Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Plannng Board July-Sept Minutes FINAL APPROVED 080696 WITH ONE EMENDATION P 5, Para. 5., APPROVED 080696 TO CLERK 0819% Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996 r I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, lgsclan, 1 Robinson, Ruge; seven members present; one absent. Ex�Of£ieio is Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. ' t,, B . Excused Absence - Marshall. At the May 7, 1996 meeting; Ms`. Marshall, was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Chairman Goolsby introduced new board member Andrew Frederick. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Z-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Tom H. Arnold in the Old Town area near the Fish Ladder. The property has long been zoned "F-1" Commercial; however, it is on a lot which is developed with buildings. The owner, who wishes to develop the building, is requesting "G-1" Business, a zoning classification which does not require parking to be associated with the property or provided by the applicant. In terms of uses, the "F-1" and "G-1" zoning districts are synonymous. There is general parking at the Brenke Fish Ladder and at Burchard Park, less than 100 yards from this property, as well as potential for the owner to rent spaces from the City. The City is in the process of buying the Classic Cat (approved at the City Council July 15, 1996) . It will become an extension of the park area and could include some additional parking. We are finishing up the North Lansing Plan right now. Parking is an issue in the plan. TOM ARNOLD, 200 E. GRAND RIVER AVENUE, OWNER OF BUILDING. I have owned the building for fifteen or more years; it has been used for storage, but in support of the neighborhood, I want to develop the building consistent with other new developments in North Lansing, Richard Karp's, for instance. The buildings were built when there was no need to provide parking. There are few options for parking short of renting City parking. I am going to put in apartments or artists' studios; we hope to have four apartments. They can be efficiencies or combinations of efficiencies and sleeping lofts. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DULY 161 1996 - P. 2 Chairman Goolsby read a whimsically humorous letter of "objection" from Mr. Arnold's brother, Tim Arnold, a co-owner. The letter was received in the spirit in which it was offered. Mr. Arnold requested a copy for his file. Finding that no one else desired to speak on this item, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Z-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District; referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on July 24, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. B . Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of-way Mr. Rieske presented the case, a request by CATA to place off-premise lighted signs on CATA bus shelters in the public right-of-way at various locations. The proposal would result in additional bus shelters and several information kiosks. At present, the sign ordinance regulates off-premise advertising as billboards, which are not permitted in the right-of-way. The Planning Board is requesting comments from the public during deliberations on this issue. The packet contains representations of signs and kiosks in other communities, plus a CATA station proposal for East Michigan Avenue in the East Michigan Revitalization Plan. All of the comprehensive plans support additional bus shelters; however, the issue of advertising on shelters in the public right-of-way is not raised. BOB ZOLKOWSKI, REPRESENTING CATA, here to answer any questions. Right now, CATA has approximately 75 shelters in the Lansing metropolitan area, 33 of which are within the City limits. With this proposal, CATA would receive, in exchange for allowing the advertising on the shelters, up to ten new shelters per year over the five years of the agreement to be entered into. The criteria for determining placement of shelters is based on numbers of boardings. It would be reasonable to assume that about half of the new 50, or 25, would be located in the City. Mr. Zolkowski deferred the rest of his presentation until after public comment. Chairman Goolsby said when this came before the Urban Development Committee recently, the committee posed a series of questions to CATA for additional information and also scheduled this public hearing for public comment and input. MARY MARGARET MURPHY-WOLL, 210 FERGUSON, REPRESENTING EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION, EAST SIDE COMMERCIAL CLUB, AND MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. I have a letter which I am not going to read, but I want to address the Planning Board about the public hearing notification method. The people attending tonight are here because of my PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 16, 1996 - P. 3 notification efforts on the East side. Notification should have been made in all areas affected because it is a neighborhood concern. Regarding the 4x6 signs, it never clearly states if there will be one or six, or if they will be appropriate--which signs should go in front of which establishments. Neighborhood organizations should have been individually notified. The Lansing Neighborhood Council does not take a political position. No business organizations were notified. They should have been notified. The Michigan Revitalization Committee should have been notified (since you used one of my pictures in your brochure) . The rest of the items we discussed you can read in my letter. Chairman Goolsby asked about notifications. Mr. Rieske said there were two methods of notification; one was an agency referral to the Lansing Neighborhood Council, which indicated they would be distributing it, and the second was the notice of public hearing in the Lansing State Journal. At this time, the proposal is more of a generic one in terms of location. No geographical locations for signs or shelters have been pinpointed. KATE KOSKINEN, 1409 JEROME STREET, representing Eastfield Neighborhood Association. Speaking as someone who drives around Lansing, we have so much stuff on our streets, especially on Michigan Avenue, which I travel every day. The presently-denuded stretch in front of Sparrow Hospital still has traffic control devices, street lights, trees, light poles, and telephone poles. That seems like plenty, and it doesn't include parking or bus stop signs, or anything else. The right-of-way along Michigan Avenue here is considerably narrower. As you drive along, it is a huge assault on your peripheral vision, and with the amount of pedestrian traffic that is increasing as businesses revitalize along with restaurants, I am concerned for pedestrian safety. There is no buffer, no grass strip between the sidewalk and the street. Adding one more thing to the public right-of-way is dangerous. It is cluttering up what is already cluttered. MARY CLARK, 223 S. EIGHTH STREET, here as chairperson of the Green Oaks Target Area Organization, and as a member of the East Michigan Revitalization Committee. In the Green Oaks Plan, we mentioned CATA and our proximity to public transportation as a community asset. We take a different position about shelters, because we have had problems over the years with street crime activity. In the Green Oaks Target Area Organization, we said we want public transportation, but we would rather not have benches and shelters, which are a source of problems. This may be true for other neighborhoods too. As a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, we have tried to improve the problem of visual clutter. In the Michigan Avenue area, the proximity of the businesses to the streets does not allow for much signage. I see this as a negative proposal in terms of setting a precedent for other businesses if we allow these signs all over town. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 16, 1996 - P. 4 In terms of beautification over the last few years, Michigan Avenue has come so far. I think a reason why people leave Lansing and move elsewhere is that they are tired of the ugliness. This is not a positive step in terms of beautification. BOB ZOLKOWSKI, REPRESENTING CATA. We did not enter into this lightly. We have been incurring $1 million deficits for the last few years, and we are looking at revenue-generating ideas. Federal revenue has dried up--we used to get $2 million per year; now it has fallen to one-half million, and we expect that to stop entirely. We cannot increase our current $1 base fare. The state gas tax, our other source of revenue, has not increased for the last 15 years. We had internal debates similar to what we have heard tonight, and we appreciate your comments. We want to project a nice image--clean bus interiors and exteriors, and clean shelters. Our proposal would give us editorial control over all ads. Conflicting ads in front of businesses is a big issue. We haven't worked this out yet. I propose, with the list of questions from the Eastside Neighborhood and others, that I be given an opportunity to prepare written responses and submit them to the B oard. Mr. Nischan asked about the revenue from the sign rental and would it help offset revenue loss? Mr. Koslowski said it would be one two-sided panel, one per shelter, on the side of the shelter. Nothing gaudy. In our annual surveys, 90 percent of our customers ask us to install more shelters; they say shelters provide security and protection from weather. In providing shelters, we are limited by our resources. Mr. Robinson asked what percentage of senior citizens use buses; Mr. Koslowski said senior citizens make up 35 to 40 percent of ridership. Ms. LeBlanc asked under the current sign ordinance, what would be the mechanics? Would they have to apply for a zoning variance? Ms. Love said for this issue, an amendment to the ordinance would be required. Off-premise advertising on private property is a billboard. Our ordinance does not apply to the right-of-way. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way. We have not sought an opinion from the City Attorney. It is potentially a policy that the City council would have to decide, and an ordinance issue. The transportation engineer has concerns about placing signs and shelters in the right-of-way relative to distances from intersections. Mr. Koslowski said twenty of 28 shelters in Lansing are on state trunk lines, so they have to undergo review by MDOT. Mr. Ruge asked if the City has considered renting right-of-way, and generating revenue, as is done with cable tv companies? It could be lucrative. At the same time we could address the benches at so many locations. The benches are in the public right-of-way with no permit, and nothing has been done about them. Mr. Koslowski said those are not ours. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 16, 1996 - P. 5 Mr. Nischan asked if the City has a site-by-site placement review process by the neighborhoods affected? At some locations the already- narrow right-of-way would be extremely narrow, and with the advertising signs, you would also have visually complicating elements. The signs would be fine in some places, but not along Michigan Avenue. The neighborhoods should have input concerning aesthetics and functional aspects and visual impacts of signs. A 4x6 sign might be fine in some places, but a 1x2 sign might be more appropriate in others. Ms. Love said the City Attorney's office supports a licensing procedure. In a licensing arrangement, the owner maintains control of the property. Mr. Koslowski said no shelters have been placed recently, but we do get permission from the City; we do work with Dave Berridge. Ms. Love said she assumed, because this is a more permanent structure in the public right-of-way, the City Attorney would like to have a licensing arrangement. As in any other formal arrangement, it would have to go through City Council. Mr. Nischan asked if the contracting company wants only the one 4x6 sign. Mr. Koslowski said, yes, though they are open for variation. They are eager to get this project going in Lansing. They also have proposals in Ann Arbor and in Jackson. "I would say they would be amenable to consideration of smaller ads." (M Nisehan said "I keep + h - the ele k e-rccping tei^ a-rds !!--it's beeeme sei-t F a . hAbb eleth €ep me— 11) Mr. Nischan said as this process goes forward, we should find a way to make sure the licensure procedure is available to people across the City. Mr. Goolsby, passing the gavel, said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee had many questions about conflicts, particularly putting advertising signs in the public right-of-way. If allowed, it would open the way for political signs in the right-of-way. We must have guidance from the City Attorney's office on this and on the licensing issue, among other areas. Mr. Greiner asked about the 4x6 sign on the ends; Mr. Koslowski said on the opposite short ends. Boarders would not be obscured from view of the driver. Mr. Robinson asked about other cities' experience with advertising signs such as this. Mr. Goolsby, passing the gavel, said Jim Sturdevant was going to get information from Cincinnati. Chairman Goolsby, announcing the conclusion of the hearing, said the case will be referred to the Urban Development Committee, meeting Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 162 1996 - P. 6 III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: June 18, 1996. The following correction of draft minutes was noted: P 8, L 1 a-6-96, 206 E. grand Rivems Avenue, "F- " nepeial Distrie-t to "G-'" Business Distriet NCU-4-96, 1401 MOORES RIVER, CLASS A EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of June 18, 1996 as amended; PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; the minutes of June 4, 1996 as amended were APPROVED. B . Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be Wednesday, July 24, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. Ms. LeBlanc will be unable to attend; however, Mr. Nischan has agreed to attend in her place. 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Urban Development Committee, which met on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, considered three items. The items were taken in the following order: Act-15-96, Act-14-96, and Act-19-96. The Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews remains tabled. a. Act-14-961, 300 Blk. E. Washtenaw, Vacation of Right-of- Way The right-of-way to be vacated lies immediately south of the Grand Tower Building, a portion of which protrudes into the right-of-way, permitted as a result a commercial easement granted when the building was constructed. The right-of-way is abutted by a City parking lot on the south and the Grand Tower Building on the north. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 16, 1996 - P. 7 existing right-of-way is 82.5 feet in width and contains public utilities for which easement provisions must be made. Fire codes dictate that a 40-foot space be maintained between this building and any adjacent building. Aside from the provision of easements, the City has no public purpose for retaining the right-of-way. The committee found, based upon a review of the location, character, and extent of this proposal, that: 1. This proposal is compatible with the River Island Area Master Plan; 2. This proposal has the support of adjacent property owners; 3. The vacation of East Washtenaw right-of-way will facilitate the long-term development of the area and the use of the building by the State of Michigan, its current tenant. 4. Utility easements, a commercial easement, and easements for pedestrian circulation will need to be maintained for public access to the Grand River. In committee, this proposal was considered in two parts, both as a vacation of right-of-way, and also as a recommendation for the City to sell its portion of the right- of-way to the owners of the Grand Tower Building in order that the Grand Tower Building might have the required 20 feet to the property line for conformity with the building codes. ACT-14-96 PART 1. Right-of-way vacation: In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to vacate the East Washtenaw right-of- way between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving utility easements, a commercial easement, and pedestrian easements for access to the river, and other easements as necessary. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, to recommend approval of Act-14-96, Part 1, 300 Blk. E. Washtenaw, Vacation of Unused Right-of-Way between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving utility easements, a commercial easement, and pedestrian easements for access to the river, and other easements as necessary. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DULY 1617 1996 - P. 8 Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; Act-14-96, Part 1, 300 Blk. E. Washtenaw, Vacation of Unused Right-of-Way between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving utility easements, a commercial easement, and pedestrian easements for access to the river, and other easements as necessary, was APPROVED. ACT-14-96 PART 2. Recommendation for the City to sell its portion of the right-of-way In committee, it was also moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-14-99 Part 2, sale or trade of the south one-half of the vacated Washtenaw Street right-of-way to the property owners to the north for fair or equal market value, provided that the owners of said property pay for costs associated with vacating the right-of-way and all closing and related real estate transfer costs. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-14-96 Part 2, sale or trade of the south one-half of the vacated Washtenaw Street right-of-way to the property owners to the north for fair or equal market value, provided that the owners of said property pay for costs associated with vacating the right-of-way and all closing and related real estate transfer costs. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; recommendation of approval, Act-14-96 Part 2, sale or trade of the south one-half of the vacated Washtenaw Street right-of-way to the property owners to the north for fair or equal market value, provided that the owners of said property pay for costs associated with vacating the right-of-way and all closing and related real estate transfer costs; APPROVED. b. Act-15-96, 300 Blk. E. Kalamazoo Street, Vacation of Unused Right-of-way The City of Lansing Development Office is requesting that the City vacate unused E. Kalamazoo Street right-of-way between Grand Avenue and the Grand River. The City owns all properties adjacent to this right-of-way. The right-of-way currently abuts the Grand River, but is not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DULY 16, 1996 - P. 9 currently used to provide public access to it. It contains storm sewers for which easements need to be retained and maintained. The committee found, based on a review of the location, character and extent of this proposal, the committee found that: 1. The City of Lansing owns all properties abutting the right-of-way to be vacated. 2. Preservation of utility easements throughout the right-of-way is necessary to maintain public services; 3. The City has no public purpose in retaining the right-of-way for surface transportation; 4. The vacation of the right-of-way is appropriate for the site's current use or for any planned use. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend the vacation of the east Kalamazoo Street right-of-way, between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving easements as appropriate for utilities within the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, to approve Act-15-96, 300 Blk. E. Kalamazoo, vacation of the east Kalamazoo Street right-of-way, between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving easements as appropriate for utilities within the right-of-way. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Nischan asked if Act-15-96 was discussed in the meeting in relationship to Act-4-96 as part of a package? Mr. Ruge said the two acts were reviewed at the same time, but they were not really connected. Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Frederick Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Act-15-96, 300 Blk. E. Kalamazoo Street, vacation of the east Kalamazoo Street right-of-way, between Grand Avenue and the Grand River, reserving easements as appropriate for utilities within the right-of-way, was APPROVED. c. Act-19-96, E. Side 2600-2700 Blk. S. Cedar St., Vacation of Utility Easement PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 161? 1996 - P. 10 Charles Abraham, of Abraham Real Estate, is the prospective owner of a Rite Aid site at the subject location. The property was rezoned from "A" Residential and "J" Parking and "F" Commercial to "F" Commercial District on October 23, 1995. The committee found, based on a review of the location, character and extent of this proposal, that: 1 . This project is compatible with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan; 2. Zoning approval has been granted in 1995 to enable the developer to complete this project; 3. Unused public utility easements crossing the property are a barrier to implementing the developer's proposal; 4. No public purpose remains for the retention of these easements. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend the vacation of the Landell Metropolitan District easement dated 2/1/48 (Liber 64, Page 515) and the City of Lansing easement dated June 22, 1981. Mr. Ruge made a motion, supported by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Act-19-96, E. Side 2600-2700 Blk. S. Cedar St. , vacation of the Landell Metropolitan District easement dated 2/l/48 (Liber 64, Page 515) and the City of Lansing easement dated June 22, 1981. Mr. Goolsby, passing the gavel, said he was going to vote on this item tonight; however, his law firm is currently involved in a matter which may lead to legal action against Rite Aid. "I don't see my vote being any conflict there, but I think it's appropriate that I disclose it at this time." PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ruge Aye Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Nay Robinson Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 1; Act-19-96, E. Side 2600-2700 Blk. S. Cedar St. , vacation of the Landell Metropolitan District easement dated 2/1/48 (Liber 64, Page 515) and the City of Lansing easement dated June 22, 1981 was recommended to be APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 16, 1996 - P. 11 Mr. Ruge said the next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be held on TUESDAY, August 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. , in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love - None. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Development Committee: a. SLU-3-96, 1149 S. Washington Ave. , Church, Movement for Christ Ministries (Tabled June 18, 1996, Board) Chairman Goolsby requested clarification on SLU-3-96., Ms. Love said the case is held pending an attorney's opinion relative to the impacts on liquor licenses for other commercial establishments. We would also like to know from the owner of Capitol Hill Station whether or not he has any objections. b. SLU-5-96, 230 N. Sycamore St. , Adult Foster Care Facility for Eight People Ms. Love said we read very closely the definition for adult foster care. When it mentions other licensed facilities, it specifies a number of different types. We have since informed the owners of Grand Manor that they cannot apply for an increase in the size of their license because of the other facility across the street. They have been notified, and we have returned their money. They will have to wait until the other facility is gone. "It is my understanding that the state is not going to occupy that space for too much longer. When and if Pine Lodge leaves, this facility could expand the size of its license." c. NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. (Tabled June 18, 1996; returned to Z&O Committee) 2. 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. b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment. c. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. &Visitors Bur. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 163 1996 - P. 12 VI. NEW BUSINESS - none. VII. COMMUNICATIONS During the public hearing portion of the meeting, Chairman Ruge a letter from Mr. Tim Arnold concerning Z-9-96. VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - none. IX. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Greiner said he will be away for both the August 6 Planning Board meeting and the August 14 Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting; motion, second, carried unanimously; Mr. Greiner was excused from the aforementioned meetings. Ms. LeBlanc said she will have to miss the August 14 Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Nischan said he will also be gone that week. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting July 24 will have tonight's rezoning case, Z-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District, on the agenda. The August 6, 1996 meeting will have on the agenda one rezoning case, Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "A-1" Residential to "F" Commercial District. Ms. Love said Mr. Ruff is out of town this week; however, upon his return, he will reschedule the August 14 Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Chairman Goolsby said at the August 6 meeting, we will deal with scheduling the August 14 Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. A meeting at 6 p.m. on August 20 is a possibility. Ms. LeBlanc gave an update on Resurrection Church's appeal before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to lot coverage. With their new parish hall, they will cover 70 percent of lot area; their zoning classification permits only 60 percent of lot coverage. Before they started their building program, they covered more than 70 percent of lot area. Since they received the rezoning and started new construction, they had to either comply with the zoning code or request a variance. They requested a variance, which was granted, partly because while they could have met the 60 percent lot coverage, they would have to eliminate all on-site parking. Ms. LeBlanc presented a map of the new parish center. Mr. Ruge asked about Act-2-96, SE Corner Case & Grand River, Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot, PPN 3301-10-302-001 & -011 (action postponed in committee February 13, 1996) . Ms. Love said we put together a memo to Mr. Benavides who requested a meeting with us and Mr. Patenge. I provided Mr. Benavides with the documentation review of all of the other activities we have had with Mr. Patenge over the years. In 1981, his property was rezoned so he could expand his building; that has never happened. He got the property rezoned from "C" Residential to "J" Parking and razed about ten houses so he could move his existing parking over and build where his old parking lot was. He never built the building; he never paved the lot; and he never put in the landscaping. Now he wants to buy from the City two properties on the corner PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DULY 16, 1996 - P. 13 of Case Street and Grand River which he is already parking on. The two lots are gravel, like the rest of his lots. He has bought up more property in the neighborhood. In the memo of July 1, we indicated to Mr. Benavides that we had no objection to selling him the lots, as long as he paves the rest of his parking lots, fences them, and puts in the landscaping. Ms. Love announced a free one-day seminar at Kellogg Center on August 20, 1996, with a number of topics to be discussed including new home ownership zones, financing for home ownership, stabilizing communities and home ownership, and the new face of manufactured houses. If any members are interested, let me know so I can fax your registration. Chairman Goolsby requested the Board's permission to congratulate LISC on the Main Street grant that they received. They did a good job on that, and they should be congratulated. Ms. Love said the governor will sign Renaissance legislation on July 17, 1996; the Seven Block Development Area will be our primary target. Hopefully, that will make the commercial area more attractive and spur development. We can have up to six non-contiguous areas in the City; no one area can be less than 20 acres (Seven Block has 29 acres) ; no area can have one owner of more than 50 percent of the properties. The zone can be granted for up to 15 years, however, the time duration can be shorter. The state will pay the school taxes. X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn071696 a:\31 Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD .� 7 p.m., Tenth Floor City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall TUESDAY, JULY 16, IM AGENDA I. OPENING SESSION A. Roll Call B. Excused Absences - Ms. Marshall C. Introductions - New Member Mr. Andy Frederick D. Approval of Agenda II. HEARINGS A. Z-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District B. Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of- way III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) IV. RECESS V. BUSINESS SESSION C. Minutes for Approval: June 18, 1996. D. Committee Reports: 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Next meeting WEDNESDAY, July 24, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-14-96, 300 Blk. E. Washtenaw, Vacation of Right-of-Way b. Act-15-96, 300 Blk. E. Kalamazoo Street, Vacation of Unused Right-of-way C. Act-19-96, E. Side 2600-2700 Blk. S. Cedar St. , Vacation of Utility Easement Next meeting TUESDAY, August 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex 3. Executive Committee: C. Report from Planning Manager: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2, JULY 16, 1996 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Development Committee: a. SLU-3-96, 1149 S. Washington Ave. , Church, Movement for Christ Ministries (Tabled June 18, 1996, Board) b. NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr., Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. (Tabled June 18, 1996; returned to Z&O Committee) 2. 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) b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) c. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site), Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. & Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) d. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996; removed from table for consideration July 9, 1996, no action taken) VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. COMMUNICATIONS VIII. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON IX. BOARD MEMBER CONDdENTS X. ADJOURNMENT FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H. CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-4088 TDD. c:\wp\data\p1anbd\7-j11696.ag1 a:\ 31 FOR POSTING CITY of LANSING INT OFFICE COMMUNICATION 12: j LAI' 11"1G C! i' CLERK TO: Clerk, City Council, City Hall Lobby Bulletin Boards , Planning Lobby Bulletin Board FROM: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager cc : File DATE: August 14 , 1995 RE : Rescheduled meeting of Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Subcommittee of Planning Board The meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Subcommittee of the Lansing Planning Board, originally scheduled to be held on August 14 , 1996 , at 4 p.m. , in City Council Chambers, has been rescheduled to 6 : 30 p.m. , in City Council Chambers , Tuesday, August 20 , 1996 . EKL:LC CLERK FOR POSTING CITY of LANSING _ INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION EE MNSMG CITE( CLEF� L TO: Clerk, City Council, City Hall Lobby Bulletin Boar , Planning Lobby Bulletin Board FROM: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager cc: File DATE: June 26, 1996 RE: Cancellation of Regular Planning Board meeting July 2 , 1996 The regular meeting of the Lansing Planning Board scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 2, 1996 in City Council Chambers has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 16 , 1996 in City Council Chambers . EKL:LC APPROVED AUGUST 20, 1996 with emendations: P 2 Ln 9.33 POS 1.71 expect ACCEPT; P. 12; P. 12 Para. 5 Ms. Jo Flaherty asked him to convey to the Board her disappointment IN THEIR DECISION, BUT khati eweA thoug4 NQU- she appreciates the Board's interest and depth of consideration. APPROVED 0820% TO CLERK 082M Minutes of the Regular Meeting I — LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. r A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, LeBlanc, Nischan, Robinson, Ruge; six members present; two absent. Ex officio Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence - Marshall. At the May 7, 1996 meeting, Ms. Marshall was granted an excused absence. Mr. Greiner, who is out of town, requested and was granted an excused absence at the meeting of July 16, 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. The agenda was approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue,. "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request to bring the zoning of the property into conformance with the land use. The property measures 154 ft. x 150 ft. approximately, with commercial uses north, south and east along Pennsylvania Avenue. To the west is single family residential. The zoning reflects the land use pattern. Currently the building has about three tenant spaces in it. The building is considered a nonconforming land use according to the zoning ordinance, since it is zoned "A" Residential and is occupied by office and commercial uses. It is a single-story building, constructed for commercial uses. MONTY STORY, 4572 S. HAGADORN, EAST LANSING, REPRESENTING DR. MARK WARNER. Dr. Warner is a resident of Allegan, and I am here on his behalf. The proposed new owner, who has a representative present, does not propose to change it. NANCY O'BRIEN, MUSSELMAN REALTY, 322 ABBOTT RD. , EAST LANSING, REPRESENTING THE SELLER in the sale of the property. Vlahakis Realty represents the buyer in the purchase of the property; however, I have had much contact with the buyer, who has no intention of changing the use. There was to have been a letter from him. Mr. Vlahakis may have it with him; I understood he was to be here. The building was built in 1955. The property on Armstrong has one tenant, a pizza pick-up and delivery place that opens at 4 p.m. The other PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 2 tenant is Spectrum, a computer and electronic repair, with most of the building. The other part of the building was occupied by Warner Realty Company which is closed. The buyer is looking for a new tenant. SARA ANN LINCOLN, 840 ARMSTRONG RD. , HOMEOWNER. Many people in the 20-unit condominium across from the building in question, plus Glenwood residents, talked about possible objections to the rezoning. Our concern is having that building used as a party or convenience store that attracts noisy late-night visitors and makes litter. We had a bad experience a few years ago with just such a store just south of Armstrong, right across from this building. We don't want to go through that again. We are glad to hear, and this is hearsay, that the buyer intends to improve the looks of the building--it does look a little bit shabby. Our understanding is that once this building is commercial, there is no restriction on its being sold again, and ending up as just such an establishment as we earnestly wish to avoid. There is a Quality Dairy a block or two in one direction, and Meijers a block or two in the other direction, so people have plenty of access to convenience food and liquor. We had more people who signed petitions, representing homeowners on Armstrong and Glenwood, plus a few petitions still outstanding. Chairman Goolsby, saying he had in hand petitions regarding Z-10-96 indicating homeowners' strong objections, read into the record the petition statement, signed by 16 individuals in the 800 block of Armstrong and 5200 and 5300 blocks of Glenwood. Mr. Ruff received three additional petitions. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the Z-10-96 hearing and the referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Tuesday, August 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers preceding our regularly scheduled Board meeting. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) JO FLAHERTY, 1321 PATTENGILL, HERE REGARDING NCU-4-96, 1401 MORES RIVER DR. , CLASS A, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING BLDG. This is the third time we have come before a city body opposing this expansion. The neighborhood is small, single-family homes of less than 1,000 square feet. The building currently housing JCR is a spot zoning, grandfathered into our neighborhood. The largest house in the neighborhood is 1,900 sq. ft. ; with the addition JCR is requesting, the building will be almost 700 sq. ft. larger than any residential home currently in the area. The building does not conform to neighborhood yard setbacks. A large handicap ramp a few inches from the sidewalk and the addition of a commercial awning will make the building appear much larger than the actual square footage. JCR knew when they moved into this neighborhood that it was residential, and that the building was small and limited. We believe it is unfair to ask the neighborhood to eNpeet ACCEPT JCR's expansion in our backyard. We have been told the expanded area will be used for storage; however, at the subcommittee meeting several weeks ago, we learned that the second floor will also house a Lake Michigan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 3 Michigan resort rental office. Finally, and probably the most insulting to the neighborhood, is the owners' contention that they are doing this in part for our neighborhood, that the new and improved look of the structure would be good for our neighborhood. Nothing on that property has been improved until it was financially advantageous from a business perspective. Our neighborhood truly feels that we have legitimate arguments against this expansion. We ask you tonight to consider our position as homeowners, resident in the neighborhood. We wish to maintain our residential quality and are opposed to this expansion. We ask for your support. Mr. Ruge asked if the neighborhood had any trouble with noise, traffic, or trouble with the owners. Ms. Flaherty said there were minor problems such as early-morning trash pickup, but opposition was not because of their being bad neighbors. Inherent problems come with a neighborhood business. We believe that they went ahead and did a lot, assuming they were going to get permission to construct the second story. They built on the deck, built the handicap ramp. It is questionable whether or not the ramp is built to the original specs. They have 30 or 40 black garbage bags against the fence filled with insulation they took out of the building in hopes of putting it back in the building. The lawn has not been mowed almost the entire summer; there is no excuse for not mowing. Building material is littered all over, and it is surrounded by orange snow fencing. Mr. Ruge asked about any other problems, other than lawn mowing and problems with outside storage of construction materials. Ms. Flaherty reiterated that their opposition was not on a neighbor basis, but rather that it was a residential neighborhood with a small almost unnoticeable business in the neighborhood for at least twenty years. Neighbors who do not want to see the business expand also have questions about future use. It is one of the major entries into the neighborhood, and given the size of the lot, lack of observed setback requirements, the ramp, height of building, and commercial awning, no one will doubt it is a business property. Before, at least it could almost be overlooked because it was small and unassuming. It will no longer be that if they are allowed to add the additional story. Mr. Ruge asked if Ms. Flaherty has reviewed their most recent proposal; answer, yes. Ms. Flaherty circulated a board with snapshots of the neighborhood. IV. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to dissolve into a Committee of the Whole; voice vote; Ayes: 6; carried; unanimous; the Planning Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole; Mr. Nischan presiding. Mr. Ruff presented a summary of the case and nature of the question being considered. The Board referred the case to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee to review architectural changes to the plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 61 1996 - P. 4 The committee reviewed the addendum to the staff report and the comments of Ms. Flaherty and the architect. A motion in committee to approve did not carry at 2-2. With the object of having open discussion at the Planning Board level, the committee returned the case to the Planning Board for free discussion without a motion prior to discussion. One question asked at the meeting concerned the roof. "We don't have a construction proposal for that, and I didn't respond with an answer." The present plans show they would be creating a second floor within the existing height of the building; then they wouldn't have to go high to create the whole second floor. Their second proposal was based on reusing the trusses on site that had been ordered, and using some of those materials, and taking off a third story originally proposed, including some windows for a more residential look. Questions concerning siding, color of siding, types of improvements and potential for moving the ramp to the side, and saving landscaping on the Park Avenue side were unanswered. The initial proposal showed a stairway going up the whole side that was not approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. At that time, it was anticipated that a shrub or two adjacent to the building would have to be removed to put the stairwell in. The potential exists for moving the barrier free ramp around to the Park Avenue side. The initial request is to add onto a building. The building is zoned "D-1" Professional Office, which allows the present office use of the property. The building itself does not conform to the dimensional requirements of that district--it lacks front yard setback. For the "D-1" Professional Office District, a 20-ft. front yard setbackis required. Since the building itself is dimensionally nonconforming, not use nonconforming, the addition directly above the structure itself is an expansion of the nonconformity; therefore, it requires a Class A nonconforming status approval by the Board. The NCU does not go to the Council; it is a decision made by the Board that is final. If a Board decision is contested, the applicant would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to appeal the decision of the Planning Board. If they want to go further, it would be to Circuit Court. Mr. Nischan asked for the poles of the debate at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Ms. LeBlanc said the zoning is legally correct; it is a legal use of the property; however, the Master Plan recommends residential and park land in this area. We would not zone the property this way today. The use, while it is legal, is not in full compliance with the Master Plan. We are talking about an expansion of the use. If we allow expansion of the building, a future purchaser would be able to put a more intense office usage into the building. My opposition is based on not wanting to increase the intensity of this office use in what should be a residential district. Mr. Goolsby said this is a legal use in the district but if this came before the Board today, we would vote it down. The fact is it is there legally now. The requested use will allow a more intensive use of the property; the second proposal allows them to use the property as they are legally allowed to do now, and it will look more residential than the current building. In committee, we discussed staff helping them choose colors to incorporate the changes more harmoniously into the neighborhood. These "are tough decisions. Some PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 5 opposition is to being out of character with the neighborhood. Last year we talked about a house built out of character with the neighborhood, but they were within their right to do so. That is what I look at here. It is not an issue of good neighbor vs. bad neighbor. The question is, what will the future bring? How can we anticipate? In the end this building is going to look more like the neighborhood than it does today, and it is a legal use of the land at this time. Mr. Ruge asked about parking--seven or eight spaces on-site now. Even though they propose to add a second floor, the report indicates they would not need any more parking. Mr. Ruff said it is a business machine company; the initial report said they need better and more storage space for large, clumsy parts. The present use of the building requires about four parking spaces. They could double their usable floor space (what is used for office that is not storage or mechanical) and still meet their parking requirements. Their original quandary was how do they make an addition to the building to satisfy their storage needs without taking up required parking. They decided to go up rather than out. Mr. Ruge asked if they use the 2,600 sq. ft. they proposed, as an office they would still meet the parking requirements? Mr. Ruff said generally 70 percent of the building is considered usable. One parking space is required for every 200 sq. ft. ; if the required is 8.4 parking spaces, we drop to 8 required; if it is 8.6, we would require 9 parking spaces. Mr. Ruge expressed surprise to learn of another use being put in the building. Mr. Ruff said the applicants own property on Lake Michigan, and they intended to have a small reservations office. Mr. Ruge asked to what side the ramp would be moved, the parking lot side or the street. Mr. Ruff said the street side, on Park Avenue. The dumpster and walkway next to the barrier-free parking space also have to be accommodated. Moving the ramp to the parking lot side may cut into the drive aisle too much. Mr. Ruge asked if conditions could be imposed, such as screening and buffering, shielding the dumpster; Mr. Ruff said yes, they have to relate to the improvements. Mr. Greiner wanted to have siding color compatibility of the building and ramp area, and get the ramp moved away and meet ADA requirements. Mr. Robinson said refurbishing the structure would improve the neighborhood. The owners are trying to meet people's suggestions. It is not a retail business; traffic would be light. The owners have a right if they want to expand. We have to look at the longevity of the whole thing. "I can't see why we should prevent the business from going forward." Mr. Robinson asked about hours of operation. Ms. Flaherty said she was uncertain whether or not they had standard operating hours. Mr. Frederick said this is a legally existing business, rezoned from residential in 1978. Mr. Ruff said the reason for the rezoning was to make it conforming to the use. At that time the zoning was considered reasonable. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 6 Mr. Ruge asked about the awning on the front of the building. Mr. Ruff said since they were denied a variance to put on a porch roof, they were considering putting on an awning that would not require a permit. Mr. Ruge asked if they could be required to have a unobtrusive sign? Mr. Ruff said the signage has conditions attached to it. They would be allowed a maximum of one sign and 50 square feet. It is a 28 ft. wide building, and one sign in front would be allowed. Mr. Nischan said it seems to be an issue of recognizing a balancing act. The code recognizes the legality of the use. The use impacts the area. The question is, is the change in the intensity of the nonconforming use still all right? One thing to consider is the nature of the business. On the east side, there is a little corner store, a spot zone in the middle of a residential neighborhood. In contrast, this isn't part of the neighborhood, it is a leap of a non-neighborhood commercial entity into a residential area. Another part to consider is the risk factor. "I don't know of any commercial or professional office areas where somebody built a home, and the area deteriorated into a completely residential neighborhood. I have heard of plenty of areas that have a pronounced commercial presence in a residential area which serves to break the residential neighborhood. . . . Those accommodations on size and height don't seem to me to override the question." Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , with four conditions: 1. That the handicap ramp be placed to the side, preferably to the west side of the building, if feasible. 2. That there be screening and buffering of the ramp, parking lot and the dumpster. 3. That they be restricted from having any garbage trucks go in there before business hours. 4. That there be a ground sign in front of the building and not a sign on the actual building itself to help the building blend into the residential character of the neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said Section 1294 dealing with nonconforming uses allows conditions to be placed; they can be required to put the ramp on the west side. The phrase "if feasible" should be deleted and "they shall put it on the west side" should be substituted. About signage, Mr. Ruge said a sign mounted on a pole in the ground looks better than a sign hung on the building. Mr. Goolsby suggested, as a friendly amendment, finish of the exterior shall be harmonious with the neighborhood and subject to Planning Office review; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 7 the ramp shall be placed on the west side; and meeting the requirements of the sign code. Mr. Ruff said if they were restricted to a ground pole sign, they would be allowed a twenty-square-foot ground sign, maximum six ft. high, but the other condition is they would be required to set back twenty ft. from the front property line, which would be behind the front face of the building. Ms. LeBlanc said a long low sign on a short pole would be nice-looking, but the ground pole sign in our ordinance would allow them to put up something tall and very obtrusive, like the gas station signs. Mr. Ruge said, regarding the ramp, he did not wish to restrict parking. Mr. Goolsby said seven parking spaces is sufficient. Mr. Ruge rephrased his motion to approve NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , with conditions as follows: 1. That the ramp be on the west side of the building; 2. That the ramp and parking lot and dumpster be screened and buffered; 3. That there be no dumping of the dumpster before business hours; 4. That the color and character of the sign reflect the residential character and color scheme; 5. That the exterior of the building be clad in siding of a residential character; 6. That the roof height be no higher than 33 ft. to the peak. Mr. Goolsby said the rephrasing is acceptable to him as second, with one reservation; that is about the dumping before business hours. "I am not sure we can control that, but I am willing to vote for it. Robinson Aye Ruge Ave LeBlanc Nay Goolsby Aye Nischan Nay Frederick Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 4; Nays 2. A motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously to arise from the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Goolsby resumed, requesting from Mr. Nischan a report of the Committee of the Whole; Mr. Nischan said NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , had a vote of 4-2 in favor, with six conditions attached to the approval. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. S Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Robinson, to accept the report of the Committee of the Whole; voice vote; Ayes: 6, Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; the report of the Committee of the Whole was accepted. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to put NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , on the agenda for final action by the Board; voice vote; Ayes: 6, Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; item was placed on the agenda for final action by the Board; APPROVED. V. RECESS - None. VI. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: July 16, 1996. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that the minutes of July 16, 1996 be approved. Mr. Nischan requested, on P. 5, Paragraph 5, on the discussion of the CATA signage, that his remarks in parentheses be removed. (M- . r a^=an „ eep ' for me new ' On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; the minutes of July 16, 1996 were APPROVED. B . Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole a. NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. The report was presented under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee report. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. a. Z-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, 'IF-l" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District The applicant desires to rehabilitate a building for mixed residential and commercial use, with an office or commercial establishment on the ground floor of the building and four apartments on the second floor. The current 'IF-l" Commercial zoning does not permit the residential use unless it is accessory to the primary commercial use; the "G-1" zone permits the residential use as a right. In addition, the "G-l" zone does not require provision of off-street parking. The applicant is requesting rezoning of a small commercial/apartment building from 'IF-l" Commercial PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6 1996 - P. 9 District to "G-1" Business District. If granted, the rezoning would permit restoration of the building to its original uses of commercial on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. The proposed zoning and land use are consistent with recent trends . in redevelopment of the North Lansing/Old Town area, and will be in keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the zoning is consistent with the Master Plan and will assist in the continued restoration of the North Lansing/Old Town Historic Area. Further, the committee stated that the rezoning action could not be conditional upon parking, but parking is a concern for the area, and a study is underway in cooperation with the Transportation Division to evaluate parking needs of North Lansing/Old Town. In committee, was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) , to recommend approval of Z-9-96, 200- 202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District, pending investigation of allegations contained in letter of opposition. 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-9-96, 200-202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Huge Aye Frederick Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-9-96, 200- 202 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to 11G-1" Business District was recommended to be b. NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. The committee met, and considerable discussion took place. A motion to disapprove was made by Mr. Nischan which failed for want of a second; then a motion was made by Mr. Greiner, and seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve with three conditions. That motion failed, 2-2. Finally, a motion was made to refer the case to the Committee of the Whole, which met this evening. In that committee, Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to support PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 10 NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , with six conditions. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Building, with six conditions as above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Nischan Nay Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Frederick Aye LeBlanc Nay Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 2; carried, NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers, Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting TUESDAY, August 13, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time the following items will be considered: c. Act-11-96, Lansing & Roosevelt, Near the Grand River, Acquisition of Four Parcels--Pump Station Improvements d. Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct. , Closure to Through Traffic e. Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love About the Traffic Calming Report, Ms. Love said that in the most recent issue of Urban Land, published by the Urban Land Institute, the lead article was on Traffic Calming, a copy of which was mailed in the packet. The Public Service Dept. and City Council want the Planning Board to work with them on traffic calming areas. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to help with the development and implementation of the Traffic Calming program in the City of Lansing, including consideration of appropriate or feasible methods of traffic calming in residential neighborhoods on bus routes. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Ms. LeBlanc said the criteria excluded streets on a bus route. A street in her neighborhood which meets all the criteria has average traffic speeds of 45-50 mph. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6 1996 - P. 11 The street, which was built to carry heavy traffic, needs a calming device, but it is on a bus route. Ms. LeBlanc suggested appropriate or feasible methods of traffic calming in residential neighborhoods on bus routes be looked at. Mr. Frederick commented on traffic stop signs not being particularly good traffic calming devices. In the text, traffic stop signs and speed bumps are not well differentiated. Speed bumps are a negative traffic feature and should be discouraged except when absolutely necessary. Mr. Nischan said that on the east side, the left turn center lane road bay as a traffic control device is not effective, and that speed limits are not effective either. Chairman Goolsby restated the motion with friendly amendments, to endorse and support the Traffic Calming Proposal and to commit on behalf of the Planning Board and staff to work with the Transportation Division in the City of Lansing on implementation for the next six years. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; he the APPROVED. Calming Proposal was recommended to be Regarding the M.L. King business group, Ms. Love said that Councilmembers Benavides and Allen have agreed take to the Council as a whole a request for $500 as an award for a design competition to do a streetscape design for M.L. King from Victor to Jolly. A flyer will go out by October 1 to MSU, LCC, and design firms announcing the design proposal. January 15 will be the deadline for submissions, and February 15 will be the design selection date. The MAPA-MSPO Conference is coming up end of September. We are doing several mobile workshops and a reception on Wednesday evening, September 25, 1996 from 5:30-7:30 in the Impression 5 Museum. Ms. Love asked the Board members to act as hosts for the event to welcome people to our city. MSU will play a baseball game at Olds Park on September 27. E. Pending Items: Future action required 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-2-96, SE Corner Case & Grand River, Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot, PPN 3301-10-302-001 & -011 b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) c. Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of-way (Pending per request of CATA on July 23, 1996) d. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv.. &Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1996 - P. 12 e. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996; removed from table for consideration July 9, 1996, no action taken) VII. NEW BUSINESS - none. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Goolsby read a communication received from Jeffrey Abood regarding NCU-4-96, 1401 Moores River Dr. , Class A, Expansion of Nonconforming Bldg. , indicating he represented the Duquettes. "They request that I inquire as to what your department will require to bring the building located on that site into compliance with all city zoning requirements for its current zoning classification as "D-1" Professional Office. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience." Mr. Ruff said Ms. Jo Flaherty asked him to convey to the Board her disappointment IN THEIR DECISION, BUT that even t g NGJ,= _ , app-reved, she appreciates the Board's interest and depth of consideration. IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby said he was in Jackson the night before, and saw some of the new bus shelters there with the 4x6 signs. "I thought they looked pretty good." They were tastefully done, and they did take up the entire panel on the back wall as you look onto them. Ms. Love said CATA has asked that the matter be held indefinitely. X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Love said she counted 28 illegal signs coming up Cedar Street that she has already turned in for enforcement. Chairman Goolsby asked about advertising conventions with posters stapled to BWL poles; Ms. Love said BWL does not permit advertising flyers on utility poles and will remove them. Mr. Ruff said, in response to Mr. Ruge's question, that the Lutheran church has installed plant material along Saginaw; however, he has not contacted the insurance agency. Mr. Ruge also asked about the shiny banners on Michigan Avenue--Reagan Auto Sales, Total Gas Station, Brewbakers--Mr. Ruff said he has seen Brewbakers. Mr. Ruge asked about a grant to beautify Michigan Avenue from Holmes to Hosmer.. Ms. Love said it is the second phase of the ISTEA grant from the federal government. The City's portion is to do the north and south side of Michigan Avenue so it will look like the area in front of Sparrow Hospital where they have extended the sidewalk and installed large trees, and street furniture. The city will do the portion of the street not done by Sparrow. Mr. Frederick said in riding a bicycle around looking at the City, he has noticed areas of great improvement, but the City is dirty. He has also observed ugly parking lots littered with junk cars, and dead animals along the streets. This is part of city beautification and follow-through. You have to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 6 1996 - P. 13 keep working at making the City cleaner. He mentioned Hamtramck as an example of an old city that is kept clean by individuals' efforts. XI. Mr. Robinson requested an excused absence for the August 20 meeting because he will be on vacation; motion to excuse, voice vote, unanimous, carried, Mr. Robinson was excused. XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted 7`-2� Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn080696 a:\31 Z-9 -9 6 200 E. Grand River _Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Tom H. Arnold P.O. Box 20013 Lansing, MI 48901 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone cftrom "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business Dist EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial LOCATION: South side of E. Grand River Avenue adjacent the east bank of the Grand River EXISTING ZONING: ,F-1" Commercial PROPERTY SIZE: Approximately 64 feet by 80 feet SURROUNDING LAND N: Vacant Commercial Building, Grand River Bait & Tackle USE: S : Vacant Industrial E: Commercial W: Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F-1" Commercial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "F-1" Commercial W: "F-1" Commercial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Development Plan designates the general vicinity of the site for commercial use. DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant desires to rehabilitate a building for mixed residential and commercial use, with an office or commercial establishment on the ground floor of the building and four apartments on the second floor. The current "F-1" Commercial zoning does not permit the residential use unless it is accessory to the primary commercial use; the "G-1" zone permits the residentialirese as a provisiongof • offnstaeetlparking.on, the "G 1" zone does no � PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 z-9 -96 200 E. Grand River Avenue AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor: No response received. Board of Water approves the & Light: The Electric Utility pP rezoning request as presented, contact Linda Rasor at 371-6847 . Water Technical Support/Distribution - No conflict with rezone, but owner should confirm water demand and existing service with contractor or engineer, and contact Water Technical Support early in project. Contact Person:Terry Robinson 371-6494 Building Safety: The Building Safety office has no objection to the proposed rezoning. The rehabilitation .will necessitate the submission of construction documents sealed by a licensed architect or engineer registered in the Sate of Michigan. Issues to be addressed, include but may not be limited to: -Fire separation between businesses and residential occupancies -Barrier Free Design (e.g. access, toilet rooms) -Adequacy of floor and roof systems -Exit illumination and s.ignage Further information pertaining to the permitting process may be obtained by contacting Ms . Christine Segerlind at 483 -4381 . Code compliance: No response received. ' Development Office: - Currently not in City Rehab Program - Recommend they "account for parking" - Flood Plain? Fire Marshall: Reserve comments until plan review. Economic Development Corporation: The Economic Development Corporation of the City of Lansing is very supportive of the request to rezone the above mentioned property. MDOT• No response received. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 Z-9 -9 6 200 E. Grand River Avenue North Lansing Community No response received. Association: Old Town Commercial Association: No esponse received. Parks and Recreation: No response received. Public Service: No response received. Transportation: The Transportation Division is generally supportive of the rezoning request . However, the parking demand for the building should be compared to the parking supply in the area to demonstrate adequate alternative parking. This office will assist in the supply/demand study upon request from the Planning Office. ANALYSIS The subject property is part of the first established downtown commercial district in the City of Lansing. The buildings were originally constructed for commercial/retail use on the ground floor and residential use on the second floor in an era before automobile use and the off street parking requirements imposed by the Zoning Ordinance. These buildings have become under utilized; many are vacant and dilapidated. More recently, some entrepreneurs purchased many of the older buildings in the vicinity because of their historic character and charm. These business persons are attempting to restore these buildings to some of their original uses; the current commercial zoning hinders redevelopment by limiting residential uses as accessory to .the primary commercial and by imposing parking requirements that are more appropriate for a suburban commercial environment. The requested zoning of G=1 business is the most appropriate zoning designation for this type of redevelopment. Parking: The G-1 Zoning requested does not require on site parking and the subject lot is too small to provide any on site parking. Metered spaces are available on Factory Street, and un-metered spaces are available near Burchard Park and the fish ladder. Additional public parking facilities will be needed in this area. The above comments from the Transportation Division are the most important issue to consider in this rezoning request . Related Planning Activities: Over the last several months , there has been considerable private investment in this area of the City. The City has become aware of many obstacles to further investment needed to continue this trend. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 z-9 -96 200 E. Grand River Avenue Consequently, the City has recently initiated a formal comprehensive plan update procedure for the North Lansing/Old Town area, which includes the subject property. while the plan update process is not complete yet, staff believes that the proposed zoning of G-1 would be appropriate. SUMMARY The applicants are requesting rezoning of a small commercial/apartment building from "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business District. If granted, the rezoning would permit restoration of the building to its original uses of commercial on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors . Though it is not required by the G-1 zoning district, the applicant has shown no plans to provide parking sufficient to serve the proposed uses . The proposed zoning and land use are consistent with recent trends in .redevelopment. of the North Lansing/Old Town area, and will be in keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION applicant lease Staff recommends approval, but also recommends the parking for the apartment occupants and, depending upon the commercial/office tenant employees of the business . Available parking may be from a private property owner that has excess parking or from the city' s parking system. The subject property is east of the Grand River on the south side of E. Grand River Avenue. It is located at the heart of the North Lansing' s Old Town historic commercial district. j , per•\ D •, �i o D iZs is •s e S1 z. �, RIM CA MITI fig a. Bit INN, Fill •=NI' � ,� :1 1 •• ' � .yam�� r i il _ Q O 4 • .. i d� JI o ._► I 19 , I�r� .,X •s�a� 1�o � _i {I ,� Ins lee IOffirm yY•°;�`'�,� I�i�ii j p��c�s � '� ®-oil i:i�°..�.-3� \ o 1111 III111 11 �o\\ N I 1 I ` -t � 15 6 111 \°, III II 011T - I / ° Z " II► I IIIII I p9 o 0 201 7-9 �"� 3 7 319 32 7 19 GRANQ RIVER AVENUE '302 }0&306 4 20 200-2 20 2°6 2° 216 3 8 g\ o ,NI �/�T op\ p8,'31 p6\ I1 F oo\ pa\ ol\o� 52 pQa °6\ p5\ p�, p}2 TY PAR1KING LOT MA LE S A\ 111�1 I �\ IIIII'y I I o 7 I I I I I 1 I �x I I I NCU-4-96 1401 Moores River Drive GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Roger Herrera DBA Tri-Tec Construction 900 Long Blvd, #222 Lansing, MI 48911 OWNER• JCR Business Equipment Jay & Karen Duquette 1401 Moores River Drive Lansing, MI 48910 PROPOSAL SUMMARY: Requesting variances in the front yard setback (§1260 . 06) to permit construction of an exterior stairwell 15 feet from the east front property line (Park Avenue) and a covered porch five feet from north front property line (Moores River Drive) , for variances of five feet and fifteen feet, respectively. LOCATION• 1401 Moores River Drive ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office PROPERTY SIZE: 83 ft. by 78 ft. (6 , 474 sq. ft . ) SURROUNDING LAND N: Park USE•_ S: Single Family Residential E: Single Family Residential W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING N: "A" Residential ZONING: S : "B" Residential E: "B" Residential W: "B" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the surrounding area for low density residential development at 0 to 7 units per acre with park land north of Moores River Drive to the Grand River. CASE HISTORY: The legal description for the subject property is "the north 78 feet of lots 19 & 20 , Oldsdale Subdivision. " In May of 1962 , the north 78 feet of lot 20 was rezoned from "B" One Family Residential to "J" Parking; the north 78 feet of lot 19 remained "B" One Family Residential . Subsequently, in October of 1978 , the entire property was rezoned from "B" PAGE 2 NCU-4-96 1401 Moores River Drive Single Family Residential District and "J" Parking District to "D-1" Professional Office District. This latter approval was subject to "a landscaping, screening and fencing plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of occupancy permits . " DESCRIPTION of SITE .The subject property is located at the south west corner of Moores River Drive and Park Drive (Figure 1 , Site Plan) . Adjacent land uses include single family residences to the east, south, and west, and Riverside Park to the north (Figure 2 , Area Map) . The elevation of the property is approximately 840 feet, approximately five feet above the elevation of the 100 year flood: the elevation of the 100 year flood at the nearby Moores Park Dam is 835 feet. The subject property is not in conformance with the Zoning Code because it does not meet the current front yard setback requirement of 20 feet on either the Moores River Drive or Park Avenue frontages . The current setbacks are 18 . 5 feet from Park Avenue and 12 feet from Moores River Drive; the proposed setbacks are 15 . 5 and 5 feet, respectively. Staff has approved issuance of a building permit to reconstruct the pre-existing front deck of the building and to construct an access ramp which meets the State' s barrier free standards (Figure 3 , Front Deck & Ramp Detail) . As stated by the applicant at the time the building permit was issued, the subject porch is the same size as the concrete stoop it replaces . As this deck was approved as a replacement of an existing deck, it is not considered an addition on to the front of the building that would be subject to setback requirements . As a matter of zoning policy, ramps designed to meet barrier free requirements are not subject to setback requirements . The applicant has apparently constructed this deck in anticipation of converting it to a roofed porch with approval of the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicant operates an office for an office machine service & repair business in the subject facility, and wishes to construct a two story addition over the existing one story building. The small size of the lot limits any substantial building expansion to the vertical dimension. The building presently has a gross size of .1, 288 sq. ft. , the addition proposed is an additional 1, 288 square feet on the second floor and 448 sq. ft. on the third floor (Figure 4 , Building Elevations) . The proposal includes expansion of the front porch area and an exterior stairwell . The proposed use of the second and third floors is for storage related to the existing office use. The total size of the building as proposed is 3 , 064 sq. ft . PAGE 3 NCU-4-96 1401 Moores River Drive The applicant indicates that the number of employees on the largest shift is seven (7) , including the owners . There are eight (8) on site/off street parking spaces . The zoning ordinance requires a maximum of seven parking spaces based upon the current useable floor area of the building. If the building addition is approved, it will not require additional parking if its only use is storage associated with the principle business located on the first floor. DESCRIPTION of NEIGHBORHOOD The residential neighborhood immediately surrounding the subject property consists primarily of small single family homes . These homes are generally of cape cod design and less than 1, 000 square feet in size. NCU ANALYSIS The subject structure does not conform to the current Zoning Ordinance because it does not meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback requirement. NCU SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Class "A" status to permit a two story expansion of an existing building and construction of an exterior stairwell facing Park Avenue and a covered porch along Moores River Drive that will also require approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals . The subject structure has functioned in its non-conforming state for many years : there appears to be little (if any) conflict between it and neighboring structures or uses . The applicant is requesting approvals to increase the size of the building by 237 percent in order to accommodate growth in the existing business . NQU RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot recommend approval of such a large increase in the bulk of the building so close to the property lines . PAGE 4 NCU-4-96 1401 Moores River Drive ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT At the June 18 , 1996 Planning Board meeting, action on this request was deferred in order to give the applicant time to address concerns raised by the Board and area residents . These concerns were mainly based on the dramatic increase in bulk and floor area of the structure, as well as the aesthetics of large, blank exterior walls . DESCRIPTION OF REVISED PROPOSAL The applicant operates an office for an office machine service & repair business in the subject facility, and wishes to construct a second story addition over the existing one story building. The small size of the lot limits any substantial building expansion to the vertical dimension. The building presently has a gross size of 1, 288 sq. ft. ; the roof peak of the building is 33 feet above grade, or approximately 5 feet less than the previous proposed height of 37 feet. The revised proposal eliminates the third story: the addition is now limited to an additional story of 1 , 288 square feet (Figure 5, Revised Building Cross Section) . Also eliminated from this proposal are the expansion of the front porch area and an exterior stairwell . The proposed use is the same: for storage related to the existing office use. The total size of the building as proposed is 2 , 576 sq. ft. The height of the exterior building walls is approximately 20 feet above grade. If a gabled roof with a 4/12 pitch were constructed without the second story, the height of the roof peak would be approximately 28 feet; construction of the second story would only raise this height to 33 feet . The applicant has also provided revised exterior elevations (see Figure 6) that show the addition of windows on the north, south, and east sides of the building. ANALYSIS The proposed changes address the Boards concerns about building bulk and architectural style by reducing the proposed building height (and thus the floor area) and by adding windows to break up the outline of the exterior building walls . The revised proposal reduces the building height to the height of the adjacent single family residence located to the west (1409 Moores River Drive) and is more architecturally in character with the neighborhood. REVISED RECOMMENDATION With the above changes , Staff recommends approval . HOPLTH BZA-3395.96 1401 Moores River Drive I N � I 1" I 7 L 1401 Moores River Drive BZA-3395.96 -- i rTr�:i �'T f} � � JJ[q� 1Yc1!�•',.v.� 1—�1 4 4, lbti. . f NORTH Acre 1401 Moores River Drive B ZA-3395.96 Ai*Fi4'# r �o ova i ct� - vi. . -o LNORTH Ae rued Sa i/W/h 6ro As 5eel;o A NCU-4-96 1401 Moores River Drive ex t,,>rc, Par . 9>j0lg;Pj94& � , err \m o � P�oP�e 33• ffe igh �x�sring 2Q: i to n, 1�J I T�-1 F�c1 S T Gr f3 V 1 c�1 �j NORTH y �i�Y�7 Sys River Drive NCU-4-96 ` C 1401 Moores CF- -a r n8p.¢ _77- VATIC �P.4fLK Ave, 4ipa� CPARwN� siD�� k rc z NORTH 19rea M&P ' BZA-3395.96 I 1401 Moores River Drive (RIVERSIDE PARK i I 849.5 850 �h0 _ '836.9 _ MOORESto / 23 !9. !B s'P5; is i �.. 1 ' , .F�' _ •fir .rf 16 ... rr ii• El I PO 40.2 /g' 8 •9' 840 El El 22 4 WALL I 840 838.2 PU LASKI 7 940.7 I 840 !8'.. PO PP /B r I !e Fr-L. APPROVED 090496 WITH CORRECTIONS: Pg 9.5" Pos 5.86" Mr. Greiner is in his first year as PL' -NG BOARD VICE Chairman. MS. LEBLANC IS IN HER FIRS'. _1R AS ZONING AND ORDINANCE CHAIRMAN. DRAFT TO CLERIC 093096 APPROVED ON496 TO CLERK 091696 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY AUGUST 20 1996 I. OPENING SESSION C: —i 7',. �r Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. -,_ ' A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc., N_IscAan; " Ruge (late) ; six members present; two absent. Ex~ of_ficio Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences. At the May 7, 1996 meeting, Ms. Marshall was granted an excused absence. At the August 6, 1996 meeting, Mr. Robinson requested and was granted an excused absence (on vacation) . 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. Chairman Goolsby noted two corrections to the agenda: The date of minutes for approval on the agenda, which is shown as June 18, 1996, should be August 6, 1996. Under V. B. Committee Reports, the next meeting date for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, shown as August 24, should be August 20, which is today. That meeting did occur, at 6:30 this evening. With those two corrections, the agenda was approved. II. HEARINGS - None. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: August 6, 1996. A draft copy of minutes for August 6, 1996 was distributed. Action on the minutes was delayed. Chairman Goolsby continued through the agenda, and returned to Minutes for Approval after the Urban Development Committee report, stating that apparently no other member would show up this evening, so we will table Z-10-96 until the Wednesday September 4, 1996 meeting. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, for a ten-minute recess to consider the minutes from August 6, 1996; voice vote, approved unanimously. The Board observed a ten-minute recess. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 2 Mr. Ruge came at 7:45, saying he had not requested an excused absence. Chairman Goolsby called the Board back into session, directing the record to reflect the arrival of Mr. Ruge. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of August 6, 1996, with emendations as follows: P 2 Ln 9.33 POS 1.71 expee-t ACCEPT; P. 12; P. 12 Para. 5 Ms. Jo Flaherty asked him to convey to the Board her disappointment IN THEIR DECISION, BUT that even theugh NGU-^ was app-reve4, she appreciates the Board's interest and depth of consideration. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. Mr. Greiner did not vote because he was not in attendance. The minutes of August 6, 1996 as emended were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee report and action was delayed, pending arrival of a sixth member. In order to act on any zoning matter in the City, six votes are required. Following the arrival of Mr. Ruge, Ms. Leblanc resumed the report of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. a. Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met this evening, and after discussion, the committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the proposed rezoning is in compliance with surrounding zonings in the area, and recommended unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" 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 approval of Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Chairman Goolsby said there is no address 5326; it goes from 5324 to 5332 S. Pennsylvania, because they are combined. Mr. Ruff said that is how the application was made. Mr. Ruge said from the size of the parcel, if desired, they could put a billboard on the site. Mr. Ruff said the property is approximately 150 ft. x 150 ft. , and a 25 ft. setback of the sign, and a 75 ft. setback from residential would allow construction of a billboard on the property. Mr. Ruff responded to Mr. Ruge's comment about how the building sticks down to the south property line--a variance would not be required, but it would be considered nonconforming. If they did major PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 3 renovations to the property, they may require a Class A or a variance. The use would be conforming. Ms. Love said it is a covered lower entry. The property slopes this way, and originally this may have been stairs to a door that was halfway down, and they have enclosed it. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be APPROVED. Chairman Goolsby suggested Mr. Ruff contact Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Story who left before action on Z-10-96. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would be Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, City Hall Annex, Second Floor, 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan. Ms. LeBlanc also said there was discussion about the church on S. Washington. "We believe it was held because we were waiting for a reply from the owner from the Capital Hill Station, and we are thinking if he hasn't said anything, that he must not object much." Mr. Ruff said there are two things, the attorney's opinion as to the expansion of Capital Hill Station, and further comment from him, but nothing has been received from the Attorney's office. Ms. Love said of the two things, the attorney's opinion would have more impact. We wanted to make sure we were not creating a problem potentially at any place in the City relative to this issue. (The Urban Development Committee report was given prior to the arrival of Mr. Ruge. ) 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Frederick, Acting Chair. a. Act-18-96, Acquisition of Railroad Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. The subject property, which is called the Lansing Connecting Railway, is approximately 4,420 ft. in length and extends from Hosmer and Larned south to the Grand Trunk Railroad near Haco Drive in Potter Park. The entire length of the Lansing Connecting Railway runs through industrial areas. The Board of Water and Light owns property at Pennsylvania and Hazel along the south side of Haco Drive. Both BWL sites are interrupted by the Lansing Connecting Railway. The Board wishes to acquire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 203 1996 - P. 4 portions of the railway and consolidate its properties to improve the efficiency of its operations. The Canadian National Railroad, which owns the Lansing Connecting Railway, wishes to sell the entire length of the right-of-way to a single purchaser, if possible. The asking price is $98,500'in cash. If the Board of Water and Light purchased the property, it would be desirous of selling the surplus portions for which the Board has no use. The Lansing Connecting Railway is on the market in its entirety for $98,500. The railway runs through an industrial area from Hosmer and Larned Streets to the Grand Trunk Railroad property south of Haco Drive. It bisects BWL properties at Pennsylvania and Hazel and at Haco Drive, and impairs efficient operations at both locations. The Board wishes to acquire the property and utilize segments of it to consolidate its properties and improve its efficiency at both locations. No other city agency, including the Parks and Recreation Department, has expressed an interest in this property. Based on the location, character, and extent of this proposal, staff recommends approval: 1. to acquire the "Lansing Connecting Railway" right- of-way, 2. to consolidate the BWL properties as planned, 3. to retain ownership of those portions of the remainder for which public purposes are determined, and 4. to sell all residual property to adjacent property owners. In committee, a motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. , with the four points in the staff recommendation. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend approval of Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. , pursuant to the staff recommendation with the four points. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 5 Ms. LeBlanc asked if the City, or the Board is acquiring the property? Ms. Love said the Board is acquiring the property, out of their funds. Mr. Frederick said the rail line is not in use, and has not been in use for some time. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. with the four points in the staff recommendation was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, September 10, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love We are in the process of looking at the renaissance zones legislation and are fairly certain that we will make an application. We are still evaluating some of the economic impacts, more related to the length of the time--how long we should apply for--as opposed to whether or not we should make application. We are looking closely at the Seven Block Area, because it is primarily a commercial-residential development area. Our application may be strengthened by having an industrial component to it. If that were to be the case, we might look to the Lindell Drop Forge, i.e. , Reed Machinery, properties in that general vicinity. If we do that, though, we would have to have a plan for development for the area, other than our existing master plan and some older plans that we developed close to ten years ago. We have to make a decision this week as to whether or not we would include an industrial component. You may be called upon to conduct public hearings at a meeting in September, because the application is due the end of September. E. Pending Items: Future action required 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-2-96, SE Corner Case & Grand River, Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot, PPN 3301-10-302-001 & -011 Action postponed in committee February 13, 1996) b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) C. Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of-way (Pending per request of CATA on July 23, 1996) d. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. &Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) e. Act-11-96, Lansing & Roosevelt, Near the Grand River, Acquisition of Four Parcels--Pump Station Improvements (Postponed by the applicant pending their submission of infnrmatinn) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 6 f. Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct. , Closure to Through Traffic (UDC Tabled August 13, 1996) g. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996; removed from table for consideration July 9, 1996, no action taken) VII. NEW BUSINESS - none. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS We received one letter dated August 19, 1996 addressed to Mr. Ruff regarding the property at (here listed as 5332) S. Pennsylvania, Z-10-96. This letter will become part of the record. IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby asked about the status of the Administrative Rules of Procedure. He also asked if maybe for the end of September or first of October, we could get a report from LPD on, for example, the noise ordinance regarding enforcement. He is curious as to how many times someone has been cited under the noise ordinance. We pass things like that and we never know what happens. While it doesn't relate directly to zoning, it does relate to the overall community, and what we try to do in the neighborhoods. Mr. Ruge would be interested in violations of the sign code. X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked about progress on the church, and the insurance agency. Mr. Ruff said there is no change in the agency as yet. Mr. Ruge mentioned the triangular flags, at Lansing Detail and Car Wash at the corner of Butler and Saginaw; Magic Auto, the used car dealership at 1301 E. Kalamazoo near and Holmes; Capitol City Auto at the corner of Saginaw and Pennsylvania; and in the S. Washington Square, the Rock 'n' Roll Deli, next to Rite Aid; and a banner at Enterprise Automotive, 2311 E. Michigan Avenue. Mr. Ruff said some have been reported previously to Code Compliance. The Blue Coyote has a sign in the right-of-way on Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette for valet parking. Mr. Ruff said on Monday we turned in a banner they have had for a couple months. XI. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS - None. Planning Board elections will be held September 4, 1996. Mr. Ruge has served for two years as Urban Development Chairman; Mr. Greiner is in his first year as PLANNING BOARD VICE Zoning and Qpdinanee Chairman. MS. LEBLANC IS IN HER FIRST YEAR AS ZONING AND ORDINANCE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goolsby is in his first year as Planning Board Chairman. XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted c Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn002096 a:\32 Z-10-96 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue "A" Residential to "F" Commercial GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Mark W. Warner 456 Davis Allegan, MI 49010 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Re-Zone the property located at 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. EXISTING LAND USE: Real-estate Office. EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 154.2' X 150' (23,130 sq. ft.) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial (Kitchen Cabinet Shop) S: Commercial (Photographer) E: Commercial (Daily Heating & Air and Culligan Water Conditioning) W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "J" Parking & "G-2" Wholesale S: "F" Commercial E: "F" Commercial, "J" Parking & "G-2" Wholesale W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIG.: The South East Area Plan designates this area for Professional Office. Z-10-96 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue Page 2 SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Currently the building at 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue is considered non-conforming by the City of Lansing Zoning Code since it is zoned "A" residential and occupied by office and commercial uses. The owner proposes to sell this property, with the prospective owner retaining the existing land use of this structure. The rezoning of the property is necessary to bring the property into conforming status with the City of Lansing Zoning Code. CASE HISTORY: The use of this property as office/commercial was an existing use developed under Delhi Township's zoning ordinance. This area was annexed into the City of Lansing on September 30, 1966. By default, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue was placed in the "A" Residential District where the land use remained constant to this date. AGENCY RESPONSES Board of Water and Light No objections. Public Service Dept. No response. Code Compliance No response. Building Safety Office: No Objections. Consumers Power Company: No response. Transportation Eng.: No objections. Assessor: No response. Z 10 96 5326 S Pennsylvania Avenue Page 3 AGENCY RESPONSES (Continued) Development Office: No Comment. Fire Marshal: No response. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Currently the structure is used as real-estate office (vacant), electronic repair and sales, and a take-out pizza restaurant. There is no proposed change in existing land use for the site besides filling the vacant office area. This land use is compatible with surrounding commercial land use on S. Pennsylvania Avenue. This includes a kitchen cabinet shop to the north, photographic studios to the south, and a heating and cooling contractor to the east. Property to the west is single family residential. The existing land use has a minimal impact upon adjacent residential properties. Sufficient landscape/buffering must be utilized to minimize negative impacts to these properties. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The proposed rezoning does not comply with the South East Area Plan which designates this area for Professional Office. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The site currently has space for 40 vehicles, which is greater than the minimum number required by Section 1284.13 (c) of the Zoning Code. However, Section 1284.12 requires the inclusion of Handicapper spaces and Section 1284.16 sets minimum Design and Dimension requirements. The existing site may not meet either of these requirements. A site plan of this property will need to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to further building permits being issued to assure that the property meets all of these requirements as well as provide for the appropriate space for buffering. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No negative environmental impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at this intersection should not have a negative impact on patterns of development along S. Pennsylvania Avenue if well maintained and landscaped. A strong concern of residents to the west is the opportunity for a party store to open in this location subsequent to being rezoned. However, a party store could replace a present 4----+ „nA r ;+c, -A„ RPciriPntial nistrict 7onina. but the buildinq would remain Z-10-96 5326 S Pennsylvania Avenue Page 4 non-conforming. Chapter 1294 of the Zoning Code regulates this property as a Non- conforming Class "B" property in which only 35% of the building's value can be utilized for improvements to the structure. 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue's effect on adjacent residential property on Anderson will be directly related to the quality and content of the screening and buffering to be provided. RECOMMENDATION Due to its current zoning as "A" Residential, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue is exempt from Chapter 1290 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code which controls Landscaping, Screening and Buffering even though the property is being used for office and commercial land uses. Although the majority of the residents west of the site oppose the rezoning, staff recommends that the subject parcel be rezoned from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial. This will bring the structure to a conforming status similar to surrounding commercial properties and allows the Zoning Administrator to enforce the issues of Handicapper Parking, Parking Design, and Screening and Buffering prior to future building permits being issued. ,n oa%AlDn Prenared bv. Steven L.Hayward,Senior Planner •iii•.in%, •�1 a'' .�, •IBM - �.R1►tii/ �. f ',L.Y,• ,it1 775 ::r7- :ifi•i: �Oti'=� ..4,.;.,.•.,t.f .}, .;;,::;. .,-••;.T >..° •:!"ff:;oi::•"il�,ifaii�: w��' ,s;'• / SIF �® "i-feji fi,i; i,^:i'; ;,1,� ;ti.,,�;.;:�..if%iif:i �.�%ii�// ..��►,►•��i "sic. .,? E;:..:•. .;� :.f•.i:,•. / � •►• �;�; >��•__• iE�''i�'�'i� }eii, :j:;:::FjN? �; .'T,•��•i•i•�=:=H:ir;: r,l:; ��a / / - .,►„�. ,• t;E t i_ e.[ t•t�? Eft..;iii`a, �t�.�/L.%/��/f//�j�i//� W j =_== III i����ii Ihii�►ii����l �� �s, �� � -- � A MORTGAGE REPORT foot Capitol Savings & Loan Association AND William Warner 112 East Allegan Lansing, Michigan 48933 L[QAL O[LGRIrrIOW Lot 11 and the South 46 feet of Lot 18, PENNSYLVANIA HEIGHTS a subdivision on part of the N.W. fractional 1/4 of Section 3, T3N. R2W. City of Lansing , Ingham County, Michigan. _ _. / Ste• 7.S' 0 p h ` Y �a ` Q /t•c.,vc rr�.rr t � 70.Q ' ti ; d SAY 17 ! 0 4 Q� h � f•tlfrJ s 5 'S/oE J✓A L All /6 /7 - n- 1.9 20 858.8 857.8 WILLEMMA 857.5 I I /6 I /4 22 /5 I - � I Q I 4 TM J w Q I /6 I 859.1 859.8 /9 I W J O > Q 3 w 86/.8 859.E SHIRLEY J � N a 860 Z 3 I Li Q Z Oil 862.7 I 855.4 , /6 l i3 I ( 864./ 853.7 DENNIS ST863_, / ��o /I — — I. / 22/ I 20 /5 ,q , �. [III PROPERTY OWNERS PROTESTING RE-ZONING Z-10-96 , 5326 S . Pennsylvania Ave . NORTH "A-1" Residential to "B" Commercial District / y I6 i n- 19 20 I - 8578 WILLEMMA 857.5 I 858.8 /9 I I /6 � /4 I 15 22 O /a I /a I I LLI �3_ �3 /6 I 859.I I — - 60 — I 859.8 /a Z - e /9 0 /3 7F O �� I > O Q Q _$ \ tz I 861.8 859.6 SHIRLEY IJ - /5 ILJ z a IJ 14 .(n... f 855.4 -, 862.7 I � � R/15 p 86�1 / 863.7 DENNIS ST 863. DRAFT TO CLERK 083096 DRAFT APPROVED - TO CLERK r `r-C E E Nye D Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD "-f `� 11 �,: {„ 7 P.M. , City Council Chambers L A1,1S{ av {I �L[ t( Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue _ TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan, Ruge (late) ; six members present; two absent. Ex officio Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B . Excused Absences. At the May 7, 1996 meeting, Ms. Marshall was granted an excused absence. At the August 6, 1996 meeting, Mr. Robinson requested and was granted an excused absence (on vacation) . 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. Chairman Goolsby noted two corrections to the agenda: The date of minutes for approval on the agenda, which is shown as June 18, 1996, should be August 6, 1996. Under V. B . Committee Reports, the next meeting date for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, shown as August 24, should be August 20, which is today. That meeting did occur, at 6:30 this evening. With those two corrections, the agenda was approved. II. HEARINGS - None. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: August 6, 1996. A draft copy of minutes for August 6, 1996 was distributed. Action on the minutes was delayed. Chairman Goolsby continued through the agenda, and returned to Minutes for Approval after the Urban Development Committee report, stating that apparently no other member would show up this evening, so we will table Z-10-96 until the Wednesday September 4, 1996 meeting. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, for a ten-minute recess to consider the minutes from August 6, 1996; voice vote, approved unanimously. The Board observed a ten-minute recess. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 2 Mr. Ruge came at 7:45, saying he had not requested an excused absence. Chairman Goolsby called the Board back into session, directing the record to reflect the arrival of Mr. Ruge. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of August 6, 1996, with emendations as follows: P 2 Ln 9.33 POS 1 .71 _.fit ACCEPT; P. 12; P. 12 Para. 5 Ms. Jo Flaherty asked him to convey to the Board her disappointment IN THEIR DECISION, BUT that even theugh NGIJ-^ was app-peve , she appreciates the Board's interest and depth of consideration. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. Mr. Greiner did not vote because he was not in attendance. The minutes of August 6, 1996 as emended were APPROVED. B . Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee report and action was delayed, pending arrival of a sixth member. In order to act on any zoning matter in the City, six votes are required. Following the arrival of Mr. Ruge, Ms. Leblanc resumed the report of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. a. Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met this evening, and after discussion, the committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the proposed rezoning is in compliance with surrounding zonings in the area, and recommended unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" 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 approval of Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Chairman Goolsby said there is no address 5326; it goes from 5324 to 5332 S. Pennsylvania, because they are combined. Mr. Ruff said that is how the application was made. Mr. Ruge said from the size of the parcel, if desired, they could put a billboard on the site. Mr. Ruff said the property is approximately 150 ft. x 150 ft. , and a 25 ft. setback of the sign, and a 75 ft. setback from residential would allow construction of a billboard on the property. Mr. Ruff responded to Mr. Ruge's comment about how the building sticks down to the south property line--a variance would not be required, but it would be considered nonconforming. If they did major PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 201 1996 - P. 3 renovations to the property, they may require a Class A or a variance. The use would be conforming. Ms. Love said it is a covered lower entry. The property slopes this way, and originally this may have been stairs to a door that-was halfway down, and they have enclosed it. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-10-96, 5326 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be APPROVED. Chairman Goolsby suggested Mr. Ruff contact Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Story who left before action on Z-10-96. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee would be Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, City Hall Annex, Second Floor, 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan. Ms. LeBlanc also said there was discussion about the church on S. Washington. "We believe it was held because we were waiting for a reply from the owner from the Capital Hill Station, and we are thinking if he hasn't said anything, that he must not object much." Mr. Ruff said there are two things, the attorney's opinion as to the expansion of Capital Hill Station, and further comment from him, but nothing has been received from the Attorney's office. Ms. Love said of the two things, the attorney's opinion would have more impact. We wanted to make sure we were not creating a problem potentially at any place in the City relative to this issue. (The Urban Development Committee report was given prior to the arrival of Mr. Ruge. ) 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Frederick, Acting Chair. a. Act-18-96, Acquisition of Railroad Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. The subject property, which is called the Lansing Connecting Railway, is approximately 4,420 ft. in length and extends from Hosmer and Larned south to the Grand Trunk Railroad near Haco Drive in Potter Park. The entire length of the Lansing Connecting Railway runs through industrial areas. The Board of Water and Light owns property at Pennsylvania and Hazel along the south side of Haco Drive. Both BWL sites are interrupted by the Lansing Connecting Railway. The Board wishes to acquire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 202 1996 - P. 4 portions of the railway and consolidate its properties to improve the efficiency of its operations. The Canadian National Railroad, which owns the Lansing Connecting Railway, wishes to'sell the entire length of the right-of-way to a single purchaser, if possible. The asking price is $98,500 in cash. If the Board of Water and Light purchased the property, it would be desirous of selling the surplus portions for which the Board has no use. The Lansing Connecting Railway is on the market in its entirety for $98,500. The railway runs through an industrial area from Hosmer and Larned Streets to the Grand Trunk Railroad property south of Haco Drive. It bisects BWL properties at Pennsylvania and Hazel and at Haco Drive, and impairs efficient operations at both locations. The Board wishes to acquire the property and utilize segments of it to consolidate its properties and improve its efficiency at both locations. No other city agency, including the Parks and Recreation Department, has expressed an interest in this property. Based on the location, character, and extent of this proposal, staff recommends approval: 1. to acquire the "Lansing Connecting Railway" right- of-way, 2. to consolidate the BWL properties as planned, 3. to retain ownership of those portions of the remainder for which public purposes are determined, and 4. to sell all residual property to adjacent property owners. In committee, a motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. , with the four points in the staff recommendation. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend approval of Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. , pursuant to the staff recommendation with the four points. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 - P. 5 Ms. LeBlanc asked if the City, or the Board is acquiring the property? Ms. Love said the Board is acquiring the property, out of their funds. Mr. Frederick said the rail line is not in use, and has not been in use for some time. _ Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Act-18-96, Acquisition of RR Right-of-Way, Hosmer & Larned to S. Holmes St. with the four points in the staff recommendation was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, September 10, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love We are in the process of looking at the renaissance zones legislation and are fairly certain that we will make an application. We are still evaluating some of the economic impacts, more related to the length of the time--how long we should apply for--as opposed to whether or not we should make application. We are looking closely at the Seven Block Area, because it is primarily a commercial-residential development area. Our application may be strengthened by having an industrial component to it. If that were to be the case, we might look to the Lindell Drop Forge, i.e. , Reed Machinery, properties in that general vicinity. If we do that, though, we would have to have a plan for development for the area, other than our existing master plan and some older plans that we developed close to ten years ago. We have to make a decision this week as to whether or not we would include an industrial component. You may be called upon to conduct public hearings at a meeting in September, because the application is due the end of September. E. Pending Items: Future action required 2. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-2-96, SE Corner Case & Grand River, Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot, PPN 3301-10-302-001 & -011 Action postponed in committee February 13, 1996) b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) C. Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of-way (Pending per request of CATA on July 23, 1996) d. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv.. & Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) e. Act-11-96, Lansing & Roosevelt, Near the Grand River, Acquisition of Four Parcels--Pump Station Improvements (Postponed by the applicant pending their submission of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 202 1996 - P. 6 f. Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct. , Closure to Through Traffic (UDC Tabled August 13, 1996) g. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act-285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996; removed from table for consideration July 9, 1996, no action taken) VII. NEW BUSINESS - none. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS We received one letter dated August 19, 1996 addressed to Mr. Ruff regarding the property at (here listed as 5332) S. Pennsylvania, Z-10-96. This letter will become part of the record. IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby asked about the status of the Administrative Rules of Procedure. He also asked if maybe for the end of September or first of October, we could get a report from LPD on, for example, the noise ordinance regarding enforcement. He is curious as to how many times someone has been cited under the noise ordinance. We pass things like that and we never know what happens. While it doesn't relate directly to zoning, it does relate to the overall community, and what we try to do in the neighborhoods. Mr. Ruge would be interested in violations of the sign code. X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked about progress on the church, and the insurance agency. Mr. Ruff said there is no change in the agency as yet. Mr. Ruge mentioned the triangular flags, at Lansing Detail and Car Wash at the corner of Butler and Saginaw; Magic Auto, the used car dealership at 1301 E. Kalamazoo near and Holmes; Capitol City Auto at the corner of Saginaw and Pennsylvania; and in the S. Washington Square, the Rock 'n' Roll Deli, next to Rite Aid; and a banner at Enterprise Automotive, 2311 E. Michigan Avenue. Mr. Ruff said some have been reported previously to Code Compliance. The Blue Coyote has a sign in the right-of-way on Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette for valet parking. Mr. Ruff said on Monday we turned in a banner they have had for a couple months. XI. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS - None. Planning Board elections will be held September 4, 1996. Mr. Ruge has served for two years as Urban Development Chairman; Mr. Greiner is in his first year as Zoning and Ordinance Chairman. Mr. Goolsby is in his first year as Planning Board Chair. XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn082096 a:\32 APPROVED WITH ONE CORRECTION: Second paragraph, Pg 8, Ln 4.33" Pos 5.06" . . . the committee becomes an DNofficial public hearing DRAFT TO CLERK 091696 APPROVED 091796 TO CLERK D924% Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD _ 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers - Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall _. „w," , 124 West Michigan Avenue :.',i . it;. t i i i (:LE��� �n WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan, Robinson (late) , Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences. Chairman Goolsby noted Ms. Marshall's letter of resignation because of family responsibilities. "She served approximately 22 years. We will miss her. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, in the absence of the Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Donna J. Wynant, Senior Planner, and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. D. Approval of Agenda. Mr. Ruff said, under Report from the Planning Manager, he will ask for some action regarding Renaissance Zones. The agenda was approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Z-11-96, Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. Ms. Wynant presented the case, a request by Pete DeLuca for rezoning of part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, from "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. In 1988, the Planning Board recommended that a portion of the property be rezoned to the 11E-1" Apartment Shop District, subject to approval of a landscape, screening and buffering plan to protect the residential area to the north. This rezoning allowed the applicant to build a 26 ft. x 40 ft. storage building for his cabinet business, located immediately to the west. Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals were also obtained to erect the building with a west-facing door, closer to the front and rear property lines. Mr. Ruff said since that time Mr. DeLuca has been cited for the use of the building as a transmission shop, not a permitted use in the "E-1" District, which has precipitated part of the rezoning request. Further, he has been cited by the Building Safety Office because a fence has been constructed without the proper permits, in the right-of-way; secondly, a door has been put on the north side of the building, which was prohibited when he received his variance. This was also done without a permit. In 1988, the rezoning request was for "F" Commercial. To accommodate the storage building, the Board and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 2 Council rezoned the property to "E-1" Apartment Shop to allow the accessory structure. The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to market the property for future sale. No development plans have been received. Mr. Greiner asked if the building was ever used as proposed; Mr. Ruff replied, yes, he understood that it was. Mr. Frederick asked if the screening and buffering was ever complied with; Mr. Ruff said the screening and buffering plan that was required and acknowledged by Mr. DeLuca at the time had been partially complied with, and has since been changed or altered because of the added driveway to the north. Mr. Frederick said there appeared to be a very weak intent to put in a little shrubbery, and it looked fairly recent. Mr. Ruge asked if billboards are allowed in the Light Industrial District? Mr. Ruff said they were not allowed in the 11E-1" Apartment Shop District; that was the point in the staff report in 1987-1988. Accessory structures are allowed, but not billboards. Mr. Ruge asked what is the width of the east end of the property--the west end appears to be 45 ft. wide. Mr. Ruff said approximately 31.5 ft. is depth of the area to be rezoned on the east end. The pole building was constructed, according to the survey, partially on Lot 5, which is zoned "C" Residential, 3 or 4 feet onto the adjoining property. It was not placed according to the plan submitted prior to construction. It is something a building inspector can't determine out in the field when he is looking at footings, since there is no structure next to it. PETE DELUCA, 800 EAST ST. JOSEPH. I am the owner of Custom Cabinets at the corner of St. Joseph and Hosmer. I have been a resident on St. Joseph since the 1950s. I am the oldest in the neighborhood. I see the neighborhood going from bad to worse, and now we are going for better. I would like to get rid of this property without leaving any problem for my kids. I would like to use this property because I have one grandson graduating from GMI, and he is in the computer business. Later on, I want to use the property for repair computer. When I assumed this property was zoned shop, and I gave the real estate person the right to rent this property, automatically we know it was shop. For me a shop is a shop. The mistake was made, we should have checked before we rent the piece of property. Anything else, we didn't mean to do anything to endanger the neighborhood, to make it junky in the neighborhood. We want to make the neighborhood liveable, pleasant. I am the only guy in the neighborhood, you can go see any time you want, I cut the grass to my property; I keep the property up to date. We have a lot of property in the area that should be condemned. We have some pictures we took on my property and the properties around it. The reason we leased it to Mrs. Hernandez there--the house itself--my shop looks like a house, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 3 and the people next door are going to rent it. We have a gentleman from the Chamber of Commerce, and we have an architect here. At 7:18 p.m. , Chairman Goolsby noted the arrival of Mr. Robinson. "We now have seven members present." Mr. Ruge asked Mr. DeLuca about how the door got on the north side of the building. Mr. DeLuca said the door was originally built on the building, but "we never cut the outside opening. It was on the original blueprint." Mr. Ruge said originally the door was going to be on the west side, but now there is a big door on the north side that was not supposed be there? Mr. DeLuca said it was always there, but there was siding. The door was installed from the day first. Chairman Goolsby noted receipt of a letter, to become part of the record, signed by 31 individuals in the vicinity of the property. They oppose the rezoning. TRYGVE VIGMOSTAD, REPRESENTING THE LANSING REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I do economic development work in the region. This area has suffered from 496 cutting Lansing. This is not a normal area. The expressway came through downtown Lansing, and the area has struggled with business, industry and residential and how to structure itself for the future. This application is an attempt to have some residential, some business and commercial development and have it in harmony near 496. It appears to me that this is a compatible commercial operation. Every attempt has been made to work within the 496 expressway corridor, and still have a compatible situation with the expressway, the neighborhood and make this work out. My impression of this rezoning request is that it is a compatible request. This neighborhood lives under an expressway that bisects our city. At this point, Mr. DeLuca's architect distributed photo snapshots and a photos mounted on a board. JEFF KYES, KYES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, 2163 UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE, OKEMOS. Because of 496 going through, these lots are not very appealing for residential. On the east end, it is 32 feet wide, and you are backing up to a highway. This is the only way that Mr. DeLuca can use his property is by rezoning it. RUSSELL GREEN, 4710 SAGINAW, REPRESENTING MS. HERNANDEZ AND MS. HENFLING. They are the renters of the property on St. Joseph. At present, the property is used for some type of light industrial all the way around, including Hosmer Street from Kalamazoo Street all the way down to where Board of Water and Light is, on the other side of Hosmer; 496 interrupts in the middle of it. Mr. DeLuca wishes not to change the neighborhood but to make a proposed usage of his land which would maximize its value and also maximize tax dollars for the City. This would enhance the land which abuts I-496. Presently it is zoned "C-1" for residential, 11E-1" for apartment and for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 4 a shop. It would be imprudent to place a house on this property, the way it comes down from 496, the danger associated with it, the risk. I don't think the City would approve a house on this property. The best use of Mr. DeLuca's land would be light industrial, which would allow for the maximum use and the greatest potential for the tax rolls. If you deny the request, it could amount to an inverse condemnation, taking the property, and he cannot use it for any other purpose, because the City realistically is not going to allow any houses there. SHAWN BOUTERSE, 812 LARNED. I am the author of the letter you have received. First I went over to see what the area looked like. I had been by there and saw the transmission shop. It concerned me because I didn't like the way it looked. There are transmissions out behind the fence, which periodically get moved back inside the building. I witnessed the people who built the building take a sledge hammer and knock out the city curb to put in the door in question and the driveway. Based on talking to people, I knew it wasn't zoned for that. They had no right to do that in the first place. I had seen and talked to people who have seen truck antifreeze fluid leaking out on the road and in the driveway. Last weekend, there was a spill, and they used mop-up to clean it up, which soaks it up and does not really clean it up. There are stains in the driveway and on the pavement. Kids play on the road, and cars for the transmission shop go in the business. There is barely enough room for a car on either side of the road, plus a car going to the business. I am worried about kids running out in the road and getting hit by cars. I consider the transmission shop basically ugly, because there are broken-down cars that have been parked out in the street. At night, there has been some parked out on the street. The noise level--there is a house between me and the transmission shop; I live on the other side of the alleyway on Larned Street, and I have heard the ratchets at my house. With the noise of the highway and the trains, it adds more noise to the area. I am trying to work on a neighborhood group with the Lansing Neighborhood Council to make the area look better. That shop and development of the property is not going to make the area look any better. The property values have gone down over the last year. We tried to sell our house five years ago. We were asking $33,000 for a three-bedroom house, two baths, fully furnished, and we couldn't even get $29,000 for it. Larned Street gets a lot of traffic from Builders Plumbing Supply, a lot of trucks. I don't want cars going to another business going through our street; it is not designed to have that traffic. There is already trucks going through there that aren't supposed to be. The door in question was not there before this summer. It was put in with the driveway. The curb was pulled out and the door was put in. There was not a door on that side, to answer your other question when you were talking about the door. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. DeLuca if the basic premise is improving the property value for a future sale, and if he had in mind a specific clientele for the sale. Mr. DeLuca said his grandson is going to be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 5 graduating from the General Motors Institute in 12 years. "We want to use the property for computer repair." SHARON EDDINGTON, 815 E. St. JOSEPH, directly across from Mr. DeLuca's property. I have been in the neighborhood about two years, and my husband and I have worked very hard to clean up our yard, to make our house presentable, and to try to make friends. I am against rezoning this area. East St. Joseph is a one-block dead-end street. If Mr. DeLuca puts up more buildings and puts in businesses, I am concerned about the children in the area and the traffic it would add, plus the confusion. Right now, if there is a car parked on both sides of the street and someone tries to drive through, it is very very tight. I am also wondering what this would do to the people who live in the neighborhood. Mr. DeLuca works there and has his business there, but he does not live there. That concerns me. He doesn't have the same outlook as the people who live on the street. I also wonder what it is going to do to my property values. MARIA HERNANDEZ, OWNER OF D & R TRANSMISSION SHOP, 6960 RICHARD ROAD, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48911. I don't work at the Transmission Shop. I go out there on evenings sometimes after my work, and I go out there on Saturdays. What these people are saying is not true. We do not have vehicles sitting around out in the street. We have come in there on Saturday morning and found vehicles blocking our driveway, our gate, with beer bottles on them. We have seen vehicles leaking oil all over the street. They are not vehicles that belong to the shop. We were closed Friday all day, and we were open on Saturday for two hours. We went out there on Saturday morning and there was a car parked out there that had been worked on, there was beer bottles, and we don't allow that. A gentleman across the street repairs cars in his driveway. All the vehicles parked in the street in front of our building belong to that man across the street. I don't see why they are blaming D & R Transmission because we don't leave cars out on the street. When we repair cars in the building, we park it in the lot. We do not leave it in the street. THOMAS C. SHAMKA, 908 MAY STREET. I have a vested interest in the property at 815 E. St. Joseph, and like Mr. DeLuca says, things have gone downhill. When Mr. DeLuca wanted to put that building there back in 1987, Mr. DeLuca got a variance for storage of cabinets. Shortly after that, he rented it for a carpet company to run through there. They were nice people. At the beginning of this year, things started changing. There was an ugly fence put up, also a door on the north side of the building. D & R Transmission Shop does not come under Mr. DeLuca's variance. When you look across the street and see vehicles parked there, and you can go to any transmission shop in town, and I know them all, the Henflings, Lansing Transmission, you see nothing but a bunch of cars sitting around. I can't even have an unlicensed vehicle in my yard. I am totally against this, against any industrial. If you will survey the street, it will not accept much more traffic. I want the City of Lansing--Mr. Ruff can get some people out PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 6 there, and you have the right to ticket them and to do something. This is not no industrial area. Let Builders Plumbing have their property, let the property across the road, which Mr. DeLuca has property in the 700 Block--that is fine. But there is no more extension of any commercial, industrial property in the 800 and 900 Block of E. St. Joe. Thank you. Chairman Goolsby, seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment on Z-11-96, referred the matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, which will meet Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. B. Z-12-96, 617 W. Ionia St. , "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District, This is a request by Michigan Retailers Association, 211 N. Pine, owners, to rezone property at 617 W. Ionia St. , from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District, a district of combined use which permits 50 percent office and 50 percent residential, and which also requires the maintenance of the residential character of the structure. The property has a residential structure that is zoned "D-2" Professional Office. The property contains 4,800 sq. ft. of lot area. The River Island Comprehensive Plan designates this part of the blockface as "D-2" Residential/Office District. The master plan came about because of numerous inquiries to rezone residences to office. This caused removal of residences from a vital residential area, and displacing them with office tenants there from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Also it tended to bleed office pressure away from downtown. This caused creation of more office square footage in small increments away from the downtown core area. Both of those things were deemed to be not in the best interests of the City. This zoning pattern was designated at that time in the River Island Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential use. The particular property was designated as "D-2". Another part was keeping residential structures facing residential structures, and yet where the other residential structures abutted the back sides potentially and other sides of office structures, it gave them an opportunity to increase some of their intensity of use with office, yet retain residential use and character. The properties to the east towards Pine Street and to the south, towards Lansing Towers, are owned by Michigan Retailers Association, and they have done the bulk of the rezoning to "D-2" in this blockface. They have kept the residential structures and have converted the structures either entirely to office or to office and residential uses as zoning permitted. MRA is expanding their property holdings and additional office capabilities and residential on the second floor. Staff has some concerns about how this would be incorporated since there is minimal on-site parking. We have asked for parking and office calculations. Mr. Ruge asked about the shared driveway on the property, and if off- site parking is allowed without a variance? Mr. Ruff said no off-site PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 7 parking in the "D-2" District is allowed; parking is required to be on- site. Potentially, the property could be combined with the entire parcel and the parking on the adjacent parcels could be made available to this property. The other option is a variance, but the on-site parking is required. JAMES HALLAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MICHIGAN RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, 221 N. PINE. We are a trade association representing 4,500 retailers, primarily in Michigan, but also multistate. We have made a commitment to downtown Lansing. We currently own 8 pieces of property either facing Pine Street or Ionia; some are occupied by employees of MRA, some are mixtures of residential, "D-21', and commercial. We have 33 employees. MRA is expanding, and will add 2 more employees within the next 60 days, so we need to occupy 1 more building, with 35 employees in 3 different buildings. The shared driveway is owned by MRA, and the tenant will not have a problem with it. We would have 3 to 4 employees of the Governmental Affairs Department there. We would use a portion of the second floor as an apartment for visiting marketing representatives in town periodically from other locations around the state. This would allow us to use the property for a business purpose and to meet the residential requirement, rather than housing visiting reps at the Sheraton Hotel. Mr. Ruff asked the use of the third floor. Mr. Hallen said the third floor is beautifully paneled, but he did not think MRA would use the space at the time. STEPHANIEWHITBECK, REPRESENTING DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I live at 620 W. Ionia and also own the property across the street from the subject property. We also own the property to the east, a duplex. I am representing the DNA, and other residential property affected by the request and also am an owner-occupant. I speak from both sides. Both DNA and my husband and I support the master plan as amended. We are all aware that the blockface has the capacity to go to "D-2" zoning. We are also frustrated that the application process does not have information that would give us a clue in writing about evidence of conforming to the "D-2" ordinance-- maximum lot coverage, parking, water run-off, the parking lot behind goes from Ionia to Sycamore. No information about how the current property at 617 W. Ionia, which is zoned "DM-4" but is currently configured as it has most recently been used, as a single-family house, will be configured under this to meet the 50-50 residential-office and truly conform. It is difficult.when the information is not available, to say whether you will agree or disagree with something. I would like to ask you to reconsider conducting a public hearing in which the information is available to the public to respond to. I know the answer is no. We have understood from Mr. Hayward and the Planning Office that this might be subject to different information, but once it goes to committee, there is no opportunity to comment. We are concerned, without evidence of conformity, that the DNA cannot support the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 8 application, until there is evidence of conformity. On your general information sheet, it is really "D-2", not "D-1"; there are typos in terms of land uses surrounding. This shows land use surrounding to the north of multiple and office. There is single-family, and that office use is probably referring to Blue Cross. At the extreme east end of that block is kind of northeast; I would like you to realize there is single-family there, and to the west is also single-family usage, while the zoning is "DM-4" and that is property also owned by the Retailers. The Retailers have been wonderful neighbors, and we are still saying that we still have a River Island Master Plan as amended and a zoning code and we would also like to be certain that we going to meet it truly. Chairman Goolsby said he shared the frustrations mentioned, in terms of the way information comes. Normally the Zoning and Ordinance Committee is a working session; however, because of lack of information, the committee becomes an UNofficial public hearing because we recognize that sometimes we need input, particularly when people don't speak on the issue before us. The committee attempts to accommodate the public and the applicant at the committee meeting. It is discretionary with the committee. Mr. Ruge said we always accept letters if you can't come to the committee meeting. Ms. LeBlanc said at every meeting there is a section for public comment from the audience before the board votes on any issues. Ms. Whitbeck said the DNA wants to get a letter to the Board soon. Chairman Goolsby said we have received a letter from the DNA stating their concerns about the application. Chairman Goolsby, seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment on Z-12-96, referred the matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, which will meet Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. C. Z-13-96, Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Streets, "B" Residential to "DM-4" Residential District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by St. Lawrence Hospital, as part of a purchase agreement to rezone a parking lot at the northeast corner of Saginaw and Westmoreland, which currently is City Parking Lot #14, from "B" Residential District to the "DM-4" Residential District, and then incorporate it into their properties. The "DM-4" District allows hospitals and their accessory uses. The property is 80 ft. x 120 ft. , containing 9,600 sq. ft. Mr. Ruff noted the case history- -the property was before the Board for the sale. As part of the sale, it was deemed necessary to rezone it to the "DM-4" zoning district. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 9 MARK CANADY, 313 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE, ON BEHALF OF ST. LAWRENCE HOSPITAL. A number of contingencies were placed on the sale, one being meeting the parking needs of the 1400 Block of W. Saginaw. That has been taken care of. The 1400 Block is essentially owned by C&G Investments. St. Lawrence owned a parking lot in that block, and we have now reached a buy-sell agreement with C&G and we have Mr. Adam Whitz here from Tomie Raines, representing them on the realtor's side. That sale was contingent on sale of City Lot #14 to St. Lawrence Hospital. We had to have it rezoned in order to have the sale go through, but we couldn't start the rezoning process until we had a buy-sell agreement with the City. We were able to work our way through that, and now we are down to the last contingency, which is the rezoning, which would make it consistent with the property owned by St. Lawrence Hospital. KELLY S. KONKALY, 619 WESTMORELAND, HOMEOWNER, two houses south of Saginaw, on the west side of the street. I am concerned about the replacement parking. It has probably been met numberswise, but how it serves the commercial businesses on North Saginaw beside the hospital, I don't think it is going to work. Right in front of my house, cars use our residential street on Westmoreland for parking. Replacement parking spots are on the west side of the commercial development. On the east side of the development, there is a beauty shop and McDowell School of Dance. For those people to park on the west side, it means they would have to come five or six storefronts around. They don't do that, it is a beauty shop and a dance school. People want to drop their kids right by the dance school, they don't want them walking on Saginaw. Instead, they double- and triple-park on Westmoreland, between the hospital and the commercial development, so you can barely drive your car through there at busy times, like early evening when the dance school has people going in and out. And the beauty shop uses our street all the time during the day. I tried to sell my house a year ago, and I had trouble, because people mentioned the location and all the parking in front on the street. My house is worth about $70,000 and that's about the lowest on that block. I don't think the parking replacement is adequate; I don't think it is being met. I would like you to consider that and take another look at the parking situation before you agree to this rezoning. I don't think it has been met. ADAM WHITZ, WITH TOMIE RAINES, INC. , REPRESENTING C&G INVESTMENTS, OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 1400 BLOCK W. SAGINAW, 11930 EDEN TRAIL, MICHIGAN. Relative to replacement parking meeting the needs of the area, you might note that the problems that the previous speaker alluded to existed before the zoning change. Changing them, it won't make the matter any worse in her instance. This will probably make her situation better in that this parking lot, which is a City lot which requires paid parking by those parking there (they are reluctant to put any money in the meter, so they park in the street) . Remove that, and you will probably remove some of that impetus to want to park in the street as opposed to the lot. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 10 Secondly, the landlords and property owners in the 1400 Block of West Saginaw, once we own that lot, can do two things. One, we can improve the lot so that the tenants will want to park there instead of on-street where they risk traffic accident, etc. , or across the street, which also involves crossing the street in order to visit the business there. We also have plenty of lighting going into the lots on the west side of Saginaw to allow a safer, more congruent way for people to visit the businesses. Both lots have been lots for.a long time. We think by making the parking free and more suitable to the tenants on each side of the street, that will reduce the amount of on-street parking on Westmoreland. Mr. Ruge asked where is this new parking lot. Mr. Whitz said the replacement parking is in the 1400 Block of West Saginaw; currently it is a parking lot for St. Lawrence Hospital. Chairman Goolsby, seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment on Z-13-96, referred the matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, which will meet Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: August 20, 1996. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve the minutes of August 20, 1996, with emendations as follows: Pg 6 Ln 8.5" Pos 5.86" Mr. Greiner is in his first year as PLANNING BOARD VICE Zening and Qpdinan Chairman. MS. LEBLANC IS IN HER FIRST YEAR AS ZONING AND ORDINANCE CHAIRMAN. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. The minutes of August 20, 1996 as emended were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, September 11, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time items II. A. , B. , and C. above will be considered. 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting TUESDAY, September 10, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time the following case will be considered: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 11 a. Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct. , Closure to Through Traffic Mr. Ruff, commenting on Act-8-96, CATA Bus Shelter and Kiosk Advertising within Public Rights-of-way, CATA is withdrawing the request. The item can be dropped from Pending Items. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. In the absence of Ms. Love, who is on vacation, Mr. Ruff made the presentation. The Fifth Annual Livable Communities Conference will be held on September 18, 1996, at Kellogg Center. The Planning Office will send one staff person and one or two Board members. Please indicate your interest. Regarding Renaissance Zones, Ms. Love would like to have a letter from the Planning Board in support of our application for renaissance zones. The application, which is yet not available for review because it is still being worked on, will be sent to the state by the end of this month. You have a two-page summary of what we are proposing. The two renaissance zones being considered are the Seven Block Development Area; the other is the Lindell Drop Forge Area. This would allow write- offs for properties granted the break provided they meet certain conditions according to the legislation. "I would like to get the Board's support in the form of a motion and a letter." Mr. Nischan made a motion, supported by Mr. Greiner, to authorize the Chair to write a letter on behalf of the Board in support of the City's application for Renaissance Zones. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; authorization of the Chair to write a letter on behalf of the Board in support of the City's application for Renaissance Zones was APPROVED. The MAPA/MSPO Conference is coming up, and the pre-conference reception will be held on Wednesday, September 25, 1996 from 5:30-7:30 at Impressions Five Museum. Mr. Ruff reminded members to put the item on their calendars and to be there to help host the conference. Mr. Ruff mentioned as information, that he did not instruct Mr. DeLuca to put a fence around his property. "I may have told him he needs to do a better job of protecting his shrubbery and trees." It has been consistently difficult to work with Mr. DeLuca. The requirements and the information is in the files from 1988; at the time that minimum zoning to allow him to use it for a storage building was discussed at the Board of Zoning Appeals. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 12 Mr. Ruge, noting the snapshots, asked about the dumpster sitting by the curb. Mr. Ruff said that was not allowed; and further, the fence is out to the curb line. The Building Safety Office has cited him on these two issues, at least. Mr. Greiner asked if we do not rezone this to make what he has done OK, he will have to take the fence out and put the curb back and put the door back? Mr. Ruff said, yes, whether he gets his rezoning or not. Mr. Frederick said the use is wrong. Mr. Ruff said this is the driving issue. A family member from the "Henfling and Sons" transmission shop on Mt. Hope and Washington, which had been a sore spot for Code Compliance for many years, went into in business at Mr. DeLuca's building. Mr. DeLuca was notified that this was inappropriate. Basically, this request stems from a code compliance matter. Mr. Nischan asked about the curb cut being made; Mr. Ruff said he did not witness it happening; however, a new curb cut has been installed on the north side of the building leading to the door that was cut into the side of the building. A citizen cannot just break open the curb, a curb cut permit must be obtained from the Public Service Department. Mr. Nischan asked if, before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets, the information could be obtained concerning the curb cut. Mr. Frederick asked if ultimately the transmission business should be forced to move out? Mr. Ruff said not if it were rezoned to Light Industrial; however, they may have to modify the building, because it was built as a storage building. Mr. Frederick said the intent of the fence appears to be for the protection of the cars which have had transmissions removed. Mr. Ruff said yes, and also for use of City right-of-way. Mr. Nischan said if they are doing transmission work, they are using solvents and fluids; what are they doing with them; is there dumping on-site? Can we find out before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting? Mr. Ruff said that can be looked at by the Public Service Department and by the County. Ms. LeBlanc said the County Health Department does inspections of businesses who must get permits. A transmission shop should get a permit because of the toxic substances they deal with; the person at the County would be Bob Godbold. Mr. Ruff said we will find out the status. Mr. Ruff said code compliance measures are involved here and at other locations. Enforcement measures are taking place; the code compliance officers are doing their jobs. Mr. Frederick commented on asking the Health Department about on-site toxic substances. The business is improper to begin with. They would have transmission fluids, and they are in violation because they are not supposed to.be there in the first place. "I would like to see them gone." Ms. LeBlanc said this is getting into jurisdictional areas. The county's involvement begins with a permit or license to dispose of certain substances. When a permit is obtained, the county can impose requirements; however, the county cannot enforce the City's restrictions. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 13 E. Pending Items: Future action required 2. 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) b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) c. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. & Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) d. Act-11-96, Lansing & Roosevelt, Near the Grand River, Acquisition of Four Parcels--Pump Station Improvements (Postponed by the applicant pending their submission of further information) e. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996) VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Board Member Elections - Chair Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to nominate Mr. Goolsby for a second term September 1996-7, and that nominations be closed and an affirmative vote be cast; voice vote; Ayes: All; Opposed; 0; carried unanimously; APPROVED. Mr. Goolsby upon being elected for a second term resumed the chair. B . Board Member Elections - Vice Chair Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to nominate Mr. Ruge for Vice Chair. Mr. Greiner made an explanation of his nomination, namely that the Vice Chair position go to a person with more experience, and secondly, in most organizations, the normal progression to Chair is through the Vice Chair position. Mr. Greiner felt that because of his limited experience, he would not be the best person for the chair, and that the Board would be better served by someone with more experience as Vice Chair, if that is the desire of the Board. Chairman Goolsby declared nominations closed; voice vote; Ayes: All; Opposed: 0; carried unanimously; APPROVED. Mr. Ruge was elected Vice Chairman September 1996-7. Chairman Goolsby said committees could select officers at their next committee meeting and report to the full board later. With the resignation of Ms. Marshall, the Urban Development Committee is one person short. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - P. 14 VIII. COMMUNICATIONS - Jane Marshall, letter of resignation. IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby said renaissance zones promise to be exciting; overall, the Seven Block Development Area and the Lindell Drop Forge Area are two good areas to select. X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. LeBlanc reported signs at the southwest corner of North and Center Streets, pennants at the Mekong Restaurant; west of North Grand River and M.L. King going one block west, the Admiral Station on the north side of the street, too many cigarette signs; across from Admiral, the Dicker & Deal, sandwich boards between the sidewalk and the street; crossing Grand River about one block on the north side, Gorman's Grocery Store has plastic signs, promotions from the Pepsi or Budweiser distributor; next to Gorman's, Little Caesar has a permanent help-wanted delivery person sign, again, between the sidewalk and the street. Mr. Nischan, Mr. Ruge, Mr. Goolsby and Mr. Robinson requested copies of the sign code. Mr. Ruge asked about the insurance company; Mr. Ruff will get a letter out before the next meeting. Mr. Ruge noted that Brewbakers has removed the pennants, and the Blue Coyote has removed the sign from the right-of-way. Mr. Frederick said, on the staff reports, one thing that might be helpful to include would be comments from the Community Policing Officers. They might know something about the cabinet-transmission shop on St. Joseph. Mr. Frederick commented about the high pile of wooden pallets, 6 ft. to 8 ft. high, at the side of Builders Plumbing Supply. The Days Inn on South Capital is looking worse and worse. The whole area looks good except for this building. Mr. Goolsby asked about 1100 W. Ionia; Mr. Ruff said he has just signed the demo permit; the City has purchased it. XI. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Ruge said, regarding St. Joseph, the photographs show appalling conditions--trash and junk cars. Mr. Ruge would like to attend the conference at Kellogg, as would Mr. Nischan and Ms. LeBlanc. They should contact Mr. Ruff before September 10, 1996. Ms. LeBlanc said Mr. Ruge and Mr. Nischan should be given first preference; however, if they cannot, she would like to attend. XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitte 4 I/ /�-C>Ye7� Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn090496 a:\32 APPROVED 10/01/96 with one correction Pg 9 Ln 1.5" Pos 2" Mr. FFedorink REICKEL said there is a staggered fee structure . . . . DRAFT TO CLERK 092796 APPROVED 100196 TO CLERK 100M Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m. , City Council Chambers ii ,_• C; Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue =•. . I ` ��.� i TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 I. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan, Robinson (late) , Ruge; seven members present; one vacancy. Ex officio Councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absences. None. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, in the absence of the Planning Manager, introduced staff present: William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. D. Approval of Agenda. Approved as printed. II. HEARINGS A. Act-20-96, Washington Park, Ice Dome Artificial Ice Rink Mr. Rieske presented the case, a request for an Act 285 review to make recommendations regarding the potential use of this City-owned property. The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting that an ice dome artificial ice rink be built in Washington Park north of the current ice rink. Chairman Goolsby read into the record two phone calls regarding the case, one from Larry Campbell, 618 Dunlap, in support; and a second from Jeanette McGill, 633 N. Dunlap, who would like to see the structure built on the south of the rink, not eliminating trees;also, the area floods, and there is room for it on the south. Ms. McGill has resided there since 1952. ROBERT FORD, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS; ALSO JOHN MARTIN OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS. We are consulting to the Parks and Recreation Department. With us is Don Ballard, who runs the ice rink; and in the audience is Eric Reickel, Director, Parks and Recreation. The proposal was generated by a quasi-public group, GLAHA, a hockey association. They propose a joint project with Parks and Recreation in which they would participate in most of the funding; Parks would provide some site work and space for the ice dome. There is an existing ice rink on the site with a 4,500 sq. ft. warming house located directly north. This ice rink, which has been in existence about 20 years, is not enclosed. (Mr. Ford displayed various PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 2 graphics. ) The dome is an air-supported enclosed structure, with a dome of a translucent mylar material. Air ventilation systems, air compressors, ice generators, ice compressors and the like maintain the climate and refrigerate the rink. The existing warming house will serve the restroom-warming facilities; however, the dome is.heated. There will be joint use; GLAHA would be the primary user from about 3-11 p.m. during the week; on weekends from about 11-9. The remaining time would be allocated to public usage and can be rented. Most of the other public skating will at the existing ice rink, which is open air. The mechanical apparatus will be located behind the warming house beween the two rinks. Some trees on-site will have to be removed. There is an abundance of parking on-site. The existing road pattern will be altered somewhat to accommodate entries in and around the dome. Some landscaping will be replaced over time. The dome height is about 36 ft. at the center; it then cascades down to the ground. The color will be white which will blend in with the snow cover in winter. In summer, the surrounding trees, at 40-80 ft. tall, will conceal the dome. The only totally visible side is the south; otherwise the tree cover subdues the other sides. Some outdoor lighting will be installed to help pedestrians to and from the parking lot, and some fencing for security. It will be a free-standing structure; people will have to go outside to go from one building to the next, or across rinks. Mr. Greiner asked if additions to the warming house facilities would be made, and how many people would use it at one time. Mr. Ford said not at present; however, the Parks Dept. would like to renovate and enlarge the warming house, bathrooms, lobby and locker rooms. It will be a practice facility for 36 team members plus coaches, spectators and parents. The maximum number in the dome would be 250-300 at any one time. Mr. Nischan asked about the source of funds, and about pictures of a completed dome, and about the visibility of the dome from nearby residences. Mr. Ford said GLAHA is willing to contribute up to $450,000; however, the production estimate is about $100,000 short of that. Funds must be sought through loans, from the Council, or from the parks milage. We are pursuing that. Photographs of completed domes are available; however, they are not here tonight. The dome will be 36 feet high, screened and surrounded by trees 40-80 ft. high, and located about 1,200 ft. from any residence. Mr. Robinson asked what is the projected starting date. Mr. Ford said as soon as possible, as soon as approval is obtained from the Planning Board, Building Office and City Council. The bubble itself has been designed and is ready to be manufactured. They hope to begin construction in October or November, and to have skating by the end of the year. Mr. Nischan asked about other competing uses; Mr. Ford said no other uses are competing for the facility; however, it could be programmed for other uses--batting cages in spring, baseball warm-up, dog shows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 3 Mr. Ruge asked how many trees will be taken out, will it be a year- round facility, will it be air-conditioned for summer use, and how many such facilities are located in the area. Mr. Ford said 69 trees of varying heights will be removed. The majority are under 6" diameter; however, some large trees of 36" diameter will have to be removed. There are 1,500 trees in the park, plus the forested areas. The hockey season is from October through April. JOHN R. MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS. The system will circulate between 5,000 and 6,000 cu. ft. of air per minute. The white mylar surface will reflect heat; it will be quite comfortable in summer. This manufacturer has a dome currently under construction in Meridian Township in the new tennis facility at the athletic club on Hagadorn Road; other domes are located in Livonia, Troy and Flint. Mr. Ruge asked about the need for additional ice hockey rinks. Mr. Ford said there is a deficiency of ice time, and a dire need for additional hockey time. The Lansing Ice Arena and Michigan State have some skating time, but beyond that, there is none. Mr. Ruge asked about the projected life of the structure, and the cost. Mr. Martin said the mylar material has a 10-year warranty; however, some have lasted 18 years. At the end of the life of the mylar, it is taken down and new fabric reinstalled and reinflated. Replacing one right now would cost $68,000. Mr. Ford said the bulk of the cost is in the infrastructure--bringing the utilities to the site and to the base. Mr. Ruge asked about the length of contract with GLAHA and hours of exclusive use for GLAHA. Mr. Ford said exclusive use is on the weekends from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The agreement, in draft form at present, will be signed shortly, for the time required to pay off the remaining loan. They have $250,000 cash and are leveraging $450,000 overall. The payback period will run 5-6 years. Once it is paid off, the dome and property it sits on becomes the City's. GLAHA will contract to use the dome exclusively for a total of 36 hours per week. The remaining time will be for public skating. Mr. Ruge asked who will pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the dome, and the anticipated yearly operation costs; Mr. Ford said the maintenance and operation costs will be borne by the City. There is an hourly fee, still in negotiation, that GLAHA will pay to the City for use of the rink. That fee will cover some costs. The current rink is running with a deficit of $60,000-70,000 per year. Through the use of this facility, not only can we make up the existing revenues for the dome, but also maybe recapture some of the cost of the existing outdoor ice rink. The goal is to have both facilities run at break-even; a surplus would be a benefit. The total operating budget would be about $250,000-300,000 per year. Mr. Ruge asked about the hourly cost to rent the facility? Mr. Ford said between $125-200 per hour. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 4 Mr. F,-,�ve-piek REICKEL said there is a staggered fee structure during the week. R. ERIC REICKEL, DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT. We will have 2 hours of general public skating on Friday evening and 4 hours on Saturday and Sunday; we have not developed a fee schedule. At the outdoor rink we charge $2.00 for adults and $1 .50 for children. Lansing Ice Arena charges $5.00 per skating session for a couple hours. When the indoor facility is used for general skating, the outdoor facility will be available for rental. This is a unique opportunity to partner with a quasi-public entity. With GLAHA coming in, it is a unique opportunity for the residents of Lansing to have an inside facility. GLAHA estimates about 35 percent of their skaters are Lansing residents. High school hockey is coming, maybe 6 or 8 teams in this region. We are going to enhance the present warming facility because it does not meet code. GLAHA will use the facility Monday through Thursday from 3-10 p.m. ; on Saturday and Sunday from 9-12 noon; the remaining hours can be programmed for open skating or for rental. Mr. Frederick asked if the projected costs include expenditures to bring the present warming house up to code, and if there will be paid- attendance functions? Mr. Reickel said the first phase will be to get the dome up; the second phase will be to renovate the warming house. We have $260,000 in the budget for warming house renovations which we have postponed. The third phase probably will involve hockey games. Mr. Martin said maximum capacity of bleachers would be about 600. The facility will be sized by the bathroom facilities. Mr. Frederick asked will the City own the facility, and will GLAHA contract with the City? Mr. Reickel said eventually we will take ownership when the loan is paid off. In the meantime, there will be a lease or license that will obligate them to go forward in terms of operation. We will not hold any lien against the building. We will do the work in the next year for the warming house and bathrooms. Ms. LeBlanc asked about the fans, and utility costs for inflating the dome, and noise. Mr. Reickel said he put up the first golf air dome in this country in Oakland County on 13 Mile and John R. ; the utilities there are about $2,000 per month. It doesn't take that much energy to keep the dome inflated. Noise from the fans would not penetrate into the neighborhood. Ms. LeBlanc asked about, with 600 bleacher seats, the need to increase parking. Mr. Reickel said we have more parking than we need. Mr. Robinson asked if the building could be expanded in the future? Mr. Reickel said the natural progression would be from a temporary structure such as this to a permanent facility which might be associated with a community center. It would be a massive project. The outdoor rink is in marvelous shape, even though it is 20 years old. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 5 Mr. Frederick asked if construction of a hockey rink without the dome had been considered. Mr. Reickel said protection from the elements is necessary in this climate. We could go to dance and figure skating programs with a controlled elements. We need more ice time, both inside and out. Mr. Ruge asked about the location of the projected south side community center. Mr. Reickel said he envisioned it as being located between the National Guard Armory and the proposed structure. We are protecting the oaks between Washington Avenue and the loop. We have altered the proposed entrance in order to conserve trees in the area. Mr. Goolsby asked how this structure compares with the Flint Golf Dome? The dimensions of this dome are 125 ft. x 220 ft. ; the dome of the Flint structure is about 65-70 ft. high, to accommodate golf. Mr. Ruge asked the total amount the City's investment? Mr. Reickel said about $300,000. We have $260,000 budgeted for the warming house, plus another $300,000 for the whole job. Chairman Goolsby said this concludes the public hearing; this item will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, October 8, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex. (NOTE: The Urban Development Committee has rescheduled this meeting to Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room.) III. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. IV. RECESS The meeting was recessed for five minutes. V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 4, 1996. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of September 4, 1996, with one amendment as follows: Second paragraph, Pg 8, Ln 4.33" Pos 5.06" . . . the committee becomes an UNofficial public hearing . . . . On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. The minutes of September 4, 1996 as amended were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 6 a. Z-11-96, Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant is requesting the subject site be rezoned to better market the property for future sale. No development plans have been received. The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Residential (8-14 du/ac) . The request is to rezone a portion of property that was excess right-of-way from "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the request does not conform to the Master Plan; allowable land uses would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties; and introduction of additional nonresidential traffic would adversely affect the function of this residential street. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend denial of Z-11-96, Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. 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-11-96, Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , from "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Commenting on the matter of billboards, Ms. LeBlanc said that the property is located in the Capital Center District, which does not permit billboards. Mr. Robinson asked if counts are available of traffic generated by the transmission shop. Mr. Ruff said no, but we do know that the transmission shop potentially can and does generate more traffic than the accessory storage building approved for the location. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye An Aye vote is a vote to deny. On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-11-96, Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. , from "E-1" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District was recommended to be DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 7 b. Z-12-96, 617 W. Ionia St. , "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District The committee considered this petition this evening at 6:30 p.m. This is a request by Michigan Retailers Association to rezone the property located at 617 W. Ionia, "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. The committee found that the proposed change is in conformance with the River Island Plan Amendment, the proposed development falls within the requirements of the 50-50 split between office and residential uses; adequate parking can be provided if the applicant combines this parcel with 221 N. Pine Street; and the site plan as proposed should not adversely affect the environment or pedestrian and vehicular transportation. The committee also discussed the fact that a building permit would be required before any actual transformation and use was done; the review for this building permit would also look at parking to ensure that the provisions of the Zoning Code are met. The committee also discussed consequences if a portion of this property were sold off without adequate parking--such parcel would not be in compliance with the code and could no longer be used for commercial uses. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-12-96, 617 W. Ionia St. , "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. Not as a condition of approval, but as a land use recommendation, it was recommended that a portion of the residential use be developed as a primary year-round residence in addition to the sleeping quarters for staff. We also wish to have referenced the discussion about building permits and parking and lot splits, and that the property will have to stay in compliance with the code; not only that it be in compliance when anything is done, but that it will have to be kept in a compliant condition. 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-12-96, 617 W. Ionia St. , from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked, when the property is combined with 221 N. Pine, are there going to be two separate buildings on one lot? Mr. Ruff said there will be a total of five buildings on one parcel of land. Mr. Ruge asked if it would then be one lot; Mr. Ruff said yes, there are lots that were platted originally, but this combination becomes one parcel of land, all using supporting parking. Mr. Ruge asked if the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 8 code allows five buildings on one piece of property without a PRD; Mr. Ruff said yes, it is allowed. Mr. Ruge said he understood two residential structures cannot be on one piece of property; Mr. Ruff said you can, going through certain processes, such as a PRD. In the residential districts, there are considerations that must be made as to whether or not you qualify for a PRD. Depending on the lot size, you can do that. Recalling the PRD off Aurelius Road for the construction of 14 homes, detached structures, in a condominium development all on one lot because it has not been subdivided, those parameters are used to deal with that. In a nonresidential setting, such as a commercial or industrial setting, you may have more than one building on a lot--there is no restriction. This falls between that area as far as not needing a PRD because it is not a planned residential development per se. Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Robinson Aye Ruge Aye Frederick Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-12-96, 617 W. Ionia St. , "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District, was recommended to be APPROVED. C. Z-13-961 Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Streets, "B" Residential to "DM-4" Residential District The applicant is requesting rezoning from "B" Residential District to "DM-4" Residential District to be consistent with the zoning of St. Lawrence Hospital. The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan designates the area north of Saginaw, south of Oakland, east of Westmoreland and west of Martin Luther King Blvd. as community facilities. The Planning Board and City Council through the Act 285 process reviewed the property to consider the effect of permitting the purchase by St. Lawrence Hospital of City Parking Lot #14. St. Lawrence Hospital has reached a purchase agreement with the City for the subject property. Contingencies of this agreement include the rezoning of the property to be consistent with the zoning of the hospital property and sale of other hospital-owned property to adjacent businesses that previously depended on the public parking lot. Benefits of the property sale and rezoning include consolidation of the hospital's parking facilities and bringing a nonconforming business district more into conformance with the Master Plan and Zoning Code. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan and will not significantly affect the adjacent properties. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 9 In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval for Z-13-96, Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Streets, "B" Residential to "DM-4" Residential District. 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-13-96, Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Streets, from "B" Residential to "DM-4" Residential District. Frederick Aye Greiner Aye LeBlanc Aye Nischan Aye Ruge Aye Goolsby Aye Goolsby Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, Z-13-96, Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Streets, from "B" Residential to "DM-4" Residential District was recommended to be APPROVED. Ms. LeBlanc said the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet briefly after adjournment to elect officers. Next meeting WEDNESDAY, October 9, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex at which time items II. A. , B. , and C. above will be considered. 2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Ruge, Chair. Next meeting TUESDAY, October 8, 1996 at 4 p.m. , Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex The Urban Development Committee will meet briefly after adjournment to elect officers. 3. Executive Committee: Did not meet. D. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. In the absence of Ms. Love, who was called to another meeting, Mr. Ruff made the report. Mr. Ruff reminded members of the MAPA-MSPO Wednesday afternoon reception on September 25 at 5:30 at Impression 5. Also, Ms. Love has paid for two full passes to the two-and-one-half day conference. Mr. Ruff said on Wednesday, September 18, Mr. Ruge, Ms. LeBlanc and Mr. Rieske will be attending the Liveable Communities Conference. Mr. Ruff mentioned the possibility of rescheduling the Urban Development Committee meetings. It would even out the work load if Urban Development and Zoning and Ordinance committee meetings PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 172 1996 - P. 10 alternated weeks. It is something to consider, if the meeting could be the fourth Tuesday of the month instead of the second. Regarding SLU-3-96, Mr. Ruff said we have received information from the City Attorney's office. We will be disseminating the information. We are investigating whether or not there is still a vested interest by the church. If not, we will be able to delete the case from Pending Items. E. Pending Items: Future action required l . Zoning and Ordinance Committee: a. SLU-3-96, 1149 S. Washington Ave. , Church, Movement for Christ Ministries 2. 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) b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original Plat, Sale for Redevelopment (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) C. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site) , Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. &Visitors Bur. (Pending Possible IRS Ruling) d. Act-11-96, Lansing & Roosevelt, Near the Grand River, Acquisition of Four Parcels--Pump Station Improvements (Postponed by the applicant pending their submission of further information) e. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews (Tabled June 4, 1996) VII. NEW BUSINESS - None. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS - Read during Public Hearing. IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. X. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. LeBlanc said near the A. Dean Watkins store on Saginaw, a large political sign is located in the front yard, and more signs are placed in every window. Chairman Goolsby said a presidential campaign headquarters is located there. Mr. Ruff will check if the site is in Lansing Township. Mr. Ruge reported banners and flags at the Al Serra Ford Dealership on Holmes and M.L. King. The dealership will be relocating. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Eyde was in the Development and Planning Committee concerning the old Civic Center. The Administration will deal with the issue, eliminating the weeds and keeping the site cleaned up. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - P. 11 XI. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Ruge asked what is the size of the Capitol Center District and has a letter been sent to the insurance agency? Mr. Ruff provided a map of the district and said the letter has been sent. Mr. Robinson said November 19 would be his last Planning Board meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board c:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn091796 a:\32 Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph St. "E-111 Apt. Shop & "C" Res. To "H" Lt.Ind. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Pete DeLuca 800 E. St. Joseph Street Lansing, MI 48906 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone a portion of 800 E. St. Joseph St. (Lots #4-8) from the "E-1" Apt. Shop District and the "C" Residential District to the "H" Light Industrial District. EXISTING LAND USE: Light Industrial Cabinet-Making shop and Transmission shop Vacant Land: Parcels 6-8 and most of 5 EXISTING ZONING: "E-1" Apartment-Shop District And "C" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 0. 170 acre; Irregularly Shaped SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: 496 Expressway (on ramp) E: Vacant W: Cabinet Shop/Glass Shop SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential S: Unzoned Right-of-Way E: "C" Residential W: "F" Comm. & "I" Heavy Ind. MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Residential 8- 14 du/ac. CASE HISTORY: Mr. Pete DeLuca purchased the property from the State of Michigan Dept. Of Transportation for the purpose of building a storage structure. The property is excess right-of-way with a maximum depth of 451 . PLANNING BOARD Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph "E-111 Apt. Shop & "C" Res. to "H" Lt. Ind. Z-45-87: On 1/18/88, the Planning Board recommended a portion of the property be rezoned to the "E-1" Apartment Shop District subject to approval of a landscape, screening and buffering plan to protect the residential area to the north." This rezoning allowed the applicant to build a 26 ' X 40 ' storage building for his cabinet business, located immediately to the west. BZA #2890: The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request for the necessary front, rear, and side yard setbacks to allow a 26 ' X 60 ' work and storage building for the business located at 800 E. St. Joseph. The Board believed that "the proposed change would promote overdevelopment of the property, which is not in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. BZA #2907 : The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a front yard setback variance that allowed for the construction of a 40 ' X 32 ' storage building to be built 2 ' from the front property line. Approval was made subject to the following conditions: 1. That the accessory storage structure be used as an accessory use to the principal use at 800 e. St. Joseph. 2 . That the ingress and egress to the building be from the west. Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals were also obtained to erect the building were proposed. PLANNING BOARD Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph "E-11, Apt. Shop & "C" Res. to "H" Lt. Ind. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting the subject site be rezoned to better market the property for future sale. No development plans have been received for this site. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: No comments. Assessor: (No Response) Bd. Water & Light: Electric Utility: Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department does not have an issue with this request for rezoning. Water Utility: Water Technical Support/Distribution- No conflict with rezoning. Owner should contact Water Technical Support with any revision of existing water early in project. Building Safety: No comment. Cont. Cable No comment or requirement. Development Office: Recycled proposal. Past decisions should be researched. Lots too shallow for development and use. Eastside Neighborhood: Hard to answer this when no specific proposal is on the table. (Mary Margaret Murphey-Wall) Fire Marshall: (No Response) MI Dept. of Transp. (No Response) Public Service: (No Response) Transp. Engineer: (No Response) PLANNING BOARD Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph "E-1" Apt. Shop & "C" Res. to "H" Lt. Ind. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Mr. DeLuca's cabinet making business has operated at this location since 1969 on land zoned "F" Commercial. The narrow strip of land to the east of his business had been property acquired and cleared by the State as part of I-496 construction. It was zoned "C" Residential and "J" Parking until it was rezoned to the "E-1" Apartment Shop District in 1988 to allow for a 26 ' X 40 ' storage building for his cabinet making business. Mr. DeLuca requested the property to be zoned to the "F" Commercial District. The Planning Board denied the request but recommended the property be rezoned to the "E-1" Apartment Shop District to allow for the storage building but prevent any possible billboards at this location which would be allowed in the "F" Commercial District. The "E-1" District was regarded as a retail district that would accommodate the accessory structure as proposed and would allow more uses more compatible with a residential area, but does not allow billboard signs. The cabinet making business is at the edge of the neighborhood near other more intense non-residential development. It backs up to I-496 which potentially serves as a buffer from non- residential encroachments into the neighborhood. The cabinet making business has not generated activities significantly inconsistent with residential living. The second floor of the structure itself is used residentially. The storage structure was to be used by the business for its storage of materials related to its operation. The storage was to be oriented towards the business, with overhead doors facing west towards the business, away from the homes across the street. Required landscaping was to be installed to screen the storage structure from the homes. Current situations, however, reflect very little landscaping and overhead doors on the north side of the building, contrary to the conditions of the variance approval. The current use of the storage building, however, has been a transmission repair shop which has been in violation of the Zoning Ordinance since it is not a permitted use in the "E-1" Apartment Shop District. Mr. DeLuca has been cited for the use of the building as a transmission shop, which is not allowed in the "E-1" District. This has precipitated part of the rezoning request. Further, he has been cited by the Building Safety Office because a fence has been constructed without the proper permits in the right-of-way. The north overhead door was also included in the citation. PLANNING BOARD Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph "E-111 Apt. Shop & "C" Res. to "H" Lt. Ind. The request to rezone to a light industrial zoning district would be a further encroachment into the residential area to the north. Light industrial development would be incompatible with the residential area and would negatively effect residential property values. Examples of businesses allowed in the "H" Light Industrial District include: transmission shops, warehouses, manufacturing operations, machine shops, off street parking facilities, storage of contractor's materials or equipment. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Northeast Master Plan shows no change in the current use of land in the area. The property in question is formerly excess public right-of-way from I-496. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Since no specific proposal has been made for the property if zoned "H" Light Industrial, evaluation of traffic impacts is difficult. When the rezoning request was reviewed in 1988, little increase was expected from a storage building to be built to store materials for an adjacent existing business. The transmission shop has been generating its own traffic as opposed to customer traffic that would have been generated solely to the cabinet making business which is what the rezoning 8 years ago had approved. Several people spoke at the public hearing expressing concern about parking of vehicles on both sides of E. St. Joseph and truck traffic down this narrow dead end street, which they said was particularly hazardous to children playing in the area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This property, if zoned "H" Light Industrial would allow a variety of businesses that would generate activity and traffic not compatible with the residential area which it faces directly to the north. To introduce an industrial zoning district between this residential area and I-496 will negatively impact quality of life for the residents facing the subject property due to traffic, noise, safety hazards, and according to the residents who testified at the public hearing, their property values. A question raised by the Planning Board was whether the "H" Light Industrial Zoning District would allow a billboard sign. The PLANNING BOARD Z-11-96 Part of 800 E. St. Joseph "E-111 Apt. Shop & "C" Res. to "H" Lt. Ind. property is located in the Capitol Center District as identified in the Sign Code which prohibits billboards. OTHER Several people spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, citing violations of the conditions of approval for the variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and expressing concern of future nonresidential activity not compatible with their neighborhood. A petition of 37 signatures was received indicating opposition to the rezoning. SUMMARY Staff believes the requested rezoning to the "H" Light Industrial District is not compatible with the residential area to the north. Staff further believes that the "E-1" Apartment Shop District allows a reasonable use of the property which is compatible with its residential neighbors. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the petition to rezone the property to the "H" Commercial District be denied as filed. Z-11-96 , Part of 800 E. St. Joseph NORTH "E-l" Apartment Shop and "C" Residential Districts to "H" Light Industrial District F 3/ 32 26 22 0\ 860 \ \ B' 6 p� 27 WALL B58 24 7 23 86 ❑ A� WALL E 20 /7 " ( 28 27 Q 32 25 2/ 24 T �h U a 646.2 LARNED 860.5 ST 857.0 30 2g 26 ❑ 32 ZB 27 26 35 33 26 32 3/ 26 6 26 ❑ �. 863.3 25 WALL 85 [ 2i ❑ Q Q � 865.B 2/ � 29 33 i 34 25 20 30 � 243 24 37 22 t � �SEPH ST 186/6 -- - - 8555 �v -- - ----T--- --r-- 7— K� 8749 Qjf. i 8 7C 774 Ala r,,-- y �2� D r , • 2 19 3 C7c%�72�AD + 5 � �rrlo�vs' ,posy �iZ/• Z"/g3 ����v /1rc�•a�os J Lar;dsc�zpn, Screc��i,�g >> Buffering b) Z-12-96 617 W. Ionia Street Page 1 "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Michigan Retailers Association 221 N. Pine Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Re-Zone the property located at 617 West Ionia from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District. EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential EXISTING ZONING: "DM-4" Residential District PROPOSED ZONING: "D-2" Residential/Office District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 40' X 120' (4,800 Sq. ft.) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential/Office S: Residential/Office E: Single Family Residential/Office W: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-4" Residential & "D-1" Professional Office S: "DM-4" Residential E: "D-1" Professional Office & "D-2" Residential/Office W: "DM-4" Residential & "D-2" Residential/Office MASTER PLAN: The River Island Comprehensive Plan Amendment designates this property for "D-2" Residential/Office Use. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The developer proposes to use the structure for low- density office space to be occupied by MRA Governmental Affairs Department, and an apartment on the second floor to be used by non-Lansing based marketing representatives. This apartment would also be used by their Board of Directors or out-of-state retailers who are visiting Lansing on business. Z-12-96 617 W. Ionia Street Page 2 "DMA" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No comments. Fire Marshal: Comments deferred until plan review process. B.W.L: No reply. Public Service Dept.: No reply. Code Compliance: No reply. Police Department: No reply. Building Safety Office: The conversion of a residence to a multi-use structure is subject to compliance with the requirements of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code. Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following: ♦ A one (1) hour fire-resistive occupancy separation between the business and residential use group. ♦ Barrier Free Access to the business use group. ♦ Barrier Free toilet room(s) in the business use group. ♦ The floor in the business use group shall be designated to accommodate a 50# live load and a 20# partition load. Submit construction plans sealed by an architect or engineer which substantiate compliance with the building code. Contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 for additional information. Consumers: No reply. Downtown Neigh.: No reply. Genesee Neigh.: Recommend denial. The GNA's policy is that any rezoning that erodes the residential character of the area should not be encouraged. Transportation Eng.: There may not be adequate off street parking to support this type of use. On site traffic circulation is a concern. A preliminary site plan is required for further comment. What would be the function of the Ionia Street driveway if the parcel is rezoned? Assessor: No reply. Development Office: No reply. Continental Cablevision: No comments or requirements. Z-12-96 617 W. Ionia Street Page 3 "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Currently, 44% of the property surrounding the petitioner's site is zoned and used for office or office/residential. The properties to the east and west of 617 W. Ionia are also owned by the petitioner. The proposed site plan shows no changes to the layout of the site, therefor the impact to the character of Ionia Street should be minimal. Section 1262.06 through 1262.10 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establish the minimum lot area, setbacks, and height restrictions as those of that currently exist on the site. Therefor, this property will be considered conforming if re-zoned to "D-2". COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The developer proposes to use the structure for low-density office space to be occupied by MRA Governmental Affairs Department, and an apartment on the second floor to be used by non-Lansing based marketing representatives. This apartment would also be used by their Board of Directors or out-of-state retailers who are visiting Lansing on business. The River Island Comprehensive Plan Amendment designates this area for "D-2" Residential/Office use, if it meets the current requirements of Chapter 1262 of the City of Lansing Zoning code. The "D-2" Residential/Office District allows for a maximum of 50% of the structure's gross floor area to be used for office with the remainder being maintained as a residential use. The applicant's proposed use of the structure with 1,260 sq. ft. as office and 1,870 sq. ft. as residential is in conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. However, the original intent of the "D-2" Residential/Office District was to provide residential uses that have a year around presence in the neighborhood, enhancing its character. The proposed use is very similar to that of a lodging house or hotel, both which are not excluded from this zoning district, but do not necessarily meet the intent of the District. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The site plan shows 3 proposed parking spaces. Section 1284.13(a)(1) of the City of Lansing Zoning Code requires 2 parking spaces for each residential dwelling unit and 1 parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of usable office floor space. Based upon proposed floor plans, there are approximately 808 sq. ft. of usable office floor space, which requires 4 additional parking spaces. Therefor, the site can only provide half of the necessary 6 parking spaces. However, the contiguous portion of the Michigan Retailers Association site has 46 accessible parking spaces while only 42 are required for that site. Prior to building permit issuance for 617 W. Ionia, the applicant will need to combine these parcels with the City Assessor's Office to have a combined total of 49 parking spaces, 1 more than required by the Code. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No negative environmental impacts are anticipated. The former use of this site was residential so no contamination should be present. The paving of the existing grass area will increase surface water runoff, but not to a noticeable effect. The lot coverage of this site will be increased to 59% with the proposed parking layout, while 60% is allowed in the llrl nil Z-12-96 617 W. Ionia Street Page 4 "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at this site is consistent with other properties located within this block. The intent of the "D-2" Residential/Office District is to allow for the conversion of residential property into a mixed use while preserving the character of the neighborhood. Future patterns of development will be controlled by the River Island Plan Amendment, which this proposal is in compliance with. SUMMARY 1 . The proposed change in zoning is in conformance with the River Island Plan Amendment. 2. The proposed development falls within the requirements of a 50-50% split between office and residential uses. 3. Adequate parking can be provided if the applicant combines this parcel with 221 N. Pine Street. 4. The site plan as proposed should not adversely effect the environment or pedestrian/vehicular transportation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of Z-12-96, a petition by Michigan Retailers Association to rezone 617 W. Ionia Street from "DM-4" Residential to "D-2" Residential Office District. Not as a condition of approval, but as a land use recommendation, staff recommends that a portion of the residential use be developed as a primary year around residence in addition to the sleeping quarters for staff. VNEST IONIA STREET n II I - i -- 233-235 N.PINE 1376 O'Fr: I .612 W.IONIA 017 W. IONIA 615 W.IONIA I�ilO 6 per.: x 9S"e"'m-aw+N,: , f4'z ADP : --. 1.0 4 O" {%.,z i rd PROPOSED -lee c xg: Lj I SATELLITE x7C FFICE/RESIDE E M.R.A. 228 N. PINE • 1195 0OPP: - 104'I tf OFF: I w x w iC2 rot 4P \3 FDT=,P•\ 'L�', ...-- vJ z¢'7 ,XI ,Tihf c::1 �7f AGES orlE weY I 2 _ MICHIGAN RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IL ERS ASSOCIATION 221 N.PINE ,I z 61ZO1 *OF' L ., .. 000 I I -PP71 aTr.. rRKlr14 I ' Z-12-96 , 617 W. Ionia St. NORTH "DM4" Residential to "D-2" Residential/Office District 32 32 4W WA� � 3/ I 56 9 4 I 868.1 I 29 45 36 WALL 866 24 D 3 I < ' U I 8622 �• _ r I 30 34 3 PARKING 37 2 ? 36 86 9 2 IONIA 857..4 36 3 LLJ Z_ 33 I 36 26 3/ 25 36 36 I � M03 37 I D - 6 I I.;] 37 L �� I - I 1 � 32 33 57.4 36 �� MAll PARKINGD . 20 1•DM13� WALL B - — WA X - --- II PSI I 859.8 32 I 4� • 8 0.21,g g60 t /4/ /54 3 I nwA I8531 852.5 3-6 DM-3 • I 846.7 Z-13 -96 Northeast corner Saginaw and Westmoreland GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: St. Lawrence Hospital 1210 W. Saginaw Lansing, MI 48915 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "Blf Single Family Residential District to "DM-4" Residential District to be consistent with the zoning of St. Lawrence Hospital EXISTING LAND USE: City Parking Lot #14 EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 80 ft. by 120 ft. (9 , 600 sq. ft . ) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S : Residential E: Institutional W: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-4" Residential S : "B" Residential E: "DM-4" Residential W: "F" Commercial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area north of Saginaw, south of Oakland, east of Westmoreland, and west of MLK Blvd, as community facilities . AGENCY RESPONSES ASSESSOR: No comment or requirements . BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: ELECTRIC: Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department does not have an issue with this rezoning request. WATER: Water Technical Support/Distribution - No conflict with rezoning. BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. Parking lot construction is subject to the City of Lansing Site Plan Review process . Contact Christine Segerlind for additional information at 483 -4301 . WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD: No response received. Page 2 Z-13-96 CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY: No response received. CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: No response received. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The EDC has no objection to this proposed rezoning. FIRE MARSHALL: This office has no objection to this proposal . MDOT• No response received. PARKS AND RECREATION: Looks good. Our department assumes that there is zero impact on street tree. If so, contact Paul Dykema (forester) #4206 for his review. PUBLIC SERVICES: No response received. TRANSPORTATION: The Transportation Division recommends approval of the rezoning request with no conditions . CASE HISTORY This property was previously subject. to review by the Planning Board and City Council through the Act 285 review process (ACT-55- 81 and ACT-10-94) . The purpose of these reviews was to consider the effect of permitting St.Lawrence Hospital to purchase the City' s parking lot for their use. The most recent of the Planning Board actions recommends approval of the sale of City Parking Lot No. 14 subject to the several conditions, including: 1 . The sale of the City' s lot to St . Lawrence be contingent on sale of 1410 W. Saginaw (Parcel No. 3301-08-456 -162) to C&G Investments . 2 . That C&G Investments provide 10 parking spaces for lease to the owners of 1400 W. Saginaw (McDowell ' s School of Dance) at a nominal fee; or provide parking spaces for sale, or other arrangements acceptable to the Planning Board and Lansing City Council, and that these arrangements be documented before sale of Lot 14 by the City. 3 . That St.Lawrence Hospital agree to retain existing landscaping after their purchase of the City' s parking lot until the site Page 3 Z-13-96 is redeveloped for integration into the Hospital ' s existing parking lot . In addition, the subsequent City Council approval required that the Hospital apply for rezoning of the property to be consistent with the current DM-4 Residential District zoning. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The change of use of the site from public parking to hospital parking should not adversely change the compatibility of the site with surrounding residential land use. What will change is the availability of free parking for businesses in the 1400 block of West Saginaw Street, which will help bring these business establishments and structures more into conformance with the off- street parking requirements of the Zoning Code: this will increase the compatibility of these businesses with the surrounding residential neighborhood. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area north of Saginaw, south of Oakland, east of Westmoreland, and west of MLK Blvd, as community facilities . This proposed zone change complies with the master plan, both by consolidating the subject property with the hospital' s property, but also by bringing the business district more into conformance with the Zoning Code. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Staff believes the proposed zone change will have a positive effect on traffic circulation at the Saginaw/Westmoreland intersection by eventually permitting the closing of the two access driveways that presently serve the subject property. This closure must occur when the subject site is internally connected to the Hospital' s parking lot. Also, the increase in free parking for the business district should help reduce the number of business patrons parking on the public street. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed zone change will permit the hospital to consolidate its property within the block bounded by Saginaw/Oakland/ML King/Westmoreland. Because of the requirements related to the sale of the property, the businesses in the 1400 block of W. Saginaw will be able to consolidate fragmented parcels, provide off -street parking, and further make improvements that were not possible because of their non-conforming status . Page 4 Z-13-96 CONCLUSIONS St . Lawrence Hospital has reached a purchase agreement with the City for the subject property. Contingencies of this agreement include the rezoning of the subject property to be consistent with the zoning of the hospital property and sale of other hospital owned property to adjacent businesses that previously depended on the public parking lot. Benefits of the property sale and rezoning include consolidation of the hospital' s parking facilities and bringing a non-conforming business district more into conformance with the Master Plan and Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval L Z-13-96 N. E. CORNER SAGINAW & WESTMORELAND I Lv � LL„ �.f5l. h n NORTH Z-13-96, Northeast Corner of W. Saginaw and Westmoreland Sts. X a ;� PARKING 860 �665.7 a u WALL 662.6 856.:T t� PARKING a - ED F1 �O F-1 i CD ` PARKING a60 /�fDO LdGK �:54y rInx/ EJ B62.9 El I t �o a a E FL