficult to construct a viable business structure without requiring dimensional setbacks from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) . The change in zoning would, in effect, be creating a hardship from which the owner could only seek relief from the BZA. Staff would consider this a "self imposed hardship, " which is specifically prohibited by the Zoning Code. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Development of a commercial business establishment on this small site would require construction of a curb cut, or entrance driveway, extremely close to a major intersection. Future development of adjacent properties may cause traffic volumes to increase to unsafe levels . Piecemeal development of the entire block face would create several curb cuts (which are interruptions to traffic flow) on a street that is designed to move large volumes of traffic. This scenario is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for planned development and controlled access. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site is a small portion of a natural river bluff with views overlooking Downtown. Development of obstacles to consolidation of properties in this block would prevent the Comprehensive Plan's goals of preserving scenic views and developing open space on environmentally sensitive portions of sites through the planned development process . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This rezoning has the potential to have a major impact on the future patterns of development in the area: the choice between piecemeal development, or the planned development of larger, consolidated tracts of land. SUMMARY The request is to rezone approximately one third acre from residential to commercial zoning. The subject property is presently vacant. The small size of the site may present problems with meeting zoning requirements for its development. The site has excellent views of the City' s skyline, is situated within walking distance of downtown. The requested rezoning is not in conformance with the current master plan in effect for the area. Z-2-96, Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the subject site is too important to be developed in a piecemeal fashion as presently proposed. The special situation of the entire city block makes it extremely desirable for urban density residential development that would be oriented toward views of the Grand River and downtown. Development of the site as proposed would create an obstacle to planning logical and efficient land use patterns for the property with regard to land use, traffic access , and natural environmental features . Staff recommends denial . � ,� � •�-�:, ..ill! _;�y,�t�./..r,���, -- ;�- `�� •j ' ��•' _ 'H:5"'�;�':�_�_�� •t. •_r��A'ft� —��. ' ��.' _ :.:.:�:a7"'}•�'�...wa....�Cs.�._ wau... .. .• i. �[tl�■tttt/l:�!�tYMl�>_�� a ���A���II���� r��s. ��sll�t�lll�t�t�/t�lR F"�. .��, :� Fria• •' �..,... �I• ..:: •Lt -� _r1ry � i:. ` r -��. ,. •� i. ;I '. , ,� �. .. d .. .,. � � � ,. .. 3 i � - -.,. .. I ,.. �. V "I � - , i i . _ - � �r �F'� If � _ � � - _ r- .. .. i .. ` I 1 _ -L—��------1— , L�1J�— - 11J L111`L1`1_�J IL'-rL`�L'_.l� ` i L-��J L`1 J T a s a t , � , ,s• •♦ tT`I♦ .` •♦ ♦ a , t Is t I j I 1 , a I IIII � I�I I I I I I I • I � ' I I , 7 00 7 FT q %J1L`1`LL� -L it - �` ♦ - -- ' . , ♦ I I I \�\ an�ur ------- —♦ t \.— ♦ II - J - ------- - r V Jf �rT7 -t� _ Jt✓ \ �, _L[ ` 'RIVER I-I ` T" G RAND - 16 I N 1----- _ _ -- ----- � � I F • I I� II �� �_ 0� I _ � _ _ � I \ I I ` , ` ' 1 t 11 I a I \ ` I 1 I I • , � � ' y I T� L--- ------------------------------------- MT -----------------------------� ` I I ��I tT , I 'I I f t b a I . --�; '��-------` �l__1`J_-� •� � 'TJ`1J � LJ�LL' ` •• �, � '�j_`L`1'1J`1� ` T`�`_ J1'L` � ., E ' , �. ..I _ , .. _ ,� r �i. I ., � �, 1, � .,. .. ,�< - _ . � - til �1 _ - � ` "z � �. NORTH �}RC�Cv22�,De 12- Z-2-96 821 N. CEDAR STREET SAGINAW ULJ L NORTH if z Ui ED z W D - - GRAND RIVER E3'h E+j11 C Y kj (0 0 _ Y • -_- { KALAMAZ F$ ) C Wr cc Ucc U U 'J 9 i-' P .... I.A9 =.AKLANDCEDAR/LARCH CORRIDOR II r PROPOSED LAND USE _ 7:: L C (SOUTH OF SAGINAW) CBD SUPPORT SERVICES Defined to be residence and/or business, such as Stamp-Rite, restaurants, SAGINAW specially shops, printing, gas stations, ---'1 auto repair, motels, Comm. Blue Print, Arlist Supply, office furniture, Catering RESIDENTIAL MAP 29 Co.,Wholesale Restaurant Supply,things CEDAR/LARCH CORRIDOR That support offices and commercial businesses in CBO. No manlacluring. � COMM.FACILITY/PARK/OPEN SPACE PROPOSED LAND USE planting or other heavy industrial use. NORTH OF SAGINAW ST. �?e-- CRD SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL ® INDUSTRIAL p COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL D VACANT ® INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE/UTILITY 113 a: . ' � ' i h i .. - � - � � i „ � ..� i fr lip ' .�� .� � � ' � � -�i �.. 1 ,,� "�,. r +� ., J; . .. � J, 'F. NCU-1-96 1527 S. Washington Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Gerrit Heuer 1527 S .Washington Lansing, MI STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Class A nonconforming status PURPOSE: To expand existing single family house by constructing an addition and an attached garage. EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 63 ' X 90 ' (5, 670 sq. ft. ) ; Rectangular in shape SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial S : Vacant lot E: Residential W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Residential S: "F" Residential E: "F" Residential W: "F" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential land use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by Gerrit Heuer to construct a 640 square foot housing addition and a 576 square foot attached garage three feet from the rear (east) property line. This single family residential property, zoned "F" Commercial, is a nonconforming use of property and therefore requires a Class "A" status for any expansion. A 22 foot rear yard variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals is also required, since the structure will be 3 feet from the rear (east) lot line where a 25 foot rear yard setback is required. The BZA will review this at their March 14 , 1996 meeting. Analysis The applicant wishes to expand the existing single family house on a commercially zoned parcel . It is nonconforming since single family homes are not permitted in the "F" Commercial District. NCU-1-96 1527 S . Washington Page 2 Section 1294 . 04 (d) sets forth the criteria for evaluating class A status proposals. These include: 1. Has direct access to a non-local street if the use is non-residential ; 2 . No more pollution generated than would be generally associated with uses in that zoning district; 3 . Parking requirements are met. Direct Access to a Non-Residential Street This generally applies to uses that are more intense than what is typically allowed in the zoning district such as a retail store on a residentially zoned parcel. A single family home on a collector street such as Washington Avenue would not have a negative impact on traffic. Pollution Impacts Activities associated with the subject single family home will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise that is more than the level associated with the uses permitted by right in the "F" Commercial District. Parking Requirements are Met The required parking will be provided on site, with the proposed attached two car garage. Two additional spaces will be available in the driveway. Summary: The proposed expansion of the nonconforming single family home will not create any traffic, pollution, or parking problems for the area in which it is located. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Class "A" Nonconforming Status be approved as requested. 7 7 BZA 3389.96 NORTH 1527 S. Washington Avenue � 3 RX � �� �.�• � ram �� o � i S ? DL UA ?L -- 4 BZA 3389.96 NORTH 1527 S. Washington Avenue 30 47 32 843.0 J 840. r-U-1 c 8SO ❑ 36 32 2B J I \ 28 a -- 3 i \ 34 � 37 I � � x 840.6 845.9 . I 34 /4 �s o 30 32 W , M 4 n n 32 29 `yQ0 7( ii 33 20 26 9 32 3 \ 29 33 30 29 3/ 26 30 29 !sW GARDEN ST I838.6 J ' 31 fz�// /l[ ✓" 29 33 31 31 31 29 2 20 WALLS 31 I PARKI NG r 27 32 27 PARKING rt X � B56.5 i 25 39 3/ �2 29 34 30 857.0 z BARNES AVE O -. -- - - 31 27 -- 36 28 X I 38 z 33 30 32 33 29 23 = 859. `• af16a Cn � 3/ I 0 EQ w x tj Or 1 -860 3 29 34 857.4 ❑ \ I 30 a 30 35 2 860.5 a I I 32 34 �33 � ' a&w 0 Since 1919 r,j, !s City of Lansing Planning Office Dept. of Planning &Neighborhood Dev. f 2nd Floor Washington Square 119 N. Washington Square f Lansing, Michigan 48933-1668 s� RE: Rezoning Request 7-2-95 Dear Planning Commission, I am the owner of the A&W Restaurant at the NW corner of Oakland Avenue and North Cedar. I am pleased to see the proposed re-zoning request from Tom DeBoer for the property at the SW corner of Oakland Avenue and North Cedar. My restaurant it is located directly across the intersection from this property. I believe his proposed use of an auto glass replacement center will only enhance the value of surrounding properties in a manner consistent with the neighborhood trend. A new business into the community is always a sign of strong growth and future potential. We at A&W strongly encourage the development of this area and are pleased to support this rezoning request. Sincerely, Keith Mulder i' KM/lp G.R. A&W Inc. P.O. Box 99 Grand Ledge, Michigan 48837 (517) 627-2230 Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: William G. Vincent 1215 E. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48909 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents Owner Sparrow Hospital 1215 E.Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48909 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Apartment Complex EXISTING ZONING: "DM-3" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "D-l" Professional Office District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 66 ' x 165 ' = 10,890 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Mixed Residential S: Sparrow Regional Medical Supply E: Child Care Facility W: Off-Street Surface Parking SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-3" Residential S: 'IF-l" Commercial E: "DM-3" Residential W: "J" Parking MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential use. CASE HISTORY: On October 20, 1992, the Lansing Planning Board approved the rezoning of property at 118 , 122, 124-126 N. Eighth Street, west of the subject property, from "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking to allow the development of an off-street parking lot for approximately twenty-seven (27 ) spaces . PLANNING BOARD Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street PAGE 2 "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District BACKGROUND: Sparrow Hospital, a parti of East Michigan Ave, has been instrumental in the implementation and development of several plans and studies in and around the East Michigan Avenue area in efforts to revitalize the surrounding areas . The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study provided a catalyst for the economic and aesthetic revitalization of East Michigan Avenue. Sparrow Hospital has taken efforts to improve their hospital facilities which included involving the surrounding community. Sparrow has been working closely with the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood groups to create a positive community that will fit into the area and create as few adverse impacts as possible. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property at 910 Jerome Street in order to convert the apartment building to office and apartment use. The upper level apartments will be maintained for use by visiting physicians and/or on-call attending or resident physician. The middle and lower levels would be utilized by the hospital for business/clerical staff. AGENCY RESPONSES : Ameritech: Existing services to building with 25 pair cable. Any service additions to be coordinated with Sparrow. BWL. Electric Utility No objections or concerns regarding the request to rezone the property at 910 Jerome Street. Water Utility Rezone approved. Contact Terry Robison, 371-6494 , with all requirements and site plan. Continental Cable: No conflicts with the rezoning of this property. PLANNING BOARD Z-22-951 910 Jerome Street PAGE 3 "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Development Off : No comment. i Public Service: No comment. Transportation Eng: Adequate on-site parking should be provided for all other proposed uses . Eastside Neighborhood Organization: See attached letter. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The predominant use in the surrounding area consists of commercial uses on the Michigan Ave. frontage, which is south of the subject site. There is mixed residential uses to the north of the subject property, a child care facility to the east. Sparrow Hospital is located east of the child care facility and Pennsylvania Ave. Also, there is an off-street surface parking lot, located to the west, which is used by Sparrow facilities. The existing apartment building will be converted to office use on the middle and lower levels for use by the hospital for business/clerical staff. The upper level apartments will be maintained for use by visiting physicians and/or on-call attending or resident physician. Since the entire area consist of a mix of hospital/office facilities, residential and commercial, the apartment/office use would be compatible with surrounding land uses . COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential use. This is a three-story, 10 unit apartment building. The proposed use will involve converting the middle and lower levels to business/clerical staff. However, the upper level which contains four, one-bedroom apartments will be maintained for residential purposes . Also, the exterior of the residential character of the structure will not change. The "D-1" Professional Office designation allows residential land uses at the "DM-1" Residential District density, therefore, residential apartments are allowed under the proposed zoning as well as the existing zoning. As Sparrow expands their facilities, they have committed themselves to expanding west of the existing campus, avoiding the residential area east of the campus . This request continues to fulfill their commitment while providing a transition zoning between the Michigan Avenue frontage and the residences to the north. PLANNING BOARD Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street PAGE 4 "DM-3" Residential to "D-l" Professional Office District IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Since there will be two floors committed to office use for Sparrow' s staff, there is a potential for an increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In terms of parking for the apartment/office building, 27 parking spaces are required (21 for the professional office and 6 for the four one-bedroom apartments) . There are currently 10 on-site parking spaces . Section 1284 . 03(c) of the Zoning Code allows for off site parking for nonresidential uses for a lot which is zoned "D-l" Professional Office with the following conditions : ( 1) The separate lot is located in a similarly zoned district or higher and (2) The parking spaces are within 3001 . Therefore, if the conditions as stated above are met and the site is zoned "D-l" Professional Office, no parking variances are required. Sparrow provides a great number of spaces in the area, an additional 59 spaces (See attached parking map) , so parking appears to be adequate. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES At the present, there are existing utilities in place at the apartment building. Therefore, there should be no impact on public services . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Since there is no proposed type of construction, there will be no environmental impact associated with construction. Also, there are no other foreseeable environmental impacts . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The conversion of an apartment building from residential to professional office/residential in this area will not change the character of the area, particularly, since the exterior of the structure will remain residential in appearance. SUMMARY The proposed rezoning and subsequent land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses and provides a transition between the commercial frontage on Michigan Avenue and the residencies to the north. This proposed rezoning is consistent with the expansion plan for Sparrow Hospital with regard to protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. There is a possibility for a slight increase in vehicular and PLANNING BOARD Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street PAGE 5 "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District pedestrian traffic but many parking options exist for the use of this property. There are no foreseeable environmental impacts . The conversion of an apartment building from residential to professional office/residential in this location will not change the character of the neighborhood. Sparrow Hospital ' s Expansion Plan (1992) should produce a positive economic impact on development along E. Michigan Ave. The expansion should further stabilize existing uses and encourage other hospital supportive uses to locate in the vicinity. Again, the expansion plans extend north, south and west of the hospital facility with orientation away from the established residential neighborhoods . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the property at 910 Jerome Street from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Eastside $g y f Neighborhood Organization IR E C: E s ®.® DIVISION m3 sIKI , January 19, 1996 Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Municipal Planning and Neighborhood Development 119 North Washington Square Annex- Second Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Ms. W spoon: The astside Neighborhood Organization and the members of its Land Use and Conflict Committee have reviewed Sparrow Hospital's request to rezone the property at 910 Jerome Street from DM-3 Residential to D1 Professional Office. We have no problem with the re-zoning providing Sparrow continues their current program of communication and cooperation with the neighborhoods. Mr. Vincent has supplied us with all information requested. Therefore the ENO supports the request at this time. As always, Mary Margaret Murphy Woll, President Eastside Neighborhood Organization cc Wi - lliam Vincent-, Director Facilities Development Sparrow Hospital Ira Ginsburg, Vice President Sparrow Hospital Steve Nikkei, Chair Land Use and Conflict Committee ENO Executive Board MMMW/GBE for ENO Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street NOFFIN "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District U 867.6 864 S T 7 45 l 2/ 26 45 /26 25 25 26 25 � - - - a B67/ 26 8678 I 66 I ;7 I 29 Ir 27 \ 25 Q 27 EASTERN v 13 HIGH /2 /e 868.5 29 SCHOOL 69 46 20 29 26 25 26 27 33 d t ►7 qci QI'! 917 �9 865 C � ST JEROME Q _1 rI (ow « " 34 _3 Ul Q> PARKING f 25 8673 l / 1 � It WALLS j 8690 r I WALL B X 3r /4 29 � i4 16 PLANNING BOARD Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Z� zF . � F t F 33 �r ZF (F F SI�E�t Faf - w PLANNING BOARD Z-22-95 910 Jerome Street i — "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District 1� •ZF . F tF 3 F �r El CFF CHI �..�cuKI-v', 1 sb S Cog(IAMC A MICR SLU-1-96 North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Development of Greater Joy Church of God in Christ GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Reverend W. F. Osborn 4172 Naubinway Road Okemos, MI 48864 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Land EXISTING ZONING: "DM-1" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 255 ' wide X 860 ' deep (106, 256 sq. ft. . ) Approx. 2 . 44 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant S: Multi-Family Residential E: 496/127 Expressway W: Multi-Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "CUP" District S: "DM-1" Residential District E: 127/496 Expressway W: "CUP" District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Master Plan designates this area for residential development at 15-20 du/acre. BACKGROUND: The Greater Joy Church of God in Christ was originally located at 1026 W. St. Joseph at the northeast corner of St. Joseph and M.L.King Blvd. The City acquired the property last year for redevelopment as identified in the "Seven Block Area" Plan. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer ' s Proposal : Develop a new 8 , 600 square foot church facility on vacant property located at the north side of Beaujardin Drive at Oakbrook Drive. Tf,A r-r,,,r(-.b buildinct is proposed to PLA IN BOARD SLU-1-96 PAGE 2 North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Development of Greater Joy Church of God in Christ in two phases. Parking will be available for approximately 119 Vehicles. The use is allowed in the "DM-l" Residential District with approval of a Special Land Use permit. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: Service to new church will require cable placement in road right of way of Oakbrook or Beaujardin. I am not aware of any utility easement within development. Board of Water & Light: Electric Utility: The Electric Utility has no objections or concerns regarding the construction of a new church on the north side of Beaujardin Drive at Oakbrook Drive. Water Utility: Building site approved. Contact Terry Robison, 371-6494, with site plan and water requirements. Continental Cablevision: Contintental Cablevision has no facilities that would be in conflict with this project. Fire Marshall: An approved water supply "fire hydrant" shall be provided when required by Chief. Transportation Engineer: No commentsn may ts the h made is l Further during site plan review. Development Office: Recommend approval. Congregation is currently tenant of City in Church on M.L. King and St. Joseph purchased with CDBG funds pursuant to 7 Block. Public Service Dept: Public Service has no comment on the SLU. A detailed site plan and plumbing plan needs to be submitted prior to any construction. PLANNING BOARD SLU-1-96 PAGE 3 North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Development of Greater Joy Church of God in Christ ANALYSIS Chapter 1282 of the ZoniAg Code specifies the criteria to evaluate the special land use request. COMPATIBTLTTy l7TTH SURRUNDING T,AND USE The use of this vacant parcel, surrounded by multiple family residential development and an expressway, is compatible with the overall area. The proposed site plan shows some landscaping at the periphery of the site and interior to the site. Additional landscaping along the property' s western border should soften the views of the parking lot from the residential uses immediately to the west. CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF `1'HE AREA The subject parcel is one of the few remaining vacant parcels left in the Trapper's Cove area. The development of a church at the proposed location will not change the essential residential character of the area. rrrmEuFERFNC'F WITH GENEFAT FuTnvMFNT OF AiTT(`FUT PRc�PF.RTY The use of this property for a church should not adversely impact the use of the adjacent property. Additional landscaping will be requiredalong the lot from the undary to adjacent soften the view of the parking residential area. TM ACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE SITE No negative impact on the environment is anticipated. TM ACT UPON THE HEALT ' ""�� "" rrTn wFT.FARE OF PERSONS OR PROPER`T'y The proposed use of the property for a church should not be or detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons property TMPAC`1' UPON PUBT TC 9FRVTCES AND FAC'TT.TTIES The proposed church would not adversely impact public services or facilities in this situation. Utilities are available in the area. The proposal is subject to the review of the Public Service Department under the site plan review process. PLANNING BOARD SLU-1-96 PAGE 4 North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Development of Greater Joy Church of God in Christ C'OMPLTANCE WITH MASTER PLAN AND THE INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE The Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1986 identifies this general area for residential use. Churches are allowed in the "DM-1" Residential District with the approval of the Special Land Use permit. The proposal is therefore in compliance with the Master Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE The site plan shows parking in the required 50 foot front yard setback and in the required 25 foot side yard setback. The removal of these 10 spaces would yield 109 spaces which would still be in excess of the parking requirements of 72 spaces by 47 spaces for the proposed church which is designed to accommodate 216 people in the main sanctuary. Proposed churches are also required to be located on a collector street as identified in the Master Plan. Though the site is adjacent to the 127/496 Expressway, no access will be allowed to this limited access highway. Access in and out of the church from Beau Jardin and Oakbrook should be adequate. Access will be reviewed by the Transportation Engineer and is subject to permit. Trapper's Cove Drive is a collector street which picks up traffic throughout the apartment development, and Jolly Road to the south is a minor arterial. Beau Jardin and Oak Brook drive are considered to serve as collector streets to accommodate traffic out to Jolly Road. The development is therefore in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. OTHER A member of the Greater Joy Church spoke in support of the proposal at the Planning Board's public hearing on February 6, 1995. Two letters of support, received by the Planning Board regarding the development, were from the Amber Management Company who owns land to the south and the Oakbrook Townhomes and from Edward Rose and Sons who are the owners of the Trappers Cove Apartments. SUMMARY Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine principles required. The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character PLANNING BOARD SLU-1-Q6 PAGE 5 North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Development of Greater Joy Church of God in Christ The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surroundifig property. ' The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties. The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Special Land Use Permit be approved to allow the development of a church subject to the approval of the landscape, screening and buffering plan submitted for review for the site plan review process. c:\Np\data\planbd\s1u196.dju SLU-1-96 North Side Beau'ardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Church r ORTH 8I3.1 866.5 1 I � x � , ITE LOCATION i ,Ir n \ B151 x 1,1 am 816.6 r x N \ rx I Y 5.< 868. ; \ x ✓ I + B1 aloe — �\\\ � • + \ q�g�99�E- pJC�1JfiR91N 867.67 I u m \ MAN RgRKIHG •\ 10 IS 1. SQ815.7 v/C ^ `GRKINC. P RKING819.3 I \\:• ;O `\\\\\``\ SLU-1-96 North Side Beau'ardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. Church raoRn� 3 I � I� I � I � o Q \ -t PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE GREATER JOY CHURCH o� OF GOD IN CHRIST o.� 8 0 .L ©�.✓ O E �y I o 0�+ Approved with one emendation P. 2 Ln 9.17" Pos. 7.1 " . . . moved and seconded to approve . . . "delete second. APPROVED 020696 TO CLERK 0216% Minutes of the Regular Meeting IT !I E D LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers ; Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ;, „ 124 West Michigan Avenue f..f, 4 S1�`;J �� { 1 LL E�in TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1996 I . OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call . Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers : Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and William C. Rieske, Principal Planner. D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed. II . HEARINGS - None. III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - (5 minutes each) GARY SIMONS, REPRESENTING QUEST 5, LTD. , the new owner of 601 E. Michigan Avenue. Here to answer any questions . Chairman Goolsby asked Mr. Simons to introduce himself and talk to the gentleman to his left, who is the neighbor of 601 E. Michigan Avenue. "He has some concerns about noise that may be invading his living space. If you two could get some type of rapport going tonight, the Board would appreciate that. " IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval : January 9 , 1996 Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of January 9 , 1996 . Mrs . Leblanc asked to abstain from voting on the minutes because half of the pages of minutes were missing in her mailed packet. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23 , 1996 - P. 2 Greiner Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Ave Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 6; Nays : 0 ; Abstentions : 1; carried; minutes of January 9 , 1996 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. The Committee met on Wednesday, January 17 , 1996 . a. Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District The applicant is proposing to rezone 2817 E . Mt. Hope from residential to professional office in order to sell the property. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for professional office. The surrounding zoning in this area consists of low density residential zoning to the east, north and south of the subject property. There is a mix of office and residential uses . If the property were rezoned, only the percentage of offices to homes would be different. There is a potential for a minor increase in vehicular traffic because the "D-1" Professional Office use is more intense than the present use as low density residential . The size of the property and the lack of sewer prevents redevelopment to any great extent. There could be a potential impact on the environment depending on the proposed use of the property. The Forest View Neighborhood Organization indicated that they regret any loss of single family residential in this area but realize that some business must be in these boundaries and identified Mt. Hope and Jolly Roads as the natural areas for them. The Building Safety Office indicated that if the existing structure is residential, it must be modified to comply with current commercial building codes . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the rezoning request conforms with the Master Plan, and does not adversely affect the mixed land uses of the area. Further, the committee found that the lack of public sewers and the size of the property prevents redevelopment to any great extent, and that an intense use of the property may adversely impact the environment due to the use of a septic tank and drain field. In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve appreve Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave. , from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District; carried unanimously, 4-0 . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 1996 - P. 3 Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-21-95, 2817 E . Mt. Hope Ave. , "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Mr. Ruge said Mt. Hope is a big high-speed road, with a dentist' s office located on the corner and a veterinary office a couple doors down. Having all these driveways out onto this busy road is not a good situation. Has there been any exploration of having these businesses share driveways openings so there are not so many, and the chance for accidents is reduced? Mr. Ruff said they are fairly substantial lots . The map is not the usual 100-scale map that shows the overall area. There are some houses in between. If redevelopment occurs here, some consolidation of driveways could occur, but that should not be a problem at this time. Most of the uses are not very intense. They do not get a lot of traffic. The present four lanes is adequate for the traffic because of the large tracts of public land. The cemetery across the street has one curb cut . Fidelity feeds residential properties . There are four or five more curb cuts to the west, and that ' s about it, no concentration. We don't expect it to be a problem. Ms . Love said that because the lots are large, most have a turnaround so that cars can exit forward. People do not back out onto the street. That reduces potential for accidents . Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave. , "A" Residential to "D- 1" Professional Office District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Z-19-95, 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District The item had been tabled at the committee level . The committee removed it from the table and considered it on January 17, 1996 . The applicant proposes to remodel the facility into a restaurant/lounge. The "G-1" Business District would allow the rehabilitation of the building without the requirement of on-site parking. 1 . Existing zoning would allow for the same use as proposed under the requested zoning district. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23 , 1996 - P. 4 2 . The change in zoning would shift the burden of providing parking from on-site to off-site by the City of Lansing. 3 . The City recognizes the need for increased parking and is attempting to acquire/lease properties for this purpose . 4 . This development would be compatible with the North-East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro Brewery, 603 E . Michigan Avenue) . The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, the four items as stated above, and further that the "G-1" Business District is appropriate for this location and that the "H" Light Industrial District allows uses more intense than the proposed district. In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve Z-19-95, 601 E . Michigan Avenue, from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District; carried unanimously; 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-19-95 , 601 E . Michigan Avenue, from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-19-95 , 601 E . Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District was recommended to be APPROVED. C . Next meeting WEDNESDAY, February 14 , 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee met on Tuesday, January 16 , 1996 . a. Review of Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 Draft Statement . Mr. Ruge stated that he has a conflict of interest in this regard because his wife works for the Lansing Neighborhood Council which PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23 , 1996 - P. 5 receives some of the funds designated in the draft statement. He requested Ms . Marshall to give the report. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that he be excused from voting on the public service budget portion of the Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 Draft Statement. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Mr. Ruge was excused from voting on the public service budget portion of the Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds Federal Housing Programs 1996-97 Draft Statement; APPROVED. Ms . Marshall presented the report. Mr. Winnicker, at the Urban Development Committee, discussed the draft statement, which may be subject to change during the approval process . It is also subject to budget cuts at the federal level . Based on the staff report, the committee found the 1996 Consolidated Plan draft statement to be consistent with the Planning Board' s Goals and Objectives for the Twenty-First Century. Ms . Marshall made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, to recommend approval of the Consolidated Plan proposed public services category of activities at the proposed CDBG funding level for FY 1996-1997 with the realization that federal reductions in funding may occur and adjustments in the funding levels may result. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 6; Nays : 0; Abstentions : 1; carried; proposed public services category of activities at the proposed CDBG funding level for FY 1996-1997 , with the realization that federal reductions in funding may occur and adjustments in the funding levels may result was recommended to be APPROVED. Ms . Marshall made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of the remainder of the Consolidated Plan draft statement for Fiscal Year 1996-97 as presented, with the realization that federal reductions in funding may occur and adjustments in the funding levels may result. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23 , 1996 - P. 6 Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0 ; carried unanimously; remainder of the Consolidated Plan draft statement for Fiscal Year 1996-97 as presented, with the realization that federal reductions in funding may occur and adjustments in the funding levels may result was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Act-24-95 , 1100 Block of Kingsley Court (north side) near Martin Luther King Blvd. - Sale of Residential Lot The property is a residential parcel, rectangular in shape, 156 ft. x 66 ft . , approximately 4 acre in size, between 1130 and 1114 Kingsley Court. The property' s fair market value is $4 , 400 . Mr. Clarence Knox wishes to acquire this parcel to expand his property at 1114 Kingsley Court. His lot at 1114 Kingsley is small, measuring 38 . 5 feet x 66 feet. The subject property, as it is now, is nonbuildable under City codes . The City acquired the property for possible use as right-of-way for the M.L. King Blvd. improvements , but the project did not require the use of this parcel . The property has been for sale by the Development office. At one time, part of the subject parcel was used as a community garden, but that use will not be reestablished. The City is responsible for maintenance of the property. Nonprofit housing development organizations indicated a preference for housing rehabilitation rather than new construction. It is unlikely that the City would use the property for a pedestrian overpass . The staff recommends approval, based on the staff report, testimony and evidence, location, character and extent of the proposal . The committee found that the proposed sale will not adversely affect the possibility of infill housing on the subject parcel , that the sale of this parcel would improve the area' s land use pattern by expanding an excessively small lot, that the probability of locating a pedestrian overpass on the lot is low, that the sale of the parcel would result in improved maintenance, and that the City has no public purpose in retaining PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 1996 - P. 7 the parcel . In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend approval of this sale to Clarence Knox for fair market value for the purpose of combining the two parcels into one property. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, to recommend approval of Act-24-95, 1100 Block of Kingsley Court (north side) near Martin Luther King Blvd. , sale of residential lot to Clarence Knox for fair market value with the condition that the two parcels be combined into one property once it is sold. Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Knox is locked into combining the two parcels . Mr. Ruff said not necessarily, though that is what he has requested. At present, it is a separate parcel, but if he wants to build a garage on the property, he is going to need them to be combined. Mr. Ruge asked as a friendly amendment that it be a condition of the motion; accepted. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Act-24-95, 1100 Block of Kingsley Court (north side) near Martin Luther King Blvd. , Sale of Residential Lot to Clarence Knox for fair market value with the condition that two parcels be combined into one property once it is sold was recommended to be APPROVED. C . Act-25-95, Baker Street, Sale of Lot for warehouse - tabled January 16 , 1996 for more information. d. The Urban Development Committee will meet on Tuesday, February 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 4 . Executive Committee - did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. Ms . Love reviewed the work plan and budget information attached to the back of the mailed packet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23 , 1996 - P. 8 E . Pending Items : Future action required 3 . Urban Development Committee: a. Act-25-95, Baker Street (south side) near Reo, Sale of Lot for Warehouse, Tabled in Committee January 16 , 1996 . VI . NEW BUSINESS - None. VII . COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby said we received a letter from Code Compliance indicating that Senate Bill 653 is at committee on January 24 , 1996 . The Townships Association and Municipal League are opposed. Ms . LeBlanc said City people are planning to attend. VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Goolsby asked for a copy of the ethics ordinance considered at the City Council meeting January 22 , 1996 . The Board should make comments about it because chances are it will have an impact on us . IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS - None. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7 :45 p.m. Respectfull submit Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn012396 a:\27 Z-19-95 601 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Quest 5, Ltd. P.O. Box 80461 Lansing, MI 48908 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION, Re-Zone the property located at 601 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial to "G-l" Business District . EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 28 ' X 100 ' (2, 800 sq. ft. ) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial ( Second Hand Store\Paramount Coffee) S: Commercial (Gas Station/Auto Service) E: Office/Residential W: Public Facility/Parking (Oldsmobile Park) • SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "G-l" Business District W: "G-1" Business District _ MASTER PLAN DESIG. : The North East Area Plan designates this area for Commercial Use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The developer proposes to remodel the existing structure' s first and second floors for use as a restaurant/lounge . The requested zoning change is necessary Z-19-95 601 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 2 to eliminate the need for on-site parking. AGENCY RESPONSES Board of Water and Light Public Service Dept . Code Compliance Police Department Building Safety Office: The project is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as well as the site plan review procedure administered by the Building Safety office. contact a Building Safety Office representative for additional informant . Consumers Power Company: Eastside Neigh. Assoc. : Transportation Eng. : Assessor: No Comment . Development Office: Parking issue for area needs to be addressed, will come up in discussion. - ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed rezoning of 601 E. Michigan Avenue as "G-1" Business is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses . The intended use is to remodel the existing structure' s first and second floors for use as a restaurant/lounge . This would support the City' s efforts to revitalize this area while being compatible Z-19-95 601 E . Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 3 with Oldsmobile Park and Clara' s Restaurant in adjoining block faces of Michigan Avenue . 603 E. Michigan Avenue has recently been renovated to include a deluxe apartment on the second floor. There is a concern that a restaurant/lounge area would generate noise and/or odors that would have a negative impact upon occupants of this structure. However, the existing zoning district of "H" Light Industrial would allow for the development of a restaurant/lounge. The City of Lansing Building Safety Office is aware abutting residential use and will be sensitive of this during construction plan review. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The North East Area Plan designates this area for Commercial Use . The developer' s proposal is to remodel the existing structure' s first and second floors for use as a restaurant/lounge. This development would be compatible with the North East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro-brewery, 603 E. Michigan Ave. ) IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The rezoning of the property located at 601 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial to "G-l" Business District allows for the same intended commercial use (restaurant/lounge) , however it would shift the burden of suppling parking from on-site to be provided for by the City of Lansing. Currently, there is a major concern by businesses within this area in regards to parking. With the continued development of the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue and Pier Marquette Street the demands on existing parking will escalate . The intent of the "G-1" Business District is to allow for a general retail commercial district for the downtown area. Specifically, by allowing commercial businesses to locate in structures that were not designed for current vehicular demands and requirements . This area qualifies for this designation. The City of Lansing is currently in the process of retaining property through either lease or purchase, east of the Grand River that would facilitate parking for this area . The City in November demolished the former Liskey' s building and paved the site for an additional 100 parking spaces . Additionally, the City understands it' s obligation to provide immediate parking to this area and is proceeding with the necessary steps to have parking in place within Z-19-95 601 E . Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to 11G-1" Business Page 4 This site should have no noticeable impact on pedestrian traffic due to it' s proximity to the crosswalks at E . Michigan Avenue and Cedar Street . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No negative environmental impacts are anticipated. The former use of this site was commercial/retail . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at this intersection should not have a negative impact on patterns of development along Cedar Street or Michigan Avenue . This development would be compatible with the North East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro-brewery, 603 E. Michigan Ave. ) SUMARY 1 . Existing zoning would allow for the same use as proposed under the requested zoning district . 2 . The change in zoning would shift the burden of providing parking from on-site to off-site by the City of Lansing. 3 . The City recognizes the need for increased parking and is attempting to acquire/lease properties for this purpose . 4 . This development would be compatible with the North East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro-brewery, 603 E. Michigan Ave. ) RECOr-MNDAT ION - Staff recommends the subject parcel located at 601 E. Michigan Avenue be rezoned from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District . Z-19-95 601 E. Michigan Avenue, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Buswcss Dismci NORM i3 35 o a 38 3 9 15 ~ . .f-. q :. 44 � PVT ANOEpSON ST ti _ ` 41 rra' rL 16 N� 3 o � a W 33 0-1 17 M h U 3 rr > a' 19 311 ` o � ,rt,• ,71• 2rI-f• fJ' ALLEY 0 �1 22 23I24 lip 27 28 2; 3 NI a *T NO 48 tt.� 7 ( 01 23 Doti o.T co1 r ,r r,i) Gus cr7 � 2r 1)f cgs �3 Y Il�l��IC� v Avr N V't s Lk � t ~ i.08 •I! „1t ViV r1v lti JJ tt 1L N •• t . r'' Iu tl It lta �✓/ Lt _ t 8Z 5 , L _ _ 3 J I g 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 18 17 16 15 14 I 12 I I 10 9 8 7 5 `.?4 . ` 00 L G o 0z1 'Q- PSG i 1 1 l vaC2,0 20 �. � X 3 - 2 ; Iq6 L 4 ==.,,_N0 >> 2� '^ n 28 Q 0 5 �vJ 2 2 t o` 2 2 m 2 i • '1 I - � •� Z-21-95 2817 E. Mt. Hope Rd. "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard W. Johnson 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave. Lansing, MI 48910 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 96 ' x 214 .5 ' = 20,592 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential S: Evergreen Cemetery E: Single Family Residential W: Evergreen Dental Care SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "D-1" Professional Office MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for professional office. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone 2817 E. Mt. Hope from residential to professional office in order to sell the property. PLANNING BOARD Z-21-95 , 2817 E. Mt. Hope Rd. PAGE 2 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District AGENCY RESPONSES : Ameritech: No comments . BWL: Electric Utility No objections of concerns regarding the request to rezone the property at 2817 E. Mt. Hope. Water Utility No conflict with rezone. Building Safety: If the existing structure is residential it must be modified to comply with current commercial building codes . A plan sealed by a registered architect or engineer must be submitted to the Building Safety Office for review and approval . The project is also subject to the Site Plan Review process . Contact Christine Seagerlind for additional information at 483-4381 . Continental Cable: No conflicts with the rezoning of this property at this time. Development Off : No comment with regard to Development Office function. Fire Marshal: Approved. Forest View Neighborhood Organization: This association regrets any loss of single family residents in this area but realistically realize that some business must be in these boundaries .' Therefore, if we must allow a business we feel that Mount Hope and Jolly Road are the natural areas for them. Low traffic and low density are our main criteria. Transportation Eng: Adequate off-street parking is required. Driveway must be reconstructed to meet commercial standards . PLANNING BOARD Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Rd. PAGE 3 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding zoning in this area consist of low density residential zoning to the east, north and south of the subject property. The property to the west is zoned "D-1" Professional Office and is the used for the Evergreen Dental Care offices . The subject property is located on East Mt. Hope between the east city limits and Fidelity Street where there is a mix of office and residential land uses . At the city limits, a veterinary clinic exists. There are three single family homes between the clinic and subject property. Therefore, a mix of office and residential uses exist here, and if it were rezoned, only the percentage of offices to homes would be different. Otherwise, public facilities on large tracts of land dominate the area. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for professional office. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC There is a potential for a minor increase in vehicular traffic because the "D-1" Professional Office Use is more intense than the present use as low density residential. Currently, there are no specific plans for the property if the rezoning is granted. According to the--_ity Transportation Engineer, adequate off-street parking is required and a driveway must be reconstructed to meet commercial standards . The size of the property and the lack of sewer prevents redevelopment to any great extent. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES There will be no significant impact on public services. No sanitary sewers exists in this area. There should be little, if any impact on other utilities . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Depending on the proposed use of the property, there could be an impact on the environment. For example, If a new building is being constructed, the environment will be interrupted for a short period of time, until the building is completed. As with any type of construction, there will be an increase in noise, dust and other factors associated with construction. PLANNING BOARD Z-21-95, 2817 E. Mt. Hope Rd. PAGE 4 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District An intense use may adversely impact the environment due to the use of the septic tank and drain field. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The conversion of homes to office use in this area will be slow and deliberate since sewers don't exist, and with the large tracts of public land, the impact is barely negligible . SUMMARY The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for professional office. The surrounding zoning in this area consist of low density residential zoning to the east, north and south of the subject property. There is a mix of office and residential uses . If the property were rezoned, only the percentage of offices to homes would be different. There is a potential for a minor increase in vehicular traffic because the "D-1" Professional Office Use is more intense than the present use as low density residential. The size of the property and the lack of sewer prevents redevelopment to any great extent. There could be a potential impact on the environment depending on the proposed use of the property. The Forest View Neighborhood Organization indicated that they regret any loss of single family residents in this area but realize that some business must be in these boundaries and identified the Mount Hope and Jolly Road are the natural areas for them. The Building and Safety Division indicated that if the existing structure is residential it must be modified to comply with current commercial building codes . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to rezone 2817 E. Mt. Hope from "A" residential to "D-1" Professional Office be approved. i T Aso •` � � - I - rumor i•trrs rnn1 �_ � •� � I � tr W�10 R�twr �\\ � ' l / I ' —13 .ate n.rrn.o. _ zi �� I I �.,v.row� ra;....LL rumor ,Lp ID • iao rug nary ra�wr ■ CREGO PARK �g�7 Kt °Pe =� m • .• •• DEVELOPMENT PLAN� '• r) 1 ,, \\\\ �-����r.�SNa' `J = _ fva+JIC�V 1111c D'1 P Q'j it J/1(.I aaTc-o �n on :rmnrnu.r�rv1 r( 01+IC z FLIZ-21-95 , 2817 E. Mt. Hope Ave . "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District NoFn 834 �— /6 W 833 /4 LU 834 832.6 LL 833.0 /3 C SICLF(lam 840 639 l5 B43b 641 22 L61 ro 842 22 20 22 2B 841 841.1 39.6Z 7 31 5 V 17 841.3 L4�2S Z831 84/.4 Mt P E _ 840 0 838.7 C (a VE fie p 856.7 843.2 / 850.4 848. 8370 844.8 / APPROVED with one correction P 9 9th Para. Ln 3.67" Pos 9.5" "On a voice vote there were: Ayes: 7- 6 At meeting of March 19, 1996, with six members present, reapproved with corrections noted at meeting of March 5, 1996. APPROVED 031996 TO CLERK 03ZM Minutes of the Regular Meeting r C.3 LANSING PLANNING BOARD c.a 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall `n 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1996 I. OPti4ING SESSION c � Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call . Present: Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Marshall, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers : Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences - None. C . Introductions . Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present*: James A. Ruff,. Zoning Administrator; William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved with one correction, V. , D. , 2 . a. Act-2-9-• Act-2-96 . II . HEARINGS - None. III . COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS The Chairman declared a recess for the Urban Development Committee to meet concerning Act-1-96 and the 1996 Consolidated Plan Contingency Budget Alternative. The Board reconvened at 7 : 37 p.m. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval : February 6 , 1996 Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of February 6 , 1996 as printed; voice vote, Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; minutes of February 6 , 1996 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1 . Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms . LeBlanc, Chair. The Committee met on Wednesday, February 14 , 1996 . a. Z-22-95, 910 Jerome Street, "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 2 The applicant is proposing to rezone 910 Jerome Street from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office in order to convert the apartment building to office and apartment use. The upper level apartments will be maintained for use by visiting physicians and/or on-call attending or resident.'physicians . The middle and lower levels would be utilized by the hospital for -business/clerical staff . The proposed rezoning and subsequent land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses and provides a transition between the commercial frontage on Michigan Avenue and the residences to the north. This proposed rezoning is consistent with the expansion plan for Sparrow Hospital with regard to protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the proposed land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses and provides the transition between the commercial frontage on Michigan Avenue and the residential properties to the north. Also, the development is in keeping with the Sparrow Hospital Development Plan which both the Planning Board and City Council have reviewed and accepted. The development plan designates this block for hospital service purposes . In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Z-22-95, 910 Jerome Street, from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office, 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-22-95 , 910 Jerome Street, from "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Z-22-95, 910 Jerome Street, "DM-3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. SLU-1-96 , North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. , Church The applicant proposes to develop a new 8 ,600 sq. ft. church facility on vacant property located at the north side of Beaujardin PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 3 Drive at Oakbrook Drive. The church building is proposed to seat 216 people and be constructed in two phases . Parking will be available for approximately 119 vehicles . The committee found, based on . testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the proposal satisfies the nine criteria for evaluating special land use permits, is a good use for this irregularly-shaped and -located lot, and has received support from the neighboring property owners . In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of SLU-1-96, North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. , for the purpose of constructing a church. This motion was made with the understanding that site plan improvements will be made to the parking and landscape screening and buffering components, 4-0 . Ms . LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend approval of SLU-1-96, North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. , Church, contingent upon the site plan improvements to the parking and the landscape screening and buffering. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . Mr. Ruge asked about the parking requirements for the proposed building and about the second phase expansion. They have provided parking in excess of the seating capacity of the main hall of worship. Approximately 70 to 72 parking spaces would be required; they have in excess of that. They need to keep parking out of the front yard. The second phase is more of a family center with gathering rooms . It will not increase the requirement for parking, but it may increase the need for parking. Ms . Love said the number of parking spaces required is based on sanctuary size. LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; SLU-1-96 , North Side Beaujardin Dr. at Oakbrook Dr. , Church was recommended to be APPROVED. C . Next meeting WEDNESDAY, March 13 , 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 2 . Urban Development Committee, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee met on Tuesday, February 13, 1996 . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 4 a . 1996 Consolidated Plan Contingency Budget Alternative Mr. Ruge stated that he has a conflict of interest in this regard because his wife works for thelLansing Neighborhood Council which receives some of the funds designated in the budget. Ms . Marshall will give the report and Mr. Ruge will leave the room. Ms . Leblanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, that Mr. Ruge be excused from voting on the Consolidated Plan Contingency Budget Alternative for 1996 , with regard to the Public Service portion. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Mr. Ruge was excused from voting on the public service portion of the Consolidated Plan Contingency Budget Alternative for 1996 . Mr. Ruge left the room. Ms . Marshall said Mr. Winnicker presented the Consolidated Plan budget scenarios for the City for 1996 . Changes are possible with funding at the federal level . In order to be prepared for such changes , the decision was made to prepare a 75 percent budget as well as a 100 percent budget to be able to submit once the funding levels are known. At the meeting on Tuesday, February 13 , 1997 , we were presented with a new 100 percent budget and a 75 percent funding level budget. The Urban Development Committee broke the budget into two motions because of Mr. Ruge' s conflict. We split out the public services section and voted to approve the revised 100 percent version, and the 75 percent version. Tonight we have received a new revised 75 percent budget to vote on which Mr. Rieske has distributed. We have gone through four different pieces , and now in our final stage of decision-making, we have some revisions to both budgets . The report shows a comparison of the budgets . Mr. Rieske said, for clarification, in the Planning Board packet is a revised version of the 100 percent budget, and an alternative budget, the 75 percent scenario . What is presented now is that revised 100 percent budget that is in your packet, and the revised 75 percent budget which was handed out to you. Ms . Marshall made a motion, in two parts , seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, first, to approve the revised 100 percent budget and also the revised substituted 75 percent budget, the 1996 Consolidated Plan contingency budget alternative, only for the public service sections . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . On a voice vote, there were: Ayes : 6 ; Nays : 0; Abstentions : 1; carried; the revised 100 percent budget and also the revised PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 5 substituted 75 percent budget, the 1996 Consolidated Plan contingency budget alternative, only for the public service sections was APPROVED. Mr. Ruge returned to the room At this point. Ms . Marshall made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of the remainder of the 100 percent Consolidated Plan as revised and to recommend approval of the revised 75 percent Consolidated Plan contingency budget alternative, and that this approval stand for every section except the public services line. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; the remainder of the 100 percent Consolidated Plan as revised and the revised 75 percent Consolidated Plan contingency budget alternative were recommended to be APPROVED. This approval stands for every section except the public services line . b. Act-01-96 , 1300 Blk. Turner St. , Redevelopment of City-owned Property The committee worked further on this during the recess . The City owns a vacant parcel of land on the west side of Turner Street just south of Dodge Park and north of Estes Furniture warehouse with frontage on the Grand River. The property is approximately 2 . 64 acres in size. The River Trail runs through it. A portion of the property is located in the floodplain. The City wishes to sell the property for residential development. The parcel contains an easement for sewer and water. Currently it is zoned "H" Light Industrial . The surrounding property is zoned "H" Light Industrial and "C" two-family residential . The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial development. The property is located within the Old Town planning area. This property has the Turner-Dodge mansion to the north and the commercial district to the south, both designated as historically significant. It also falls within the boundaries of the Economic Development Corporations Business Financing Assistance Program. The City is seeking approval to sell the property by issuing a Request for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 6 Qualifications and a Request for Proposals . The City wishes to select a nonprofit developer, but the committee felt the selection process should not be limited to nonprofit developers , so we would like to see the City open up the bidding to anyone who is interested. The planning staff has developed recommended parameters and procedures for putting this property out to bid, as detailed in the staff report . The site is a difficult one to build on, due to the site conditions, but provides a unique opportunity to develop a housing project with innovative design compatible with historic and natural surroundings . The staff recommends that the Planning Board forward the recommendation to the City Council to sell the property, through the RFP process . In committee, a motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (4-0) to sell the property, through the RFP process, with the conditions in the staff report, and with the additional condition that the extent and necessity for the easement on the property be specifically identified, and also that the bidding be opened to for-profit and nonprofit bidders . Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . Marshall, that Act-1-96 , 1300 Block Turner Street, be approved for redevelopment of the City-owned property, subject to the criteria in the staff report, with the additional conditions that the easement on the property be specifically identified, and also that the bidding be opened to for-profit as well as nonprofit bidders . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0 ; carried unanimously; Act-01-96 , 1300 Blk. Turner St. , Redevelopment of City-owned Property, subject to the criteria in the staff report, with the additional conditions that the easement on the property be specifically identified, and also that the bidding be opened to for-profit as well as nonprofit bidders , was recommended to be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 7 C. Act-25-95, Baker St. at Conrail ROW - Sale for Warehouse The subject parcel is triangular in shape, approximat9ly three acres in size. There are some questions about contamination on the property. The petitioner has requested to purchase only a little more than a half-acre of the site. The part that he is requesting to purchase is the only known clean parcel on the site. The proposed site is located in an industrially zoned area. The warehouse facility which is proposed is appropriate and consistent with the surrounding land uses . The staff has recommended approval of the sale of the entire City-owned 3-acre parcel, and not just the half-acre that the petitioner has requested. The committee reviewed the location, character and extent in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act. The Committee found that the sale of the entire parcel for development is in the public interest and that the sale of the portion of the parcel as proposed by the applicant would lower the value and potential of the remainder of the parcel . In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 4-0, to offer the entire parcel for fair market value. The committee expressed its concern about environmental conditions and the need to provide appropriate disclosures, and also noted the need for the developer to provide adequate landscaping and buffering in the site plan. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms . LeBlanc, that Act-25-95 , Baker St. at Conrail ROW - Sale of the entire Nellers Court parcel as one City-owned parcel on the south side of Baker Street at fair market value for a warehouse, be recommended for approval . Mr. Robinson asked who would be responsible for clean-up. Ms . Love said that, should he agree to purchase the parcel, the applicant along with the City would be responsible for additional clean-up. Some recent sales in Diamond Reo have contained a disclaimer holding the City harmless since the City done nothing to incur additional on-site contamination. The City Attorney probably would again require this clause in a purchase agreement; however, recently, state law regarding environmental clean-up has changed. Depending on the use by the new owner, there may be a less intensive clean-up required. Also, Lansing is one of the communities being considered for a new federal program on site PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 8 assessments to find ways to help businesses take old brownfield sites in cities and redevelop them. Under this program, we would be able to help determine the contamination and provide estimates to the business before purchase. It would be less than prudent for the City to allow the pu?,chaser to take the only known uncontaminated property and leave the City with the rest . The property is adjacent to Diamond Reo, in Nellers Court . We do not anticipate a problem since the area was primarily in housing, but we do not know what has migrated below the surface from contaminated areas . We are not certain there is contamination on the remainder of the property. The $16 , 000 price per acre fair market value was established a number of years ago . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the above motion was as follows . Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Marshall Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; Act-25-95, Baker St. at Conrail ROW - Sale of the entire Nellers Court parcel as one City-owned parcel on the south side of Baker Street to the applicant at fair market value for a warehouse, was recommended to be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . The Urban Development Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 12 , 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 4 . Executive Committee a. Administrative Rules of Procedure The Executive Committee met at 6 p.m. before the regular meeting to consider the final revised procedures . Mr. Greiner reviewed changes as follows . ( 1) Page 2 , 1 . 3 . Duties of the Off}Ge ef- Chairperson (delete Office of) . (2) The duties of the ^offiRe CHAIRPERSON shall be as follows (delete office) : ( 3 ) Page 2 , 1 . 3, E . The Vice Chairperson shall act in the capacity of the Beard (delete Board) . . . . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 9 (4 ) Page 5, 2 . 3 B. 1 . Scheduled Public Hearings : The petitioner or the petitioner' s representative shall be permitted five (5) minutes to speak A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR PRESENTATION GENERALLY NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5) MINUTES . All others shall be given a reasonable amount of time to speak, generally not to exceed three ( 3 ) minutes . (5 ) Page 5, 2 . 3 B. 2 . General Public c-Comments : All persons shall be given a reasonable amount of time, generally not to exceed three (3) minutes, TO SPEAK ON ISSUES BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD OR ON TOPICS OF GENERAL INTEREST ' TO THE PLANNING BOARD. ( 6 ) Page 6, 2 . 6 . A line space should be inserted between A and B. (7 ) Page 11, 5 .2 A. Fourth line, the Planning mManager. Mr. Greiner said these items, for the most part included in a previous draft, had been inadvertently omitted. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, that the Administrative Rules of Procedure be adopted and forwarded to City Council . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows : On a voice vote, there were : Ayes : 7 ; Nays : 0; carried unanimously; the final revised Rules of Administrative Procedure, were recommended to be APPROVED. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms . Love. Ms . Love said some things coming to the Board in the near future include the Sparrow Outpatient Building and Parking Ramp. The vacation of Jones Street south of Studio d'Danse to Eureka Street will be requested. Mr. Carl Latona of Highfields, Inc. said today they may be interested in purchasing a large house on Turner Street for a second facility for ten people. They still want to pursue the house at 223 S . Pennsylvania for six. The Development and Planning Committee ( formerly the Physical Development Committee) of City Council has before it all four of the special land use permits forwarded by the Planning Board. They have asked for a policy regarding handling of SLUs, since none of them were in office when PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P . 10 we started handling these kinds of permits . There is a Council-adopted policy which we will be forwarding. Residents have concerns , and the committee is trying to balance all interests . Also, for the first time, they are hearing about thb Oxford House case, which we were already familiar with. On Wednesday, February 21 is a budget meeting with the Mayor. Regarding Ettinger & Rinveldt v. City of Lansing ( Z-6-93 , 5400 Block S . Waverly Road, "A" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District/SLU-9-93 , 5400 Block S . Waverly Road, Mobile Home Park) , the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor. We have the Skyline case coming up March 6 . We have received a communication from Mark Canady on behalf of the Hackers regarding 4720 S . Cedar Street, an application for a parcel that has been before the Board twice recently. Staff finds nothing materially different from the previous applications . Ms . LeBlanc asked if this is a new application; Ms . Love said yes . Chairman Goolsby asked if Mr. Canady voted on the cases the previous times . Mr. Ruff said the first petition ( Z-5-94 , 4720 S . Cedar, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District) was withdrawn by Wolverine Development . Council took action on the second petition, Z-11-95 , 4720 S . Cedar Street, "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office and "F" Commercial District on November 13, 1995, unanimously denying it. Chairman Goolsby asked if Mr. Canady voted on Z-11-95 ; Ms . LeBlanc asked if and how Mr. Canady voted on Z-5-94 . E . Pending Items : Future action required 3 . Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-95, Case and Grand River Ave. , Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot. Action postponed in committee February 13 , 1996 VI . NEW BUSINESS - None. VII . COMMUNICATIONS February 10 , 1996 letter to Mayor from Chairman Goolsby regarding Proposed 1996/97 Work Program and Budget . Letter received this evening from Mr. Ira Ginsberg, Vice President, Administrative Services, Sparrow Hospital Health Services , addressed to Mr. James H. Hines, Vice President of Programs for Highfields , Inc . regarding SLU-14-95 , 223 S . Pennsylvania, Residential Care Facility for up to Ten Male Teenaged Youths . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - P. 11 Ms . Love said a petition has been submitted to City Council from the people in North Lansing near Z-17-95, 318 and 320 Beaver St. and 1425 Center St. , "H" Light Industrial to "C" Residential District, asking for their entire area to be rezoned, not dissimilar to the River Point request. "I indicated to Mr. Leeman that Council would have to come up with a policy. If they are going to have wholesale rezonings, there will have to be a revenue transfer to our accounts to pay for the rezoning requests . " A discussion followed concerning how this ties in with takings . Board members may wish to suggest legal seminars on topics such as takings, SLUs, sludge, and the like. VIII . COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Members commented on telecommunication towers and the federal telecommunications bill just signed last week. Ms . LeBlanc mentioned the Historic Preservation Network Conference on April 19 and 20 in Ann Arbor. No developments have taken place on Senate Bill 653 . Members discussed area planning, regional planning, watershed planning, and purchase of development rights on rural property. Mr. Greiner, who will be out of town for the Tuesday, March 5 , 1996 meeting, requested and was granted an excused absence. Ms . Marshall, who has another meeting that night, requested and was granted an excused absence for the March 19 , 1996 meeting. She will also be absent for the UDC meeting on March 12 , 1996 . X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8 : 47 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn022096 a:\28 ,, ,,- , _ '. _ ,' Wit, ' _ _ .. __ .. _ _ _s, . C;: - - _ >-: � � , , s .� ., , . _ - t � � '. � - i �� =t. �� it - .. _ - � � r�, � - 1 . � - 1 . t .. X cz Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development 119 N.Washington Square R E C I"I�J C D Lansing,Michigan 48933-1668 (517)4834071 �" �E I h �� s� 24 RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE Fax:(517)483-6036 �F? LANSIP=IC CITY CLERIC February 10, 1996 Lansing City Council 10th Floor Lansing City Hall 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Council members: During 1995, the Planning Board has worked diligently to uphold the existing city wide Comprehensive Plan, the adopted city wide goals and objectives for the Year 2000, the Lansing City Charter and state laws. Many important activities have taken place during this year. Significant among these are: A. Completed total revision of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure which had not been updated since 1979. B. Analysis, evaluation, and recommendation to the City Council on more that 100 land use requests during the year including rezoning of the SmithKlein Beecham property, granting of a special land use request for Union Missionary Baptist Church to purchase the "Triangle" in accordance with the Seven Block Development Plan and the granting of a Class A nonconforming status to the Poxson Park apartments so that they could be rebuilt after a fire. C. Attended various workshops and conferences to become better and more knowledgeable Board members. D. Conducted 23 regular Planning Board meetings and 48 committee meetings during the year in order to adequately perform the functions of the Board. E. Initiated the North Lansing/Old Town Area Comprehensive Plan which will be adopted during the remainder of this fiscal year. F. Worked with petitioners and neighborhoods to recommend development patterns to the City Council which were in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with surrounding uses and focused on neighborhood preservation The Planning Board has performed in 1995 under difficult circumstances, having as few as six seated members with which to conduct business. There are presently seven Board members and a final eighth member may soon be placed in nomination. Even so, the Planning Board processed 21 rezoning petitions, 18 special land use petitions, reviewed two Planned Residential Development petitions, 30 ACT 285 reviews, and numerous other land use requests. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed Work Program and Budget for the 1996/97 Fiscal Year. The Board members also completed a survey regarding the level of Planning staff Lansing City Council Page 2 February 10, 1996 support, equipment, training, and overall effectiveness of staff and Board activities. The Board found that the Work Program is ambitious, but well rounded with emphasis on conducting a complete revision of the Comprehensive Plan, recommending certain necessary Zoning and Sign Code amendments, and completing a Strategic Plan for the Ce6tral Area of Lansing. However, the Board believes that for the Work Program to be completed in an effective manner, more staff (for both Planning and compliance activities), better equipment, and more training (both Board and staff) is absolutely necessary. Several of the topics mentioned for additional training were: cellular and radio towers, legal aspects of planning decisions, and a general seminar on being a good" planning board member. At the Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, December 15, 1995, the members voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed 1996/97 Work Program and Budget. The Planning Board hereby submits its report to the Lansing City Council for its consideration in compliance with the Lansing City Charter. Sinc I arty Gools4Chai, Lansing Planning Board