The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997 Planning Board Jan-March Minutes FINAL APPROVED 020497 with correction Pg 12 Ln 4.2"Pos 4.53"Next meeting WEDNESDAY Marelr4 FEBRUARY 12,1997 DRAFT TO CLERK 011097 APPROVED 020497 TO CLERK, 022897 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD ^, 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997 { a, c-) rn 1. OPENING SESSION cry Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan, Ruge; six members present; two vacancies. Ex officio councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence C. Introductions. Eleanor Love,Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator;William C.Rieske,Principal Planner; Jim Sturdevant, and Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planners; Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary; and Wendel Hall, City Attorney. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Chairman Goolsby remarked that, during the business session, Act-1-97, Acquisition of Various Properties, Ferris Park et al, will be addressed in the Committee of the Whole. With that note, the agenda was approved. 3. COMMUNICATIONS One communication was received from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation in which they ask for continued CDBG support in FY 1997-98. They will be speaking this evening. 4. HEARINGS A. Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds - Federal Housing Programs 1997-98. Chairman Goolsby said that this is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed objectives, goals and projected use of community development fund resources, including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, to be included in the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission for FY 1997-98. The City expects to receive and have available a total of approximately $4,322,000 in funds through the Community Development Block Grant, Home and Emergency PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 2 Shelter Grant Programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 1997 and ending on June 30, 1998. Any person in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and address, and provide us your comments. Written comments will also be accepted for consideration. EMIL WINNICKER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. Just a couple small changes on the draft statement that came about as a result of the budget process that we have been going through. On Page 2, under Housing Rehabilitation, the first item, instead of$645,000, that number is now $675,000, with the total being $875,000. We have corresponding reductions on Page 3, under Project Operations Costs; instead of$669,928, we have $646,197. Under Planning and Urban Design, instead of$113,346, we have$106,884. Under General Administration, instead of$209,889, we have $207,924. And a final item, Contingencies, is now $16,495. ROSE NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER. The Housing Resource Center is a private nonprofit that has been operating in the Lansing area for over 25 years now. We provide a continuum of housing counseling services, everything from homeless prevention, trying to help the family stay in their home before an eviction occurs and mortgage default happens, all the way through home ownership counseling and helping people attain the goal of home ownership. The programs are rent assistance, help with finding housing, transitional housing, landlord-tenant counseling, pre-home ownership counseling including individual counseling and class settings, and then down payment assistance and mortgage default counseling. Tonight I would like to focus on two of our programs, our home buyers program, which is one-on-one counseling to help low- income potential home buyers overcome barriers that they might have to home ownership. A typical barrier is credit problems, or very low income. We work with that family, everything from preliminary credit report and explaining what their credit history looks like and helping them work out any problems, to putting together an actual plan so that somebody can achieve that goal of home ownership. That process takes anywhere from six months to two years. We will work with that family or individual in an on-going basis until they are capable of buying a home. To further assist that program, we have our down payment assistance where we can provide up to $3,000 in money that acts as a second mortgage to help the low-income potential home buyer buy a home within the City of Lansing. This has been a successful program. In 1996, we helped place 68 families into home ownership, families who would not have been able to do it on their own because they lacked the savings for a down payment and to cover the other costs of home purchase. These are families who all bought within the City of Lansing. As a part of the program, all of the houses had to meet the City's housing quality standards--up to code, in good condition, and made affordable for these home owners. Between a home buyers' program where we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 3 counseled over 399 households, of which 83 continued participating in our program, and our down payment assistance, we are placing a significant number of families into good, safe, decent housing here in the City. These programs also leverage additional dollars into the community, because, with our down payment assistance, our dollars are matched with MSHDA dollars, Michigan State Housing Development dollars, so we are bringing additional dollars into the community to help support our programs. In a number of ways, we are trying to address the housing problems that exist here in the City, and starting to see a major difference in our neighborhoods as a result of these programs. I urge you to continue support for our programs. SUSAN CHRISTIAN, LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION, 301 ALLEN. The Lansing Business Monthly has a nice article about Old Town and the Main Street Program, with a nice picture of Lisa Carey. It does mention LISC and the fact that LISC was the major reason why the Main Street Program came to town. I did provide a letter. I wanted to highlight some of the accomplishments that we can point to in the calendar year 1996. We approved$300,000 in loans to Greater Lansing Coalition and the Housing Resource Center. We approved almost $65,000 in grants to Franklin Street Greater Lansing Housing Resource Center and the Old Town Commercial Association to help fund operations. We provided eight hours of training on topics from property management to block organizing and neighborhood planning. We won designation for Old Town as the pilot project for the Main Street Demonstration Project. We played a significant role in rallying the community to form the home ownership program which the Housing Resource Center is going to be managing, and we formed a committee of distinguished community leaders to serve as a local advisory committee to help us raise $500,000 in private sector support for Lansing's nonprofit housing groups. That money will leverage an additional $500,000 from national sources that LISC has. The budget that I would urge your support for, the staff-recommended budget,there is money in that budget to support a staff person who then can see that these resources are distributed in the Lansing community. I appreciate your support for our program in the past, and I urge that you seriously consider supporting us for the next fiscal year. SUE EBY, FRANKLIN STREET HOUSING, A NONPROFIT IN NORTH LANSING. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, and I have a board of property that we are hoping to deal with in the next six months. (Passed board around.) I would like to thank the staff again. The project that is going around is a project that we are pretty sure is going to be funded by MSHDA this year. What makes that possible is that the City is cooperative and flexible about their block grant dollars, because the State requires matching money from the City, so again it is a way that our money brings in outside money, in this case, $250,000, into North Lansing. What this project will do is take off all the boards in a four-street area. If we are successful at doing that, it will change a problem six-unit rental into a very nice complex. It will have a tremendous impact on that section of town. It will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 4 take away the grand fathering in on the zoning on the six-unit. It is a six-unit without adequate parking, or green space. Again, I want to say that this kind of thing is not possible without the extra cooperation of the staff, and that has been provided very well. There is also good news on the buyers for North Lansing. I get daily calls from people who want to live in North Lansing. A lot of them are not generated by me, which is something that I think means that North Lansing has turned around. One buyer that I have lined up is an East Lansing person who has rented in East Lansing her entire life. She is a single parent, a state worker who wants to live on Seymour Street because she can walk downtown, and it will be very convenient for her, and she will save a couple hundred dollars a month and have her own house. Another person is from Grand Ledge, heard about the North Lansing improvements and wants to be part of that and have her own home in Lansing,which is not possible in Grand Ledge. So to me, all the news is good, and it's going to be a good year. I support that you keep the program flexible so that programs like this can happen. I also support funding for LISC. They have been very helpful to us this year, both in training and in dollars. Thank you very much. LISA CAREY, OLD TOWN COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION, 513 E. GRAND RIVER. As Susan Christian mentioned, Old Town Commercial Association is funded in large part through LISC at the local level. We are in addition to the City of Lansing. As a representative of OTCA, I would like to urge your support for LISC and other organizations in the room here tonight as we have begun working on projects with some of the other groups, and hope to work with some of them in the very near future. Specifically, I would like to urge your support of the proposed budget for the CDBG funding; specifically, our interest this year is for public improvements, and we are hoping we can look to some of the funding through CDBG for some public improvements in Old Town and North Lansing, specifically, lighting issues and sidewalk improvements for the safety of visitors, residents and employees who work in the area. Currently, there is lighting in Old Town on Grand River, but only on one side of the street, but it does not provide enough to have the feel of a safe atmosphere, so we are hoping that you will support that budgeted item, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. JUANITA MITCHELL, 1218 LATHROP, PRESIDENT OF THE LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I am here requesting support for funding for the Lansing Neighborhood Council for FY 1997-98. At the Neighborhood Council, we encourage neighborhood groups to join the Neighborhood Council. We work with them to achieve self sufficiency. This is evidenced by the fact that in the past year, two neighborhood groups have obtained their 501(c)(3) status. This training was provided through LNC. We have moved into a larger facility at the education center. This facility will provide for us to be able to work more closely with neighborhood people; it will give people a better access to LNC. Some of our accomplishments in 1996: We had 22 neighborhood groups working with Neighborhoods in Bloom; 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 5 groups participated in the housing fair; at the Bea Christy annual award dinner, 261 people attended and we had 13 nominated for the work that they do in our community. On 1996, 29 houses were painted through Paint Blitz. There were 36 teams, for a total number of volunteers of 582 individuals. Our board members increased in 1996 from 9 to 15; we had 18 Americorps projects that were completed through LNC. We currently have 35 neighborhood groups. We thank you for your support in the past, and ask that you continue to support LNC. ED BROWN,2145 HASLETT ROAD, WILLIAMSTON. I am a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity in Lansing. I am here to put in my plug for Lansing Neighborhood Council. Over the last three years we have been involved with Lansing Neighborhood Council, specifically, in their Paint Blitz endeavor. I have a crew that works on Fridays. We do a lot of minor repair work to a lot of homes that aren't affiliated with the Paint Blitz. Over the last three years, we've worked with Lansing Neighborhood Council. The first one started out by accident. They were power- washing a house over on Bensch Street, and the boards started flying off the house, and they knew that I did that kind of work, and they wondered if I could nail the boards back on so they could continue the cleaning and the ultimate painting. That led us in 1995 to working on 5 houses that otherwise could not have been painted. It is my understanding that prior to 1994, a lot of this work that has to be done on older homes was contracted out. Because we are able to provide free volunteer labor with Habitat, we are able to at least to cut out the labor costs. Sometimes we have to furnish some wood that we can't recycle or that we don't have in our warehouse. So in 1995, we did 5 homes, and invested about 45 hours of volunteer time. This past summer, we worked on 11 homes and did at least 75 hours of volunteer time. As a consequence of us working collaboratively with LNC, they are able to spend more money on paint and supplies. As Juanita told you, they did 29 homes this past summer, and that is up from the summer before. I would hope you would continue the funding levels of LNC for this year. MARY MARGARET MURPHY-WOLL, PRESIDENT OF EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION, TREASURER OF LNC, AND PRESIDENT OF THE PARK BOARD. When LNC comes here for funding, I look at it not as Treasurer, because I like the funding, but as head of a neighborhood organization, and looking to LNC as kind of a source. Obviously, the setup I have on the east side, I am not looking for too much source material, but it is viable source. It is a source for exchange of ideas; it is a source for people gathering together; it is a source for honoring one of our own as we do in the Bea Christy dinner, who not necessarily was the sung hero of the City. It is for getting neighborhoods together for the Paint Blitz. Those neighborhood teams, some of you have been on them, I know, but if you haven't walked the walk for a neighborhood paint team, you should try it sometime. It is well worth it. They are people who wouldn't get together otherwise. Perhaps that is the point of Neighborhood Council. It brings together people who get PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 6 together for a purpose who would not have gotten together otherwise. From each of these things frequently comes an organization, and in the strength of the neighborhoods you find the strength of the City. I encourage you to fund this. JERRY BOLES,2805 S. CAMBRIDGE, LANSING. I am here to speak in three areas, under Public Services allocations for Community Development Block Grants. First of all, I would like to speak on two from the Police Department, specifically, the funding of two community policing officers. One of those is assigned to the River Point neighborhood. The other is the North Lansing neighborhood and the Pennsylvania corridor north. These are vital to community programs that we are doing in those neighborhoods, and that I think are strongly supported by the neighborhoods they serve. Also,the Community Policing Recreation Program, which is basically a summer program and which pulls together youth activities in coordination with Lansing Police Department through some of our more at-risk neighborhoods throughout the City. We do a lot of summer programming with police officers recreationally and field trips throughout the summer months while the kids are out of school. In conclusion, I would also like to speak in support of the Lansing Neighborhood Council. There are a variety of things that you have already heard that the Neighborhood Council is involved in. I would like to look at them from the perspective of the Police Department, if you would, for few minutes. Our officers rely on the Neighborhood Council as a resource, especially our Community Policing officers. The Police Athletic Program is extensively involved with the Neighborhood Council as we identify not only youth in our neighborhoods to participate in our Athletic Programs, but also to draw on the Council through the Neighborhood Organization to provide support to that program in terms of coaches, referees and other types of assistance, including transportation. Currently, we are in the process of running our basketball program. We have over 500 Lansing youth involved in PAL basketball this winter. Without the help and coordination of the Neighborhood Council, I do not think we could pull that off. Finally, as we move more toward a problem-oriented community-based policing model in the City of Lansing, it is critically important that we have at the neighborhood level organizations in which to deal with, so that together we can problem-solve issues at the neighborhood level to improve the quality of life. Without neighborhood organizations, this model will not work. We would revert back to "We are from the government, and we are the experts, and we will tell you what your problems are in your neighborhood." We need to work in conjunction with organized groups at the neighborhood. This is probably the most critical in South Lansing, since we have gone to the precinct concept. When we started out there, we had nine identifiable neighborhood organizations. We have grown that by five to date, since in a very short time we have relied very heavily on the Neighborhood Council to provide us technical assistance in that growth. The potential for growth in the Neighborhood Organization development is very high, and we think it will be critically important in the next few years as we move forward in this community-based model in terms of providing police PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 7 services to citizens of Lansing. I would urge you to support not only the Police programs in this budget for Community Development Block Grant funds, but also the Neighborhood Council and their efforts as they support what we do also. Thank you. CHERYL RISNER, 424 N. FAIRVIEW, LANSING, DIRECTOR, LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I had a wonderful speech prepared, but Juanita said most of it when she was up here earlier. What I would like to state at this point is that we are working with two new neighborhood groups, one on the south end and one on the north end. The north end one was established because of a zoning issue that had come up and kind of backfired on them, and they want to be more organized so the next time they come before the Planning Board or Council they are ready, and they know the ropes, and they know who to turn to and where to get the expertise they need. We are also working with the new partnership with the Lansing School District. We work with Code Compliance and the Police with safety issues. One of the things we felt was missing was the School District. Whether you have a school in your neighborhood or not, school sometime in your life is an issue with you, whether you have children or not, and we are looking forward to working with Dr. Halek, and they are welcoming us into the Partington Education Center to help to spread the word throughout the neighborhood. Also, we are working at this time to start a new program with the Police Department, the Auto Theft Prevention Program, working with the different neighborhoods to educate them to better protect themselves from auto theft. We are working on some seminars to learn the process of the rezoning and special land use for the neighborhoods. At this point, we have one large neighborhood group that has split into a smaller group to become more efficient. We are looking forward to an increased neighborhood participation. Juanita gave you the breakdown, and the information on the Bea Christy, and all the things that we are known for. I have here a letter from one of our Board members who would like for you to have a copy; and a copy of our annual report that will break down as to where most of our spending money is used. I would like to encourage any questions tonight; or if you would like to call me at the office, I would be happy to give you any information you need or answer any questions you might have. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing on the Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds -Federal Housing Programs 1997- 98. This matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee of the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 4 p.m. to discuss the Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds presented this evening. The meeting will be held in the Conference Room of the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. B. Act-22-96, Market/Sale of Parking Lot #7, East 230 feet, 1100 Blk. S. Washington Avenue PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 8 Avenue Jim Sturdevant presented the case, a request by the Public Service Department, Transportation Division, to close and sell City Parking Lot #7 located on South Washington Avenue between Washington and the Grand River, just south of Elm Street and north of South Street. The Comprehensive Plan for the area calls for an increase in off-street parking in this area of S. Washington Avenue in order to accommodate the business district there and also to play an important role in the current and future revitalization efforts in the area. The lot is underutilized. The City has removed the meters because of vandalism. It is less expensive to remove them than to keep them there and repair them and try to collect any revenue. The Parking Authority wants to divest itself of the property because it is not profitable to run and maintain it. The Parks Department has stated that they need to keep a portion of the property abutting the river. The City is attempting to acquire all riverfront property in the City for-parks and recreational green space purposes; also, if the City owns riverfront property and wishes to sell it, it requires a referendum of the people. By maintaining approximately 100 feet of that part of the parking lot fronting on the river and assigning it to the Parks Department, the City can sell the rest of the property and avoid the need for a referendum. The staff recommendation is that the City transfer the rear portion to the Parks Department and sell the rest. A proposed legal description is also presented. Mr. Nischan said one question is the concern for increased off-street parking in the area--this will decrease it. Is there a plan to expand it elsewhere, and if not, how is that being attended to? Mr. Sturdevant said that right now the Master Plan calls for making sure that there is plenty of off-street parking as well as public parking. Because this becomes something other than public or City-owned parking does not mean that it is not still going to be parking. It would be difficult to develop anything on this property without providing the code-required parking. It is not in a zoning district that does not require off-street parking. Mr. Ruge said the report mentions a detailed parking demand study to determine if there is sufficient parking to serve the square footage of the commercial space in the vicinity. Has this study been done? Mr. Sturdevant said that right now, market conditions are such that there is an oversupply of parking for the demand. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing on Act-22-96. It will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting on January 28, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 9 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) LISA CAREY, OLD TOWN COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION, 513 E. GRAND RIVER. We would like to extend an invitation to everyone present here, Planning Board members and Planning staff, to our open house Thursday, January 16, 5-7 p.m. at the Main Street office, 513 East Grand River. We hope you can join us. 6. RECESS -None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: December 3, 1996 and December 17, 1996. Mr. Nischan made a motion, supported by Ms. LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of December 3, 1996 and December 17, 1996. December 3, 1996, approved with one correction, Page 12,Pg 12 Ln-9.22" Pos 3.65",Mr. Greiner said we have SDone. . . . December 17, 1996, approved with one correction, Page 12, Pg 12 Ln 4.03"Pos 7.67, Mr. Greiner said discussions during Zoning and Ordinance Committee indicated CONFUSION might exist . . . With those corrections, on a voice vote, the minutes of December 3, 1996 and December 17, 1996 were unanimously APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met this evening at 6 p.m. a. Z-17-96, 1300 Block Turner Street (West Side), "H" Lt. Industrial to "D-3" Residential District The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the request is in compliance with the Master Plan. A motion was made, second and carried unanimously, to recommend approval of rezoning the property. 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-17- 96, 1300 Block Turner Street (West Side), "H"Lt. Industrial to "D-3" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan .Ave Ruge . Ave Frederick .Ave Greiner . . Ave Goolsby .Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 10 On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0, Z-17-96, carried unanimously, 1300 Block Turner Street (West Side), "H" Lt. Industrial to "D-3" Residential District, was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Z-18-96, 4720 S. Cedar Street (East 183 Feet), "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Considerable discussion ensued on this item. A motion was made in committee to approve the rezoning. This motion passed 3-1. 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-18- 96, 4720 S. Cedar Street (East 183 Feet), "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Mr. Nischan stated having opposed the request in committee, he will vote against the rezoning. The request was initiated by the City, not by the landowner or developer, not a good idea. The City Council denied a proposal approved unanimously by the Planning Board; this creates the appearance of unfair advantage on the part of the City. There is also the issue of inconsistency of approach in recommending the zoning for the parcel, compared to how it has voted on other parcels in the City. Mr. Greiner said he echoed Mr. Nischan's comments. We have already dealt with this and given our recommendation for a zoning that was more intense than this. If the City Council wishes to approve this, they are capable of doing that, whether or not we give them another recommendation. Mr. Goolsby said in committee he voted yes with the understanding that he would be voting no this evening. His concern is that this procedure, while permissible, has not been used before. "I am concerned at the precedent that we would set here by approving a Council-initiated petition for a property that is not owned by the City." Ms. LeBlanc said looking at it from the land use issue, she supports it because, while she feels that commercial zoning would also be appropriate for this property, the proposed zoning is a better zoning than what is there now. As far as the City initiating the proposal, we have to reserve the right to use it in certain cases. Ms. Love said in 1983 the City initiated the rezoning of 123 parcels in Green Oaks. We are not setting a precedent in that respect. Secondly, there is another piece of property in the south end of the City, on Waverly Road, that is zoned "F" Commercial that we have approached City Council about rezoning back to residential because we feel"F" is an inappropriate zoning for the location, the car wash. It is the same argument, in reverse. It is not precedent-setting, and secondly, there are appropriate opportunities for the City Council to initiate rezonings. Regarding the car wash, we have admitted in court twice that the zoning is inappropriate in that location and should be changed for the protection of the neighborhood. There are valid reasons for doing what we suggested be done. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 11 Mr. Nischan said he did not think the land use is the issue here. If it were, the Council already got a recommendation on the land use and it was one supported by the owners and developers. The issue is not whether it is an appropriate land use; that has been settled. It calls into question and sullies the authority of the City to initiate a rezoning request. Mr. Ruge asked if the property owner commented on the proposal? Ms. Love said no. Mr. Ruge said we did have a comment from Mr. Joe Maguire who said he did not believe it was appropriate. Mr. Ruff wanted to clarify for the record that he did explain that we were trying to save a step in the process of having the petitioner reapply for what the Council would accept. He also expressed concern with the idea that the failure to recommend the zoning is the land use issue, the rezoning being taken out of the land use realm and placed upon the City as petitioner. The land use issue is still a valid issue, that "D-1" Office zoning is valid for the property. Regardless of when it is developed, office zoning is reasonable for the property. "I don't want to send the message that it is not appropriate and that it is an issue based upon the petitioner." Mr. Goolsby said that in Green Oaks, the City was trying to improve the overall direction of the neighborhood. It was appropriate for City Council to initiate rezoning with the consent of the residents. "I am not convinced that this is being done with the consent of the owner. . . . I am leery of the unfettered power of the City. . . ." Ms. Love said unless you choose a different way to express your frustration with City Council, you run the risk of appearing inconsistent because you already approved something that was more intense. Now you are coming back and disagreeing with something that is less intense. This is a separate petition. Mr. Goolsby said it comes down to who the applicant is and the fact of unfettered power. Mr. Nischan commented on the entity applying. It is the circumstances under which the City is applying;the important circumstances deal with the continued credibility of this Board and whether this Board is being forced to take a narrow focus. Ignoring the circumstances doesn't do justice to the Board, the City or the residents. It is not who is or who is not applying, it is the conditions under which they are applying. "I view this as the credibility of the Board being at stake. I think it is precedent-setting when you have this circumstance and the City using this kind of power." Mr. Ruge said he did not think the case would be before us today if not for the pressure applied to the City Council by the neighborhood residents. The Planning Board was created to get politics out of land use planning issues. "What we are facing today is the intrusion of politics into our domain." Mr. Frederick said if the property owners on Syringa really did not want our original approval in 1-996, if we vote no against this motion, they get what they wanted in the first place, which was nothing. What was the motivation for Professional Office? Ms. Love said citizens in the area and the City Council people and some planning board members indicated that "D-1" Professional Office would be an acceptable zoning. City Council members on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 12 the night they denied the "F" Commercial Zoning indicated that they would be willing to go along with"D-1" Professional Office, but not with the"F". Mr. Frederick said property is sitting idle and generating little revenue. Commercial seems more appropriate and more productive of revenue, more so than office space. "I would have to not support the motion either." Greiner. . .--Nay LeBlanc. . .Ave Nischan. . . Nay Ruge . .Ave Frederick. . . Nay Goolsby. . .Nav On a roll call vote,there were Ayes: 2;Nays: 4, Z-18-96, 4720 S. Cedar Street (East 183 Feet), "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was not approved. Next meeting WEDNESDAY March 4 FEBRUARY 12, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. Mr. Ruff said there were no zoning cases on the docket for public hearing, so it may not be necessary to have this meeting. "I will inform you at the February 4 meeting if for some reason it is necessary." 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Frederick. The Urban Development Committee has not met and has no report. Next meeting TUESDAY, January 28, 1997, at 4 p.m., Planning Office Conference Room, Second Floor, Washington Square Annex, 119 N. Washington Square. Ms. LeBlanc said she will not be able to attend this meeting. Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner that the Board resolve into the Committee of the Whole; voice vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. 3. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge, Chair. a. Act-1-97, Acquisition of Various State-Owned Properties, Ferris Park, et al Mr. Rieske distributed a packet providing information about the various land parcels. The parcels, numbered the same way as in P.A. 531 (HB 4133 1), include : Parcel #1, a portion of Pennsylvania Avenue from Michigan to Saginaw; Parcel 92, vacated Capitol Avenue (near Michigan and Capitol); PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 13 Ferris Park and Parking, both blocks; Parcel A, A portion of the parcel under the S. Grand Parking Ramp; Parcel B, Groesbeck Park; Parcel C, Comstock Park; Parcel D, Tourist Park. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend acquisition of parcels as outlined as outlined in the staff report and recommendations for Act-1-97. Mr. Rieske suggested a friendly amendment, subject to environmental and appraisals as appropriate, according to City policies in Section 208 Acquisition Policies. The amendment was acceptable. Mr. Goolsby asked about the reference to Grand Street. We should research that so that when the bill goes through for BTS, that if this needs a correction, it be done in that bill. "It appears to me that it should be something else other than Grand Street, although I realize that's what the bill says." Mr. Goolsby suggested this be made part of the motion, to research Grand Street, so that if a technical correction is necessary, that it be done in a later bill. Ms. Love said it is misleading; actually it appears to be a vacated portion of Allegan Street. The friendly amendment was acceptable. The restated motion, a motion to approve Act-1-97, to purchase the enumerated parcels subject to the purchase policies of the City as in Ordinance 208 and also to research the reference to Grand Street so as to prevent technical problems; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6;Nays: O; carried unanimously; Act- 1-97, Acquisition of Various State-owned Properties, Ferris Park et al was recommended to be APPROVED. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Ms. Leblanc, that the Committee of the Whole now arise; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6;Nays: 0; carried unanimously. Mr. Ruge presented the report of the Committee of the Whole. The committee met this evening to consider Act-1-97, Acquisition of Various State-owned Properties, Ferris Park et al. In committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to approve Act-1-97 as above. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve Act-1-97, Acquisition of Various State-owned Properties,Ferris Park et al,to purchase the enumerated parcels subject to the purchase policies of the City as in Ordinance 208 and also to research the reference to Grand Street so as to prevent technical problems. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. LeBlanc . Ave Nischan .Ave Ruge . Ave Frederick .Ave Greiner Ave Goolsby .Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 14 On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0, Act-1-97, Acquisition of Various State-owned Properties, Ferris Park et al, was recommended to be APPROVED. 3. Executive Committee did not meet; however, Chairman Goolsby would like to have a meeting concerning setting guidelines for items going to the Committee of the Whole. C. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. Ms. Love said the Planning budget was submitted and a meeting is scheduled with the mayor on Friday, January 17, 1997. We have completed a draft for the RFQ/RFP for the downtown plan soliciting firms to assist us in developing the plan. At lunchtime today, I spoke to Lansing 2000, and they have given us their endorsement, support, and financial assistance if needed. They are extremely excited about getting the downtown plan going. Regarding the Renaissance program, we are working with the Jobs Commission to make sure that the administrative policies to be developed will be backed up by the State. We will have a meeting in February with the Seven Block Neighborhood. The Lindell Drop Forge site has no residential property. We are moving forward with the neighborhood enterprise zone. The Economic Development Corporation is hiring a part-time staff person to work with the renaissance zone and with the neighborhood enterprise zone assisting in implementing both programs. Before Christmas, Jim videotaped our major streets for sign purposes. The tape has been reviewed, and we are working on getting a comprehensive program together for sending letters to property owners on the streets asking them to be good neighbors and assets to the community, and explaining that they may have an illegal sign, perhaps improperly placed or not having a permit, and giving them some amnesty time for fixing the situation, no questions asked. After that time, we would begin to apply sanctions. Jim is working closely with Jack Nelson. We have received certified local government status from the Michigan History Division, due to a lot of hard work by Bill and Donna. Although we won't know until February, that will give us the grant that we have requested the last three years, to do more reconnaissance work on our historic preservation programs. The letter notifying us of our certified local government status mentioned that they were pleased with our work program being particularly well done and well thought out. The State of Michigan is not given to praise, so this is a high compliment. Ms. Love said the work program is primarily for the Historic District Commission, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 15 subtasks--education regarding tax breaks, historic preservation, available resources, property research processes; financing and funding; recruitment of new historic districts; provision of gap financing for rehab of historic business properties; monitoring preservation activities through the grant we anticipate getting; activities during Historic Preservation week in May. A meeting of Board Chairmen is scheduled for the end of this month, January 24, 1997. We are getting ready to begin interviewing for the Historic Preservation planner. Our new half-time secretary started January 2, 1997. We have a target date of February 14 for our move to the North Capitol Ramp. We will be mailing notices of our new address, and doing a press release. Notification will also appear on Channel 28 and the City Council agenda. Let me know if you have notification suggestions. We are trying for the first time to do an annual report. The Planning Department used to do one. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-96 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) 8. NEW BUSINESS - 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN 10. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board Z-18-96 4720 S. Cedar Street "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Authority having jurisdiction under §1240.04, Planning and Zoning Code, Codified Ordinances of Lansing OWNER: Edward T. & Richard C. Hacker 3301 Moores River Drive Lansing, MI 48910 and/or 7050 W. Saginaw Street Lansing, MI 48917 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District LOCATION: 4720 S. Cedar Street - NW corner at Syringa EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence (vacant) EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 161' x 313'; 1.15 acre The petition is to rezone only the east 183 feet (0.67 acre) of the property fronting on Cedar Street. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial; 1-family residential S: Office; 1-family residential E: Commercial (across Cedar Street) W: 1-family residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial, "A" Residential S: "D-1" Professional Office, "A" Residential E: "F" Commercial W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for commercial/professional office/ residential at 0-7 dwelling units per acre. Z-1 8-96 4720 South Cedar Street Page 2 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office CASE HISTORY: Z-5-94: The Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting on January 17, 1994, voted unanimously 7-0, to recommend denial of Z-5-94, a request by Wolverine Development to rezone property located at 4720 S Cedar Street from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District. The applicant proposed to develop speculatively for a future commercial use. This request was withdrawn by the applicant before City Council action. Z-11-95: The Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting on January 15, 1995, voted unanimously (6-0), to recommend denial of a request by J. Carroll Barber, Architect, to rezone the same property from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District and "F" Commercial District. In both cases, the Planning Board based their decision, in part, on the Comprehensive Plan which establishes a formal line of separation between commercial and residential areas. The Board also expressed a desire to see professional office development for the front of the property, both to match existing office development south of Syringa, and to prevent a intensive commercial use that could be incompatible with the residential neighborhood. City Council upheld the Planning Boards recommendation. Z-4-96: The Lansing Planning Board, at their May 21, 1996 meeting, unanimously (6-0) recommended approval of Z-4-96, a petition by Mr. Thomas P. DeBoer (applicant) to rezone the east 183 feet of the subject property from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. The applicant intended to construct an automotive glass service facility. The Lansing City Council failed to approve the zone change request Z-4-96. SPECIFIC INFORMATION CITY'S PROPOSAL: The site is presently a residential lot with a vacant single family residence on it. The lot is located at the intersection of a major arterial street with a local street. West of the site is a well established single family neighborhood. Z-1 B-96 4720 South Cedar Street Page 3 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office Commercial and office uses line either side of Cedar Street to the north, south, and east of the subject property (see map). The City of Lansing proposes to rezone the east 183 feet of the one acre site "D-1" Professional Office District to accommodate office development. The west 130 feet is proposed to remain zoned "A" Residential District for single family residential development. AGENCY RESPONSES: ATTORNEY: No response received. BUILDING SAFETY: No response received. BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: Electric Utility: Site plan is approved. Water Utility: No conflict with rezone. COUNCIL OFFICES: No response received. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: This memo is in reference to the property located at 4720 S. Cedar St. The EDC understands the reasons that the City feels the need to buffer the residential properties from the noisy and busy commercial entities located along Cedar Street. However, to possibly avoid any antagonism, we would like to make sure that the property owners have been informed and clearly understand the reasons why the City has requested the proposed change and that the property owners have the opportunity to voice their opinions or objections before any decision is made. MAYOR'S OFFICE: No response received. POLICE: No response received. PUBLIC SERVICES: Public Service has no problem with the rezoning. A site plan is required before any development. Z-1 g-gg 4720 South Cedar Street Page 4 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office TRANSPORTATION: The petitioner has proposed a professional office development on the subject site. This is a better and less intense use of this property than previously proposed. Access to the site should still be limited to Cedar Street to reduce the impacts of non-local traffic on Syringa Street. Future housing development on the remaining "A" portion on the property would not significantly impact the traffic patterns on Syringa Street. AMERITEC TELEPHONE: No response received. CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: No response received. CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION: No response received. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY: No response received. MICHIGAN DOT: No response received. ANALYSIS The Cedar Street corridor is characteristic of strip commercial development abutting many major arterial roadways in Lansing. The commercial businesses help to insulate the residential neighborhoods from the large volumes of traffic on the major streets. The depth of the subject property from Cedar Street (313 feet) is greater than the depth of the commercial "buffer zone" (approximately 183 feet) that has been established along the west side of Cedar Street in the vicinity. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Because of the size, shape, and location of the subject site, the proposed zoning of "D- 1" Professional Office District for its east 183 feet may be the most reasonable land use. A professional office development would likely have more limited hours of operation than a commercial or retail business establishment, as well as generate less noise and traffic. By comparison, the "F" Commercial zoning district previously proposed would permit commercial uses such as a fast food restaurant or a automobile sales lot; thus, commercial zoning would permit land uses that could be highly incompatible with adjacent residential uses. This incompatibility is illustrated by existing land use conflicts between present commercial uses and adjacent residents in the vicinity: noise, Z-18-96 4720 South Cedar Street Page 5 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office automobile exhaust, litter, and other externalities of the commercial establishments have been cited as problems by neighborhood residents. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Comprehensive Development Plan, Proposed Land Use to 1990 (Map) indicates commercial and office uses at a uniform depth fronting on Cedar Street and insulating the residential land uses to the west. Commercial uses expand in scope, primarily at the intersections of major roadways, such as South Cedar (a principal arterial) and Jolly (a minor arterial). As a general policy statement referring to housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan, page 88 states, "In areas where nonresidential uses of land have begun to creep into residential areas, steps will be taken to establish formal lines of separation and policies developed to maintain the separation." IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The property under review is located at the intersection of a local street (Syringa) with a principal arterial (Cedar). This intersection is located only 800 feet north of Jolly Road, which is a major intersection that often experiences severe traffic delays. To escape these delays, some motorists often use Syringa as a shortcut to westbound Jolly Road, causing more traffic, and therefore more turning movements, at the Syringa/Cedar intersection than would be considered normal for a residential street. The City's Traffic Engineer has provided traffic counts indicating that, on average, 575 vehicles per day use Syringa Street. Typically, an average residential street in the City would be used by 350-425 vehicles per day. This indicates a significant amount of nonresidential traffic is using Syringa. Additional commercial development at this intersection would add to the number of vehicles turning onto Syringa. If any access driveways from this property are not properly designed and located, any problems caused by the existing and additional traffic could be compounded. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The proposed zone change to office use (as opposed to general commercial use) would not have a significantly different impact on the natural environment. The subject property, because of its size and significant number of large trees and ornamental shrubs, now serves as a significant buffer zone between the commercial development and traffic on Cedar Street and the residential neighborhood on Syringa and Cox. Storm water runoff from the site is not a problem at present, because very little of the site is impervious. Z-18-96 4720 South Cedar Street Page 6 "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT If granted for the property, a zone change to "D-1" Professional Office District would maintain the depth of the commercial development parallel to Cedar Street as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. This is using the office and commercial uses to buffer residential uses from the busy arterial street. SUMMARY The request is to rezone the east portion of the property fronting on Cedar Street at its intersection with Syringa from "A" Single Family Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Staff has raised several concerns relative to the establishment of the depth of commercial zoning parallel to and west of Cedar Street, and the proposed development falls within the Comprehensive Plan's guidelines. Staff has been concerned in the past about the potential intensity of commercial development that could be permitted by right in the "F" commercial zoning district; there are many uses permitted in the zone that could be benign (such as the proposed use), or that could have a severely negative impact on the adjacent residential zone. Rezoning the property to "D-1" Professional Office reduces the concern that a highly incompatible land use will be established on the site. The request is to rezone the site from "A" Single Family Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District for the east portion of the property fronting on Cedar Street at its intersection with Syringa. Staff has raised several concerns relative to the establishment of the depth of non- residential zoning parallel to and west of Cedar Street. In 1994 (case #Z-5-94) the Planning Board recommended denial of a similar request for this same reason. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request to rezone the east 183 feet of the property from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Staff believes that while a use other than residential is appropriate for the property closest to Cedar Street, the potential intensity of development permitted by the "F" zone may not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. < o ... .......... ,N«yr1 w fifty :>n yy l A", yyv x �y .. - opAoe�,,.; ay}ysyvonv„,,,,s.;�+;;.j<% .. :i:u..�.>,.:.:ioy�wwws+++.:....� .r.,rY. r{rJr aw:.:w nwd.ravi', _ � -/�y /rrilNr ?yri��::,�:.!/r-•Tr rl�i/kNht iw{... s�? r{ ................:..:.:....:....:...:.......... ,,.r/::%.}?YC,C-+:t{:!v..ii+.....r; ... , ..r- ,}r•r I.r!{Y///.;rJ4.{V.Cit V<..;,....;r;J rri�' .. .... ...................... :��....:......:�:.:::.::....:..................:. ......,v�:v:v:-:-}}i:!?!-}/:.v:::........ ...............::: :••rvr r:, •:":::y<{v v •f/.'".!}�vrr.��.��/ rrvl rr:!%v /f i:4}iiy:: w::::::::.�:::...............................v ..rr.,.-J..,....................... .. ..r.rY+�. .:.f:/•% •}Yiiii:i}:•l-}}}Y-}:{?v:+>Y.!viY/.%/............. ../.•..........:.:::::::::::;: :i:::i:%:iiii:...::.:., :.......................r........:,.,.:�::.:.�::....:....................,,. ./h r M. /,/r rlrr. yf.iCri:•: .r...n..:/,.;.::)/../ .,,>:•::::-:.r,:{-.........f....::!�.:�....�,5,,.:•:::.:��:.�.�...........;::.:;�:>:::�::::::::::::::::::-:::.:..:............................:................::::..�,.�::.:�::::.�::r:..FfffF?N h?h?<f.rdSSf./., r/rr:?�?»r�.,.:��.•::f.:.l...:•:r!•:..., ><,t....:::r:...:.........,..........::::-.....:........:.. ....:.... ..................r.:rr..:..rn.rr..r.......:,.... :..-r,:.w.,r:•::::::..:{.::::::::::::::::::::::,::..:::.�:}:•}}}:rrn•:}s:.>;:.;;:.}:.:;:.;:.;:>.:;:;::;:.::.;:.;;;:.;:::>::;:::::::::.�: :::::r:::::,::::r�.�:::::::•:.�:a:.:±:,.::.:.:::::r:?•,.:............................. ...... r N Fh±:...,:.n;F........n•,,r:.:........r......-,,....:-::.:�:r::::.�.�:•:�:.:.:.......... - ..:.:..............::�::::.�.�: ..............r......r.r :rrr rr....:.,..,.r:....................,........ ..........,..... .............:.:.......r..................... ......-............... ....._...................... :................:..:... .. ..... .../r....r....................................... .,r,::::.r....,.:fr..........................,.::r::.:r-:::::,::::::::::,r::a:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.� rx{r.%rrr:}}}s>:iis:;i.;:::::::•:::::.......:: :.:::r.:,rr,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�:.�::+s:::s:�:• ........,r....,xxrx..............................................:••...................n.n.n,..,...........,.,.....................x...+..,.... A,MU>}...........................v..........w::::.-.....:.::.::.::�::.::.:::.:'��:C.i}}}::.:.:::::::::�}T}i:!!•: .......................................................................................: .- ....r.... .. /.i4Nv4KrW0>!Eu....::v..............w::^::::::.i+i}):vr;:-}:�i:C}}i:iii:iii:liiii:^ii:}:!r}}:ii•isi:::�::�::�:�::�::�::�i}}}i}}:;:::�:::�::.iiiili}}:i ....................... ...................................:....r.....:.......r........... ..rrxfhrrr...::.,:•// ,a,...................r..........:....;.--::::::•,.• ...... ................. ......................r..v.........................................-.....................f--.... .nn.......{•iCi:/mS?..........r.r.n...:..r....r.......... ••.................:............ ............................ ..,..........r.... .,.r.....:.. frf/i.. ......r..r.:.::: rr,.„r...r..r.... .......... .........................nrr..r .. .... : /f./fF.{.. ...r.:!v-.v::..--:?:{•M:±:v:w:v:::::;::::::::::::::::::.v::.v::::::::::v:::::.�:::::::.::vv.Y w:::yw.v.�:::.�::::: ....::.�... :•}:•�???r:•}ri:•::::.v:::::.v:::::::::::::::::::::r::rir.?•:%•:::::vv::::::::::.vxr{•r x n?v:,»:r:x.v::::::::.�:::::::{:yv.:}::{-}•:::xr::::::::::::v±{.:i::{:.}:•:::::::rv:�•.i}':::::::::±:±p}':::w::::::>Yr:y':�'i:y::::::::i»}}}:�i::i:�:::.:::�:::.}}:�i:;. .........................%.. ...... , rrr........n..,..............n. .. .............:•:v::4:i??•}}}}}}:::?t::v:::cii}}iii::•.vv..•w:va'•.vr}i::v}}Y±•::.::i»>:�a}}}::?.:'.:.:::::.�:.:v::. ....................r...r.......r....................................».... ....r.:..,..:::�::!.:y:.{SFx:f{....... n.-r.... ...:..,..:....,n..- .........................?............................................ r /.... ......r..r:r:v::.::::.v::::::r:rf...n...,}}... .... ........-....................:.. n.rri?••;ry{v.•:»n•:f::±'::::-::::::::::�:::::::'::::!!•}?}: :::::::::::.v::::M::::::::^:::::w:::::::::.�v::::::::.vv w.v::.rv..........r...r........... ...//.x.r v::•:r:::?nv:nv::.v::xxr rr:::...,x x�...:.,:?r:x:±:::::::::,..:i..:�i••r.v:::;-:::::y.- ?.....................:::::::.v::...:::,::::::::::. ........................................................................n.r........:......... r,,.:rn.::•:£r::.:::..:-:,r.:.Ff Y... •�-Y .,i rn .s}'.;�..:.:,.%r,±-lr{{Y•fh.. ........................, ....:..................................................r................rrrr:f. :. ....-:..r...... ..{:{:•::....... .. r.rf f:-: f...-::::•rr.....: J/.»Y-:;.as:•}:±.a:.a:-a:!.sa::-s:<.>:�;:.:c:::�>:�s:�s}>}:•: .r%..:...........................................:.............. y.rr r f. �r rf !1..l rt J..........,•, 11. ./.rJ,... .............:....... r....... ....................... ..............:.........--.. .-.-..-......... ....:........................:........................ ...............:..:......: ...f•.�:r.:•::,............... - n/rrr3r .........................r.: ....................:.�.:�::::.v:::..............::::r:::::.. x•....... :, - M ....................::•:::n{.r.n................................-....:•::::::::::-::::::::.�:::::i•}:•: y rr 3±/4-»•, r r-f ,.. 1 r..,.,r.:•.r,r: �r/r� :.:{,:.... •/F 1,/.,: .r.::::::.:r: •y/.!.r ..1�r. r.....:. .r 1 rl�::fu.:>'.::...... f. .............:::::•::}•:::»:::::::::::r:::::.::�:.�::::::,:::•::::.:::: !`/r.-r {f/r.n./.?3.;.. r ,/-h f ..,;!{.,..�, •h?•-:-,:hf.%./.,� �nr.:....-. i/5✓6:r•:.: ..f rfi.r..i,...../... ............r. r�.>�i..rr /. --,� � h- rn f.�.. .,• r-,,::::?rr, :::.: ........... :::::.::.... .....;:�::�::;�::iii r?: .............. :::::::••..r:f f... .:.... ././f. :..... r „r - .,:....n../..:r.. ,.. � .,.r.. ., , ... rr ,/,fF.r.. r::::::::•...n:.::::::.::�s:�i:->:.y::;::'.;�:::::�.;"�::�:<�;'.i•s: ... ........ .-,. r.r.f ,ar-...rr r. .+f,..�.+r ..� /1' r,..-:{-.,:•. ffif--.,.� f/�::::::::::,::..�:::::.........:::�:.�:::.:::::.............:.:::::•:::::::::::::::�::::::.�:::.::�:!c>:.;;:�::� .!r ��v iii f?.f,,,.�.,.,.,.'.,.::::.:�::::•:J:i:�:iii.�:::::::::::•}:v:}:. �CCa��%�.�.•��.-.�.�.}}}}}:!y:?{•}}}}}:?4}ii:�::^}>}iiii:iv}}}}}>}}}}:?4:y:•}}:•}:•i:•:•:�::i:ii}iiiJ'ri::�:_i�:�:�i:: :: �:�i::�::L::: � :�isii':-r:ii�iiii>:�i:�:�ii>iiisi'�iiiii>}::::�::�:�:::�::::::^:::•i:?!::i •}:•;:•{}:?•:i}:•iiii i::�:�is�: �ii::�:�::�:�i:�:� :::':<!�i:�i:SiT:isLi:� is��:�iiiii}:ii:iii}i:':�:�: �:i::�:::�:�::'::�ii:� .... .....f.. '... .. .-...:::. :. ....:iii}::!T}::i:}:i}::.::ii�::�ik!J::ij:i:iv:;:;:?}>iiiiiiii::Jiiiiii:• :.::::�:.:.::.:. ....'�:iii:!'":iii:!;i i.,-••::w.:::•�:. -$ .. .:. '�.. .....:� -.; :. .....:.i:iii}}:•:' }:'•}':::::.}:: ...... .. ........ ... �'.'.:v:iii:� �ii.;:.:::::•:n..:...:::::r:?•ir�:�.�::.. ... ........ ;, ..F•... ..tY�M -.. �::• •;y}i!;:;iir:?;'.'::iii: ......... v:.v,.... �: �p: .. ..... .. '......a . . ::.:......:::::::.�.:::.:..:::....:::::....:>:i}:•y}}i:i:;iii>}}%•}:::.:i::::... fFhr,WdK. 1 ..... .... r ..............�::::::::...::::J}i::::::::::.......... .....r .. .. :- 1 f ' �� i•'f'1 r " <� -:� ` ':w. .,bE � ,:dew"se�a' "trq�q.•.c�»: afire r� .�..' "'na '-x .�:' : ;.;�: .. s � rwbP►�►p •w.r++,,v+M.,.:r., jocwoj6 r :;?�?.e�aur+�newwWlt "::n.}:.:....... { r ... X :::::...w... �•:4ijij:�:•}}:j;sgw.r:::n•pw:::::.•r{::^::•.{yr:"::::.i}}}}ii:is::..... .:. .. :. ... ..........:.. .. :. : .::x}:xY?.v.n::::::::...... ..:::}:}'•}::v:::::::::w::.:n:}ii::'::'}}:4-..:': <$:•f'4r:'..... ...... .. ...............r.............................................rt::f,.:•::;::•::: :.:::::::::::.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::::::::::.:::::::::.::.:::.�::::::::::.�>::�:::::::::.�:::::::n•::.�:::}:�.:Y}:.. ...... ... ............./.:..............................................n./i .....r............................................:.:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::.�::::::::.::::::::::?.}:•}:•}}:->::•>: dq }:•:!�Yr -i'-:}':ni:nisC}i}}}Y}}%?}+}%4:•isti!{4:}:jjj;:?:'•'ti?{{Y:{i{{:i:.f..............:i{{{{i?::iiii:4{i i:iii{iiiii-iv:;{:::iii;iii{{rr:::: ?j:r:::{::::i{i:{i:}::;}}:i::i::`:i::'i:�}:i:::i:.:is}:i}}ii;};;?{O:i }:•}}};ti•}:4: ..........:..:..n. r... ............................................................::::::::n•:r:.:...... .::::::r.::r::::.v v:::n. r.. ....r......:...r:::::... ............:..:.:r.-.r.F{•::•:::::::::::.?•::::•:!•v:::�::v:::..:...::.�:::::.:::.....:::.v....:rr:...:n}:n;•:F.}:..;..,. ......................................................................:.........:....rr:.:::n...::^:::::s....... .f. .... .....;..r.:............... n.........v:f•v...ry...................................................... :,},. ...................................................... ..........: ... ....................r...............r..:n..n xnn.nr;r.wrn•fn.vrxxr v::::::::.�::::::::::::::........ rrr. ......................................................n+.... :...:•..:.!.......r. ...:...................f.... ............................. rf;..n;v»}»;;.w„y:m::ryv::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:vn•:i^:{•}r:iiivr::tv:Sxvv:.r .....................................................:.r:.:...........;.::., .........:?•::•::v::::xn...I...r r?:.............:w::x:::::n.............r......................�j{rr. ....................... .. ............................... ... ........n......... ................................ �,.....;.:N::::i5:i:�i?i:i:'l:v::i:i:�i:�i}{i}:Y.t?}:::i{•}:;::;. ............ ....................................................r.........................n..r................ .......................: nv.v•::! Yt.....::C is::�i:�i}i:i:}>::i:�i}iiii}i:;•})Y;:-}n•.}'?4,... .................. .......................................r.v�Yr:r:x::::::::::::::::-.i}iiii:•:�;:::::r.:. x....n....... r rc:::.n...... ............... ........................n..n.r.....:.n...... .... .:::• r:n::r::::nv.v:::::nv::::::::::::::::::n....n{{•: ......... .... ...................................................................................r....r.. ..../.r::r........... .n.n.....................n.......n..........n;:r:::::::::::::::::::::::: n:........::�::::::.i:!-: +r:':.i'::::::::::•:.::::.}:vr.•:::::........... ^:f•.r•:ti i}:t{v}:4}::r}:v:•}:?::?9}:?t•}:?4}i:{}}:•;{�:•i}::w ........................................... ......:::::n:v:^::r•fi'•i:?3:^}Yi}}:v;}'?•. ....................s..............::•:.:v::::v:?il:•Yr{r•}}i'r}:�:!i::%�iY�iii}? :; .................................................::........................................A::::;.:r..'lr:?}'�}:4:?L}:4. r....... n......:r.n...... :..rvrH..?;.w:::::::::;}:•: :::.:::.........................................:n•.................................. .......................................................n........................r.......................rv::::::::::::n::v.... n.....:. r,.t;•:tw:............................................... ..GS{'•{:::j::::ti;:yi:{{:Lv:{J{{i{>{{:YY�iiii:i�:::ii::Y::;'::`i:l�:i:�iii:%Y::!'X??i:{:ii y{!YiL:::?'J':: .................................................. ........:.:::.::::::::::....... :::..::............... .:.:............ .. ... ....}}:}}}i}:•}:•:r:r:•}:t.::'::{{{;:{{;:j{{{.v:::n•}}:w}}}iii}:{^i:4:4;.:}}i:?•i:+.:i:::i::tMi:4:•:�:•:Ni:i':.::;::.';?}}:'�-:•::::.v:;: :{,::{Y::4:?:j{{ .::...::::.::�::.........:::.........:....... �:::?.�::............fv:}:if:vv:::.}•.}v:.:}•{:3:J'{{'r{:':%:SiSi::i{i{::':ii:::.}}:trii:i:i:ii:ii:G{j{}::{:•;i::.::?{{:.-::. v::i vF. ..:.:..................... ..:::::.::. ..:::.:::::.::.:.......::.:............::::::....:..........v f...................... ................... .. ...................r.....r.r....................................... ............................... �.}iii::..., �..::::::::. :.......... r�.�. v::::: r :` .Vk X1�Ow• .A ✓ ��jdec b .M Baba {' �'.cacS'� � �aaa .�• <`^-ter �.. x LS y� vc �� j a `+ate �..�y.,�, 4A, aX':t asr ." + `'.: f Ac Zp d: y q �a; X k• � o�',�„�,,.. /f{ ..p/?•X �.k3Y(' YHJ [ : ... r .�, +. .pip � Jy�J.vtt.s:•i.$r{.:.; f:...y:f:«?r.,. K;1,&Y, .. .......: r .. :i:ii....ii: U!yiiiiiii:..w:•i. .:. ..:..:....: Kii yM00Vf :.. ................ ........:::::: ..... .:::i:i- :::::::::::::::::is�•i::::..:::::�-:::::::.::......... :: :.. ....:iiiii., ....:.; ............... .............. ............................................. . •:•iiiii:•.:.''::•iiii:iiii'iiii::::.::::. .�:. ...... .... ::.: :{::.::::.�.:i::::::::::.::.:....: :... . ....::.:::::::.....::........ .. ......:::::::.:::::::::::.::::.: .. . .......... ............ ............. ............ .... ....... ..... ....: __ i ..,.. .. .. .. :::. w::,:. _, .. : a JAI > r ?( q 6 y9 :. :� .;. t_,{S{ ;.: Mn, jpp$� kAy h, qw• »x,..ae1.W F,. R f+ctY`:f�::...Y•{<+%wi. ....................... ..r,:::.:..ri rfb N..fl rN :{:r .........................................................::.�:.�.:::...:........::..,:::.:::.:::::::.::::..:•.....r..:/.:.:.:...........1.........1..{Yff. ..f4,.{{Y,c/../.,r, r..r .........................................:::•:::....:::::::.........................................:::::::.�:::::::::::....:.................... ...........::.:::.:v:n• ::::w::::::n'j.•rY�/r rr.� .. ..1,. ::::+:r,�•::s:x::•x:•:•:•:•r....v..:,,.n..v.:.v:r:•:::::::::::::•:::.v::::-:::•:::v..........................::::::::::::.....:................:.............ff»::m:nw»•.f'+•};!•.:•}:!?•}:S?•:S•:::::.v:..................... ... ..»-:1/,-.....F.....n.n....,,rr.,..... .................... .... r ..........................v.. m:•.v::..:n':.v.::v:::::v}:::}}}'::::::::.v.}}}v:'}''i':4$::%iiii'}}'.v.:....::i?q:}:'S:w.rf%$:4iii}i}��':":'%'... ..................... ...:? r ....m::w:::::::::::::::::::::vv+v:v::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::»:r.?::v::y.........::::i•}:4r' .... ........$$NCSftK{{<,<q(r AC r +.. ..... .......................... {.. r.r....r.....................w::::::::....... .. .............r:....................:.... ....:............ ....:...... ..+.... .. ..11..../ntw+w .... .....,:.:::::•:.!•::::::::::ti:.}:•i}i}:�::?•r•:{•}Yrr>::�:a}:•::?•:y:}:t•;:�::;?::;:::%::%:�::{,}•:::::::::::::. ...:...+....+.+,.......:+. ........................................:.:..r......v....... .........................................f/.•Y .......................... ................. ...........y ........r.........•................... ...,...+:+.:w:a::::::»„::...::}i}}::::::x,:::::::::+::::::..... n .{SW.{U.Svi?Lfi4i}viiiy?...,}"::}}}::{.v:::::»:viiii?:?:• ...4.................:vC't•::::::w:?}/.+�{?»�::::':::?.;r.....;..:::w:::::::::�:•::: ».f:,:v:r.r... ..<..........:::::::....;, ../fN./;.+..v:.+.•.i{+.«+rf.^..•:r-::::» l r r..+....... ..:. ..rr. ...,::..... ..................+.i:$$$xx..r.r.».•w:v:»::.v:::::x: ?v:::::::::::+v:?v:::•, ................. ..+......J ..... .r.. .....+..+... v.i{•:. .....r:...:. :.....r..................... ?rr i. 1.f/•. .......................... ............ ........................ ......:............11�1U/1•r1N .......,..........r..,:r ./:. :...::, ...r .::::.�„{:: ........... f{.}:•}i:::::::::$%:•$:%$:%$:%:;{•::-:;::i}:-iii:•}:.;•:.;:•};;:':;::$:• .................................:.:.................:.r::::::.:.,, ..:::::::::... ...kr. .......::::....:cm:;•>:�iiii};+:is?:$$:cY�:...:::::::::::::::-:r•:.:.............,::?r ..?.:n.'•$:•}:q:::::::::; ....... ...........................r.::::::::::::::::::::»:•,•.v :v::::::............ .................r:»:»:.vr+:::::::........................::..•fri.}v::.;}}}}'?.v::»??4}i}}i:•}i•:. f...... > :�::::....:::::..:.�:::::::...:.:Y.v...............+..nf.................................................... :..x....................................:.<?!}?M?PPwttKKSy.J .....:::::•..n..........::v:::::::vn:::...........::•:•w::::::r:t•::: ...........................................+ .............:.......................................»v::::...».::v:::::v�•:�$'%$$$:tit^}}i}}}:4i}}}}y}}}i:4:•}:?.}}}Yii}:i:�}}:}::.::...n......., .....;..,.....:•::::. ................................................................................. ..........::::::}-{tv::+:.::::;:::::::::::.v::::::::.v:::.�::vh:�:::::::v::?:::v:::.::i.�.:::�:..n....... 1KvtFr/r1, .........r....:....... i%rf%$?$$$$'+:?}:isisi::i$'ii$i$i$$$:v:%'%:tii:%$$i?:�'::�i::iiiiiiiit'^$$:%:!ti^:%ii'.ti$f$$$}i•$:•$:j$'%$$:y'....................:........................:.............: v.0 .............................................................. rw:.v+.;•.}•+•}r•:::::::::�G:•}: .{•r:}`'{%$i}::i'r::il:}::•::!.}:•.;y::::::.:+%$'i$$.,}y::.;:•i::2:;:i;?$::F•'!.•}}:•i}::{::.}::v:::::}:::}}}i'q'r$$$::'r'i}i}}:+•}'$':::::ii'ii}:i}}:::J::i}i}:}}:: %$%'r'f•$$i$>iiiiiiiiiii:iii:ai.`?i:;iii>i:%i�%$$:{:�`'.?$`•, ................................................. ...v..............n:ivy:n}}}:::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::.�:::::..�:::::: .+}...f... 4:•}itq;{:•}}:q:?.}}:v iiq:-}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}:^:•: :.r r. ...........n............ ....................... •}}:?•ii:hii)iiiY:�ii:�ii::<i:.::[.i:4i:�i%-is{qii}:�:::�:}iii::fiiii}''• ?.v. ........ ....................................v::::..;...:................ ....................................................................... ................................................... .................r...................... ............................................r...r..:..::w:::;:...r.vr:•.?%:::.:::::::::::::::::.v}:•}}::�:y}}:?•}}:vq;•}}}::•:`::.}::}::•::::}:�}:�}}}: :::::::::::::::.�:::::�:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::::::q•w:{:.}v.}$i:{r::::::r:::r:::::::................:i::v;.}:.;w:::::::::.v.v::q}:• :q'r'v:hY}i}}:4}}::.}}.i}}:4:tti:.,y........;.....:''::is}:': {r'?!•?.}};?4iiiii�:::ti!%:}'{''%}}:q:•}}i}i::i:i}i:{:'ri$i$$:%$:•}}:v:: .}}%{{q ;:.y :::..:::::::::::•:::::::::::::.�:::::::4'/r%rrrr:vv:v: ,....... •.........,}.A:::•}r:is i}}}:.:.:......n. »rvr::.nr.,...................vl................................::tti{{q:i}ii}'.t}; ::::::. n::?{w:....:::::::::•.....:.... ..................................................................................................... .. ...n..n...n.......................... ..............................f............:•::.q::::.::::::::::::::::v::::nv::::::::::::::�:.:v::::::::::i::::}:::::::::::.i:'ri'r:?•i}iY:q;.}}}::q:•: .}}}:::::.iy}}<:•}:?•}}j};.i:•}}:.}i}};:iY?•}i:?{•}%:;q$$$$$ii:Stiii:$ isisii}YY}iiiyn:tG:O:•}ii}}i}:$?$$$jY.} $:f:':,;$:;`Y,?•$$;:d$$:r$:%$:::>::;isGiii:i�:':i?:;%'%?$$::;$:;;•$:,$:;$:$::$i:'•:ktk:•:::y{n.; $:$Y f..:...............................................................: x:$Yh$ $n%$'r$;:j v?;yi'ii$:+.;?:$$$:}i%r{:$:•$:>$.. .......................................... ..:.:.. »::::.;.:..::..;::::.vyq:%::v:•.v:+:N{?•}':•}:::....:.r}';},::.�.:.:w;.......:}SY}:}:-:}:::::.}-.:»i>}:•}}'a:::i:::iY:.v::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::. ....:::...:................:..::..+.v::::••;^:.�•.v:.v.:..:....r�'x... .:....x:. ..:.r......�... ..,........ ............ Hn....r.............................................................x::n;:}}}i'�}::•.�:::::: L Z.1 8-96 4720 S. Cedar Street LJ eel.o3 0 0 ' L ! 11t L I n i,c I a I L� ETD � ti MTO � • ,. ... r aka` 1 � 11 D'...1 11 • El . 0000Q F o ❑ o eai.� 4 ❑ � %83�r� I KcNoo oto y N E:2 Lknk Lk7e 'A'to 10 or CCOAp �� CP Ela 1 1•;• •1 J11 Ilp , 11 J1, ^,�j Q � ❑ o - _-- it N.. El a c ' i opt. ' \ Nf0 CLOvCRLANO Neighb-orhood. Z• ,r g . , Z-17-96 1301 Block Turner Street From "H" Light Industrial District to "DM-3" Residential Distirct GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing PROPERTY OWNER: City of Lansing EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial .REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "DM- 3" Residential District EXISTING LAND USE: Property contains part of Riverwalk trail, the remainder is vacant. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 2.44 acres, more or less , irregular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Dodge mansion/park S: Estes furniture warehouse E: Commercial, warehouse, vacant W: Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "H" Light Industrial W: "C" Two Family Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial development. CASE HISTORY: This property has a history of industrial land use dating to the middle 1800's. The site used to be the location of a brewery, a plastics factory, and other industrial uses. The site was cleared in the early 1970's after the buildings on it burned down. The parcel was subsequently purchased by the City for possible use as public parking. Earlier in 1996, this site was reviewed by the Lansing Planning Board and City Council, under the ACT 285 Review Process (case ACT-1-96), to assess sale of the property for development. Z-17-96, 1301 Block Turner Street Page 2 "H" Light Industrial to "DM-3" Residential District Applicant's Proposal The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comment regarding the proposed rezoning of city-owned property for neighborhood redevelopment. The vacant 2.64 acre parcel located in the 1301 block of Turner Street and is owned by the City of Lansing. As recommended via the Act 285 review process, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and a Request for Proposals (RFP) were issued for qualified developers to submit design proposals for development of the site for residential purposes. The development proposal chosen by the City proposes development of 46 townhouse condominium units on the site. In addition, the City has decided to retain ownership of the portion of the site 50 feet,east of the bank of the Grand River. Agency Responses ASSESSOR: No response received. ATTORNEY: Although somewhat collateral to the request, please be aware of need to comply w/chapter 264 involving the Rivers and Waterfront Bd - Also chapter and ordinance provisions regarding the sale of riverfront property by City. BUILDING SAFETY: No response received. BOARD OF WATER/LIGHT: Electric Utility: The site plan is approved. Water Utility: No conflict with rezone. CLERK: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received. COUNCIL OFFICES: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: 1. Fifty feet of east riverbank to be retained by City. 2. Recommend approval. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: In response to your request regarding re-zoning of City property on Turner Street from "H" Light Industrial to DM- 3 Residential, the Economic Development Corporation supports this rezoning. I have been a participant in the City's RFQ/P process to solicit development proposals for this site and support the proposal to re-zone this property in a effort to move the Z-17-96, 1301 Block Turner Street Page 3 "H" Light Industrial to "DM-3" Residential District residential development to fruition. The Old Town area, we believe, need the stabilization of new owner-occupied housing stock to support the commercial revitalization to that area that our EDC has been specifically involved with fostering for the last 3 years. The site under discussion is very appropriate for the use being planned, residential. Should you need additional support from us regarding this proposed rezoning, please do not hesitate to contact me. FIRE MARSHALL: No Objection to this petition. MAYOR'S OFFICE: No response received. PARKS & RECREATION: Provisions for the River Trail as shown on referral sheet date December 3, 1996 are unacceptable. Ferguson proposal (see attached) dated November 4, 1996 is more realistic but there are several changes which need to occur. As noted on the plan the retaining wall, which at its maximum height is 22 feet, is costly to build and maintain and would jeopardize the public safety. Our recommendation is to relocate the trail further east away from the river bank on top of the plateau. Additionally leaving Dodge River as is would allow more space for River Trail passage. The developer will need to fund all expenses for the relocation of the trail which is to include all phases of design and construction, city project management fees, any testing required and all incidental costs associated with the project. The design will need to meet all city and state standards and requirements. The current River Trail was constructed with grant funds from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. Per the City's agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and change to this River Trail alignment need to be approved by the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. POLICE: No response received. PUBLIC SERVICES: Public Service has no problem with the rezoning. A site plan is required before any development. TRANSPORTATION: No response received. TREASURER: No response received. Z-17-96, 1301 Block Turner Street Page 4 "H" Light Industrial to "DM-3" Residential District AMERITEC TELEPHONE No response received. BOARD OF EDUCATION (LANSING): No response received. CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: No response received. CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION: No response received. CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT AUTHORITY: No comments (phone message). CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY: No response received. MICHIGAN DNR: No response received. MICHIGAN DOT: No response received. NORTH LANSING COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: No response received. OLD TOWN COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION: No response received. OLD TOWN MAIN STREET DESIGN COMMITTEE: Response submitted at public hearing (see file). Description of Site The 1300 block of Turner Street is one block north of East Grand River Avenue (north of Clinton Street). The subject property is bounded by Turner Street on the east, the Grand River on the west, Dodge River Drive on the north, and the Estes warehouse (1223 Turner Street) on the south. The property sits at an elevation of twenty to twenty five feet above the elevation of the Grand River. The site used to be the location of a brewery, and later other industrial uses, but was cleared in the early 1970's after the building on it burnt down. The only improvement on the-site at present is the River Trail, which winds uphill from the southwest corner of the property. While the entire site requested for rezoning is approximately 2.44 acres overall, the City is required to maintain ownership and control of property within 50 feet of the Z-17-969 1301 Block Turner Street Page 5 "H" Light Industrial to "DM-3" Residential District riverbank. Thus, the actual size of the property that will be sold and developed is approximately 1.95 acres. The "DM-3" Residential zoning district is necessary to meet the lot area and density requirements for 23 two-bedroom and 23 three- bedroom units (1,500 and 2,200 square feet per unit, respectively) on the 1.95 acre site. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed residential land use will be very compatible with surrounding land uses. It is compatible with the adjacent Turner/Dodge Mansion, the residential enclave centered on Black Court, James Drive, and North Street. In addition, the residential development should be compatible with the commercial district because it will help revive the residential market for the commercial establishments. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The proposed development will have no greater impact on vehicular traffic than would commercial development of the property. Ingress, egress, and parking for either type of development would be addressed similarly during review of construction drawings. The reserve capacity of the street system is adequate to accommodate the residential development. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The proposed zone change to residential use will hopefully have a significant positive impact on the natural environment by permitting landscaping and other site improvements. Also, by revitalizing a downtown residential environment, the environmental benefits of pedestrian travel and transit use will also be realized. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT If granted for the property, a zone change to "DM3" Residential District will hopefully impact future patterns of development by reversing a long standing trend of residential decline in the area. The property boundaries on the north and south could possibly be extended by addition of property that may be available for acquisition by potential developers. These properties include the warehouse at 1223 Turner and two vacant city-owned lots a short distance north of the site (see map). SUMMARY The request is to rezone city-owned property for neighborhood redevelopment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request to rezone the property from "H" Light Industrial District to "DM3" Residential District. Z-17-96 1301 Block Turner Street It J Eg 1 L. UUnit OD DO C&V i - , F R O N T E L_E V A T 1 O N S I D E E L E V A T I O N Keystone sTEIW HIPLLE PAVE root 3on u6ON ..� ` 1 • � _fix,== :• k ��it ..��f:_,z:..• �; `�.� 1 ti` .:.�4,,. �,!s�icy}•.; t�4.�,. t� �,. '. .•\��\ wa '� ��,} �iif. III 11,��[�(1 rS�h�•v-3�,' r•.. 11,i •1.a, _ 'j1 �' I III.7.. `;� fU�ItIRa�1�U � °1•It �t."1f. bV1.�!�' I� ,.5 i r� • ..:� � •'YID' ■ ��ti) / ^/ rd 7,71 ism �'1/..•6i7>V1 avl�s`u'y�....-._. IF�"�1��.itl��..'��.a� �;ie.",,..,'�L}�Sk1aC_`)i �,.ice . . fit' j1 1LF�':S' � •e. :.�-,_;. �yw;. •..��.,t, rt; Thwa p�oS`o.G�SiAII [rr � - tv. • .• . yi NORTH Z-17-96 1301 Block Turner Street Al t k Iv'WI bE arruMlNouS — RIVER II I • , ScoL>r: 1��5v \ I 4& LIVINI.I L�NI h M 4� L� 23 FLA�S 23-rowQHoyt�6 P IV4/91. Rev, / a Tup-NCR- STF�-EET FERGUSON DEVELOPMENT LLC [:]Keystone 1300 13LOCK TURNER STREET $TE1. a■uc vjk►c v000 lo.vso-. LANSING MICHIGAN t. NORTH Z-17-96 1301 Block Turner Street 3 0' 08L ti r„CTr,i .« Do1T;foN F,/a.,..r al.r +• C.'E" l VAc. STATE EGIS. II'f 5 Q •r-s jig vie• OB .... •.r• �• — IZ AR K a 6 NO ..: �o_ NtNG; - � _ - .\ �♦N ��6� F{' (.l �r I�ov3tl�tl�. � +.'' ; of 03 FtIVE(t' 4gr. . .:DR Eo-u to 10 O& 12 ' SI r•• � 11 14 hj.•. _ ^�' � �Sl +Ise E�� °\ DPP X• [Z! eJ° .c 1.MT c �4'�N� Lft�tt lt�OvST�N•I-• CLINTON ST. 0 • 0 � O IrrAff I Ye: R1-00 1 _011 6 5 T.• �1.�•w • Y. 8u.sx �� I 1 2 .r.l° AT G.&V of -me"— \ ` � 1 �... YEA -• 1 1 w a " L o to w Cr < �l\ •r /e Z ' apt m 5 I :U 12 I— w 1z 0 12 14 081 07/ n11 tir' 3 0cl ,g \; Z — 0 5 t) _ 0 4 it "6 12 ti 6 0 6.0 S , i rc •� N (• 3 .� 1 •Y•1 � GRAND RIVER AV E CLERK FOR POSTING CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION , MEMO T, r =: 1,. ! ,`!j1h s� �:i i"'r' CLF To: Planning Board Members From: Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager Subject: Cancellation of Regular Meeting of February 18, 1997 Date: February 7, 1997 The regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of February 18, 1997 has been canceled. The next meeting will be held on March 4, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Tenth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. The Urban Development Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the new offices of Planning Office located at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. See you there! EKL:LC aAcnc10218 r .. t �� APPROVED AS PRINTED MARCH 4, 1997 DRAFT TO CLERK 022897 APPROVED 030497 TO CLERK 032197 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ` 124 West Michigan Avenue v; l TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1997 E U; 1, 1. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. x v A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan; five members present; 1 absent, two vacancies. Ex officio councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence: Ruge. C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; Donna J. Wynant, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Goolsby read a letter announcing that the City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development would be moving its offices to a new location at 316 N. Capitol Avenue, effective February 17, 1997. 4. HEARINGS 1. Act-24-96, Washington Park, South Side Community Center Donna Wynant presented the case, a request by the Parks and Recreation Department for an Act 285 review to make recommendations regarding the possible acquisition of land for an expansion of Washington Park and for the possible siting of the South Side Community Center. Mr. Nischan asked what are we being asked to do. Ms. Wynant said the original request was to acquire four acres of land; however, that land is no longer available from Federal Forge. The City Council decided to endorse Concept II, possible acquisition of residential properties located between the park drives to facilitate the siting of the Center according to Concept II. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Love said the Planning Board is being asked to do a couple of things. State law requires that the Planning Board be involved in and make recommendations to the City Council relative to the siting of public community centers. However, the report that was generated by the Blue Ribbon Committee has already been acted upon by City Council. They looked at several sites. The City Council voted for the south end of the park. Concept II places the Community Center at a location bounded on two sides by residential development. The 4-acre piece of land we wanted to purchase would have allowed for some variation in the location of the center. Not having that land available positions the Community Center close to housing. The Board would be looking at (1) if additional land is acquired and (2) whether or not the siting of Concept II is in an appropriate location. BOB FORD, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, 809 CENTER STREET. I am a landscape architect working on behalf of Parks and Recreation; I will try to identify the issues. Also working with me is Richard Schaefer, landscape architect, Parks; and Joe Miller with Hobbs and Black. The request asked for four additional acres owned by Federal Forge. At that time they indicated that the four acre plot was not in use by them. It is similar to the remaining portion of the park. They thought it would make a good addition to the park for landscaping and buffering, and secondly, because the center was being contemplated. The addition would make for a better location of the center in the park. Since that time, Federal Forge had a change of circumstances; they now are contemplating building a second forge. Another circumstance is their bidding process on a five-year basis and securing contracts. They anticipate getting a large contract, and they will need to use the land. Lately they have indicated the milling operation might be located to the north. The east may be viable. We are willing to continue to work with Federal Forge to do a land exchange in order to secure the four-acre parcel. It would allow for buffering and better land use. You have the layout of the location of the South Side Community Center. I would like to introduce Mr. Miller who will talk about how the site was selected. JOE MILLER, HOBBS & BLACK. Our other task was to look at locational options for the South Side Committee. We established four criteria for site selection. One was easy accessibility for drivers and bus travelers. Another was proximity to similar facilities in order not to duplicate facilities here that were available at other facilities in the area. A third was the physical attributes of the site. The committee looked at sites that could handle a building of this size. The last was to look at city- owned properties to expedite the process to place it on park property or on a combination of school-park property. Beyond that a demographic analysis was done. When all that information was considered, the committee narrowed it down to concentrations of youth and senior populations on the south side. Considering that as another criterion for site selection, four sites were selected to be investigated further, Washington Park, Kendon Park, McKinch Park, and Everett High School. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 3 Each site was evaluated, and the committee decided that Washington Park was the best location of the four because it met the criteria. It was also central to the entire City. We looked at it as a community center rather than as a neighborhood center. We looked at the various areas within the park, north and south. BOB FORD. There were attributes that should be preserved. Mature trees should be saved. Kendon Park was examined and studied. The Blue Ribbon committee made the decision that the site was more conducive for the center at the south end of Washington Park. (Displayed board giving location of the 40,000 sq. ft. center, and parking.) According to code, 460 parking spaces would be required; however, based on recreational uses, we found that 275 spaces would be a more reasonable number. This site plan has 275 spaces, plus an overflow of about 100 spaces in the park. We feel parking demand will be met. We would still like to acquire the four acres. If this should occur, the center could be drifted slightly farther to the west; however, if it is not acquired in time, the four acres could still serve as a substantial buffer between the center and Federal Forge. The distance between the center and the residents to the south who reside on Dunlap Street is about 175 feet. The parking associated with that will be located 25 feet from the residential lot line. It is close, but there is a substantial elevation change, particularly in the southwest corner, of about 12 feet. The residents are sitting 12 feet higher than the park area; therefore, parking would be designed in such a way so that the majority of the parking would not be viewed directly from the backyards of the residents. They would be looking over the top of it. There is a small retaining wall; then the grade tapers to the east, back towards Washington Park where eventually grades do meet. We feel it is adequate, plus some additional plantings along the southerly line for adding buffering. Parking for the Ice Dome is located immediately to the west. Code requires 100 spaces, and 200 spaces are available. There is also additional overflow parking. We feel adequate parking is available in the park to accommodate the Community Center. The Blue Ribbon Committee thinks this is the most viable option. SANDY ALLEN, 5511 KAYNORTH. I served as co-chairman of the ad hoc committee, and I am also serving on the Blue Ribbon committee. We looked at several locations. The first choice was the north end of Washington Park, but we were sensitive to the tree issue. We looked at the south end of Kendon Park. Although it was our second choice, the Council's choice was the south end of Washington Park. We would like to purchase the Drop Forge parcel. I understand there is some land at the front of the park owned by Mr. Abraham, that may become available; I would also like to see that become a part of Washington Park where there are currently homes now. It was a unanimous decision of the Council to go ahead with the Community Center at the south end of Washington Park. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 4 BOB FORD. We did work with Michigan Capitol Medical Center. They expressed support for the Community Center and also using some of the facilities for their rehabilitation and classroom needs. They are supportive of the project. EMLY HORNE, 110 W. HODGE. I served on the ad hoc committee, and I endorse the acquisition of this four-acre property. The potential of the land for outdoor education would be great. Also, on behalf of the South Side Action Committee, the Land Use Committee also endorses the acquisition of the property. My neighborhood organization has not met, but it too will probably endorse this. JEANETTE McGILL, 633 W. DUNLAP. I have lived there 45 years. Most of us in the neighborhood are not pleased with having the community center there. We are used to the quiet of the park. It will bring more people to the area, which we do not appreciate. The thing we can't understand is that, when the first block of Dunlap Street was annexed into the city,the second two blocks down to King never had curb and gutter and paving installed, and Loa Street has never had any curb, except on the one block. We do have the sidewalk,but only because of the death of a student many years ago. There is sidewalk on one side of Dunlap Street. We are concerned about losing sight of the park from where we live, and being able to use it. The children use it constantly during noon hours in the spring, summer and fall. People eat their lunch in their car. There is a softball diamond. The ice rink has been used for a long time. When the lights are on, we can watch them, and enjoy it very much. The neighbors are not taking this very well, when we need curb and gutter and paving on the rest of our street. We have traffic; a sign says "No Trucks" but it doesn't mean a thing. They have ruined the pavement. It has ruts in it. Many of us would prefer not to have that much activity in our area. We are not in favor of it. Chairman Goolsby announced the end of the public hearing for Act-24-96. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee, next meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 in the new Planning Offices at 316 N. Capitol Avenue at 4 p.m. 2. Act-26-96, Aurelius Road Landfill, Public Service Ms. Love presented the case, a request by the Public Service Dept. to review the potential for reuse of the Aurelius Road landfill. The property is approximately 140 acres, located on the east side of Aurelius Road,just north of I-96. It is surrounded on the north and on the south by Delhi Township, and to the west is City of Lansing property, which is part of an industrial park. We have a presentation this evening by staff hired by the Public Service Dept. from Camp, Dresser and McKee, to do some initial technical studies relative to the existing conditions on the site, and also to make some recommendations about future uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 5 LENORA JADUN,DIRECTOR,PUBLIC SERVICE DEPT. The Public Service Dept. is in full support of this project. We hired Camp, Dresser and McKee about eight months ago to develop a remediation plan for the site and to look at its potential. We look at it as an opportunity, as a diamond in the rough. Many of you have driven down Aurelius and seen the land--it is unsightly. We could be a better neighbor as a city property, and turn it back into recreation land. Camp, Dresser and McKee can give you information about environmental questions you may have. They have done redevelopment of other landfills throughout the nation. The Planning Dept. and Eric Reickel approached me about three years ago about turning it into a softball site. Now we feel we have more information, and hope we can do something about the site. Also, Eric Van Riper from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality; they have also been a partner in this project. They will sign off on activity at the site and monitor ground water. RON FRENCH, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE. Working with the City, we are looking at redevelopment alternatives and addressing environmental concerns for the landfill. Tonight we are going to present what we have done so far, and what we are looking forward to in the future. I passed out a handout which shows where we will be in a couple years from now. Before I get into the slides, I would like to introduce Jerry Knight, the project engineer with Camp, Dresser&McKee, and Kevin Murray, who has worked on a lot of landfills. The vision for the Aurelius Road landfill is to take this usable asset owned by the City and convert it into something that can be used by the citizens and do it at a cost that is feasible and cost-effective. (Mr. French displayed slides of the area showing location, surrounding uses and development.) We have done some studies to check for environmental contamination associated with the site,because of concerns about groundwater contamination. Right now, we don't see any serious environmental threats to the groundwater at the site. We have done some work to evaluate potential for redevelopment for golf, softball diamonds, etc. Once we identify alternatives for the landfill, we will look at some construction and engineering support for on-site activities. Kevin Murray will talk about landfill redevelopment alternatives. KEVIN MURRAY, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE. As Ron mentioned, the objective here is to take an old closed landfill and turn it into a beneficial use. This has happened in other places. Tonight I will show you recommendations for how we think we can accomplish this objective, and also examples of where an old closed landfill has been turned into a beneficial use in many parts of the U.S. There are several ways of doing this; the first is city-sponsored development using city funds. The city would control the entire operation. The second way is to sell the property to a business interested in creating an alternative use, a beneficial use. The third is a combination of city-sponsored development of outside developers, and rents or leases the property to the developer for the alternative use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 6 In city-sponsored activities using city funds, the city would control the development and manage the environmental aspects of the landfill. A limitation here would be that the city may not realize the highest and best use for the site. It would not be on the tax roles and would produce no revenue. The city would have to identify environmental risks and pay development costs. If the city sells the property, the city would no longer have any management responsibilities and would be able fo collect property tax. As a constraint, the city may lose control over the development. The property may have a limited sale market. The city still has to identify the environmental risk and has to maintain environmental responsibilities. If the city sponsors development in a long-term lease, the city controls development, realizes property tax revenue, and controls environmental risks. Constraining factors include the city's responsibility to identify environmental risks and development of a comprehensive RFP that protects the city's interests. The City in the RFP must make sure its interests are protected both short-and long-term. Mr. Murray presented slide photos of redeveloped landfills in Michigan, California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin. RON FRENCH. We have prepared a schedule of proposed activities for 1997 for completing environmental studies, preparing and issuing the RFP, reviewing proposals, and by June 30, 1997 select the projects to be considered for development, and begin the actual project development by September 1, 1997. ERIC VAN RIPER,DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. We have been working with the city on this for a number of years. The proposal for recreational reuse of closed landfills is being done more and more across the state. We do have some minor concerns about environmental contamination, but these would not interfere with the redevelopment of the site. DICK SCHAEFER,PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT. The Parks Dept. is in favor of development for recreational purposes. We have done some conceptual plans for the site, and development for soccer fields. Lansing has a great need for this type of recreational use. Other things we looked at include a baseball complex, a golf driving range with a nine-hole complex. Open field activities such as soccer and baseball might lend themselves better to this site. We would like to accommodate activities up to Sycamore Creek. We have a long-term plan for development of the River Trail and would like to incorporate development for this type of use. Long term, 15, 20, or 25 years, we would like to extend the River Trail south from Potter Park up Sycamore Creek corridor and tie it into this site, and perhaps going even farther south towards Mason. Long-range, we would like to have consideration given to this type of land use for this site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 7 Chairman Goolsby announced the end of the public hearing for Act-26-96. The matter will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 in the new Planning Offices at 316 N. Capitol Avenue at 4 p.m. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: January 14, 1997 1. Mr. Nischan made a motion, supported by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of January 14, 1997 with one correction, Page 12, Pg 12 Ln 4.2" Pos 4.53" Next meeting WEDNESDAY, March 4 FEBRUARY 12. . . . With that correction, on a voice vote, the minutes of January 14, 1997 were unanimously APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. Next meeting Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236. No meeting in February. 2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Urban Development Committee met on January 28, 1997 and considered the following items. a. Act-27-96, 200 Block Rumsey Avenue, Alley Vacation The applicants are requesting that the City vacate a portion of a 12' x 44'alley behind their house at 220 Rumsey Avenue. The alley runs off Jerome St. through a single-family neighborhood zoned "C" Residential. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential use. According to the applicant, the alley is overgrown with bushes, strewn with rubble, broken glass and trash, etc. that has been left there for many years. The alley is abutted by a wooden fence to the east, and surrounded by trees to the north, south and east. Vehicles are often parked along the alleyway. One end of the alley has been vacated, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 8 it is not a through alley at this point. The applicants want to make the alley private property so it can be maintained and used appropriately. The applicants have obtained signatures from the surrounding neighbors; no one has any objection to the vacation of the alley behind the houses at 230 Rumsey and 221 Marshall Streets. The vacated portion of the alley was vacated on August 2, 1954. The Board of Water & Light has overhead facilities in the area, so an overhead easement would be necessary to preserve access. If the alley were vacated, it would be partitioned equally among two adjacent properties to the east and west sides of the alley and will not change the residential character of the neighborhood. Each property owner would receive approximately 264 square feet, half of an area 6 ft. wide x 44 feet long. The vacation of the alley should not cause any landlocking of any properties. People who need it will have access to the back of their property. The committee found, based on a review of the location, character and extent of the proposal, that vacation of the alley will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding uses, create any access problems for area residents or cause any landlocking of properties. The applicant was present at the committee meeting and indicated that they would like to put up a fence, clear the area, remove asphalt and turn it into a garden. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously(3-0) to approve the vacation of the north-south alley between 220 Rumsey and 221 Marshall Street, reserving appropriate easements for utilities and emergency vehicles. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve Act-27-96, 200 Block Rumsey Avenue, Alley Vacation. Mr. Greiner asked if there was any public interest in keeping the last 200 feet of the alley; Mr. Frederick said the lot next to them has parking in the back yard, and it is part of the parking, so there is a parking lot there for a few cars. They will have to maintain access to that. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: Greiner. . . Ave LeBlanc .Ave Nischan. Ave Frederick .Aye Goolsby. . . Aye PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 9 On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 5;Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-27-96, 200 Block Rumsey Avenue, Alley Vacation, was APPROVED. b. Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct., Closure to Through Traffic The Genesee Neighborhood Association has requested that the City close an unplatted public alley and vacate the drive at the east end of Bancroft Court. The alley measures 11 ft. wide x 119.37 ft. in length, and is located in a single-family residential area zoned `B" Residential and so designated in the River Island Area Comprehensive Plan. The alley has the character of a driveway path between the dead end of Bancroft Court and Leitram Avenue. Neighborhood residents want the alley closed in order to eliminate through traffic on Bancroft, and they submitted a petition signed by many neighborhood residents and/or property owners. The proposal has the support of the Police Department. The City acquired the property in 1917. The deed specifies the property is to be used as an alley. The Board of Water and Light and Consumers Power both have utilities for which easements would be required. Access to adjacent properties for residents and/or service vehicles must also be preserved. The Genesee Neighborhood Association completed a design of its proposal, which would close the alley and landscape the east end of Bancroft Court. The Transportation Engineer evaluated the proposals, and provided three options to provide for a vehicle turnaround at the east end of Bancroft Court. The primary concern is that the design of the street closure must meet the City's own design standards, or the City may be held liable if an accident occurs. The Transportation Engineer has offered to continue working with the neighborhood on the design of the project. Bancroft Court is not heavily traveled, but the use of the alley for through traffic has become a nuisance to adjacent residences; in fact, some of the residences have been hit by cars coming through. The house at 521 has been hit at least once. Because the City owns property in the area and has done some acquisition and clearance to eliminate overcrowding, the alley should not be vacated. Bancroft Court is a neighborhood street, and the neighborhood has a strong preference for its own proposal. Traffic Engineer proposals have shown creativity in the design and would reduce liability. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 10 The committee found, based upon location, character and extent of the proposal, that (1) Bancroft Court is not heavily traveled, but the use of the alley for through traffic has become a nuisance to adjacent residences. (2) The City's interests in utility access and future clearance efforts are valid reasons for retaining ownership of the property. (3) The City's potential liability in utilizing the neighborhood's design is likely to be negligible, and does not justify the increased paving required for a turnaround. In committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to approve the Genesee Neighborhood Association design for the closure of the Bancroft Court alley and to request that the Traffic Engineer continue working with the neighborhood on design issues for ultimate design of the closure. Both parties, the Traffic Engineer and the Neighborhood Association, were receptive to that proposal. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend approval of Act-17-96, 700- 800 Blks. Bancroft Ct., Closure to Through Traffic, the Genesee Neighborhood Association plan. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Mr. Greiner asked if Proposal #4 is without the turnaround. Ms. Love said Proposal #1 is basically the same as Proposal#4, without the turnaround. Mr. Greiner asked if it is the proposal the City has a problem with, in that without a turnaround it makes them liable? Ms. Love said they were reluctantly agreeable, because of the insignificant amount of traffic that actually goes through here. Mr. Rieske said the Traffic Engineer agreed to continue working with the neighborhood on design issues. Chairman Goolsby said the petition was first circulated in July of 1995; it is now February of 1997. We have not moved this very far. There is an issue here; maybe when it goes to City Council, they can address it. That would be the removal of those two houses. Both of them need access off the alley off of Leitram. If the two houses were removed, you could solve the circulation problem and still provide an opportunity for landscaping and things beneficial to the area. Chairman Goolsby said he did not see a lot of difficulties by closing this alley and not providing a larger turnaround than is provided by the Genesee plan. He thinks there is sufficient turnaround, maybe not what the Traffic Engineer would like to see, but sufficient for this particular street. Mr. Frederick said he supported the Genesee Neighborhood proposal because it is a group of neighbors who want to improve their neighborhood and make it more livable. Also, the City PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 11 apparently has not supported anything with the alley for many years. "It is difficult for me to accept the fact that they are interested in liability now." The other thing is that there do not appear to be resources to do a lot with the area including getting rid of the houses, or even building turnarounds. That could not happen for quite some time. Mr. Greiner asked about the motion as it now stands. We are doing two things, recommending vacation of the alley. The second thing is it would be nice if the Traffic Engineer could come up with something that would be agreeable to the neighborhood association regarding the turnaround, but if it can't, still vacate the alley. Chairman Goolsby suggested saying we would support the temporary closure of the alley with the use of the Genesee Neighborhood design and encourage a long-term solution which would accommodate both the neighborhood and the Traffic Engineer. Ms. Love suggested "a long-term solution which may require acquisition which would satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood and the Traffic Engineer ." Mr. Frederick's restated motion regarding Act-17-96 is to recommend a temporary closure of the alley with the use of the Genesee Neighborhood design, and the development of a long-term solution, which may require acquisition, that would satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood and the Traffic Engineer. LeBlanc. Ave Nischan .Ave Frederick. . . Ave Greiner .Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays:O; Act-17-96, 700-800 Blks. Bancroft Ct., Closure to Through Traffic was recommended to be APPROVED. C. Act-22-96, 1100 Block S. Washington Ave. W. Side, Parking Lot#7, Market for Sale. The Public Service Dept., Transportation Division, proposes to sell City Parking Lot #7 because the City is losing money by owning and maintaining it. Parking Lot#7 is located on the west side of S. Washington Avenue, 1100 Block, east of the Grand River. The parking lot serves the block of business establishments on S. Washington Avenue south of Elm Street and north of South Street. Surrounding businesses include the Michigan Electrical Supply building, Ramon's Restaurant, a bowling alley east of Washington Avenue, and numerous small business establishments. Like the surrounding area, the parcel is zoned "F-1" and "F" Commercial. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 12 The parcel is 82 feet wide by approximately 290 ft. in length. The eastern portion is a paved and relatively level parking lot with room for approximately 50 off-street parking spaces. The southern 6 ft. of the site includes an easement as part of Cottage Avenue, which serves a pair of houses adjacent to the southwest end of the site. The river to the west is estimated to be more than 30 ft. below the main surface of the lot, with a steep slope which appears to preclude useful access directly to the river. Any River Trail development would likely occur east of this slope on more level ground. This portion, between the river and the SE corner of the property at 121 Gross, could be retained for river frontage without severely hindering the functioning of the parking lot. Parks Department has requested the City retain about 100 feet back from the Grand River, and the Board of Water and Light needs to maintain electric utilities (two poles, overhead lines, and a transformer) on the southern edge of the site. There appears to be a significant supply of both on- and off-street parking in the vicinity to serve current business establishments. A public hearing was held on January 14, 1997 regarding this issue. No members of the public attended, and no comments were received. According to the current usage and 1994 revenue stream, public parking Lot #7 is neither financially feasible nor necessary for economic development at this time. Eliminating this revenue drain could help to provide more resources for parking downtown, which has been targeted as a higher priority. Both the parking lot and the on- street parking are significantly underutilized at this time. While the River Point master plan amendment indicates a shortage of parking, it also notes that this shortage is on the east side. East side businesses would be able to put in an offer for this property, and have the opportunity to alleviate any shortage. "The Goals and Objectives for the Twenty-First Century" specify that public parking should be provided in the Central Business District as needed and where feasible to support economic development. The"F" and"F-V Commercial zoning designations in the 1100 Block of S. Washington require the private provision of parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 13 River frontage, to a depth of 25', must be retained, or an election is required for its sale. Access to this portion is provided by the Cottage Street easement. The retention of more than 60 ft. of depth from the river is considered feasible. The committee found, based on its review of the location, character and extent of the proposal, that (1) The downtown area is top priority for providing public parking; (2) The current zoning designations in this area require the private provision of parking; (3) Both on- and off-street parking facilities are underutilized in this area; and (4) The proposal provides sufficient space for River Trail development at grade level. In committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of the marketing and eventual sale of Parking Lot #7 (eastern portion), and to transfer the rear portion (river frontage), to a depth of more than 60 ft. to the Parks Department. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend that Act-22-96, 1100 Block S. Washington Ave. W. Side, Parking Lot #7, Market for Sale, be approved. Mr. Greiner asked, if it is the City's intention that this parcel remain parking although not in City ownership, would it not be advisable for us while it is still city-owned to change the zoning to Parking? Ms. Love said she did not know if we are interested in maintaining it as parking. If the businesses on the east side of the street wish to buy it and use for parking, they can do so. We don't want to prohibit anyone from developing commercial uses on the site, if they so choose and as long as they have adequate parking on the site for their use. Mr. Frederick said if they did put something in there, it would have to include parking. Ms. Love said the Master Plan says that in the "G-V Business District, which is downtown, this district assumes that the City will provide parking, unlike the"F" Commercial District, where the City is not required or assumed to make parking available. Chairman Goolsby said we talked to Mr. Berridge about this. The City loses money on this lot. There is little traffic on the east except around Ramon's; meters are always available. In "F-1", they are required to have their own parking, so that is taken care of. He voted for this because he would never vote to rezone this to "G-1 If. The developer should be providing the parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 14 Nischan . Ave Frederick. . .Ave Greiner. Ave LeBlanc .Ave Goolsby. . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0, carried unanimously; Act-22-96, 1100 Block S. Washington Ave. W. Side, Parking Lot #7, Market for Sale, was recommended to be APPROVED. d. Proposed Goals and Objectives and Projected Use of Funds - Federal Housing Programs 1997-98 Emil Winnicker distributed and discussed a detail sheet titled CDBG FY 1996-7 Public Service Breakdown. Mr. Frederick briefly reviewed changes for the record. The CDBG Housing Rehabilitation line item also includes a $45,000 contribution for LISC activities. The "CHODO" line items in the HOME Program covers funding for Community Housing Development Organizations such as the Franklin Street Cooperative and others and some non-CHODO organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The$20,000 in FY 96-97 CDBG Acquisition and Clearance funds will be used primarily for maintenance and security of properties that were acquired with funds from other program years. These funds also cover the"Rain Fee" charges to these properties. The Seven Block area is the top priority for acquisition and clearance funds. These activities are funded by previous program years, and while final costs area not yet known, they are expected to be high. The committee found, based on testimony and evidence, that the Proposed Objectives and Projected Use of Funds - Federal Housing programs 1997-98 conforms to established master plan policies and objectives. In committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0)to approve the Proposed Objectives and Projected Use of Funds -Federal Housing programs 1997-98 as presented. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend approval of Proposed Objectives and Projected Use of Funds - Federal Housing programs 1997-98. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 15 PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Proposed Objectives and Projected Use of Funds - Federal Housing programs 1997-98 was recommended to be APPROVED Next meeting TUESDAY, February 25, 1997, at 4 p.m., Planning Office Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236. 3. Executive Committee Chairman Goolsby said the Executive Committee did meet this evening at 6 p.m. to discuss the procedure about going into Committee of the Whole after public hearings and considering things. We reached no conclusions tonight. Ms. Love will obtain additional information for us from the City of East Lansing. We will meet again before our next meeting and come to some conclusion. C. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. We do have an application for a rezoning, at 519 N. Chestnut, filed earlier this week. It is property that is presently zoned half "C" Residential and half "DM-3". We believe the property was donated to a group called Pray America that has been utilizing the building for over a year as an office. We have sent them a letter indicating that this use is illegal, and that they needed either to rezone the property or we would be happy to help them look for another location in the downtown area. Apparently they are not inclined to do that, and they have filed for the rezoning. I did indicate to them that the staff would not be supporting this rezoning, since it is surrounded on all sides by residential uses and is indicated in the Master Plan for continued residential uses, but that I could not speak for the Board, or for City Council. This rezoning will be heard on March 4. Neither one of the Urban Development or the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be meeting again before our next scheduled meeting which is on February 18. It would be my recommendation if there is no business before the Board on February 18 that we cancel the meeting. A motion was made by Ms. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Greiner, and carried unanimously that the February 18, 1997 meeting be canceled and that we next meet at our regularly scheduled March 4 meeting; APPROVED. Mr. Frederick said that we did agree at the Executive Committee to have a meeting just before the February 18 meeting. Chairman Goolsby said that if agreeable, we will meet at 6 p.m. on March 4,just before the regular meeting. Mr. Ruge should be notified immediately. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 16 1. Z-18-96, 4720 S. Cedar Street (East 183 Feet), "A" Residential to "D-V Professional Office District Ms. Love said she re-read the minutes and could find no substantial land use reasons in the Board's comments to use in conveying this information to City Council. It is necessary for the Board to have appropriate land use reasons. I would like to ask you to do two things. One is, if the Board would be willing to reconsider their position from the last meeting. The second is, if the Board is not willing to do that, then I need Board members to elucidate some land use reasons why this should be denied. Good prudent practice would indicate that we have examined that issue in light of land use rationale. Mr. Nischan said we voted on a land use we thought was appropriate. That was our appropriate land use recommendation. Mr. Greiner said the remainder of the block fronting on Cedar Street is "F" Commercial; the property abutting this parcel is "F" Commercial, and the closest thing to"D-V is across the side street, and in order to keep the zoning consistent within that block, it should be"F" Commercial, not "D-V Office. Mr. Greiner said, had the owner brought the request to us, he would have voted for it. The sole reason he did not vote for it was that the owner was not the one who brought the case. He brought another equally acceptable request to us with the proposal. The City is coming along after having turned down a reasonable proposal and saying we want you to go this route. "I don't know that the City has any real right to do that. That may not be a land use reason, but I don't know that we have to have a land use reason that is legal. The City Council did not have a legitimate land use reason for turning down the other one--why do we have to have such a defined reason for turning down this?" Mr. Frederick asked, because the property owner was not party to this request but rather the City, it would have to be the City that would have to bring court action on this one? Mr. Goolsby said no. "If I am the owner of this property, I would sue, if the City Council approved this. . . . I firmly believe that part of the state zoning code that gives the City the right to petition is probably unconstitutional. . . . I would argue that the rezoning would be a taking, and I think I would prevail. . . ." Mr. Goolsby said he thinks the City is at a disadvantage here. Going back to that point of asking when has this been invoked in the past? He has been told this is the first time it has been invoked in this manner. It was used in Green PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 17 Oaks, where it had wide approval. Ms. Love said 123 parcels in Green Oaks were rezoned at that time. Only owners who initially came in were in the neighborhood association. There were owners who protested; their properties were rezoned from"DM-4"to"C"Residential. Both the Planning Board and City Council overruled protests of certain individual owners in the area. That was down zoning; it went from a more intense to a less intense zoning. This is presently zoned"A"; if it goes to either"D-1" or"F", it does not minimize the potential economic use of the property. Ms. Love said she does not see it as a taking. Ms. Love said the other issue deals with the continent about who the applicant is; that could be misconstrued. Mr. Greiner said he was talking about an applicant who is not the owner, and does not have the owner's concurrence. Mr. Nischan said when we voted to recommend "F", we gave land use reasons for doing that. One of them was the level of intensity of use. In that regard, we allowed for the reality that there are instances in which lesser intensity is not desirable because lesser intensity restrictions make the land not usable. The land itself is already an illustration of that. The less intense residential use makes it not usable. Increasing it to "D-1" does not make it a realistically usable parcel. It does not solve this land use problem for the City. When it finally came in as commercial, we said it sounds right because everybody else said it sounds right. Lesser intensity is not always the answer, but one of the things we distinctly heard was that a lesser intensity use can very well make it unattractive and unusable for"D-1" zoning. Some of the things across the street identified as "D-1" aren't "D-1"; they are commercial. Ms. Love said"Auto Zone" is zoned"F" Commercial;there is "D-1" property to the north of it. Mr. Nischan said reiterating Mr. Greiner's statement, the level of intensity surrounding is basically commercial. We heard testimony saying that anything less than that, along with all the restrictions that come with it, make that property not usable. That is the land use reason why we recommended what we did. We are saying that is why we are rejecting that, if the land use reason underneath it is that a lesser intensity does not work. If lesser intensity worked, we would not have a problem, because"A" is as little intensity as you can have. It needs a level of intensity to work, and that's why we recommended it, and "D-1" won't work. That was your question, why wouldn't a lesser intensity work. Ms. Love said there is a difference--"F" Commercial to "D-1" is one thing; "F" Commercial to "A" is something else. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Nischan said the testimony we heard is that "D-1" wouldn't work either. We were told that for that particular parcel, that kind of zoning with all its restrictions and uses would not be a commercially viable property. Ms. LeBlanc said it is the feeling of this Board that just as if that property were left "A" Residential that no one would move in there. It is also the feeling that if we rezoned it to Office, that we would not find an office use going into that location. Mr. Greiner said if the City Council feels it is not sufficient, they are perfectly free to vote for whatever they want. Mr. Goolsby said we have had testimony that this would not be a viable area for office use in the City, that there is no demand for it at this location. "I would never locate my law practice there. It is not a good place for a law practice. It is not close to courts. For medical, there is medical across the street. I don't think there is a great need for medical there." In the last seventeen or eighteen years, Mr. Goolsby has not seen any office development there. Ms. Love said the architect was willing to establish his office there. Mr. Goolsby said, though he was willing to establish his office, it would have been in the back. This would have been inappropriate because he would have placed it in the residential district beyond that magical line drawn separating residential from Cedar Street frontage. We wanted to be consistent with the line. When he was informed, he did not come in to amend his petition. Mr. Goolsby said the two hot places to open offices now are downtown Lansing and Lake Lansing Road. Testimony has indicated that there is no demand for "D-1". And consistency. Those are two sufficient reasons. D. Pending Items: Future Action Required. 1. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-96, 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) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 19 Ms. Love said, regarding Act-02-96, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot, Ms. Love told Mr. Wohlert he needed 150 spaces. Mr. Wohlert has had a parking lot drawn up for 250 spaces. He wants it fenced. "I thought this was all settled. I wrote a letter for Mr. Patenge to write back to me to say that he was going to pave his parking lot, and then I was going to give him Case Street." After the new year a letter came in from International Paper Workers Union President saying that Mr. Patenge really wanted to pave the parking lot but there were City ordinances that would not allow him to, and if there was anything we could do to help them protect their property, could we please do that. "I have prepared a response to Mr. Westerfeld indicating that the City is very much in support of having the parking lot put in and that as far as I knew, there is no ordinance that would prohibit them from putting in their parking lot, and that I had searched federal, state and local sources of funds for that and had found nothing that would permit us to use those funds for them to put in a private parking lot. I told Mr. Patenge that June of 1997 was sufficient time for them to have it done. I also told Mr. Westerfeld in the memo that we had passed a recommendation in the Planning Board and subsequently at City Council to give Mr. Patenge two parcels for$1 when they were actually valued at almost $9,000 and that we were willing to help rezone his property, and prepare landscaping plans, that the total value of our support to him at this point was well over $10,000 and that we were also going to vacate a part of Case Street to him as soon as he paved his parking lot." In actuality, we had been trying to support this process all along. Ms. Love has called Mr. Hamill, who works for Mr. Patenge, indicating that no source of revenue has been found and that we expect them to pave their parking lot by June. He is now using City property for parking. We can take several courses of action. Mr. Nischan asked about landscaping, encouraging Board members to be tough on this requirement, because Grand River is a corridor to Old Town. If the eastern corridor to Old Town looks bad, it doesn't help Old Town, it detracts. We can have a nice transition from residential to a golf course to some nice landscaping; then you are in Old Town. Secondly, it says for sale as a parking lot, but once you sell it to him, it is tough to make sure it is really for a parking lot and not an expansion, so you can't prevent an expansion use, once you sell it. If you sell it for parking, can he use it for something else? Ms. Love said it is zoned Residential. The zoning will dictate what he uses the property for. He has to have it rezoned. Mr. Nischan said control of long term use of the corridor is what we would be giving up. Ms. Love said the two parcels are minuscule, relatively sneakine. Mr. Nischan does not see sensitivity to issues on the part of this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 4, 1997 Page 20 corporation. It is not reasonable to expect that they are going to be more sensitive after we sell them $10,000 worth of property for $2. We should be thinking about this, and is it possible to offer the property for sale to bring the City more revenue and give us more assurance of a use more compatible with the area? Are we bound to a sale to them for $1? Ms. Love said the parcels are small and surrounded on three sides by his property. Thirty-three feet of our property fronts on Grand River Avenue. The two parcels would make up one small-sized residential lot. "In return for his paving the lot, I was willing to give up the property for $1, because I have been waiting for 15 years. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN -None. 10. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Se etary Lansing Planning Board minutes\mn020497 a:\36 APPROVED A5 PRINTED MARCH 18, 1997 DRAFT TO CLERK 031497 APPROVED 031897 TO CLERK 032197 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD r r 7 p.m., City Council Chambers r �' Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ;11 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY MARCH 4 1997t c-) 1. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan; Ruge; six members present; two vacancies. Ex officio councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence. None. C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary; and Greg Orlofski, Intern in the Planning Office, Urban Planning student, MSU. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Chairman Goolsby noted that some agendas listed Item 1.B. Z-2-96 as 517 N. Chestnut; the correct address is 519 N. Chestnut. Under Business Session, the Committee of the Whole will consider Item E. NCU-1-97 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use. 3. COMMUNICATIONS. Chairman Goolsby read several communications into the record. The Planning Office received a phone call from Mr. Mike Keen regarding Z-4-97, M.L. King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District. His parents have lived across the street on Fletcher Street for years. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. He is strongly opposed. Also concerning Z-4-97, on March 3, 1997, the Planning Office received a phone call from Betty Niklas, 1225 W. Jolly Road, opposed. There are a number of other drugstores in the neighborhoods. It would cause more traffic in the area. Regarding Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District, we have a letter from Paul J. Marks of N. Waverly Road in Eaton Rapids, owner of the property at 517 N. Chestnut, immediately south of property at 519. He is opposed to the zoning change. "The property is within the area governed by the River Island Master Plan amendment, which prohibits its use as an office. All property owners in the area must abide by PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 2 the plan's provisions, and the Planning Board must uphold these provisions, or there will cease to be a plan. To grant this exception will open the door for additional change requests, which will then be difficult to deny. "This property has been used as an office since April, 1995, in violation of existing zoning and, in spite of repeated warnings, no action was taken by the owner until a citation was issued. Shouldn't a zoning change have been secured before moving in, instead of proceeding with illegal use of the property? The validity of the change request application is also suspect considering I was told by City Compliance Officer Vince Cantrell that he knocked on the door of the downstairs unit, and upon asking if this was the office of Pray America, he was told that it was "Right to Life". This would indicate that the whole structure is being used as office space, not just the upper unit, as the application states. "There has been a dramatic increase in traffic due to these offices, which creates both a hazard and a nuisance for the residents. The parking situation has become difficult as well. Both of these factors have greatly diminished the enjoyment of surrounding properties by the residents. "There is an ample supply of property zoned office space for lease or sale in the immediate area which is in compliance with the Master Plan, so there is no need to create more, especially in a location where it is forbidden. Spot zoning is also very poor professional practice. "For these reasons I strongly urge you as a body to deny the zoning change request for 519 N. Chestnut Street." We also have agency referrals which will become part of the staff report for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. We have one from the Downtown Neighborhood Association stating that Z-2-97 should be denied. Intrusion of office uses is inconsistent with the River Island Master Plan amendment, which all other property owners and potential property owners have been required to obey. The use is incompatible with the neighborhood and is injurious to the public and private effort to bolster the residential area. Even if the plan amendment permitted the change, site requirements could not be met as subject property shares a driveway with the residential property at 517 N. Chestnut. Parking disputes exist between the properties, according to both sides. The applicant has been in violation of code for two years. The tenant has also violated code for the last five to six months, but may have discontinued violation within the past two weeks. The applicant is financially able to rent the upper unit as a residence. It still has a kitchen and bathroom (there is a notation: and move its office elsewhere). Tickets should be issued. Those are all the communications we have received. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 3 4. HEARINGS Mr. Ruff explained to the audience the rezoning process through final action by City Council. He presented a handout. Tonight is the Planning Board hearing, the time for public comment or questions. There is time for public comment, but this is the best time. After the Planning Board public hearing tonight, the cases will then go to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning Board which will review tonight's information, together with a staff report for each case. The subcommittee meeting is held the second Wednesday following, in the Department conference room, at 4 p.m. Written comments will be accepted any time during the process. Once the Zoning and Ordinance Committee reviews the staff report, they make a recommendation which comes to this Board two weeks from tonight, tentatively, if everything moves smothly and the process is not delayed. At that time, the Planning Board will also receive public comment prior to taking action. After that, it will be referred to the Mayor and City Council, which will also hold a public hearing. For those of you here tonight because you received a mailed postcard which the Planning Board as a courtesy mails to every property owner within 300 feet of a parcel being rezoned. The Council does not do that-- Council's required notification is published in the newspaper. It is imperative, if you want to follow the process, that you follow up and learn when Council holds its public hearing. We don't know that date today. After Planning Board makes its decision, you will be able to call the Council Office and find out their hearing date. That public hearing is held; then the item is referred to a subcommittee of Council, Development and Planning, which reviews the material and public comment and reports. They make a recommendation to City Council, where the final action is taken. Just because the City of Lansing receives a petition does not mean that the City is supportive. We review petitions as they are received and requested by the applicants. Please make sure people you know who are interested receive the information, or you can call our office. A. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District Greg Orlofski presented the case, a request by Faiek Zeineh, owner of the property at 621 and 623 E. Michigan Avenue, for rezoning to "G-1" Business for a restaurant featuring Middle Eastern food. Both the North-East Area Plan and the Cedar/Larch District Area Plan designate this area for commercial use, specifically "G-1". A current residential use on the second floor of 621 E. Michigan will be abandoned and the space used for storage once development begins. The requested zoning change is necessary to eliminate the parking requirement since the property does not have space for on-site parking. Mr. Ruge asked the status of parking in the area; Ms. Love said less than we PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 4 anticipated. We have increased metered, monthly long-term, and designated parking, and added spaces on the south side of Michigan between Cedar and Larch; the old Liskey space to the south, and Lot#50, on the southwest corner of Pere Marquette and Shiawassee, for employee parking for nearby businesses. There seems to be ample parking. The applicant was not present. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Ron Morin, representing Pray America for rezoning 519 N. Chestnut St. from "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant is proposing to continue using the first floor of the structure as a residential unit and the second floor as an office for their nonprofit corporation. The lot is residential, surrounded by residential zoning. The River Island Master Plan Amendment designates properties in this block on Chestnut for low density residential land use. The building, built in 1895 as part of the original plat of the City, has been used as a two-family dwelling since at least 1944, and up through 1994. Within the last year, Pray America converted it to office use without permits. The property is just north of an area being redeveloped by the City along Genesee Street where six homes are being constructed across from Ferris Park, which has been acquired by the city and refurbished as a park at some future time. Mr. Ruge asked the use of the property from 1994 to 1996 when Pray America started using it as an office. Mr. Ruff did not know. STEVE SANDSTEDT, 7311 GLEN TERRA DRIVE, LANSING, ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PRAY AMERICA. Pray America has owned the property for the last couple of years. One of our board members had it. Prior to our being there, both the upper and lower level were under continuous use as student rental. Since Pray America got the property, we have painted and redone some things and cleaned the home up. During the time of our ministry involvement with the City, we had some computers and equipment there, and we began to use the one level to meet in and rented out the other. It was offsetting some of our costs. As we look back, we have not complied with the letter of the law as related to the revitalization of that area, but we have complied with the spirit of the law in terms of PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 5 neighborhood revitalization. We have no intention of not being a good resident in the city and want to provide ministry services particularly in our geographical location. In using the facility, there is adequate parking. It is not a "traditional" office use, it is a low intensity use. A previous comment said that Right to Life was officing in the lower level. Right to Life has an office in the Knapps Building. One of their employees was renting and living in the lower level while doing some office work at home. I understand that for the last couple of weeks he is no longer doing that, but he is continuing to live in the lower level. As a neighbor, we feel that the facility, from the physical structure standpoint, can be compatible in the neighborhood. We have been a good neighbor in a lot of regards. We understand the conflicts with our residential neighbor on the one side. The future will dictate some things relating to the use of the driveway not appropriate to get into at this time. Pray America works with Project Teamwork in the Lansing area in terms of neighborhood revitalization. Pray America coordinates the prayer network of 135 pastors from 135 churches in Lansing out of this location. On March 15, those 135 pastors will be engaged in a chaplaincy program with the City where they will be riding with police officers in the neighborhoods. This may be unprecedented in some cities. We are excited as our churches begin to take on a bigger responsibility in terms of neighborhood revitalization. We are in a dilemma--our ministry does not have a lot of money. We got this house at a very good price and we have been there. We want to be a good corporate citizen in the City. We know that this rezoning would be a spot zoning per se. We have looked at all the other options. If we had a larger piece of property, we could get it rezoned and be a church at that location, but we would need two acres of land. We looked at trying to be a fraternal organization, which would be a special use permit. The Planning Department informed us that would not be the best attempt, we should get a rezoning as an office space because that more closely mirrored what we did. We consider ourselves a fraternal organization because of the pastors, and are looking for ways to continue doing what we are doing, fitting in appropriately, and trying to bring our spirit of the law more in line with the letter of the law. PAUL MARKS, 333 N. WAVERLY ROAD, EATON RAPIDS. I am the owner of the property at 517 N. Chestnut. We purchased the property because of the City's intent to rehabilitate the neighborhood, and also the Ferris Park View development, which will purchase dilapidated homes in the area, demolish them, and build new homes for moderate and low-income families who qualify, with the proviso that they remain in residence for ten years. Obviously, the City recognizes the correlation between long-term desirability of the area and owner-occupancy. To grant this request would be in direct opposition to this plan, which is part of the River Island Master Plan PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 6 Amendment. Recently, I spent some time driving the area surrounding 519 N. Chestnut looking for residences or converted residences with signs in front advertising commercial office space for lease. The advertisements would imply that proper zoning is in place to support the activity. With an ample supply in the area, I don't see any need to create more, especially where it is against the City's intended and stated plan. From the moment that Pray America took possession of the property at 519 N. Chestnut, it was very obvious what their intent for the use of the property was. My only encounter with Mr. Morin was with a discussion of the parking in the area. In spite of the existing zoning, they moved in and used the structure as an office. I take exception to their statement that their use is low intensity, given the fact that it is on a volunteer basis. These are non-paid staff; they do not stay eight hours a day. There is a constant flow of traffic in and out of the residence, and it creates a fair amount of stir in the cramped parking area that is shared by the two residences, not to mention the traffic in a residential area with children and students in the streets. Obviously, they had no regard for the zoning in place at the time, and ignored several warnings and were finally issued a citation and applied for a zoning change only after that citation was issued. It was two days prior to the hearing for the citation. I don't think they ever intended to comply had they not been discovered. The previous speaker mentioned that 519 Chestnut had been used as a residence, and when we purchased 517, it indeed was. There were several students residing in the property, and although there were four or five cars, and two from our property, we managed to park and get in and out, using the south side as ingress and egress, and the north side as angle parking. As soon as Pray America moved in, they began to demand requirements of our tenants, telling them they should park here or there and not here, or avoid various objects, yet still continuing to enjoy free ingress and egress on the south side of this shared asphalt slab between the properties. We oppose this for many reasons. It undermines the City's existing plan; it betrays the trust of people who purchased property in that area, and of people who have come to reside in the area, based on the stated plan. There is an abundance of office space available with proper zoning and parking. The increased traffic runs counter to residential use, not to mention that for the last two years, they have operated in violation of the law, but it took a citation to make them apply for this change. There are plenty of other places for them to go, and I hope you recommend denial for this change. AL KOCHKA, 518 N. PINE. Directly behind 519 N. Chestnut. I have lived there for four years. I have worked hard to get owner occupancy on a more even keel with rental. There is no room for this kind of zoning variance. Of the six houses mentioned, three facing Ferris Park have now been sold. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 7 More families with children will be moving in as owner-occupants. Three will be sold very shortly. They are handsome houses; they fit the neighborhood. This zoning request does not fit the neighborhood. If there is a lot of traffic coming in and going out of an area, it generally indicates an area with drug traffic. I thought that Pray America was a drug house because of the traffic. Obviously, they are not, yet I don't think we should become confused over the good work that they do. This is in violation of the plan that is in existence. The surrounding neighbors are opposed to it. I hope you do the right thing tonight. STEPHANIE WHITBECK, 620 W. IONIA REPRESENTING THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I went to the property at 519 N. Chestnut and met with the people there. They seemed like nice people. We would enjoy having them continue to be in our neighborhood, but we would prefer they were where they were zoned properly. Changing a zoning changes it permanently. We would hope that the Planning Board will continue to uphold the River Island Master Plan amendment. Those of us who own property have had to follow it, and we are committed to it. It is a threatened neighborhood. If you drive around and look at the state buildings, houses used to be there. The parking lots used to be houses. What is left is the original City, with wonderful housing stock. To change the zoning, changes it forever. To demolish homes to build office buildings changes it forever. We would like for Pray America to stay in the neighborhood. They have been operating there for the past two years, first on the lower level, and then for the past five or six months, on the upper level. That building could have sufficient cash flow without their selling it; they ought to be able to move. They pay $500 a month for it; the downstairs tenant pays $400. The upstairs is rentable continued as a residence; there is a kitchen and a bathroom there. There should not be a hardship or them to comply with zoning requirements. We request that you maintain the zoning and that you recommend that the City Council continue the policy. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Z-3-97, Willow St. and M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Velmeir Co., L.L.C., to rezone property at the southwest corner of M.L. King Blvd. and W. Willow Street PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 4, 1997 Page 2 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-24-96, Washington Park, South Side Community Center b. Act-26-96, Aurelius Road Landfill, Public Service Next meeting Tuesday,March 25,1997 at 4 p.m.,Planning Office, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236 3. Executive Committee C. Report from Planning Manager: D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Urban Development Committee a. Act-2-95, 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 (UDC Tabled November 26, 1996) 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. 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. 3-0497ag.Imr aA36 PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 8 from "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District for the purpose of constructing a 10,880 sq. ft. retail Arbor Drug pharmacy. It includes existing properties extending to Theodore Street on the south, and toward Linwood Street on the west. There are eight residential lots and one commercial lot, with a total of 11 residential units, counting the apartments. The River Island Comprehensive Plan designates the vicinity for residential, while also recognizing existing commercial zoning of the property. Ms. LeBlanc asked if the Transportation Engineer's comments had been requested and received; Mr. Ruff said yes, and not as yet. We can make sure they do provide us with comments. TODD BRUNST, 2205 JOLLY RD., SUITE B, WITH DMR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, representing applicant. (Distributed site plans). The property currently is used as a Sir Pizza store and has been for many years. Barry Jubeck decided to retire. We have acquired it as the key purchase in the acquisition and secured the purchase opportunity for the surrounding properties. The plan is to build a 10,000 sq. ft. retail store with ingress and egress only on the surrounding commercial traffic areas, and with significant buffers surrounding the balance of the site. Arbor is Michigan-based, with about 200 stores state-wide. In recent years, there has been a demise of neighborhood pharmacies. Arbor serves the neighborhood, becoming part of the community and providing employment opportunities for neighborhood people. The structures are high-quality; signing is unobtrusive, and lighting is contained in the site. There are buffers and setbacks, especially on Theodore Street. There is nearly 80 feet of setback from the property line to the building itself. Arbor provides well- landscaped and -maintained stores. In addition to prescription items, they provide the community with foodstuffs and other materials. What we are providing is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruge asked if Arbor Drug sells alcohol? Mr. Brunst said yes, but it is not a prerequisite of their store locations. Only beer and wine will be sold at this location. Mr. Ruge asked about parking requirements for a building of this size; Mr. Ruff said a summary on their site plan shows 54 spaces provided and 52 required, based on a 1:150 ratio, which is what we would use in this instance. So it appears potentially to meet code requirements for parking. Mr. Frederick asked proposed open hours; Mr. Brunst said 10 a.m.-10 p.m. ELIZABETH SERVEIN, 1307 N. LOGAN. I am against the proposal. I have lived there and have worked hard to keep it clean. When I moved in the PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 9 area was residential. Over the years it has gone downhill, but some people try to keep up their property. There are two area schools, the former School for the Blind, now Madison Academy. There are children, and traffic is dangerous. This pharmacy doesn't make no justice for the community, (1) because it creates a hang-out for junkies. In the past we have had problems with drugs. We don't need another pharmacy; we have two at Saginaw and Logan, one Rite Aid, and another right across the street. Why do we need another pharmacy four, five, or six blocks away? There are other areas where a pharmacy can be put in. Ice cream areas? We have a Quality Dairy that sells ice cream. Do we need another pharmacy for junkies to hang out and get in trouble? No. WILMA LANTRIP, 1123 W. WILLOW. They will be my neighbors. The one driveway will run right beside my driveway, which I don't like. I am opposed to this too, because of the Rite Aide that went in at Saginaw and Logan. I heard you ask them about the beer and wine. Aren't they having trouble with Rite Aid selling beer and wine; now they want to sell hard liquor? I am opposed to this, especially with the school across the street. Have you already approved this? Am I wasting my time, because they are already out there, drilling and doing environmental stuff? Who is doing this? Mr. Jubeck and I have been neighbors for 25 years; I worked for Mr. Jubeck at Sir Pizza, and for his brothers. I have no problem with Sir Pizza there. We have worked together for the neighborhood. I am going to be the person left in the neighborhood living next to this. I have seen people killed in front of my house. People say why don't I move out of that neighborhood? I can't, because people get killed in my neighborhood and nobody wants to buy my house. I am very, very against this. BARRY JUBECK, 11925 UPTON. I own part of the property there. At this point Mr. Jubek addressed the audience; Chairman Goolsby directed that comments be made to the Board, but Mr. Jubek continued. Chairman Goolsby declared a five-minute recess. Subsequently, Chairman Goolsby called the meeting to order, directing comments be addressed to the Board and not to audience members. Mr. Jubeck resumed. BARRY JUBECK. I was the proprietor of Sir Pizza; I owned the property for 30 years. We fought druggies over there. I think if people are really concerned, they need to visit an Arbor Drug. They are going to put $3 million on that corner. They are not going to let some druggie sell drugs there. They are going to have better lighting and fix that corner. I think it is a plus for the neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 10 MARIE PAPPAS, 1122 W. WILLOW, AT THE CORNER OF WILLOW AND ROBINSON. I have lived there since 1960. There is crime and drugs in my neighborhood. Most of the drugs come from parking lots. I can look out my kitchen window any day of the week and watch a drug deal in Quality Dairy's parking lot, the carwash parking lot, and the laundromat parking lot. I watch people urinate behind the Quality Dairy. Kitty-corner from Sir Pizza is Willow Street School, where I also work. I don't know how many feet from a school you have to be to have a beer license. We have drug stores on the two corners of Saginaw and Logan; also on N. Grand River, just two blocks from ProBowl. There is a drug store in Tom's ShopRite in the center at Willow and N. Grand River. That is four drug stores within walking distance of Willow and Logan. We don't need another drug store. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-4-97, M.L. King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by the same company to rezone property in the 1900 block of S. M.L. King Blvd., as well as the 1000 Block of Mt. Hope and Lenore Avenue from "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District, a similar request to the last. There is a little over one acre of land here as well. The Southwest Area Master Plan designates this area for residential use, but it does recognize the existing commercial property. There is a small convenience store on the corner that would be part of the property included in this rezoning; the balance is homes. Again, it is for an approximately 11,000 sq. ft. retail store; the same parking situation exists, with approximately 62 parking spaces. TODD BRUNST, 2205 JOLLY RD., SUITE B, WITH DMR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, 2205 JOLLY RD., SUITE B, WITH DMR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, representing applicant. Arbor Drug is not seeking any tax relief or special consideration from a property tax standpoint at any of their locations. This request is similar to the other site; the store size is identical. Ingress and egress points to the site are on the Mt. Hope and M.L. King thoroughfares. Again, we provided a significant buffer on the Lenore Street side, the residential street, and to the adjoining residential area to the east. These sites are well-lighted, and the lighting is controlled so that it does not shine into the neighboring areas. Essentially, all the same standards exist here that exist on the previous request. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 11 Mr. Greiner asked how many structures and how many dwelling units would be eliminated? Mr. Brunst said eight residential structures, all single-family. Mr. Frederick asked about one difference in the plan, namely, that there is no masonry wall buffer between the store parking lot and the residences. Do you intend for the four-foot berm to provide the buffer, rather than the masonry wall as on the first plan? Mr. Brunst said the building is set back farther from the nearest dwelling unit. A wall was proposed for the other site. Mr. Frederick asked what open hours; Mr. Brunst said 10 a.m.-10 p.m. DEBORAH RASMUSSEN, 1821 S. RUNDLE. I would ask that you deny this rezoning for the following reasons. 1. We have reached the saturation point in pharmacies. There is already one pharmacy less than 1/4 mile west of this location; and two pharmacies less than '/2 mile south of this location, so that is three pharmacies you could walk to very easily. There are two more within two miles of this location. It is not economically feasible for this location to support another pharmacy. We also already have four large grocery stores in this area as well as four or more convenience stores. Our area is well taken care of in terms of convenience items. 2. We don't want any further commercial encroachment in our neighborhood. Commercial enterprises like these decrease surrounding property values and increase crime, litter and traffic. They deter new residents from selecting our neighborhood to live in. 3. The intersection of Mt. Hope and M.L. King Blvd., according to the Safety Dept. of the City of Lansing, ranks third in the number of accidents. We don't need to add additional congestion to this corner. 4. This area has three schools, St. Catherine's, Lansing Christian, and Moores Park School, as well as Elmhurst, in very close proximity. A retail establishment of this size will add crime and vandalism to this area. Also, we have a large parking lot on the northeast corner of M.L. King and Mt. Hope. We don't need another expanse of asphalt. We like the mature trees; one of the reasons we chose the neighborhood is because it is an older neighborhood with mature trees. We are a strong neighborhood with a strong neighborhood organization and a strong neighborhood watch. I have lived in this neighborhood for ten years. We love living in close proximity with our neighbors. We like the older unique character of the houses; it is very affordable housing. Lansing can't stand to lose seven homes in this area; we need them. People are fleeing for life in the suburbs forjust this reason. They don't want to live next door to another superstore, particularly one that is not economically feasible PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 12 and will probably be abandoned to become another eyesore, like the Lindell Drop Forge site. Several areas very close by have been targeted as Renaissance Zones. They need this kind of commercial venture. We don't want it, and we don't need it. MYOUNG C. KIM, 2308 STONEHEDGE DRIVE, EAST LANSING. I am president of a corporation which owns a business at 1901 S. M.L. King Blvd. with a lease at this location until the year 2003. So far, nobody has contacted us, and we didn't know about this proposal until we got the notice from the City of Lansing. We are the convenience store, and we have been doing business there for the last 11 years. We strongly intend to stay as a neighborhood store at this location for the remainder of our lease, and I am strongly against this proposal. Thank you. DANIEL MOORE, OWNER AT 1118 W. MT. HOPE, kitty-corner across the street from the proposed site. I am a first-time property owner who is looking to make a home for my mother, and I cannot find very much to recommend this proposal. You are talking about wiping out a lot of the old trees that are one of the few things that makes it worthwhile for me to open up my window curtains in the morning. Having been a former resident on Chestnut, and having the home I lived in there now a parking lot, as well as another home downtown that I spent two-and-a-half years doing restoration work on become office space, and recognizing the fact that 70 percent of Lansing's housing was built before 1949, some of these houses proposed to be removed are some of the newest that we have. Very little has been done to help restore these areas. We are looking at the border of Colonial Village, which has a Rite Aid two blocks from this proposed site. If this company goes in here, it is going to be surrounded by Rite Aid. I agree with the previous speaker; we have enough pharmacies. What we don't have enough of is people like the Sir Pizza owner who is there, looking after it. I would rather have an owner in residence than an absentee corporate shadow who will not take an interest in it. We are going to get another situation like Rite Aid down the road. It might start with beer and wine, but with the things going on with the Liquor Commission, it is also going to be liquor. That is the last thing you need in a neighborhood that is doing all it can to survive. CONNIE KECK, 1012 COPPER ST. I have resided on Cooper street for 15 years and watched our neighborhood change. The senior citizens have moved out and in the last five to six years on Cooper Street, and Lenore, and Sterling, we have grown from two children to approximately 21 children on those short streets. Seven or eight of them are at the middle school; the rest, 13 to 14 of them are elementary school children down to newborns. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 13 One neighbor is considering opening a day care, which will add younger children to the neighborhod, and that doesn't count the children who come from the adjoining neighborhoods and subdivision. To add a business of this magnitude is asking for trouble. We already contend with Cooper as the cross-over street to head south on Logan. I contend with high-speed traffic down Sterling, but have had no cooperation with Traffic Control Division to get a stop sign to break speeds of forty-five and fifty miles per hour. Cooper Street has picked up traffic since M.L. King Boulevard went in. Traffic on Cooper has also increased because of the church. We also have a high- traffic intersection, M.L. King and Mt. Hope. The children in this area do not qualify for busing to Dwight Rich, they must either walk, ride a bike, or ride with a parent in the morning. When they come home at 2:30 p.m., they are contending with M.L. King Blvd. and Mt. Hope which is extremely high traffic to board the CATA bus. On M.L.King from 7 to 8:30 a.m., traffic speeds north and south at fifty miles per hour, three lanes. I am asking my son to cross an expressway. To put a business on this corner is asking for more traffic. Notice ingress and egress. One exit will go to Mt. Hope. The only way to head south on M.L. King is to come down Sterling-Cooper to cross over. I don't want to see a child injured. Two children have been injured on my block already. We have asked Traffic Control for more stop signs to break up high speeds. We have not succeeded. We have been a close-knit neighborhood. We watch each other as neighbors. We have driven out the drug houses. We take care of our elderly; we take care of the children as much as we can. I am very protective of children, and I have a great fear of .the amount of traffic. To add more is playing russian roulette with the lives of our children. I am opposed to this proposal, which would be a detriment to continuing family life in our subdivision. If you lived here, would you want a 10 a.m.-10 p.m. facility with all the noise, traffic, litter and activity? J.C. RINGENBERG, 1013 W. MT. HOPE. I agree with all the former speakers. I want to hand you a petition signed by over 100 of the neighbors to keep Z-4-97 out, and also some pictures of the houses they plan to take down. These are nice houses, they don't deserve to be ripped out. Also a letter from the school supporting denial of Z-4-97. I would be three houses down from this and probably have a lovely view of the dumpsters. I have lived on Mt. Hope for the last 17 years. I have just been before the Board for an extensive addition on my house. It is not even finished and I find out a retail establishment is trying to move in on an already dangerous corner. It would make traffic impossible. There are times of the day when I cannot even get out of my driveway. Mt. Hope has suddenly become a cross-town avenue, but it is really a residential street. Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m.,Tenth Floor City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall TUESDAY, March 4, 1997 AGENDA 1. OPENING SESSION A. Roll Call B. Excused Absences C. Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H"Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District B. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C"Residential and"DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District C. Z-3-97, Willow St. and M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and 'T' Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District D. Z-4-97, M.L. King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., `B" Residential, "F" Commercial and'T' Parking Districts to"F" Commercial District E. NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE(5 minutes each) 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: February 4, 1997 B. Committee Reports: 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Next meeting Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236 at which time the above items will be considered. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 14 MIKE ZDEBSKI, 1024 PDXSON. Putting in the proposed drug store would be a poor idea; we have enough adjacent. It would not be in the best interests of families and homes. The intersection is congested, and traffic accidents have increased by 11 percent in 1995 and by 18 percent in 1996. Speeds are 15 to 20 miles per hour above the posted 35. Traffic westbound can turn left from Mt. Hope onto M.L. King. Autos use our street as a cut- through. The intersection is a main fire and ambulance run. A better location would be in the recently-vacated Schafer Bakeries building, or the Renaissance Zone. Chairman Goolsby read a letter from Elmhurst School, 2400 Pattengill Avenue, stating their concern that increased traffic which would be detrimental to students on their way to and from school. LYNN CAVANAGH, 1037 PDXSON, three blocks south. I am opposed to the rezoning. There is already a Rite Aid three blocks west, renovated this past April. If the new store fails, the neighborhood would be left with an empty building. ELIZABETH KELKA, 2401 S. LOGAN. I am 80 years old, and have lived in my present home for 55 years. We don't have a lot of rowdiness. We do have nice neighbors. I don't know why we have to have our homes demolished. It isn't necessary,just for another drug store. You can buy pills any place. DONNA J. HOLEY, 3601 CHRISTINE DRIVE. I received a card, and I alerted other people who don't live that close. I oppose the rezoning. There are more appropriate locations in the Logan Center, Colonial Village or in vacant commercial property such as the Schafer Bakery. I own residential property at 1830 Fletcher and planned an addition; however, if this rezoning goes through, I will invest elsewhere. RICARDO TORRES, 1919 LOGAN. Some of the facts are being misinterpreted, about the school children. The City has done an ample job of providing skywalks. Arbor Drugs will be open 10 a.m.-10 p.m. The store that is there now is open from 7 or 8 a.m. till 1 a.m., 2 a.m. on weekends. There is a lop-sided view so far. I live right on Logan Street; my little sister who lived with me went to Elmhurst. She never got hit by a car because she used the skywalk. There are accidents, but they happen at any major intersection. I have lived there for six years and have not had any problem. They say we are a nice neighborhood, but the first time I have seen them is tonight. The person who owns my house benefits; the community benefits PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 15 from someone willing to pour millions of dollars into the neighborhood. The present clientele will be pushed away, and a new clientele will drawn in. The present store is an eyesore, including my house—the neighborhood would probably be happy to see it get knocked down. It's a pretty decent intersection. I don't have any problems there. A commercial business selling basically the same stuff already operates there with longer hours. I think it's a good idea and everybody wins, and there is a group of people opposed to change. Change happens. We are capitalists. I like the idea and hope it goes through. LUCILLE J. ALFORD, 1016 LENORE. I own two houses on Lenore that would back up to this property. First I thought if the neighborhood wants it, great. I talked to two or three who were for it. The previous speaker, who lives on the corner of Lenore and Logan, is a tenant. I am selling my house where I have lived for 33 years. Traffic coming down Lenore does not stop at the stop sign at Sterling. Cars come down Lenore to avoid the light at Mt. Hope. You can't get on Logan Street in the morning from 7 to 8:30 or at night. I thought I would suport this. I am against it. SHIRLEY HOWELL, 1037 W. MT. HOPE. I am for this for one reason. I live next door to the store on the corner, and for five" years, they have sold clothes, they have sold fireworks; I have seen prostitution behind the dumpster. I have called the police and the City Council. Just last year we got the clothes off the corner, but you can see drug deals and prostitution every night there. Everybody says oh what a good neighbor we are, but I never saw anybody help clean up the corner. DONALD COOK, 1000 W. MT. HOPE, corner of Sterling. I have lived there for 36 years. There is a tremendous amount of traffic, both north and south on Logan and east and west on Mt. Hope. Another establishment of this magnitude would add to traffic. I can walk to nine different drug stores, Rite Aid on Cedar Street, a renovated Rite Aid in Colonial Village, a Rite Aid in the Logan Center, a new Rite Aid on Logan Street at Saginaw. Arbor Drug is trying to get Rite Aid business. Instead of a gas station on every corner, you will see a drug store. There is only so much retail business, and it will be survival of the fittest. I am opposed. We should not tear down residences. Young families with children are moving in. Why don't they look at the Lindell Drop Forge property. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office Conference Room, 316 N. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 16 Capitol Avenue. E. NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Schaberg, representing the owner, Mr. Dugan to receive Class A nonconforming status for a nonconforming two family dwelling. The property is zoned "A" Residential District, which is primarily for single family homes. The property, surrounded by single family residences zoned "A" Residential, contains approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Mr. Dugan wants to rehabilitate the structure and modify the second unit. Estimates exceed the limit of 35 percent of the value of the structure allowed for a Class B nonconforming structure. Estimates exceed 100 per cent of the value of the structure according to appraisals in the Assessor's Office. A substantial amount of structural work will be done if this is approved. The staff policy is to hold public hearings for Class A for nonconforming uses and to get public comments. You have the staff report tonight. Because the estimated value of the rehabilitation work exceed this limit, Section 1294 of the Zoning Code requires approval by the Planning Board. In the packet is a mortgage report showing how the house is situated on the corner of Rouse and Burchfield with a gravel drive to the east. The only other requirement would be for four off-street parking spaces so as not to conflict with the Front Yard Parking Ordinance. Mr. Nischan asked is it nonconforming because it is a two-unit in "A" zoning? Mr. Ruff said yes, other than the fact that the parking needs to be improved. Mr. Ruge asked if there is a neighborhood organization in'the area; answer no. STEVE DUGAN, 654 GLENDALE. Mr. Schaberg, the contractor, is also with me this evening. The house is about 48 years old and though it started out as single-family, it has been used as a two-unit since before it was annexed to the City. It is before you because of the extent of the work. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral to the Committee of the Whole, which will meet in the Business Session this evening. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) SANDY ALLEN, SECOND WARD CITY COUNCILMEMBER. I would hope that the South Side Community Center would have your support. Neighbors raised several PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 17 issues, traffic and the neighborhood itself. The neighborhood is changing. I think the changes would only be nicer than what they have now. The Parks and Recreation Department is transferring baseball to Davis Park, which will be lighted for evening playing. 6. RECESS - None 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: February 4, 1997 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, supported by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of February 4, 1997. On a voice vote, the minutes of February 4, 1997 were unanimously (6-0) APPROVED. B. Committee Reports Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to resolve into the Committee of the Whole; unanimous. The Board.Vice Chairman presided. 1. NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use Mr. Ruff presented the report. The property, a nonconforming two- family use in the "A" Residential District, requires a Class A status based on the amount of money invested in the rehabilitation of the structure. We see no adverse impacts of approval. The area is not solely single-family. There are two-units as well as multiple family there. The lot is large enough to support the property, and it has been used that way for a number of years. Its improvement would improve the area. Not designed to place a restriction on the dollars able to make the improvements, staff is recommending approval with the only condition being the addition of adequate parking for the site to meet the code requirements for the four spaces for a two-unit. It is currently under a building permit which would be modified for the remodeling as a two-unit. They will be subject to Building Safety inspections based on building permits and use as a rental. Staff recommends approval of the Class A status for 3705 Burchfield Drive to rehabilitate a two-unit structure with the following conditions: 1. Building and safety inspection 2. Adequate parking spaces provided. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 18 Mr. Goolsby asked if the improvements would be more than 100 percent of the assessed value. The value of the structure is approximately$27,000. It is a single-story small ranch home; the second unit is in what formerly was an attached garage. It is a one-bedroom efficiency. The value of improvements is approximately $29,000. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use with the above conditions (1) and (2) cited by staff; voice vote; unanimous (6-0). On a motion by Ms. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Nischan, unanimous; the Committee of the Whole arose. 1. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ruge, Chair. The Committee of the Whole considered NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming status for a two-unit house. The owner wants to invest $29,000 into a $27,000 house. The committee found that the conditions for a nonconforming use were met and it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (6-0) for approval of a Class A status with conditions that the Building Safety inspections be held and that adequate parking spaces be provided. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, that NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Aye Greiner. . .Aye LeBlanc. . . Aye Nischan. . .Aye Ruge . . Aye Goolsby . Ave On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays:O; NCU-1-97, 3705 Burchfield Drive, Class A Nonconforming Use, was recommended to be APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee has not met since our last full Board meeting. Next meeting Wednesday, March 12, 1997 at 4 p.m., in the new Planning Office Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. Because Mr. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 19 Frederick was out of town at the time of the committee meeting, Mr. Ruge presented the report. The Urban Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 and considered the following items. a. Act-24-96, Washington Park, South Side Community Center The Lansing Parks and Recreation Dept. has requested this review regarding the selection of Washington Park as the location for the South Side Community Center, and the acquisition of additional property to facilitate the siting of the Center. Washington Park has long been used as a city park and for ice skating. Skating facilities were expanded in late 1996 with the construction of the Ice Dome enclosed skating rink. The Park is zoned "A" Residential, as are the surrounding properties. On the west is four acres of vacant land owned by Federal Forge, and a railroad right-of-way. These are zoned "I" Heavy Industrial. The City is proposing the possible acquisition of the Federal Forge property to the west, and the residential properties fronting on S. Washington Avenue to the east between the two existing Park entrances, and review of the location on the south end of the park. Washington Park was selected as a location for the South Side Community Center because of a variety of factors: Its central location, access by auto and transit, demographics of the area, its aesthetics and open space, and its ownership by the City. There was discussion of the parking requirements for the proposal. A zoning variance may be required. The proposed location at the south end of the park would cause the loss of two softball fields, but save a large number of trees in the north end of the park. Based on a review of the location, character and extent of this project, the committee found that.- 1. The Washington Park location selected by City Council can be an appropriate location for the South Side Community Center due to the factors involved in the site selection. 2. Placing the Center in the south portion of Washington Park minimizes the loss of trees and helps to maintain the natural character of the park. 3. The acquisition of the residential properties along South Washington and the Federal Forge properties will help buffer the park and minimize any adverse PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 20 impacts on the remaining neighborhood. 4. Maintaining the residential use and character of the S. Washington frontage near Washington Park also helps to minimize adverse impacts on the remaining residences. 5. The realignment of the southern enhance to Washington Park, to connect with Rosadell Avenue, will help smooth traffic flow and minimize adverse traffic impacts. 6. The parking issue needs to be addressed in light of the Park's overall parking requirements. A zoning variance will likely be required. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) that 1. The proposal and Site Plan 3 be approved, 2. The City should proceed with obtaining options and/or purchase agreements on the Federal Forge property and residential properties abutting South Washington Avenue and Willard Streets (between the north and south entrances of the park), 3. The south entrance to the Park should be moved north to align with Rosadell Ave. 4. The Parks Department should seek cooperation with Michigan Capitol Medical Center for the programming of the facility. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to recommend approval of Act-24-96, Washington Park South Side Community Center. Ms. Love said Mr. Reickel is concerned about recommending that we proceed with obtaining properties right now because he has no money. He was concerned about purchasing all of them right now. He would like to obtain them as properties become available. This is what the committee has agreed to, and I am not trying to change anything other than that you should be aware that I don't know that the money is available to proceed with each parcel. I wanted to make sure that the Board knows that they may or may not have this ability at this point. Mr. Goolsby said at the meeting last Tuesday we did discuss this issue quite extensively, and that was our understanding. Ms. LeBlanc said discussion occurred at the committee level about the rezoning currently pending; an office zoning for that property would not be appropriate. Mr. Nischan said the south side needs a community center, and this is not the location for it. It is an intensification of use, and not appropriate for the land. Ms. LeBlanc said the maximum number of parking spaces was based on every part of the building being used to its maximum capacity at the same time. They also studied parking in other community centers and came up with a lower number. Mr. Goolsby said for the minutes that Mr. Reickel stated to us that if they obtain an option PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 21 on a home, they intend to give a lifetime tenancy to residents there now on some of the properties. They would possibly buy two pieces now. Other plots have elderly residents who would be given a lifetime tenancy. Mr. Goolsby said in terms of parking, regarding #4, it is in the minutes of the Urban Development Committee that Michigan Capitol Medical Center has contacted Parks about using some of the space for meetings. They said they would provide shuttle parking for the facility when overflow occurs three or four times a year. They may still have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. They are trying to address the question of overflow parking. Regarding softball usage, Mr. Goolsby said softball has decreased 42 percent over the last years. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Ave Greiner. . .Ave LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan. . Nay Ruge . . Aye Goolsby. . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays:1; carried; Act-24-96,.Washington Park, South Side Community Center, was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Act-26-96, Aurelius Road Landfill, Public Service The City of Lansing Public Service Department is proposing to make the Aurelius Road Landfill site available for development. The site is approximately 140 acres in size; and is located on the east side of Aurelius Road north of 1-96. It is surrounded primarily by office and industrial uses, as well as 1-96. Like the nearby properties, it is zoned "H" Light Industrial. The SouthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the area for parks and open space uses. Over half of the site had long been used as a landfill or dump, although this use has been discontinued. The eastern half of the property had been proposed as a location for a radio transmission tower, but this project was not implemented. The applicant proposes the development of the site to offset the costly maintenance of the property in association with the former landfill use. The property has interesting possibilities as a recreational area, including softball/baseball fields, soccer fields, and a riverwalk along Sycamore Creek. The reuse of the property is also supported by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which regulates the groundwater contamination issue. Based on a review of the location, character and extent of the site, the staff recommends PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 22 further exploration of development possibilities for this property, and that the City Parks Board also be consulted during the development of plans for the site. Based on its review of the location, character and extent of the proposal and the proposed site, the committee found that: 1. Approximately 76 acres, or a little over half of the site is actually utilized as a landfill area. 2. The Sycamore Creek frontage on the property presents a long-term opportunity for the development of the River Trail on this site. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation is for parks and open space development; however, the zoning designation is "H" Light Industrial. 4. The property is an eyesore which is costly to maintain, and the possibility of redevelopment would enhance the appearance of this property, reduce its negative impact on the surrounding properties, and help offset costs associated with its former landfill use. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) on a voice vote to recommend that the City request proposals for the redevelopment of the site, and assess these proposals in light of the current demand for specific recreational uses and market conditions, and consider other possible land uses which will "cause no harm to the environment, and to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department on the ultimate design of recreational activities on the site. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, to recommend that Act-26-96, Aurelius Road Landfill, Public Service, be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows: LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan .Ave Ruge . . Aye Frederick .Ave Greiner . . Aye Goolsby .Aye On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-26-96, Aurelius Road Landfill, Public Service, be APPROVED. Next meeting TUESDAY, March 25, 1997, at 4 p.m., Planning Office, Departmental Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI. Ms. Love said people would be asked to come in by the EDC entrance, Suite C-3, near the alley, go in the double doors and turn left, follow the corridor, through the second door, and to the left. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 23 3. Executive Committee Chairman Goolsby said the Executive Committee did meet this evening at 6 p.m. to discuss the procedure about handling issues after the public hearing the same night, as we did with NCU-1-97 this evening. We have generally agreed to a process now. It is a matter of committing it to writing. We will then bring it to the full Board. C. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. The budget for the Planning and Neighborhood Development Dept. has been agreed to by the Mayor, and this will be the budget he will propose to the City Council. It is a fair budget. We will finish interviewing this Friday for the preservation planner. We received the local certified government contract, signed it and sent it back to the state. We are now eligible for the historic preservation grant they told us we were going to get. The new planner will be working on it and on reconnaissance surveys and intensive level surveys and Historic Preservation Week in May. The City is moving ahead through the Public Service Dept. to do-a space utilization study of City Hall and to work towards solutions to relocating various departments. D. Pending Items: Future Action Required. 1. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-96, 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) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None. 10. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. LeBlanc said on the northwest corner of Grand River and M.L. King, a new auto sales business has put up three batches of pennants. Mr. Ruge said on S. Washington there is a house with a six-foot stockade fence; Ms. Love said it is legal. It was there before the sign code. Mr. Ruff said the insurance company at 810 W. Saginaw has filed an application; the case will have a public hearing in April. Ms. Love said Arbor Drugs will propose rezoning for the Wild Bill's site on S. Cedar. It will have a hearing on April 1. Mr. Ruff said we may try to get a report ready ahead of time so we can get all three cases to Council at the same time. 11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT -was at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love,:.Secr tary Lansing Planning Board minutes\mn030497 a:137 APPROVED 040197 AS PRINTED. DRAFT TO CLERK 040197 APPROVED 040197 TO CLERK 040797 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chamberg"7 APR •'8 AM 8: `3 1 Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall LANSINGCITY CLERK 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, March 18, 1997 1. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan; Ruge; six members present; two vacancies. Ex officio councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence. None. C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. The agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-1-97, Silver Stone Townhouses, Northeast Corner of S. M.L. King Blvd. and Hughes Rd. Mr. Ruff explained the process and then presented the case, a request by Marvin Vanek to construct a planned residential development consisting of 104 townhouses in 13 buildings on a site located on S. M.L. King Blvd., extending from Hughes to Haag Road between King and Taffy Parkway. At present the property is vacant, zoned multiple family residential. The reason for the hearing tonight is that the site, containing multiple buildings, has more than six acres. No change is proposed in the zoning. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential development. KARL L. GOTTING, 232 S. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1000, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING APPLICANT. The project is zoned multiple. The PRD is required because of the lot size of one of the lots. Mr. Vanek intends to build a superior project, designed for the site, that will benefit the City and its residents. He does not seek any increase in PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 2 the density. The stormwater and sanitary sewer services are available, as are other utilities. It meets MDOT ingress and egress requirements. The units are substantially larger, 30 percent to 50 percent larger, with cathedral ceilings, two baths in two- and three-bedroom units. There are 12 3-bedroom, 13 1-bedroom, and 80 2-bedroom units whose construction costs ranges from $51,450 to $72,480. These two renderings show what could be built without a PRD, one building with the same number of units at a lower construction cost. Chairman Goolsby welcomed Councilmember Benavides to tonight's meeting. Mr. Ruge also came at this point. DIMITRIOS ECONOMIDES, 605 BURCHAM, ARCHITECTS. We will provide all architectural services and construction documents, which are now complete. This is a rendering of front elevations of one of the buildings which are seven or nine units, three stories, family room in lower level, living, kitchen and dining and in some cases a bedroom in first level, and bedrooms on third or second level above ground. They have cathedral ceilings, fireplaces, dishwashers and microwaves. Square footages range from 1,500 for the 3-bedroom, 1,300 for the 2-bedroom, and almost 1,100 for the 1-bedroom. We have designed the driveway as MDOT requested, 40 feet wide; also sidewalks extend from one end of the project to the other, heavily landscaped with trees. The back is heavily buffered. Parking is in the middle, hidden from the homes in the back. We have an alternate plan with all the units in one building; smaller apartments, cheaper to build. We are prepared to go ahead with that plan if we encounter delay with this. We can put all 104 units in one building. Mr. Greiner asked about surrounding streets; Mr. Economides said the development is surrounded on all four sides by streets. Mr. Ruge asked if the alternate plan have more usable green space? Mr. Economides said yes; it would also be less expensive to build and no PRD would be required. Mr. Gotting said rentals for 1-bedrooms would be $468/mo. and $521 including utilities; 2 bedroom $553 and $612; and 3-bedroom $633 and $696. For the record, this is not subsidized housing nor a HUD project. BARBARA L. LUOMA, BUSINESS OWNER AT 5544 S. M.L. KING BLVD., REPRESENTING JERRY'S AUTOMOTIVE, in opposition. We have built businesses on M.L. King frontage expecting commercial development, not multi-family development. The area is not appropriate PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 3 for residential. The current zoning is based on on an out-dated Master Plan developed 20 years ago. JERRY LUOMA, BUSINESS OWNER, 5544 S. M.L. KING BLVD, JERRY'S AUTOMOTIVE. We met with the developer; it looks great on paper. We can't think of a good reason for the City to make a deal costing tax dollars. The City is losing tax dollars from 16 PILOT programs, plus two pending, not counting this one. We are concerned about increases in crime and vandalism in the area, and about being unable to secure cars overnight in our business. MARK KOSLOSKI, 3520 HAROLD, BUSINESS OWNER AT 6020 M.L. KING BLVD., DOWNS HEATING, about 1/4 mile from the site, across from Maple Grove Elementary. Safety and traffic issues would be compounded by this development. At 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., it is dangerous for students crossing M.L. King Blvd., which along with Pennsylvania and Cedar St., are main arteries into Lansing off 1-96 and Business-496. I went down Pennsylvania, Cedar and M.L. King looking for similar projects. On Pennsylvania north of Jolly, Kaynorth Apartments has sidewalks on both sides of the street, a crosswalk and two entrances, a nearby park, and speed limits of 40 m.p.h. On Cedar St., there is commercial development with no multi-family development, and speed limits of 35 mph. On M.L. King is Covington Apts., there are sidewalks, traffic lights, crosswalks, speed limits of 40 mph, and two nearby parks. This proposed site has no sidewalks, no crosswalks, and speed limits of 45 m.p.h. on two lanes north and two lanes south with a center turn lane, and no area parks. There are no viable places for children and adults to interact in a safe environment. It is not a safe piece of property. B.W. THOMPSON, 5606 S. M.L. KING, OWNER OF THOMPSON LOCK. I checked vacancy rates at 18 other complexes,and 10 responded for which there are 75 vacancies. If these complexes, that have been paying taxes to the City for many years, have 65-70 percent occupancy rates, taking away 104 potential customers should be looked at seriously. Another concern is the traffic flow on S. Logan. I seldom see cars driving 45 m.p.h.; most are doing in excess of 55 and some faster. A barrier system should be installed to keep the children from playing in Logan Street. VIELKA COVER, 5701 TAFFY PARKWAY. This is going to be my front yard. I have two children. Traffic on Taffy Parkway is going at 45 to 50 mph, on the dirt road. A complex this size will increase the traffic flow. I myself have traveled 55 mph on Logan. The Bay station has remodeled PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 4 because of theft and vandalism, and it is really bright there now. This is one road over from where this complex is going to be. We have two complexes on the Haag side with lower income people. We don't need any more traffic. Going for a walk with the kids, it is virtually impossible to get to the other side of Hughes because of the traffic flow from Logan, or coming from Logan to Haag. There is no sidewalk on Hughes or Haag. JOYCE COOK, 5723 TAFFY PARKWAY, opposed. This would be my front yard. I don't want it there. For that amount of families to move in, the traffic flow would not be reasonable. If you are southbound and try to turn onto Hughes, it is virtually impossible. On the southwest corner, across from the project, there is Capitol Discount, a pawnshop. You cannot imagine the amount of traffic going in and out of there, and the speeds. I get home about 3 p.m. from the traffic. It is hard; I have to put my blinker on at Valencia near the Bay Station and King, to get people to slowdown so they don't back-end me so I can turn onto Hughes to get to Taffy Parkway. People use the middle lane to go to the pawnshop. Trucks rumble so loud that they rattle the mirrors on my walls. Traffic is high volume, big trucks; it is not conducive for children, not safe. There is no sidewalk and no place to walk. It would not benefit the City. What we are saying about the traffic is true. DONNA BRIGGS, 1412 WEYMOUTH CT., across from Taffy Parkway. I grew up in Eaton Rapids, and I choose to move to Lansing. I work in Jackson, and commute. I bought my house four years ago. I have to leave for work at 12:40. 1 have to get onto M.L. King from Haag Road, not a safe corner with the traffic coming north from 1-96. 1 am also looking at the vandalism and the crime rate which is increasing. Ten years ago my cousin was shot and killed at the Bay station. We are looking at adding about 500 people into the South Lansing area. Crime is already exorbitant. Youngsters will be looking for something to do. Children are on the streets at 11, 12 o'clock at night getting into trouble. The crime rate will increase, adding that many more people; my house value will decrease and taxes will increase for road repair. It sounds to me like either-or; either we take the townhouses or the apartment buildings. The road, the safety, the community cannot support 104 units in that area. NANCY GERARD, 5818 HUGHES RD. My house is about.a block away. We have lived there almost eight years and have experienced vandalism in our own front yard. I have no doubt that they came from the housing project on Haag Road. Even at 7 a.m., it is hard to get out onto M.L. King, as well as coming home at 5 p.m. Traffic is excessive and fast on M.L. King Blvd. Traffic on Hughes is also excessive. I am concerned about PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 5 the increase in crime and vandalism. The site is not big enough for that amount of people. C.D. RANDALL, 5614 S. LOGAN. I have had a business at that location for 41 years. It was township when we went there, commercial. In 1964 the area was annexed and we became nonconforming. Sometime after that we became commercial. When I located there, it was commercial from Jolly south to the city limits. Over the years, I have not seen one single residence built from Jolly south to the city limits, but there has been lots of commercial activity. I built my building over eight years ago; I even got a letter from the City Building Dept. commending me on the job. I see no reason for residential; it should be commercial from Jolly to the freeway. I have a drawing here to show you how it is now, the best example of spot zoning. You should take a good look at this. There is commercial, residential, professional, local shopping district. On Pennsylvania Avenue, little business people like myself can't afford it anymore. It should be zoned commercial so that small business can locate there and improve it. Not one of you people would like to own a business across the street from this place. A week ago last Saturday, I came down to check my building at 6:30 a.m. and found a car had been stolen. The police found the car in a project right off Pleasant Grove Road. With a project like this across from me, they will be stealing my cars on a regular basis. If I leave cars out, tires are slashed, paint is scratched, glass is broken. I am concerned about security. We don't want vandalism and spray paint. We pay our taxes and we resent this thing going in with no taxes. Why should we pay the taxes to police them. PAULA CLARK, BUSINESS OWNER AT 6070 S. M.L. KING. I would like to speak on the tax abatement, the PILOT program, Payment in Lieu Of Taxes. Lansing has 16 projects in the PILOT program, and 2 waiting to be approved, not counting the Silver Stone Project. Seven are already on the south side; almost 39 percent of the programs in Lansing are located on the south side. How many PILOT programs should Lansing have. The City's share of lost revenue is $610,000 per year. This project will add another $76,800 in lost City revenue if it is allowed into the PILOT program. Not only will the money be lost in the City revenue, but also in education and county taxes. We are closing libraries in Lansing because of insufficient money to fund them. We need projects that put money into City coffers, not take it away. Do we need another low income rental complex in the City, especially on the south side? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to fund a program to make low income home ownership a priority? I am against it because of the PILOT program. It is not fair to home owners and business owners. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 6 AMY VAN SICKLE, 5627 TAFFY. I live behind the proposed residence. I have the same concerns as my neighbors, not only the increase in automobile traffic but also the increase in pedestrians. The accident rate will increase because of the heavy traffic, and burden police and fire and other emergency services. ERIC CLARK, 6070 S. LOGAN/KING. You probably remember me when my business was called S. Logan Cycle. When the City took the name of my business away from me, I tried to live with it. I am here to defend what I have built for 27 years to retire on. Is this a done deal? I think the Council is going to have something to say about that. If we have an alarm that is no fault of ours, the police charge $52 to respond. If we pay taxes for police protection and road repair, if our taxes keep inceasing and services decreasing, and you give more abatements, the rest of us have to pick up the slack. I am against it. JACKIE KNIGHTEN, 5713 TAFFY PARKWAY. I have resided on Taffy longer than most people here. When I moved there, my taxes were $400 per year; now they are almost $2,000, and I am still on a dirt road. Two children have been killed on Hughes and M.L. King. Traffic is dangerous. They have found out in the Chicago projects that when you stack people in a small area, you have crime. This is what you want in our front yard? Their parking lot would be in my front yard. Would you like me to move into your house, and you come live where I do, and see if you would like that in your front yard. LORI A. FUDGE, 5528 S. M.L. KING, OWNER OF EXQUISITE TOUCH. We have done an advisory petition of several pages in two days. Many people are concerned, both residents, business owners and clients. A synopsis of our concerns is: 1. Inappropriate use of the land in a commercial area. 2. Over-saturation of this type of development in the area. A demographic study of the area was done in 1994. My business had changed in two years' time. I have doubled my staff. 3. The project is requesting a tax abatement. The City should be more in favor of commercial property and taxes. Dwellings on M.L. King is going in reverse of what I thought the City's focus was. When I went for rezoning in 1989, 1 was told that M.L. King was projected to be commercial. I considered going to Holt, but most of my clients are in Lansing, and I figured it was more feasible for the tax dollars to return to Lansing; also availability for that location for my clients. In Grand Rapids on Twenty- Eighth St., commercial is across from commercial. It is together, and it looks nice. Be focused and stay with commercial. 4. Increased traffic on our street and added strain on our public service systems. It is a PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 7 transitional neighborhood from rural highway to commercial and should not revert to residential. I am concerned for safety of children. There are other areas of the City where this is appropriate. WILLIAM ANDERSON, 1427 MARK TWAIN, two houses from Haag. Mr. Vanek owns the property where the house was. He left the garage. I have called the City three times on it.. There is a freezer out there, and various furniture, two sofas. If he is going to be a landlord and doesn't take care of the property now, I don't think he can take of it when it is built. Why don't you make this a Renaissance zone and start from scratch instead of trying to renovate a piece-of-junk building. It is a waste of money. STEVEN FLOYD THOMAS, 1427 TAFFY PARKWAY, REPRESENTING MATTIE HAMPTON, 5729 TAFFY PARKWAY. I've been coming to my sister's house for several years. Right now I work for a major building company in Detroit. For the past four months, I have been tearing down Jeffrey Housing Projects. I was the project superintendent there. It is very devastating. If you put something like this in an area like this, it is going to be catastrophic. If you have Highland Cooperative, and with something sandwiching a small community of homes, and people with solid love there, you are going to destroy it. A pawnshop is across the street. They are going to be taking things out of these people's homes. It is going to be crazy. I hope you look at this, maybe look as far as Detroit and Jeffrey Housing Projects and other communities where you know you are going to get this kind of element. The City is trying to do a good thing, but to congest this type of element on the people who have a small bondedness amongst them, it is going to be crazy. Traffic is going to be 50 mph. Even if you put a safe walkway, you are going to have people cutting through people's yards and destroying them. My sister works months per year on her yard; she cares about the community, everybody cares. When you have such a large amount of people congested in a small area, a lot of those values are going to be destroyed. It is a beautiful community. It doesn't need to be destroyed. GEORGE PLUMMER, 5701 TAFFY PARKWAY. My residence is right across from the site. I do construction, and I see this project is big. Just in the time it is being built, it will create a hassle. The building process will create traffic problems. Potholes you have got already, and the noise and change. People walk out there, and fly kites. It is a field right now. When you change it over to residential, there will be noise, tires squealing, and late-night parties. It would be better kept in commercial. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 8 RICK MILL, 5801 HUGHES. Holt, Dimondale and Eaton Rapids are growing, and M-99 is the main route from those areas. It creates a major traffic problem, with traffic speeds 50-55 mph. I have lived there five years, and in that time there have been five high-speed police chases down Hughes Road. It is a major route between Miller and Jolly. There is a high number of apartments there already, with high percentages of vacancies. I question if this unit is needed in this end of town. We also have a lot of subsidized housing units. We have the Village, Islands Cooperative, and several others. Across the road are three small apartment buildings, and across M.L. King on Hughes there are a couple small rental units. Is this complex needed here? The property is not large, and if there is not enough green space and play areas, a park will be needed for the area, and there is none. LEVI TROTTER, 1432 WEYMOUTH CT., across the street. I am concerned about the density of the development. I would like to see the proposal for traffic planning, lights, environmental control. My first thought was it's time to move. Some people can, some can't. Some people are cornerstone people--if you take them away, you can write off the neighborhood. SAM EYDE. I am the owner of record on the property. Mr. Vanek asked for the opportunity to develop the property, which has been on the market for about 15 years, five or six by myself, and many more years by Sam Bofysil. I am a developer; I understand the business and business climate, and potentials of property, what can and cannot be done. There has been a sign in front of the property, will build to suit, or option to sell. There are residential properties in the area, and it looks like it has potential for residential. We have people who live in the area and who own businesses. For residents, the field is a nice attraction. If all fields were left for people to play in, there would be no growth and no progress. The revenue the city is getting now is much smaller than with a development. Subsidies only last for a certain number of years. Two people to a unit is normal; three would be a lot. The amount of people for this area is nowhere near what they are saying. If there is a traffic problem, people should petiton for lights to control M.L. King. If this were a commercial property, the traffic would be no less. People would be drawn from all over the city. I have not found one commercial customer since I have owned the property, nor did Sam Bofysil find very many. Mr. Vanek has done a good job offering upscale living compared with the apartments in the area. Crime is not controlled by living quarters, but by families and parents, and it should not be a reason for having or not having the development, nor should traffic. The City should control it. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 9 The owner has a right to develop the property. It has been a nice park or playground. For businesspeople, two or three hundred people would be customers at the salon, the garage, the bike shop, grocery, etc. As a businessman, I want more people and more opportunity. Chairman Goolsby said the petitions received this evening contain 104 names; he thanked participants, and announced the conclusion of the public hearing. This will be referred to the Committee of the Whole on April 1, 1997, part of our regular Board meeting that evening. Chairman Goolsby declared a recess. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) J.C. RINGENBERG, 1013 W. MT. HOPE, Z-4-97. I, along with 150 other homeowners, encourage the Planning Board to deny Z-4-97. There are many challenges at the corner of M.L. King and Mt. Hope. Concerning the plan site, how would they handle rain run-off; what would they do with snow; will there be turn lanes for the driveway at Mt. Hope to stop left turns. If they have so much green space, why are they going to cut down trees. There is not adequate sound blockage. If they are so neighborhood friendly, why didn't they hire local surveyors? I suddenly have different property lines. Please deny Z-4-97. BARRY JUBEK. I hope you are aware of the development at Willow and M.L. King. I have talked to Dr. Kelvin Anderson and Willie Dawson, neighborhood watch coordinator and Rev. Murphy. Dr. Anderson and Ms. Dawson have done neighborhood clean-up and kept drugs off the corner. Part of the corner is already commercial. The existing building is too close to the corner. The new building would be at least 50-60 ft. off the corner of M.L. King and Willow. This would allow the City to construct a turn lane off Willow at minimal expense. The City Engineer has to look at this, but it may resolve the problem. Willow Street serves seven factories, but has only two exits, M.L. King and Waverly. My son, who is a civil engineer, checked into the ten- and fifteen-year plan of MDOT. They have nothing planned to straighten out M.L. King. Arbor Drug is a good store, and the entire corner could be straightened out for almost nothing. Reconsider and rethink this proposal. LYNN KAVANAGH, 1037 PDXSON. I want to comment about both Z-3-97 and Z-4-97. I work for St. Lawrence Hospital. We have a Pharmacy Plus, a brand- new Rite-Aid across the street; I live at 1037 Poxson, where the other drugstore would be built at M.L. King and Mt. Hope. Why do we need more drugstores? Within a two-mile radius, there would be eight drugstores. Have they done a demographic study? There are concerns about traffic increases. To get in and PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 10 out of the drugstore, you would have to go in and out of the intersection three times. WILLIE DAWSON, 1304 THEODORE. I want to talk about Z-3-97. I started a neighborhood watch in 1989. We do clean-ups. Whatever they do to it would be a plus over what it is now. I would back it 100 percent, and I have lived in the neighborhood sixteen years. Now it is a disaster. If you want to do a walk- through the neighborhood, I would be happy to show you. Some people against the drugstore live 3-4 blocks away. I think it would be a good idea. I live right there. REV. MICHAEL C. MURPHY, PASTOR OF ST. STEPHEN'S COMMUNITY CHURCH AND COMMUNITY NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION, 1420 W. OAKLAND AVE., regarding Z-3-97. I am here representing not only St. Stephen's, but also the West Town Redevelopment Association, which is a partnership of businesses, churches, community groups, and organizations on the west side. (Handed in a list of persons who have attended their meetings at one time or another.) We were formally organized on January 14, 1997, and Dr. Peter Chiaravalli, the president, has a dental practice at Saginaw and Jenison. This association is more of a partnership of people who want to see the west side flourish and develop. I represent the organization. We met with Arbor Drug and were satisfied with their presentation. I want to speak about the development. The members of the West Town Redevelopment Association voted unanimously (note that no actual count of persons was given) in favor of Arbor Drug development at this site. We urge reconsideration by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee because of support of the development by almost all sectors on the west side. We welcome economic development into our area. We reached our decision in the best interests of the community. We did stipulate some specific requests and requirements, (1) that Arbor Drug would provide in writing that they would not seek a liquor license at that site. We are concerned about the Rite Aid at Saginaw and M.L. King and their recent move to get a liquor license when originally they said they would not sell liquor at that site. We want Arbor Drug's assurance that there will be no liquor license. (2) We are concerned about economic development issues. We support Arbor Drug's proposed development at M.L. King and Willow (without liquor). LUCILLE ALFORD, 1016 LENORE. I have heard that Arbor Drug wants all three locations, all or nothing. I hope that is not true. I am not really opposed to the Willow & King proposal (Z-3-97). I like people to be honest, truthful and fair. I want to be fair with my neighbors. It would destroy the neighborhood concept of the triangle. People ignore traffic signs and stop lights and the speed limits. Please support denial (of Z-4-97). PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 11 JOHN ELLIOTT, 1020 LENORE AVE. I have lived in the neighborhood since I was two-and-a-half, and lived around many other places. I attended Barnes Avenue Elementary, Walter French, and Everett H.S. I am in sales at Art Van; it is supply and demand. We control 54 percent market share in furniture, yet we are moving out on W. Saginaw to Flowerland. Is bigger better? I don't know that we need another drugstore. Supply and demand is what it is about. There are many drugstores nearby. How many sick people are around? Speaking on the other issues, if you already have 70-80 units you can't rent in the area, why build another 104. Is bigger better? It.is not always the case. GENE MELLEN, 600 WEST STREET, Z-3-97. I want a point of information. I attended the Walnut Neighborhood Organization meeting last week and was under the impression that the drugstore at M.L. King and Willow was a venture by Rite Aid. This afternoon's presentation convinced the West Town Redevelopment Group this was a good project. If this group has information from the neighborhood advisory group or from the neighborhood organization, they might recontact them to learn if they are aware of the change of information. Several things: (1) Arbor Drug will hire local people within a half- mile radius to work at the store; (2) Arbor Drug will give houses to be removed to an organization that will move and rehab them. That would speak to eliminating residential units in the City, which has been a long-time concern. Arbor Drug is very stable; they have never closed a store. They have agreed to put in writing that they will not sell liquor. The only other thing would be for them to hire local people to do the construction if it is approved, and address the safety concerns of students at Willow School getting to and from school with regard to increased traffic. MICHAEL DZEBSKI, 1024 PDXSON AVE. Most of the neighbors are against it. South Central Organization and Moores Park Neighborhood Organization are against it. We did not have the opportunity to look at a site plan. It is a poor location. TODD BRUNST, HERE FOR THE PETITIONER. (Distributed materials picturing housing that would be removed from the area.) Regarding Z-3-97, we proposed a well-thought out development. The existing housing is blighted and in disrepair. It would provide an opportunity for the City to create a turn. I want to correct a few misstatements. Arbor Drug is based in Troy. All of its over 200 stores are in the state of Michigan. It is the 14th largest drugstore operator in the U.S., second largest in Michigan. Stores would be full-stocked at all times. We have included letters of support and testimonials from other communities. Regarding snow removal, snow will be stacked on-site and not pushed onto others' property. An item of new information: Each of the two sites is PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 12 contaminated. We believe there are underground storage tanks stored at Willow and M.L. King. Site restoration would be conducted by the developer. The staff report is idealistic. The reality is that the corner of M.L. King and Willow has little if any chance in the future of being developed for single family residential housing. it is a commercial site and should be expanded and enhance the neighborhood. (Mr. Brunst distriuted materials concerning Z-4-97.) Many of the same conditions exist here at M.L. King and Mt. Hope. The proposal would bring stability to the neighborhood. On the subject of scare tactics, people have collected signatures. There is also contamination at this site, which was the location of a service station many years ago. There may be underground contamination and underground storage tanks. Cavanaugh and South Cedar is also contaminated. You have a proposal representing a capable retailer that will work with the communities where they operate their businesses. They are willing to clean up contaminated sites. In the second packet there is a number of unsolicited endorsement letters from customers. There are other considerations than unhappy residents. Please consider all of the variables and the benefits. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public comment section. 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 4, 1997 Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of March 4, 1997. On a voice vote, the minutes of March 4, 1997 were unanimously (6-0) APPROVED. B. Committee of the Whole - None. C Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The committee met on March 12, 1997. a. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., ''H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District The applicant proposes to remodel the facilities into a restaurant featuring Middle Eastern food. Buildings will be PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 13 remodeling starting with 621 and expanding into 623 in the future. The-current residential use on the second floor of 621 will be abandoned and the space used for storage. The requested zoning change is necessary to eliminate the parking requirement. The property does not have space for on-site parking. 1. Existing zoning would allow for the same use as proposed under the requested zoning district. 2. The change in zoning would shift the burden of providing parking from on-site to off-site by the City of Lansing. 3. The City recognizes the need for increased parking and has acquired/leased properties for this purpose (217 additional spaces added in 1996). 4. This development would be compatible with the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Brewing Co., 603 E. Michigan Avenue, and Rum Runners). The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the development is consistent with the Master Plan and the adjacent uses. The committee continues to express concern over the potential growth of parking burden placed upon the City but was satisfied that individually this development would not significantly impact the parking situation. Finally, the committee found that the down-zoning of the property as proposed would eliminate potential industrial-type land uses from going into the building. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-1- 97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business 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-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G- 1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Ave Greiner •Ave LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan . Ave Ruge . . Aye Goolsby • Ave PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 14 O a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant proposes to continue using the first floor of the structure as a residential unit and the second floor as an office for their nonprofit corporation. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the request is not in conformance with the master plan and is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to deny Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. Ms. Leblanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Ave Greiner .Ave LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan . Ave Ruge . . Aye Goolsby. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District, was DENIED. C. Z-3-97, Willow St. & M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District There has been some thought this evening of referring this item back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee or to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 15 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to refer this matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Ruge said he preferred it to go to the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Goolsby passed the gavel and said he hesitated sending it to the Committee of the Whole. This evening we received new information which is more conducive to discussing in the Zoning and Ordinance committee than in the Committee of the Whole here, before our meeting. Rev. Murphy brought new information tonight that we were not aware of. "I would like an opportunity to discuss that with him." After that if we want to take it up in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Goolsby would have no objection. Initially, we need to discuss it in Zoning and Ordinance Committee where we will have an opportunity to interact with people offering additional information received tonight. Mr. Ruge's concern was with the scale of the project and not being in scale with our older neighborhoods, but he could mention that in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Goolsby said the motion is to refer the matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and then to recommend that when they return it to the Board, that they refer it to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-3-97, Willow St. & M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District is re-referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave. d. Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Velmeir Co., L.L.C, has acquired options to purchase over one-half of the city block located at the southeast corner of M.L. King Blvd. and Mt. Hope. The proposal includes demolition of seven residential structures, one commercial structure, and construction of a 10,880 sq. ft. retail drug store. The proposal requires rezoning of nine residential lots from "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District and rezoning of a portion of the existing commercial property from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 16 Expansion of the commercial area at this intersection would have at least two impacts on the surrounding area. First, the development would be newer than any of the surrounding development and generally well-landscaped (based on site plan), potentially improving the aesthetics of the area. Secondly, the commercial use would be expanded and the number of residential units decreased which would then bring a larger commercial influence to the area. This adverse influence includes additional pedestrian and vehicular noise, increased traffic, and a change in neighboring use for adjacent residential properties. Expansion of the existing commercial area is not in conformance with the Master Plan. The proposal represents a reduction in the number of curb cuts and curb cut locations that are farther away from the intersection which are improvements from a traffic and pedestrian safety standpoint. Increases in vehicular traffic would result from the proposal along both M.L. King and Mt. Hope for the area under rezoning consideration. The residential side streets would witness increased traffic trying to avoid the Mt. Hope/M.L. King intersection and the "Michigan left turn" on M.L. King south of Mt. Hope. The site would generally result in additional noise for the abutting properties. Due to the proposed location of this development away from the Logan Square and Lindell Forge commercial areas, their redevelopment efforts may suffer. The proposed development does not meet the Planning Board's goals for the location of new economic development, the expansion of commercial businesses, nor the housing objectives. Potentially, all of the goals could be met if the proposed development occurred in an alternate location consistent with master and development plans. The committee agreed with the staff report and found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the request is not consistent with the Master Plan nor the Goals and Objectives of the Planning Board. Further, the residential properties around the site would be adversely impacted, and the predominant residential area would change in character. The committee agreed that this area is similar to the previous case in that in both situations, the streets are residential in character even though they accommodate a significant amount of through traffic. The development as proposed does not fit with the residential nature of the area. .In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend denial of Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial 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-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 17 PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Ms. LeBlanc said she did not feel new information had been submitted on this case. In the previous case she could see both sides, but in this case she was convinced it did not belong there. "I also would like to add that my opinion is based in no way on whether or not I think we need more drugstores. It does look like we are getting a lot of drugstores; however, I don't think the City is well served by one drug company being the only big drug store, providing not only prescriptions but also sundries. In the long term, the citizens of Lansing would be better served having more than one company in the City, just so there is competition, whether all the sites continue to exist or not. We do need to provide for some kind of competition." Mr. Ruge asked if the Zoning and Ordinance Committee discussed scaling down the size of this project. Ms. LeBlanc said no, the discussion centered on nearby sites we considered more appropriate. If it didn't intrude so far into the block, especially on Lenore, he would be a little more able to support it. The way the project is, he could not support it. Mr. Frederick said he does not see this as being an area predominantly residential. There is commercial property and businesses close by. All the advantages regarding the other site on M.L. King and Willow apply here. "I would like to see this proposal reconsidered, but if not, I am going to have to vote against denying it. I believe the project should go ahead. I don't like going against the Master Plan." He would not like to see viable residences knocked down, and will vote in opposition to the motion. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to refer Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for reconsideration. On a voice vote, there.were: Ayes: 2 Nays; 4; the motion to refer to the Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Zoning and Ordinance Committee for reconsideration failed. The Chairman then returned to the motion for denial of Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Nay Greiner. . .Aye LeBlanc. . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . Aye Goolsby. . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 18 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays; 1; carried; Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be DENIED. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held on Wednesday, April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Urban Deveopment Committee has not met since the last Planning Board meeting. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. The mayor has again invited us to use the City's luxury suite to watch a Lugnuts game. Dates are open at this time; we need to choose two, a first option and an alternate. Mr. Goolsby said that Wednesday, July 2 is the night of the fireworks. Mr. Goolsby invited the Board to a barbecue at his place prior to the baseball game. The consensus was Wednesday, July 2 against the Quad Cities, and Monday, July 28; if these dates are not possible, Ms. Love will choose a fireworks night. Regarding neighborhood enterprise zones, we have a tentative list of several sites. I am going to need a resolution from the Board indicating that housing preservation is in keeping with the Master Plan for these neighborhoods. D. Pending Items: Future Action Required. 1. Urban Development Committee- a. Act-02-96, 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), PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 19 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) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby said he went to the museum for the sesquicentennial kickoff. It was very pleasant. We talked about the Committee of the Whole, and passed out proposed language making suggested changes. It expresses what our intent was. 10. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. LeBlanc said the minutes of the Neighborhood Council of February 13 describes steps required in rezonings. When we finish the brochure, we should send it to them, so that efforts are not duplicated. Mr. Ruge asked what happened with the sign enforcement project. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Sykes met with the mayor. "It has been put together, and I am trying to get it more polished. I have met with Mr. Leeman and with Mr. Sykes. It includes education to our staff and to the public, chambers of commerce and business associations, telling them what we want and how we will go about it. We will focus on areas and compile statistics about the money generated through this process to support a half-time or full time person to build a track record of what goes into signs and to build a long-standing process of sign enforcement. There is a process, and we are working it out, and then it will be implemented." 11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT -was at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board minutes\mn031897 a:\37 Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Faiek Zeineh 2252 Tecumseh Rv. Rd. Lansing, MI STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Re-Zone the property located at 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial to 11G-1" Business District. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (Grocers & Harvest House Ministry) EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 42 , X 100 ' (4, 200 sq. ft. ) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial & Restaurant (Blue Coyote & Travel Agent) S: Commercial, Vacant Commercial, Parking (Brogan' s Auto Service, Action Auto) E: Commercial (Ice Cream Parlor, Rooming House, Clara' s Restaurant) W: Community Service & Commercial (Mission and Copper Moon Art Gallery) SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S : "H" Light Industrial E: "H" Light Industrial W: "G-1" Business District and "H" Light Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIG. : The North East Area Plan and Cedar/Larch District Area Plan designate this area for Commercial Use. Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Paae 2 SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: Developer proposes to open a restaurant featuring middle-eastern food. Buildings will be remodeled starting with 621 and expand into 623 in the future. The current residential use on the second floor of 621 will be abandoned and used for storage. The requested zoning change is necessary to eliminate the parking requirement. The property does not have space for on-site parking. AGENCY RESPONSES Board of Water and Light: The Electric Construction Projects and Marketing Department does not have a conflict with this request. The Steam Utility division stated that these locations have existing steam service that can be used in any building remodeling. The Water Technical Support/Distribution had no comments on the rezoning. Public Service Dept. : This site will need to have its sewers separated during renovation and proper grease trap installed. A site plan is required by Public Service. Otherwise Public Service has no problem with the zoning change. Fire Marshal : No objection to this plan. Building Safety Office: No reply. Eastside Neigh. Assoc. : Eastside Neighborhood Organization supports this project in this area. Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 3 Zoning Administrator: No reply. Continental Cablevision: No reply. Transportation Engineer: No reply. Neighborhood Dev. Office: No reply. Assessor: No reply. Police Dept. : No reply. LEPFA: No reply. Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Paae 4 ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed rezoning of 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue as Business is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses . The intended use is to remodel 621 E. Michigan' s first floor for use as a middle-eastern restaurant/lounge and eventually expand into the first floor of 623 . The residential use of 621 would be discontinued and used for storage, although residential uses of this nature are allowed within the proposed zoning district. The proposed re-zoning would support the city' s efforts to revitalize this area while being compatible with Oldsmobile Park, Rum Runners, the Nut House, the Corner Creamery and Clara' s Restaurant in adjoining block faces of Michigan Avenue. 619 E. Michigan Avenue has recently been renovated to include a art gallery on the first and second floor. The proposed restaurant/lounge should not generate noise and/or odors that would have a negative impact upon this structure. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The North East Area Plan designates this area for Commercial Use. The developer' s proposal is to remodel the existing structure' s first floors for use as a middle-eastern restaurant. This development would be compatible with the North East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro-brewery, 603 E. Michigan Avenue & Rum Runners) . IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The rezoning of the property located at 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District allows for the same intended commercial use (restaurant) , however it would shift the burden of suppling parking from on-site to being provided for by the City of Lansing. Currently, there is a major concern by businesses within this area in regards to parking . With the continued development of the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette Street the demands on existing parking will escalate. Z-1-97 621 & 623 E. Michigan Avenue "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business Page 5 The intent of the "G-1" Business District is to allow for a general retail commercial district for the downtown area. Specifically, by allowing commercial businesses to locate in structures that were not designed for current vehicular demands and requirements . This area qualifies for this designation. The City of Lansing has recently attained property through either lease or purchase, east of the Grand River that would facilitate parking for this area. The City in November of 1995 demolished the former Liskey' s building and paved the site for an additional 100 parking spaces and leased portions of the Action Auto site in 1996 for an additional 160 spaces . Additionally, the City purchased land in 1996 at the corner of Pere Marquette and Shiawassee and developed Lot 50, a 57 space parking lot for area businesses' employees . This site should have no noticeable impact on pedestrian traffic due to it' s proximity to the crosswalks at E. Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette Street. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT No negative environmental impacts are anticipated. The former use of this site was commercial/retail . IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at this site should not have a negative impact on patterns of development along Michigan Avenue. This development would be compatible with the North East Area Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Micro-brewery, 603 E. Michigan Avenue & Rum Runners) . SUMMARY 1 . Existing zoning would allow for the same use as proposed under the requested zoning district. 2 . The change in zoning would shift the burden of providing parking from on-site to off-site by the City of Lansing. 3 . The City recognizes the need for increased parking and has acquired/leased properties for this purpose (217 additional spaces added in 1996) . 105 2 � I I 8 4247 gyp rJ x 1 852.9 I . Z e Z d ••� 851.1 B46.2 to I Jo tJ w ti i • I 849. eh 84e.2 1 j 850.6 846.9 j �1 8490 I I JJ ra j CO N I 36 @49./ 84 I is 847.2 ra j PARK - J, J. 29 A G1 r3!a' Jo rs rJ r6 6 n � . 845.5 847.7 MICHIGAN 848.1 AVE. AVE 843.8 6 3 a ` t! !• J6 Jg ARKI 848.8 w m p r• 105-1 Oh r•l � 1.66 829 N �• 0 ,9a 845J t• ,e PARKING 36 50 850.6 = rJ U ` iJ cr JO J f$2.2 J a g PARKING cl a O 844.7 ra B6 @53.4 6 is B29.1 rAus wALu 641.1 r, 19Qo t• ; 63.4 as s 838.6 to t• rr rs rJ re � n n rs n e6 843.6 u 853.6 r6 6 r9 0 �rJ ,0 10 g5 '^1 829.2 L4 ry rJ Ty 8403 �\ I � �� SAGINAW COMMERCIAL I (G-1) JII\ COMMERCIAL AND IJ CBD SUPPORT / (F) � MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL AND— RESIDENTIAL CBD SUPPORT —7r PARK �----- 17 I I SHIAWASSEE CITY i----� MARKET CBD SUPPORT (F) w CBD SUPPORT (F) PARKLL z r - I � L. a / PHASE 1 FT MICHIGAN SQ. LANSING CENTER PROJECT I CBD SUPPORT PUBLIC AREA �I(G-1)� MICHIGAN SQUARE CBD SUPPORTif I(G-1) I MICMC%AN IG CBD SUPPORT PUBLIC AREA CBD SUPPORT (G-1) MICIIGAN SQUARE I (G-1)`;'� ' r: I I q BWLIL INrn ..CBD SUPPORT ! V BWL 13I W35 ? I: 14 ICI _f -j 34 .i r I lip 16 L l _ ED W c u (� c a U a 17 ' ns.Y ^' � 3�� a �, :.� �•� �1 , : E a . s'� eta+� 18 VQI a :tom .♦ _' �, I 4 °Y.:♦ ?' '. 19 y rr� /72 f- � �. �• � Li � 3 .lif� r7s� •+ I /]' a ALLEY 20 21 22 23124651 26 27 28 29 � c � �{ r 4As t BLf .19'1 zt'I Is: �i �1' rx, =t• to' •- t� 'r �77,Ya.' flf�:Lo/ Goa 4as o.7 Lo1 4�r 61J GIS i/7 6H i2f i29 CIS _G97 Lii; E- MICHI GAN AVE . h Ala h A n ,;�a z u08 �1t•,� btt o2 G! �aG (.3� N yti t $2.5, 22 u I p yr.l5` 16 17 1819 19 18 17 1615 1413 a1211 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 j9 0�� V\ \ Opt o I oa o'h tip- r_L»l 20 - 20 VAC. C.P. 3-27=1961 I 21 y - ti q �' 21 N � a l 42 00, o ZN 22 m 22 24 .'• SCALE I"= I 23 n . a \\� 23 I \ ;1S ;o• 33 . � 2 01 It ZSZ. 16 `Q ' 400 Z-2-97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ron Morin, Pray America 519 N. Chestnut Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Pray America, owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Residential on the first floor, and Office on second floor EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 55 ft. wide X 165 ft. deep (9,075 sq. ft.) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C' Residential S: "DM-4" Residential E: 'C' and "DM-4" Residential W: "Co and "DM-4" Residential MASTER PLAN.DESIGNATION: River Island Amendment Plan designates properties in the 500 block of N. Chestnut for low density residential land use. (See attached sections of the plan that specifically address this area.) This request in not in compliance with the Plan. CASE HISTORY: Built in 1895, this property was part of the original plat of the City and has been used as a two family dwelling since at least 1944 through 1994. Pray America converted the first floor to office use without Z-2-97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Page 2 permits and has been in violation of the Zoning Code since April of 1995. Several complaints have been received by adjacent residents who have indicated they share a driveway with the subject parcel. A large number of vehicles park at this location, interfering with the neighbors' use of the driveway. The site plan submitted for 519 N. Chestnut shows a 10 foot wide driveway, and not a joint driveway. Several cars currently angle park in the driveway and drive over the neighbor's driveway at 517 N. Chestnut to get into their parking space. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: To allow the current use of the structure with residential use on the first floor and office use on the second floor to continue by rezoning the property to the "D-V Office District. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: No comments Assessor. No comments Bd. of Water& Light: (No response) Building Safety: See attached response from Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager Consumers Energy: (No response) Cont. Cablevision: There should be no conflicts with Continental Cablevision with this rezoning. Our facilities are aerial on power poles, and these poles are street front. Z-2-97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-V Residential to "13-1" Professional Office District Page 3 City Attorney: (No response) Development: (No response) Downtown Neigh.Org: (The following response was made by Stephanie Whitbeck, Chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association's Land Use Issues Committee.) The rezoning request of the non-profit corporation should be denied. Intrusion of office use is inconsistent with the River Island Master Plan Amendment which all other property owners and potential owners have been required to obey. a use is inoompetibieavith the neighborhood and injurious to the public and private effort to bolster the residential area. Even if the Plan Amendment permitted the change, site requirements could not be met as subject property shares a driveway with the residential property at 517 N. Chestnut. Parking disputes exist between the properties according to both sides. The applicant has been in violation of the Code for 2 years; the tenant has also violated the Code for the past 5 to 6 months buy may have discontinued violation withini thepast 2, weeks. Applicant is financially able to rent the upper unit as a residence (it still has a kitchen and bathroom) and move its office elsewhere. Tickets should be issued. Fire Marshal: (No response) Lansing Neigh.Council: (No response) Lansing School District: (No response) Parks & Rec: No comment Police Dept: This change should not have any impact on our precinct. This may help provide some stability in the neighborhood. Z-2.97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Page 4 Public Service Dept: The Public Service Dept. has no objection to this zoning request. Traffic Eng: (No response) ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The subject property, located in the 500 block of N. Chestnut, is surrounded by residentially zoned and used properties. The zoning pattern for the two blocks north of Ferris Park is generally "DM-4" Residential on the south half and "C" Residential on the north half, allowing for a higher density residential development and single family homes and duplexes in the north half of the block. (See attached zoning map.) Most of the structures are either single or two family homes. The subject property was used as a two family structure prior to its use by Pray America. An office use of the structure would therefore be inconsistent with the surrounding residential land use and would be an encroachment into the middle of a low density residential area. It would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood and degrade the trust in the Comprehensive Plan, making it more difficult to the sell homes in the area. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN River Island Amendment Plan designates properties in the 500 block of N. Chestnut for low density residential land use. Page 43 of the Plan states the goal for this particular area (shown as Area#1) is'to promote lower densities and more home owner occupants.' The use of the property therefore is not in compliance with the River Island Amendment Plan. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The minimum number of spaces required for an office on the second floor would be approximately 4 to 5 spaces depending on the exact square footage of office space used. An additional two spaces would be required for the first floor as a residential apartment. A total number of spaces required would therefore be approximately 7 parking spaces. No spaces would be allowed in the driveway as currently used since the driveway would be needed to access spaces in the rear yard. Z-2-97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This property, if zoned "D-1" Professional Office, would allow a variety of businesses that would generate activity and traffic not compatible with the surrounding residential area. Potential uses in the "D-1" Professional District would include: an office of an accountant, architect, artist, attorney, doctor or dentist, insurance agency, real estate office, trade association or union office, a business office, a bank or credit union. Uses permitted by Special Land Use Permit would also include a beauty or barber shop. Office use of the property would be incompatible with the residential area and would effect residential property values and increase speculation for future rezoning requests to nonresidential zoning districts and would lead to disinvestment in properties for residential use. To introduce an office zoning district in the middle of this residential area would negatively impact quality of life for area residents due to traffic, noise, safety hazards, and their property values. It would degrade trust in the Comprehensive Plan and make the selling of homes in the area more difficult in the future. The allowance of additional conversions of homes to office would reduce demand for office space elsewhere, and weaken the pressure for needed office space in downtown Lansing. The goal of strengthening home ownership would be jeopardized. OTHER The owner of the property to the south spoke in opposition to the rezoning request and submitted a letter pointing out problems with the parking of cars for the Pray America business, thereby blocking access to his property. The current use of the structure, has been in violation of the Zoning Ordinance since Pray America first established their offices in the home in 1995. Pray America has been cited by the Building Safety Office for a zoning violation for an illegal use of the building. No application for rental registration of the first floor has been made for the residential portion of the property. Mr. Steve Sandstedt of Pray America who spoke at the public hearing also indicated that the garage was being used for storage of materials for "Project Team Work" which is a housing rehab group. This is considered "contractor's storage" and is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. This request may clearly be considered a "spot zoning" since it singles out a specific parcel for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land and cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and Z-2-97 519 N. Chestnut "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District Page 6 is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan. SUMMARY Staff believes the requested rezoning to the "D-1" Professional Office District to be a spot zoning and as such is not compatible with the surrounding residential area and is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the petition to rezone the property to the "D-1" Office District be. denied. CAwpWaU 7fa.djw I . i AW � y W II ' I r' I l l FOR: BUYER: Waterfield Financial Corporation Mary M. Morin 820 North Washington Avenue 519 North Chestnut Street Lansing, Michigan 48906 Lansing, Michigan LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (as provided) The South 1/2 of Lot 3 and North 22 feet of Lot 4, Block 73 , Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. R22' R33' CONCRETE 24' z 24.5' L 0 T 4 GARAGE 0 LCIT 3 J NORTH Cwm _ c� 23' Cw N h IAI /< HOUSE 1.51 1 1 /� n 6• , - m 16' CONCRETE PORCH ST b N 22 R33 R163' TO LAPEER ST. SIOEWALK CURB N. CHESTNUT ST. This report is fntsrWod w4ty for mmVege purposes ow no peowy Gnus rr.r.monumental mo am«rfom hsrson we to bo us.d to ssabilsh Proposal For Special Land Use Permit (Fraternal Organization) 519-N. Chestnut St. Pray America is a non-profit 501.0 Fraternal Organization that promotes prayer and unity in the body of Christ throughout the Greater Lansing Area and beyond. The ministry does this through two primary activities: 1. Facilitation of the Greater Lansing Pastoral Prayer Network. There are currently over 130 Senior pastors from Lansing area churches involved in the network. (See Attached) 2. Promotion of Neighborhood Houses of Prayer. (See Attached) The above property was donated to Pray America and the ministry rents out the lower level for residential use and uses the upper level to facilitate the Pastoral Prayer Network and promote the Neighborhood Houses of Prayer. The property is well maintained and the ministry use of the property does not increase the land use intensity beyond that of the average two family dwelling unit in the neighborhood. SyirituaC .advisory Board �aS1`pr'�S 'I What Prayer Cead ers Are Charles Bicy1"G�yer New Jerusalem Church Sajarlg... C. Clayton Network New Mt. Calvary Baptist Church "It will take a citywide church to Craig Dumont win the citywide war. Our Living Water Church of God separate, isolated efforts will not stop the flood of increasing evil in David Foreman our cities if we, as Christ's church, Reachovt Christian Church >`< remain isolated from each other." - Francis Frangipane PjNA Ralph Funk "At best we ignore other church Delta Haven Free Methodist Church bodies, purchased with Christ's blood just as we were--unless, of Mark Harbison course, they are members of our Oakbrook Community Church particular denomination. Is it any wonder the non-Christian is Donald King unimpressed with our lifeless First Church of the Nazarene platitudes?" - Joe Aldrich Fred McGlone New Covenant Christian Church "Prayer is the most powerful and Ron Morin, Director effective thing we can do:" Dan Shinabar er P.O. Box 14070 Peter Wagner Central Free Method t Church Lansing, Michigan 48901 (517) 374 - 6116 Bill Tulip FAX: (517) 374 - 6491 Hidden Springs Re—eat Centre Scriptural Basis Statement Of .Vtssion Belief The mission of the Pastoral Prayer Network is to bring pastors, who ... That all of them may be one, We Believe... are the spiritual gatekeepers of the Father,...May they be brought to city,together in intercessory prayer complete unity to let the world The Bible is the inspired word of God for one another and for the P tY �� and as such it is the moral and know that you sent me... spiritual authority for our lives. redemption of their city. - John 17.20-23 Our God is the Lord God Almighty. functions ...every city or household divided The man Jesus is the Divine Son of against itself will not stand." God and He is Lord. He is our only - Matthew 12:25 Redeemer. Pastors networking to pray for one another, their families and the Prayer is the most powerful and fruitfulness of their respective "If my people, who are called by effective thing the people of God can churches. my name, will humble themselves do to bring redemption to their city and pray and seek my face and and to persons. Pastors uniting in prayer against turn from their wicked ways, then the forces of evil that afflict our in our communities today. will I hear from heaven and will The Holy Spirit is present and active city and for the redemption of our forgive their sin and will heal their city. land." We are respectively members of His - 11 Chronicles 7.•14 bony, Each part of the body whether Pastors coming together in fellow- individual or congregation is gifted by ship for mutual encouragement, sharing of insight and mission "Devote yourselves to prayer,being the Holy Spirit for works of ministry. watchful and thankful." The body must function. strategies. - Colossians 4.2 The second floor commercial use is subject to the City's Site Plan Review and Building Code approval process. Please contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 for further information. It is assumed that the current structure is residential in nature and the rezoning will allow the conversion of the second floor for commercial purposes. The conversion will trigger the following provisions of the Family of Uniform Code: • Plans sealed by an architect or engineer- show changes necessary to comply with codes. • 1 -hour fire resistance occupancy separation between the commercial and residential use • Modification of the second floor structural floor to comply with code loading requirements for a commercial building,eg. 50#live load,20#partition load • Accessibility to the handicapped • Barrier Free toilet room • Depending upon distance from the property line to exterior wall,the wall may have to be modified to comply with fire ratings. Window openings may have to be closed or fire windows installed. Requirements are as follows: • wall less than 20' to property line- 1 hour construction • glazing less than 10' to property line-fire window • glazing less than 5' to property line-remove window These issues should be considered prior to final deliberations. Should you have questions please contact Jack Nelson 483-4375. 7; J QIIA K:rNO IL� SaGINd I. =, a i _ I IIII III =i 1 sHlawassE= I Eli IONIA t�� IIIIII I 1 � Iws� I I:-.•;•:.I I '.•::�:,^: I I IIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIII k%4 \ I \\ \\M k\\\\\ \i ^nnw W4 i•iT'cNaW, 1 _ ^--�' •III :. .. � 1 5. . IIIIIIICHERRY H S� JCSG,yr. ( I!':�:II il�.illll I� : ul jjl�'iill� I'. i��lj ji 1C:Ij� II • 'I '1AP 913 PROPOSED LAND USE CN PAC" GOVT. OFFICE RES. 0-14du/ac C.B.O. :5-30du/ac _jFM COMMUNITY FAC. 30+du/ac COMMERCIAL '? CFFICE/RES . MIX INDUSTRIAL OF=_C_ - PARKING areas to follow. These descriptions are meant to establishe future planning policy for the Lansing Planning Board, City Council and residents or property owners within the area designated. Three primary areas are described in the following paragraphs. Area /#I - The particular goal for this area is to promote lower densities and more home owner occupants. There is a direct corre- lation between many of the problems that plague the area to the lack of home owner occupied dwellings and the excessive number of rental units on small parcels. By promoting a lower density, equivalent to the ' C' or 'DM-1 ' Res- idential Districts ( 14 or less dwelling units per acre) , a direc- tion will be established discouraging more dense zoning districts which in turn encourages home owner occupied dwellings. Typically, when a structure is occupied by the owner, greater care is given to both the grounds and the structures. The Committee recommends that the residential properties which exist in a more dense residential zoning district be evaluated with regard to land use and if feasi- ble change the zoning of these properties to one of the lower den- sity residential districts. Area /#II - This particular block (bounded by Butler, Ionia, Sycamore and Ottawa Streets) is owned by the State of Michigan and . was the initial site for the State Library. Since the library is being constructed two blocks south of this site this block could be developed as a planned residential development. By promoting a density between 15-30 dwelling units per acre a private. developer may be attracted to buy and develop the site while saving the re- maining residential structures. A planned residential development would act as a buffer between the existing residential area to the north and the developing state complex to the south. Area J#III - The Capitol Common' s development has been partially completed. The City of Lansing should continue toward complete and complimentary development to the west. Office/Residential Mix This proposed mixed use area is meant to be a buffer between the office district and the residential district. This transition zone between Walnut and Seymour, South of Saginaw and north of Genesee is meant to allow for less intense type office uses with at least an equal amount of residential use in the same structure. The two characteristics of office uses that would be included are: - typically ' appointment type' office , - non ' product sales' offices. By also requiring residential uses , the buildings will not only be associated with an office, which is vacant at night, but also with residents who are there typically after the office closes . To accomplish this, a new zoning district would have to be adopted J OAKL.ANO II i II INA I I IIII ' II u SAG � E5 i T EII III if f Z QI+ f�•.• �( t Z ESHIAWHIAWASSE_ ICNIA I(I ��III�II•. � �1��1' I IIII r,VV I LPIAICH OT—Aw4 L1"NL�'vL V'v =\O\�\\, waS vvwuq \ a AMA l ZCC. \ — ,�,, Ili II ii. .I ;'•IST JOScr�4? ED E•illl f I-49s /i PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 414 OPEN SPACE GOVT. OFFICE RES. 0-14du/ac C.3.0. 15-30du/ac COMMUNITY FAC. 30+du/ac M COMMERCIAL CFFICE/RES MIX INOUSTRIAL :I .. OFFICE PARKIVG MAR. -04' 91 (TUE) 14:38 WESCO LANSING TEL: 1 311 887 0140 P. 001 March 4, 1997 City of Laming Plsn3ia8 Board 316 N. Capitol AveaUe Lansing. MI 48933-1236 Re: Zr2-97. 519 N. CheSEM St. Planning Hoard Membea: I am the owner of the pwpcay at 517 N. Ches<am. Strom. wwch is immediately south of the propeny refamced above. I am wilting tD voice ray IOME oPP°aacn to the moving chaagr ttuda coudderatios for 519 N. (;hestaat. which is balcd os several cons<deraaovs. Ths property is within the sr, Seven" by the Rivcr Island Master Pfau Amssdmestit. which pcoWbirs its ttsti as as officer All cwaers within this cues mast abids by the plaa's oas and tbs Planting Board m� uphold these �siam or dwo will case to be a �TO V= a.. ado. w,n opts the door for adddoaal cbaap Mque" winch will the* he d Mmk to dcny. This pcoputy, bas bees Used AS as office stace AptiL 1995. in violmioa of adatiaE roeioi mad is >o, of mpoted waotaingk ao action was taken by the owner aadl a 0";*2 was ia� Sbonlds't a MmS shag hats W= socarod before moving is. mwmd of ping with as ass of the gopotq'! hu T vah ft of the cbtasa raiaac appacad n is also saspKc wegal I wag tOfd by Ctty Compliance Officer vents Caamell that be smacked as the door oL the dowrasmits mail. and up= sskwj if this was tha a�ioa of P:agr Amsac� was told DO- that it was -RI& To Liler'. This waWd indicm that the whole sum= is bow used as offim :pace, nra flee the appal unit as the qVfiCw0K slates. rmn hu bcm a dramatic m=aw is taffic due to theme ofees. which mat" both a hs=d mad a nnisaaee for the modcom The pazkM amsdaa b" h=OmR difficult as wrl1. Both of thtas faam 'bow Smatb diffuasshed the A101►OCg[ of sasvasdiag ptvpaows by the residents. Tb= is :s +mPk shy at pOPUb =wd omw www for ka'" or gals is tbs imatw t s>ra whicb is is comuasce with the Ddas w AM 90 thud is no rood to Caws` = me eqwiaUY is a lemma whets it 15 f abiddtst. Spot z0am is " why p= pwfelacul PCICd°L For theme ne*soes I ataagly uW 70a w a body to dew► the maim CbAAV request for 519 N. mat Stsaa` Paul J. Madts 333 N. Wr dy Road l:moa Rsp ik Ml 46W Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Velmeir Co., L.L.C. 5777 W. Maple Rd., Suite 180 West Bloomfield, MI 48322 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to Buy REQUESTED ACTION: Re-Zone the property located at 1901 and 1919 S. M.L King Blvd., and 1025, 1029 and 1037 W. Mt. Hope Ave., and 1028, 1032 and 1036 Lenore Ave. EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential and Parking for commercial use at corner of M.L. King and Mt. Hope (Quick Stop Party Store). EXISTING ZONING: "B" Residential, "J" Parking & "F" Commercial District PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 48,000 sq. ft. +/- SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential, Parking, Casa Nove Inc. Federated Polish Home, Michigan Dept. of Transportation S: Residential, Christ Temple Church of Lansing E: Residential W: Single Family Residential across M.L. King Blvd. SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial and "J" Parking S: "B" Residential E: "B" Residential W: "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking MASTER PLAN DESIG.: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Residential use (7-14 du/acre). Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 2 SPECIFIC INFORMATION APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Velmeir Co., LLC has acquired options to purchase over one half of the city block located at the south east corner of M.L. King, Jr. Blvd. and Mt. Hope. The proposal includes demolition of seven residential structures, one commercial structure, and construction of a 10,880 square foot retail drug store. The proposal requires rezoning of nine residential lots from "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District and rezoning of a portion of the existing commercial property from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received. BUILDING SAFETY: The project is subject to compliance with the City's Site Plan Review process and must comply with the Lansing Codes pertaining to construction. Contact Christine Segerlind for further information. BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received. COMMUNITY POLICING: No response received. CONSUMERS POWER: No response received. CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION: No objection. DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: No response received. FIRE MARSHAL: No response received. PUBLIC SERVICES: No response received. TRANSPORTATION: No response received. Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 3 ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The area is principally a residential area with a few neighborhood service type businesses. North across Mt. Hope is the Federated Polish Home. The businesses are somewhat entwined with residential development in this area, with a convenience store and small family drive in type restaurant occupying a minor portion of the subject site at the intersection of King and Mt. Hope. All of these properties are older and were zoned prior to the current master plan. The nearest commercial area is located on Mt. Hope within the Colonial Village shopping center (1/3 of a mile to the west) and a commercial node on M.L. King (3/4 mile to the south). Land uses along both Mt. Hope and King are principally residential in this area. Expansion of the commercial area at this intersection would have at least two impacts on the surrounding area. First, the development would be newer and better landscaped than any of the surrounding development, potentially improving the aesthetics of the area. Secondly, the commercial use would be expanded and the number of residential units decreased which would then bring a larger commercial influence to the predominately residential area. This adverse influence includes pedestrian and vehicular noise, increased traffic on residential as well as arterial streets, and a change in neighboring use for adjacent residential properties. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates a retention of the existing commercial use (Short Stop Party Store) with the remainder of the block bounded by King, Mt. Hope, Sterling and Lenore for low density residential use (7-14 du/acre). Expansion of the existing commercial area is not recommended in the Plan. Expansion of the commercial use here would tend to lead to further commercial development along King and Mt. Hope which would be the seed to further speculation, potential deterioration of the residential structures and strip commercial development along these streets. These streets have a residential character to them, even though considerable traffic is handled on these streets. The Plan(p. 35) also designates the area for housing rehabilitation efforts, not the expansion of spot commercial areas. The Plan is generally committed to commercial development focused at designated major intersections creating a node concept, which discourages strip development. Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 4 IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The property under review is located at the intersection of Mt. Hope, which is designated as a minor arterial, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (King), which is designated a major arterial. The proposal represents a reduction in the number of curb cuts and curb cut locations that are further away from the intersection. These two factors are improvements from a traffic and pedestrian safety standpoint. According to trip generation information (1985 Traffic Engineering Short Course, M.S.U., M.D.O.T. & U.S.F.H.A.), the current residential and commercial situation for the subject properties results in an approximate average of 70 daily trip ends along Mt. Hope, 40 daily trip ends along King and 40 daily trip ends along Lenore. The proposed development would generate an approximate average of 707 trip ends per day. Assuming half would use each of the two cuts, approximately 353 daily trip ends would be generated along Mt. Hope and 354 daily trip ends along King. No curb cuts are proposed along Lenore, however it is doubtful Lenore would see a reduction in vehicular traffic. It is likely that traffic on Lenore and Sterling will increase due to the boulevard on King limiting left hand turns from the south lane which will require drivers to be "creative" and use these two residential approaches. Therefore, increases in vehicular traffic would result from the proposal along all four streets surrounding the area under rezoning consideration. As an example of the traffic difficulties/alternatives, suppose a vehicle southbound on King wanted to stop at the proposed development and continue on southbound King after stopping. The vehicle would have to go through the intersection 3 times and cross multiple lanes of traffic. Or, these vehicles could use the residential side streets to avoid the intersection and the "Michigan left turn" on King. Additional commercial development at this intersection will add to the number of vehicles turning onto Mt. Hope and King. If any access driveways from this property are not properly designed and located, any problems caused by the existing and additional traffic could be compounded. The Traffic Engineer is evaluating the plan, and is expected to have further comments available before Board action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The proposed use would not generate obnoxious fumes but potentially will expand the influence of the commercially generated or resultant environmental impacts, primarily noise. The site plan does illustrate positive landscaping improvements for portions of the site, but a proposed driveway at the north east of the property line would directly abut the adjacent residential property with only minimal landscaping for a buffer between them. The lack of a significant transition space and the increased vehicular movement directly next to the home would adversely affect the environment of that home. Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 5 IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT As stated previously, the expansion of the commercial area at this site would tend to generate additional strip commercial development in the area which is not recommended for commercial development in the master plan. Presently two nearby commercial areas are being supported by City efforts for development or redevelopment. These areas are the existing Mt. Hope commercial district in the 1500 through 1700 blocks and the large commercial node to the south at M.L. King and Holmes Road, which includes a large shopping center and several parcels of vacant land already zoned for commercial purposes. Due to the proposed location of this development away from these commercial areas, their redevelopment efforts may suffer. OTHER In the "Goals and Objectives for the Twenty-First Century" of the Lansing Planning Board, the attraction of new businesses is encouraged. But, the proposed development does not meet the goals for the location of new economic development, the expansion of commercial businesses, nor the housing objectives. Potentially, all of the goals could be met if the proposed development occurred in an alternate location consistent with master and development plans. At the public hearing held March 4, 1997, the petitioner's representative and two residents spoke in favor of the request while eleven residents spoke in opposition. Also, a petition was received signed by 154 area residents and the principal of the Elmhurst School opposing the request. Additionally, staff received approximately two dozen phone calls on this proposal, all but one stated that they were in opposition to the change in zoning. The present convenience store sells beer and wine only. No liquor is sold at this location. The Arbor Drug store may not be able to get a beer & wine/liquor permit due to its location closer to the church on Lenore. Additional information on this issue will be available before Board action. SUMMARY Expansion of the commercial area at this intersection would have at least two impacts on the surrounding area. First, the development would be newer than any of the surrounding development and generally well landscaped (based on submitted site Plan, potentially improving the aesthetics of the area. Secondly, the commercial use would be expanded and the number of residential units decreased which would then bring a larger commercial influence to the area. This adverse influence includes additional pedestrian and vehicular Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. Page 6 noise, increased traffic, and a change in neighboring use for adjacent residential properties. Expansion of the existing commercial area is not in conformance with the master plan. The proposal represents a reduction in the number of curb cuts and curb cut locations that are further away from the intersection which are improvements from a traffic and pedestrian safety standpoint. Increases in vehicular traffic would result from the proposal along both King and Mt. Hope for the area under rezoning consideration. The residential side streets would witness increased traffic trying to avoid the Mt. Hope/King intersection and the "Michigan left turn" on King south of Mt. Hope. The site would generally result in additional noise for the abutting properties. Due to the proposed location of this development away from the Logan Square and Lindell Forge commercial areas, their redevelopment efforts may suffer. The proposed development does not meet the Planning Board's goals for the location of new economic development, the expansion of commercial businesses, nor the housing objectives. Potentially, all of the goals could be met if the proposed development occurred in an alternate location consistent with master and development plans. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this request based upon the information contained within the report. Report prepared by J. Ruff and S. Hayward D:\DATA\WPERFECT\Z-4-97.WPD LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT Committed to Quality March 4, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: We would like to express our concern over the proposed rezoning of Martin Luther King and Mt. Hope. The added traffic would be detrimental to the children on their way to and from school . Please consider this when making the final decision. Thank you. Sincerely, Terry Baer Principal Elmhurst School 2400 Pattengill Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48910 Z-4-97 Expansion of "F" Commercial at Mt. Hope Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. W. MT. HOPE AVENUE I'YI.ON SIGN •� JII rn i \ 238.00, 1 --------- —-—-—-—•—-—r— — —•— — — — — — — — —1 , --—-—-—•— _--'—'— — — ? 1 i r 1 I I I I ; ; i I I i ! i i i I 116 i FIn 12 I Iv I I I N JH I g \ 1 i i PH FA m 1 0 0 1 -- 1 in I I I 2 Z I o PH I I 1 � i m J i I ! I JH i i 117 N I 20'-0 24'-0 1 851-0 30'-0 / 1 PiROPOSED ; ! o �ETAIL i N I '_ I1qq 1 I p pSS j R SH R E WLE i (35 SUAREIIFR / G'HIG S NRY; i C EEN L ; I- - - - - - - - - - - - - i 10 FA I i i JH 1 I JH j 3 I i TRANSF i 3 I ; ; 1 I i 3 FA I I I I I I I D �.- .-.-.-.-.-.-._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. .-... ....... ._...-.-.-.-._............. ._.J 248.50' — — JH JH FA a•-n 111GFI BERu 3 3 LENORE STREET SITE DATA: 81ADW, AREA: 10.880 G.S.F. 7.800 N.S.F. PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PARKINI. n[0'0:11:150 N.S.F.I 52 CARS PARKRu; PRDwDED: 62 CARS i i r SC.A1(- I'-16' U' ■ ■ j p � �� I l m ■ � i � � � �=� � � -- � � ■ � � 10 .E . � � � ' ♦��t NO 11 NOW Iwo op RE IS NNIN QN a lip ------___-------� fir- --•--------------- IL Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m.,Tenth Floor City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall all TUESDAY, March 18, 1997 AGENDA 1. OPENING SESSION A Roll Call B. Excused Absences C. Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A PRD-1-97, Silver Stone Townhouses, Northeast Comer of S. M.L. King Blvd. and Hughes Rd. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A Minutes for Approval: March 4, 1997 B. Committee of the Whole C Committee Reports: 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District b. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District C. Z-3-97, Willow St. and M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District d. ZA-97, M.L. King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F " Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Next meeting Wednesday, April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236. PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 18, 1997 Page 2 2. Urban Development Committee Next meeting Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933- 1236 3. Executive Committee D. Report from Planning Manager: E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Urban Development Committee a. Act-2-95, 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 (UDC Tabled November 26, 1996) 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. 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. 3-1897ag.2mr a:\37 Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m.,Tenth Floor City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall TUESDAY, March 18, 1997 AGENDA 1. OPENING SESSION A. Roll Call B. Excused Absences C. Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-1-97, Silver Stone Townhouses, Northeast Comer of S. M.L. King Blvd. and Hughes Rd. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 4, 1997 B. Committee of the Whole C Committee Reports: 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District b. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District C. Z-3-97, Willow St. and M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District d. Z-4-97, M.L. King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F " Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Next meeting Wednesday, April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236. PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 18, 1997 Page 2 2. Urban Development Committee Next meeting Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 4 p.m., Planning Office, 316 N. Capitol Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1236 3. Executive Committee D. Report from Planning Manager: E. Pending Items-tems: Future action required 1. Urban Development Committee a. Act-2-95, 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 (UDC Tabled November 26, 1996) 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. 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. 3-1897ag.2mr a:\36 DRAFT TO CLERK 040197 APPROVED 97 ) In TO CLERK 97 Minutes of the Regular Meeting- LANSING PLAN NINP..B43ARIA 7 p.m., City Council Ci cltnfjers Tenth Floor, Lansing I><r+ IIG l Y CLERK 124 West Michigan Avenue TUESDAY, March 18, 1997 1. OPENING SESSION Chairman Garry Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, LeBlanc, Nischan; Ruge; six members present; two vacancies. Ex officio councilmembers Lilly, Allen; not in attendance. B. Excused Absence. None. C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Planning Board Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. The agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-1-97, Silver Stone Townhouses, Northeast Corner of S. M.L. King Blvd. and Hughes Rd. Mr. Ruff explained the process and then presented the case, a request by Marvin Vanek to construct a planned residential development consisting of 104 townhouses in 13 buildings on a site located on S. M.L. King Blvd., extending from Hughes to Haag Road between King and Taffy Parkway. At present the property is vacant, zoned multiple family residential. The reason for the hearing tonight is that the site, containing multiple buildings, has more than six acres. No change is proposed in the zoning. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential development. KARL L. GOTTING, 232 S. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1000, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING APPLICANT. The project is zoned multiple. The PRD is required because of the lot size of one of the lots. Mr. Vanek intends to build a superior project, designed for the site, that will benefit the City and its residents. He does not seek any increase in PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 2 the density. The stormwater and sanitary sewer services are available, as are other utilities. It meets MDOT ingress and egress requirements. The units are substantially larger, 30 percent to 50 percent larger, with cathedral ceilings, two baths in two- and three-bedroom units. There are 12 3-bedroom, 13 1-bedroom, and 80 2-bedroom units whose construction costs ranges from $51,450 to $72,480. These two renderings show what could be built without a PRD, one building with the same number of units at a lower construction cost. Chairman Goolsby welcomed Councilmember Benavides to tonight's meeting. Mr. Ruge also came at this point. DIMITRIOS ECONOMIDES, 605 BURCHAM, ARCHITECTS. We will provide all architectural services and construction documents, which are now complete. This is a rendering of front elevations of one of the buildings which are seven or nine units, three stories, family room in lower level, living, kitchen and dining and in some cases a bedroom in first level, and bedrooms on third or second level above ground. They have cathedral ceilings, fireplaces, dishwashers and microwaves. Square footages range from 1,500 for the 3-bedroom, 1,300 for the 2-bedroom, and almost 1,100 for the 1-bedroom. We have designed the driveway as MDOT requested, 40 feet wide; also sidewalks extend from one end of the project to the other, heavily landscaped with trees. The back is heavily buffered. Parking is in the middle, hidden from the homes in the back. We have an alternate plan with all the units in one building; smaller apartments, cheaper to build. We are prepared to go ahead with that plan if we encounter delay with this. We can put all 104 units in one building. Mr. Greiner asked about surrounding streets; Mr. Economides said the development is surrounded on all four sides by streets. Mr. Ruge asked if the alternate plan have more usable green space? Mr. Economides said yes; it would also be less expensive to build and no PRD would be required. Mr. Gotting said rentals for 1-bedrooms would be $4681mo. and $521 including utilities; 2 bedroom $553 and $612; and 3-bedroom $633 and $696. For the record, this is not subsidized housing nor a HUD project. BARBARA L. LUOMA, BUSINESS OWNER AT 5544 S. M.L. KING BLVD., REPRESENTING JERRY'S AUTOMOTIVE, in opposition. We have built businesses on M.L. King frontage expecting commercial development, not multi-family development. The area is not appropriate PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 3 for residential. The current zoning is based on on an out-dated Master Plan developed 20 years ago. JERRY LUOMA, BUSINESS OWNER, 5544 S. M.L. KING BLVD, JERRY'S AUTOMOTIVE. We met with the developer; it looks great on paper. We can't think of a good reason for the City to make a deal costing tax dollars. The City is losing tax dollars from 16 PILOT programs, plus two pending, not counting this one. We are concerned about increases in crime and vandalism in the area, and about being unable to secure cars overnight in our business. MARK KOSLOSKI, 3520 HAROLD, BUSINESS OWNER AT 6020 M.L. KING BLVD., DOWNS HEATING, about 1/4 mile from the site, across from Maple Grove Elementary. Safety and traffic issues would be compounded by this development. At 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., it is dangerous for students crossing M.L. King Blvd., which along with Pennsylvania and Cedar St., are main arteries into Lansing off 1-96 and Business-496. I went down Pennsylvania, Cedar and M.L. King looking for similar projects. On Pennsylvania north of Jolly, Kaynorth Apartments has sidewalks on both sides of the street, a crosswalk and two entrances, a nearby park, and speed limits of 40 m.p.h. On Cedar St., there is commercial development with no multi-family development, and speed limits of 35 mph. On M.L. King is Covington Apts., there are sidewalks, traffic lights, crosswalks, speed limits of 40 mph, and two nearby parks. This proposed site has no sidewalks, no crosswalks, and speed limits of 45 m.p.h. on two lanes north and two lanes south with a center turn lane, and no area parks. There are no viable places for children and adults to interact in a safe environment. It is not a safe piece of property. B.W. THOMPSON, 5606 S. M.L. KING, OWNER OF THOMPSON LOCK. I checked vacancy rates at 18 other complexes, and 10 responded for which there are 75 vacancies. If these complexes, that have been paying ' taxes to the City for many years, have 65-70 percent occupancy rates, taking away 104 potential customers should be looked at seriously. Another concern is the traffic flow on S. Logan. I seldom see cars driving 45 m.p.h.; most are doing in excess of 55 and some faster. A barrier system should be installed to keep the children from playing in Logan Street. VIELKA COVER, 5701 TAFFY PARKWAY. This is going to be my front yard. I have two children. Traffic on Taffy Parkway is going at 45 to 50 mph, on the dirt road. A complex this size will increase the traffic flow. I myself have traveled 55 mph on Logan. The Bay station has remodeled PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 4 because of theft and vandalism, and it is really bright there now. This is one road over from where this complex is going to be. We have two complexes on the Haag side with lower income people. We don't need any more traffic. Going for a walk with the kids, it is virtually impossible to get to the other side of Hughes because of the traffic flow from Logan, or coming from Logan to Haag. There is no sidewalk on Hughes or Haag. JOYCE COOK, 5723 TAFFY PARKWAY, opposed. This would be my front yard. I don't want it there. For that amount of families to move in, the traffic flow would not be reasonable. If you are southbound and try to turn onto Hughes, it is virtually impossible. On the southwest corner, across from the project, there is Capitol Discount, a pawnshop. You cannot imagine the amount of traffic going in and out of there, and the speeds. I get home about 3 p.m. from the traffic. It is hard; I have to put my blinker on at Valencia near the Bay Station and King, to get people to slow down so they don't back-end me so I can turn onto Hughes to get to Taffy Parkway. People use the middle lane to go to the pawnshop. Trucks rumble so loud that they rattle the mirrors on my walls. Traffic is high volume, big trucks; it is not conducive for children, not safe. There is no sidewalk and no place to walk. It would not benefit the City. What we are saying about the traffic is true. DONNA BRIGGS, 1412 WEYMOUTH CT., across from Taffy Parkway. I grew up in Eaton Rapids, and I choose to move to Lansing. I work in Jackson, and commute. I bought my house four years ago. I have to leave for work at 12:40. 1 have to get onto M.L. King from Haag Road, not a safe corner with the traffic coming north from 1-96. 1 am also looking at the vandalism and the crime rate which is increasing. Ten years ago my cousin was shot and killed at the Bay station. We are looking at adding about 500 people into the South Lansing area. Crime is already exorbitant. Youngsters will be looking for something to do. Children are on the streets at 11, 12 o'clock at night getting into trouble. The crime rate will increase, adding that many more people; my house value will decrease and taxes will increase for road repair. It sounds to me like either-or; either we take the townhouses or the apartment buildings. The road, the safety, the community cannot support 104 units in that area. NANCY GERARD, 5818 HUGHES RD. My house is about a block away. We have lived there almost eight years and have experienced vandalism in our own front yard. I have no doubt that they came from the housing project on Haag Road. Even at 7 a.m., it is hard to get out onto M.L. King, as well as coming home at 5 p.m. Traffic is excessive and fast on M.L. King Blvd. Traffic on Hughes is also excessive. I am concerned about PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 5 the increase in crime and vandalism. The site is not big enough for that amount of people. C.D. RANDALL, 5614 S. LOGAN. I have had a business at that location for 41 years. It was township when we went there, commercial. In 1964 the area was annexed and we became nonconforming. Sometime after that we became commercial. When I located there, it was commercial from Jolly south to the city limits. Over the years, I have not seen one single residence built from Jolly south to the city limits, but there has been lots of commercial activity. I built my building over eight years ago; I even got a letter from the City Building Dept. commending me on the job. I see no reason for residential; it should be commercial from Jolly to the freeway. I have a drawing here to show you how it is now, the best example of spot zoning. You should take a good look at this. There is commercial, residential, professional, local shopping district. On Pennsylvania Avenue, little business people like myself can't afford it anymore. It should be zoned commercial so that small business can locate there and improve it. Not one of you people would like to own a business across the street from this place. A week ago last Saturday, I came down to check my building at 6:30 a.m. and found a car had been stolen. The police found the car in a project right off Pleasant Grove Road. With a project like this across from me, they will be stealing my cars on a regular basis. If I leave cars out, tires are slashed, paint is scratched, glass is broken. I am concerned about security. We don't want vandalism and spray paint. We pay our taxes and we resent this thing going in with no taxes. Why should we pay the taxes to police them. PAULA CLARK, BUSINESS OWNER AT 6070 S. M.L. KING. I would like to speak on the tax abatement, the PILOT program, Payment in Lieu Of Taxes. Lansing has 16 projects in the PILOT program, and 2 waiting to be approved, not counting the Silver Stone Project. Seven are already on the south side; almost 39 percent of the programs in Lansing are located on the south side. How many PILOT programs should Lansing have. The City's share of lost revenue is $610,000 per year. This project will add another $76,800 in lost City revenue if it is allowed into the PILOT program. Not only will the money be lost in the City revenue, but also in education and county taxes. We are closing libraries in Lansing because of insufficient money to fund them. We need projects that put money into City coffers, not take it away. Do we need another low income rental complex in the City, especially on the south side? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to fund a program to make low income home ownership a priority? I am against it because of the PILOT program. It is not fair to home owners and business owners. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 6 AMY VAN SICKLE, 5627 TAFFY. I live behind the proposed residence. I have the same concerns as my neighbors, not only the increase in automobile traffic but also the increase in pedestrians. The accident rate will increase because of the heavy traffic, and burden police and fire and other emergency services. ERIC CLARK, 6070 S. LOGAN/KING. You probably remember me when my business was called S. Logan Cycle. When the City took the name of my business away from me, I tried to live with it. I am here to defend what I have built for 27 years to retire on. Is this a done deal? I think the Council is going to have something to say about that. If we have an alarm that is no fault of ours, the police charge $52 to respond. If we pay taxes for police protection and road repair, if our taxes keep inceasing and services decreasing, and you give more abatements, the rest of us have to pick up the slack. I am against it. JACKIE KNIGHTEN, 5713 TAFFY PARKWAY. I have resided on Taffy longer than most people here. When I moved there, my taxes were $400 per year; now they are almost $2,000, and I am still on a dirt road. Two children have been killed on Hughes and M.L. King. Traffic is dangerous. They have found out in the Chicago projects that when you stack people in a small area, you have crime. This is what you want in our front yard? Their parking lot would be in my front yard. Would you like me to move into your house, and you come live where I do, and see if you would like that in your front yard. LORI A. FUDGE, 5528 S. M.L. KING, OWNER OF EXQUISITE TOUCH. We have done an advisory petition of several pages in two days. Many people are concerned, both residents, business owners and clients. A synopsis of our concerns is: 1. Inappropriate use of the land in a commercial area. 2. Over-saturation of this type of development in the area. A demographic study of the area was done in 1994. My business had changed in two years' time. I have doubled my staff. 3. The project is requesting a tax abatement. The City should be more in favor of commercial property and taxes. Dwellings on M.L. King is going in reverse of what I thought the City's focus was. When I went for rezoning in 1989, 1 was told that M.L. King was projected to be commercial. considered going to Holt, but most of my clients are in Lansing, and I figured it was more feasible for the tax dollars to return to Lansing; also availability for that location for my clients. In Grand Rapids on Twenty- Eighth St., commercial is across from commercial. It is together, and it looks nice. Be focused and stay with commercial. 4. Increased traffic on our street and added strain on our public service systems. It is a PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 7 transitional neighborhood from rural highway to commercial and should not revert to residential. I am concerned for safety of children. There are other areas of the City where this is appropriate. WILLIAM ANDERSON, 1427 MARK TWAIN, two houses from Haag. Mr. Vanek owns the property where the house was. He left the garage. I have called the City three times on it. There is a freezer out there, and various furniture, two sofas. If he is going to be a landlord and doesn't take care of the property now, I don't think he can take of it when it is built. Why don't you make this a Renaissance zone and start from scratch instead of trying to renovate a piece-of-junk building. It is a waste of money. STEVEN FLOYD THOMAS, 1.427 TAFFY PARKWAY, REPRESENTING MATTIE HAMPTON, 5729 TAFFY PARKWAY. I've been coming to my sister's house for several years. Right now I work for a major building company in Detroit. For the past four months, I have been tearing down Jeffrey Housing Projects. I was the project superintendent there. It is very devastating. If you put something like this in an area like this, it is going to be catastrophic. If you have Highland Cooperative, and with something sandwiching a small community of homes, and people with solid love there, you are going to destroy it. A pawnshop is across the street. They are going to be taking things out of these people's homes. It is going to be crazy. I hope you look at this, maybe look as far as Detroit and Jeffrey Housing Projects and other communities where you know you are going to get this kind of element. The City is trying to do a good thing, but to congest this type of element on the people who have a small bondedness amongst them, it is going to be crazy. Traffic is going to be 50 mph. Even if you put a safe walkway, you are going to have people cutting through people's yards and destroying them. My sister works months per year on her yard; she cares about the community, everybody cares. When you have such a large amount of people congested in a small area, a lot of those values are going to be destroyed. It is a beautiful community. It doesn't need to be destroyed. GEORGE PLUMMER, 5701 TAFFY PARKWAY. My residence is right across from the site. I do construction, and I see this project is big. Just in the time it is being built, it will create a hassle. The building process will create traffic problems. Potholes you have got already, and the noise and change. People walk out there, and fly kites. It is a field right now. When you change it over to residential, there will be noise, tires squealing, and late-night parties. It would be better kept in commercial. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 8 RICK MILL, 5801 HUGHES. Holt, Dimondale and Eaton Rapids are growing, and M-99 is the main route from those areas. It creates a major traffic problem, with traffic speeds 50-55 mph. I have lived there five years, and in that time there have been five high-speed police chases down Hughes Road. It is a major route between Miller and Jolly. There is a high number of apartments there already, with high percentages of vacancies. I question if this unit is needed in this end of town. We also have a lot of subsidized housing units. We have the Village, Islands Cooperative, and several others. Across the road are three small apartment buildings, and across M.L. King on Hughes there are a couple small rental units. Is this complex needed here? The property is not large, and if there is not enough green space and play areas, a park will be needed for the area, and there is none. LEVI TROTTER, 1432 WEYMOUTH CT., across the street. I am concerned about the density of the development. I would like to see the proposal for traffic planning, lights, environmental control. My first thought was it's time to move. Some people can, some can't. Some people are cornerstone people--if you take them away, you can write off the neighborhood. SAM EYDE. I am the owner of record on the property. Mr. Vanek asked for the opportunity to develop the property, which has been on the market for about 15 years, five or six by myself, and many more years by Sam Bofysil. I am a developer; I understand the business and business climate, and potentials of property, what can and cannot be done. There has been a sign in front of the property, will build to suit, or option to sell. There are residential properties in the area, and it looks like it has potential for residential. We have people who live in the area and who own businesses. For residents, the field is a nice attraction. If all fields were left for people to play in, there would be no growth and no progress. The revenue the city is getting now is much smaller than with a development. Subsidies only last for a certain number of years. Two people to a unit is normal; three would be a lot. The amount of people for this area is nowhere near what they are saying. If there is a traffic problem, people should petiton for lights to control M.L. King. If this were a commercial property, the traffic would be no less. People would be drawn from all over the city. I have not found one commercial customer since I have owned the property, nor did Sam Bofysil find very many. Mr. Vanek has done a good job offering upscale living compared with the apartments in the area. Crime is not controlled by living quarters, but by families and parents, and it should not be a reason for having or not having the development, nor should traffic. The City should control it. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 9 The owner has a right to develop the property. It has been a nice park or playground. For businesspeople, two or three hundred people would be customers at the salon, the garage, the bike shop, grocery, etc. As a businessman, I want more people and more opportunity. Chairman Goolsby said the petitions received this evening contain 104 names; he thanked participants, and announced the conclusion of the public hearing. This will be referred to the Committee of the Whole on April 1, 1997, part of our regular Board meeting that evening. Chairman Goolsby declared a recess. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) J.C. RINGENBERG, 1013 W. MT. HOPE, Z-4-97. I, along with 150 other homeowners, encourage the Planning Board to deny Z-4-97. There are many challenges at the corner of M.L. King and Mt. Hope. Concerning the plan site, how would they handle rain run-off; what would they do with snow; will there be turn lanes for the driveway at Mt. Hope to stop left turns. If they have so much green space, why are they going to cut down trees. There is not adequate sound blockage. If they are so neighborhood friendly, why didn't they hire local surveyors? I suddenly have different property lines. Please deny Z-4-97. BARRY JUBEK. I hope you are aware of the development at Willow and M.L. King. I have talked to Dr. Kelvin Anderson and Willie Dawson, neighborhood watch coordinator and Rev. Murphy. Dr. Anderson and Ms. Dawson have done neighborhood clean-up and kept drugs off the corner. Part of the corner is already commercial. The existing building is too close to the corner. The new building would be at least 50-60 ft. off the corner of M.L. King and Willow. This would allow the City to construct a turn lane off Willow at minimal expense. The City Engineer has to look at this, but it may resolve the problem. Willow Street serves seven factories, but has only two exits, M.L. King and Waverly. My son, who is a civil engineer, checked into the ten- and fifteen-year plan of MDOT. They have nothing planned to straighten out M.L. King. Arbor Drug is a good store, and the entire corner could be straightened out for almost nothing. Reconsider and rethink this proposal. LYNN KAVANAGH, 1037 PDXSON. I want to comment about both Z-3-97 and Z-4-97. I work for St. Lawrence Hospital. We have a Pharmacy Plus, a brand- new Rite-Aid across the street; I live at 1037 Poxson, where the other drugstore would be built at M.L. King and Mt. Hope. Why do we need more drugstores? Within a two-mile radius, there would be eight drugstores. Have they done a demographic study? There are concerns about traffic increases. To get in and PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 10 out of the drugstore, you would have to go in and out of the intersection three times. WILLIE DAWSON, 1304 THEODORE. I want to talk about Z-3-97. I started a neighborhood watch in 1989. We do clean-ups. Whatever they do to it would be a plus over what it is now. I would back it 100 percent, and I have lived in the neighborhood sixteen years. Now it is a disaster. If you want to do a walk- through the neighborhood, I would be happy to show you. Some people against the drugstore live 3-4 blocks away. I think it would be a good idea. I live right there. REV. MICHAEL C. MURPHY, PASTOR OF ST. STEPHEN'S COMMUNITY CHURCH AND COMMUNITY NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION, 1420 W. OAKLAND AVE., regarding Z-3-97. I am here representing not only St. Stephen's, but also the West Town Redevelopment Association, which is a partnership of businesses, churches, community groups, and organizations on the west side. (Handed in a list of participants.) We were formally organized on January 14, 1997, and Dr. Peter Chiaravalli, the president, has a dental practice at Saginaw and Jenison. This association is more of a partnership of people who want to see the west side flourish and develop. I represent the organization. We met with Arbor Drug and were satisfied with their presentation. I want to speak about the development. The members of the West Town Redevelopment Association voted unanimously in favor of Arbor Drug development at this site. We urge reconsideration by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee because of support of the development by almost all sectors on the west side. We welcome economic development into our area. We reached our decision in the best interests of the community. We did stipulate some specific requests and requirements, (1) that Arbor Drug would provide in writing that they would not seek a liquor license at that site. We are concerned about the Rite Aid at Saginaw and M.L. King and their recent move to get a liquor license when originally they said they would not sell liquor at that site. We want Arbor Drug's assurance that there will be no liquor license. (2) We are concerned about economic development issues. We support Arbor Drug's proposed development at M.L. King and Willow (without liquor). LUCILLE ALFORD, 1016 LENORE. I have heard that Arbor Drug wants all three locations, all or nothing. I hope that is not true. I am not really opposed to the Willow & King proposal (Z-3-97). I like people to be honest, truthful and fair. I want to be fair with my neighbors. It would destroy the neighborhood concept of the triangle. People ignore traffic signs and stop lights and the speed limits. Please support denial (of Z-4-97). PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 11 JOHN ELLIOTT, 1020 LENORE AVE. I have lived in the neighborhood since I was two-and-a-half, and lived around many other places. I attended Barnes Avenue Elementary, Walter French, and Everett H.S. I am in sales at Art Van; it is supply and demand. We control 54 percent market share in furniture, yet we are moving out on W. Saginaw to Flowerland. Is bigger better? I don't know that we need another drugstore. Supply and demand is what it is about. There are many drugstores nearby. How many sick people are around? Speaking on the other issues, if you already have 70-80 units you can't rent in the area, why build another 104. Is bigger better? It is not always the case. GENE MELLEN, 600 WEST STREET, Z-3-97. I want a point of information. I attended the Walnut Neighborhood Organization meeting last week and was under the impression that the drugstore at M.L. King and Willow was a venture by Rite Aid. This afternoon's presentation convinced the West Town Redevelopment Group this was a good project. If this group has information from the neighborhood advisory group or from the neighborhood organization, they might recontact them to learn if they are aware of the change of information. Several things: (1) Arbor Drug will hire local people within a half- mile radius to work at the store; (2) Arbor Drug will give houses to be removed to an organization that will move and rehab them. That would speak to eliminating residential units in the City, which has been a long-time concern. Arbor Drug is very stable; they have never closed a store. They have agreed to put in writing that they will not sell liquor. The only other thing would be for them to hire local people to do the construction if it is approved, and address the safety concerns of students at Willow School getting to and from school with regard to increased traffic. MICHAEL DZEBSKI, 1024 PDXSON AVE. Most of the neighbors are against it. South Central Organization and Moores Park Neighborhood Organization are against it. We did not have the opportunity to look at a site plan. It is a poor location. TODD BRUNST, HERE FOR THE PETITIONER. (Distributed materials picturing housing that would be removed from the area.) Regarding Z-3-97, we proposed a well-thought out development. The existing housing is blighted and in disrepair. It would provide an opportunity for the City to create a turn. I want to correct a few misstatements. Arbor Drug is based in Troy. All of its over 200 stores are in the state of Michigan. It is the 14th largest drugstore operator in the U.S., second largest in Michigan. Stores would be full-stocked at all times. We have included letters of support and testimonials from other communities. Regarding snow removal, snow will be stacked on-site and not pushed onto others' property. An item of new information: Each of the two sites is PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 12 contaminated. We believe there are underground storage tanks stored at Willow and M.L. King. Site restoration would be conducted by the developer. The staff report is idealistic. The reality is that the corner of M.L. King and Willow has little if any chance in the future of being developed for single family residential housing. it is a commercial site and should be expanded and enhance the neighborhood. (Mr. Brunst distriuted materials concerning Z-4-97.) Many of the same conditions exist here at M.L. King and Mt. Hope. The proposal would bring stability to the neighborhood. On the subject of scare tactics, people have collected signatures. There is also contamination at this site, which was the location of a service station many years ago. There may be underground contamination and underground storage tanks. Cavanaugh and South Cedar is also contaminated. You have a proposal representing a capable retailer that will work with the communities where they operate their businesses. They are willing to clean up contaminated sites. In the second packet there is a number of unsolicited endorsement letters from customers. There are other considerations than unhappy residents. Please consider all of the variables and the benefits. Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public comment section. 6. RECESS 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: March 4, 1997 Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of March 4, 1997. On a voice vote, the minutes of March 4, 1997 were unanimously (6-0) APPROVED. B. Committee of the Whole - None. C Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Ms. LeBlanc, Chair. The committee met on March 12, 1997. a. Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District The applicant proposes to remodel the facilities into a PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 13 restaurant featuring Middle Eastern food. Buildings will be remodeling starting with 621 and expanding into 623 in the future. The current residential use on the second floor of 621 will be abandoned and the space used for storage. The requested zoning change is necessary to eliminate the parking requirement. The property does not have space for on-site parking. 1. Existing zoning would allow for the same use as proposed under the requested zoning district. 2. The change in zoning would shift the burden of providing parking from on-site to off-site by the City of Lansing. 3. The City recognizes the need for increased parking and has acquired/leased properties for this purpose (217 additional spaces added in 1996). 4. This development would be compatible with the North-East Area Comprehensive Plan and with projects within the area that the City of Lansing has partially funded (Oldsmobile Park, Blue Coyote Brewing Co., 603 E. Michigan Avenue, and Rum Runners). The committee found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the development is consistent with the Master Plan and the adjacent uses. The committee continues to express concern over the potential growth of parking burden placed upon the City but was satisfied that individually this development would not significantly impact the parking situation. Finally, the committee found that the down-zoning of the property as proposed would eliminate potential industrial-type land uses from going into the building. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to approve Z-1- 97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business 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-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G- 1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Ave Greiner •Aye LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan . Ave Ruae . . Ave Goolsby. . . Aye PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 14 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-1-97, 621 and 623 E. Michigan Ave., "H" Lt. Industrial to "G-1" Business District was recommended to be APPROVED. b. Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant proposes to continue using the first floor of the structure as a residential unit and the second floor as an office for their nonprofit corporation. In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report that the request is not in conformance with the master plan and is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to deny Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. Ms. Leblanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend denial of Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Ave Greiner .Ave LeBlanc. . . Aye Nischan . Ave Ruge Ave cools Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-2-97, 519 N. Chestnut St., "C" Residential and "DM-4" Residential Districts to "D-1" Professional Office District, was DENIED. C. Z-3-97, Willow St. & M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District There has been some thought this evening of referring this item back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee or to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 15 Ms. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to refer this matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Ruge said he preferred it to go to the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Goolsby passed the gavel and said he hesitated sending it to the Committee of the Whole. This evening we received new information which is more conducive to discussing in the Zoning and Ordinance committee than in the Committee of the Whole here, before our meeting. Rev. Murphy brought new information tonight that we were not aware of. "I would like an opportunity to discuss that with him." After that if we want to take it up in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Goolsby would have no objection. Initially, we need to discuss it in Zoning and Ordinance Committee where we will have an opportunity to interact with people offering additional information received tonight. Mr. Ruge's concern was with the scale of the project and not being in scale with our older neighborhoods, but he could mention that in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Goolsby said the motion is to refer the matter to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee and then to recommend that when they return it to the Board, that they refer it to the Committee of the Whole. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried unanimously; Z-3-97, Willow St. & M.L. King Blvd., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District is re-referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave. d. Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Velmeir Co., L.L.C, has acquired options to purchase over one-half of the city block located at the southeast corner of M.L. King Blvd. and Mt. Hope. The proposal includes demolition of seven residential structures, one commercial structure, and construction of a 10,880 sq. ft. retail drug store. The proposal requires rezoning of nine residential lots from "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District and rezoning of a portion of the existing commercial property from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District. PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 16 Expansion of the commercial area at this intersection would have at least two impacts on the surrounding area. First, the development would be newer than any of the surrounding development and generally well-landscaped (based on site plan), potentially improving the aesthetics of the area. Secondly, the commercial use would be expanded and the number of residential units decreased which would then bring a larger commercial influence to the area. This adverse influence includes additional pedestrian and vehicular noise, increased traffic, and a change in neighboring use for adjacent residential properties. Expansion of the existing commercial area is not in conformance with the Master Plan. The proposal represents a reduction in the number of curb cuts and curb cut locations that are farther away from the intersection which are improvements from a traffic and pedestrian safety standpoint. Increases in vehicular traffic would result from the proposal along both M.L. King and Mt. Hope for the area under rezoning consideration. The residential side streets would witness increased traffic trying to avoid the Mt. Hope/M.L. King intersection and the "Michigan left turn" on M.L. King south of Mt. Hope. The site would generally result in additional noise for the abutting properties. Due to the proposed location of this development away from the Logan Square and Lindell Forge commercial areas, their redevelopment efforts may suffer. The proposed development does not meet the Planning Board's goals for the location of new economic development, the expansion of commercial businesses, nor the housing objectives. Potentially, all of the goals could be met if the proposed development occurred in an alternate location consistent with master and development plans. The committee agreed with the staff report and found, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, that the request is not consistent with the Master Plan nor the Goals and Objectives of the Planning Board. Further, the residential properties around the site would be adversely impacted, and the predominant residential area would change in character. The committee agreed that this area is similar to the previous case in that in both situations, the streets are residential in character even though they accommodate a significant amount of through traffic. The development as proposed does not fit with the residential nature of the area. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend denial of Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial 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-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 17 PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Ms. LeBlanc said she did not feel new information had been submitted on this case. In the previous case she could see both sides, but in this case she was convinced it did not belong there. "I also would like to add that my opinion is based in no way on whether or not I think we need more drugstores. It does look like we are getting a lot of drugstores; however, I don't think the City is well served by one drug company being the only big drug store, providing not only prescriptions but also sundries. In the long term, the citizens of Lansing would be better served having more than one company in the City, just so there is competition, whether all the sites continue to exist or not. We do need to provide for some kind of competition." Mr. Ruge asked if the Zoning and Ordinance Committee discussed scaling down the size of this project. Ms. LeBlanc said no, the discussion centered on nearby sites we considered more appropriate. If it didn't intrude so far into the block, especially on Lenore, he would be a little more able to support it. The way the project is, he could not support it. Mr. Frederick said he does not see this as being an area predominantly residential. There is commercial property and businesses close by. All the advantages regarding the other site on M.L. King and Willow apply here. "I would like to see this proposal reconsidered, but if not, I am going to have to vote against denying it. I believe the project should go ahead. I don't like going against the Master Plan." He would not like to see viable residences knocked down, and will vote in opposition to the motion. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to refer Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for reconsideration. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 2 Nays; 4; the motion to refer to the Z-4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Zoning and Ordinance Committee for reconsideration failed. The Chairman then returned to the motion for denial of Z4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. Frederick. . . Nay Greiner .Aye LeBlanc. . . Ave Nischan . Aye Ruge . - - - Aye Goolsby. . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 18 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays; 1; carried; Z--4-97, M.L.King Blvd. at Mt. Hope and Lenore Aves., "B" Residential, "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District was recommended to be DENIED. The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held on Wednesday, April 9, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Frederick, Chair. The Urban Deveopment Committee has not met since the last Planning Board meeting. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 4 p.m. in the Planning Office, Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from Planning Manager, Ms. Love. The mayor has again invited us to use the City's luxury suite to watch a Lugnuts game. Dates are open at this time; we need to choose two, a first option and an alternate. Mr. Goolsby said that Wednesday, July 2 is the night of the fireworks. Mr. Goolsby invited the Board to a barbecue at his place prior to the baseball game. The consensus was Wednesday, July 2 against the Quad Cities, and Monday, July 28; if these dates are not possible, Ms. Love will choose a fireworks night. Regarding neighborhood enterprise zones, we have a tentative list of several sites. I am going to need a resolution from the Board indicating that housing preservation is in keeping with the Master Plan for these neighborhoods. D. Pending Items: Future Action Required. 1. Urban Development Committee: a. Act-02-96, 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), PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 1997 PAGE 19 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) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN Chairman Goolsby said he went to the museum for the sesquicentennial kickoff. It was very pleasant. We talked about the Committee of the Whole, and passed out proposed language making suggested changes. It expresses what our intent was. 10. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. LeBlanc said the minutes of the Neighborhood Council of February 13 describes steps required in rezonings. When we finish the brochure, we should send it to them, so that efforts are not duplicated. Mr. Ruge asked what happened with the sign enforcement project. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Sykes met with the mayor. "It has been put together, and I am trying to get it more polished. I have met with Mr. Leeman and with Mr. Sykes. It includes education by our staff and to the public, chambers of commerce and business associations, telling them what we want and how we will go about it. We will focus on areas and compile statistics about the money generated through this process to support a half-time or full time person to build a track record of what goes into signs and to build a long-standing process of sign enforcement. There is a process, and we are working it out, and then it will be implemented." 11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Lansing Planning Board minutes\mn031897 a:\37