HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 Planning Board Jan-March Minutes FINAL APPROVED JANUARY 21, 1998 with corrections P 1 A.Nisehan,;B.MR.NISCHAN,REQUESTED DRAFT TO CLERK 121597
DECEMBER 2, 1997. APPROVED 010698
TO CLERK 020998
Minutes of the Regular Meeting p--r E j4'-'D
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers-;" ja r:;? I 1 F" S: 43
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall L�11J, i J ;Ty CLERK
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, January 6, 1998
1. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call: Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nisehan,
Ruge, Smith; eight members present. Ex officio councilmember not in
attendance.
B. Excused Absences - None. MR. NISCHAN, REQUESTED DECEMBER 2,
1997.
C. Introductions: Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present,
James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, William C. Rieske, Principal
Planner, Senior Planners Jim Sturdevant and Doris M. Witherspoon, and
Louise H. Christian, recording secretary.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as printed.
3. COMMUNICATIONS - Ms. Love said a letter from LISC has been received,
relating to 1. C. Hearings, CDBG .
4. HEARINGS
A. SLU-13-97, 908 E. Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty Salon
Ms. Love presented the case, a Special Land Use request by Anthony W.
McCloud for an eight-chair beauty salon . A special land use is required
to allow for the sale of commercial products such as beauty salon
supplies in the "D-1" Professional Office District. The Southeast Area
Comprehensive Plan designates the area for Professional Office use.
ANTHONY W. McCLOUD, 3708 GLASGOW. I am here to answer any
questions you may have. The building is going to be used for a beauty
salon or other uses; the apartment use in the basement will continue.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for SLU-13-97, 908 E. Mt.
Hope Ave., Beauty Salon, and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14, 1998 in the
Conference Room, Department of Planning and Neighborhood
Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan.
B. SLU-14-97, 2300 N. Waverly Rd., Addition to Church.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 2
Mr. Sturdevant presented the case, a request for a Special Land Use
permit for an addition to the existing church facility. The church wishes to
construct an addition to the existing church building for use as a family
center, to include a kitchen, gym, and a lift for use by elderly and
handicapped members. One neighborhood resident has submitted a
letter of support for the addition.
JON PHILLIPS, 3819 RIDGEFIELD RD. What is the outside going to be?
Is it going to be nice looking? Or is it going to be a pole barn structure?
DAN MURPHY, 4936 W. STATE RD., REPRESENTING MARANATHA
BAPTIST CHURCH. It will look similar to the existing structure, brick and
split block. We are trying to make it look like the existing sanctuary.
CAROL PHILLIPS, 3819 RIDGEFIELD RD. We are concerned about
traffic in the neighborhood. They are good neighbors, but looking long-
term, we have seen an incredible increase in traffic on North Waverly
because of 1-69 and Airport Road. Will they be making a drive onto
Ridgefield and bringing much traffic into the neighborhood? How is the
neighborhood going to be protected from increased usage? My concern
is keeping the neighborhood a desirable place to live.
DAN MURPHY, 4936 W. STATE RD. The additional traffic will come
down Waverly and drive into the parking lot.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for SLU-14-97,
2300 N. Waverly Rd., Addition to Church, and referral to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee.
C. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community
Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development
Block Grant, Home and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 1998-99.
Doris Witherspoon said that this is an opportunity for the public to
comment on the Community Development Block Grant funds. We
received an additional $101,000 and we put an $74,000 into the HOME
Program, $25,000 additional into the Emergency Shelter Grant Programs,
and an additional $2,000 into the CDBG. The numbers that you have
before you are the numbers for this current fiscal year, FY 1998-99.
EMIL WINNICKER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. I wanted to highlight
where the changes are. The draft statement which was advertised was
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 3
based on last year's allocation, because we had not received our
notification from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
regarding our entitlement for FY 1998-99. We did receive it last week.
As you can see, the document you have in your hand now, and there are
copies in the back for those of you who are here to speak on this issue,
has the new numbers. I want to highlight those. As Doris said, we were
pleasantly surprised to learn that our total allocation actually went up just
a modest amount in the Community Development Block Grant, $2,000.
We increased the contingency amount from $12,524 to $14,524. We
received $74,000 more in the HOME Program. There are mandatory set-
asides in the HOME Program. The numbers have been adjusted this way.
Instead of$508,600 in Housing Rehabilitation, it is now $560,400.
Housing, Community Housing Development Organization Set-Aside, is a
mandatory 15 percent, increased from $157,200 to $168,300. The CHDO
Administrative Cost Set-Aside is a maximum 5 percent, increased from
$52,400 to $56,100. General Administration is a maximum 10 percent,
increased from $104,800 to $112,200. Total HOME allocation is
$1,122,000 rather than $1,048,000 as originally advertised. The
Emergency Shelter Grant received $25,000 more than we anticipated.
We are suggesting that this money be budgeted for operations, homeless
prevention, instead of the usual split in which we would allocate some
money for renovating shelters. We have renovated quite a few and are
running short of operational money at this time, so we are advocating
$27,900 of that $93,000 for homeless prevention essential services. That
is the maximum 30 percent limit. The balance of$65,100 would go for
shelter operations. Any questions?
DONALD LEAF, DIRECTOR OF LOAVES AND FISHES MINISTRIES AT
831 N. SYCAMORE. We are here this evening to endorse and to
recommend approval of this proposal that you have under consideration;
specifically, of course, we are interested in the moneys that have been
made available for homeless prevention on P. 3, the operation costs of
which some moneys will be made available for Emergency Shelter
Grants, and on P. 4, that Emil has already made reference to, in terms of
the Emergency Shelter Grant program. We ask that you continue to
support these programs, and we do support the recommendations that
are before you. As an emergency overnight shelter and as a transitional
home for homeless women, we really have appreciated the financial
support that the City of Lansing has provided to us. These have helped
offset our operating costs on a day-to-day basis, and we certainly want to
thank you and encourage you to continue that. I would like to come
before you today to tell you that the problem with homelessness is
decreasing and that it looks like in a short while that the Ministry will be
out of business. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If you have read the
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 4
recent survey from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, they have indicated
that in Detroit alone, the homeless population has increased by 20
percent. We don't know what that percentage is in the City of Lansing,
but I can tell you this morning at 9 a.m., all my beds were filled, and by 4
p.m., we had 17 bed requests that we turned away. So I hope that by
working together with the other agencies and other shelter and providers
in the Lansing area under the continued care program, I would like to be
able to come back here in a year and tell you we have made a big
difference. I hope we can do that. We do want to work at the problem,
and we ask your support. We are also here tonight to answer any
questions you have regarding services that are provided by shelters or
transitional homes. We encourage your support.
BEVERLY WIENER, 311 S. JENISON, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
CRISIS CENTER FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES. We also have a
transitional housing program that works with families after they leave the
shelter. We have 28 beds, and we serve about 500-600 people all
together, more than half of whom are children. I am just here to support
the allocations in this budget for emergency shelter operation and
homeless prevention. I won't take any more of your time, but hope you
will consider this very positively, unless you have questions.
SUSAN CANCRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADVENT HOUSE
MINISTRIES, 743 N. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. I am a resident of
Lansing at 311 S. Verlinden in the Westside Neighborhood. I also would
like to encourage your support of these budgetary allocations. As Don
was saying, the need for our services has increased, and it is not beyond
our management as service providers, but we can only do it in
cooperation with you and other members of the City community. Your
support in these things is essential. Advent House has the only weekend
day shelter in Lansing. We have seen an increase in use there. We also
have three transitional houses that we rent from St. Lawrence Hospital, so
we do help families with long-term shelter needs. Again, not to take any
more of your time, please consider what we do and whatever you can do
to support us is extremely important, and it reflects on the City's
commitment to those who are probably the least and the least able to
have a voice in the City. We would like them to feel they have a voice,
and you do that by helping us. Thank you very much.
PATTY JONGLAND, PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR BALLENTINE
STEPPING STONES, A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM FOR
HOMELESS MOTHERS AND CHILDREN. We have 16 families at any
one time. I live at 1809 Osborn. I want to keep it short. I am here to
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 5
support these proposed figures and to thank you for continuing to see
homeless is a problem in our community. Thank you.
STEVEN B. SOUZA, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, 401 N. LARCH,
LANSING. I am also a resident of Lansing. I am going to echo
everybody else's support here and would very much ask for your support
to continue to fight against homelessness. Like everybody says, it is not
getting much better, it is getting a little bit worse. We are doing
everything we can to fight the battle against homelessness, and with your
support, I think we can win. It takes a lot of effort from a lot of other
groups and organizations around the community, but the City of Lansing
is a large supporter of that, and we want your continued support. One
little extra note for you as far as feeding the homeless, and not only the
homeless but also the low income residents of Lansing, the percentage of
increase has gone up 30 percent in the last year. It is just a little note for
you to add onto the homelessness situation. Thank you very much.
AMY SALISBURY, PROGRAM OFFICER WITH THE LOCAL
INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION. I have submitted some
documents of our accomplishments and our goals and our budget and
that type of proposal to you. You probably will be able to read them later
on this evening, so I won't waste a lot of time reiterating all the things that
I have submitted to you in writing, but I do want to ask for your continued
support of a part-time staff person for LISC. We provide support to local
community development corporations with technical assistance, loans and
grants. I am also the Vice President of the Lansing Community Micro
Enterprise Fund, which is also a part of the CDBG budget for operational
support. I would also like to ask for your support for your continued
support in that organization. Thank you.
DEBORAH WILLIAMS ROBERTSON, PRESIDENT, LANSING MICRO
ENTERPRISE FUND. I would like to thank you first for the support that
you have given us in the past and to encourage the budget that we have
here for additional moneys coming forth, but because of the money that
we were able to receive from the City of Lansing during our first year,
some of our accomplishments have been the establishment of 26 new
businesses, the expansion of 20 existing businesses, 13 new part-time
self-employment jobs, 14 new part-time self-employment jobs, 7 new part-
time employees hired, 2 new full-time employees hired, and out of these
customers we were able to service, there were 48 women, 52 minorities
and 63 with low-income status. With the support of additional CDBG
funds for 1998, we will be able to continue the work that we have started
and once again, we appreciate your support.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 6
CHERYL RISNER, DIRECTOR, LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL.
I am here tonight to ask you to support our budget this year. This last
October, we celebrated our seventeenth year in existence working with
neighborhoods. At this time we have 37 neighborhood groups that we
work with on a daily, monthly, weekly basis. We have our eleventh
annual Bea Christy award dinner coming up in February. Last year we
had nominees from 13 different neighborhood groups and 287 people
attended to help show their support for people in the neighborhoods that
do volunteer work. This coming June 6, Saturday, we will be having our
Tenth Annual Paint Blitz. We hope to have some type of celebration for a
decade of businesses and lending institutions, churches, neighborhood
groups and community groups working together to help paint houses for
low income senior citizens and handicapped individuals. Last year with
the support of over 440 volunteers, we painted 22 houses. Twenty of
them we finished that day, and the other two we finished the following
weekend. It sure made a difference in lots of neighborhoods. This year
we had a problem-solving seminar also for neighborhoods, how to deal
with drug houses, how to identify drug houses, and what to do when you
find out you do have a drug house. We work with the code compliance
officers and that had over 75 people from different parts of Lansing
coming to find out what they could do to help keep their neighborhoods
clean and safe. We also had 501.c(3) training that we conducted, and we
have five neighborhood groups at this time that are trying to finish up their
501.c(3) status to allow them to go after grants to help improve their
neighborhoods. We had a grant-writing seminar last month; we had
people from eight different neighborhoods attending to learn more about
the neighborhood advisory board grants and to see what grants were
available for smaller groups. We work with the Lansing Police
Department and the Lansing School District to help encourage
communication and cooperation between them and the neighborhoods.
We work with the Code Compliance Department on housing ordinance
changes and what is needed to help our Code Compliance Officers to do
their job more efficiently to help our neighborhoods and to work with them
regarding problem houses or nuisance houses. Many people have said
we act as a conduit between the neighborhoods, whether it is the
Planning Department or Zoning, or City Hall or City Council. We are here
to help relay messages and get the information to the neighborhood
groups. I have some letters of support from some neighborhood groups
here, a list of our most current neighborhood presidents list, and a copy of
our annual report that I would like to give to you. If there are any
questions, I can take them now, or my business card is attached if anyone
would like to call me at the office for any more details.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 7
Chairman Ruge asked if the budget has money for historic preservation.
Mr. Winnicker said preservation dollars are made available to the
Housing Rehabilitation budget, which is the first item under the CDBG
budget. There is no money specifically set aside for historic preservation,
but we do finance CDBG-eligible historic preservation projects in
connection with the rehabilitation of homes in the community. This is the
only funding the City allocates right now for historic preservation, the one
program that the Historic District Commission oversees. That does
eliminate the possibility that non-income-eligible households can
participate or get loans from the City. Again, the money here is targeted
for families at 80 percent median or below. We do employ that program
in a number of our projects, but you have to understand the issue here is
that we are working with people of very modest means, and they can't
always afford the extras that historic preservation requires. Those are
very often items that go over and beyond code-related and things that
make a home safe and sanitary and energy-efficient. Those are our
priorities. I would say that when we use CDBG in this program, it is
incidental to renovate that house so it is safe and sanitary and energy-
efficient. That being said, we do employ historic preservation program at
times to stretch our dollars, to be able to put more dollars in the project.
For instance, if we are replacing windows, very often we can fall back on
that program, because that does affect the exterior appearance of that
house. That program has been around for probably ten years. Over that
time, I would estimate we have probably done 35 to 40 projects with
CDBG dollars. The Department has advocated that the City set aside
some general fund dollars for historic preservation so that we can
eliminate the income eligibility requirement and maybe direct that program
to people who could afford it better.
Chairman Ruge asked has the City done that? Mr. Winnicker answered
no. A couple years ago they did adopt a policy to do so, but no money
was ever appropriated.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Proposed Objectives,
Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources,
including the Community Development Block Grant, Home and
Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 1998-99 and referral to the
Urban Development Committee meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, January
27, 1998 in the Conference Room, Department of Planning and
Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 8
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
Mr. Ruff introduced Calvin Johnson, an intern working in the Planning Office
through a grant from Representative Stallworth's office, to acquire some
experience in the planning field. Calvin is working with us through January. He
is here tonight to experience a public hearing and the business session, and to
be introduced to Board members. He is a Michigan State University student in
Urban and Regional Planning. Chairman Ruge welcomed Calvin to the meeting.
Mr. Ruff said there was a request at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee
meeting for a representative from the Fergusons' office to attend to discuss the
plans for 1223 N. Turner, under SLU-11-97 under Committee of the Whole.
David Ferguson is here.
6. RECESS. Chairman Ruge requested a five-minute recess. The session
resumed at 7:55 p.m.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: December 2, 1997. Mr. Goolsby made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of December 2, 1997.
On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried
unanimously; minutes of December 2, 1997 were APPROVED.
B. Committee of the Whole
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, that the Board
resolve into the Committee of the Whole; voice vote; unanimous; carried;
Mr. Greiner presiding. The Committee considered the second item first.
2. SLU-11-97, 1223 Turner St., Construction in Floodplain.
Mr. Greiner said the Zoning and Ordinance, when considering
SLU-11-97, asked staff to gather additional information or have
development team members here. Mr. Ruff said the staff report
was prepared and mailed in advance of tonight's meeting. Mr.
Sturdevant is here to present the information.
This is the former Estes Furniture Co. warehouse building at
1223 Turner Street. Mr. Ferguson has purchased the warehouse.
The building is on the National Register of Historic Places, and he
is trying to restore it according to the criteria for a National Register
4
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 9
building. They are also building an addition onto the rear of the
building and a smaller addition onto the north side of the building.
The front of the building on Turner Street is quite high up, but the
rear of the building is a full story below street level and is in the
floodplain. It backs up to the River Trail and the Grand River.
Because they have taken off an old addition to the rear of the
building and are proposing to rebuild that under the same footprint
with a four-story addition, it is stair-stepped in towards the original
building, and that area is in the floodplain.
Mr. Ferguson displayed architectural renderings.
Mr. Sturdevant said a variance is required, which the Board of
Zoning Appeals granted at the December meeting. The public
hearing was held at the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Zoning
Code requires that comment be sought from the City Engineer; his
only comment was that a permit from the State of Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality is required. The permit has
been issued. The lower level must be floodproofed and take some
other precautions.
Mr. Frederick expressed the interest of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the back of the building maintain the historical design
so that it would look like the original part of the building.
Mr. Ruge asked is the top floor of the parking ramp going to be
level with the street; Mr. Ferguson said yes. There will be one
lower level. Mr. Ruge asked if the parking structure will have
enough space to handle the parking needs of the building;
Mr. Ferguson said yes. If they build the parking structure, there
will be 127 spaces. If they develop the building as office space,
they only need 110 spaces. If they develop a restaurant, that
would require more spaces than they could provide on the site,
except that a restaurant typically has peak hours different from
office uses. The Board of Zoning Appeals can grant a variance for
joint use of parking spaces where peak hours to not overlap. If that
were the case, 127 spaces would be sufficient.
Ms. Keene asked about the concern of the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee; Mr. Greiner said the main concern was the
presentation of the site towards the river and the view from the
River Trail, that it be maintained in a manner consistent with the
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 10
neighborhood. Mr. Goolsby said we did not have a staff report at
that meeting. Mr. Ruff said the updated staff report was provided.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of
SLU-11-97, 1223 Turner Street, Construction in Floodplain with the three conditions as
follows:
1. That the use of the structure at or below the flood elevation be limited to access
stairway and elevator use, or parking, or be protected with flood-proofing
measures; and
2. That the applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from MDEQ or
other federal, state, or local agencies of jurisdiction; and
3. That the applicant be so notified that the issuance of a permit to construct a
structure below the base flood elevation will result in increased premium rates
for flood insurance, and that such construction potentially increases risk to life
and property.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION was as follows.
On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-12-97, 1223
Turner Street, Construction in the Floodplain was APPROVED.
1. Seven Block Development Plan Update. Chairman Greiner said in
the Zoning and Ordinance meeting, considerable discussion
occurred concerning zonings in the area, the Master Plan
designations, proposed and rumored land uses, and members
thought it advisable to have an update, especially for new
members.
Ms. Love presented an update of the Seven Block Development
Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to provide a supportive
neighborhood that is a complement both to Capitol Commons and
to the area to the west. The centerpiece of the plan is a central
parcel for a new grocery store, and other uses such as dry
cleaning, laundromat, pharmacy, restaurant, postal and/or police
substations. We are talking to major grocery chains. The tax
benefits to be derived by a grocery chain because of the
renaissance zone will be sufficient to entice them.
There was a proposal to move two houses from S. Capitol Ave.
onto City-owned property in Capitol Commons in the area between
Washtenaw and Kalamazoo, to be used for professional office with
potentially residential on the second floor, thus meeting what we
considered the intent of the Plan, which calls for "D-1" Professional
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 11
Office. At the last Seven Block meeting, concern was expressed
that the first positive change in the neighborhood would be renter-
occupied non-residential, and that it would set the wrong precedent
for the area. Recently a state employee said he was interested in
purchasing one house and rehabilitating it as a residence for
himself. A separate office user has proposed constructing an
office for himself. We will present that information at the January
15 Seven Block meeting.
Mr. Goolsby was concerned about implementation of the plan,
saying, regarding moving in two houses as rental units, that he
would never vote to approve non-owner-occupied housing. It sets
the wrong tone and destroys the intent of the plan. Mr. Goolsby
said in the Zoning and Ordinance Committee consideration of
Z-25-97, he requested this discussion tonight under Committee of
the Whole. Ms. Love said acceptable uses as proposed under
Z-25-97 would be a three-unit development in the "D-1"
Professional Office District. "At the time when we were developing
the zoning pattern for this, I recommended "D-2". The committee
felt that was too restrictive, and they overruled me and went with a
"D-1" zoning classification. "D-1" does permit multiple family
dwellings at a "DM-1" lot size." Mr. Goolsby said, in moving
houses into the area, restrictions could be placed on the purchase
agreement; Ms. Love said yes, but no restrictions could be placed
on a rezoning. Ms. Love said we have had an approved Seven
Block plan since 1992; nothing visible has been done. This is the
first time we have had construction as opposed to destruction,
other than BRD Printing, something going up rather than going
down. This is a problem when we try to recruit grocery chains,
nothing positive to point to.
Mr. Greiner shared Mr. Goolsby's concerns. He would like to see
office/mixed use as opposed to multifamily residential, but it may
come to the point where that's the only thing we can get as the first
thing going in there, to get the ball rolling. Ms. Love said "There
are enough options to explore that I am not inclined to push the
rezoning tonight. I would like to have the opportunity to talk to the
residents one more time. I will report back to you our next
meeting." We have to begin to show we are doing something. The
other thing we must remember that this is part of the Master Plan.
If we eventually are going to do something other than what the
Master Plan recommends, we have to have good reasons. Mr.
Goolsby said he was frustrated at the lack of progress, especially
in light of tax advantages in the Renaissance zone. In other cities'
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 12
zones, positive things are happening. Ms. Love said in three
zones, the cities owned and controlled the land, and had
developers lined up before the zone started, rather than as in our
case, where land is in private ownership.
Mr. Ruff emphasized, regarding Z-25-97, that it is a very small
piece of the Seven Block Development Area, and we will find, if we
don't focus too narrowly, that we will accomplish the goal with the
rezoning and get mixed use of offices. There are houses, even
downtown, that are actually zoned office that are used multiple-
family." The next time they have to be rehabilitated, the property
may be sold as office. The effect of mixed use, residential and
office, will happen.
Chairman Greiner said this is an informational item and announced
the conclusion of the Committee of the Whole; Mr. Goolsby made a
motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to arise from the Committee of
the Whole; voice vote; unanimous; the committee arose.
C. Committee Reports
1. Committee of the Whole - Mr. Greiner, Chair
a. SLU-11-97, 1223 Turner St., Construction in Floodplain
The Committee of the Whole considered the matter which
was referred from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
Based on testimony, evidence and staff report, it was
moved, seconded and approved by the Committee of the
Whole, to approve SLU-11-97, 1223 Turner St.,
Construction in Floodplain, together with the three
conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve SLU-11-97, 1223
Turner St., Construction in Floodplain, together with the three conditions noted in the
staff report.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner. . . Ave Keene. . .Aye
Miller. . . Ave Smith . Ave
Rune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-11-97, 1223
Turner St., Construction in Floodplain, was APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 13
Mr. Greiner said that concludes the report of the Committee of the Whole.
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-
1" Professional Office District
The Zoning and Ordinance Committee met on this item and
recommended approval; however, in light of upcoming
items, Mr. Goolsby wished to hold the item. Mr. Goolsby
made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to table Z-25-
97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District; voice vote; unanimous; Z-25-97,
300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District was TABLED.
b. SLU-12-97, NE Corner of Miller & Waverly Roads, Church
This is a request for a Special Land Use permit to construct
a new church facility with a seating capacity of 500
members. The applicant, who represents the New Mount
Calvary Baptist Church, is also proposing to include a child
care center within the facility.
The committee reviewed the request, and based upon the
analysis of the special land use permit, found that it meets
all of the nine principles required in analysis of the SLU.
The proposed special land use is harmonious with the
character of adjacent property and surrounding land use.
The surrounding area is characterized as a various mix of
residential development.
The proposed special land use will not change the essential
character of the surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the
general enjoyment of adjacent properties provided adequate
landscape, screening and buffering is in place.
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to
adjacent properties.
The proposed special land use will not place any demands
on public services and facilities in excess of current
capacities.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 14
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent
of the zoning code and objectives of the current
comprehensive plan.
The committee recommends approval of the development of
a church at property located at the northeast corner of Miller
and Waverly Road subject to the development meeting all
local, state and federal agency requirements. These
improvements will include landscaping, storm sewer, and
potentially roadway improvements. A revised site plan must
also show the minimum number of spaces required by code.
In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence
and the staff report, that the request meets threshold
criteria, and the evaluation criteria of Chapter 1282.
In committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried
unanimously 4-0, to approve SLU-12-97, NE Corner of Miller
& Waverly Roads, for the construction of a church in the "F"
Commercial District subject to the development meeting all
local, state and federal agency requirements.
Mr . Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence,
and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to
recommend approval of SLU-12-97, NE Corner of Miller & Waverly Roads, Church,
with the conditions as above.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Goolsby . Ave Greiner .Ave
Keene. . . Ave Miller . Aye
Smith. . . Aye Frederick . Ave
Ruge. . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-12-97,
NE Corner of Miller & Waverly Roads, Church, with conditions, was APPROVED.
Next meeting Wednesday, January 14, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Mr. Miller may be a
little late; Mr. Goolsby also may be a little late. Mr. Frederick will
be at Board training in Novi. Mr. Greiner made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to grant Mr. Frederick an excused
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 15
absence from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee; voice vote;
unanimous; Mr. Frederick was excused.
3. Urban Development Committee, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair.
Ms. Keene said the next meeting is Tuesday, January 27, 1997 at
4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
4. Executive Committee
Chairman Ruge said the Executive Committee has not met;
however, members have received a draft amendment to the Rules
of Administrative Procedure. The Executive Committee will meet at
6 p.m., Wednesday, January 21, 1998.
Mr. Goolsby said he was he did not like the term "discharge"
because he thought it was not appropriate, rather, he said we
would be "dismissing the application without prejudice." The other
thing is what is the basis on which we will dismiss. Is it because
we have been asked to hold it, or delay it? We need to spell out
the reason.
Mr. Rieske asked, regarding the meeting prior to the Board
meeting on January 21, will the item be reported from the
Executive Committee directly to the Board for adoption? The
Rules of Procedure say all members should receive an advance
copy of the proposed amendments. Ms. Love said copies will be
mailed to everybody with the next Board packet. The appropriate
pages from Mason's will also be provided to the Board.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love said we have submitted the budget to the Mayor; our budget
hearing with the Finance staff is in January, and budget hearing with the
Mayor in February. Then it will go to Council in late March; budget
hearings before Council will be held in April, and it will be passed before
July 1, 1998.
Mr. Ruge asked if there is any money for the Historic District Commission
in the budget? Ms. Love said they do not have a separate line item, but
rather they are part of miscellaneous operating expenses. "I have asked
them to submit a budget request, which they have done. I have requested
approximately $1,200 on their behalf."
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 16
Ms. Love said the legal advertisement appeared today for Act-1-98, the
new state legislative office building by Capitol Outlook L.L.C. for private
use of the public right-of-way, to use air space over Ottawa Street
beginning approximately five ft. east of the Capitol Avenue right-of-way
and going eastward for 75 feet. The span would be an arch, a minimum
of 20 ft. over the sidewalks, and a minimum of 30 ft. over the center of the
street. It would be a maximum of 95 feet over the street, five stories tall,
going from the fourth story to the eighth story. A public hearing will be
held at the next meeting.
Mr. Goolsby said he will not be taking part in the discussions in the action
because his office is in one of the buildings involved. "I will be asking to
be recused from all discussions."
Ms. Love said there was a veto by the mayor of a piece of legislation
passed by the City Council at their last regularly scheduled meeting that
purported to be a clarification of the no demolition order passed by
Council in September regarding the Capitol Historic District. It was
brought up at the final Committee of the Whole meeting in December; it
was not on the agenda, but rather brought up as a housekeeping issue
and passed, among 18 other agenda items that night. It came to Council
the following Monday. Had it not been vetoed, the resolution would have
taken all building permits and all moving permits and all demolition
permits and any other kind of permit affecting the exterior of a building
within the district and would have caused all of those permits to be taken
from an administrative review process, which is what Council had directed
me to do in September, and moved all of them into the Historic District
Commission as though this were an already-established permanent
district. We had already indicated that there would be no demolitions and
no partial demolitions. The unfortunate byproduct was that it created a
step backwards for preservation because the resolution expanded what
the Council had originally agreed to without any public input.
Preservation can be a positive experience, with everybody included.
The veto was sustained. Many Council members apologized that they did
not understand what they had passed, and the need for a special meeting
was withdrawn. The Committee of the Whole voted to refer the resolution
that was originally drafted in October back to the Committee on
Development and Planning, and it will be on their agenda in the next
couple of weeks, hopefully, for passage. In the meantime, we have been
operating under the rules as though porches were a demolition and we
were not going to permit them. I hope we can move forward in a positive
manner and work with the study committee and that it will provide us with
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 17
the information necessary to have a positive experience with
preservation.
D. Pending Items: Future action required.
1. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-2-96, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for
Parking Lot. Action Target Date March 24, 1998.
b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original
Plat, Sale for Redevelopment. Inactive.
C. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site),
Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. & Visitors
Bureau. Inactive.
d. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews.
Information/Action Target Date January 27, 1998.
e. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-
grade Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24,
1998.
f. Act-19-97, Capitol Ave. at Dwight St., Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998..
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Mr. Ruff said a request for withdrawal of Z-24-97 has been received which
will be forwarded to the Clerk and City Council. We are trying to get a
letter on Z-19-97 as well. They have indicated they will not be pursuing
the matter at this time.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
A. Chairman Ruge said, considering the Principal Shopping District Master
Plan, he has received concerned comments that the City was hiring the
work out. As the City goes through the Master Plans, is the City staff
going to do it, or does the City have enough staff?
Ms. Love said the City Council has expressed interest in getting the
Master Plan completed. We are, likewise. I have written a memo to
Council outlining our options. One, we can continue it in-house over six
years. Given our present workload, it is going to be a long process. We
investigated getting a contract person; however this is against the union
contract, because it is taking work away from Planning staff, so the
contract person is not an option. It would have to be a permanent full-
time position, a situation with long-range implications. This would take 3-
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 18
4 years. Every time we talk about doing the Master Plan in segments,
Council has concerns about what ward will be done first. We have looked
at utilizing an outside consultant firm to do a lot of the writing. I believe it
is necessary for our staff to be in the field with the citizen groups. We
would be the lead people with citizens groups because that would give us
the ability to be an advocate for the neighborhoods. If the consultant
does everything, when they leave, they take all that knowledge with them.
We can't have that. We would want to have a consulting firm for 20-24
months. That would cost the most money up-front, but in the long run it
may cost the least amount of money. It would give us the most current
up-to-date document from which to make decisions here at the Planning
Board level as well as for Council. Regarding the PSD, we are using an
outside consulting firm. Actually it is one firm, McKenna Associates, with
two subcontractors, the Green Group, which is working exclusively with
economic development, and a marketing plan for downtown. The other
subcontractor is HNTB, working primarily on citizen participation elements
and facilitating citizen meetings. Most of the design work and the land
use work is being by the McKenna Group.
B. Chairman Ruge directed members' attention to the Rules of Procedure,
2.9 (d), "All members of the Board in attendance shall vote on all matters
unless recused." Our rules indicate people have to vote unless they have
a conflict of interest; then they asked to be recused.
Mr. Goolsby said recusal can happen for a number of reasons. New
members have said they were not adequately informed to be able to vote.
"I don't think we are confined to being recused only because of conflict of
interest."
Mr. Frederick said generally recusals are regarded as a conflict of
interest. Mr. Goolsby said there is no law requiring you have to leave the
room, it is only suggested as being good practice. If a new member is
recused and there is a particular issue, it is appropriate to be recused, but
not leave the table, because the issue may come back later, and the
knowledge will be important then. We should check Mason's for a
possibly more appropriate word.
Mr. Smith said there is a difference between abstaining and saying yes or
no. There is a record that has been created that can be consulted.
Mr. Greiner said we should look at allowing members to abstain from
voting if they are not privy to the same information as other Board
members. Members should not abstain because they are uncomfortable
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS JANUARY 6, 1998 PAGE 19
voting. That needs to be brought out in discussion of the motion. We are
here to do a job; we are expected to vote.
Mr. Goolsby said in terms of voting no, most of us give our reasons. If
people do not have knowledge of it, "I think that is an appropriate reason
to vote no, but you state that as a reason."
Mr. Miller said "The person can still say 'I abstain' for this reason?" Ms.
Love said they can't abstain, they have to ask to abstain. Their
colleagues have to vote upon the request. Mr. Goolsby said in City
Council members have asked to be recused and their fellow members
have denied the request.
C. Chairman Ruge said he received a letter from the PSD planners
requesting his comments as chairman of the Planning Board for
comments about the PSD Plan. He asked for members' input. Mr.
Goolsby said they have to be reminded to reach out to the neighborhoods
and understand that neighborhoods are important to the downtown area
and they must get input from neighborhoods. Mr. Greiner said it is also
important to get input from people who don't come downtown. Mr.
Goolsby said the Chair should write a letter so that it becomes part of the
record.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Arrangements were discussed for attendance on January 14 and 15, 1998 at the
Michigan Society of Planning Officials workshops in Novi at the DoubleTree Inn.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Frederick asked about a storefront church, the Dorcas Outreach Church, and
if churches have to get permits to be churches? Ms. Love said a church is
permitted as a Special Land Use in any district unless it is "DM-3" or "DM-4" in
which it is a use permitted under special conditions.
Mr. Smith asked about sign enforcement regarding a sign at Holmes Road and
Pleasant Grove. Mr. Ruff said, regarding the Sign Code Enforcement Program,
the brochure is not quite finished; however, this does not mean the Sign Code is
not enforced.
2. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
E:]- "^r V I wA P_rrplgry
'rE U F-' ''`E D SLU-11-97
` 1223 Turner Street
Lei 1&46 IEFI�FORMATION
APPLICANT/OWNER: David Ferguson, Ferguson Development
5818 S. Pennsylvania Ave.
Lansing, MI 48901
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
REQUESTED ACTION: A Special Land Use Permit (SLU) is required for any
new construction in the flood plain (Section 1288.06).
EXISTING LAND USE: Property contains the former Estes Furniture Co.
warehouse and part of Riverwalk trail.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The warehouse building is being rehabilitated into
office and retail commercial space. The applicant
proposes to build a new stair tower and main entry on
the north side of the existing structure. The applicant
is also proposing to rebuild the single-story rear portion
of the building by constructing additional stories over
it. Also, a two level parking structure north of the
existing building is proposed.
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 218 feet by 170 feet: 0.85 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: "On The Grand" Condominiums (44 units)
S: Commercial
E: Commercial, warehouse
W: Grand River
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-3" Residential District
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: The site was most recently used as a warehouse for a
furniture business. The property was then purchased
by the developer of the adjacent "On The Grand"
SLU-11-97
page 2 1223 Turner Street
residential development. The building was placed on
the National Register of Historic Places following the
recommendations of Memorandum 76, Historic North
Lansing. Properties on the National Register of Historic
Places are exempt from the portion of the Zoning Code
that regulates structures in the flood plain. The current
review is for the new construction that is proposed to be
attached to the historic structure and immediately
adjacent to the building. This proposed new
construction requires both a variance from the Zoning
Code by the. Board of Zoning Appeals for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration of the
structure below the base flood level, and review and
approval of a SLU by the Planning Board and City
Council. Board of Zoning Appeals approval was
granted November 13, 1997.
APPLICANTS PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a permit to make three significant modifications to the site:
1. build a new stair tower and main entry on the north side of the existing structure;
2. rebuild a portion of the building adjacent the Grand River, which includes the
addition of three stories;
3. construct a two level parking structure north of the existing building.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
AGENCY RESPONSES:
PUBLIC SERVICES: The agency responsible for flood plain use is the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality. The developer must
obtain a permit from them.
Description of Site
The subject property is bounded by Turner Street on the east, the Grand River on the
west, "On The Grand" Condominiums is to the north, and to the south is a continuation of
North Lansing/Old Town's historic buildings. The property sits at an elevation ranging from
six and one half (61/2) feet below to approximately ten feet above (10) the elevation of the
100 year flood (826.5 feet above sea level).
The existing building has four floors, with the main floor at the level of Turner Street. The
basement is approximately ten feet lower than Turner Street and opens out to the level of
the flood plain in the rear of the building facing onto the Grand River. The rear of the
structure was a later addition to the original building, and is no longer in sound condition.
The applicant intends to demolish this part of the structure and rebuild it with a four story
SLU-11-97
page 3 1223 Tumer Street
addition that will terrace out from the original building. This addition will maintain the same
"footprint" and the original building addition.
The proposed entryway structure and elevator tower are in the flood plain of the Grand
River and are proposed to have a floor elevation of approximately 821.5 feet above sea
level, or 5.0 feet below the flood plain elevation of 826.5 feet. The structure addition is
only 10 feet wide by 54 feet long, and will house elevator equipment, a stairwell, and the
front entry foyer on the street level, which is above the level of the flood plain.
The proposed parking structure will be constructed at the same elevation of, and be
accessed from, adjacent Turner Street to the east. Construction of support columns in the
flood plain is necessary to support the structure.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is attempting to rehabilitate a historic structure by adapting the warehouse
building to office and retai Vrestau rant uses. The project is intended to complement the
construction of the adjacent townhouse development as well as contribute significantly to
the overall revitalization of North Lansing/Old Town.
The applicant's reasoning for reconstruction of the building's rear addition is to provide
sufficient scale to make the project economically feasible. The proposed adaptive reuse
of the building is also dependant on the applicant's ability to provide sufficient parking and
to provide entrances that meet building code requirements for accessibility.
The Michigan DEQ must issue a permit for construction in the flood plain, creating a
presumption of no significant impact on flood elevations. The primary use of the flood
plain for this project is parking, which is good urban and environmental design because
a parking lot can be flooded with minimal property damage and minimal disruption to the
River's natural flood processes.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this SLU request is to review new construction that is proposed to be
attached to the historic structure at 1223 Turner Street. The primary purpose of the
structure's expansion is to serve as an accessible entrance from the lower level parking
structure, and to construct the parking structure itself.
The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for the construction of the stair/elevator
tower at their meeting of November 12, 1997.
SLU-11-97
page 4 1223 Tumer Street
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
► The use of the structure at or below the flood elevation be limited to access
stairway and elevator use, or parking, or be protected with flood-proofing measures;
► The applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from MDEQ or other
federal, state, or local agencies of jurisdiction.
► The applicant be so notified that the issuance of a permit to construct a structure
below the base flood elevation will result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance and such construction increases risk to life and property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
SLU11-97.FE
1 .
-BZA 3467.97 1223 Tumer Street
a
847.9 845.5 I a:
F-
84/
82/
IRKING I
9
30 840
G /8
ALLS CLI NTO 840.8
J� 33 8222 24
82/.J C6
X yr
82C�B WAL 1 841
\ AL I
26 I
26 J
WALLSEJ /4 /6
10
6
t I 82/.9 I
43 329
I
/6 L I I
.1U WAIL
823 8w —
� 327
WALL W
I I i
44 36 J2 P9 oU 51 57 825./ � � ,sp 36
I-
I
826.CC 8273 827.4 826.2
A97 A9Z
7
i
i
Jill
DRAW LUD
le WP C700 ES
Pill STOW JIM IS-
- 52745WAPZIOLJsr
11j ' I -
WIN
ram, IW YW FWW I._•.,, � I�';i _
WALMOUSt
I In
1 e�
PC
I -
■��aaaa■��yaaa.��a����;�a�:�at!��■im�®■a��i�e��iis���- ,o��► ..
: . .. �tOt!!�!�Il�t\lttttiiii/ttt/ttttti®■Itti�ti�'��tGi , \��� �o���:�
. Ott 3 :.:itttttttttt�ttttttttttt�G�+ � tL' �� IMMUNE
It�ttt�'■�llttwtttt?�t�tt_tt_tt_t_t_l�t_t_�_tttttt/" � �i �
SLU-12-97
NE Corner of Waverly and Miller Road
Special Land Use for New Mount Calvary Baptist Church
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Reverend C. Clayton
New Mount Calvary Baptist Church
4701 Pleasant Grove
Lansing, MI 48910
Property Owner:
New Mount Calvary Baptist Church
4701 Pleasant Grove
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: The applicant represents the New Mount Calvary
Baptist Church.
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit to construct a new
church facility.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land
EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Irregular shape; site is approx. 5 acres in size
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Church
S. Church and Residential
E: Residential
W: Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential
S. "A" Residential
E: "DM-1" Residential
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southwest Master Plan designates future
land use as commercial.
PLANNING BOARD SLU-12 97 : NE Corner of Miller & Waverly
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request for a Special Land Use to
construct a new church facility with a seating
capacity of 500 members. The applicant, who
represents the New Mount Calvary Baptist
Church, is also proposing to include a child care
center within the facility.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
Ameritech: Please send copy of site plan when complete.
Ameritech c/o Al Dionise:
337 N. Abbott
E. Lansing, MI 48823
Assessor: No comment.
Board of Water & Light: Electric Utility:
The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing
Department has no objections to this request.
Contact Bob Strobel at 371-6082.
Water Utility:
Water Technical Support/Distribution — No
conflict with site. Need water request from
owner. Contact Terry Robison at 371-6494.
Building Safety: No objection to this plan. This project is subject
to compliance with the City's Site Plan Review
and Building Code requirements. Contact
Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 for further
information concerning the review process. The
Site Review process takes approximately 3-4
weeks to complete. Please incorporate these
time lines into your construction schedule.
City Attorney: (No comments received.)
PLANNING BOARD SLU-12 97 : NE Corner of Miller & Waverly
Code Compliance: I don't see a problem with the church. In the
past, I normally send approximately 2-3 weed
notices to the property owner to mow the parcel
each spring-summer (grass season) per year. All
but one church in my area takes very good care
of their property. Joe Jardine, Code Compliance.
Community Policing: (No comments received).
Consumers Energy: (No comments received).
Development Office: No comment.
Fire Marshall: (No comments received).
Ingham Co. Drain Com. (No comments received).
Media One: . No objections at this time.
Parks & Recreation: No comment.
Public Service: Sanitary service is available for this site. Storm
sewers have not been extended to service this
area. If the church wishes to build on this site
they will need to have the storm sewer extended
for service.
Traffic Engineer: Access and egress on Waverly and Miller should
be located at least 200 feet from the intersection.
Road widening for left turn lanes, passing flares
and deceleration lanes may be required.
Lansing Neighborhood Council: (No comments received).
Evaluation
Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a
Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows.
PLANNING BOARD SLU-12 97 : NE Corner of Miller & Waverly
1. Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties
The proposed church will be compatible with the adjacent land uses. The
surrounding area is essentially a mix of residential land use. Multiple family
development, zoned "DM-1" Residential, is located to the north and east A church,
zoned "F" Commercial, is located immediately to the north. A church and vacant
land to the south is zoned "A" and "B" Residential. Multiple family development,
zoned "DM-1" Residential, is located to the east. Single family homes are located
to the west.
2. Change in the Essential Character of the Area
The proposed church will not change the essential character of the area which is
predominately residential with a significant member of churches. The required
landscape, screening and buffering will serve to screen the parking lot from
adjacent residential areas and enhance the appearance of the site.
3. Interference with General Enioyment of Adiacent Properties
No significant impact on adjacent properties is anticipated, particularly with
landscaping in place and screening of any dumpster. Therefore, the proposed
development should not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties.
4. Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
The proposed development should represent an improvement to the property. The
vacant land will be developed with a quality structure on a property to be well
maintained. The proposal will include a daycare facility which will bean asset to
the area.
5. Environmental Impacts
The proposed church will not represent a hazard to adjacent properties or involve
the uses, activities, materials or equipment detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, odors, fumes or glare. The development will be on five acres of land which
allows the structure to be placed a good distance from any adjacent residential
development.
PLANNING BOARD SLU-12 97: NE Corner of Miller & Waverly
6. Impact on Utilities
No negative impact on utilities are expected to result from the proposed church
since utilities (e.g. water, sanitary sewer, electricity) are already available to service
the site. Storm sewer, however, will have to be extended to the site.
7. Impact on Public Services
No significant negative impact on public services is anticipated from the proposed
development. The traffic engineer has stipulated that access and egress on
Waverly and Miller should be located at least 200 feet from the intersection. This
requirement has been met as reflected on the site plan. Road widening for left turn
lanes, passing flares and deceleration lanes were also mentioned as possible
requirements.
8. Compliance with the Master Plan
The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates future land use at this
location as commercial. Churches are considered compatible uses in commercial
areas. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with the Plan.
9. Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
The property is zoned "F" Commercial. Churches are permitted in the "F"
Commercial District subject to a special land use permit. The site meets the
locational requirement of abutting collector, principal or minor arterial. Though no
minimum area is required in the commercial district, the site far exceeds even the
minimum site size of 2 acres in the residential districts. A minimum of 166 spaces
are required to accommodate 500 members as proposed. Since 125 spaces are
show on the site plan, an additional 42 spaces are needed. Plenty of space exists
for additional parking on the east side of the property. The potential child care
facility is allowed by special condition. The property should accommodate the child
care facility conditions.
SUMMARY
Based upon the analysis of the special land use permit, it meets all of the nine
principles required.
The proposed special land use is harmonious with the character of adjacent
PLANNING BOARD SLU-12 97: NE Corner of Miller & Waverly
property and surrounding land use. The surrounding area is characterized as a
various mix of residential development.
The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent properties provided adequate landscape, screening and buffering is in
place.
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties.
The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and
facilities in excess of current capacities.
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and
objectives of the current comprehensive plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of
a church at property located at the northeast corner of Miller and Waverly Road
subject to the development meeting all local, state and federal agency
requirements. These improvements will include landscaping, storm sewer, and
potentially roadway improvements. A revised site plan must also show the
minimum number of spaces required by code.
N M'N'N'L r4a.►a'
•j rRaW �RaA-� •;;i•
-MTITFM- Ml I I I I I I I I I I
O
-------------JTITIT
/Aa/NALT )A RK I NYC •' - �`
Aa/Nn LT .OaIVG T•TAL/ARKIN6 l//:Lla-
r
E iRaRN �RRA�. / - -
�anaaa,�AAR%s�, . .. 1 I •IS��...
IKLRw Acan� - ,•t
'tafllhT .d.,�
Z /AU - •
i11►WI WI4pH16
RF
A A P A A'4T. /ARrINY./
1 I .
II` /11calN ARu� � '
I \
}� MILLER KOAD - — - -
5 I T E PLAf�I .
..o,l on
I.LVA3-1;1- H
rl
14,
A.,
u
� 4
f T
' �t off- •`f ys:'! l'' -��rw�s �'. / � jC
'�•�c�'-t+'L�'�, �t. h,��'i .+_fits �rti, �1 .y;: M, .. .
Y \) Y
(E' r
.x.
S[
:4
' t
•t•�Y
v\. �... v
::....................
X�
\ah,••,,•::\\,���� xZ'.�}t•..\. \\v.,v,.., \ �\�'\ :::':tit;+':':5:`�.
\ 6
..iY• h+�: �.....v v\....v................:.T,:Cj;:i:::::::i:::: ::: :::'.:::;iiijiiiiiiii}}i:tyi;:;_i�;:;:::;:;j':
jt}i4:{ti•,•.\\��4 .x :i•?x\aR":.;:.;:}}:;?i??:•????::::::
r:r\tv\';t`,?nJv,i•}x\::.;.zti{•}{>}:L;:ii-::•?:\irk?? :}}...}n'iiv,`vv.v:
v.:4t•`•:+44+`J\�"•'+i.��iv ,\\\•?\\,}:v}ii;:,t•`{:�ti:::`rt�'ii l�iiiiit:i�i /��//'J
x....�.C:;\�,,.,:.�.;�Ya;;sJ}:;;;r.:;;:;:ci::w,v�"\'::.,'\C.`\'��c;:,.},�:���2i�Ci:�:?'•�:i�:J•i::;:?�5:`:;<:isi> i
+.};r,�t,-�;'k;''°,+�4.v\u:v::};r:;{'+'%:' ;t�`,�v: \,hwi•".•q'x;.�i::?\ 4i`.\..`,�`�.�,,`t;`.;+J`i•:}• y`•:::
:;•:a•t•�..�}:.a"•�.'RS.�u:a':>ti::J:`N �����a.'�� -'�;3;}'::�`: :h�\,h'\"n4��5;r� �w;:•.;::^n4;.�+:a��±
ryJ;+\°"\�.`,: �Y;$`rc."�\`'.ti S.S::.><:b`'..�;?`�a:\\�y,�,:-�V•..'-\,SE:'\'�;�`;'h'a't���cvv ��;., ..,.;\.,wa,@:::..,:4•}}
�:,,•.••�,+x;+v::\}.��i^.4r y✓•.;�.::.,,'•,a.:h..�\v:: �:c„•.ti.:}.,•.,:.,,',+;:?},,h�i'"\�'}'J::Jc'.::r:;;!':a:;'�+.i
;:?;4 raC\:'..•.}}\jn:..�%�4v}.:k•:;f.\2,Y};`.k•`?;`•.@t;* ..:t::,`. �:?\:a: :>}:?3.\"\j::};:'.:tJ`'oti,.t?:�i.ti}:`. >}:•i
:\:r}x.;.`v\,K�v:}:J..4,J]y\,•l:•}:";',y?•�t�yh'y';;v:i::}i'i•:?ii:ri:\i{'{'\�4i:K��:::\:ji\>i'?:}i:<n1�iJ\;.:i;:ii::i::}i:i:'r,:;:!;'r,:�:;
��:. 2'-4,,},vi�.::s+•ka r't`.li:o<•. \\�..)x�,'`,,�,.'r:C;;t•\\1.\}}+ <..a??.,x`�,` \Y:;\: O'i�»:\'t>}::o-:.Y-r:}-c,.:.??
r:t}•`�-,•.'':^'•` :(•"--.a.•.'vxx��".U-�,}t:?.,:�.C.L:t:�t:4 r�}:i?Zv:\\•M+v �Z\4::v::;�'}::i'ik'v'iii�i}:v'?
,♦v�+;t{�ry:�vvMS:}n��:}$r:4t`!\-,?;,v`; ,v.2J•v.:4 i4ui:}\�\:;\v\ �4tt:i'.:;,- +Jv v\
s�:;:+ :?:?:2.?o.,v?J.v.:.<X:??}:>.::r::`•i>a'}::•'(.G.�,'•::��4}}b's•`\,'x�:ac;,.tq�:4{c-,1:+t•..tr.;ti:,;:•..�:.:±:�;�J4C',v}^<'?::.+mac,•;
'C}\v:4;h\tv}}�:hh;:.,•:iJ?:�:::ttti:ii'}x%r\•\�L}:h ':,\A}.:.� �ii`+��titi;....+1.i vhi�.' ..L`�:�.+a;•'.:,'<::;:i?.?:a:;or:2tk:.;.:s?.}:}'::S:ti?�t:.v:}:,.4 \cx-, �:;�:.: av �';:::}.. }.x�.o.�:}�,.;�i.}`;}
�i*::`:+vX•:^::w:.::}.:i:.vr.............:::x:v.:N}1ii �'�:]•`.C:iJ}}n� ;l:•%-:tv;]C�ti+nw+n:•:ttit:n•?n♦iv�.}:{..J
SLU-12-97
NORTH NE Corner of Waverly and Miller Rd.
Special Land Use for New Mount Calvary Baptist Church
war
M \ '
r Q
V•
_ w �
e'v
ezv.ry ae53 naua
h1
• a
Comrle<'Civ1
a
HCE�
i C-I SLU— Iz— g
New Mourn{ Cglvat
eL
Iranu.lc es<z
�• ses., •� ILJr
eel
SO l eesl _ OM., eu� ee
.MRIER..
\ 881.2 /
ft9.,J
E94b
APPROVED 020398 WITH CORRECTIONS. An omission,(1)was noted as follows. (1) Pg 2 Ln 1.98"Pos 2" MR.GOOLSBY
REQUESTED RECUSAL FROM THE MATTER OF ACT-1-98 TONIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. HIS LAW OFFICE
IS LOCATED AT 200 N.CAPITOL AVENUE,AND,AS A TENANT IN THE BUILDING,HE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECUSED FROM
TAKING ANY ACTION OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION. MR NISCHAN MADE A MOTION,SECONDED BY MR.
FREDERICK,TO RECUSE MR.GOOLSBY FROM TAKING ANY ACTION OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION OF ACT-1-
98;VOICE VOTE;UNANIMOUS;CARRIED; MR.GOOLSBY WAS RECUSED. HE LEFT THE ROOM. Corrections,(2)and(3),
were noted as follows. (2)Pg 10 Ln 2.76"Pos 4.91"
THE BEAUTY SALON USE BE LIMITED TO
A MAXIMUM OF TEN CHAIRS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TOTAL USE OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED
THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING PARKING AND BUFFERING REGULATIONS, (3) Pg 16 Ln 4.72"Pos 6.47"
the MSPO MASTER PLANNING session at Novi
n DRAFT TO CLERK 020398
APPROVED 020398
s 0_1 TO CLERK 021098
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
L., j 7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Wednesday, January 21, 1998
1. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call: Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan,
Ruge, Smith; eight members present. Ex officio Councilmember Adado
not in attendance.
B. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions: Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present,
William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, and Louise H. Christian, recording
01 secretary. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, who was at another
meeting, will be here later.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as printed, with the
addition of several new communications, Items 3. C, D, E, and F, below.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Memorandum to Planning Board Executive Committee from William C.
Rieske, Principal Planner concerning Dismissal without Prejudice
B. Memorandum to Planning Board Executive Committee from William C.
Rieske, Principal Planner concerning Clarification of Procedures for
Recusals and Abstentions
C. New substitute memorandum from Mr. Rieske, regarding Administrative
Rules of Procedure.
D. Memorandum dated January 21, 1998, to Mr. Steven Hayward from Mr.
Anthony W. McCloud RE: SLU-13-97, 908 E. Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty.
Salon
E. Phone call on January 21, 1998 from Emly Horne as a private citizen in
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 2
opposition to ACT-1-98; the City needs to have a committee to study air
rights; and she is concerned with the view to and from the Capitol.
F. Agency Referral Sheet from Public Service Dept., containing a comment
from Mr. Mark Clark.
4. HEARINGS
MR. GOOLSBY REQUESTED RECUSAL FROM THE MATTER OF
ACT-1-98 TONIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. HIS LAW
OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 200 N. CAPITOL AVENUE, AND, AS A
TENANT IN THE BUILDING, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECUSED FROM
TAKING ANY ACTION OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION. MR
NISCHAN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. FREDERICK, TO
RECUSE MR. GOOLSBY FROM TAKING ANY ACTION OR
PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION OF ACT-1-98; VOICE VOTE;
UNANIMOUS; CARRIED; MR. GOOLSBY WAS RECUSED. HE LEFT
THE ROOM.
A. Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. of W.
Ottawa St. for Office Span Bridging Ottawa St.
Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Capitol Outlook, L.L.C., to
utilize the air rights above W. Ottawa St. in the 100 Block. The envelope
of the building would be approximately 20 ft. over the sidewalk and
approximately 30 ft. over Ottawa St., approximately 95 ft. in height, and
would extend 75 ft. east to west, beginning about 5 ft. east of the Capitol
Avenue right-of-way. These dimensions may change. This property,
which is unzoned at present, is street right-of-way. In our Zoning Code,
unzoned vacated land takes on the zoning district of adjacent properties,
in this case zoned "G-1" Business. The surrounding properties generally
are office uses; this building would also be office, housing state
legislators and their staffs. It would encompass the eight-story building to
the north, and the four-story Board of Water and Light Building, which
would be extended upwards. There would be a connector between the
buildings.
Chairman Ruge asked about the City seeking compensation for the
vacated air rights? Ms. Love said in an agency response from the City
Assessor's Office, the Assessor said he believes the envelope of air to
have a value. This is something that will have to be considered. A
vacation is only one type of conveyance; easement is another, as is
license and lease. A variety of options is available; the City Attorney has
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 3
been asked for a recommendation regarding the type of conveyance.
Chairman Ruge asked about aesthetics--a seventy-five-foot-long tunnel
would be created on Ottawa Street that might be dark, dingy, and not very
pleasant. Ms. Love said, for perspective, the only other tunnel-like
structure is the parking ramp expansion over N. Grand Avenue which is
400 ft. long. The subject proposal is about one-quarter of this distance.
Mr. Nischan said though it looks like they have provided for making the
face look like one structure, it would have an immense visual impact. Is
there some way of making sure that it actually fits with the Capitol? We
should try to influence visual compatibility with the Capitol and
surrounding structures. Ms. Love said we have long advocated design
standards in the downtown; however, we have not been able to get the
concept endorsed.
Ms. Keene asked if 75 ft. extends to the main set of double doors; and Mr.
Smith asked about the Board of Water and Light Building outer skin; was
it built to look like that; Ms. Love said yes to both questions.
GARY GRANGER, 309 N. WASHINGTON, #309. 1 am with Capitol
Outlook, along with Joel Ferguson. We are delighted to have been
selected as project developer. There has been talk of a legislative office
building for a number of years. Three years ago we got involved with the
purchase of the Board of Water and Light Building. Our original plan
considered, one, the needs of the Democrats in the Roosevelt Building,
and two, the needs of the Republicans in the Romney Building, and three,
the need for a unified office building. The pressing need was for the
Democrats in the Roosevelt Building, which does not meet code. A
unified decision took place in late 1997. We considered the Annex; we
looked at different options but decided we could end up with a better
project if we were to cross the road, as on the rendering. The RFP last
fall called for 225,000-250,000 sq. ft.; we are sizing the facility to meet the
needs of the legislators. Probably the biggest component is having 110
suites, one for each legislator, assigned on a permanent basis, according
to district, District 1 through District 110, thus eliminating moves every two
years. We would always know where the 58th District Office is located.
The other important thing would be to provide locational consistency--the
Senate Offices are located in the Farnum Building on Capitol Avenue, the
Executive Offices in the Romney Building. The Legislative Office Building
for the House of Representatives would be on the same side of the
Capitol as the others, and the north wing of the Capitol is the area for the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 4
House of Representatives. Joel and I have been involved in a few things
downtown--the CATA Transportation Center, the Cooley Building at the
Commerce Center, Washington Court Place, and many other projects.
Until yesterday, this building was as depicted, 20 ft. off the sidewalk, and
28 ft. off the street. To exhibit flexibility, we raised the entire structure by
one floor. As of now we are asking for 30 ft. off the sidewalk, and 38 ft. off
the road. The top of the bridge would then be 118 feet. We are going to
do better than green panels. This building is of particular significance in
our community; it is monumental. We need to tie in with the Capitol. We
want to be a good neighbor with Bill Ralls. Our building will have
architecture complementary with the Capitol and with the Ralls Building.
DAN MOONEY, SHULAK HOBBS & BLACK. We are requesting the air
rights for development between the two buildings, the Davenport Building
and the Board of Water and Light Building. Within the last 24 hours, we
have raised the bridge 20 ft. off the sidewalk and 30 ft. off the street. The
City of Lansing has gone through a transformation in the last ten years
with monumental architecture being introduced and fine older buildings
getting face-lifts. We would like to continue that and transform the
Davenport and Board of Water and Light Building. We are proposing
taking the buildings back to their existing structure, starting over with a
new skin on the outside. We are investigating materials for the exterior
facade, looking for a monumental image, a stone-like material compatible
with the Capitol and complementary to the surrounding buildings. The
bay windows and box windows would give a strong image solidified by the
solid columnar structure. Each of the 110 legislative offices would have a
view of the Capitol, all of their views being equal. The completed
renovation would provide a state-of-the-art facility that would enhance the
Capitol area and maintain the spirit the City of Lansing is undergoing.
(Explained floor plan from renderings.) The existing building is four
stories; we will add onto that; on the 200 N. Capitol Bldg., the existing
eight stories would have a story added. It would have a nice facade that
would complement the architecture of the area.
Ms. Love asked about the curvilinear structure of the bridge; Mr. Mooney
said this feature would give the building some design relief. It allows
people to walk from one building to the other, and natural light would be
afforded there. There would be seven stories in the bridge. This is a
change, more stories.
Mr. Frederick asked about the new facade on the Board of Water and
Light Building? Mr. Money said it would be an entire redo. It won't look
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 5
anything like the existing building when we are done. It will have a new
facade, new mechanical systems, and new interior. Windows will be
placed as required wherever possible to make the building look good and
to provide natural light.
Mr. Frederick asked what the back of the building will look like, the view
as you come west down Ottawa. Mr. Mooney said as the plan progresses
that will be brought out at various stages. Gary Granger said there is
going to be discussion of will we put windows in where we could put them
in, or do we leave them out so there is no seniority. The staff area will
have windows all the way around. It will be similar to what we have in the
Grand Tower.
Mr. Nischan said, keeping the monumental size in mind, he had three
questions. It seems important to pay attention to facade and materials
and skyline features and shapes. We are trying to encourage people to
come downtown and linger safely and pleasantly. In many buildings,
getting things down to human scale at the sidewalk level is being ignored,
so you don't feel like you are leaning up against the Hoover Dam on a
tour, and it does feel comfortable and safe and inviting. The second thing
is paying attention to building users and pedestrian aspects. The third
request, considering design standards for downtown, since you are trying
to make this fit and enhance the image of downtown, "if you ever write
your rationale, could you please share it for the design review board file?
I would like to read it." Many great design rationales are lost because the
designer does not write them down. It would be a shame to lose them.
Mr. Smith asked about the visual problem with the Ralls Building. How
will you deal with the disparity in size? Mr. Mooney said it is a jewel that
should be maintained. We can maintain the facade by raising up the
bridge. We cannot do brick.
Ms. Love asked about first-floor uses. Mr. Ferguson said there will be no
commercial; it will be a governmental building with an impressive lobby.
Bill Ralls is the reason we raised the level.
BILL RALLS, 118 W. OTTAWA ST. My wife and I are the owners of 118
and 120 W. Ottawa St. I appreciate the positive recognition of the
buildings contributing to downtown Lansing. Both buildings were built in
1890, 118 W. Ottawa by the Lansing Women's Club and 120 W. Ottawa
by the Michigan Millers Insurance Co. In 1976, a Historic District Study
Committee report noted that many architectural gems have disappeared
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 6
from downtown Lansing within 50 years after being built. The report
mentioned these two buildings as the last surviving commercial-style
buildings of the late Victorian era in Lansing, and among the visually most
interesting in Lansing. We have restored the buildings. I appreciate Joel
Ferguson and Gary Granger coming to my office to look out and
recognizing that the proposal poses a dilemma for me personally and that
it is going to have a negative impact on my view from my office. Their
decision to raise the distance from the sidewalk and the street is a
positive improvement. Two last things: One, I am concerned about the
value impact on me, and two, during the construction process, from a
safety viewpoint, the impact on these buildings must be considered. The
view on Ottawa St. going west is important, too.
Seeing no one else in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of
W. Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St. for Office
Span Bridging Ottawa St., and referral to the Urban Development
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 1998 in the
Conference Room, Department of Planning and Neighborhood
Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan.
Mr. Goolsby returned to the Chambers.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
SUE DICKINSON, 908 E. Mt. Hope Avenue. I wanted to submit for your records
two copies of the back part of the parking lot that is adjacent to the residential
property to show you that it has always been very beautifully bermed and
protected. (The speaker handed in two photographs.)
6. RECESS - Chairman Ruge declared a five-minute recess.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: January 6, 1998. Mr. Frederick made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of January 6, 1998. Mr.
Nischan pointed out a correction; on P 1, 1.A. Roll Call, he was not
present. On P 1, 1.B., Excused Absences, on December 2, 1997, he
requested and was granted an excused absence for January 6, 1998. On
a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously;
with that correction, the minutes of January 6, 1998 were APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 7
B. Committee Reports
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
a. SLU-13-97, 908 E. Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty Shop
The applicant is proposing to operate an eight-chair beauty
salon with additional space for a nail station and a single
facial area. The lower level of the site will continue with its
current use as an apartment and office/meeting space.
In committee it was found, based on testimony, evidence
and the staff report, and two threshold requirements of the
Planning and Zoning Code, that the request meets the nine
evaluation criteria of Chapter 1282. Fifteen parking spaces
exist on-site; 15 parking spaces are needed for eight chairs.
The salon plans to retain the apartment and limited office in
the lower level. Assuming a two-bedroom apartment and a
small amount of office space, the salon would need to
provide 4-5 parking spaces plus one barrier-free, which
could be accommodated in the front drive because barrier-
free parking is exempt from the front yard parking
requirement. The committee also noted the concern of the
Building Safety Office about provisions of barrier-free,
mechanical and plumbing codes for the changing of the use.
In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously, 3-0, to approve SLU-13-97, 908 E. Mt. Hope
Ave., Beauty Shop, Ayes: 3; Nays; 0; carried unanimously,
with three conditions as follows:
1. That the applicant submit a contract for parking on
land within 300 ft. which is zoned "D-1", "E-1", "E-2",
"F", 41G-21, "H", "I" or "J" Districts to allow for the
continued use of the lower level for office and one
apartment;
2. That landscaping, screening and buffering be
provided on-site along the parking areas adjacent to
residentially-zoned land, and
3. That the business may use no more than eight chairs
at any one time.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 8
Subsequently, a letter addressed to Mr. Hayward was received from the applicant, who
proposes to abandon the use of the lower level apartment as an occupied dwelling until
such time as an additional two-car parking agreement can be reached within one of the
zones previously mentioned. Until the agreement can be reached, the apartment area
would be used to conduct salon business only.
Mr. Ruff explained that there is a fixed number of parking spaces on-site and
surrounding the site on similarly-zoned land that could be used by the applicant if
conditions are met and agreements with surrounding owners are reached. There are
ten stations involved; the applicant has stated that, based on existing parking, he will
use eight stations. Because he has the apartment that requires two more spaces, the
parking requirement is increased. Based on existing parking, he is stating he will not
use the apartment until he has obtained agreements with neighbors. The apartment
use must be a licensed rental unit, the license for which could not be obtained until the
parking agreement is satisfied. (An audience member stated the unit is a licensed
rental unit.)
The applicant must balance the parking with the land use. If he can do this, we can
deal with it administratively. If Mr. McCloud does not act in accordance with the
ordinance, we could deal with it as an enforcement issue because of the special land
use, the licensing of the apartment, the parking on-site, the balance of the parking and
the land use of the building itself. His proposal would be to use as many chairs as
possible now, balanced with the parking, and suspend use of the apartment until he
gets a parking agreement.
With that explanation, Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based
on testimony, evidence and the staff report, to recommend approval of SLU-13-97,
908 E. Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty Salon. In light of Mr. McCloud's letter, Mr. Goolsby then
amended the committee's recommendation regarding the first condition, that the
applicant either abandon the use of the lower level apartment or modify the number of
chairs in use until he submits a contract for parking on land within 300 ft. which is
zoned "D-1", "E-1", "E-2", "F", "G-2", "H", "I" or "J" Districts. At that time, if he enters
into a contract, use of the lower level could be continued for office and one apartment.
Use of the word "suspend" instead of"abandon" was suggested; Mr. Goolsby accepted
the suggestion and made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve SLU-13-97, 908
E. Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty Salon, with the following conditions:
1. that the applicant suspend the use of the lower level apartment or modify the
number of chairs in his salon until he submits a contract for parking in the
appropriately zoned areas;
2. that the landscaping, screening and buffering be provided on-site; and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 9
3. that no more than eight 8 chairs out of ten stations be used at a time.
The following discussion ensued. Mr. Greiner asked if the parking issue caused the
eight-chair limitation to begin with? Mr. Ruff said yes; however, in reality, a salon rarely
has every chair going at any one time. To define the parking issue better, the applicant
looked at that step first. Mr. Greiner asked, to prevent the applicant having to come
back at some future time and do this over again, couldn't he contract for four parking
places and then be allowed to use the apartment and ten chairs? Mr. Ruff said the
potential exists, if the Board would allow that. Mr. Greiner asked, if the Board allowed
that much latitude for apartment use, either don't use it or come up with the parking
places, and also allow the same latitude for the third condition, or maybe amend the
first condition to include the number of chairs as well as the use of the apartment.
Mr. Ruff said the site is zoned office, so there is no parking in the front yard. The
barrier free space doesn't apply to the no-parking exclusion in the front yard; however,
there are "D-1" restrictions on parking in the front yard. There is not an excessive
number of spaces nearby. You would end up with three spaces if you went to ten; it is
one-and-one-half per chair once you are past the initial number of spaces required. It
would be three additional spaces if you allow all ten chairs to operate at one time. Mr.
Greiner said he may be able to come up with five spaces and utilize the ten chairs, or
he may decide to utilize ten chairs rather than have the apartment. We are not giving
him that latitude, though we could quite easily.
Mr. Frederick said he had the same concern with the use of the word "suspend", which
implies it is unresolved or in limbo. Does it mean that if he wants to change and use
the apartment, or add additional chairs, that he would have to come back to the Board
for approval? Mr. Goolsby said the intent is to recognize the parking problem in terms
of number of spaces required but not available on-site, so his alternative is contractual
parking in one of the appropriate zones within 300 feet. If he can do this, he can go to
the maximum use on the property without having to come back here. He is proposing
to suspend the operation of the apartment on the Lower Level to avoid having to have
the extra two spaces. It is apparent that he has not been able to come up with the
contractual agreement on parking. The intent is to not have him come back here, but to
indicate that there are requirements concerning parking, and that if he is going to use
the site, then the appropriate parking must be provided through contract parking.
Mr. Ruff advised making a simple application of condition, that the applicant modify the
land use between the maximum of ten chairs in the salon, based on his available
parking according to code. An apartment is an allowable use in the "D-1" District. He
could have another office tenant in the "D-1" District if he so desired. You could say
that he could modify the land use to include a maximum of ten chairs with the available
parking according to code. If he gets a contract with an abutting property owner that
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 10
has available appropriately-zoned parking, he could have his ten chairs and his
apartment if he wanted; that the beauty salon use be limited to a maximum of ten chairs
with the understanding that the total use of the building will not exceed the Zoning
Code requirements including parking and buffering regulations. Or if he only gets a
couple spaces, he could adjust it however, as long as he meets code requirements and
fits within the Zoning Ordinance for land use. He wants a beauty salon and a maximum
of ten chairs; yet, he has a limited supply of parking. He may change his business plan
five years hence; you want to provide him with enough latitude to have the salon and
possibly an apartment or another allowable land use in the "D-1" Professional Office
District and balance it on the available parking. That is all determined by code, too.
You don't have to apply the code again, you say according to the Zoning Code. You
don't have to say#3, and you can modify#1. You don't have to say "suspend". Mr.
Goolsby considered it a friendly amendment.
Mr. Goolsby said in order to modify his land use to ensure that the appropriate parking
is provided for the land use or uses of the land, he has options, so you don't need the
limitations on the chairs, because of code requirements. The restrictions are the same;
they don't have to be spelled out.
Another discussion ensued regarding the possibility of abuse in an intense use
situation with insufficient parking that would be hard to enforce. Anything we approve
has the potential for abuse. Our obligation is not enforcement, but rather to decide
whether or not the land use is appropriate and ensure it complies with the code.
Snapshots of the site were displayed; Mr. Ruff said he would visit the site to appraise
requirements for landscape screening and buffering. A lot of buffering is not needed at
the rear of the site. If we need to screen particular views, Mr. Ruff will work with Mr.
McCloud. The primary point in the "D-1" Professional Office District is the exclusion of
front yard parking.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . _ . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner. . . Ave Keene .Aye
Miller. . . Ave Nischan . Aye
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays; 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-13-97, 908 E.
Mt. Hope Ave., Beauty Salon, with the condition that the applicant suspend th-e use ol
the loweF level apartment or modify the nurnber of chairs in his salon dntil he submits a
contraet for parking in the appropriately zoned areas THE BEAUTY SALON USE BE
LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN CHAIRS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE TOTAL USE OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED THE ZONING CODE
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 11
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING PARKING AND BUFFERING REGULATIONS, was
APPROVED.
Mr. Ruff left the room.
2. SLU-14-97, 2300 N. Waverly Rd., Addition to Church
The applicant proposes to construct a 12,622 sq. ft. addition
to their existing church building. The addition is for a "family
center" and will include a kitchen, gymnasium, entry lobby,
carport, and elevator. The existing church building has a
seating capacity of approximately 396 persons.
There is sufficient room on the site to provide additional
parking spaces if necessary; however, no additional parking
is required. Architectural consistency and compatibility are
important elements to assure compatibility with the
residential neighborhood. Additional landscaping,
screening, and buffering will be required adjacent to the
south side of the existing parking lot.
In committee, it was found, based on testimony, evidence
and the staff report, that the special land use request meets
the two threshold requirements of the Planning and Zoning
Code and the nine evaluation criteria of Chapter 1282.
Further, the committee found that the church is not new and
that it is compatible with surrounding land uses. The
Special Land Use will not change the character of the
surrounding property--it is still a church. The Special Land
Use will not interfere with the adjacent property. It will
represent an improvement to the property and to
surrounding property. The architectural design of the
structure should be matched to the existing structure. It
should not be hazardous to adjacent property. The only real
impact will be a small increase in traffic at times. Storm
water facilities can be accommodated on-site. Regarding
public services, and transportation, Waverly Road is a
principal arterial. Cambrey Drive serves as a transition to
the church before it serves nearby residential properties.
Regarding demands on public services, none is anticipated.
The special land use is consistent with the intent of the
Planning and Zoning Code and with the Comprehensive
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 12
Plan, which calls for residential development. The proposed
addition would provide open space between the road and
the church. Regarding dimensional requirements, the
proposed size of the addition is within Code requirements.
The setbacks are within the requirements of the code. The
proposal meets the two Zoning Code threshold
requirements, namely, location on a principal arterial, and
size of two or more acres. Requirements for parking for a
church are determined by the number of seats in the
sanctuary. No additional parking is required for this request;
however, they could add more parking if required. Further,
the committee noted that the Code will require some
additional landscaping adjacent to the parking lot abutting
the residential areas.
In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried
unanimously, 3-0, in light of threshold requirements and
assessment of nine criteria approval of a Special Land Use,
to recommend approval of SLU-14-97, 2300 N. Waverly Rd.,
Addition to Church, with the conditions that exterior
construction be similar to current construction on-site, and
that architectural plans be submitted for approval to the
Planning staff, with the site plan and building plan submittals
as required by code.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence and
the staff report, to recommend approval of SLU-14-97, 2300 N. Waverly Rd., Addition
to Church, with conditions.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Discussion ensued regarding the neighbors' concern with access to the parking lot.
The committee understood that ingress and egress to the site will not be changed.
Access from Waverly Road is down Cambrey. The first entrance to the parking lot,
which is the most accessible from Waverly, is at the building. For there to be another
access, the only logical place would be off Glencoe, which does not exit directly to
Waverly. It would be an inconvenient place to access the parking lot. The layout
should solve concern of neighbors who did not want the number of parking lot exits
increased. If, in the future, the church grows and enlarges the parking lot, a reason
should be on record why another access from the parking lot onto the neighborhood
would be undesirable. The applicant, who was present, said there is an access to the
parking lot from Glencoe; there is an entrance on the east side and on the north side;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 13
he had no objection to the Board restricting access from the south side of the property.
Ridgefield does not connect to Waverly. Mr. Goolsby acknowledged that as a friendly
amendment. The same activities are going on now; they will have a better facility to
carry out the activities. The area at present is well-landscaped; however, staff will
discuss with the applicant the need for additional screening and buffering. The
amendment is to restrict the addition of an entrance to the parking lot to the south side
of the property.
Goolsby . Ave Greiner .Ave
Keene . Ave Miller . Ave
Nischan . Ave Smith • Aye
Frederick . Ave Ruge Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays; 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-14-97, 2300
N. Waverly Rd., Addition to Church, with conditions that architectural plans be
submitted for approval to the Planning staff, that any access to the parking lot from the
south side of the property be prohibited, and that screening and buffering issues would
addressed by Planning staff as required by code, was APPROVED.
Next meeting Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 4 p.m.,
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
Mr. Ruff returned to the room.
3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair.
The next meeting is Tuesday, January 27, 1997 at 4 p.m.,
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue at which
time several items will be considered, including Amendments to the
Rules of Administrative Procedures, Act-1-98, and Proposed
Objectives regarding CDBG moneys and allocation of funds.
4. Executive Committee
Chairman Ruge reported that the committee met at 6:30 to discuss
Amendments to the Administrative Rules of Procedure. They are
going to be thoroughly and expertly dealt with. There was a motion
to refer the amendments to the Urban Development Committee;
also the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be looking at some
amendments as to how they handle issues coming before them.
C. Report from Planning Manager
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 14
One major issue coming in the next few months is CLASS, Committee for
Lansing School Success, dealing with communications and technology links
creating a network linking city schools in a telecommunications system and
finding tower sites. There are SLUs, Act 285s and BZAs that may be required
on various sites. Timing is critical. We may have to call special meetings at a
more spacious location, considering logistical aspects with Planning Board,
Board of Zoning Appeals, Parks Board, and the School Board.
Jim Ruff reported on a meeting he attended at 5:30 p.m. concerning cellular
towers. Sprint PCS has $10.4 billion for digital PCS towers around the nation to
serve phones, fax, and like communications devices. Six companies have been
licensed for the City of Lansing, including Sprint, Nextel, Omnipoint, AT&T,
Ameritech, and another one. Instead of approaching towers piecemeal, it would
be better to do it in one block plan. Looking at the City as a pilot plan, Sprint
proposed to the mayor to put PCS tower sites on City and school sites, with
payment to be applied toward City and school technology. We just met with the
School Board; Andy Frederick was also there. Sprint located 15 sites on school
or park sites covering the City with no dead zones. They first proposed payment
in technology, then switched to dollars per site. I was asked to talk about safety
concerns and zoning concerns, which in the "A" Residential zoning of parks and
schools would require special land use permits, height variances, and Act 285
reviews for parks. The City would be interested in getting maximum possible
value, so both the City and School Board agreed to consider the sites. "I have
been directed to make application for the City for six sites on parks, and nine
sites on schools, so that we can have a public hearing and address specific
issues and take action. We have to lay out a plan of action for the process
which would include installing monopole structures, hooking the conduit into
schools, planning technology advances for both the City and the schools, and
advancing the entire technology base for the school system. We will be
approaching this in a comprehensive way. The alternative is that Sprint will
send sales reps, as will and Omni; they will buy up locations and apply for tower
structures piecemeal, and not necessarily co-locate, with more towers as a
result. By being in control initially, we can have two to three users co-locating
on one pole and having dual uses, such as athletic field lighting or park
recreation field lighting. Advantages accrue with dual use, this soft form of
stealthing. You still have the monopole structure. The City would require
conditions upon each one of the locations. The City is considering going out for
the highest bid, then to successive co-locators. The first locator would pay x
dollars; the next more, and the third even more, because the first would have the
highest costs. The dollars would go into implementation of the technology plan,
which the School District developed last year. With moneys earmarked now, the
plan would be complete by 2005. If we do this, they would get there faster. With
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 15
the alternative, the communications companies would reap the benefits, with no
benefits going to local students or to the City. The proposed concept plan wold
bulk the 15 SLUs, 15 variances, and six 285 reviews for City/school property,
resulting in a master lease with 15 addendums. Each site has some options.
It is an interesting, sensitive, exciting proposal, and the sooner the better. At the
joint meeting, a time frame has not been decided. An informational push is
planned to tell people about benefits and answer questions. "I would encourage
a public hearing with the Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, Park Board,
and Council representatives where everybody could hear the same information,
questions and answers." We would have outside private consultants brought in
by the City and schools from MSU and LCC, people not affiliated with the
communications companies who would supply facts about safety and health
issues. A time line would be established for special meetings not intermixed with
regular meetings, because of the number and complexity of issues. If we handle
it once, instead of fifteen times, we could save some time.
Mr. Frederick said the telecommunications package passed in 1996 prohibits
communities from excluding towers, but Congress gave us some influence on
location and appearance. The City-School Board plan will allow us to have more
influence on what towers look like and where they go, and on controlling issues
that come from the public. The public must understand they can't keep the
towers out and that this is the best way to meet objections and concerns from
health and safety perspectives and benefits to schools and the City. We can
address their issues more closely with this plan than in a piecemeal way. We
can get the best service with least visual impact, and least impact on health and
safety concerns by a first class wireless digital communication system. Such a
system will be as important in the next ten years as Internet is now. Norway is
leading the way. They no longer use wires; rather, they have gone 100 percent
personal communications systems. With no hard-wired phones, when they
move, they just put their phone in their pocket and go. The City and School
Board are working together to benefit City residents with communication and
aesthetics planning, and the school system itself with advantages to the schools.
Lansing will become a more desirable place to live with better schools for local
students. Long term, real effects will not be realized for five or ten years, but
once we see the outcome, we will be more appreciative.
Mr. Greiner said this is the only option we have left; with the telecommunications
act, we can't keep towers out, and we don't have zoning restrictions in place to
control locations. We can only entice them to come to our sites. Our best shot
is to come up with sites of our own, and get them to share sites.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 16
Mr. Smith asked about the five or six telecommunications companies, and
making an agreement with only one on fifteen sites. Ms. Love said if we put the
network of sites together, we would not favor one bidder over another. Mr.
Frederick said we can't restrict one company any more severely than we restrict
another. The first company is the baseline. Mr. Ruff said a 150-ft. pole could,
for example, be substituted at a high school football field for a light pole. Three
items could be placed on it, lights for the field and two co-locating carriers. Two
poles at a site might supply the need. We might get only three carriers in
Lansing.
Mr. Nischan asked if it is possible to pass ordinances to require carriers to
conform with location plans? Mr. Greiner said it is possible to have an
ordinance that sets forth criteria stating where and how they can put towers--
they will be allowed with special land use permits in a given zoning. But you
can't be so restrictive that they can't locate towers where they must have them.
Mr. Nischan said that our approach should be getting the ordinance we need,
the plan with the technical attributes, and the ability to process one case, rather
than 15 cases, through the system. Then use some of the money for ugliness
abatement. Mr. Goolsby said televise or videotape the meeting so it could be
replayed on Channel 28 later, and bring in experts to answer questions. You
could even have a call-in program.
D. Pending Items: Future action required.
1. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-2-96, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for
Parking Lot. Action Target Date March 24, 1998.
b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original
Plat, Sale for Redevelopment. Inactive.
C. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site),
Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. &Visitors
Bureau. Inactive.
d. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews.
Information/Action Target Date January 27, 1998.
e. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-
grade Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24,
1998.
f. Act-19-97, Capitol Ave. at Dwight St., Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
8. NEW BUSINESS - None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1998 PAGE 17
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Nischan asked about Downtown Design Standards, since they are in the
Master Plan. What would be the first step? Ms. Love said we will wait until the
North Lansing group finishes their Master Plan, which should be in the next
week or two and then we will look at them, and also at the Downtown Plan,
which is finishing up the marketing phase and moving into the land use phase;
after that is the design phase. They will suggest guidelines.
Mr. Nischan reported on board members' attendance at the MSPO Byte
Review MASTER PLANNING session at Novi; Lansing swept the prizes and has
bragging rights. Mr. Ruge asked about progress on the sign code enforcement
brochure. Mr. Ruff has scheduled time for work on it during this week and next.
"I have a 15-page book, but it lacks graphics and final language. He has also
been working on the nonconforming use amendment. Last week he attended a
one-week class on GIS software.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Ruge asked about the SLU at the Mt. Hope Bethlehem Church for the
parking lot and buffering. The parking lot appears to run right up to the fence.
Mr. Ruff said they tried to relocate arborvitaes, but they don't like being
transplanted. A review of the site will take place.
Mr. Goolsby said on the south side there are two condominium projects; they
have signs all over the place. Ms. Love said they are in the public right-of-way.
"I will talk to Mr. Clark again."
12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 10:05 p.m.
Mt s bmi K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
\mn012198 a:\44
SLU-14-97
2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
MARANATHA BAPTIST CHURCH
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Pastor Glenn M. Ray, Jr.
Maranatha Baptist Church
2300 N. Waverly Rd
Lansing, MI 48906
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use Permit (SLU) for an addition to the
existing church facility.
EXISTING LAND USE: Church
EXISTING ZONING: "A" and "B" Residential Districts, "J" Parking District
PROPOSED ZONING: No Change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 395' x 530'; approximately 5.4 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single family residential
S: Single family residential
E: Single family residential
W: Vacant/Rural
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Single Family Residential
S: "A" Single Family Residential
E: "A" Single Family Residential
W: Single Family Residential, 3.6 units/acre (Delta
Township)
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northwest Area Comprehensive Development
Plan, Proposed Land Use to 1990 designates the
vicinity of this site for, low density residential
development.
CASE HISTORY: The original Church building on this site was
constructed in 1959. The site is greater than two acres
in size and is located on a street with an arterial or
collector classification. The original City Council
Ordinance dated August 3, 1959 required "an
evergreen planting with a mature height of 5 ft. 6 in. on
that part of the "J" Parking District bordering the public
streets."
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
page 2 MARANATHA BAPTIST CHURCH
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 12,622 square
foot addition to their existing church building. The
addition is for a "family center" and will include a
kitchen, gymnasium, entry lobby, carport, and elevator.
The existing church building has a seating capacity of
approximately 396 persons.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received.
BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response received.
BUILDING SAFETY: No response received.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received.
DELTA TWP: Adjacent property west of Waverly Road is
zoned Single Family Residential, 3.6 units/acre.
FIRE MARSHALL: No response received.
LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: No neighborhood organization in this area.
MI DEPT. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: No response received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : No response received.
TRANSPORTATION: The proposed project appears to complement
the existing development. The additional traffic
demand can be supported by the existing streets
and parking areas serving the site. The
Transportation Division will make specific
comments during the plan review process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE:
The site is presently a fully developed Church facility on a site of approximately 51/2 acres.
The "footprint" of the existing building is approximately 19,600 square feet, and most of
the structure has two levels. The front of the building is oriented to Waverly Road to the
west with the parking lot east of the structure, separating the buildings from the adjacent
residential neighborhood to the east.
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
page 3 MARANATHA BAPTIST CHURCH
There are a significant number of spruce trees (approximately 30 feet tall) located north
of the parking lot adjacent Cambrey Drive. Other landscaping on the site consists of a
landscaped entranceway into the residential subdivision at Cambrey and Waverly Road.
The parking lot presently is striped for 129 parking spaces; the Zoning Code requires
church with a seating capacity of 396 persons to provide 132 parking spaces. There is
sufficient room on the balance of the site that is zoned "J" Parking District to pave and
provide approximately 80 additional parking spaces. Waverly Road is classified as a
Major Arterial Street by the Northwest Area Comprehensive Plan. Cambrey Drive is
classified as a local street.
Other nearby churches include First United Methodist and St. Stephen Lutheran, which are
located at the southeast and northeast corners of Waverly Road and Delta River Drive,
respectively.
ANALYSIS
Special Land Use
Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special
Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows.
1. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED,
OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE
CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE
Staff foresees no potential problems of incompatibility with adjacent properties. The large
size of the site permits expansion of the church facility to accommodate any additional
parking need on the site. In addition, the large site provides adequate "buffer space" for
the residential neighborhood.
2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY
The addition of the north wing on the building will add significant visual bulk to what is now
open lawn. However, the essential character of the area will remain residential with some
large churches located adjacent Waverly Road.
3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY
Because the large site can accommodate its own parking needs, the proposed addition
should not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties.
4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO
THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
page 4 MARANATHA BAPTIST CHURCH
SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT
As long as the building addition is architecturally similar to the present structure in scale
and materials, Staff can determine no reason why it would not be a significant
improvement to the property and the surrounding area.
5. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR
EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR
WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE
PRODUCTION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE
No impact is anticipated beyond potential small increase in traffic during church activities.
In addition, the proposed site plan indicates sufficient room on the site to accommodate
storm water drainage and detention facilities, which will be required by City Ordinance
before building permits for the structure can be issued.
6. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT IS DEMONSTRATED
THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE
IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND
FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER
CONSIDERATION
Water, sewer, storm sewer, and transportation services are all adequate to serve the
expanded facility. Any changes to these utilities will be reviewed during the building and
site plan review process and will be required at the applicant's expense.
7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY
None anticipated.
8. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND
PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Master Plan designates this area for residential development at 0 to 7 units per acre
and open space in the vicinity. The proposed church facility is consistent with these uses.
9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
The property meets the current Zoning Code's threshold criteria for a Special Land Use
Permit for a Church: It abuts an arterial street, and the site is two acres or more in size.
In addition, the existing and proposed structures meet applicable building setbacks. The
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
page 5 MARANATHA BAPTIST CHURCH
proposed building addition will have to be within the maximum height limit of 35 feet for a
building in the "B" Residential District.
The proposed building coverage is only 13% of the lot area, and the parking lot coverage
is approximately 28% of the lot area. The Zoning Code permits 40%and 55% lot coverage
ratios, respectively.
The existing parking lot meets the requirements for parking for a church with a seating
capacity of 396 persons. The proposed use of the addition does not require provision of
additional parking spaces.
The Zoning Code will require additional landscaping, screening, and buffering adjacent the
south side of the existing parking lot. This requirement can be enforced through the
building plan review process.
SUMMARY
The Special Land Use is requested to permit construction of a 12,622 square foot "family
center" and will include a kitchen, gymnasium, entry lobby, carport, and elevator. There
is sufficient room on the site provide additional parking spaces if necessary, however, no
additional parking is required. Architectural consistency and compatibility are important
elements to assure compatibility with the residential neighborhood. Additional
landscaping, screening, and buffering will be required adjacent to the south side of the
existing parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the condition that architectural plans be subject to
approval of the planning staff and be submitted for review concurrent with the site plan and
building permit plans for the project.
NORTH
5�fi� P/ate
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
DALE M®
rOWM
FiE PATH YXMLM
�Y/ IfMAH.TN4VwRlOCJ
a µr
� � > GAMHREY DRIVE
l.I b•
Opp
C
Ij I mr«�wclal 3Fp(
/_ M!l KRa L'IIA M1. YL
I I 9 I cN 1Cr Q�![K.11111r
1 1
1 1
1 I 1
� 1
-1-
T__ 1
� 1 I i 1 "--- �wsnw.�rwv.rn�acwtor
O ! i egen
MAIN S4K:TUAR'f P u or
u rr I.r
FINISH MOOR 100-0' PETER B. HOLZ
! i ARG UM DRVE
EL MMMDmE
E=KMH4 C
y! ( 1 � IFrl 7FWR FAX-CM
N
` I 1ORM PROP05ED 517E PLAN
a� cusTrw cannlo --es- 9M TTILE
H9'1 CCNiCV6 911E MAN
I ! I Panccr Ha
i ,' . 9755
l / L_ __ ___ __ _ ___ _____ ___ __ ______ _____ _
I'
li Ha
�t 590'
61ENGOE
NORTH
SLU-14-97 2300 N. WAVERLY ROAD
858.2 859.0 PP
is
m fl ' 2! Pi
am
jj��EE�JjpSjj
EllEl
W �L
Z I 8512 I
�Bs9r a� I 860
1!
` l
857.8 857.E 838.7 x 858.2 CAMBREY 859.2 858.6 857.5
ZZ
857.95
4`I!� nllo- J 8585 N � J
DJ
,J
El
�.
60.6 858.
JJJ Y V e
Oki Xo- � I ,. 'g6
/)G is 6o I i
y PAR ING 860. '
,a _
1.
,1 PO /I
if
4.9% I
ni
1Y1
J` 859.8 86a7
AR ON
86/.6
854.6 CiLENCOE 52.7
I ..
1
I �� r a f u
,fl /fl L
862.7862.7863.0
��
ALL LUJ
LL
62.2
1 to
862.8
p WILLS Es
1 '
eao
SLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 1 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the"D-1" Professional Office District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Anthony W. McCloud
3708 Glasgow
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy
REQUESTED ACTION: Request for a Special Land Use permit.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Office & One apartment
EXISTING ZONING: "D-1" Professional Office District
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 61' x 120' odd shape = 10,409 ± sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential
S: Residential
E: Beauty Salon & Office
W: Office & Church
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "D-1" Professional Office District
S: "B" Residential District
E: "D-1" Professional Office District
W: "B" Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIG.: The Southeast Area Plan designates this area for
Professional Office use.
SLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 2 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the T-1" Professional Office District
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
The applicant is proposing to operate a 8 chair beauty salon with additional space for a
nail station and a single Facial area. The lower level of the site will continue with it's
current use as a an apartment and Office/Meeting Space.
AGENCY RESPONSES
AMERITECH: No reply.
Assessor: No comments.
B.W.L: No concerns.
Building Safety Office: The establishment of a beauty shop requires compliance with
applicable provisions of the building, mechanical, electrical
and plumbing codes. Contact Chris Segerlind in the Building
Safety Office at 483-4381 for additional information.
City Attorney: No reply.
Consumers: No reply.
Development Office: No comment.
Fire Marshal: No objection.
Lansing Neigh. Council: No organizations at this time.
Media One: No concerns at this time.
Community Policing: No reply.
Parks and Recreation: Proposed use should fit surrounding land use.
Public Service Dept.: No objections.
Transportation Eng.: No reply.
SLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 3 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the "D-1" Professional Office District
ANALYSIS
A structure which is used for a barber or beauty shop which may include the sale of
products associated with the principal use may be permitted by Council in this district "in
accordance with the procedures and conditions described in Chapter 1282," if all
conditions listed below are met and "if all federal, state and local laws are met."
The standards which are established within Chapter 1282 of the City of Lansing Zoning
Code, by which a special land use must be examined by the Planning Board to determine
whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny are as follows.
1. IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED,
OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER HARMONIOUS WITH THE
CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USE?
Other development in the area includes various professional and business offices, a
church, an adjacent beauty parlor and residential development. The proposed beauty
salon is proposed to be located in the main structure on the first floor. The lower level
contains an apartment and office which the applicant proposes to retain. Parking for
approximately 15 cars exist on the property.
The applicant has stated that only 8 of the 10 stations (8 chairs, 1 nail & 1 facial) within the
beauty salon will be staffed at any one time. Section 1284.13(C)3 of the City of Lansing
Zoning Code's requires 15 spaces for the operation of 8 stations. However, the use of an
apartment and office space in the lower level will require additional parking not supported
by the site. Currently, there is a circular drive located in front of the structure, but is
prohibited from being used for parking in the "D-1" Professional Office District and may be
used for drop off only. A beauty salon will compatible in this location if sufficient parking
on land with in 300' which is zoned "D-1, E-1 , E-2, F, G-2, H, I or X Districts.
2. WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
The proposed beauty salon will not change the essential character of the overall area,
which is predominantly office, service and retail in nature. The Special Land Use, if
granted, would specifically allow a beauty salon with up to 8 chairs, a nail station and facial
area and would not allow any commercial use of the property in this office zoning District.
SLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 4 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the T-1" Professional Office District
3. WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL
ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY?
The proposed use should not interfere with the general enjoyment of the adjacent
properties. The subject property has, in fact, shared its parking with the beauty salon to
the east and the church to the west. This parking layout and use is supported by a
"Reciprocal Parking Overflow Agreement" that should be submitted prior to final approval.
WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENT AN IMPROVEMENT
TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE
SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL THE USE BE IN KEEPING WITH
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT?
The use of this structure as a beauty salon should not be any more intense than a
business or professional office use of the property.
5. WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE HAZARDOUS TO ADJACENT
PROPERTIES OR INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT
WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF
PERSONS OR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OF
TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMOKE, ODOR, FUMES OR GLARE?
A beauty salon on the subject property should not have a direct detrimental effect to the
health, safety, or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic,
smoke, odor, fumes or glare.
6. CAN THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES OR IS IT DEMONSTRATED
THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE
IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THE SERVICES AND
FACILITIES DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE UNDER
CONSIDERATION?
This site is adequately served by essential public services.
7. WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY?
The proposed salon will not place demands on all essential public services and facilities
currently serving this site.
SJLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 5 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the T-1" Professional Office District
8. IS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND
PURPOSE OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The Southeast Area Plan designates this area for office development. The proposed salon
would be in compliance with this recommended future land use.
9. WILL THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEET THE DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
The proposed beauty salon is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning
Ordinance since it was amended in 1991 to allow beauty salons in the "D-1" Professional
Office District, by Special Land Use. The applicant has stated that only 8 of the 10
stations (8 chairs, 1 nail & 1 facial) within the beauty salon will be staffed at any one time.
Section 1284.13(C)3 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code's requires 15 spaces for the
operation of 8 stations. However, the use of an apartment and office space in the lower
level will require additional parking not supported by the site.
Currently, there is a circular drive located in front of the structure, but is prohibited from
being used for parking in the "D-1" Professional Office District and may be used for drop
off only. A beauty salon will compatible in this location if sufficient parking on land with in
300' which is zoned "D-1, E-1, E-2, F, G-2, H, I or X Districts. The current "Reciprocal
Parking Overflow Agreement" that exists for adjacent parcels will need to be submitted to
verify the applicable zoning districts.
SUMMARY
1. The proposed special land use is designed, constructed, and maintained in a
manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding
use.
2. A beauty salon would be compatible with the surrounding area if additional parking
can be supplied.
3. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent property.
4. The proposed use of the structure would appear to neither be an improvement or
a detriment to the use and character of the property.
5. The proposal for the subject property should not have a direct detrimental effect to
SLU-13-97
908 East Mt. Hope
Page 6 Special Land Use for a Beauty Salon in the "D-1" Professional Office District
the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property through the excessive
production of traffic, smoke, odor, fumes or glare.
6. This property is adequately served by essential public services.
7. The proposed special land use does not appear to place demands on public
services and facilities in excess of current capacity.
8. This special land use permit meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Code with the exception of parking. Approximately 15 can be developed meeting
the minimum dimensional requirement of the Zoning Code while 15 are required,
one being barrier free for the beauty salon. The proposed continued use of the
lower level for office and one apartment will require additional parking that can not
provided on site. The applicant will need to provide sufficient parking on land with
in 300' which is zoned "D-1, E-1, E-2, F, G-2, H, I or X Districts.
9. The special land use permit meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Code in terms of structural setbacks. Any new signage proposed must comply with
the requirements of the Sign Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the special land use permit for a building to be utilized for
a beauty salon with the following conditions.
9. That the applicant submits a contract for parking on land with in 300' which is zoned
"D-1, E-1, E-2, F, G-2, H, I or X Districts to allow for the continued use of the lower
level for office and one apartment.
10. That landscaping, screening and buffering is provided on site along the parking
areas adjacent to residentially zoned land.
D:\1994-7 Data\WPERFECT\SLU13-97.WPD Prepared by: Steven L. Hayward, Senior Planner
r o r: MORTGAGE REPORT Buyers:
Republic Bank—Central Kenneth E. Dickinson &
500 N. Homer St. Susan K. Dickinson
Lansing, MI 48912 908 E. Mt. Hope Avenue
Lansing, MI 48910
Legal Description (as provided): Lot 18, and the West 21 feet of Lot 19, the East 36
feet of Lot 26. and the North 45 feet of Lot 31. except the East 16 feet of the North
10 feet thereof, Hollywood Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according
to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 7 of Plots. Page 26, Ingham County
Records.
LOT
R41'
R36' _O26
IR16 4Q� #,+r+l� ..
I309
__ :-
A LOT SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR
EXCEPTION ` '::1:::.:;; THE EXACT LOCATION OF FENCE,
. =_;1 ::;:;::: V. ....`� . . ASPHALT, AND PROPERTY LINES.
LOT 1 �: V : : :::; : :,:.:
0
N :; 31.5' : :::::::': N
o BUILDING 8'S� 8
27 8� 2't
13' O1
9n
I R40' R84' TO DONORA ST.
CURB
.......................
E. MT. HOPE AVE.
No dimensions
n.t. r.nnrf Is Intended solely for mortgage purposes and,no property Ilnes were monumenKahv certify that we have hereon
so
7 7
SLU-13-97 908 E. Mt Hope Avenue
NORTH Beauty Salon
1!• !w �• J Q 2 1• 131 ,11 ; !r • •• 41 • '•� 1 20 y\
C •
9 1�1 J23
'< 17 � N, ; f Y� 43 vol - -- � 4y1 2 . 3
Y 1• ')
to lyt 1• 141• � } h ` •• OBI 111 3�.i If 151 CY fy :_ -• •3 1l yy1 •• 17 !`
o 3g3 + •
ISBELL ST. 1 20 161 1 • K o41 7 q11 • • �• •°�
• ��
•ry j IY'. 10'` >� •I 041 M•1 f e ,f pal
.O 101 jqI 7'
%
•y \;� Zt c ± 22 /q/ lr Z i 39 11% .• Sol 1�p{
L 13 oil
1 �R 3• ,yl - I
�..•01 \�\ zo•� [ 23 aw ----- yT - -
24
+1 3 x0 1. O\t,\ 1f j t3 13/ 1 3334
.20`\ - 27 -2WI {\133I Y 01- q1 ,- w\ : 2 L air/ :�•. `•I 3z I t '
to Is 2 'S5 �e 17 — . 10 41
lot 29 re w+r.w r Z:29 sa/ 1,\ 5 IS . t 051
,o
•.` \ :30 .37/ 3�2' +'► Is 1•I a f oy1.
01% C 10. soY cp 19 Z yll , 1•' 1
32 297 v119P •37+r� ��20 „ - - 4} 17' Z 1 a o1
7
I p'J• oll• !;^ = 33 3rw cc• . 41 36 ow, l f i J . 6
-,. �� •� •+l 7' r°' •t 33 i 2• y5l Vl
pYl ' '•• `V, 34 3# +3' 3•`H 27 I ..• _t+-H. Z 4
1 O Ow i 9•' N° 3324 t 4 2• ; 201 a It 3 13 u
om
a� 1 � 31 !� 1 � .
t4l1 IN 30 2 24 23 22 t I
NORTH LINE SEC 277t
a 7" 71.1 ,. FAA E. MT.HOPE.. AVE
T 401
41 IIII
°2 1 3 4; 1 3 • s 16 l7 20 121 22 1 23 It4j 25
i1 o•�I
I 10 26
L�3
27
AP
z'
\ \ \ •S\13� 21 I; a 1 °�\ 14 p 29 p7. l 1 °�� ]• °6
• 9 .•,I 14 22 1 23 e 9 I .0St\ 15� -10 0�. 31 1 133 3c
yy.i
MC KIM
7••' 7., ^'. r..7sc McKIM r�QJE
3 si !S 39 I i;2• oo. 30 i2 111 I !0 °\\ 7°•' j�6e �` 63 62 e1 60
\ 1' - - --
'� \•\ 01 ,, so:j o S .. 3 10\ 75: 1,61
\ \ � \' \ b 11 t 1 c9t - -
27 0,1 �•• I 0� 77• n 7. o�
=
l ' OSI ..0 N.. >.::2e O1l . �1Y�i -•t; ^ • 7z °1` 0 Q a o 1.1 b` 52 -AL
1- -0
• •S 137 3e j7i a° 2 ! 29 O•Il 31 I 32 Q I •• 4� 79 73 ,\ 1 Q7 i6 1.64 °�•. 59 T [ SJ
�.. KENINOOO AVE w i, `� AENWGOo AVE
DRAFT TO CLERK 02/13/98
APPROVED 02/17/98
TO CLERK 05/04/99
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
23 7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
CITY CLERK Tenth
West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
1. OPENING SESSION
A. Roll Call: Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan,
Ruge, Smith; eight members present. Ex officio Councilmember Adado
not in attendance.
B. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions: Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present,
Louise H. Christian, recording secretary.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Approved as printed.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Memorandum dated January 26, 1998 from William C. Rieske to Urban
Development Committee concerning Staff Recommendation "Dismiss
Without Prejudice" - Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure
B. Memorandum dated January 26, 1998 from William C. Rieske to Urban
Development Committee concerning Revisions to Guidelines of
Administrative Act 285 Reviews
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business
District
Ms. Love presented the case, a request by David Ferguson of Ferguson
Development to rezone the south 80 ft. of the property from "H" Light
Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. This would encompass the
building located on the property, the former Estes Furniture Co.
warehouse, adjacent to Mr. Ferguson's property, On the Grand, the
condominium development to the north. This warehouse building is being
rehabilitated into office and retail commercial space. One of the primary
tenants will be the Visitor and Convention Bureau which will occupy much
of the first floor level on Turner Street. The rest of the property is being
maintained in parking for the site. If the site were to be fully leased, the
number of available spaces would not meet the minimum requirement.
He is aware of that, but wants to maintain parking on the site. He is
asking for "G-1" Business at this time with the understanding that if he
ever increases the size of the building, he would have to come back and
rezone the remainder of the property.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 2
Mr. Greiner asked if the City has any parking in this area. Ms. Love said
there is parking at the Brenke Fish Ladder in Burchard Park, at the foot of
Turner Street. We are making plans to increase parking up to 131
parking spaces at the base of Turner Street because we are coming close
to having a parking crunch in this area. We are looking for alternative
parking arrangements and waiting for the Principal Shopping District Plan,
which will identify parking locations. It is due to this Board around the first
of May. Mr. Greiner said, considering that the parking lot to the north is
also owned by the applicant, what is the advantage to convert this to
"G-1" as opposed to granting a variance on parking? Ms. Love said this
gives more fluidity on uses going into the existing building; it allows them
flexibility on the mix of tenants. If they expand the size of the building,
they would have to come back to this Board. They want parking on-site
for tenants, the Visitor and Convention Bureau. Mr. Ferguson is also
aware of that. He has indicated that he is looking at putting a deck on
because the ground level slopes down toward the river. He could put on
a level even with Turner Street, and it would double the amount of parking
and not create a massive structure.
Mr. Nischan came at this point.
Mr. Ruge said there are more uses in the "G-1" Business District than in
the "H" Light Industrial District? Ms. Love said no; by having "G-1", he
has more flexibility in the mix of office and commercial uses that he will
have in the building. It is not completely leased yet. There is a range of
parking that could be required. This way he can utilize the existing
building and have flexibility in the mix of the commercial and office, or
residential, if he wanted. He could not have industrial uses if he puts it
back to "G-1" Business. There would be no manufacturing allowed. He
can have greater flexibility because he would not have to meet the
parking requirements.
DAVID FERGUSON, FERGUSON DEVELOPMENT, 5815 S.
PENNSYLVANIA. The business in this office site is not going to be
industrial, it is going to be business. We want to have the proper zoning
for that building. We are making a major investment in the area. We are
ready to move forward and get started with the activity.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for Z-1-98, 1223 N.
Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, and
referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 11, 1998 in the Conference Room, Dept. of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 3
Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue,
Lansing, Michigan.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None.
6. RECESS - None.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: January 21, 1998. Mr. Greiner made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of January 21, 1998.
An omission was noted as follows: (1) Pg 2 Ln 1.98" Pos 2" MR.
GOOLSBY REQUESTED RECUSAL FROM THE MATTER OF ACT-1-98
TONIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. HIS LAW OFFICE IS
LOCATED AT 200 N. CAPITOL AVENUE, AND, AS A TENANT IN THE
BUILDING, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECUSED FROM TAKING ANY
ACTION OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION. MR NISCHAN
MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. FREDERICK, TO RECUSE MR.
GOOLSBY FROM TAKING ANY ACTION OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY
DISCUSSION OF ACT-1-98, VOICE VOTE, UNANIMOUS, CARRIED;
MR. GOOLSBY WAS RECUSED. HE LEFT THE ROOM. Corrections
were noted as follows. (2) Pg 10 Ln 2.76" Pos 4.91" the appl me
suspend the use of the lower level apartment or modify the nufnbef a
THE BEAUTY SALON USE BE LIMITED TO A
MAXIMUM OF TEN CHAIRS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
TOTAL USE OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED THE ZONING
CODE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING PARKING AND BUFFERING
REGULATIONS, (3) Pg 16 Ln 4.72" Pos 6.47" the MSPO Site Plan
Reveew MASTER PLANNING session at Novi. On a voice vote, there
were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; with those changes,
the minutes of January 21, 1998 were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
Next meeting Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 4 p.m.,
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair; committee met
Tuesday, January 27, 1998.
Mr. Goolsby, as a point of order, said in light of his request for
recusal from taking any action or participating in any discussion of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 4
Act-1-98, which was approved at the last meeting, he is asking for
the same courtesy again this evening for the same reasons. He
requested the matter be voted on prior to the committee report. Mr.
Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recuse Mr.
Goolsby from participating or voting on Act-1-98; voice vote;
unanimous; carried. For the public record, this action will be taken
each and every time the issue comes up. Mr. Goolsby left the
room.
a. Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over
100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St. for Office Span Bridging Ottawa
Street.
There was considerable discussion, and recognition that
many issues are left unresolved at this point in the planning.
The committee looked at all the issues and found, based on
testimony and evidence on the location, character and
extent of this project:
1. That precedent for this project has already been
established to allow construction over the public right-
of-way, however, not under the same conditions as
under this proposal.
2. That the location of this building would be appropriate
by furthering the pattern to occupy buildings along
Capitol Avenue and support general downtown
development by encouraging the concentration of
large office uses in the central core.
3. That while the mass of this building is significant,
appropriate attention to detail and material on both
sides of the building span is necessary to ensure that
the scale does not negatively impact the directly
adjacent uses by obstructing view, light or air.
4. That several legal issues remain unresolved, prior to
the final approval of this project, as follows:
a. What property rights over the ROW does the
city have? Need to have a recognized
property right before space can be sold,
leased, licensed, etc. It is also important to the
developer relative to obtaining title insurance.
b. Value of space needs to be established.
C. Project needs to be precisely defined. Need
actual building envelope in space over ROW
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 5
to be denoted specifically along with detailed
plans in writing from the developer.
d. Need to address possible issue that structure
might interfere with light and air rights of
adjacent property owners. Views will definitely
be altered.
In committee, it was moved and seconded to
recommend approval of Act-1-98, provided that
the four issues in the Development Office
comments are addressed, that ground level
windows and architectural features be
provided to highlight pedestrian scale use, and
that public improvements such as plantings
and benches be installed, and that the use of
the air rights receives a permit from the
Michigan Dept. of Transportation, due to the
fact that Ottawa Street is a trunk line. The
resolution further recommends that the
administration be authorized to draft a
development agreement for review and
approval by the City Council, which includes
but is not limited to the issues identified in this
report. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously, 4-0.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence
and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to
recommend approval of Act-1-98, provided that the four issues in the Development
Office comments are addressed, that ground level windows and architectural features
be provided to highlight pedestrian scale use, and that public improvements such as
plantings and benches be installed, and that the use of the air rights receives a permit
from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, due to the fact that Ottawa Street is a trunk
line, and further that the administration be authorized to draft a development agreement
for review and approval by the City Council, which includes but is not limited to the
issues identified in this report.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Frederick . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby .Recused
Greiner. . . Ave Keene. . .Ave
Miller. Aye Nischan. Ave
Smith Ave Ruge Ave
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 6
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; Recused: 1; carried; unanimous;
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa Street, with conditions as above, was APPROVED.
Mr. Goolsby returned to the meeting at this point.
b. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of
Community Development Fund Resources, including the
CDBG, HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY
1998.
Emil Winnicker and Doris Witherspoon presented the report,
together with an overview of the use of funds.
In committee, Mr. Ruge had asked that he be recused from
taking action the Public Services section, due to his
affiliation with Neighborhoods 'N' Bloom, which receives
funding from this program. It was moved, seconded, and
carried unanimously (3-0), to recuse Mr. Ruge on all matters
pertaining to Public Services under which the
Neighborhoods 'N' Bloom is funded.
The committee action took place in two parts: (1) a vote on
all programs with the exception of the Public Services
section, and (2) a vote on all Public Services items.
At this time, Mr. Ruge asked to be recused from the
Planning Board's consideration of the Public Services
section. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr.
Miller, to recuse Mr. Ruge from participating or voting on the
Public Services items; voice vote; approved unanimously,
7-0. Mr. Ruge, after passing the gavel to Mr. Greiner, left
the room.
Mr. Nischan reported, regarding the Public Services items,
that the committee was concerned about moneys being
used to fund two Community Policing Officers. There were
two issues. The first is other uses in mind for that money.
The second, and the weightier of the two, is that it shifts
local community policing funding into a federal and highly
variable source. That leaves funding for two community
policing officers dangling off in the vagaries of federal
funding. The committee wanted to recommend strongly that
for the next budget this item be moved into more stable City
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 7
funding, because Community Policing is very important.
The committee on a voice vote recommended approval of
the Public Services portion of the plan, and further
recommended beginning with Fiscal year 1999-2000 that
funding for Community Policing be excluded from these
programs and funded with a more stable City funding
source. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence,
and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to
approve the Public Services portion of the budget.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Ms. Love cautioned the Board about making a strong statement "must be excluded."
She reminded the board that the federal Block Grant program has a very long history.
Our entire Development Office is funded by this program. Out of the 12 or 14
community policing officers in the City, a number of them are on grant programs. This
is our twenty-third year in community development. It does not appear to be any more
unstable than the Police Department's budget in a general fund year; in fact, we have
been doing better with CD dollars than with our general fund dollars. In the choice of
not having those two officers, or having them funded out of CD, "I think I would choose
to have them funded out of CD. I would be careful of the wording."
Mr. Nischan amended the motion to recommend approval and further to recommend
that in FY 1999-2000 funding for community policing that is contained therein be shifted
to a stable City funding source, if at all possible. Ms. Keene accepted the amendment.
Goolsby . Aye Greiner. . .Aye
Keene. . . Aye Miller . . Aye
Nischan . . Ave Smith . Ave
Frederick . . Ave Ruge .Recused
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; Recused: 1; carried; unanimous; the
motion to recommend approval of the Public Services portion of the plan, with the
further recommendation that in FY 1999-2000 funding for community policing that is
contained therein be shifted to a more stable City funding source, if at all possible, was
APPROVED.
Mr. Greiner passed the gavel to Mr. Ruge who returned to the Planning Board meeting
at this point. Mr. Nischan continued with the Urban Development Committee report. In
committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously, 3-0 on a voice vote, to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 8
recommend approval of all the items in that budget except for the Public Services
section.
Mr. Nischan 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, that
the Planning Board recommend approval of the Proposed Objectives, Goals and
Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the CDBG,
HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 1998 excluding all the Public
Services section.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Goolsby . Aye Greiner. . _ .Ave
Keene. Ave Miller Aye
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . Ave
Frederick Ave Ruge Aye
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays, 0; carried; unanimous, the Proposed
Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources,
including the CDBG, HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, FY 1998
excluding all the Public Services section, was APPROVED.
3. Amendment to the Rules of Administrative Procedure. Dismiss without
prejudice. TABLED.
4. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews.
This item was a set of procedures to streamline multiple Act 285 hearings. The
need no longer exists, so the procedures are unnecessary. WITHDRAWN.
Next meeting Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
4. Executive Committee - Did not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love directed members' attention to the Michigan Municipal League's
announcement of a workshop titled "Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Buildings"
to be held on March 18 in Lansing. We are getting ready to modify to our
nonconforming use section, and this workshop would be valuable for at least
members of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. For those attending, Ms.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 9
Love will copy the nonconforming section of our ordinance to take to the
workshop. Ms. Love asked that members wanting to attend let her know at the
meeting of February 17, 1998. Mr. Frederick, Mr. Nischan, Mr. Greiner and Mr.
Ruge said they will attend.
The Master Plan consultant is looking at the general land use patterns and trying
to develop land uses to fit into that. They have done a marketing study that they
will present at their next meeting. The last element of the Master PLan will be
the design plan. Lisa Carey at Main Street has agreed to furnish Ms. Love with
a set of design guidelines to be provided to the PSD and the consultant firm. "I
have already talked to them about having guidelines for development activities
in the downtown area."
D. Pending Items: Future action required.
1. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-2-96, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for
Parking Lot. Action Target Date March 24, 1998.
b. Act-3-96, 300 Blk. S. Grand, Blocks 130 and 131, Original
Plat, Sale for Redevelopment. Inactive.
C. Act-10-96, 501 E. Kalamazoo (Former Spartan Inn Site),
Visitors Welcome Center, Greater Lansing Conv. & Visitors
Bureau. Inactive.
d. Revision to Guidelines of Administrative Act 285 Reviews.
Information/Action Target Date January 27, 1998.
e. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-
grade Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24,
1998.
f. Act-19-97, Capitol Ave. at Dwight St., Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
8. NEW BUSINESS - None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRMAN - None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Miller asked about meetings set for February 4, 1998 on towers. Ms. Love
said Jim Ruff is not here tonight because there is a meeting every night this
week. The results of these meetings will go to the board meeting on Thursday,
February 19. The School Board will then say whether or not they wish to join us
in the application process. We had a meeting today about how we envision
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 10
proceeding with this as a joint effort. The Board of Zoning Appeals has to be
involved, as well as the Planning Board, School Board and Parks Board. We
want to set the public hearing in the largest place available. We would do
mailings around each of the sites that are identified and have a general
newspaper notice, and announcements over Channel 28. It would be most
beneficial for everybody to hear the same thing at the same time. The School
District is sponsoring the meetings on just the school district sites to get public
opinion and input before the School Board votes on whether or not to join the
City on the applications.
Mr. Goolsby asked about four Boards meeting for one public hearing. "I would
think that the Planning Board should be the presiding board there, because
things do have to come before us in the form of a public hearing. . . .so that is
clear to the other boards." Ms. Love said the Board of Zoning Appeals would
have public hearings because a height variance would be required. Ms. Love
was uncertain about whether the School Board would have a public hearing, and
the Parks Board is advisory. We would have to work out details for seating at
the hearing, perhaps a seating chart, to identify the boards and the membership
of each, to accomplish what we need to accomplish.
Mr. Goolsby said we will have to develop a mechanism for the presiding officer.
"I was not aware that they required the public hearing. If they require a public
hearing, and it is joint, then there has to be a determination made as to who
presides. That has to be clear at the outset. . . .You might have to check with
the City Attorney's Office just to make sure in terms of a joint session." It is
important that this be clarified before we move forward.
Ms. Love said, technically, it is not appropriate for the School Board to sit, but
then the City is the other applicant, and we are here anyway. The Parks Board
needs to be included, but it is in a different capacity.
Mr. Frederick said there is also the issue of how the vote for approval and denial
is to be taken. The Board of Zoning Appeals votes have a different process
involved. If one Board were to preside over the entire meeting, including the
voting, then likely it would be defective. Some procedure should be worked out
so that we can all hear everything and each Board get an opportunity to make
their own motions.
Ms. Love said typically the Board of Zoning Appeals hears the case, then they
go into closed session; they are here, and the audience can hear them, but
citizens don't participate. They usually make their decision the same night,
although that is not required. It is possible that you could have the public
meeting and not take votes that night, for a couple reasons. One of the reasons
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 11
why the Planning Board does not typically take a vote the same night as the
public hearing is that there may be issues that are raised by the public at that
meeting that will require additional research. In that situation, we would take
public comment, and then state when these issues will be decided. For issues
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, at their meeting on blank date, and do the
same thing for the Planning Board. The Planning Board has its statement after
the close of each public hearing of referral to the respective Planning Board
subcommittee. We can do the same thing. We can't do it carte blanche either,
because potentially there are 15 different sites. Some of them may make it, and
some of them may be rejected, and we would need to find a different site.
Mr. Frederick said that the Board of Zoning Appeals will have to address each
site individually. Ms. Love said as will the Planning Board.
Mr. Greiner said there could be a situation at the meeting where a board would
recognize a problem with a site. Referral to committee prior to the next board
meeting would give a chance to work out problem issues.
Chairman Ruge said for 15 sites, there might be 75 people who want to speak,
at three minutes each. It might be a five-hour meeting.
Mr. Goolsby said if we get good explanations of the issues, it may cut down on
the number of speakers. The assessment process the School Board is going
through now may cut down on the number of speakers. The number of people
they have at these meetings may point to what we can expect at our meeting.
Ms. Love said another thing we talked about is having a Q and A sheet--what
are the health risks? Is this a microwave tower? What is the difference between
a cell tower and a microwave tower and a PCS tower? What different things are
associated with each, and with each site? With good explanations and a good Q
and A sheet, we should be able to avoid questions that might otherwise happen.
Mr. Frederick reported that one school board member remarked to him that most
comments from parents were accepting of towers; they were more interested in
seeing the School District get the most out of placement of towers rather than
worrying about the towers being there.
Mr. Goolsby's assessment was that the School Board is looking at getting a
large amount of resources from this. Mr. Frederick said that Sprint's initial
proposal was for nearly $4 million for 25 years. That was considered to be a
very low offer. Everybody knew that; it was just a start. Ms. Love received a
pamphlet today from STEALTH, a tower constructor. Mr. Frederick said they are
considerably more expensive.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 12
Ms. Keene asked if there were new developments on Seven Block or on the
enterprise zones. Ms. Love said there was a citizens meeting, and the rezoning
to "D-1 Professional Office was considered. A number of the citizens want
housing be the first thing that comes in. Even though the "D-1" Professional
Office zoning that was requested is in keeping with the Plan, the issue is stalled.
The second thing is that we are starting to work with two non-profits in the blocks
south of Kalamazoo to do housing. The Greater Lansing Housing Coalition has
bought two houses, and they are negotiating for a third. There is housing
activity going on in Seven Block right now. In the Lindell area, we were
tentatively setting a meeting for the third week in February for a citizens meeting
in the neighborhood to review the original goals, the rationale, the present
status, different options and impacts on the neighborhood. We expected to go
to the Committee on Public Service on February 12 to brief them on what we are
going to do in the neighborhood. We will do a postcard notice to areas on M.L.
King, Pleasant Grove, Holmes, and Mt. Hope.
Ms. Keene asked about obtaining a grocery for the area. Ms. Love said there is
nothing yet. We may be getting some leads on nonlocal chains who might want
to move into the market. There is also an RFP out for the corner of M.L. King
and St. Joe for office development for where the church used to be and the five
lots the City owns.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Frederick reported on illegal dumping on the River Trail entrance across
from Silver Lead Paint Company on the Grand River. Somebody backed in twice
and dumped construction rubble. There is a curb cut for a small parking lot on
the north side of Oakland. It was there Saturday. There is rough pavement at
the entrance to the River Trail; a wheelchair-bound person nearly pitched over
trying to traverse it. Parks may need to smooth this rough concrete. /\
12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
\=020398 a:\44
Act-1-98
100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk.
of W. Ottawa St. for Office Span Bridging Ottawa St.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mark Latterman, representing
Capitol Outlook L.L.C.
1305 S. Washington Avenue Suite 101
Lansing, Michigan 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Optionee
REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review
EXISTING LAND USE: Air rights over W. Ottawa St.
EXISTING ZONING: Property is unzoned; however both adjacent
Parcels are zoned "G-1" Business.
PROPOSED ZONING: Vacation of Air rights will confer "G-1" Zoning
Classification
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Requested air rights are 75x82.5x95 excluding
Area at ground level. Building will be a minimum
of 30 feet above the sidewalks and 38 feet above
Ottawa St. at its midpoint. The span will be five
stories tall to a maximum of 118 feet.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Office Buildings
S: Office Buildings
E: Office Buildings and Ottawa St. ROW
W: Capitol Building and Ottawa St. ROW
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: G-1 Business
S: G-1 Business
E: G-1 Business
W: Unzoned
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Comprehensive Master Plan
recommends continued use of the right of way
for street purposes. However, it does not speak
to the use of the air rights over the street.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION:
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 2
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The developer wishes to.utilize the air rights over the
Ottawa Street ROW to construct a span between the BWL administration building
on the SE corner of Ottawa and Capitol Avenue and 200 N. Capitol Avenue at the
NE corner of Ottawa and Capitol Avenue. The span would house a seven story
office connector between the two structures. The renovated structures and the
new span would together accommodate a new state legislative office building. The
span over the street would begin 30 feet above the sidewalk and 38 feet above the
center of Ottawa Street. The total height of the span above the ground would be
118 feet.
BACKGROUND:
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH: No response received
Assessor: If these air right are to be controlled by a private entity,
they should receive explicit notice that they will be
assessed and taxed for those rights.
BWL: Electric Utility The Electric Customer Projects and
Marketing Department has no
objection to this request. (Bob
Strobel 371-6082)
Water Utilft No conflictwith building over Ottawa
as long as BWL can maintain
existing underground in Ottawa.
(Terry Robison 371-6494)
Street Lighting: Street Lighting facilities could be
in conflict with exiting street lighting
pole locations and existing
underground cables could be in
conflict with walkway footings.
(Roger Adsit 371-6085 or 2425175)
Steam Utility: The proposed structure over the
street should not affect the existing
underground steam system. Access
Report prepared by DMW 7/97.
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 3
for excavation and repair of
underground pipes will need to be
maintained. We have no major
apparatus at this location; only
pipes. (John Hundt 371-6497)
Building Safety: No response received at this time.
City Attorney: No response received at this time, however the issue is
being researched.
Consumers Energy: No response received at this time
Media One: Media One has no concerns in this area at this time.
Development Office: The city needs to investigate the following issues before
proceeding with this project:
1. What property rights over the ROW does the city
have? Need to have a recognized property right before
space can be sold, leased, licensed etc. Also important
to developer relative to obtaining title insurance.
2. Value of space needs to be established
3. Project needs to be precisely defined. Need actual
building envelope in space over ROW to be denoted
specifically along with detailed plans in writing from the
developer.
4. Need to address possible issue that structure might
interfere with light and air rights of adjacent property
owners. Views will definitely be altered.
5. This is "a gray area" that requires legal interpretation.
We should proceed with caution.
Lansing Neighborhood
Council: Talked with Bob Cochran, DNA President and Carol
Wood, GNA President on Tues. Jan. 13, 1998. Both
Presidents said they will discuss the issue with their
groups.
Fire Marshal: No response has been received at this time.
Report prepared by DMW 7/97.
Act-1-98, 100 BIk. of Ottawa-St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 4
Parks & Rec.: Comments should be solicited from adjoining office
buildings especially those whose views to the Capitol
Building would be obstructed.
Public Service: Ottawa Street is in this location a MDOT Trunkline (CL-
496) Any proposed construction in (or above) the ROW
should be approved by MDOT.
Trans. Eng: (Verbal Response by phone.) MDOT has a two-stage
approval process. Tentative approval of a preliminary
application takes 30-60 days. Application for final
approval requires full blown engineering drawings of
the final bridge design.
Community Policing: Will WB Ottawa traffic be able to see the traffic signal
as they approach the Capitol Avenue intersection?
Genesee Neighborhood
Association: Genesee Neighborhood Association does not see a
problem with this request and would support it. We
understand that this would enable the use of the building
for the proposed new state legislative office building.
With the information that was provided to us now we
support and ask that the Planning Office do likewise.
Downtown Neighborhood
Association: No response has been received at this time.
Principal Shopping District: No response has been received at this time.
MDOT: No response has been received at this time.
ANALYSIS
The applicant wishes to utilize the air space over the public ROW in order to
construct a span which will connect two separate buildings. The new combined
structure will house State Legislative Offices under a lease with the State of
Michigan.
Report Prepared by and date
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of Ottawa St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 5
According to ACT 285 of the Public Acts of 1931 as amended, the sale, purchase
or substantial change in use of publicly owned land must be evaluated on three
criteria. Those criteria are: Location, Character and Extent.
LOCATION:
To examine the element of location, the proposal must be evaluated as to whether
the use is in an appropriate location and if it is compatible with the surrounding
uses.
The proposed use, as a state office building, would be similar in use to many of the
buildings in the immediate vicinity. City Hall is adjacent to the south, Michigan
Secretary of State offices are to the north, and private office uses are directly east.
Directly west is the State Capitol Building and several churches. It would appear
that the proposal is generally compatible with the surrounding types of uses.
It should also be noted that a pattern of locating state legislative and executive
office uses along Capitol Avenue in close proximity to the State Capitol is emerging.
Use of this location would appear to further enhance that pattern, providing
convenient access to the State Capitol as well as relocating workers from the fringe
of the downtown area (Roosevelt Bldg.) to the central core. Consolidation of large
office uses within the core area supports other businesses in the core area and
reduces the possible conflicts between large office uses and adjacent residential
areas.
The establishment of an office building in this general location would appear to be
appropriate and support the general policies for downtown development. However,
clear attention must be paid to assuring that the character and extent of the
proposal are adequately addressed.
CHARACTER:
The character of the proposal is assessed by evaluating the physical impact on the
functions of the surrounding area and the quality of development created by its
design and scale.
While the proposal makes use of two existing buildings which are nine (BWL) and
eight (200 N. Capitol) stories respectively, it also establishes a span across Ottawa
St. which is 75 ft. (ENV) by 82.5 ft. (N/S) by 118 ft. high. The minimum distance
between the floor of the span and the sidewalk will be 30 ft. with the minimum
Report Prepared by and date
Act-1-98, 100 Bilk. of Ottawa-St., Use of Air Rights over 100 BIk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 6
distance from the middle of the street to the floor of the span being 38 ft.
While the bulk and scale of the proposal is not dissimilar to those to the north and
south, it is a substantially larger scale than the three and two story structures
adjacent to the east. As was indicated at the public hearing, the owner of those
buildings, Mr. Rawls, was concerned about being overwhelmed by the size of the
span, the obstruction of a western view from his office and the potential for a tunnel
effect to occur particularly with the building originally at 20 ft above the sidewalk
and 28 feet above the street. The developers, prior to the public hearing, agreed
to raise the minimum elevation of the arch by ten feet, therefore enabling Mr. Rawls
to continue to have a westward view from his windows.
The raising of the structure should help in eliminating the "tunnel" effect and it
should be noted that the E/W75 foot dimension will place the span between the
corner of Capitol and the main front doors to the BWL building. It will not cover the
entirety of the BWL. However, the impact of a massive structure adjacent to the
existing small buildings on the north side of Ottawa will be significant. It will be
important to design and consider the east side of the span as much as the western
face. The east side must not be treated as the "back of the building". Since
Ottawa is a one way street westbound, this segment of street is a gateway to the
Capitol Building and should be treated as such. Careful consideration of the type
texture of building materials as well as the appearance for both sides of the span
are critical to insuring that the scale does not adversely impact directly adjacent
smaller uses. In addition, creating interest at ground level through the use of
windows and interesting architectural features which are at a pedestrian scale will
also assist in reducing the impact of the mass of the building.
Also, since Ottawa Street in this area is a state trunk line, a permit to use the air
rights over the ROW will be necessary. The applicant may make application for
such a permit through the City Transportation Office. The approval of this
application will be a necessary condition of any approval to use the air space. It
should also be noted that the top of the traffic signal at the intersection of Capitol
and Ottawa is located approximately 21 feet above the pavement. This is 17 feet
below the span and should not cause any obstruction for vehicles traversing Ottawa
Street. It should also be noted that the square box street lights are approximately
26 feet above the pavement. It would appear that these lights could remain, or the
developer could suggest more pedestrian scale street lighting with coordinated wall
sconces.
It would appear that while the mass of this building is significant, appropriate
Report Prepared by and date
Act-1-98, 100 Bilk. of Ottawa-St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Blk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 7
attention to design and material on both sides of the building span is necessary to
insure that the scale does not negatively impact the adjacent uses by obstructing
view, light or air. Also, it would be appropriate for the developer to provide windows
and architectural features at the ground level which will introduce a more pedestrian
scale to the downtown fabric. While permits from MDOT must be received, it would
appear that traffic will not be impeded by the proposal if the span is 30 and 38 feet
from the sidewalk and street respectively as the traffic signal is only 21 feet above
the pavement.
EXTENT
To analyze the extent of this proposal it is necessary to evaluate the impacts on
future development and whether or not the proposal sets precedents for long range
development.
This proposal would utilize the air space over the public right of way for private
development. Two other significant developments have been granted the use of
air space above the street ROW indicating that the precedent has already been
established. First is the expansion of the North Grand Parking Ramp. That created
a seven level parking ramp which spans Grand Avenue. The span is 22 feet above
the pavement and is 396 feet long (from south to north). It also continues to be
held and operated for public use. It would appear that while the ramp expansion is
more intense than the proposed office building, it does not address the issue of
private use of the public air space. The second use approved by City Council was
the pedestrian bridge across Michigan Avenue for Sparrow Hospital. The bridge
is primarily glass is 14 feet high, 14 feet wide and approximately 23 feet above the
pavement. The bridge is a private use, but is very low intensity when compared to
the subject proposal.
Therefore, it would appear that while both examples exhibit some characteristics
of the subject proposal, neither addresses all of the issues. Since this is a private
use which would occupy the public space with seven stories of offices, it is clearly
more than a link or bridge. The 200 N. Capitol Ave. Building is already on the tax
rolls and this proposal would place the BWL building on the tax rolls for the first
time. At this time it is unclear as to the defined nature of the space above the ROW
which raises several major questions. First, is the question of determining the exact
nature of the property rights and how they may or should be conveyed. The City
Attorney is presently researching this issue. The second issue is whether the city,
after determining the exact nature of the property rights, can sell, lease, grant an
easement or license these rights and for what monetary value. Another issue is
Report Prepared by and date
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of Ottawa-St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Bilk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 8
how to establish the amount of compensation and the methodology for obtaining an
appraisal. Also at issue is the question of taxation for personal and/or real property.
No final agreement can be approved without answers to these questions.
It would appear that the precedent has already been established to allow
construction over the public ROW, however, not quite under the conditions of this
proposal. Several complex legal issues must be worked out prior to completing any
agreement to convey this property.
While this issues do exist and are vitally important to the ultimate construction of
this project, it would appear that agreement could be made in concept with the
understanding that a Development Agreement will be worked out between the
parties and presented to City Council when the issues have been resolved.
SUMMARY
The proposal is to utilize the air space above the public ROW for private
development of office space to house state legislative personnel.
It would appear from the analysis of location that establishing a state office building
in this location would be appropriate by furthering the pattern to occupy buildings
along Capitol Avenue and support the general policies for downtown development
by encouraging the concentration of large office uses in the central core.
The evaluation of character found that while the mass of this building is significant,
appropriate attention to design and material on both sides of the building span is
necessary to insure that the scale does not negatively impact the directly adjacent
uses by obstructing view, light or air. Also, it would be appropriate for the
developer to provide windows and architectural features at the ground level which
will introduce a more pedestrian scale to the downtown fabric. It was also noted
that the height of the traffic signal at Capitol and Ottawa is 21 feet above the
pavement. The span is projected for a height of 38 feet. Therefore, it would appear
that traffic will have a clear view of the signal. It should also be noted that permits
from MDOT must be received prior to any final approval of this project.
The analysis of extent reveals that there are several legal issues to be resolved
prior to any final approval of this project. First, is the question of determining the
exact nature of the property rights and how they may or should be conveyed. The
City Attorney is presently researching this issue. The second issue is whether the
Report Prepared by and date
Act-1-98, 100 Blk. of Ottawa-St., Use of Air Rights over 100 Bilk. W. Ottawa St. for
Office Span Bridging Ottawa St. P. 9
city, after determining the exact nature of the property rights, can sell, lease, grant
an easement or license these rights and for what monetary value. Another issue
is how to establish the amount of compensation and the methodology for obtaining
an appraisal. Also at issue is the question of taxation for personal and/or real
property.
Finally, it would appear that the precedent has already been established to allow
construction over the public ROW however, not quite under the conditions of this
proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the proposal be approved in concept and that the
administration be directed to draft a Development Agreement for review and
approval by City Council which includes but is not limited to the issues identified in
this report.
Report Prepared by and date:E.Love 1/23/98
Report Prepared by and date
2__ACT-1-98, 100 Blk of W Ottawa St Use of Air Ria-hty
w over 100 Blk.of W.Ottawa St.for Office Span Bridging Ottawa Stree
B W v > t I ,t it
pq-
O 1► � •t J�,li, �
d 96 k�
5 .W .y' :"vr: }y. °"•n� ,vti�4� T. :y{f-�••ii�~'�
ILI
0 , L ..
] 70 1l8 /14 `s�it�q � + �Y' YIS•" 's
S T USE OF ALLEY
NOW
2,199s1
1 1 A
Xv
V`-� 1 O
ICL Igo
g 7
Z CIT-Y- HALL
99' 4' ' 1. 'se''' l
1 :+�"r•?fit.. -.�� �
O
4FIL
w O
ui
a
O
a
3
a
~ O
0
O
DAVENPORT BULDWG co OTTAWA BUILDING BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT BUILDING
FIRST FLOOR C', ABOVE GROUND FLOOR
0 o O
'83'-2"
I
I
I
I
--aL-- ------ ----
Lj
CAPITOL AVENUE
NORTH STATE OF MICHIGAN
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUIL[
SSCALE-vaz.T4r
r
07 7
�i�
ACT-1- 1 B w o f AirRights
NORTH over 100 Blk. of W. Ottawa St. for Office Span Bridging Ottawa Street
y o
a
3
s�
/ o
1
4.
r ` = Approved 03/03/98
To Clerk 03/04/98
c 41 J J
LA MY CLFR Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
TUESDAY, February 17, 1998
I. OPENING SESSION
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan (arrived at
7:09 p.m.), Ruge, Smith; eight members present; one vacancy. Ex officio council
member Adado; not in attendance.
B. Excused Absences - None
C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Jim
Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. The agenda was approved as printed.
III. COMMUNICATIONS: None
IV. HEARINGS: None
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each): No one present
VI. Recess
VII. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for approval: February 3, 1998
D. Greiner made a motion, seconded by A. Frederick, to approve the minutes of
February 3, 1998. On a voice vote, the minutes of February 3, 1998 were
(By a vote of 8 - 0) APPROVED.
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 2
B. Committee of the Whole Meeting
C. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee-
Mr. Goolsby presented the report of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
which considered two matters.
a. SLU-1-98, 1121 River Street, Substantial Improvement in Floodplain.
The applicant, John Ross, Fisher Ross Wiegand, Inc., is requesting a permit to do interior
alterations to the building at 1121 River Street which lies within the floodplain of the Red
Cedar River. No new additions are proposed, but the work includes renovation of the old
office space and the provision of handicapped accessible toilet facilities. Value of
improvements total $275,000. Since the appraised value of the building is $306,649 this
proposed work is considered a "substantial improvement: since it exceeds 50% of the
appraised value of the structure. When a "substantial improvement" is made to a structure
in the floodplain and the property area exceeds '/ acre, the City Council must grant a special
permit. This permit does not require public hearings.
The subject property is bounded by River Street on the west, the Red Cedar River to the
south, Capitol Communications Systems to the north and the Elm Street Car Wash to the east.
The building sits at an elevation ranging from 830.4 at the first floor to approximately 840.0
feet at the second floor elevation. The floodplain for this area is 832 feet. No change in floor
elevation is proposed.
Summary:
The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the office/warehouse building by making the
improvements as described. The first floor elevation at approximately 830.4 feet is below the
floodplain elevation by 1.6 feet. The building can not be practically elevated.
Committee Finding and Action:
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and
found that the improvements may be made if flood proofing measures are undertaken to
protect against flood damage.
Motion:
In Committee, it was moved by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Greiner to recommend
approval of SLU-1-98, 1121 River Street, allowing for the substantial improvement of the
structure in the floodplain of the Red Cedar River with the following conditions:
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 3
1. The building including the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems be protected
with flood-proofing devices and/or construction methods.
2. The applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from MDEQ or other federal,
state, or local agencies of jurisdiction.
3. The applicant be so notified that the issuance of a permit to construct a structure below
the base flood elevation will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance and
such construction may increase risk to life and property.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve SLU-1-98, 1121 River Street,
Substantial Improvement in Floodplain, with the three conditions as reported.
Mr. Ruge asked for clarification on flood proofing devices. Mr. Ruff explained that any
specially constructed barriers that would be put in place to prevent flood damage, for example
a steel sleeve going down the front of a door, which has a rubber seal around it to prevent
water from entering, preparing the surface of the building properly so that water cannot seep
through, or other things of this nature.
Mr. Smith asked how the Board ensures that these devices are maintained and not forgotten.
Mr. Ruff replied that normally, these wouldn't be permanent devices, but rather prec-
constructed, so that if there was a flooding event, they could be quickly installed. He added
that it is to their benefit, but he doesn't inspect for this. If they are not maintained, it would be
an insurance problem.
Mr. Miller commented on the flood insurance program, and clarified that through the insurance
program, diligence in maintenance of these devices is encouraged.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick. . . Aye Greiner. . . Aye
Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Miller . . Aye
Nischan. . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge . . Ave Goolsby . . Aye
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-1-98, 1121 River
Street, recommended to be APPROVED.
b. P-1-96, Wise Estates, Final Plat Approval
Gerald S. Fedewa, 5661 Okemos Road, East Lansing, MI 48823 has
submitted the Final Plat for Wise Estates.
1
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 4
Summary:
This plat is for a single family residential subdivision along the west side of the 5800-5900
blocks of Wise Road, and is 2.21 acres in size. The plat contains 10 lots, numbered 1 through
10 inclusive, and is zoned "A" Residential District. This is appropriate for the proposed single
family residential development with a net density for this plat being 4.52 dwelling units per
acre. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land use and is
consistent with the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan.
Upon review of the plat, it appears to be in substantial conformance with the Final Preliminary
Plat approved by City Council in July of 1996. There has been one modification which has
eliminated Outlot "A" and included as part of Lot 1. This was requested by the applicant
subsequent to the State refusing to approve the Final Preliminary Plat with easement across
said Outlot and to facilitate the condition of site distance visibility for Lot 1. Additionally, since
the extension of Newark Avenue appears to be unlikely due to the development patterns of
the area, the Planning Office agreed to the applicant and State's request to eliminate the
Outlot.
Committee Findings and Action:
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report and
found that the Final Plat is in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat.
Motion:
In committee, it was moved by Mr. Greiner and seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend
approval of the Final Plat of P-1-96, Wise Estates, with the following conditions:
1. That a sidewalk be provided within the public right-of-way along Wise Road for the
entire length of the Plat. Design of said sidewalk must conform to the City of Lansing's
Department of Public Service design standards. The sidewalk should provide
reasonable access to the Pedestrian Skywalk located between Lot 1 and Lot 2. The
entire sidewalk must be completed within three years of the date of the final plat
approval by the City Council regardless of whether or not all the lots are built upon.
2. That the plat will be developed with all public improvements as required by the Lansing
Subdivision Regulations and the Michigan State Plat Act.
3. That all lots shall be graded so surface water will drain therefrom so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
4. That a note on the face of the plat stating that all utilities, public and private, are to be
provided to the individual lots through underground conduit located within public and
private easements.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by A. Frederick, to approve P-1-96, Wise Estates,
Final Plat Approval, with the conditions outlined in the staff report, which are:
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 5
1. That right-of-way and street dimensions must be shown for Wise Road in addition to a
25' utility easement be provided across the east property line of outlot "A".
2. That lot 2 may not have sufficient sight distance to assure safe vehicular site distance.
Applicant must provide a diagram showing the sight lines around the pedestrian skywalk
for lots 2 & 3 prior to final plat approval.
3. That a sidewalk must be provided within the public right-of-way along Wise Road for the
entire length of the Plat. Design of said sidewalk must conform to the City of Lansing's
Department of Public Service design standards. The sidewalk should provide
reasonable access to the Pedestrian Skywalk located between lot 2 and outlot "A". The
entire sidewalk must be completed within three years of the date of final plat approval
by the City Council regardless of whether or not all the lots are built upon.
4. That the final plat will be developed with all public improvements as required by the
Lansing Subdivision Regulations and the Michigan State Plat Act.
5. That all lots shall be graded so surface water will drain therefrom so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
6. That a note on the face of the plat stating that all utilities, public and private, are to be
provided to the individual lots through underground conduit located within public and
private easements.
7. That final preliminary plat approval is effective for a period of twelve (12) months from
the date of approval.
8. That the applicant complies with the requests by the referring agencies prior to final plat
approval.
J. Nischan is concerned that care be taken in placement of the depth of gas lines and
electrical cables. He wants noted the importance of the safety needs on this operation. Ms.
Love commented that this is the concern of Miss Dig, and the private contractors doing the
construction.
A. Frederick mentioned seeing on CNN a catastrophic explosion due to just this sort of
situation, where the lines were not buried deeply enough. He wondered if the building
inspectors have any responsibility towards the depth of lines. Ms. Love said that she is
unsure, but will check on this.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
Frederick. . . Ave Greiner. . . Aye
Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Miller . . Aye
Nischan. . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . ... Aye
Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 6
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; P-1-96, Wise Estates,
Final Plat, recommended to be APPROVED.
C. The Committee considered Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner Street, but they
have a lot of questions regarding this, and whether it is appropriate to
rezone this to "G-1" considering the parking congestion that seems to
be developing in this area, and they are waiting to see what the North
Lansing plan suggest in terms of parking in this area, and so it was
tabled in committee by a unanimous vote.
d. The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting is scheduled for
Wednesday, March 11, 1998, at 4 p.m., in the Planning Conference
Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair, reported.
a. The next meeting will be Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the
Planning Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee did not meet, and therefore there is no
report.
D. Report from the Planning Manager:
E. Love reported that there is a process being developed for working through
Brownfields applications. There is now a Brownfields Redevelopment Authority,
which is the EDC/TIFA Board. State legislation does not really require a public
hearing, although it would be good to have one. The process which is being set
up is that, if a person makes application to the EDC, the EDC would then forward
that application to the Planning Board, with a written report, and the Planning
Board would hold a public hearing and forward the information to the EDC Board
and to the City Council. We feel it would be appropriate for the Planning Board
to be involved, because land use is within the jurisdiction of the planning board,
and we feel this ties in with our groundwater management and Brownfields. The
first one will come in April, concerning a reclamation project for a contamination
spill at the northwest corner of Jolly and Cedar, which is the Rite Aid drug store,
and we will be able to recapture the tax dollars to put money into that fund, with
the dollars we will get by creating this Brownfields site.
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 7
There will be an Non-Conforming Use conference on March 18, 1998, at 5:30 p.m.
G. Goolsby may be able to attend.
E. Pending Items: Future Action Required
1. Plannina Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2"
Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
3. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-2-95, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot.
Action target date March 24, 1998.
b. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure. Action Target Date
February 24, 1998.
C. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
d. Act-19-97, Capitol Avenue at Dwight Street, Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
The Chairperson drove past N. M. L. King and W. Willow, and found that there was a
lot of bare ground and a bulldozer working.
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
A. Frederick said that there was a Board of Zoning Appeals case in North Lansing/Old
Town for a parking variance. They are awaiting plans to help in the decision making
process.
M. Smith requested clarification on P.C.S. towers; and mentioned a web page he found
concerning High Definition towers.
Planning Board, February 17, 1998 Page 8
G. Goolsby said that probably the locals will be preempted from control, because of the
amount of money involved.
E. Love said that all these different systems have different Operational Characteristics.
We would have to have more information before we can start planning for this.
M. Smith stated his concerns regarding potential health impacts.
A. Frederick said that EMF's occur naturally in much greater strengths then are being
produced.
XI. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
G. Goolsby reported that there are still signs on a South Side residential complex that
he had reported at a previous meeting. Mr. Ruge asked about the sign code
enforcement brochure.
J. Ruff said that there has been no progress on the sign code brochure since the last
meeting.
XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7:41 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
eel
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
APPROVED MARCH 17, 1998. Draft 031698
Approved 031798
To Clerk 032698
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers ;.ry
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, March 3, 1998
1. OPENING SESSION f C'i
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7.01 p.m.
A. Roll Call: Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge,
Smith; eight members present.
B. Introductions: Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Jim
Ruff, Zoning Administrator.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as printed.
3. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Telephone message March 2, 1998 Re: Z-2-98, from Dave Patterson, owner
of Jiffy Lube who operates property just south of proposed rezoning; no
objection.
B. Agency referral Re: NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity
from Downtown Neighborhood Association, no objection.
4. HEARINGS:
A. Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar Street (Easterly 50 ft thereof), "J" Parking to "F"
Commercial District.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Charles Nihardt, property owner. The
property includes two uses, Aaro Propane Gas Company at the rear of the lot,
and at the front of the lot an automotive repair shop now being used for used
motor vehicle sales. The front of the property was zoned this way many years
ago with the front 50 ft in the "J" Parking District and the remainder in the "H"
Light Industrial district. The "J" Parking District does not allow the sale of used
vehicles without a special land use permit. The applicant is requesting a
rezoning of the "J" Parking portion of the property to "F" Commercial which
would be consistent with adjacent properties. The property is just north of
Builder's Square. There are offices north of this property and commercial
around it. To the extreme west is residential use. This property is in excess of
three acres in its entirety, but the rezoning request is only for the east 50 ft.
Chairman Ruge asked if the entire property is "H" Light Industrial except for the
"J" parking section? Mr. Ruff answered yes. The Transportation Engineer,
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 2
Dave Berridge, has concerns with the existing driveways along this property
frontage. Mr. Berridge is suggesting that the northerly driveway to the service
station be closed. Mr. Ruff explained that any time there is an opportunity to
close excessive driveways on a major arterial, it is in the City's best interests to
do so to reduce the number of accidents. Mr. Ruge asked how many driveways
are currently on the property; Mr. Ruff said at least three, two directly in front of
the used vehicle portion of the property, and another to the north leading to the
propane gas facility. Mr. Berridge is suggesting closing the middle one. The
drives couldn't be easily combined into one curb cut because of elevation
changes in the property.
Mr. Charles Nihardt, property owner, had concerns about closing of driveway.
There are two driveways, one for entering and one for exiting. It is safer that
way.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced
the conclusion of the public hearing for Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar Street (Easterly
50 ft thereof), "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District, and referral to the Zoning
and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 1998,
in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
B. NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity Request.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Donna Motz, representing Hannah's
House, director of the property. The property is zoned "C" Residential and has
two dwelling units on it. The property is 34 ft x 79 ft, or 2,700 sq. ft. of lot area,
and is nonconforming. They wish to make improvements to the property and the
structure itself, so they are limited to the 35 percent cap in making those
improvements. In 1995, there was a permit with the valuation of$10,000 that
had been issued against that cap, leaving a balance of$2,156. The work that
they wish to do now will exceed that limit. They wish to do approximately $9,000
worth of additional work to the structure based on their bids. The site is located
at the southwest corner of West Saginaw and Walnut Street. They have
permission to utilize additional parking if necessary from the church lot which is
just on the west end of that same block.
Applicant was not present.
Seeing no one in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced
the conclusion of the public hearing for NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street, Class
A Nonconformity Request, and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 1998, in the Conference Room,
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan.
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 3
C. SLU-2-98, Vacant Lot at 231-237 S. Washington Sq., Off-Street Parking Lot in
the "G-1" Business District.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a Special Land Use request by George Kafantaris.
The property has been used on a temporary basis as a park on the corner of S.
Washington Square and Washtenaw Street. It measures 66 ft x 85 ft and is
zoned "G-1" Business District. The creation of a parking lot requires a Special
Land Use permit in the "G-1" Business District. Chairman Ruge asked about the
landscaping on S. Washington. Mr. Ruff said the plan submitted by the designer
of the parking lot, Mr. Stewart, illustrates sixteen spaces. Ms. Keene asked if
there was discussion with the applicant concerning whether this will be a
permanent parking lot, or a temporary measure? Mr. Ruff said that specific
question was not asked of the applicant. Discussion ensued regarding any
reimbursement to the City for loss of parking spaces.
Louie Kafantaris, 922 W. Dover Circle. My father, George Kafantaris, and my
mother, Maria Kafantaris, are the applicants. I am here on their behalf. We paid
$2,500 a year in taxes for the park setting for the last six years with no return on
it. We want to do something with that location. At this time putting up a building
is not feasible. A parking lot is not our first choice, but it makes sense in terms
of cost vs. payback. The parking lot is not necessarily permanent. If we do a
parking lot, we want it to look nice and be aesthetically pleasant. The lot will be
primarily for daytime office and evening restaurant patrons. Our biggest parking
problem is not during the day, but during the evenings when Cooley students
take up all the street parking, and there is no parking left for Parthenon patrons.
Sixteen spaces may not even make improvements financially feasible. In order
to provide an entrance to the lot, only two City parking spaces would be lost.
There will be landscaping. We will plant some trees, so you won't see the cars
in the lot. Regarding the right-of-way, the building has used that right-of-way for
over 60 years. My family should not be charged for the loss of the two City
parking spaces; after all, we are providing 16 additional spaces.
Mr. Frederick asked if they were considering benches or pedestrian-friendly
structures? Mr. Kafantaris replied there wasn't enough space. Any such
structures would have to go on the City sidewalk. Mr. Smith asked about sale
of the spaces. Mr. Kafantaris replied that the spaces would be leased on a
monthly basis, so cars would be parked there all day, not coming and going.
Dr. Sam Mallory, 2806 E. Westchester. My wife owns the building at 107 E.
Washtenaw. I want to comment on the aesthetics of the downtown area. Much
money has been spent on downtown landscaping. Putting parking in that area
is not going to enhance downtown. A parking lot would detract. Loss of public
hourly parking spaces would affect other businesses. Volume of foot traffic in
that area versus vehicles should be looked at for safety.
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 4
Seeing no one else in the audience wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge
announced the conclusion of the public hearing for SLU-2-98, Vacant Lot at
231-237 S. Washington Square, and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 1998, in the
Conference Room, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development,
316 N. Capitol Avenue.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
Donna Motz, Director of Hannah's House, 625 N. Walnut. Regarding NCU-1-98.
1 received a card saying 7:30 p.m. We are a nonprofit Christian crisis maternity home,
providing food, clothes and shelter to pregnant women who have no alternative
housing. We have been open since 1995. The program includes stays before and
after pregnancy. This service is provided at no cost to the residents of the City.
Funding is primarily by private donation. In applying for a Class A Nonconformity, we
want to maintain the status quo of the structure. We are not expanding the size of the
home, or adding any bedrooms. If single use conformity is forced, the ability to reach
those in need would be diminished, and chances are the house would be sold and
used as rental property. We are conscientious home owners; we try to be a positive
example in the neighborhood, keeping up the home and grounds. Parking makes us
nonconforming. It has not been a problem. Our peak hour parking demand does not
exceed the number of available spaces. There are two spaces, one for myself, and
the other for the housemother. Residents are not allowed to have vehicles. We have
written permission from Trinity Lutheran Church to use their parking lot. Also, street
parking is available. We want to fix up the exterior. The siding, which has
deteriorated, has dry rot. The house is drafty because there is no insulation.
Because of the current Class B status, there is a 35 percent cap of assessed home
value for improvements. Siding in itself will cost more than that. Class A status will
lift that cap restriction so that we will be able to repair the siding, the weak front porch,
and the broken front sidewalk. We request a Class A status so that we may proceed
with repairing the home, and maintain service to the community. Mr. Ruge asked the
number clients served at one time. Ms. Motz replied four moms and two babies. Ms.
Motz described the layout. The first floor has two bedrooms, living room, dining room,
laundry room, kitchen, and half bath. The second floor has three bedrooms,
bathroom, and half kitchen. The third floor is the attic with furnace. An inside stairway
connects both units. Prior to our purchase, it was a two-apartment dwelling.
6. RECESS: None.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
C. Minutes for approval: February 17, 1998.
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 5
Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve the minutes
of February 17, 1998. Mr. Greiner noted a correction on Page 5, first regular
paragraph at the end, concerning final plat approval. There should be a
reference to the four conditions as attached to the committee report and
referenced in the main motion. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0,
motion carried unanimously; minutes of February 17, 1998 were
APPROVED.
D. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet.
E. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Goolsby announced that the next
meeting of the Zoning & Ordinance Committee will be March 11, 1998 at
4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nischan, Chair, reported. The
Committee met on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, in the Planning
Department Conference Room.
a. Act-2-96, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert Corporation
for Parking Lot. This has been a pending item. A letter was
received by Ms. Love stating that Wohlert has complied with the
earlier conditions sufficiently that we could move ahead with this.
We were reviewing should we move ahead with this sale. Staff
recommended in favor of it. The Committee found, based on
testimony and evidence on location, character, and extent of the
project that Wohlert has indeed fulfilled the terms necessary under
the 1981 resolution, Act 24-81, in order to activate the vacation of
the specified portion of Case Street, and secondly, that the applicant
has agreed to paving and landscaping improvements to justify
moving forward on the sale of two City owned-properties for a
nominal consideration, plus the vacation of the west 212 ft of the
east/west alley between Case and Ballard Streets.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously
(4-0) to recommend approval of Act-2-96 with the following terms:
1. The sale of two parcels consisting of Lot 1, the Handy Home
Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, for a
nominal consideration of $1, and
2. The vacation of the west 212 ft of the east/west alley between
Case and Ballard Streets, and
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 6
3. To recommend upon completion of Act 24-81 the vacation of
a portion of Case Street abutting Lots 6 thru 10, Handy Home
Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, beginning
147 ft (or less) south of the south right-of-way line of East
Grand River Avenue and continuing south for a distance of
300 ft, and
4. Provided that the property shall be developed according to an
approved site plan, and further provided that shrubbery
sufficient to screen the parked cars from vision on Grand River
Avenue be placed outside of the fence adjacent to the East
Grand River Avenue right-of-way, and that the trees be placed
immediately inside the fence along the front property line.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve Act-2-96, with conditions
as stated above.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Greiner asked about a requirement that all land transfers and/or sales in the City be at
market value. Ms. Love suggested the answer is no, a number of properties have been sold
over the years at nominal consideration. We have also sold property for $1/ front foot
depending upon the area and situation. Discussion ensued regarding the sale of the
property for $1. Mr. Nischan reiterated the importance of the landscaping screening the
cars in the lot from view. Mr. Goolsby inquired that if the applicant is directed to place
landscaping outside the fence, will he assume he doesn't have to maintain it? Mr. Nischan
explained the shrub/fence/tree decision, and stated that Mr. Goolsby's point should not be
news to the applicant.
Frederick. . . Ave Greiner Ave
Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Miller . Ave
Nischan. . . Ave Smith .Ave
Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0, carried unanimously; Act-2-96, Case and
Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert Corporation for Parking Lot with conditions was
APPROVED.
b. Act-21-97, 3313 W. Mt. Hope Ave., Sign in Right-of-Way. Mr.
Nischan provided the history on the property and the request for a
sign. Staff felt they were being asked to do something that they
couldn't legally do because code says no signs in public right-of-
way. They were looking into a vacation of the property. TABLED.
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998 ,PAGE 7
C. Act-2-98, Holmes St. at Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes
Street. The committee found, based on testimony and evidence on
the location, character and extent of the project, that this plan is in
conformance with the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan and
coordinates well with the Sparrow Health Systems Office Building
improvements. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried
unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of Act-2-98, Holmes St.
at Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes Street, and to proceed
with the property acquisition process.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded Ms. Keene to approve Act-2-98, Holmes St. at
Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes Street.
Ms. Love noted, regarding the realigned street, that a traffic diverter will be installed at
Eureka and Holmes to keep traffic out of the neighborhood. The design shows the diverter.
This is also in conformance with the East Michigan Avenue plan.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
. Ave Greiner Ave
Frederick Keene . Ave Miller , AYe
Ave Smith Ave
Nischan. . . y , Ave
Ruge . Ave Goolsby
On a roll call vote, there were Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; Act-2-9, Holmes
APPROVED.
at Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes Street, was
d. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure for the Urban
Development Committee.
The Urban Development Committee wishes to change the Rules of
Administrative procedures because there is no mechanism to
discharge items that were left undone, or are dead issues. The two
key points (subsection C.1.) are paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 1
as proposed now reads. "provided the committee finds at least one
of the following provisions exist: 1. The approval of the proposed
project would require the city to comply with one or more local, state,
or federal laws or regulations which would render the
implementation of the project unfeasible or contrary to the public
interests....." This will enable us to provide procedural protection to
the public so that at no time in the future could the committee decide
to get rid of an item just because they didn't like it. It also gives us
a way, after something has been hanging around for a year, to take
a look at it and discharge it without prejudice. In Committee, it was
moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 4-0.
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 8
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend language for
amendment to the Rules of Administrative Procedure as indicated in the report.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Goolsby mentioned that in the past we had to get approval of the City Attorney for
changes in the administrative rules process.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to table the proposed change to the
Amendment to the Rules of Administrative Procedure and that staff be directed to have the
City Attorney review the language for their approval.
Ms. Love suggested bringing them as a package back to the Executive Committee. Mr.
Nischan suggested a meeting of the Executive Committee at 6:15 p.m. on March 17, 1999
before the regular meeting. Mr. Goolsby may be late to this meeting.
On a voice vote, Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure for the
Urban Development Committee was TABLED.
The last item is a request to make sure, with this imminent change in
procedural language, that we identify for the three pending items what the
application date was, maintain them with the regular part of the agenda,
and for all future ones, always identify what the application date was.
Next meeting Tuesday, March 24, 1998, at 4 p.m. in the Department
Conference Room, 316 North Capitol Avenue.
F. Report from the Planning Manager:
None.
G. Pending Items: Future Action Required
1. Planning Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District (tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-
2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
3. Urban Development Committee
PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3, 1998, PAGE 9
a. Act-2-95, Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking
Lot. Action target date March 24, 1998.
b. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure. Action Target
Date February 24, 1998.
C. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
d. Act-19-97, Capitol Avenue at Dwight Street, Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
8. NEW BUSINESS: None
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman Ruge, as President of ENO, received applications for a preservation training
by the State Preservation Network. Planning Office is hosting it.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick said that the illegal dumping has been cleaned up.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Ruff mentioned a question by Mr. Nischan regarding direct burial of utility lines for
new subdivisions. The regulations are set up by local and state codes. Lines are
placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches. If installed by the utility, from service to the
structure, there is no building inspection. Installation is regulated by the state. If
installed by a homeowner, inspection would be done by the City. For both electric and
gas, the regulation requires a minimum depth of 18 inches. Mr. Nischan suggested
that if it is the state's responsibility, talk to whoever in the state does that, and ask
them when working in the City of Lansing to please verify the depth, because with all
the sub-contracting, it would be easy to install cable at a lesser depth. There are both
high-voltage cable and gas lines that are not buried that deep.
Regarding the status of the parking lot on Grand Ave. and Michigan, Mr. Ruff said the
matter hadn't been pursued at the present time. There has been an exchange of
correspondence, but the matter has not been resolved. He will pursue the matter.
Ms. Love mentioned that the department is trying to isolate Mr. Ruff in the afternoons
so he can finish some critical issues, namely, the sign brochure and the towers.
12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary, Planning Board
aA50
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Tuesday, February 24, 1998
Planning Office Conference Room
Present: Staff Present:
Deborah Winfrey Keene William C. Rieske, Principal Planner
Jarl Nischan
John Ruge
Michael Smith
Guests:
Public Service Department, Engineering Division - Jon Dowling and Jane Dykema
Wohlert Corporation - Dave Edmonds, and Doug Strauss (of SEG, Inc.)
DTN Management - Allen Russell and John Savary
Christopher Ruge
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m.; adjournment was at 6:15 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Act-2-96 Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot
(Action postponed in committee February 13, 1996)
2. Act-21-97 3313 W. Mt. Hope, Sign in ROW
3. Act-2-98 Holmes St. at Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes Street
4. Act-3-98 601 Filley St., Vacation of Duffy Drain (Pulled from the agenda by
Mr. Rieske at the request of the applicant)
5. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure
Pending Items:
1. Act-13-97 Sheridan and May Streets, Consolidate 2 RR Crossings
(UDC tabled September 23, 1997)
2. Act-19-97 Capitol at Dwight St., Create cul-de-sac at intersection .
(Referred to Committee, 11/18/97)
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 2
1. Act-2-96 Case and Grand River Ave., Sale to Wohlert for Parking Lot
Mr. Rieske presented the case. Action was postponed by the committee February 13,
1996, pending a site plan for the use of the subject properties.
The Wohlert Corporation, represented by Dave Edmonds and Doug Strauss (of SEG,
Inc.), proposes to purchase two City-owned parcels at the SE corner of Case and
Grand River Ave. for use as employee parking.
Mr. Strauss discussed a site plan dated 10/21/97. The plan includes the following
improvements:
► A pavement marking plan with a total of 241 parking spaces.
► Site drainage with stormwater detention.
► A landscaping berm with tree plantings along the Ballard Street (east) side of the
property
► Gated entrance and exit from Case Street.
► A landscaped sign at the SE corner of Case and Grand River.
► Arborvitae hedges along Porter Street and next to the residences on the SW
corner of Ballard and Grand River.
► Tree plantings along Grand River.
► An 8' cyclone fence along the perimeter.
A-discussion ensued about the importance of the appearance along East Grand River,
aesthetic and security issues, and the number and placement of the plant material
along the front property line to buffer and screen the parking area. Wohlert agreed to
place shrubs (e.g. arborvitae, juniper, etc.) outside the fenced area, with trees inside
the fence for security.
SUMMARY
► The proposal is in conformance with the WE Area Comprehensive Plan, which
designates this area for Industrial/Warehouse uses.
► The two City-owned lots are part of a large unimproved parking area.
► The site plan, with the revisions agreed to by Wohlert, has fulfilled the terms
necessary under the resolution passed in 1981 (Act-24-81) in order to activate
the vacation of the specified portion of Case Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Act-2-96 - the sale of the two parcels for nominal
consideration, vacation of the west portion of the E/W alley between Case and Ballard
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 3
Streets, and the recording of the vacation of the specified section of Case Street
subject to necessary utility service easements.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Finding:
The committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and
extent of this project that:
1. Wohlert has fulfilled the terms necessary under the resolution passed in 1981
(Act-24-81) in order to activate the vacation of the specified portion of Case
Street.
2. The applicant has agreed to paving and landscaping improvements to justify
moving forward on the sale of the two City-owned properties for nominal
consideration, the vacation of the west 212 feet of the E/W alley between Case
and Ballard Streets.
Motion:
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of Act-2-96,
the conveyance of land to the Wolhert Corporation in the following manner:
1. Sale of two parcels consisting of Lot 1, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan for nominal consideration ($1.00),
2. Vacation of the west 212 feet of the E/W alley between Case and Ballard
Streets,
and to further recommend the completion of Act-24-81, the vacation of a portion
of Case street abutting Lots 6 though 10, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan beginning 147 (+/-) feet south of the south ROW line
of E. Grand River Avenue and continuing south for a distance of 300 feet,
provided that the properties shall be developed according to the approved site plan,
and further provided that shrubbery for screening be placed outside of the fence
(adjacent to the E. Grand River Ave. ROW), and the trees be placed immediately inside
the fence along the front property line.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 4
2. Act-21-97 3313 W. Mt. Hope, Sign in ROW. TABLED BY THE
COMMITTEE.
Mr. Rieske presented the case. DTN Management, the applicant, represented by Allen
Russell and John Savary, is interested in placing a 16 square foot ground/pole sign
within the ROW to identify their apartment building.
The W. Mt. Hope ROW at 3313 is 83' in width, causing the front property line to be 17'
further to the south than that of adjacent properties. This causes a hardship situation
for the applicant, who wishes to install a 16 square foot sign which identifies the
Summerhill Estates apartments.
The property is zoned "Community Unit Plan" which allows one ground pole sign
setback 20' from the right of way according to Section 1442.13(8) of the Lansing Sign
Code. Due to the substantial right of way width and mature vegetation, the applicant
cannot meet this requirement for sign placement. The placement of the sign anywhere
on the property is virtually prohibited due to the mature vegetation.
All responding agencies concurred with the project, with the exception of the Public
Service Department's Engineering and Transportation Divisions. Mr. Dowling and Ms.
Dykema elaborated on the Department's position of opposing private uses in a public
ROW. Mr. Rieske noted that exceptions have been made in the past under extenuating
circumstances. Committee members questioned the applicability of the Sign Code
provisions for Gateway and Entrance Marker Signs, which were included as criteria,
because the subject property is not located in a ROW median.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the requested sign be allowed to be placed in the right of
way in front of the property located at 3313 W. Mt. Hope Avenue subject to the
provisions of Section 1442.25 regarding Gateway and Entrance Marker Signs,
provided that this agreement can be terminated by the City of Lansing by notifying the
developer/owner by mail 30 days prior to sign removal.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Motion:
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to table this proposal for further
consideration, and recommended to the applicant that requesting the vacation of the
17' of additional ROW may be more appropriate. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously, 4-0.
., �„ � '' �
�.
� � � � -, ..
- __ �r
_ _. � �` .�
_. � ..
' - ����
. i
��. _ ,. ..
- - .,.
- r = � � � -
-- •� � i
- � � ,� f _ -
.�' �� :� ,
. . ti. �- _
• r�' � � .
z . -��
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 5
3. Act-2-98 Holmes St. at Michigan Ave., Realignment of Holmes Street
Mr. Rieske presented the case.
The Public Service Department, Engineering Division, represented by Jon Dowling and
Jane Dykema, proposed the realignment of Holmes Street in conjunction with the
Sparrow office building project.
The project involves the acquisition of property and the realignment of Holmes Street
between Michigan Avenue and Eureka Street. A traffic diverter is proposed for
separating Sparrow traffic from that of the neighborhood.
SUMMARY
The realignment of Holmes Street between Michigan and Eureka would improve traffic
flow at Michigan and Holmes, and separate Sparrow traffic from neighborhood traffic.
This proposal is supported in the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to realign Holmes Street between Michigan
and Eureka, and to proceed with the property acquisition process.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Finding:
The committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and
extent of this project that this plan is in conformance with the East Michigan Avenue
Revitalization Plan, and coordinates well with Sparrow Health Systems office building
improvements.
Motion:
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of
Act-2-98, to realign Holmes Street between Michigan and Eureka, and to proceed with
the property acquisition process.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 6
4. Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure
Mr. Rieske presented the draft of the proposed amendment per his memorandum dated
February 20, 1998, regarding Planning Board "dismissal without prejudice" by the
Planning Board. He requested input from the committee.
The committee had concurred with the language of this amendment, with the exception
of wording of the first condition (subsection C.1.). The committee tabled this item due
to unresolved problems with that subsection.
The committee examined and discussed the two proposed alternatives for subsection
C.1.:
1. The approval of the proposed project would require the City to
comply with one or more local, state, or federal law or regulation,
which would render the implementation of the project unfeasible or
contrary to the public interest.
OR
1. Approval of the project would require the city to comply with one or
more state, local, or federal law or regulation, and said compliance
would render the proposal unfeasible for the City or outside of the
public interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the one of the two alternatives for subsection C.1. be approved.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Motion:
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend the first alternative
for section C.1.:
1. The approval of the proposed project would require the City to
comply with one or more local, state, or federal law or regulation,
which would render the implementation of the project unfeasible or
contrary to the public interest; or
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
The text of the proposed amendment is attached.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - February 24, 1998 Page 7
Recommended Language for Amendment to
Rules of Administrative Procedure
C. In any Act 285 Review matter, the Committee may recommend approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to the Board.
Any Act 285 matter which has been introduced to the Committee, upon
which the Committee has not taken final action may after one year of its
application date be recommended for dismissal without prejudice by the
Board, provided the Committee finds that at least one of the following
conditions exist:
1. The approval of the proposed project would require the City to
comply with one or more local, state, or federal law or regulation,
which would render the implementation of the project unfeasible or
contrary to the public interest; or
2. The applicants or petitioners have demonstrated a lack of interest in
making progress on a project, as demonstrated by a lack of progress
and/or letter of withdrawal.
Such dismissal without prejudice action shall be final. Any subsequent
request for action on the subject property will require the filing of a new
petition, with substantive new information provided by the applicant.
Recommended by the
Urban Development Committee
February 24, 1998
C:IOFFICEIW PW IN\W PDOCSIUDC\UDC984980224.MIN
ADDENDUM
ACT-2-96
SALE OF PARCELS FOR
WOLHERT PARKING LOT
In January, 1996, the Wolhert Corporation requested to purchase two lots from the city of
Lansing to enlarge their parking lot for employees on the east side of their existing manufacturing
facility.
In the process of researching this request, the staff found that in December, 1981, the Lansing
City Council had voted to vacate a portion of Case Street between the parking lot and the
manufacturing plant if the parking lot were paved. The parking lot remained unpaved and the
street remained open.
The request in 1996 was tabled pending further study. Staff has since spent considerable time in
working with the personnel from Wolhert Corporation to develop a paved parking lot plan with
fencing and landscaping which will meet the needs of the company and city regulations.
In January, 1998, Wolhert Corporation submitted final engineered plans for paving, landscaping,
berming and fencing of their parking lot. The lot includes utilizing the vacated portion of Case
Street, the two city owned lots at Grand River and Case, and the vacated portion of the east/west
alley between Case and Ballard Streets. The plans have been reviewed and approved by the
Public Service Department.
It would appear that the Wolhert Corporation has fulfilled the terms necessary under the
resolution passed in 1981 in order to activate the vacation of the specified portion of Case Street.
Further, the applicant has agreed to paving and landscaping such that staff recommends the sale of
the two city owned parcels for nominal consideration, vacation of a portion of the E/W alley and
recording of the vacation of the specified section of Case Street subject to such easements as may
be required to provide utility services.
Staff further recommends that the necessary documents be drafted and executed to complete the
land transactions required to permit the applicant to install the paving, fencing and other
landscaping improvements per the approved plans for the parking lot.
Prepared by: E. Love
February 12, 1998
ACT-02-96
SE Cor. E. Grand River Ave . & Case St.
Sale for Parking
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Wohlert Corporation
Ken Patenge, President/CEO
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner of adjacent property (see attached
map) .
REQUESTED ACTION: Sale of City parcels (PPN 3301-10-302-
011 and 3301-10-302-001 ) to Wohlert
Corporation for private parking. These
parcels comprise Lot 5, Block 10, Handy
Home Addition.
APPLICANT' S PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to acquire the
parcels for use as employee parking.
LOCATION: 800 Block of E. Grand River Ave.
SIZE, SHAPE, AND
TOPOGRAPHY: Together, the subject parcels measure
52 ' wide by 132 ' deep ( 6 , 864 sq. ft. , or
0 . 16 acres) . Rectangular in shape;
nearly level, unimproved or paved in
gravel .
EXISTING LAND USE : Unimproved parking lot.
EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial (see attached map)
PROPOSED ZONING: No zoning changes proposed by the
applicant.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: N: Commercial (restaurant and grocer)
S:. E-W alley, Parking, Industrial
(storage)
E: Private Parking, Residential
W: Commercial (Torres Taco) &
Industrial (Wohlert)
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F" Commercial
S: "H" Light Industrial
E: "F" Commercial
W: "F" Commercial , "H" Light
Industrial
PLANNING BOARD ACT-02-96
S.E. Corner of E. Grand River Ave. and Case Street - Sale for Parking
Page 3
Code Compliance Office: None received.
Police Department : None received.
Ameritech: No Comments .
Development Office: Wohlert has utilized this space as part
of their parking lot for many years .
Recommend you expedite this as quickly
as possible to allow for sale.
City Attorney: If purchase would mean the buyer would
own property on both sides (north and
south) of the alley shown, it should be
considered as to whether alley is public
or private and whether (if private) sale
could result in alley closure and the
effect of such closure.
Parks and Recreation
Department: No comment.
North Lansing
Neighborhood Assn. : None received.
Northtown Neighborhood
Association (by phone) : Dust and gravel from the parking area
cause dust storm conditions on windy
days . Also, gravel deposits on the
periphery, due to winter snow clearance,
thwart neighborhood efforts to landscape
and beautify the property and
surrounding area.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Wohlert Corporation is a manufacturer of automotive and farm
machinery parts . Its employment has grown from about 300 in 1981
to approximately 350 in 1995 . It is one of the largest employers
in the Lansing region.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:
The immediate surroundings displays a mixture of land uses
characteristic of an older industrial area. The subject parcels
are part of a large unimproved parking lot for Wohlert employees .
PLANNING BOARD ACT-02-96
S.E. Corner of E. Grand River Ave. and Case Street - Sale for Parking
Page 5
CHARACTER: The property is part of a large unimproved parking
area, with virtually no landscaping. The parking
is needed for the Wohlert plant. The removal of
nearby housing has left the surroundings with the
appearance of an older industrial area.
EXTENT: The applicant had proposed a plant expansion in
1981 . ' As a result, the City rezoned property for
parking, and approved the closure of Case Street,
subject to conditions that are as yet unmet . The
master plan contains recommendations on satisfying
these conditions . The vacation of Case Street and
an alley, as well as a possible rezoning, could
take place in conjunction with Wohlert' s proposal .
CONCLUSIONS
Wohlert is an important industry in Lansing and one of its
largest employers . Its employees are parking on City property
without authorization. The City has no interest in retaining
ownership of this property, and Wohlert has indicated a
willingness to purchase the parcels . Wohlert has not met earlier
conditions regarding site development, resulting in an
unattractive appearance and negative impact on North Lansing.
Wohlert needs to expand its parking facilities, and proposed an
earlier plant expansion that has not taken place. The expansion
of either would be beneficial to the neighborhood if site
development issues are addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
At this time, staff recommends tabling this proposal pending a
further study.
Attachments : Map - Wohlert properties
Map - Existing zoning
Council Proceedings dated December 21 , 1981
c:\wp\data\act0296\act0296.fe
Lr-
5 , r Z32 + a ,
L1
��/(�,�NtT W 1/
00
YC u', �.1.•1 �� /711 � eo]-o1 617 //f /r Il fa/
E. GRAFT IIVVER NINDUS. AVE .
Y/tr• W./ �YG' �+' St'LOMIAE
St' LC' Jl' fY' Jl' JY' JC 4C'
/ a
I` p13 pl w ti pe) - v? N JFI \\ ��
a e cMatl. F CpMMt:pCJdL
1 2 3 I I 4 0 6 e617 a
051
"f/ 1 cc
IU1 1 EAVy I 8 6 23
I- 7 2 '
QS 6
M C 4
9 302
r — T — u)
L �1-1 µ�a�� II 10 lo s'
/ -
20 I �12
II l
T 13 W :y - 12 17
013
18 -17 1 I Q U 0�\ 13 16 \0\
<�. .. -
4 = 15 02/
c~n "' PORTER
I• - 'o e4 7L8
17
19 16
ti
0 01.
I 38 37 s 20 J�� >F= IS I I
CD
i- Q ^ N �\
m `� I f ^ 21 ^ Q 14 ,
m
a 36 35 ^
:-
tw'' ~ I (!v 22 �m 1 13 2
Q nt•• /vJ' i 12
'O vro•r 23
W I p1
' I I L 1—2 4
CAI- \� \�b al9) CT.
-
Z � I 1--• r I a � 10
26 ti 9
I34 33 I J )- -1 3 I
8 I 27
8
TI ' �O 1
on
132 31 30 29 28 I a
v4ts• V 1 7 6 5 4
�7or c.•o.t��� I 0
— — — � SHERIDAN .� ST.
7�s 7oY 7011 I/
i
tact• .,`.,..,' � •
070Z L3
(n� \ -
Q 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 I ; U 4 3co
lb
o oZ
r/.". IL' Yr.L'
7-1-1 -711 719 73S 607-09 er! elf /7 Brf YO/
v
E. GRAND RIVER AVE .
/2 7/g 7 73r•3P, B/
Y/tr• °,/ L' 77' ti ti Ss' Sf' LL• JZ' J JY' LL'
0*"
�3 101 a 'l 081 ' ° 00 2 51 yq/ t
2 I I 4 5 6 \ oil 7 m 5 3 2 Irc`
a
L _ tz' / r• t
/✓ eo' /S' ACCFy �
8 6
a
M
2 \
30 1-
05 I
� W \
° 9
F—
3 1-
1 0. 19 '
20 O1 \
2 I 8
Of I � o OV\ 12 \
Q r' o
U \
18 I Q1\ 13
/o SZ• � �
u.r 15 021
ti 0� 14 15 0 �°
005
H T
(n /°~Y3 PORTER
700 7.04 728
18 17 .�
I 19 16' I
Opp I
38 37 20 X� a H 15 1 I
Cn "to h 0rn co
a)
m fi 21 0 14
(A N I I 36 35
O (n In 22 N m I 13 2 a
Q !Is'Y /Y!' � � I-- I
0 L1J vso'_ 23 12
t WOH CRT OWN E-P
-� f2p\opl5KTY
NORTH
o•.0 i 1� � cL' I 5
a c O w
oo� 07,t ` ;� 03�" 5l
4 3 2 p I N U 4 3 0�
GIT'1'
70
To hlaLH-2�
E. GRAND RIVER AVE .
Sf' G4r JY t' JY' Jc' CC'
War-
07! mtkjr. ';3r
,.•
0/3 . x 1 o 1 A s p
a �
I 2 3 4 5 6 � a67 sti''.5:. 4 3 2
_ 1_
iYo Bo'r /s AICFy
S V'
i 9 ALLe,-Y m e�ov
Pag�vl00 6F ( W � KSw PAVeD
LA4V10CA9
eD (� .
FACIZA,r file t-v'r W CrI
L 21 TZ) PAC to to
20
19 „.
ll 13 EJ OV 12 17 � .
00
18 17 K 01\ 13 16
Dt•
:r7 r.,,rt• ` 15 02/ 1�\ 15
r a 0 14 a
005 /L r.r• at' cc' . r' /rt' GG'
(n PORTER
14
^
700 7Z8 7oL
/vo.os' I — 366.SV' 1 1
18 17
I +9 16' I
-�
1 c I 0 I 36 37 ry 20 O ^ F-: I \ 15 I
r 14 — �l
� CD � r 21 ID
a 36 35 r i ti
22 v m 13 2 >
rn n77
Q 0 0 5% 4 3 2 05l 1 U 4 \ 3 q �� \\ I Q ti`\
ti m m
Yr.L to / / Z/ LL' 42
707--1 III 714 7)S 807-09 B13 9/s 5/7 Brf 90/
V
OD
E. GRAND RIVER AVE .
/2 7/8 7 71r-3y g,
Y/.tr• e./' L' 7;" ILti 1�4 Ss' sf- LL' sl' 7 SY' t LL•
071 ti \
i3 Iol
o �
2 1 1 4 5 6 ` obi 7 5 3 2
—'u
/Y eo• /s' ACCFy �
20"
8 6
M
2
0 5
W
r— - 9 3 f-
cn `
I "
0- 19 °
20 2 Of
I 6
/7[
Y
01 1 ti 0�\ 12
Q r" 0
I U
I ' 0" 13 1 \0\ e
/o Jr• Y �
�I• l.fl' \ \
J L 15 021 06\ 14 15
:rs - PORTER
>oa
06 728
IB 17
19 16'�
07'
I 3B 37 20 �\ aH 15 1
N ti co N h \
rn a) I 21 N I_ 14
N —� Y
<W F- I I 13 6 35
O (n IA ` 22 a m I 13 2 I �i
i Qlls'-
O W t Yso'_ 23 12
WOH F12J, CRT OWN E-o
PROP15K7Y
932 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 21. 1981 DECEMBER 21, 1981 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS 833
In Witness Whereof, I have hereto nf- neighborhood and existing bualne,ses in the cesn commercial properly an Case Street 1) That. prior to emir ruction nr ❑se of the
fixed my official signature this 21st day area of this street vacation while allowing and the southwest corner of East Grand property, itsil" Man h.. suhmitl.r n d ud
of December, A.D. 1981. for the expansion of the Wohlert Corpora- River Avenue. approved by the Lansing City Council
tion facilities; and which reflects all of the expansion nc-
THEO FULTON, S. That City Staff investigate Improve- tivities of Wohlcrt Corporation.
City Clerk, City of Lansing. Whereas an existing City of Lansing Pol-
Icy is: elude butP not elimit d ttohwidening. re- 2) Thnt the site plan reflect the closing of
Adopted by the following vote: "The City shall strive to mnintnin, en- Inforcement of the street to all weather that portion of the nlle.v connecting with
Unanimously. courage and facilitate expansion of the capacity, and parking. Mnjor improve- Ballard Street on the northerly end of
existing industry located within Its ments shall be referred to the Capital the parkinr, lot.
boundaries while at the same time evalu- Improvements Committee. 3) Thnt the remaining portion of the alley
ating the adverse impact of that Indus- connecting with Case Street be widened
By PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT and try on the adjacent land uses to deter= 9. That the Planning Staff Initiate a peti- to annroximntely eighteen (18) feet.
PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND SAFETY mine possible Solutions;" and tion to rezone the vacnted portion of
COMMITTEES— Case Street to "I" Heavy Industrial Dis- 4) That the site plan should reflect n sec-
Whereas the subject area was designated trlct. ondary necess route in the event Porter
Resolved by the City Council of the City for industrial expansion by the 1968 Com- Street is ever closed for emergency pur-
of Lansing: prehensive Plan: Be It Further Resolved that the City poses.
Clerk Is hereby authorized and directed to 6) That the site plan include the vacated
Whereas the City of Lansing has an
adopted policy which states: Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the record a certified copy of this resolution portion of Case Street; and
portion of Case Street herein described be with the Register of Deeds, and shall also
"The City shall strive to maintain, en- abandoned and vacated to the adjacent send a copy of the recorded resolution to the Ile It Further Resolved that the City
courage and facilitate expansion of the property owners (in 'this instance the State Treasurer. Cleric he, nod she is hereby, directed to
existing industry located within Its Wohlert Corporation), subject to the fol-. notify the applicant of this action.
boundaries while at the same time eval- lowing conditions and actions: Adopted by the following vote: Adopted by the following vote:
usting the adverse Impact of that Indus- 1) That a detailed site Plan be submitted to Unanimously.
try on the adjacent land uses to deter- the Planning Department for review and Unanimously.
mine possible solutions:" and forwarded to the City Council for ap-
Whereas the City of Lansing provides proval. By PHYSICAL, DEVELOPMENT and
economic development assistance for reha- By COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE--
bilftation and expansion of industry; and 2) he public tat the tke plal laceosinonly after the of the tap- COMMITTEES—to PUBLIC Resolved
AND SAFETY Resolved by the City Council of the City
Whereas the businesses along Grand Droval of the Site plan described In Item Whereas,by petition duly filed on the 8th of Lansing:
River Avenue between Ballard Street and (1) above and permits for construction day of September, 1981, this council wns WherenB, the. City recently completed it
the Penn Central Railroad tracks, Case are Issued. petitioned to change the following described section of street thnt connects Lurch Street
Street south of Grand River Avenue, Porter property from "C" Two Family Residential (U.S.-27) on the west and E. High Street
Street went of Ballard Street, and Ballard 3) That a full width utility easement be re- District to J" Parking District all as set on the east, and
Street South of Porter Street are vfable but twined unless the Wohlert Corporation forth 1n the Zoning Cade of this city, and
in many instances located in older facilt- provides funds for the relocation of util- Whereas, E. High Strret becomes Lnite
ties; fifes within the easement. Wherean, due noicte as required by law Lnnning Rood on the cast at the City
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the 4) That turn around space be developed has been given for a public hearing on said Limits, and and
Economic Development staff. of the City within the remaining Case Street right- petition, Whereas, confusion can be avoided by
immediately contact the companies in the of-way to enable public service and Whereas, Fit such heat•Ing held on the having the entire street under a single
above mentioned nrea to provide them with emergency vehicles to serve the aren 7th day of December, 1981, all pnrtics in- name,
economic development information and or- adequately, terestd therein were heard and given due Now, Therefore., Bo it Resolved, thnt the
sistance as necessary consideration, and City Council of the City of Lnnsinv herchy
6) That the following notions be taken to
Adopted by the following vote: facilitate truck movements within the Whereas, the property involved is de- officially changes the name of E. High
Street to Lake Lansing Road, and
area: scribed as:
Unanimously. A) That portions of the following inter- Be it Further Resolved, thnt the. new scr.-
sections be modified to facilitate 76, 111 . 22, 1 6, 1 1117, I110,
1126, 1129, 1122, 1136, 1137 and 1130 lion of road from N. Huth Strcct to Larch
truck turning movements: Ballnrd Street. Street (U.S.-27) be named Lake Lnnsing
By PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT and Road, and
PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND SAFETY (1) Bes Oakland th the north- More particularly described as:
COMMITTEES— western tern and northeastern cor- It Further Resolved, the City Clerk is
pars. Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23, Block directed within 30 days to record n certified
Resolved by the City Council of the City 10,Handy Home Addition, City of Lan- copy of this resolution with the Re!rister of
of Lansing: (2) Ballard/Porter—the southwest-ern corner ?. Bing, Ingham County, Michigan; Deeds giving the name of the plat or plats
.
Act-24-81 from "C" Two Family Residential District affected and shall send n cony to the State
�100 block of Case Street (3) Porter/the alley owned by Amer- to a "J" Parking District. Treasurer, and
ican Mnrsh Pump Corporation
the southeastern corner. Whereas, pursuant to Act 207, Public Be It Finally Resolved, thin resolution
f
Whereas the Lansing Planning Board rec- Act, of 1921, ns amended, the Plannnig shall have no force or effect until recorded
ommended vacation of that part of Case 6) funds and staff al
That City ternatives ae sources ca Board advised the City Council to approve in the above described mnnner.
this petition with conditions; and
Street described as: be used in the acquisition of 1142 Case Adopted by the following vote:
That portion of Case Street lying Street and the vacant lot immediately to Whereas the Physical Development Com-
the north of 1142 Case Street and the re- mittee of City Council, to whom was re- Unanimously.
north of the South lot line of Lot 11,
these properties as a ferred the report of the Planning Board,
extended west and south of the north development of
lot line of Lot 6, extended west, of commercial barking lot, concurred therewith:
Block lo, Handy Home Addition, City That Wohlert Corporation make a rea- Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the By COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE—
of Lansing,Ingham County, Michigan; ,enable effort to purchase the property Council of the City of Lansing ordains thst
and at 1143 Case Street and that the site the request to rezone the above described Resolved by the City Council of the City
Whereas the Planning Board, in their plan submitted to City Council Include property from "C" Two Family Residential of Lansing:
recommendation, attempted to provide some this property to provide adequate radius. District to "J" Parking District be RP- Whereas, the development of Lansing's
equitable solutions which would protect the )to Improve truck maneuverability to ac- proved subject to the following conditions:
Draft
2-16-98
RESOLUTION #
BY THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
ACT-2-96
SALE OF TWO PARCELS AND
VACATION OF E/W ALLEY BETWEEN
CASE AND BALLARD STREETS
ALSO
ACT-24-81
VACATION OF A PORTION OF
CASE STREET ADJACENT TO
WOLHERT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the applicant, the Wolhert Corporation has petitioned the City of Lansing on two
occasions to acquire property for the development and expansion of their parking lot; once on
September 8, 1981 for the vacation of a portion of Case Street more particularly described as:
That portion of Case Street lying north of the south lot line of Lot 11, extended west and
south of the north lot line of Lot 6, extended west, of Block 10, Handy Home Addition,
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
and secondly on January 21, 1996 to vacate the west 212 feet of the E/W alley between Case
Street and Ballard and to purchase two vacant parcels of land lying north of the E/W alley and
south of Grand River Avenue on the east side of Case Street and more particularly described as:
Lot 5, Block 10, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to pave, landscape, screen, berm and fence the parking lot
when all of the land is assembled, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted engineered plans for the parking lot which includes
paving, landscaping, screening, berming and fencing, said plans having been approved by the
Public Service Department and the Planning Office, and;
WHEREAS, the Lansing Planning Board, based on the report of the Planning staff, believe that
the applicant has fulfilled the requirements which will improve and enhance the employee parking
lot, and meet the intent of the requirements of the 1981 resolution, and;
WHEREAS, the Lansing Planning Board has reviewed the report of the Planning Office and
recommends approval, and;
WHEREAS, the Committee on Planning and Development has reviewed the recommendation of
the Planning Board and concurs therein;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City Council approve the
conveyance of land to the Wolhert Corporation in the following manner:
1. Sale of two parcels consisting of Lot 5, Handy Home Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan for nominal consideration ($1.00).
2. Vacation of the west 212 feet of the E/W alley between Case and Ballard Streets.
3. Vacation of a portion of Case Street abutting Lots 6 through 10, Handy Home Addition,
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan beginning 147 (+/-) feet south of the south
ROW line of E. Grand River Avenue and continuing south for a distance of 300 feet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Administration be hereby directed to draft and execute
the appropriate documents to convey the above said properties for the purpose of expanding and
improving the existing employee parking lot for the applicant.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk be hereby directed to record the appropriate
instruments within thirty days of the passage of this resolution with the Ingham County Clerk.
... �
. :� ,� I :p
. r
�..
. .� � -`1.
- � •��_
' � �� � �'.
' f
t , .
�� t
Act-2-98, Holmes Street Realignment
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Robert Clegg
Public Services Department
City of Lansing
7th Floor, City Hall
124 W. Michigan Ave.
Lansing, MI 48933
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to acquire
REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review
EXISTING LAND USE: R.O.W.
EXISTING ZONING: R.O.W.
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: See attached map
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Sparrow Hospital
S: Automotive Service Center
E: Small businesses
W: Sparrow Hospital
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-4" Residential
S: "F-1" Commercial
E: "F-1" Commercial
W "DM-4" Res./"F-1" Commercial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The North East Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as R.O.W. The East
Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan identified
this area as an issue and opportunity that
needed addressing.
Act-2-98, Holmes Street Alignment, Page 2
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
The City of Lansing, Public Service Department is proposing to acquire a portion
of the Sparrow Hospital property east of Holmes Street to realign the street. The
property description for acquisition of land on the east side of Holmes Street at
Michigan Avenue is legally described as:
That part of Assessor's Plat No. 17, City of Lansing, Michigan described as:
Commencing at the N.W. corner of said Plat (also being the South R/W line
of Michigan Avenue at its intersection with the East R/W line of Holmes
Street) thence East 47.08 feet along the North line of said plat; thence
S08043'01"W 343.94 feet to a point on the West line of said Plat, said point
being N00051'E 37.50 feet from the S.W. corner of said Plat; N00°51'E
340.00 feet along the West line of said Plat to the point of beginning,
containing 0.184 acres.
The realignment would require acquisition of private land east of the existing
R.O.W. line on Holmes Street. This realignment was an issue addressed in the
East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study. This study involved a coordinated and
cooperative effort to implement proposed improvements along Michigan Avenue
from the 700 Block of E. Michigan Avenue to the 1200 block. In fact, this study was
coordinated with Sparrow Hospital's Plan. Basically, the study provided a blueprint
for restoring not only the approach to the Capitol but also the renewal of the
Eastside of the City of Lansing. In the plan, the issue of the alignment of Holmes
Street was addressed and ways to resolve the problem. It was suggested that
either a street light or a realignment of Holmes Street would provide a safer
intersection.
AGENCY RESPONSES
AMERITECH: No comment received yet.
Assessor: The property affected is owned entirely by Sparrow Hospital.
There should be a deed from them to the City of Lansing. Also,
there should be a deed from the City to the adjacent owners on
the west side of the re-aligned right-of-way. Sparrow owns the
south part and there is a Total gas station on the north part.
Act 2 98, Holmes Street Alignment, Page 3.
Building Safety: No comments.
BWL: No comment received yet.
City Attorney: No comment received yet.
Consumers Power: No comment received yet.
Development: No comment.
Eastside Neighborhood
lignment of Holmes at Michigan. Supported
Organization: We support the rea
the concept of the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study.
Fire Marshal: Remarks reserved at this time.
Lansing Neighborhood
Council: No comment received yet.
Media One: No comments.
MDOT: No comment received yet.
Parks and Rec.: We recommend these changes. Not only will this correct the
traffic confusion at the intersection (Michigan & Holmes) but will
separate the residential from Sparrow Hospital traffic. This has
worked well north at Michigan Avenue at Holmes and Jerome.
Public Service: See attached.
Trans. Engr.-. See attached. Supported the concept of the East
Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study. It should be noted that
the Transportation Department recommended and endorsed
the study along with the recommendation to have a traffic
diverter at Eureka and Holmes Street to keep traffic off the
residential area.
ANALYSIS
An Act 285 Review is conducted when the City purchases, sells or substantially
changes the use of property. According to Section 125.36 of A must evaluated 131, s
amended, the character, location and extent of the proposal mus
Act-2-98, Holmes Street Alignment,
Pa e 4.
BACKGROUND
The reconstruction of Holmes Street between Eureka Street and Michigan Avenue
is scheduled for construction summer 1998. The Public Service Department of the
City of Lansing is proposing to acquire a portion of the Sparrow Hospital property
east of Holmes Street to realign the Street.
LOCATION: The proposed realignment is located on Holmes Street, north
and south of Michigan Avenue, east of the Sparrow Hospital
development.
CHARACTER: The proposed realignment has been an issue at this location
for years. The character of this area will not change as a
result of the alignment of Holmes Street. In fact, the
realignment of Holmes at E. Michigan will provide a safer
intersection.
EXTENT: Since the street is not aligned by Holmes Street from the north
to the south off of Michigan Avenue, cars driving have to "jog',
to get to the other side. The realignment of Holmes at E.
Michigan will provide a safer intersection.
SUMMARY
The location, character and extent of the Act 285 request is reasonable. It complies
with the issues and concerns addressed in the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to realign Holmes Street and begin the
acquisition process.
CITY of LANSINo
INTEROFFICE CO
To: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner
From: Jane Dykema, Project Engineer
Date: February 20, 1998
Subject: ACT-2-98 Holmes Street Realignment at Michigan Avenue
The Engineering Division requested this ACT
285 seer ject d It
is
supportive of the acquisition of right of way arrow Hospital
is necessary to acquire this portion of the Sp
lin the street. The
property east of Holmes Street
reconstruction of Holmes Street between Eurega Street and Michigan
Avenue is scheduled for construction beginning in July.
CITY Of LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner
FROM: David A. Berridge, Transportation Engineer
DATE: February 17, 1998 �� �'itit�t-� iJi►�c
SUBJECT: ACT-2-98: Holmes Street Realignment at Michigan Avenue
The Transportation Division is supportive of the acquisition of right of way for this
project. The project has been in the planning and development phases with
Sparrow Hospital and the Eastside Neighborhood Organization for several years. It
is recommended that the ACT 285 request be approved on an accelerated time line
to meet project construction requirements for the 1998 construction season.
cc: Jane Dykema
file: Holmes Street
C:\Corel\Office7\WPWin7\DATA\PLANNING\act-2-98.dmw.wpd
ACT-2-98, Holmes Street Realignment
NORTH
c
p
-1 Ar r
rL---
...........
EASTERN HIGH S 001,
LA
EASTERN
ID IL
WHOM 17.1
rj Lj
Do,
J , L
.A
Aft�
r
SPA W HOSP T L
if
4rWL
V7
Nmi
Pt
Pa3P23
z
P 70 p 221
11c
0
ij
T T T�r
'T
Dow
C7:1 0 FD Cn,
El QL—
F-10 -
LL,Air Z�
it
fa mr
EXISTING AM PEAK EXISTING FM PEAK
HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
HOLMES STREET
I
I c
1
' N
I I N
4 I '
1 1 I
1 i 6 �o
O K�9----------T� ----J--I�----I-----------M.!
cc
_ I
II • •
rn: svo,f- -- __— r--rr----�-- -- ----------Irri;ol
u---- ------------is 04+ Od
—rSomme=a
I
I
i1i 1
I14, 1 AREA
�i TO BECOME
CITY OWNED
I RIGHT OF WAY
li i I
1 I 1 I
I I
ICI '
1 � I
II I
I I 1
I 1 I I
I
II 1 11 Is
I I I 1 1
I I I I I
N 1 1 I I I
I 1
N I I
W I
1
I I 1 PROPOSED
CURB LINE
I I I
I 1 I
II 1 I I
II I I
11 1 I f1 I
' PROPOSED
� 1 PROPERTY LINE
I 1 I 1
I 1 1 1
I I I I I
EXISTING � :^ i 1 ---- •• ------
PROPERTY LINE 1
I Ir
I I )
2
I
1 I I
I
I 11
I iA '
ps
I
• 1
I
~ O 1-- -o- ,•J 1� 1 Y ---�11
d g p1I1 C N
IY LI W No ___+_- f I CalI i N -_-- �I _— W W
N 1 I'/ `� co Lr-,
w co
> I
E2�5 � {
APPROVED APRIL 7, 1999 Approved 04/07/98
To Clerk 07/02/99
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall =
124 West Michigan Avenue CLFr;
Tuesday, March 17, 1998
I. OPENING SESSION
Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge,
Smith; eight members present.
B. Excused Absences - None
C. Introductions. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present: Jim
Ruff, Zoning Administrator and William Rieske, Principal Planner.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. The agenda was approved as printed. Mr. Miller arrived
at this point.
III. COMMUNICATIONS: None
IV. HEARINGS: None
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
JOHN SAVARY, ATTORNEY WITH DTN MANAGEMENT CO., 2502 LAKE
LANSING RD., STE C. Here regarding ACT-21-97, 3313 W. Mt. Hope Ave., Sign
in Right-of-Way, concerning vacation of a portion of the right-of-way on Mt. Hope
Highway where we have a multifamily community, Summer Hill Estates, for the
purpose of placing a sign, hopefully, if the right-of-way is vacated, on our property.
I attended the Urban Development Committee meeting at which it was
recommended to vacate the right-of-way because of the unusual size of it along that
portion of the highway. Our property has a 50 ft right-of-way. The adjacent property
owners have a 33 ft right-of-way. Mr. Rieske recommended vacation. I ask tonight
that the Planning Board approve the vacation of the portion of the right-of-way.
TOM FRASIER, BOARD MEMBER OF HANNAH'S HOUSE. Here to ask for
approval of NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, and to answer
questions.
VI. RECESS. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, for a recess for
an Urban Development Committee meeting. The session resumed at 7:26 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 2
VII. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: March 3, 1998. Mr. Goolsby made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of March 3, 1998. On a
voice vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous; the minutes of
March 3, 1998 were
APPROVED.
A. Committee of the Whole Meeting - None.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Goolsby, Chair.
a. Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial
District, the easterly 50 ft thereof.
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the easterly 50 ft of the
property from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District to
accommodate the display of cars for a used car lot. According to
Section 1278.01 of the Zoning Code, the sale of new and used
cars in the "J" Parking District is prohibited. The rezoning is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The Southeast Area
Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use.
There should be little to no impact on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation since this business has already been existing. The
Transportation Director recommends closing a curb cut on the site.
There are no environmental and/or public service impacts
anticipated as a result of the rezoning. This rezoning request
should have no impact on future patterns of development.
The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with
the staff report and encouraged staff to write the applicant to
request improvements to the curb cut situation as highlighted in
the response by the Transportation Director, understanding that
it cannot be a condition of rezoning.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously,
4-0, to recommend approval of Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J"
Parking District to "F" Commercial District, the easterly 50 ft
thereof, further recommending that the middle drive of the property
be eliminated and the southern drive be improved to properly
accommodate two-way traffic.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 3
Mr. Goolsby noted that a rezoning cannot be approved with
conditions, but as part of the motion the Committee has a
recommendation that the middle drive of the property be
eliminated and the southern drive be improved to properly
accommodate two-way traffic. It is not a condition, but merely a
suggestion.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District, the easterly 50
ft thereof, with no conditions, but a recommendation on the site plan.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby Ave
Greiner. Ave Keene. .Ave
Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Smith . . . Ave, Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried, Z-2-98, 5716 S.
Cedar St., "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District, the easterly 50 ft thereof was
APPROVED.
b. NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity Request.
This is a request for nonconforming status for Hannah House at
625 N. Walnut Street in order to restore the structure. Because
the restoration exceeds the 35 percent cap allowable in a Class B
nonconformity, Class A is requested.
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred
with the staff report and recommended that the applicant look into
the use of Historic Preservation funds to rehabilitate the exterior
of the structure as recommended by the Historic District
Commission and that the improvements be completed within one
year of the date of approval by the Board.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously
4-0 to recommend approval of NCU-1-98, 625 N. Walnut Street,
Class A Nonconformity Request with one condition that the
improvements be completed within one year of the date of
approval.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 4
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve NCU-1-98, 625 N.
Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity Request with the condition that the improvements
be completed within one year of the date of approval.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Ruge asked if there was discussion of returning the structure to a single-family home
instead of using it as a two-unit. At the public hearing, the applicant indicated it was used
as a single-family home. Ms. Love said the upstairs kitchen is primarily used by the young
mothers to warm bottles during the night to avoid going up and down stairs. It is not
meant as a full-service kitchen.
Mr. Ruge asked how the City officially defined a one- and two-unit.
Mr. Ruff explained that based upon the total number of occupants, the applicant needed
to have two units. The "C" Residential District allows a maximum of four unrelated
persons living together in each unit. They have the house parent plus a maximum of four
persons. That would be five, which puts it over the number allowed in a single unit. That
is why they pursued this nonconformity request. Otherwise, they could make
improvements without going to the Class A. It is zoned "C" Residential, which would allow
up to four unrelated persons living together as a functional family. We asked a lot of
questions to determine which avenue to take to allow their improvements. Based on the
size of the structure and the use, keeping it as a two-unit would allow up to four guests
plus the house parent. It functions as a single-family, with an interior stairway. We did
not want it to become a rooming house, because that use is not allowed in the "C" District.
Recognizing that it is still a two-unit seemed to be the only avenue to allow the numbers
of persons they were going to have.
Ms. Love commented that the applicant at the public hearing testified that the upstairs
dining and living rooms have been converted back to bedrooms, so the house does
function primarily as a single-family house. We too looked for opportunities to downzone.
Goolsby . Ave Greiner. . . Ave
Keene. . .Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan . .Ave Smith . Ave
Frederick . .Ave Ruge Ave
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; NCU-1-98, 625 N.
Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity Request with condition that improvements be
completed within one year of the date of approval was APPROVED.
Mr. Ruff noted that this would be a final action; it does not go to City Council.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 5
C. SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. Washington Sq., Parking in "G-1" Business
District.
This is a request for a Special Land Use permit to construct a new
16-space parking lot at the northeast corner of Washington
Square and Washtenaw Street adjacent to the Parthenon
Restaurant.
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred
with the staff report and found that with appropriate landscaping,
the small parking lot would meet the criteria established for special
land uses in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously,
4-0, to recommend approval of SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. Washington
Sq., Parking in "G-1" Business District with the following
conditions:
1. That the site plan be reviewed administratively by all
necessary agencies through the site plan review process;
2. That the perimeter be landscaped pursuant to the three
options in the report which are designed to enhance this
area include placing a bench and planter combinations on
each side of the pedestrian walkway that is designed into
the west edge; to install a low masonry wall 2.5 ft to 3 ft tall
on the west line similar in design to the walls that are in the
mall area; and to remove the three feet of concrete and
install a 3-ft tall hedge of evergreens while retaining the
pedestrian walkway; and
3. That the plantings in the right-of-way along Washtenaw
Street be approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-2-98, 231-37 S.
Washington Sq., Parking in "G-1" Business District with conditions.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Greiner. . . Ave Keene . .Ave
Miller . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Smith. . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Goolsby. . . Ave Ruge . Ave
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 6
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, SLU-2-98, 231-37
S. Washington Sq., Parking in "G-1" Business District with conditions as above was
APPROVED.
d. SLU-4-98, Contec Park Condominium, Construction in the
Floodplain.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 7,900 sq ft building
on Unit 3 and a 16,942 sq ft addition onto the existing building on
Unit 4 within the 100 year floodplain of the Sycamore Creek at the
Contec Center Condominiums. The base flood elevation (B.F.E.)
is 840 feet. Developing in the floodplain on this size parcel
requires a floodplain Special Land Use permit, approved by the
City Council as well.
The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with
the staff report and added that the development of Unit 3 should
include an extra retention area off the parking lot to help prevent
oils and sediments from the parking lot from going directly into the
floodplain area. This can be accomplished through the site plan
review process.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously
4-0 to recommend approval of SLU-4-98, Contec Park
Condominium, Construction in the Floodplain, with the following
conditions:
a. Compliance with requirements of the City Engineer and
Public Service Department;
b. Compliance with requirements of the Department of
Environmental Quality;
C. Compliance with requirements of all other responding
agencies including the site plan review process.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Miller, based on testimony, evidence and the
staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
SLU-4-98, Contec Park Condominium, Construction in the Floodplain, with the above
three conditions.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Keene. . . Aye Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . . Ave
Greiner. . . Ave Ruge. . Ave
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 7
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-4-98, Contec
Park Condominium, Construction in the Floodplain with the above conditions was
APPROVED.
Next meeting Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave.
2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Nischan, Chair.
a. Act-21-97, 3313 W. Mt. Hope Ave., Sign in Right-of-Way
The applicant wants to place a 16 sq ft ground pole sign within the
right-of-way to identify their apartment building. The property is
zoned Community Unit Plan which allows one ground pole sign set
back 20 ft from the right-of-way, according to Section 1442.18(8)
of the Lansing Sign Code. Because of the substantial right-of-way
width and mature vegetation, the applicant cannot meet this
requirement for sign placement.
The Committee considered the evidence and the staff report and
recommended that the City vacate the south 17 ft of the public
right-of-way in front of the property located at 3313 W. Mt. Hope
Avenue, with the following five conditions:
1. That the owner transfer the land back to the City for a
nominal fee if the land were needed by the City in the future;
2. That the City retain an easement for 5 ft of sidewalk within
the 17 ft of vacated right-of-way;
3. That necessary utility easements be maintained in the 17 ft
of vacated right-of-way;
4. That it is the intent of the Planning Board that the vacation
conditions run with the land, regardless of ownership; and
5. This action to vacate should not violate the rule of
perpetuity.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously
4-0, to recommend approval of Act-21-97, 3313 W. Mt. Hope Ave.,
Sign in Right-of-Way.
Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-21-97, 3313 W. Mt. Hope Ave., Sign in Right-of-Way, with the above five conditions.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 8
Ms. Love asked if the first condition could be stated that it be an
easement for road way purposes. It would be simpler.
JOHN SAVARY, 2502 LAKE LANSING ROAD, STE. C,
REPRESENTING DTN MANAGEMENT. I would be amenable to
that. I suggested that once the Urban Development Committee
approved it, that attorneys for the parties could work out agreed-
upon details and to the extent allowed by law.
A friendly amendment, to change condition 1 to read that the City
retain an easement to the 17 ft for future right-of-way roadway
purposes as necessary, was presented. The amendment was
acceptable to Mr. Nischan, Ms. Keene, and to the Committee.
Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Smith. . . Ave Frederick. . . Ave
Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Greiner . Aye
Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . Aye
On a Roll Call Vote, there were: Ayes: 8; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried, Act-21-97, 3313
W. Mt. Hope Ave., Sign in Right-of-Way with the following five conditions. That an
easement for roadway purposes be maintained as necessary over the 17 ft.; 2. That the
City retain an easement for 5 ft of sidewalk within the 17 ft of vacated right-of-way;
3. That necessary utility easements be maintained in the 17 ft of vacated right-of-
way; 4. That it is the intent of the Planning Board that the vacation conditions run with the
land, regardless of ownership; and 5. That this action to vacate should not violate the rule
of perpetuity was APPROVED.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, March 31, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the
Planning Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee did not meet.
C. Report from the Planning Manager
Ms. Love mentioned several things. Louise's husband is still in the hospital.
She will send a card on the Board's behalf.
A one-day seminar at the University of Michigan at Flint will be held regarding
GIS and groundwater. The Planning Office has five reservations, for Mr. Ruff,
two Board members, and two staff. Board members should indicate their
interest and make arrangements to attend.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 9
Board members will be receiving an ordinance amendment for subdivision
regulations. There are three parts, the first by Public Service to change the
subdivision regulations so that they indicate that the developer is responsible
for doing all the street paving. Right now, the developer is responsible only
for doing the gravel, sand, curb and gutter, street trees, and sidewalks. The
City is responsible for the paving. The City no longer has its own asphalt
plant, and the Public Service does not want to be responsible for that. They
want to shift that responsibility to the developer.
The second part relates to traffic control devices. Right now the ordinance
states that the developer is responsible for stop signs. Public Service wants
the developer to be responsible not only for stop signs, but also for traffic
signals. If a traffic light is required, it is the difference between several
hundred dollars and $25,000. Ms. Love said with demand-response
signalization embedded in the pavement, together with the control box, the
cost is about $25,000. The developer, by creating the need for the traffic
control device, will now be responsible for traffic light costs.
The third has to do with subdivision regulations. The Attorney's office has
opined that regulation regarding lot splits and variances for lot splits in the
subdivision regulations is weak. To strengthen it, we need to put in an
additional section stating that the City Council has the authority to grant lot
splits that have variances associated with them. The hearing is on April 7.
Mr. Goolsby asked that the Board be provided with information regarding what
other communities do concerning traffic devices. Mr. Frederick asked if the
language is broad enough to include traffic calming devices. Ms. Love said
yes, it is traffic control devices as opposed to signs. Mr. Ruff provided
information as historical background. Additional discussion took place
regarding sidewalks.
D. Pendinq Items: Future Action Required
1. Planninq Board
a. Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-V
Professional Office District (Tabled January 6, 1998)
2. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-19-97, N.W. Corner Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to
"G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997)
b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St. "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1"
Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998)
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 10
3. Urban Development Committee
C. Act-13-97, Sheridan St. and May St., Consolidate Two At-grade
Railroad Crossings. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
d. Act-19-97, Capitol Avenue at Dwight Street, Create Cul-de-sac at
Intersection. Action Target Date February 24, 1998.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None
IX. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
On Waverly south of Jolly, near Mr. Huckaba's property, there was an unfinished
subdivision. It looks almost built out. Ms. Love added that the first phase is almost
finished. We have heard they are going to commit for the second phase. Chairman
Ruge said at the time the trailer park was proposed, one reason given for that
proposal was that the subdivision was not doing well.
For the Board's information, Chairman Ruge brought an insert from Lansing State
Journal for the Lansing Centennial 1859-1959 by Albert Boyd, published in 1958.
He wrote about what Lansing would be like in 20 years. Some predictions were
accurate; some weren't.
X. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Nischan asked that application dates for the two Urban Development Committee
pending items be shown on the agenda.
Mr. Miller, who will be away for the April 7, 1998 meeting, requested and was
granted an excused absence.
Ms. Keene asked if there is anything new on the Renaissance Zone. Ms. Love said
an RFP has been issued for the corner at Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and
St. Joseph. We still have concerns as to whether or not we will be able to attract
a grocery store.
Mr. Smith asked about the Commerce Center that Cooley has boarded up at Capitol
and Allegan. Ms. Love replied the building has been secured, and they are
gathering financial resources. Work has cost more than original estimates. Mr.
Frederick asked if they could paint the white box on top of the building. It glares in
he sun, and it looks inappropriate.
Ms. Keene asked about RiteAid leaving downtown. Discussion took place regarding
the new stores being built and space in small malls being left vacant.
Planning Board Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 11
Mr. Goolsby said Kentucky Fried Chicken is rebuilding their stores. Wild Bill's is
being torn down at Cedar and Cavanaugh.
XI. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Ruge asked about the sign code enforcement program; Mr. Ruff said he is
working on a separate brochure for commercial temporary signs--banners and
mobile temporary signs. The Capitol Coalition is helping with the brochure.
Mr. Goolsby reported that there are still signs on a South Side residential complex
that he had reported at a previous meeting.
XII. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I i
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCH 11, 1998 PAGE 2
1. Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar Street (Easterly 50' thereof), "J" Parking to "F"
Commercial.
The applicant, Charles Nihart, is proposing to rezone the easterly 50' of the property
located at 5716 S. Cedar from "J" Parking to "F" Commercial. The applicant wishes to
rezone a small portion of the property in an effort to sell used cars. According to
Section 1278.01 of the Zoning Code, the sale of new and used cars in the "J" Parking
District is prohibited.
Summary:
The rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Southeast Area
Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. There should be little to
no impact on pedestrian and vehicular circulation since this business has already been
existing. There is a recommendation by the Transportation Director to close a curb cut
on the site. There are no environmental and/or public service impacts anticipated as a
result of the rezoning. This rezoning request should have no impact on future patterns
of development.
Committee Finding and Action:
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report
and encouraged that the staff write the applicant to request improvements to the curb
cut situation as highlighted in the response by the Transportation Director,
understanding that it cannot be a condition of rezoning.
Motion:
It was moved by Mr. Miller and Seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of
Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar Street to rezone the easterly 50' thereof from "J" Parking to "F"
Commercial District. Further recommending that the middle drive of the property be
eliminated and the southern drive be improved to properly accommodate two-way
traffic. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCH 11, 1998 PAGE 5
4. SLU-4-98, Contec Park Condominium, Construct in the Floodplain
The applicant, P.S. Partnership, is proposing to construct a new 7,900 sq. ft. building
on Unit 3 and a 16,942 sq. ft. addition onto the existing building on Unit 4 within the
100 year floodplain of the Sycamore Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums.
Summary:
The property is located at Contec Drive and Jolly Road on the north side of the street.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new building within the 100 year floodplain of
the Sycamore Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums as well as add onto an
existing building. The new building will be used for office and warehouse. The base
flood elevation (B.F.E.) is 840'. Developing in the floodplain on this size parcel
requires a Flood Plain Special Land Use permit approved by the City Council as well.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has approved the filling of
the floodplain of the Sycamore Creek. The permit (87-13-89) is attached. The MDEQ
permit elevated the area where the buildings are located yet the Federal maps illustrate
that the property is still in the floodplain. Therefore, according to Section 1288.06 of
the Zoning Code, a Special Land Use permit is required for any development over
acre in size. The buildings are located in the elevated area and will themselves have
their floor areas above the B.F.E., thus meeting code requirements. Also, to avoid
these types of reviews in the future, the applicant is applying to the Federal
government to have the flood maps amended. This process will take at least one year
to complete.
Committee Finding and Action:
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report
and added that the development of Unit 3 should include an extra retention area off the
parking lot to help prevent oils and sediments from the parking lot from going directly
into the floodplain area. This can be accomplished through the site plan review
process.
Motion:
It was moved by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of
SLU-4-98, Contec Park Condominium, to construct the 7,900 sq. ft. building on Unit 3
and a 16,942 sq. ft. addition onto the existing building on Unit 4 within the 100 year
floodplain of the Sycamore Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with requirements of the City Engineer and Public Service
Department.
2. Compliance with requirements of the Department of Environmental
ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCH 11, 1998 PAGE 4
3. SLU-2-98, Vacant Lot @ 231-237 S. Washington Sq., Off Street Parking Lot
in the "G-1" Business District
This is a request by George E. Kafantaris for a Special Land Use to construct a new 16
space parking lot at the northeast corner of Washington Square and Washtenaw
Street. The applicant's representative stated during the public hearing that during the
day the parking would primarily be leased out to business for parking and during the
evening hours it would be available for patrons of the Parthenon Restaurant.
Summary:
The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent
properties provided adequate landscape, screening and buffering is in place.
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties.
The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and
facilities in excess of current capacities.
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and
objectives of the current comprehensive plan.
Committee Finding and Action:
The Committee, based upon testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report
and found that with appropriate landscaping the small parking lot would meet the
criteria established for Special Land Uses in Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. The
Committee expressed appreciation of the applicant utilizing the vacant parcel for green
space for the time and regrets its loss, but understands the reality of the situation that it
is privately owned land and the owner has a right to develop it in accordance with the
ordinances.
Motion:
It was moved by Mr. Frederick and seconded by Mr. Greiner to recommend approval of
SLU-2-98, Vacant Lot @ 231-237 S. Washington Sq., a request to construct an off-
street parking lot in the "G-1" Business District with the following conditions:
1. That the site plan be reviewed administratively by all necessary agencies
through the Site Plan Review process.
2. That the perimeter be landscaped pursuant to the three options in the report.
3. That the plantings in the right of way along Washtenaw Street be approved by
the Parks and Recreation Department.
The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
RECE !, l�DEN
FEB 2 3 1998
WATMM GH T
PLANNING DIVISION
ow BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT
MEMO
CORPORATE PLANNING
February 20, 1998
TO: Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development
FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Corporate Planning Department
(517) 371-6034 /
RE: 5716 South Cedar Street
Request by Charles Nihart to rezone a portion of the property, and more
particularly the easterly 50 feet of the property, from "J" Parking to "F"
Commercial District. The applicant is proposing to display cars for a used
car lot.
ELECTRIC UTILITY
The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department has no objection to
this request.
Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082
WATER UTILITY
Water Technical Support/Distribution - No conflict with request.
Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494
02-98-07.doc
CITY of LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
RECEIv
TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner FEB
EB 2 0 1998
FROM: David A. Berridge, Transportation Engineer PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: February 17, 1998
Al' d
SUBJECT: Z-2-98: 5716 South Cedar Street
The Transportation Division has reviewed the rezoning request and has the
following comments and issues.
1 ) It appears that this request impacts wo properties and four commercial
driveways, one of which appears to be a shared driveway. It would not be
appropriate for used car sales to occur in the entire area slated for rezoning.
2) The used car operation appears to be occurring on the old service station site
from site observations. The driveway configurations are not appropriate for
the present sales operation. The northerly driveway to the service station
site should be closed.
3) The overall development of these properties is a concern from a traffic
operations viewpoint. The closely spaced commercial driveways, all four of
the them, are inappropriate for today's roadway design standards.
4) All of these issues should be addressed through an overall site development
plan.
Therefore, it recommended that a complete site plan be developed for the parcels
under rezoning consideration prior to any rezoning action by the Planning Board.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
file: Cedar Street
C:\Corel\Office7\WPWin7\DATA\PLANNING\z-2-98.dmw.wpd
�HIJ.0 " 44JOtlowlk ssjtvicf sr4rl•.J f
3 47/6 S. CsDsit .Sr.
__
5. C EDA :5T: : . .. -
. .. . Ce..+c c 30' h S\DI wALK J. : .. ---._.----• •—_
I, w��� 16' Pact _ ---
1 �1—6' fLveR. Fear Co.+
/G'.Po LrL
Pace g.-
V
4.._ .
loc.
o-
_.r ASPWALT I, _ ASPHALT
COejC.. _
w s tn s��' �c.
su . sv.
rtsr�c� st.►�� I a -
zoo
c-IL6= w'
Y C. J.-Ok
d
• GRASS �3tEiP SLo/��
G
E-2-98. 5716 S. Cedar St,
NOMM V Palldrp to*P octal D{strfct
- 864.5
re
T2.9 :- PARKING
870.4
870.6 869.
ri
870.6 870.4
115-ED 663.
862.4
� � 1
B60.8
l 0 870.7. o
54.5 is
IRKING n
67.
960.3
861.5 2
87/.6
�x
A a ' 9 63-0
864.3 17 13
io
i2 O
x 87/.7
x B71.8 871 .9
i
_664 —
x \ x 961 2 1 86i.0 _ — i
+62
871.8
861.4
87L
872.4
./ 572.4
Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District Page 4.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT
This rezoning request should have no impact on future patterns of development.
SUMMARY
The rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Southeast Area
Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. There should be little
to no impact on pedestrian and vehicular business since this business has already
been existing. There are no environmental and/or public service impacts
anticipated as a result of the rezoning. This rezoning request should have no
impact on future patterns of development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the easterly 50' of the property
located at 5716 S. Cedar.
Report prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon
Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District Page 3.
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
The primary land use consists of commercial to the north, south and east. There
is open space to the west. The rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses
and should not have no additional effect on other commercial uses.
COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN
The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use.
IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
The proposed rezoning is located off of Cedar Street which is considered a
principal arterial. Since Cedar Street is a principal arterial, rezoning the easterly
50' of an already established auto sales business should have little to no impact on
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The applicant indicated that the hours of operation
for the business are:
Monday-Friday 10:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
The Transportation Division expressed some concerns regarding close driveways
off of Cedar Street and indicated that a site development plan should be submitted
to address these concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The rezoning of a small portion (50' easterly) of this property should not negatively
impact the environment. Also, according to Section 1268.03(g)(3) of the Zoning
Code, any repair or refinishing which is done on the lot shall be done within the
confines of an enclosed structure. Inoperable or junk vehicles or vehicle parts may
ngL be stored in the open.
PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT
None anticipated.
Z-2-98, 5716 S. Cedar St., "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District Page 2.
BACKGROUND:
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH: No comments received yet.
Assessor: No comments.
BWL: See attached.
Building Safety: No comment.
City Attorney: No comments received yet.
Consumers Energy: No comments received yet.
Media One: No comments received yet.
Development Office: No comment.
Fire Marshal: Remarks reserved at this time
Parks & Rec.: No comment.
Public Service: The Public Service Department has no objections
to this zoning request. If any site work (i.e.
additional paving) is proposed, a site plan will
need to be reviewed by our office.
Trans. Eng: See attached.
ANALYSIS
Background
The applicant is proposing to rezone the easterly 50' of the Used Auto Sales
business located at 5716 S. Cedar from "J" Parking to "F" Commercial. The
applicant wishes to rezone a small portion of the property in an effort to sell used
cars. According to Section 1278.01 of the Zoning Code, the sale of new and used
cars in the "J" Parking District is prohibited.
Z-2-98
5716 S. Cedar Street
"J" Parking to "F" Commercial District
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Charles Nihart
1744 Maple Ridge
Haslett, MI 48840
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning
EXISTING LAND USE: Used Auto Sales
EXISTING ZONING: "J" Parking
PROPOSED ZONING: "F" Commercial District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 3+ acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: AARO Propane Gas
S: Automotive Shop
E: Instant Oil Change/Super Tans
W: Open space
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "J" ParkingPH" Light Industrial
S. "J" Parking/"F" Commercial
E: "F" Commercial
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area for commercial use.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant, Charles Nihart, 1744 Maple Ridge,
Haslett, MI 48840, is proposing to rezone a portion of the property at 5716 S.
Cedar Street from "J" Parking to "F" Commercial District to display cars for a used
car lot.
SLU-2-98
231-237 S. Washington Square
Special Land Use for Parking Lot
at NE Corner of S. Washington Sq. & Washtenaw
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: George E. Kafantaris
227 S. Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48933
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner of subject property
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit to create a parking lot
at the northeast corner of Washington Sq. &
Washtenaw
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land (privately owned, used as "parklike"
open space)
EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business
PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangular shape; site is 66' wide by 85' long
(5,610 sq. ft.)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial
S: Commercial
E: Commercial
W: Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-1" Business
S: "G-1" Business
E: "G-1" Business
W: "G-1" Business
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Master Plan designates future
land use as commercial.
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE PAGE 2
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request for a Special Land Use to
construct a new parking lot at the northeast
corner of Washington Square and Washtenaw
Street.
AGENCY RESPONSES
Ameritech: (No comments received.)
Assessor: No comments
Board of Water & Light: No objections
Building Safety: The development of a parking lot is subject to
the City of Lansing site plan review process
City Attorney: (No comments received.)
Code Compliance: (No comments received.)
Community Policing: (No comments received).
Consumers Energy: (No comments received).
Development Office: Recommend berm/more screening along S.
Washington. Space #5 too close to drive.
Fire Marshall: Remarks reserved at this time.
Ingham Co. Drain Com. (No comments received).
Media One: Media One has no concerns at this time.
Parks & Recreation: Plant two more large shade trees on south side.
City should be compensated with the loss of 3 or
4 on street parking spaces. Reduce 26'
maneuvering space to 24' and enlarge planting
bed.
Public Service: No objection with comments (Engineering).
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE PAGE 3
Traffic Engineer: The Transportation Division has reviewed the
special land use request and has the following
comments and issues.
1.) Granting this special use will require the
elimination of four public on-street
parking spaces to create a driveway
opening and the appropriate clear zones.
Consideration should be given to
providing replacement metered
2.) The loss of public parking will cost the
city approximately $3,000 - $5,000 in lost
parking revenue annually.
3.) The proposed plan shows landscaping in
the public right of way on Washtenaw
Street. This must be moved back onto
private property and parking design
module reduced. It should not eliminated
from the project.
4.) There is no landscaping or buffering
shown on the Washington Square side of
the lot. This could be achieved by a
reduction in the total number of parking
spaces. The high pedestrian activity on
the mall justifies consideration of
screening and buffering on this side of
the lot also.
5.) The development of a permanent parking
lot on the Washington Mall is not the
highest and best use for this property.
However, it is an acceptable interim use
until future development can occur.
6.) The loss of the mini-park is also
unfortunate. However, a private property
owner can not be expected to provide
open space of this magnitude for public
use.
If you have any questions, please contact
me (David Berridge).
Lansing Neighborhood Council: (No comments received).
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE PAGE 4
Evaluation
Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a
Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows.
1. Compatibility with Use on Ad4acent Properties
Parking is necessary to the businesses in the downtown district and the applicant's
representative stated during the public hearing that during the day the parking
would primarily be leased out to business for parking and during the evening hours
it would be available for patrons of the Parthenon Restaurant. The representative
stated that the on-street parking is occupied in the evenings with Cooley Law
School students which then leaves no parking for patrons. Therefore, the parking
use of the property is accessory to the business uses surrounding it. The size of
the lot is minimal, providing at best 16 spaces as shown.
The appearance of the lot is a concern to the staff and was questioned by the
Board. It appears that some improvements can be made to the appearance of the
lot along Washington Square in particular, without reducing the number of designed
spaces. The three feet that is illustrated between the spaces and the west property
line could be fitted with one of a number of options to dress up the appearance,
such as:
• Place bench and planter combinations on each side of the pedestrian
walkway that is designed into the west edge.
• Install a low masonry wall 2.5' to 3' tall along the west line similar in design
to the walls that are in the mall area.
• Remove the 3' of concrete and install a 3' tall hedge of evergreens while
retaining the pedestrian walkway.
The plantings in the right of way along Washtenaw Street must be approved by the
Parks and Recreation Department.
2. Change in the Essential Character of the Area
This development is small and if properly improved will not change the essential
business character of the area.
3. Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent Properties
Due to the small size of the lot and the accessory nature of the use, it should not
interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent properties. If the removal of the two on-
street parking spaces creates a problem for an adjacent business person, it seems
that the purpose of the lot would allow an adjacent business to lease one or two of
the spaces to accommodate that loss, although the purpose of the spaces are
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE PAGE 5
different (long-term vs. short-term).
4. Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area
If improved properly with appropriate landscaping, this lot should not permanently
impact the property or the surrounding area. The lot's improvements will not
prevent the property from being built upon at some time in the future.
5. Environmental Impacts
The use of the property will not create any significant impact upon the environment
that is not typical to the downtown business district. The landscaping of the lot will
help in the visual appearance of the property.
6. Impact on Utilities
No adverse impact anticipated.
7. Impact on Public Services
The Transportation Director has stated that the proposed curb cut will result in the
removal of up to four on-street metered spaces which will adversely affect revenues
to the parking system. Obviously, it would be better if this property had access to
an existing alley, but it doesn't. The curb cut location along Washtenaw is better
than along Washington Square, in that existing landscaping is not removed and the
driveway is located further from the intersection of the two streets.
8. Compliance with the Master Plan
The parking lot use of the property with this small number of spaces is accessory
to the business use of adjacent properties. Therefore it is not in conflict with the
Central Business District designation in the Master Plan (River Island Amendment
Plan).
9. Compliance with Zoning District Regulations
The design of the parking lot appears to conform with the requirements of parking
lot design in Chapter 1284 of the Zoning Code. Otherwise, the Zoning Code
requires the Special Land Use permit for the use itself. To confirm compliance with
all design regulations, the site plan is required to be reviewed by all necessary
agencies through the administrative site plan review process.
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. WASHINGTON SQUARE PAGE 6
SUMMARY
The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding property.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent properties provided adequate landscape, screening and buffering is in
place.
The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties.
The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and
facilities in excess of current capacities.
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and
objectives of the current comprehensive plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of
the surface parking lot with the following conditions:
1. That the site plan be reviewed administratively by all necessary agencies
through the Site Plan Review process.
2. That the perimeter be landscaped as suggested in the report.
3. That the plantings in the right of way along Washtenaw Street be approved
by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Report By: J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator and D. Wynant, Senior Planner.
Draft: 3/6/98
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. Washington Sg,
NORTH Parking in"G-1"Business District
//3 56 39 27
/57 30 /27 2I
6 94
28
3/ 3/ /s 845.4
64 .3 PARKING
852.6 47
x PARKING
33 .36
i
84i 4
/24 1q 2B �
68
/7 28
3/ 846.3
N 30
J /4 WALL
32
1 Q
PARKING 30
2l
RAMP 3/
70 8455
PARKING
30 28 z
4 j 27 25 /5
25 a
5
h 4 WASHTENAW ST
� rn
v ,l
STACK
43
32 30
0 2
24 7
67 /5
72
3/
29
PARKING
27 32
30
3/
WALL
3/
42
/9 /2 ff26
29
29 29
PARKING
2/ 27
27 WALL
77 63
/5
33 /5 24 36
i
SLU-2-98, 231-37 S. Washington Sq.
NORTH Parking in'G-l'Business District
N,
Gft[1.IFIaJ•E
rAFTHENON RCSTAUFLANT
1 N�wTH
s
Z
TMItY�N Gov E prp'
E cojae.>< 'xr
3.30"DM1A}r.°uFN.J4dKH
I 11` / _ LLbIJY1.lUb h. GoNI rhGTA'VpN
6,F Cq�.Ln� ,) 2•.L�f•1[O5r14L r¢AP4•
14 .14 I7 12 11 'pipyrlµL'
�9EGgJo rEIF Tw4.8\
N or ENiN4 YN�.NTRY pF.IVL /
V n
,n IN WF6
V, 9
NLW 4�HIeIH OL" NEW
[x [aNr.. CTYIIGJ,L� cUTLH bh�IN
Rx.enlp,I N
3
I 2 a 4
O LIGNT roL.aF. . ''
24'
'n e�JlL.awq
d \ .
❑ S
K1�61c
OITLJHINvus LHIC4149kJ WL•E
_ 11
P40.Tf,AfrlL 44HT Q +� de Gp L� .. N .
5•w'DwAFF W Rb�L.6Lli1•I
Rxlyry Nln Iou NOAT1FN�/�• /-Gp4s WI.1.1-
a 2 LANDe I•rE DED
C)w&mH me
y
� r,HLTL2• •r.H4TGR
NEW GLrf74 PhN' I L/.TCH µsll.l.
To CITY of LlJJd Np
irELIFIGI•T1gJb, 1
i TiLG.T PAKKING JI
S
� N
WothIiTENhW ST. vi
w
MAN NOLL 42° wro m
ZONII,IG: G-1 6U61NE.66 Pf�iTX.ILT 241-23-I 6OUTN Wif�•IIr,J4TOrJ �' UARE
POIP•I�INGI% V.NSING,MILHIGA.N FEB.5,1196
W�L'KDAY6-1(� LI'eAhY� 6rk[.E.6 OWNER-:61rX1 E E.KAFANTAR•IS
NflwHTh-15 rARrHENON Ft9&rAUPANT SP/r�.[6
M4*-Wfz4E/i FM4E)
6RUC( STtWART
A,, Ic • l
.03 E.rl
Mlepip•n A—I
L.n•Inp, Mip�lp.n .7p 17
p11•..1•lppp fA[:7t 1•.pt•07�7
:'. •;?`t�a:vti' �rl 4�i � �, III w
•1e3� si � dr.."�, f�1lJ A 1 r.®G �6 � � _
.. .. • • •
GFAPHS
for
PROPOSED
• P • , •
at
231-237 S. Washington Square
w.
--- North-West View
•
ti
•,ram` _ .
,a
� al
• _ ,- ti ICI Ir � � � - - - ►;'_:
SLU-4-98
Contec Drive at Jolly Road
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: P.S. Partnership
1501 Rensen, Suite A
Lansing, MI 48910
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use for construction in the
floodplain.
EXISTING LAND USE: Contec Condominiums
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 27.64 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Contec Center Condominiums
S: Contec Center Condominiums.
E: Contec Center Condominiums.
W: RR tracks
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S: "H" Light Industrial
E: "H" Light Industrial
W: "H" Light Industrial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area for industrial use.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a new
7,900 sq. ft. building on Unit 3 and a 16,942 sq.
ft. addition onto the existing building on Unit 4
within the 100 year floodplain of the Sycamore
Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums.
SLU-4-98, Contec Drive at Jolly Road, Page 2.
ANALYSIS
The property is located at Contec Drive and Jolly Road on the north side of the
street.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new building within the 100 year
floodplain of the Sycamore Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums as well as
add onto an existing building. The new building will be used for office and
warehouse. The base flood elevation (B.F.E.) Is 840'. Developing in the floodplain
on this size parcel requires a Flood Plain Special Land Use permit approved by the
City Council as well.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has approved the
filling of the floodplain of the Sycamore Creek. The permit (87-13-89) is attached.
The MDEQ permit elevated the area where the buildings are located yet the
Federal maps illustrate that the property is still in the floodplain. Therefore,
according to Section 1288.06 of the Zoning Code, a Special Land Use permit is
required for any development over'/ acre in size. The buildings are located in the
elevated area and will themselves have their floor areas above the B.F.E., thus
meeting code requirements. Also, to avoid these types of reviews in the future, the
applicant is applying to the Federal government to have the flood maps amended.
This process will take at least one years time.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval to construct the 7,900 sq. ft. building on Unit 3 and a
16,942 sq. ft. addition onto the existing building on Unit 4 within the 100 year
floodplain of the Sycamore Creek at the Contec Center Condominiums with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with requirements of the City Engineer and Public Service
Department.
2. Compliance with requirements of the Department of Environmental
Quality.
3. Compliance with requirements of all other responding agencies.
Report prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon.3198
i 1
SOCCER ZONE INC.
LNT e2
719175b sq. feet
M 51 Acres)
Cpi
ti ryo/ S
p�l• �S.
3p
I of
9 5 M'43'5700'E 4M20'
g s
q O
sCr:
$ a UNT e3
b $� $� 156530.72 sq. Feet
(35934 Acres)
Q Q
Q Q
UNT •5 N Z
h
15
eA,6L73' *14393934 sq. Feet -4m o
z 11po
(33044 Acres) 1I)
AL,w5rr
R-75DO'
°-0.917 b
s
A1r149.28' BSZLZ M.OrJO.f5.6B 5 ?
R-75D0' '—
A-14D42 Adr5'IDO'R-6000' OCCUPIED 1$
1 m
1 Aq A-569400 LNT e6
A--59DO' 52961.25A Fe et
Zn3Q.2163es)
65 A0 ' AL-4336' e15.
R60DO 3.002W
- `B
Z 50D0'
S rf.
L494. ei,?',
0'
A-2L3524 �•
N
3 SAFE REGORD5 5TORAC7E��, ,(A
Z UNT e4 Al-5639'1£
a 55998b4 sq. feet f R-30132'
70 y Q.9742 Acres) g. °-29.7374 g
z a-735i3e7 GOMMONr
27343.95 sq. Feet
C6278 Acres)
N
N N
N N V1
O 0
UNT •I 10 Q 1O
52554DO sq. Feet
Q.2065 Acres) f f
w
\ N
� V
Q W N Q E 020 {r5--0-� 1P0
u�
. 162.6' D2' L!r W I I I I
Gan erline oF_ _JOLLY ROAD
dfssz M.000 A.06 N
CONTEC CENTER
Condominium 5;fesA� �°°
FLOOD PLAIN y6s
60-43' 5700- E 409.20' _ _ PER FEMA MAP.
ACTUAL FLOOD \
PLAIN AFTER
S EXEGUTIOpI
PREVIOUS
$I \ iN
F PDEPAT
Lncr
o
S O `` ti�V,
5 89' 43' 5056259E' 50.00'
e I
�5A E
bipo\b� '
1 i s
9ZZLZ,
/ b
1 �c�
6,0
� o
'L�3 Aq i `�
i
5 .0
59'53'0000� W
am
•ter �. ocoo /0 N
6 `�� �O,
T
WAR*
\
\ E tib
b� 6
N �
N
' UI
N '
vNi / O
iv
f u+
Ln
N \ N O
\ � Un
\ w O
0 Zm
N 9 Q.00 W N O Q-P E
5
0.Ob N
L1551 M .000 .
'EASE�MEM
\\tAm - O
STROM
- f
SAFE -RECORDS STORAGE SEED P \ EXIST'
REES � 8"SANITARYUNIT *4 A-23 \ \ Q
i - 85995.64 scc}}For} F T \
11.9742 Acres)
\\ WAEXIST,(
ER UNE
\ �p� I FI_F_rTRIrAL \
\\ SEED STD LADE f7P 6A5 5XIST6.
LI E
\ NFW ADDITION i - -
1
\ FIN.fLR.ELEV.- 5409 4k
\� (ELEC.STOR.AREA -1*41 60.FT) p
KEGORD 5TOR.A Ei{- W61 5Q.�1.1� \� q\ A R
G G TO
24 STORM
EX 76.
RFrQRD STORA615 \ \ 6
� \ AREA \ / \
/ \
REWORK EXI576.IfTIUTIES \ �� EX15T'6.
Z A5 NECESSARY TO ELECTRIC \
CONSTRUCT NEW ADDITIOtq \ <c
WH S MH
7� BUIL DIN6 1
y 06,765 60.FT.) m 1 11
7
VERIFY
Q ALIGN W/EX15T'6 t
1
`_15AIS76.15I I
5TROM I I
NORTH
SITE PLAN
SGAI E :1'-30'-O"
Parcel #4
`moo
11��d1�41 �
Z
ez9 ss
CIO,
cn
00 00
cn
a
FLOODPLRIN RRER to
w
CD
0
ss
030 � _ Q32
831
832 833
f 834 R ic I AP B''S 834
F DIA ROCK
DOWN SPOUT NOTE:
PROVIDE PVC BOOT E b'LINE TO EA. e
Do",r POUT. HOOK INTO PROP06ED 8•CPP. ROOF DRAINS
DRAIN PIPING. W $�
DOWNSEgLl�NOTE1
838
100 YERR FLOODPLRIN / / ' / J
CONTOUR — i Z N
ELEV. = 836.3 N
00 00
LD LD PROP95€D NEW BLDG. 9
��� / o FIN. FLR. 841 - - - PtIAL
PARKIW7
L9 LOT
/ GONG.
Lu
/ I ELEG. N.G.
/ I 840.7 SAN. B.F. PARKI
A 84fJ.7 B.F. SIGN o
/541.00
o ,
/ o_
ASPHALT APR
cuRe
/ SIGN .���
Q�
30. OAK—yp 1 �,
CIO 0 = 88%%D29'S2"
52.00' 842
N 00%%d44'S �W RRD. = 75.00'
EDGE F�M RSP T I E10'S►&NT RRORD = N22%%D55'06"W
LEGEND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MODIFIED
PERMIT
Permit No. 87-13-89
Date Issued June 23, 1987 \
Extended
Revised
Expires December 31, 1988
I
S �- '-1 This permit is granted under provisions of:
S "
S PS Partnership ® The Inland Lakes and Streams Act, 1972 P.A. 346, as amended.
E 1501 Rensen St. ❑ The Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, 1955 P.A. 247, as amended.
D Lansing, Michigan 48910 ® Flood Plain Regulatory Act, 1929 P.A. 245, as amended.
T J El The Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, 1979 P.A. 203.
0L ❑
Itted Activity
'lace approximately 20,000 cubic yards of clean inert fill in the floodplain and place
approximately 3 cubic yards of grouted rip rap for stormwater outfall construction in
accordance with the attached modified plans dated 6/23/87.
r Course Affected County Town Range Sect. Sub. and Lot Number
camore Creek Ingham N 2W
34
authority granted bV this permit Is subject to the following limitations:
initiation of any work on the permitted project confirms the permittee's acceptance and agreement to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit.
The permittee in exercising the authority granted by this permit shall not cause unlawful pollution as defined by Act No.245 of the Public Acts of 1929.as amended.
This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and available for inspection at all times during the duration of the project or until its date of expiration.
All work shall be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted with the application and/or plans and specifications attached hereto.
No attempt shall be made by the permittee to forbid the full and free use by the public of public waters at or adjacent to the structure or work approved herein.
It is made a requirement,of this permit that the permittee give notice to public utilities in accordance with Act 53 of the Public Acts of 1974,and comply with each of the
requirements of that act.
This permit does notconvey property rights in either real estateor material,nordoes it authorize any injury to private property or invasion of public or private rights.nor does itwaive
the necessity of seeking federal assent.all local permits or complying with other state statutes.
This permit does not prejudice or limit the right of a riparian owner or other person to institute proceedings in any circuit court of this state when necessaryto protect his rights.
Perrnittee shall notify the Department of Natural Resources within one week alter the completion of the activity authorized by this permit,by completing and forwarding the
attached,preaddressed post card to the office addressed thereon.
This permit shall not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the Department of Natural Resources.
Failure to comply with conditions of this permit may subject the permittee to revocation of permit and criminal and/or civil action as cited by the specific State Act.Federal Act
and/or Rule under which this permit is granted.
Work to be done under authority of this permit is further subject to the following special instructions and specifications:
'ill shall consist of inert materials which will not cause siltation nor contain soluble
:hemicals or organic matter which is biodegradable. All fill shall be contained in such —
t manner as not to erode into any watercourse. All raw banks shall be stabilized with sod,
teed, fertilizer and mulch or riprapped as necessary to prevent erosion.
.he floodplain fill shall be in accordance with plans received May 27, 1987 (portions attached)
ind held on file with the DNR 3335 Lansing Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49202.
.he 100 year floodplain elevation at this location is approximately 836.3.
'he spoils from any required dredging for riprap placement shall be placed at an upland site,
above the ordinary high water mark, leveled and stabilized with sod and/or seed, fertilizer
Ind mulched, in such a manner as not to erode into any waterbody or wetland.
GORDON E. GUYER
Director, Department of 'Natural Resources
c: TWMD—Tanci*nv, Region III
TWMD— Sub Control (8703 724) By
Lssino Ct ry r'T erk
M.. .u_tT— Rick Schramm
RS�11 PR 270(
Rev. 8/8 E
DZ A T OF CON FEC CEN TER
on fhe SE %4 of Section 34, T4N, 'RzIN
rn,vng, Ingham County, Michigan
L/NE -
33 1 _
U �
4 oR FG /4rrc/F
h I� `v\. :EELS c �!:+ULCr`�' SCa/e• /' = 6r.
N I !V ` w ! ALL FIL L.
O �' w 1,
1 O �I Tim
O
1 � 24'wk
�O h
,_ / �i67L� / ' r >J•I� .i�Ji IE ti N �!
p
LOCATION MAP
to Sca%
, ` _ Dc�ELDPc2
v /9 ' ISO/ Rensen nership
L.an5irr9, M,:Chigan 46
Phone: 517-393-9a/:
/L 8
l 7
S
06 L
propo5Cva Jotl:
3 < ooC y , ,� I ➢ Proposed G�rc
��• l f�'7 O Proposed Mar
o — Proposed 51'c
3
,. M
-DNr, 3P 81-13-aq
MODIrIEL) (P
rf� 7-0A P:5 c)ii ,L
Dr
r
1,401�_A 17- -5 R 7
Atib
Cj
rwic
-cl ore
>1
ZIP
-� 3G 'r34G'i \ 1 �' Q '� -.1''
Cl.
� ��-• ' .�3'• it ---�- `�\ I \•F�/'S�"'r'• � O
6-419
Cle v
Oi
00,
24-
TN
LONTEC-
/0
IL45,1 288 ; 11 �s```,V)
29 61
-3L.3'
—MA rCH L 11VIE
Act-21-97
Page 1 Vacation of the south 17' of public ROW at 3313
e Avenue
REVISED t. archHoo 12, 1998
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Summerhill Estates Apartments
3313 W. Mt. Hope Avenue
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Property owner.
REQUESTED ACTION: Vacation of the southern 17' of Mt. Hope Right-
of-Way (ROW)
EXISTING LAND USE: Public Street.
EXISTING ZONING: Un-zoned ROW
PROPOSED ZONING: Community Unit Plan (residential)
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 17' wide by 240' in length. '
SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: S°n Single es Res.
South: Condominiums
Estates apartments
East: Vacant
West: Trailer Park
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "A" Residential and "CUP"
South: "CUP" and "DM-1" Residential
East: "A" Residential
West: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The South West Master Plan denotes this area as
being moderate density residential with 7-14 dwelling
units per acre.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is interested in placing a 16 square foot
ground/pole sign closer to the sidewalk to identify their
apartment building.
Act-21-97
Page 2 Vacation of the south 17' of public ROW at 3313 W. Mt Hope Avenue
REVISED March 12, 1998
AGENCY RESPONSES Referrals were mailed on March 9, 1998, requested a return
response by March 16, 1998.
AMERITECH:
Assessor's Office: Copies of "Summerhill Subdivision" are attached. This is the
plat which dedicated 50' of ROW for Mt. Hope Ave. Any
descriptions which may be written to vacate this 17' must refer
to that plat.
Board of Water & Light:
Building Safety Office: No objection. Sign permit required if (requested action is)
approved.
Community Policing:
Consumer's Energy:
Development Office: Recommend you align ROW line, which this proposal seems
to accomplish.
Fire Marshall:
Media One:
Public Service Dept.:
Trans. Engineer:
ANALYSIS
History. The Summerhill Subdivision plat, consisting of one lot, was approved in 1978.
It dedicated the north 50' for the south portion of the Mt. Hope ROW, despite that
properties on both sides dedicated only 33' (see survey map). Thus, the total ROW width
is 83'; and the additional 17' is taken out of the subject property on the south side of Mt.
Hope.
The applicant is interested in placing a 16 square foot ground/pole sign within the right-of-
way to identify their apartment building. The property is zoned "Community Unit Plan"
which allows one ground pole sign setback 20' from the right of way according to Section
1442.12(8) of the Lansing Sign Code. So Due to the substantial right of way width and
mature vegetation, the applicant can not meet this requirement for sign placement. An
application to the Board of Zoning Appeals may be necessary, even if this portion of the
ROW is vacated.
Act-21-97
Page 3 Vacation of the south 17' of public ROW at 3313
REVISED t. Hope
h Avenue
The placement of the sign anywhere on the property is virtually prohibited due to the
mature vegetation. The only alternatives for relief to the applicant are:
1. Placement of the sign in the ROW. This was the first proposal requested by the
applicant. Private improvements in the public ROW, though not recommended by
Public Service and the Transportation Engineer, have been permitted by license in
the past.
2. Vacation of the excess 17' of ROW, and an application for a zoning variance.
EVALUATION
The Planning Board, in accord with Act 285, Public Acts of 1931, is required to review and
make recommendations regarding location, character and extent of this project.
CHARACTER
The 3300 block of Mt. Hope Avenue's right-of-way varies between 66' and 83' wide. Due
to the width of the right of way at this location a sign meeting setback requirements could
very between being located 33' & 50' from the edge of the road. The applicant is
concerned that a sign placed 50' from the edge of the road would not be visible to visitors
and emergency response vehicles.
LOCATION
The location of the sign located 5' behind the back edge of sidewalk, as proposed, would
not be a visual barrier to motor vehicles tuning into the subject or neighboring parcels.
Currently there is no real means of identifying the apartment building which causes for
confusion to motor vehicle operators who are searching for the site.
EXTENT
The 83' ROW is an anomaly along W. Mt. Hope, and occurs only in front of 3313 W. Mt.
Hope. In effect, the City has 17' of spare ROW that goes nowhere, while the applicant's
property is subject to a hardship situation - a hardship compounded by the irregularity in
ROW widths.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the City vacate the southern 17' of the ROW in front of the
property located at 3313 W. Mt. Hope Avenue.
REVISED March 12,1998
WCR\C:\OFFICE\W PW IMWPDOCS\97ACTS\9721ACT\9721ACT.FE
X MOORE: ER DR. 49.5'W.OF LOT .WE LOT 21/TA. ZS 0.00 0.00 0.00 3; 10
X MOORES RIVER DR. R.O.W. TAPERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 3301-20
X MOORES RIVER DR. W. LINE LOT 21 PATTENGILL AVE. 66.00 28.00 19.00 3301-20
X MOORES RIVER DR. PATTENGILL AVE. S. M.L.KING/LOGAN ST. 66.00 32.00 0.00 3301-20
X MOORES RIVER DR. S. M.L.KING/LOGAN ST. W. LINE SEC.21 66.00 28.00 19.00 3301-20
X MOORES RIVER DR. W. LINE SEC.21 N./S. MOORES RIVER DR. 160.00 0.00 0.00 3301-21
X MOORES RIVER DR. BEND AT THE GRAND RIVER SPARROW AVE. 66.00 28.00. 19.00 3301-21
X MOORES RIVER DR. THE GRAND RIVER-SPARROW FORMERLY PART OF BEAL 66.00 0.00 0.00 3301-21
X MOORES RIVER DR. 115.5'PLATTED E. 49.5'VACATED 66.00 0.00 0.00 3301-21
X MOORES RIVER DR. BEAL AVE. S.WASHINGTON AVE. 66.00 30.00 18.00 3301-21
X MORGAN ST. HAZEL ST. CLIMAX ST. 60.50 26.00 17.25 3301-22
X MORNINGSIDE DR. DELTA RIVER DR. SUNNYLANE 60.00 30.00 15.00 3301-06
X MOSELEY AVE. TURNER ST. GARY AVE. 50.00 26.00 12.00 3301-04
X MOSELEY AVE. GARY AVE. :.WINSTONAVE. 50.00 26.00 12.00 3301-04
X MOSHER ST. PROSPECT ST. N. LINE LOT 12 25.00 0.00 0.00 3301-15
X MOSHER ST. N. LINE LOT 12 N. LINE LOT 1 25.00 0.00 0.00 3301-15
X MOSHER ST. VACATED C.P. 04-16-67 25.00 0.00 0.00 3301-15
X MOTOR AVE. S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. DONORA ST. 50.00 26.00 12.00 3301-22
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. W. OF EXPRESSWAY LANSING RD. 66.00 0.00 0.00 2304-00
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. ABOVE IS IN DELTA TWP. 66.00 0.00 0.00 2304-00
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. MOORES RIVER DR. E. LINE ELKS CLUB 0.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. TAPERS TO 76.02' 0.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. E. LINE ELKS CLUB E. LINE#3407 - 66.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. E. LINE#3407 E. LINE#3313 83.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. E. LINE#3313 N.S. CL SEC. 30 66.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. N.S. CL SEC.30 BEDFORD RD. 83.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. BEDFORD RD. EDWIN PLACE 90.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. EDWIN PLACE PLEASANT GROVE RD. 83.00 0.00 0.00 19/30
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. PLEASANT GROVE RD. BOSTON BLVD. 83.00 0.00 0.00 20/29
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. BOSTON BLVD. PATTENGILL AVE. 83.00 0.00 0.00 20/29
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. PATTENGILL AVE. S. M.L.KING/LOGAN ST. 66.00 0.00 0.00 20/29
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. S. M.L.KING/LOGAN ST. BEAL AVE. 66.00 0.00 0.00 20/29
W. MOUNT HOPE AVE. BEAL AVE. S. WASHINGTON AVE. 66.00 0.00 0.00 21128
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. S.WASHINGTON AVE. 79'W. OF S. CEDAR ST. 76.00 0.00 0.00 21/28
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. 79'W. OF S. CEDAR ST. S. CEDAR ST. 73.00 0.00 0.00 21/28
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. S.CEDAR ST. BAILEY ST. 66.00 0.00 0.00 21/28
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. BAILEY ST. S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. 66.00 0.00 0.00 22127
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. S. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. LINDBERGH DR. 66.00 0.00 0.00 22/27
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. LINDBERGH DR. AURELIUS RD. 66.00 0.00 0.00 22/27
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. AURELIUS RD. PRIVATE RD. "B" 66.00 0.00 0.00 23/26
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE.. ABOVE IS LANSING/EAST LANSING CITY LIMITS TO THE NORTH 66.00 0.00 0.00 23126
E. MOUNT HOPE AVE. PRIVATE RD."B" END SEC.26/346.5' E. OF US-127 66.00 0.00 0.00 23/26
City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development 11/14/94
_. --`•ems ... ... -
. fit` �� /'�'. , *Y••�h}',`p .1_.
e
ry
oft
OF
AdW
{•� � • �
Summer E states777777
• • � •� • .
' �i�{ 5�:��� �d �k+�f CSF ;�r����y��II �V�F� f`.II- �1,')'`�i,t F�••�a.: + ` t ','.
.� ��j. -. ,•� U•1 (11�•• dtw / b.ll./ � ` t Y �,1 �{r'`'�:t,'."t` F nl' .. t
s.uE�4..I., •!', 1 t w �� �1/ y i• � r. a, !";" 1 ��._ l _ `•I
tL.L JJ n :S1 rF :7 or Al
ORIG, r� �j Jfrf LOCAT/O/V MAP
SUMMERH/LL L �.
A SUBDIVISION ON PART OF THE NW%4 _
OF SECTION 30,T4NP R2W, CITY OF LANSING,
INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN• � s
. o.
wIIrwww=
SCALE/:N.a/OOFr.
2170' 300' 400• G,y99°
f�
NOr rO
XaLE
We MT. HOPE AVENUE
Po/NT OF
{�E6/ivN�NB
E
eAST NYt COR.I -
SEC.-70
F\
SUPMOR'S CERTIFICATE
1 I, FRED N. WHITE. SUH9ET01, CERTIFY:
That I have surveyed, divided and upped the land .how on this
r,
LZCEmD plat, described ea IOU-
1. SOMMERHILL, a subdivision on part of the NW1/4 of Section 30,T4N, 12V,
O O I. All dimensions are L.fact. Clcy of Laming, Ingho County, Michigan, deacrilxd as: Ba[l-In&on th.
4' 2. Concrete Mowaents have been placed North line oL.dd Section 30, 720.00 feet Vert, of [he Nor h 1/4 cetwr
h H at s11 points marked"o". - of Seetiom J0, T<N, 82V; thence SOOo02'S5"E, 815.00 Ceec; chance due
O1. Bearings vera established from the L'eat, 240.J0 tee c; [hence NOOo02'S5"W, E15.00 feet to the North line of
- recorded plat of Veotchaster ae Section 30. T4N, R2W; theme. alon[said North llaa due Fiat, 140.00 toe[
C`J ` and 46eo !n Libor 14, pages 45 to the point of beginning. Containing 1 lot, numbered 1.
and 46 of the Ingham County Records.
}-� That 2 tore.ads such surrey, land-divi.lon and plot by the dir•cciom
�.� of cha orura of such land.
7h such plot is•correct reproen[a[So�of all the ucerior boundaries
of the land .urv.yed and the suW iv1.ion
``
That the required a
dc�: mark—have been
located in the r ewed
orethec surety h.. be.n icedvich ch.municipalityueqirad by
Socim 125 of th Att.
EXAMINED AND APPROVED That ha)<t.
cha accuracy of anrvey is richla the limits required by Seaton 126
c Date Cr 30. /978 of c
That cha bearings shorn on the plat are expressed as required by Section 126
(J) of ch.Act and u explained in the Legend.
LO N E MONROE e/ ��Th 1976 FIED WHITE ENGINEEIIlIC COMPANY
27DO North Grand 11eer Avomua
ATE RER {�m.ifg. Nlchig an 48906
b
1 � .tl�,1 E.lmn•�,Fbf F .
00 zed N. Whlce, PA, i I.L.S. Pr..id.nt
west zao.oa'
Registraciom tha.b.[- 12034
i/-1-PL A T r O, o�-\
.. e`�. FSt 0 N.\•.WHIHIiE 1
-• LAND 1.
- " SURVEYDR
... rays leaf ti
SUMMEh'�/lain =he_o.y cer_i[ ue this :s a rroe
and a rrect ruetion of th.plat
ordef1'h'eodffkct f eaka [ %A SUBDIVIS/ON ON PARTOF THE N4COF SEMON 30 TQNR2W, C/TY OF LANSING,INGHAM COUNTY, M/CHIGANa f, :e
F pRigTo1'S CERTIFICATE-CO-PARTNERSHIP PROPRIET01'S CERTIFICATE-COInUTION APPROVAL IT PLANN=NC BOARD
Suammrhlll Isveotaent Company, a Michigan Co-partnerahlp duly organized Union Saving.and Loan, a corporation duly organized and existing This plat vas approved by the Planning board of the City of Lensing on
and-1.tlng under the lava of the State of Michigan by, Jnote L. under the lava of the State of Michigan, by lichard F. Burnai.t.r, the J O'yM day of v7y i E 197C.
�ppinatall, C_artnar, Deloyce b. brooks, Co-partner and Paul E. Welch, President, and Kenneth W. White, Secretary-TYas.ucar. u proprietors, �0 _
Co—partner, u proprietors, has eawad the land embraced in thin plat to be hem caused the Lend to he
surveyed, divided,mapped and d dI_t.d u
survay.d, divided, upped and dedicated as represented on this plat and repr....red no this pint and that the A— Is far the use.of the
Chet the Avenue Is for the use of the public and that the public utility public; that the public utility easements u asts are pr3vae amment*and an E. Tubbs-Seeretary
eu�.nto are private oasaments and that all other enameentn are for the that .11 other aaammant.are
-for the uses ahovo ao the plat.
man.sham¢on the plat.
UNION SAVZNCi AND LOAN �
Summerh111 Ioves[aeat Company 121 W. Allegan
a Fad 0A 1n hA Cun oty cla k, A Michigan Co-Li,elthl Pvrnerzn;�• Lan� an 1.g, Michig 48911
,Air. June I,1975,FiE t6.111. 3313 W. Mt. Hops Avenue
Ianainl. 111 his. i8910
Svian edcnb_d�de Witness RS hard F. Burmeister, President
amee L. H.ppins
Co-Partner
SA,r/ry Pokko/a Witness landeth'W. White, Secretary- CERTI FIUTE OF MUNICIPAL APPRUVAL
���✓�Z /J ,t Treasurer
Jv/,tA E.Ngp.n. I/ Wi:uu De qu L Bcaela / I certify the trio la[vas /p approved py the City Council of the
City of Lan.log at a mea[SnS hold_p �
Co-Partner ,' and van revleved and found to be 1 pliance vfth 288, P.A.
ACKIIOWLED KENT-CORPORATION of 1967.and foot pubhc x,.ar .,d pvbbc ..a+r..se-..vas hoe
bheg ,gh/a,/rd and are ready tar ran¢ t,
>/ - "" •^'L�� STATE OF MICHICAN ):'... li
[4rnefh A.By//en Wits.■ Paul E. Welch Inghmm County )S:'5: K.f�// /
Co-Partner
Then Talton-Clark
Personally came before me thin RS+L,day of 197,3,
Richard P. Burmeister, President, and Kenneth W.•1/l&'k Sacrr a. -ACi1101f1r20EfT-CO-PARTNERSHIP Traa.urer of the above named corporation, to me know to be the
par no vho executed the foregoing inatrumant, and to ma know to
X.Sh OF MICRZW) S.S. b.e such president and aecretary-traanurar of said corporation, and
I'sbom ea.ty acknwledS.d clot that' c cutad the foregoing inmtrume.t .n.sucb
hrweally tmms before sa this .:47 d.y of 'PAL'- 1976 officers a the tree act and deed of said orpor tion, by It authority.
Ira L. Dappinstal , Co-partner, Deloyce L. Drooka,'Co-partner and }.ul e
1. Wlcb, Co-partner, of the above named Co partoarship, to me know to Notary Public 1. 7I ./.�.G- ,t/ Iegham County, Ydthlgan COUNTY PLAT'
CERTIFICATE
be tb.persona mho axecuted tha foregoing inn tr t, and to ma know to 3�++an er
M the Co-part—m of .AIL Co-Partnership, and acknovledged that they My Coemladon Expires
e:—tied the foregoing Iv trument as sutj Co-partner.u the tree act and This plat h .-been revieved and is approved by the Inaha,County Plat
deed of said Co-}a:tsa[ship, by Lt.authority. board oo a.!'..,,1;T a! />i`� as be Los in capl iance wick
/n1 nn all of the pro Leloos of Act 288, P.A. 1967, and the plat board's
Notary Public [Li�i � 1f 7'A/�� I.Shaa County, Hichigan applicable rules nod regulation..
6unr �/<n
My Cammlonien Expl[.. -
(,
COVNIT 7PLLSURl1'S CE1TItIGTE
Th. records in my office sbw no unpaid taxis or special assen went. Paula /d�Aagist.r of Dead•
far the flea yore preceding (LJd%, .:L z, /f7A, Sovoly ing
the land• ioclud ed in this plat. 7
myy r. County Clark
Ingham R.Moore-County Tr.aourcr OF �`,„ i
Ingham County, Micblgan
� I � Dhnaae :Z M -County Ttaasurar
t;
g
rj
f .y�a,�� RECORDING CERTIFICATR
COUNTY DRAIN C01"111IONER'S CERT11ICA1P Stac oT Mlcl,igan)
Ingham County )
rfREREO N.\• Approval u complying with Section 192 of
WHITE �e Act 288, P.A. 1967 and the applicable—I.. and regulation.published This plat van
received,,for record on the S -LT day of ro21E lL
f.i IANO • by n otfie. in tha County of Ingho �
. A.D. 1976 c /'p(J M. sr, r...rded In Lib _127 of Plat oe
{ SURVET(Nt I� �3Zi //✓�it/f/
R s+`. 12Oba �v y P.goa.aL.13Z
irss._"—�yvm, Richard L. Soda-Drain Commissioner '
Ilan
paaw r - laglsts[o!used¢
S
K IaoflC p'4V�
L-- — MT HOPE ST.
3 40
t/1' w J►•7
't
00\ II �+
10\ �
i
a`
S
0
zw• �