Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 Planning Board Oct-Dec Minutes FINAL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 1998 APPROVED OCTOBER 20, 1998 with one correction Draft 101998 Pg 9 Ln 6.45"Pos 6.58 Mr. Ruge asked if it was necessary to mention sidewalks in the motion; Approved 102098 Mr.Rage GOOLSBY said no, costs of sidewalks if installed would be assessed against the To Clerk 102798 property owners. Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall _. 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, October 6, 1998 ; 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge; Smith; seven members present. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Frederick phoned for an excused absence because of illness. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, voice vote; Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried unanimously. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Memo dated October 6, 1998 from Harriett Dean-Kennedy, representative of Edison Avenue Neighborhood, regarding Z-14-98, 2325 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District, in opposition. B. Letter dated October 1, 1998 from Paul Dykema, Forestry Manager, Parks and Recreation Dept., to Mr. Richard A. Cooley regarding Z-11-98 and PRD- 3-98, Projected treatment of the area along Forest Road being in compliance with the intent and provisions of the adopted SCENIC CORRIDOR ROW MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES & PROCEDURES. C. Letter dated October 6, 1998 from Ted VanDeventer, President, Equity Max, Inc., to Honorable David Hollister, Mayor, regarding Change in Requested Zoning District in Case Z-11-98, requesting a change in their request from "DM-1" Residential District to "C" Residential District. D. Phone call dated October 6, 1998 from Joyce Bowles, Cherry Hill Historic District resident regarding Z-15-98, 213 and 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. She is concerned about the intrusion of the proposed development into the neighborhood. E. Packet of information from Stephanie Whitbeck, Chairman, Lansing Historic District Commission regarding Z-15-98, 213 and 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 2 F. Memo from Linda Peckham, regarding Z-15-98, 213 and 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District and Act-16-98, E. St. Joseph St., Vacate from Cherry St. to Grand Ave, in opposition. G. Highlights from the Eighth Annual State Historic Preservation Office Fall Workshop submitted by Mr. Smith.. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-14-98, 2325 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Clarence R. Wasson, lessee with an option to buy, representing the owner, Andy Po Chee Yuen, to rezone property located at 2325 S. Cedar Street from "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District. Mr. Ruff reviewed the surrounding zoning, uses and development. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the area for residential development, but typically with the frontage designated for commercial. The applicant proposes to use the structure as a tanning salon. Mr. Ruge asked if screening and buffering would be required between this property and the residential properties to the east. Mr. Ruff said yes, and explained types of buffering and landscaping. There is an asphalt parking lot with 16 spaces, and a driveway on Cedar and one or two driveways off Edison. R. DEAN GALLIMORE, 2101 LYONS AVENUE, LANSING, representing Clarence Wasson, who presented a survey of the property. He is in Hawaii and asked me to come tonight. HARRIETT DEAN-KENNEDY, 516 EDISON AVE., LANSING. With me tonight is Lee Kennedy, and Mike and Ardis Peasley. We are here representing residents of Edison Street. I sent a letter on behalf of the residents. I also have a petition for action signed by every resident of Edison Avenue who was of legal voting age and a property owner asking that the zoning remain Professional Office and not be changed to commercial. Our concern is that even though there is a section of residential property between 2325 S. Cedar and Edison Avenue, there is an entrance onto Edison Avenue as well as onto Cedar Street. Anyone using the Cedar Street entrance can go out onto Edison Avenue. There are 4-6 parking spaces on Edison Avenue that are accessible to that building. It would cause traffic on Edison Avenue. While we don't oppose growth in our community, we are concerned that by rezoning from Professional Office to commercial we will have increased traffic and noise at times after PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 3 nontraditional office hours. Nearby offices have traditional hours so that in evenings and on weekends, there is not the traffic, noise, banging car doors, and headlights. We are also concerned about our property values with additional commercialization. With access from Edison Avenue into the facility, it will cause increased traffic in our neighborhood. There being no one further wishing to comment, the chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-14-98, 2325 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday, October 14, 1998. B. Z-15-98, 213 & 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District and C. Act-26-98, E. St. Joseph St., Vacate from Cherry St. to Grand Avenue. Mr. Ruff presented Z-15-98, a request by LJ Properties, L.L.C., to rezone a portion of the property located at 213 & 221 E. St. Joseph St. from "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. The applicant proposes to combine the parcels for a cohesive office redevelopment project. The proposal is also associated with Act-26-98, a request for vacation of E. St. Joseph Street from Cherry St. to Grand Avenue. Mr. Ruge asked about the square footage of the proposed office building and about access to Cherry Street. Mr. Ruff answered 20,000-24,000 sq. ft. in the proposed building. The petitioner will supply additional site plan information tonight. MARK LATTERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER. Mr. Laskey, the petitioner, is also here. One of the main purposes here is to preserve the Kerr House. (Showed buildings with overlays of two proposed plans). Plan A is to leave the Kerr House where it is and place it inside as part of a new building. Plan B would be to move it to the residential section where it would serve as a buffer to the neighborhood. Both plans preserve the Kerr House in those different areas. We communicated with Planning staff and the Historic District Commission. Mr. Laskey and I attended those meetings. It would be a brick building that would add to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith asked about the Kerr House siding material. Mr. Laskey said it is wood. Mr. Smith asked "Are you proposing to hide this building with a new facade?" Mr. Laskey replied that one of the plans, presented as an alternative, would be a delicate balance. There is a residential neighborhood and a professional office area off Grand, and an important historic structure within this acre of property. We have searched for the best way to do it; leave the building where it is, or to move it. The other concept was to reduce it to its true historic size and then move it to Grand Avenue, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 4 or to the Cherry Street side to serve as a buffer in a prominent position where it can be noticed and seen as a true historic structure. This building was built in the 1800s and apparently originally sat on Grand Avenue. Mr. Ruge asked if the Kerr House would be used for office. Mr. Laskey again mentioned Plan A and Plan B. If it is located in the professional office area, then it would be used as office. If it were moved to the west side of Cherry St., it would be used as residential. STEPHANIE WHITBECK, 620 W. IONIA, Chair of Lansing Historic District Commission. We have been working with Mr. Laskey and Mr. Latterman. Because of the magnitude of this one, we have consulted with staff at the State Historic Preservation office. We have had on site the State Architect and the person responsible for National Register nominations. Please look at this packet and photographs of the buildings. On the Kerr House, we are trying to find out where it was located, and whether it faced St. Joe or Grand. It is a pre-Civil War house, built between 1855 and 1860 by John A. Kerr who was born in England and came from New York. He was on the first Common Council of Lansing in 1859. In 1860 he was the first mayor. He was owner and co-publisher of State Republican newspaper, predecessor to the Lansing State Journal. In all the historic books about Lansing, he is mentioned. He is an important person. This particular piece of property is one of the most historic ones that we have had the opportunity to discuss with you and any developer. Its care is of critical importance as one of the .last two temple mount Greek revivals in the city, one of the few that survive from this period. The attempt to incorporate it into the building will be difficult; lining up floors and dealing with new and old construction is difficult. The state architect's concern was that what might happen is a "facade-ectomy"--three to six feet of the facade would remain, and the guts won't be there. The photographs also give views into the Historic District, together with the other three buildings that are proposed for demolition. They are not in the current historic district, but all of this area is in the proposed Capitol Historic District, adjacent to an existing historic district, and in a potential National Register district. All of it is of concern. This proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan, with the River Island Master Plan, with the Cherry Hill Development Plan, and with the proposed Central Lansing Development Plan. That plan has the entire block for residential, even though several of the properties are already zoned "D-1" Office. We are concerned about an idea inconsistent with every aspect of the Master Plan. We are concerned about the size of this development. It also involves 120 parking places on the land. We think it is too intense for the neighborhood, and that it violates the Master Plan. Engulfing the building or moving it to the other location makes this project incapable of receiving a 20 percent federal historic tax credit. We would like to work on incentives that make this project feasible for this developer. We are concerned that this proposal is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 5 not a final draft. There is a buy-sell agreement that expires October 13. The proposal is not tied down; it is in draft form. PENELOPE GODFREY, 609 CHERRY ST. My family moved to Michigan in the early 1800s. My great-great grandfathers helped to settle this area. They had a farm on Lenawee, subdivided, and built houses. Many houses my grandfathers built have been torn down. I bought a house and lived in it six months. I don't want to see my neighborhood destroyed. I go to North Town for antiques and culture. I don't see it in this end of Lansing. I see Victorian houses with the insides torn out. I am tired of this. JOYCE BOWLES, 220 E. HILLSDALE. I have lived in the area for 40 years. My understanding is that the Kerr House was never on Grand. The house that was on the corner of Grand and St. Joe that faced on Grand was the original Governor's Mansion. Actually, it was two governors' mansions. Next door was a duplex built in the twenties that was torn down. There is another duplex that is still there. The governor's mansion was built in 1880. If this house was moved, it was moved only a few feet on St. Joe, and has never been on Grand. We are encapsulated by the freeway on one side and the river on another. That end of St. Joe is closed. If people come off Grand, there is going to be a traffic build-up there where you come around a steep curve and can't see the entrances until you are around the corner. Which means they are going to come down Hillsdale, around Cherry and up that way to get in which is going to increase the traffic tremendously, especially if it is a 25,000 sq. ft. building. I am opposed to this. PENNY STRANG, 6218 BROOKLINE CT., EAST LANSING, representing Cherry Hill. I currently own four buildings in Cherry Hill on E. St. Joseph, and I am also in the process of negotiating two more properties on the corner of Cherry and E. St. Joe. I have been in the neighborhood numerous years, and I have watched the properties we are discussing slowly deteriorate. Several of the homes we are discussing are a constant problem in the neighborhood because of the types of people living there. I see this as a situation that might be a plus for the neighborhood. I know that is not popular here right now, but if that house was brought around to Cherry St. and we brought our sign from off Grand into the neighborhood, it would anchor the area. It might create more green space, have the house preserved, and still serve the historical concerns. We would be bringing more traffic in to Cherry Hill because of the drive on Cherry Street. Grand is proposed to be two-way. You would see less traffic going out the back. You can say"I don't want it," but what are you going to get? Buildings falling down, less attractive to look at. I see this as something we could work with. As representative for my side of the neighborhood, I would like to see something done, and perhaps not exactly as here, but a workable plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 6 think it would be a plus for the neighborhood. I appreciate Stephanie talking about money for the neighborhood, because everybody has plans for Cherry Hill, but it's somebody else's dollar we are spending. There being no one further wishing to comment, the chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-15-98, 213 & 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "DA" Professional Office District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday, October 14, 1998. Act-26-98, E. St. Joseph St., Vacate from Cherry St. to Grand Avenue will be referred to the Urban Development Committee meeting Tuesday, October 13, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by IBS Properties, Inc., owners, to rezone property located at 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth from "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District . The applicant wishes to use the area for parking to supplement the adjacent building located at 827 E. Michigan Avenue. The East Michigan Revitalization Plan recommends this area for parking. Mr. Ruff also reviewed surrounding land use and zoning. The request encompasses four pieces of land, three with structures, and one 8.5-ft.-wide strip that was purchased and incorporated into this proposed rezoning. MARK LATTERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE PETITIONER. The petitioner himself, Mr. Setter of IBS Properties, is also here. We don't have anything to add to staff's report. This is consistent with the East Michigan Revitalization Plan. We are pleased to move forward and get this property more in line with some of the reconstruction on E. Michigan Avenue. THOMAS J. FOSTER, 204 N. EIGHTH ST., resident. I came to voice my support for the rezoning. I live in the house on the corner of Eighth and Jerome; I share the house and take care of the house and also my grandmother who is approaching her ninetieth year. In the thirty-plus years she has lived in the area, she has seen many changes, ups and downs. I spoke with Mr. Setter a couple months ago, and was happy to hear he was interested in getting rid of these properties. The houses have not been maintained. They are dilapidated rental units, some boarded. In the one- hundred block of Michigan Avenue, there is no residential from Sparrow Hospital to the Capitol. I fully support the request. There being no one further wishing to comment, the chairman announced the close of the public hearing for Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth St., PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 7 "DM-Y Residential to "J" Parking District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday, October 14, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - 8:05-8:25 p.m. During the recess, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee met and considered Z-11-98, PRD-3-98, Hunt Club, 3115-3205 Forest Road. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 1, 1998; September 15, 1998. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve the minutes of September 1, 1998 as presented. Voice vote (7-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of September 1, 1998 were APPROVED. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve the minutes of September 15, 1998 as presented. Voice vote (7-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of September 15, 1998 were APPROVED. Minutes from mid-summer meetings will be presented for approval soon. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Goolsby, Chair. a. Z-11-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District and PRD-3-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development. At the Planning Board meeting several weeks ago, board members and area citizens raised concerns. Following that, at the committee meeting, further discussion ensued. After meeting with the neighborhoods and addressing their concerns, the developer now has support from the neighborhoods. More meetings were held with residents, city representatives. The developer has responded with a modified plan which reduces the number of units from 164 to 144, lines up the entry way with Staten Avenue, and eliminates the gates, a concern of the Fire and Police Departments. Another consideration was the scenic corridor. A copy of a letter from the City Forester indicates that the project's treatment of the area along Forest Road is in compliance with PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 8 the scenic corridor, and everyone now seems reassured that the regulations have been followed. We also received a letter with the developer requesting an amendment in the rezoning request from "DM-1" to "C" Residential District. The committee found that the development complies with the Master Plan; the impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be extensive; the environmental impact is within acceptable levels, and it will not have detrimental impact on future development. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny Z-11-98, 3115-3205 Forest Road, "A" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Goolsby . Ave Greiner. . .Ave Keene. . . Ave Miller . .Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-11-98, 3115-3205 Forest Road, "A" Residential District to "DM-1" Residential District was DENIED. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded 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-11-98, 3115-3205 Forest Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Greiner. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Miller . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-11-98, 3115-3205 Forest Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District was APPROVED. b. PRD-3-98, 3115 and 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development This is a request for multiple family development which is not incompatible with the surrounding area. Although the densities in the area are a little lower than the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 9 proposed, this development is still within the appropriate density for the type of zoning. It is in compliance with Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan, and it will have minimal impact on traffic. Regarding environmental impacts, there is a wetland on the property; however, it is not a regulated wetland. The applicant intends to retain it. The committee believes that "C" Residential approval for Z-11-98 and approval of PRD-3-98 will help future plans calling for greater density in the area. The committee was satisfied with the amendment to the original proposal. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend approve of PRD-3-98, 3115-3205 Forest Road, as amended. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded Mr. Greiner, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy- of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve PRD-3-98, 3115 and 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development, subject to the property being rezoned to the "C" Residential District according to the plan dated September 25, 1998, and the developer's compliance with all requirements of applicable state, federal and local laws and ordinances. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked if it was necessary to mention sidewalks in the motion; Mr. RUV GOOLSBY said no, costs of sidewalks if installed would be assessed against the property owners. Mr. Ruge asked about 36 visitor parking spaces for 144 units. Mr. Ruff said there are 18 formalized and 18 informal spaces. No parking would be allowed along main private streets. Two buildings have been eliminated, so more room is now available around the remaining buildings. Parking spaces around the front of the development are more important. The driveways will be longer, so more parking space opens up in front of the units. Going through site plan review, we will discuss how to incorporate additional parking locations. There are proposed locations for one or two spaces in landscape islands and in turn-arounds. There is potential for more of that; however, details have not as yet been determined. They are trying to provide a reasonable number for the size of the development. Keene. . . Ave Miller . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . Ave Goolsby . . Ave Greiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Ave Ruge. . .Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 10 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; PRD-3-98, 3115 and 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development was APPROVED. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan. Mr. Nischan reported that the committee met on September 29, 1998. a. Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer, Acquisition for City Use The State of Michigan has offered to sell/donate the vacant warehouse at 506 S. Hosmer to the City of Lansing for $1.00. The City is in need of storage space, and wishes to acquire this property. Staff recommends approval of Act-23-98, the acquisition of 506 S. Hosmer (PPN 3301-15-351-051), for use for various public uses, including storage space and consolidation of other City operations, provided that prior to the sale both a financial impact statement, showing the benefits and costs of acquisition and any necessary renovations, and an environmental assessment are conducted and submitted. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal, that the City needs additional storage space and may need space for operations, that with extensive renovation, the property may have potential for operations, as well as for locally supportive uses (e.g., meeting space, etc.), and that the property is in need of exterior maintenance to improve its appearance. In committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-23-98, Acquisition of 506 S. Hosmer, for various public uses, including storage space and consolidation of other City operations, provided that prior to the sale both a financial impact statement, showing the benefits and costs of acquisition and any necessary renovations, and an environmental assessment are conducted and submitted, and with the strong suggestion that the City work with the Hosmer Neighborhood Association to improve the aesthetics of the building and grounds, and to develop locally supportive public uses for the property as space permits. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to approve Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer Street, Acquisition for City Use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 11 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried, unanimous; Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer Street, Acquisition for City Use was APPROVED. b. Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan The committee reviewed a list of recommended inclusions that had been developed by the steering group subsequent to the printing of the document and tabled it again. At future meetings, the first 40 pages of the plan will be considered. Next meeting Tuesday, October 13, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Mr. Rieske said the committee will have two meetings this month. A tentative schedule calls for reviewing the Central Lansing Comprehensive plan and meeting every two weeks to complete the review. 4. -Executive Committee - Mr. Greiner. The committee met at 5:30 p.m. prior to the Planning Board meeting to discuss the process and plan for revising the master plan for the entire city. It is an ongoing process for which we will continue to meet at the same time before future board meetings until we are done. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love reported on progress on the Groundwater Management System. Two resolutions will be going to City Council in upcoming weeks, one a resolution in which the City Council will affirm their support of wellhead protection. The second will be a resolution pledging their support and that of their staff(the Planning staff to work on a groundwater management plan which will involve an application to the EPA for a grant for Sustainable Communities. The grant, which must be submitted by November 24, 1998, will be for $250,000. For the Sustainable Communities grant, we wanted to demonstrate that there is a commitment on the part of the Planning Board to involve groundwater planning in our upcoming master plans, since it is not an element considered at present. There is a possibility that the Board may use the expertise of Mr. Miller to write a letter on behalf of the Board stating its commitment to groundwater planning and including that in our master plans in the future. The letter could be included in the grant. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 12 Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to ask Mr. Miller to write a letter supporting the Planning Board's continued efforts to include groundwater planning in all master planning efforts for above-ground planning for the protection of groundwater. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; the motion to ask Mr. Miller to write a letter supporting the Planning Board's continued efforts to include groundwater planning in all master planning efforts for above-ground planning for the protection of groundwater was APPROVED. Chairman Ruge thanked Mr. Miller for helping the Board in the area of groundwater protection. Continuing, Ms. Love said several items will be on the City Council Agenda for Monday, October 12, including the rezoning and special land use for Neogen, and the granting of a license to Harry Hepler for a piece of property adjacent to his building on Race Street near Turner. The license will allow him to use part of that land for a deck off the side of his building. When completed, it will probably be a restaurant. We are continuing to work on a parking plan for North Lansing. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Planninq 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. Cor. 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) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 13 h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - Election of Officers 1998-99. Mr. Ruge was named Chairman 1998-99; Mr. Greiner was named Vice Chairman. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge commented about Planning Board procedures. The Planning Board operates under Mason's Rules of Order. Under Mason's Rules, a second is not required for a motion. Ms. Love agreed to verify this. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Nischan requested and was granted an excused absence for October 20, and November 3, 1998. Mr. Greiner requested and was granted an excused absence for October 20, 1998. Mr. Smith, who attended the Eighth Annual State Historic Preservation Office Fall Workshop on Friday, September 25, 1998, provided notes. Mr. Smith obtained the book Save Our Land Save Our Towns by Thomas Hylton from the Urban Planning Library. The cultural landscape is currently being looked at as a historic preservation need. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked if there were new developments on the Grand Avenue-Michigan Avenue parking lot. Mr. Ruff said on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, he will mail a certified letter, return receipt requested, to the Summit Partners, the listed owner of both pieces of property. They will have until November 6 to respond with an implementation plan; if no response is received, the matter will be referred to the office of the City Attorney for action. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 14 Regarding the Quick Oil Change business in the 2300 Block of S. Cedar, Mr. Ruge asked if it is in the enforcement area? They are a blatant violator of the sign ordinance. Mr. Ruff said the violations have been addressed and will be again. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board =100698\47 3115-3205 Forest Road page 1 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units AMENDED STAFF REPORT Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98 "The Hunt Club" 3115-3205 Forest Road The attached staff reports on Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98 have been amended since the Zoning and Ordinance met on September 9, 1998. Several meetings were held between the applicant, Forest View neighborhood representatives and City Staff to discuss concerns about the proposed development. The attached information, submitted to our office (9/28/98)by Richard Cooley regarding the Hunt Club proposal includes: a"Letter of Request" highlighting the revisions to the original plan; the Site Plan (revised 9/25/98) showing those revisions; and a Phasing Plan to show how the project will progress. A full scale plan is provided to show all text at a more readable scale. The basic results of the revisions include a reduction in the number of residential buildings from 18 to 16, a reduction in the number of units from 164 to 144 and an increase in green space within the development. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Equity Max, Inc. 4921 W. St. Joseph Lansing, MI 48917 OWNER: Owner of 3115 and 3205 Forest Road Frank Smith Forest Nursery Inc. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Equity Max, Inc. is requesting approvals necessary to permit the development of 144 two-bedroom unit apartments at 3115-3205 Forest Road. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1. Rezoning: The requested rezoning, from "A" Residential (Single Family Zoning District) to "DM-1" Residential (Multiple Family Zoning District) would allow the subject 13 acre site to be developed at a net density of 11.4 to 19.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. PRD: A Planned Residential Development application is required for any lot over six acres in size in the "DM-1" Residential District, where 3115-3205 Forest Road page 2 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units more than one residential structure is proposed, and is developed as an integral unit in a single development operation. The intent of the Planned Residential Development according to Chapter 1280.01 of the Zoning Code is "to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to encourage innovation in land use, design and type of structures constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in public services and utilities; to encourage useful open space; and to provide better housing developments which are particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the City." The PRD regulations allow a developer to construct a variety of housing units at a dwelling unit density greater than the density -allowed in the zoning district if specific design standards are met. These requirements address design issues ranging from building heights and setbacks to open space and energy conservation techniques. Bonus density is not being requested for this development. Uses permitted in a PRD according to Section 1280.04 include: a one-family dwelling; a two-family dwelling' a townhouse; a multiple dwelling; an accessory building; a public park or playground and recreational facility; and off-street parking. The permitted density of residential units shall be the density permitted by right in the district in which it is located. Since the proposed zoning is "DM-1" Residential, the density which would be allowed ranges from 11.4 to 19.8 dwelling units per acre. LOCATION: The two parcels combined, 3115-3205 Forest Road, total approximately 13 acres, along the north side of Forest Road, west of US-127. 3115-3205 Forest Road page 3 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units EXISTING LAND USE: Nursery EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 13 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Cemetery S: Apartments (Tammany Hills) E: US-127 Expressway W: Cemetery SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District S: "CUP" District E: Unzoned public Right of Way, Land east of the expressway is zoned "F" Commercial District W: "A" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Plan designates the subject property for residential development (8-14 units per acre).Forest Road is classified as a collector street and is designated as a Scenic Corridor. CASE HISTORY: The subject site is comprised of two parcels: 3115 Forest Road: Owner's residence. 3205 Forest Road: Existing Forest Nursery The owner has elected to retire and has put the land up for sale. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct an apartment complex containing 144 apartments with a net density of 11.09 dwelling units per acre. This action requires rezoning of the property to a district higher than its current single family zoning district since the "A" Residential District allows approximately 7 units per acre with a PRD. A reduced copy of the proposed Site Plan is attached to this report for your review (see Figure 2, Site 3115-3205 Forest Road page 4 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units Plan). Full sized blueprints and a report by the applicant describing the project are available for review in the Planning Office. Project Summary: Site: 13 acre site (includes 3115 and 3205 Forest Road) with a 1.2 acre wetland Structures: 144 Two-Bedroom Units with attached one-car garages. Total bedroom count is 288. Structures are two stories tall. Ground floor units: 1,031 sq.ft. Second floor units: 1,100 sq.ft. Garages: 260 sq.ft. Parking: 2 spaces per unit: 288 Guest spaces: Designated Visitor Parking 18 Informal Visitor Parking 18 Total Spaces: 324 The following responses received were based on the original site plan. Comments based on the revised plan are forthcoming from the Traffic Engineer, Fire Marshall, and the City Forester. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH TELEPHONE: (No response received.) ASSESSOR: Appears extremely crowded (too many units in such a small space). (Dave Tijerina) Is this going to be a condominium, or some sort of apartment complex? (John Grannell) ATTORNEY: (No response received.) BD.OF WATER AND LIGHT: Electrical Utility- Electric Planning and Systems Studies: Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department- No objections to overall change. Contact 3115-3205 Forest Road page 5 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082. Water Utility: Water Technical Support/Distribution- No comment on rezone. If project is approved, BWL Customer Projects need developed site plan with service layout to continue. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494. BUILDING SAFETY: The Building Safety Offices has no comment during this stage of the review process. The project is subject to the City's site plan and Building Plan Review Process. Details concerning the permitting process may be obtained by contacting Christine Segerlind at (517)483-4381. LANSING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: (No response received.) CODE COMPLIANCE: (No response received.) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY: (No response received.) MEDIA ONE: Media One has no requirements for this proposal DEVELOPMENT: No comment FIRE MARSHALL: (No response received.) INGHAM CO DRAIN COMM: (No response received.) INGHAM CO. HEALTH DEPT: (No response received.) MICH. DEQ (No response received.) MICH. DNR: (No response received.) MDOT: (No response received.) PARKS AND RECREATION: Due to existing and future expansion of the cemetery, 3115-3205 Forest Road page 6 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units our department would require some type of visual screening and space to do it in. Installation of a privacy fence with a heavy planted evergreen screen in a 25 foot planting setback zone would help eliminate conflicts from these diverse uses. POLICE: (No response received.) PUBLIC SERVICES: The Public Service Department has no objections to the rezoning of this property. TRANSPORTATION: See attached comments The potential impact of the proposed rezoning is discussed below. An analysis of the Planned Residential Development will be treated separately. Z-11-98 ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The request to rezone the area to a low density multiple family residential zoning district may serve as a logical buffer between the Evergreen Cemetery to the north and west, the apartment development of Tammany Hills to the south, and the expressway to the east. However, the number of units proposed could be developed under a "C" Residential Zoning District that requires 3,200 square feet per two bedroom unit and allows a density level of up to 13.6 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a reduction in the number of units from 164 to 144 making the density level drop from 12.63 d.u./acre to 11.09 d.u./acre. Staff believes the "DM-1" Residential Zoning District to be out of character with the surrounding area, not in keeping with the Southeast Comprehensive Plan and not necessary to accomplish the density proposed in the PRD as originally proposed and in the more recently revised site plan showing 144 two bedroom units. Careful site design for the proposed residential development is important in ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area, making the Planned Residential Development review process important in ensuring that compatibility. 3115-3205 Forest Road page 7 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN Since the proposed "DM-1" Residential District potentially allows up to 19.8 units per acre and the Southeast Area Plan designates the subject property for residential land use at a density of 8-14 dwelling units per acre, staff believes the rezoning is not in compliance with the plan. A lower residential classification, such as the "C" Residential District, would give a "tighter fit" to the density allowed on the subject property up to 13.6 units per acre as opposed to 19.8 units per acre and would allow the density proposed in the PRD. Land use and environmental policies in the Plan stress the importance of developing in a way that is sensitive to the natural features of a site and in consideration of aesthetic quality and compatibility of the surrounding area. The revisions to the site plan take many of the environmental concerns into consideration, particularly that relate to the retention and enhancement of natural vegetation along Forest Road which is designated as a scenic corridor. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The generation of traffic from a low density multi-family residential development should not significantly impact traffic on Forest Road which is considered a collector street, according to the Southeast Comprehensive Plan. Revisions to the plan have included the alignment of the easternmost drive into the development with Staten Avenue across the street, the widening of the entrance road to 24 feet with wider turner radii. Additional visitor parking spaces have been provided, and "no parking" signs will be posted along the main private streets. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The impact of this proposal on the environment is reviewed in more detail in the PRD section of this report. Consideration must be given to land coverage, wetlands, air and noise pollution of any multi-family development on the property and to the surrounding area. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT Approval of this rezoning may allow more units than what is reflected in the site plan for the PRD approval (19.9 units versus 11.09 units per acre) and may have a negative impact on future development patterns. The site is adjacent to the Evergreen 3115-3205 Forest Road page 8 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units Cemetery, which is to the north and west, and is adjacent to the US-127 expressway. The residential development, Tammany Hills, to the south is already developed. None of these land uses are expected to change as a result of this requested rezoning. However, the "DM-1" Residential District is overzoning for the number of units proposed. Staff has expressed its interest in giving a "tighter fit" to the zoning necessary to accomplish the PRD as proposed. This would help to ensure a density level of residential development more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and would prevent a future developer from developing beyond the density as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from "A" Residential District to the "DMA" Residential District to permit the development of apartments . The development of the site into more than one building, however, would require a Planned Residential Development. A PRD is required in the "DMA" Residential District whenever more than one building is proposed. Staff is concerned about the potential density of the "DM-1" Residential District. The "C" Residential District would accommodate the 144 two-bedroom units as proposed with the revised site plan. If the PRD is not developed, the potential would exist that a future developer could develop up to 19.8 units per acre allowed by the "DMA Residential Development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request to rezone property at 3115-3205 Forest Road from "A" Residential to "DMA" Residential be denied. Staff, instead, recommends that the property be rezoned from "A" Residential to the "C" Residential District. PRD-3-98 The following is an analysis of the specific proposal of the 144 two-bedroom apartment development as shown on the revised site plan for "The Hunt Club" (dated 9/25/98) COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The request to develop multi-family development is generally not incompatible with the surrounding area. Densities in the area, however, are lower than the proposed 11.09 3115-3205 Forest Road page 9 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units units per acre as proposed. Staff believes the revised site plan has made better use of the land by reducing the number of units from 164 to 144 units per acre, resulting in a reduction in density from 12.63 units per acre to 11.09 units per acre. Some changes have been made in the amount of internal roads that circled buildings, which previously appeared excessive. A low density multi-family residential zoning district may serve as a logical buffer zone between the Evergreen Cemetery to the north and west and the apartment development of Tammany Hills to the south. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The proposed development at 11.09 units per acre is consistent with the Southeast Area Plan, which designates the subject property for residential land use at a density level of 8-14 dwelling units. The Southeast Area Plan in the Land Use and Environment Chapter on page 65 states: Policy#6: "Encourage developers to be more sensitive to natural features which might enhance new residential areas. This can be done through the site plan review process." Policy#9: "Encourage, in the appropriate locations, continued diversity in the use of land with consideration of aesthetic quality and compatibility." Staff believes the revised plan demonstrates an improvement in the layout that is more sensitive to natural features and to the natural vegetation along Forest Road that makes up the scenic corridor. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The number of parking spaces as identified below meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed number of parking spaces in garage units: 144 Proposed number of parking spaces in driveways: 144+ Proposed number of parking spaces at Clubhouse: 18 Proposed number of guest parking spaces (end of driveways): 18 3115-3205 Forest Road page 10 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units Comments made by the City's Transportation Engineer appear to have been addressed in the revised plan. However, comments based on the revised site plan are forthcoming. Previous concerns included: the alignment of the easterly private road with Staten Ave and the widening of turning radius for garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, and CATA and School buses. The developer originally proposed a gated entry into the development to enhance security. This has been eliminated in the revised plan since it would require queuing of cars at peak hours, creating potential traffic problems. A traffic study was done by the developer's consultant (based on the original plan) which is attached to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The summary provided in the original report for the land use tabulation of building, street and other impervious coverage of the 12.99 acre site will be revised with the reduction in the number of units from 164 to 144 units. Originally the total impervious coverage was 7.16 acres (55.12% of the site) and the total open space was 5.83 acres (44.88% of the site). Wetland: The wetland located at the north end of the property is 1.2 acres in size. A Wetland Delineation Report by the firm, Vital Resources Consulting, found that the entire wetland system is estimated to be approximately four acres in size. In addition, the nearest pond, lake or stream is greater than 500 feet from the wetland feature (the nearest pond is approximately 600 feet to the south). They, therefore, conclude that it is not a regulated wetland. The site plan identifies the wetland as a part of their open space, though it is not usable it provides some relief from the "tightness" of the development. LandscapingNegetation: The applicant proposes to retain as many mature trees as possible from this former nursery site. A stand of mature pines exist along the east side of building #8 and a few pines will remain along the north end of the eastern property line. Several deciduous trees will remain along the south and east property line and at the north end of the property in and near the wetland area. The revised plan gave a detailed inventory of existing plant materials along Forest Road and added landscaping they believed to be in compliance with the Scenic Corridor R.0.W. Maintenance Guidelines & Procedures 3115-3205 Forest Road page 11 2r11-98:11A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units for Forest Road. Comments from the City's Forestry Manager on the Revised Site Plan are forthcoming. Other: The request was made at the Public Hearing to have construction traffic routed into and out of the area from the east to avoid excessive construction truck traffic along Forest Road. Forest Road Scenic Corridor: Forest Road, is designated as a Scenic Corridor. Such streets have, according to the Ordinance, "unusual or outstanding beauty within or associated with the right of way for the use and enjoyment of local residents and public in general." A sign exists at the east end, by Collins Road, and the west end, by Aurelius Road. The Scenic Corridor ordinance, per section 1032.04 states "A Public Hearing shall be held before an act is permitted which would result in substantial damage to native vegetation in the scenic corridor's right of way." The intent of this designation is to ensure the rural, less developed character of the drive and to retain and enhance the tree canopy effect along this two lane road which has no curb and gutter. The applicant met with the City's Forestry Manager on site 9/17/98 to categorize the landscaping along the Forest Road frontage as either Formal or Semi-Natural landscape and recorded existing tree location, size, and type. Comments from the City's Forestry Manager to determine whether substantial damage to the native vegetation in the scenic corridor will result from the proposed development, thereby requiring a public hearing, are forthcoming. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The revised plan that proposes 144 units, as opposed to the 164 units, is at a lower density that would help lessen any demand/pressure for higher density development in the area. Such speculation could detract from Forest Road as a Scenic Corridor. Some level of multi-family development would be a good transition from the multiple development to the south and the expressway to the east. SUMMARY The request to rezone the 13 acre site from "A" Residential to the "DM-1" Residential District to permit the development of apartments is not recommended for approval. Rather the staff recommends the property be rezoned to "C" Residential District, which in a PRD format allows for the density proposedin the revised plan. The request to 3115-3205 Forest Road page 12 Z-11-98:"A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District PRD-3-98: 144 two-bedroom multi-family units build more than one structure in the "DM-1" Residential District or the "C" Residential District, however, requires the development be reviewed according to the Planned Residential Development Section of the Code. The PRD review looks at the specifics of development as presented on a site plan and supporting documents. The development of 144 two-bedroom apartment units on a 13 acre parcel at a net density of 11.09 dwelling units per acre appears to be more in keeping with the Southeast Comprehensive Plan and with other developments in the area. Staff believes the revised Site Plan to be an improvement over the original plan that has taken into account many of the concerns raised by the Forest View Neighborhood Association and City staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the request to develop the property at 3115-3205 Forest Road for 144 units as reflected in the Revised Site Plan, dated 9/25/98, be approved contingent upon the rezoning of the property to "C" Residential District and with the condition that the devlopment comply with all the requirements of applicable Federal, State and Local laws and ordinances . G CITY OF LANSING R E C Public Service Department Transportation Division SEP Interoffice Communication PLANNIiNu rcHIGP TO: Donna Wynant, Senior Planner FROM: Andrew K. Kilpatrick, Assistant Transportation Engineer DATE: September 8, 1998 % � SUBJECT: Hunt Club TIS The traffic impact study for the Hunt Club, prepared by William Savage, P.E., appears to accurately report the existing conditions and the traffic generated by the proposed development. The study does not have any quantitative analysis on peak hour traffic operations at the proposed entrances or any nearby intersections. Therefore, no definitive assessment of the impact of this development on the area roadways can be made. Due to the low volumes generated by this development and the relatively light traffic volumes on Forest Road, no analysis is necessary to prove acceptable operation of the site entrances. The recommendations contained in the TIS are general and provide no indication as to whether the developer will participate in these. Below are my comments on each of the recommendations contained in the traffic impact study. 1. The eastern entrance should be located opposite Staten Avenue, as recommended in the TIS. This will prevent "interlocking" of left turns and facilitate direct through movements to/from Staten Avenue from the site. This must be a condition for approval. 2. The entrances and roadways within the Hunt Club should be designed to accommodate the maximum size vehicle expected on a regular basis, such as garbage trucks and CATA/school buses,as appropriate. Large moving trucks (WB-50) also should to be accommodated, however, these vehicles will probably need the entire roadway to negotiate turns within the property. 3. There are no regulations in the Planning and Zoning Code governing visitor parking. The required 328 spaces for the 164 units are provided. A total of 354 parking spaces are shown on the plan, including 20 guest/visitor spaces and 6 spaces at the clubhouse. The majority of the visitor spaces, however, are located in the path of vehicles backing out of the adjacent resident parking spaces. This effectively blocks vehicles from exiting the parking spaces for their unit. Acceptable visitor parking spaces need to be provided. If not, it should be noted on the plans that no visitor parking is provided. 4. Acceleration lanes are inappropriate at this location. Deceleration lanes are not needed if the curb radii remain as shown on the plan. The traffic impact study does not recommend deceleration lanes yet they are shown on the latest plan. If the lanes are going to be provided, the need for them should be established. Left turn lanes into the property are probably not needed, however, without peak hour volumes for all movements on Forest Road, it is not possible to give a definitive answer. 5. The regrading of the hill just west of US-127 could improve sight distance. If this regrading primarily benefits the Hunt Club, then the developer should pay, or at least participate in the cost of this improvement. 6. If bicycle lanes are recommended, the design of the Hunt Club entrances should be compatible with this recommendation. The traffic impact study calls for 24' entry and exit widths at Forest Road. The 24' exit width would provide an exclusive right turn lane and a shared through/left lane, which is desirable. The plans, however, show one inbound and one outbound lane of approximately 14' each and a center island with gated entrances and exits at each driveway. These islands should either be removed or the entrances redesigned to provide adequate entry and exit widths for trucks and other large vehicles. If the gates remain at the driveways, queuing analyses need to be performed at each entrance to insure that vehicles will not queue from the gates into the public right-of- way. If the gates are to remain open during the day, as stated by the developer at the August 261h meeting, this will be put in writing and made a binding condition of approval. The visitor parking and entry/exit gate issues must be resolved before this development moves forward. Appropriate revisions to the plans and/or traffic analysis need to be submitted for review before any approvals are granted. cc: William F. Savage Richard A. Cooley file: Forest Road huntclub.wpd Traffic Impact Study for The Hunt Club on Forest Road City of Lansing August 31, 1998 By: William E Savage, P.E. Introduction The Hunt Club is a proposed 164 unit luxury apartment development, on the north side of Forest Road just west of US-127, I-496 Freeway. The proposed development is shown on Figure 1. The development proposes two entrances on Forest Road, with the western entrance being located about 200 feet from the west property line and the easterly entrance being located about 50 feet east of Staten Avenue(on the south side of Forest). Forest Road is a two-lane road,that runs 2.5 miles from Aurelius Road on the west,to Beaumont Road on the east. Recent City of Lansing traffic counts show about 4,000 vehicles a day on this section of Forest Road. There is considerable housing developed on the south side of Forest Road that is serviced by Staten Avenue, Trudy Lane, Stoneleigh Drive and Manley Drive. There is also limited development on the north side of Forest. The condition of Forest Road was noticed to be in need of improvement in the future. It was also noted during the traffic study that was conducted,that a number of bicyclist were using Forest Road. Many of them appeared to be MSU students, while others were recreational bikers. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impact of the Hunt Club development on Forest Road. It is also the purpose to evaluate the safety and operation of the entrances, and the available sight distance for vehicles entering Forest Road from the development. 1 • ice:�.� � o � r��: / ,1 % ��err- .� o �■ � -� /`�, � E � - MA TO Iwo dr kAM OIL �� .R��� Cry ��►.■ � 1 . o Traffic Generated by the Hunt Club The proposed Hunt Club development is estimated to generate the following daily, and morning and afternoon peak hour traffic. The estimated values are found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation-6'h Edition". The appropriate type of development is the"low-rise apartment", which have one or two floors, such as garden apartments. Daily A.M. A.M. A.M. P.M. P.M. P.M. Trips Peak Hr. Trips Trips Peak Hr. Trips Trips Trip s IN OUT Trips IN OUT 164 Apartments 1,081 77 15 62 84 54 30 Estimated Traffic Generation by the Hunt Club Directional Distribution of Traffic Peak hour morning and afternoon traffic studies were conducted on Forest Road, at Staten Avenue, Stoneleigh Drive,Manley Drive, and the scattered development on the north side of Forest Road,to determine the existing entering and departing directions of traffic. During the four hours of study, a total of 411 vehicles were observed entering or leaving this residential area, with 177(43%) of the vehicles going to and from the west, and 234 (57%) going to and from the east. It is suggested that the Hunt Club traffic will have similar characteristics. It is further assumed that about 75%of the traffic going to and from the east will use the east entrance, and 75% of the traffic going to and from the west will use the west entrance. The estimated morning and afternoon peak hour traffic using the entrances is shown on Figure 2. Analysis of the Traffic Operation of the Entrances The two entrances onto Forest Road should operate well, and provide an alternative entrance or exit in case one entrance is closed due to an emergency. The easterly entrance, however, should be aligned directly across from Staten Avenue, so that the inbound left turns do not interlock. Figures 3 and 4 show that 23 peak hour right turns, or the 17 peak hour left turns into the Hunt Club do not warrant the provision of right turn lanes, or left turn passing lanes at either entrance. Right turn lanes, or tapers, may be constructed if desired by the developer. Acceleration lanes, for vehicles exiting the Hunt Club should not be considered. 2 N The Hunt Club 20 9 7 2G �z F-0-eCrr RAD Morning Peak Hour N The Hunt Club �D 4 3 J3 8 � 23 /7 X--- 6 Afternoon Peak Hour Estimated Peak Hour Tragic The Hunt Club Figure 2 EME 1109ENIONSEERE MEN MEN .. 0 Illoil INEENES" E �NONS, NONE"' 0 M E mom no\EW ISOM MARI WIFIE ism WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN PASSING LANE iw toe !M sw Iw a PAS No LA 4E REC JORED LL � Iw W J y ly « IZO O O Q y _ � u — Uj W 7.an,oeo b a ,TKO 17 LEFr 0 a gg g aa gg aa gg aa gg TWO-WAY 24-HOUR VOLUME ur r TURN&ALLOW 40 Warrant for Left Turn Passing Lane Forest Road at the Hunt Club Figure 4 In addition, the preliminary drawings by the developer show very narrow roadways and entrances. The two entrances should provide two 12-foot exiting lanes,and one 24-foot lane entering the development. The entrance radii should be 35 feet, which will allow large vehicles, such as the city recycling vehicles, to enter and exit. All interior roadways should be a minimum of 24 feet wide with 35 foot radii on the corners. Intersection SiEht Distance There is good sight distance, in both directions, for motorists exiting at the westerly entrance. If the easterly entrance is located directly across from Staten Avenue,there will be good intersection sight distance to the west,and adequate sight distance to the east. The sight distance to the east was measured to be 390 feet, from a 3.5 foot eye height to a 4.25 foot vehicle height. This sight distance is adequate 37.4 mph traffic,which is greater than the existing 35 mph speed zone through the area. Recommendations 1. The easterly entrance must be relocated directly across from Staten Avenue. If this entrance should be located as shown in the preliminary drawing, the left turning traffic to the two streets would interlock, and there would only be adequate sight distance for 33 mph traffic. 2. The entrances and roadways within the Hunt Club should be designed to accommodate larger vehicles. 3. The preliminary plans do not appear to show much visitor parking. 4. Neither right turn lanes (or tapers), or left turn passing lanes are warranted,but may be added if desired by the developer. Acceleration lanes are not recommended. 5. It is suggested that when Forest Road is improved,that the hill just west of US-127(I- 496) freeway be reduced to produce improved sight distance. 6. It is also suggested that when Forest Road is improved,that 5-foot bicycle lanes be provided on both sides of the road, for the safety and convenience of these bicyclists. 3 Al r'may=_�••,���•�.�.,_�_..�_-L�v�ssas�l--���- --.aa,• '•t 'f .,., ••�N .a`•� „s:•1 'i.^vl�:s,�� `. ti•�• . v ' • •~' �, lea .. !a '�-'}•:1•Y� :�.:�;;: ��. �' ,,, • ,.: :� l � .. • ,, tic • _ � • ��:: � ,•�'; . .,,• . . taw,::.,-.:'=r:•• .. _ •�;, — f-•..Ate.• :� i� .�.•'i•• �1 +. •,Y'�'_•µ •;i•. '`Jt.� .t•it ��, f s r (YI •i.. ':�' .•: •w,•. _ ., �7, ; :, �?^.' 's , .:':,: .•,j.�i��1 .t. ��'; •' -'"t:•" :'�.':.•'�•,+ •� 1• �I `1-r./�;. 'fir•�-< 'i• ii �.�� .�: �_ .•t .;�.N:s• .:4+i .ti. ,'�••.J �1' •: ... w r.'�.�'-t "'s�"i�.'•-�'�—'�. ,` `— 'r r Fy +.i'1: �x��J+.:...�.�-�-,�ar"�1.�N'.r+�`•=�"Y--�=f'T�'''�-- .,'rY'7+'+ '��:•r ;i;� �;<:•e ��:•;'�I,..•'�,•I �. '•'c� �I.E:.7 ir '+��`�' ;+la � ,t. t• -j,"icy 'J���•�'+ r �1��•. .'71•�•*���fwl�.�']tJ •;••„=.F'�'�'i`: ,?''+Vy..r�►' . .� •'`; `. • ~ .� ''~'�L++�•�y'' �lMR •t' '1 I{u!�i,l' i• ~ti► ary.• t lI i••�.t •,4 .�L. •t •�• ��.� •`. -^•i:y.i•'gas •s •`e;-I �.r 1 _ .r ,i• �. ���•sl '•�:�•• ���: '. .li �9+.i .,: t•'�t.`i II%�s,'I '�S', '�• Al � .•�••• . .' 'i• •j,�• ?�. � ' '+'��••• •� , .••� y •� fit; ..t.••ti•1 a��+l l.�}+�7 �y /� ;«t •�,,.. -.T'7�� •�++ ••.� :::.'' f..• t• � a� .•Ys J .. � + - •rJ'•• Ins .��� •S. � •a •• •Y. �.. ...•ter, i • lI. i1 :'. \ •• I 1 + •: � +"^ tt �V.S ��.1. •�'�� ��''; ,►�:• j• •a t•'�'t�,t � +1.'++:'a.�S - � T••'I 1� ���r}' 9 .J•• J•{�-� », 4r i CIL �-- w ten.iI�Y•`..�-ram. _ ?ul-- WK OW TV. Sean fo. WIL TV. -- 7mccow Mom _ •r ■ r r rrrr _ 1 �� :�: : �- .,, / I=_. rrrr =_�r r r r l■Jr]■J■1�=I�1■1rl�J�i=� CC' ��€C'.! C =i I■]rlrlrl='lrlrl�l■�'=_ �- 4am TO. I■1■1�1■1�=II■I■I■I■Ili.:•'.*i l %iI■I�1■1■li rJ■1■1■1■1I FRONT ELE `! ATION e■uw=AI a•u i=..;.:•-=rw�i u�r �.�_.—_=%i C=I�-1E r/'��._.—. EI ��1=61 rho nn..n rrrr �':� •'% 5■uy=BI ru _!'�:=r■��r =�,r '��'t� inn YJ"•���° -�1� _..... I �-11OW .f11 �I�LE .... SIDE ELEVATION �..r----- -----_ L E4 F;kT&ELE `! ATI �� N 1 E s00=:,: -•::ic. `ter ELE ! ATIEl, N Ci��ii:�il Ems• e NT ELEVATION __--_�_-_-�__ �- -_-___-_-_-_- M�'I•_-__-_-?�_-_vim l����� K ELE !� ATION KEE -rr ;'� � .//.� �; MMUNITY FUILDINCr - �c 1 •r1 MI 1 1�. l.1 • September 28, 1998 To: Honorable David Hollister, Mayor City Council Members Planning Board Members City of Lansing, Michigan From: Richard A. Cooley, Landscape Architect Ian in C nsul nt Re: Update on Cases Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98 since tabled by Planning Board, Request for a SPECIAL MEETING of the Zoning & Ordinance Committee Letterot'Be�ruest Dear Reviewer: We appreciate this opportunity to submit our written comments as an update on the status of the P.R.D. Site Plan, and to note changes that have been made in the P.R.D. Site Plan since Wednesday September 9, 1998. Please consider these summary remarks knowing that we may reiterate or expand on them at subsequent public meetings. Changes made since Planning Board Committee tabled PRD request 9-9-98: X. Met with Paul Dykema, Forestry Manager, on-site 9-17-98 to categorize project frontage along Forest Road as either Formal or Semi-Natural landscape and record existing tree location, size, and type. We formulated a landscape approach that we believe best complies with Scenic Corridor vegetation standards. Result Detailed Landscape treatment is shown on the Revised P.R.D. SITE PLAN (dated 9-25-98). This treatment is believed to be in complete compliance with both the intent and provisions of the adopted "SCENIC CORRIDOR R.O.W. MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES & PROCEDURES"for Forest Road. ;:::::...: �++N The Easterly entrance road has been re-located to align with Staten Avenue. This change complies with Item 1. in the Assistant Transportation Engineer's letter of 9-8-98. Result Loss of 1 building (-8 dwelling units). The Easterly area of the Revised P.R.D. Site Plan (dated 9-25-98) has been modified to reduce the total number of dwelling units and decrease site coverage. Result Loss of 1 building (42 dwelling units). NET CHANGE in Unit Count and Density: • Reduction in Total Number of Dwelling Units from 164 to 144 (-20 units). • Reduction in Density from 12.63 d.u./acre to 11.09 d.u./acre (-1.54 d.u./acre). HUNT CLUB P.R.D.Request September 28,190 Page 2 3. ROAAWAYS: The City's Assistant Transportation Engineer noted that entrance areas and interior roadways should be designed to accommodate larger vehicles on a regular basis. Accordingly, the following changes have been made to the Revised P.R.D. Site Plan (dated 9-25-98) and comply with Items 2 and 4 of the 9-8-98 letter: • Acceleration and Deceleration lanes have been removed. • No gates or other security measures (which would require queuing) are proposed at the entrances. • The entrance roads are 24 Feet wide with 35 Foot radii. The posted Speed Limit will be 14 MPH. • Interior roads are 24 Feet wide with 30 Foot radii at drive openings. XX XX The City's Assistant Transportation Engineer commented about visitor parking in Item 3 of the 9-8-98 letter. The following changes have been made in the Revised P.R.D. Site Plan (dated 9-25-98): • This plan includes 18 designated Visitor Parking spaces and 18 informal Visitor Parking spaces for a Total of 36 Visitor Parking spaces. • "No Parking" signs will be posted along the main private streets. END DESCRIPTION of significant P.R.D. Site Plan Changes Equity-Max, Inc. has met with the Forest View Citizens Association Panel on September 15, 1998, on September 19, 1998 (on-site), and is scheduled to meet with the general membership of the Association on Wednesday September 30, 1998. At that meeting, we expect the Association to approve and endorse the Revised P.R.D. Site Plan (dated 9-25- 98). We expect that the Forestry Manager, Fire Marshall, and Transportation Engineer (and(or other appropriate Agencies) will submit updated responses to the P&ND Staff prior to the October 6th Planning Board meeting. Further, we request that the Planning Board take affirmative action on the requests at the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 6, 1998. In order to facilitate this tentative schedule, we hereby respectfully request that the Planning Board's Zoning & Ordinance Committee conduct a Special Meeting after September 30th and before the Planning Board convenes at 7:OOPM on October 6th; for the purpose of forwarding recommendations to the Planning Board on cases Z-11-98 and PRD-3-98. Thank You for your consideration. Attachments cc Paul Dykema, Forestry Manager Steve Bolenbaugh, Fire Marshall Andrew Kilpatrick, Assistant Transportation Engineer Mr. • �a`�I��%�� �Illll� illll��j ����I�I__ ���� ji'�iy',�i_ - i fe; �1 I IIII IIII ; I-UIII�_`�,idj1�= 1 ' �gl!11�1,I�il��� .:: ,.•• I I _i` I ,: Ihlli TI ' a M,I �6!fl��Iclll�� W, M 1•�! �:.� --� �.. ' �II►!'"=.��--_�.. � IIII ►I I II�III'- O 1 `� I ►=it r fI!I!II!It���lllliar� i IIII!' mom �— = � • --- •�' CIIIIII1111II'�] _ ! �I� �,,1�i lel� 1 ��• I I `� - _ rY '• '��� III''== ��� ,•�� i � �IIIII��- i �� ♦ �� ..:... --11 •_ � as.,. a [I!I!I., Il lil� , � II. � I III�� -- �� -III ��•-- �!IIII1�1111111� 1 — �� }''lull — IIII\IU�-!!=� � _I !��� _ �1 ( .• :•fit. ',.ILI I� II \ �1 1 . L - . 1. il �iiF i 54 1���iI�II _,, • w I �1� • ' 11�'��II�I�1�. �a�•---, I ,vim` 1 ������'� 1 1 ,= a�ll�� 1 ��_I^ �:► : i __ � ri� 1 i =1�14,—___IIII I— 1 II I I j "_' =,1 i+� `' 1 ' i III � 'i ��•�I /��. -I �►�:����, 1 it - !- �� ►=_� 1 -I�I�Ii 11�II'I�- �� .��U; �I►ql�_ � r!i�r� �(1'lllli � �� 1 1 1 II I ��I�i��.—III �� �•� ..•: _ 1 ICI III I�!11111!Nd 1 ••�-...• ►.••.._. �' ;� �� �— �� �I I'iilllll�ll�� `—I�'���Il�i ,.���--•� �,�`� � `���i� III(II�IIII � � � iIJ��,. ,III;��►;�. ►�II1-��1� u► _ �I� f � IJ ., � r► ►- PRE LN tmo��to--r.•)%�o.�Ja:��^�n��.a o �a��� ovoapoaaro�: •'c•• otro nooc a. ��� ^� n� o I�r.r►y/rr�:�lla�y�lvr�1i►ti/ �� �!;=.•�;N�►\)�•wM ,,,r,�,�•� T�- • : • • • -•• '�T Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer Acquisition for City Use GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing Development Office 316 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to acquire REQUESTED ACTION: Act 285 Review for property acquisition EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant building EXISTING ZONING: "I" Heavy Industrial PROPOSED'ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 2 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial Use S: Industrial Supply E: Single and Two Family Residential W: Industrial/Commercial businesses SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "I" Heavy Industrial S: "I" Heavy Industrial E: "C" Residential W: "I" Heavy Industrial MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial uses. SPECIFIC INFORMATION This is a request by the City of Lansing, Development Office which is proposing to acquire the property at 506 S. Hosmer from the State of Michigan for the purpose of using the building for multiple public uses which would include storage space and consolidation of other city operations. ACT-23-98, 506 S. HOSMER PAGE 2. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH: No response received yet. Assessor: This is the old Liquor Control Commission Warehouse. There appears to be a water tank and tower as well as a railroad spur and loading dock. Will these remain? What is their condition? Also, there is a former coal storage area. Would there be any contamination problems? The above information is from some old records and might not be the current status. Building Safety: See attached. BWL: Electric Utility Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department - No objections Water Utility Water Technical Support/Distribution - No conflict with request. City Attorney: No response received yet Code Compliance: No response received yet Consumers Energy: No response received yet Development: Initial response from City Departments indicated high interest in acquisition for a variety of uses. Should certify current interest based on potential for high renovation costs to facilitate use of building for those uses. Recommend cost-benefit analysis be conducted by Finance Department, or by committee of interested users. Urge documentation from Departments who see use for building. Fire Marshal: No response received yet ACT-23-98, 506 S. HOSMER PAGE 3. Lansing Neighborhood Association: Sent a copy of notice to President of Hosmer Neighborhood Association, Angela Boutrese Hosmer Neighborhood Organization: We are happy the City is buying the warehouse. We would like to have a room to put our neighborhood office. Please also have the city spruce up the appearance of the building. Also, see attached letter. Management Services: Future evaluation would need to occur for occupancy and space with staff. Storage space is at a premium and this acquisition would significantly help that situation. Media One: No response received yet Parks and Rec.: It does not impact parks operations. Public Service: Engineering has no objection to the proposed action. Trans. Engr.: No comments, recommendations or requirements 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 Act 285, PA 1931, as amended, the character, location and extent of the proposal must be evaluated. The following is a review of the project in accordance with the standards of the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285). BACKGROUND The property at 506 S. Hosmer is owned by the State of Michigan - Department of Management and Budget. It is currently a vacant warehouse and contains approximately 94,000 ft2 of space. The property has been declared surplus and is being offered for sale. According to the provisions of Public Act 174 of 1997, the Real Estate Division is offering the local unit of government (City of Lansing) the opportunity to purchase the property, for not less than market value, before it is advertised for sale to the public. The State of Michigan is offering the property to the City of Lansing "as is." ACT-23-98, 506 S. HOSMER PAGE 4. TL... /'�a.. ..F I .. r�i.-�r. r,vr�roccorl on infcrCef in nl irnhncinn the property In fart I ie City VI La IJII ly V^V1 GJJc.0 u1 1 --rev-— --- I...,�—�..,..��.`U ..— I..._r_._>. ... several City departments (Purchasing, Police, Fire, Public Service, Parks and Recreation, Administrative Services, Finance and Planning Departments) had a tour of the facility. It was determined that the property could serve the city as a multiple use facility which could include general storage, record storage, bike storage, vehicle impoundment, evidence storage, police radio lab, car storage, tool and equipment storage, building maintenance and some functions related to the City's Central garage operation. The City would consolidate many of their operations at one location. LOCATION: The property, owned by the State of Michigan - Department of Management and Budget, is located at 506 S. Hosmer. The property is predominately surrounded by industrial uses to the north, south and west. There are residential uses to the east of the subject property. The property contains approximately two (2) acres of land and is currently a vacant warehouse. CHARACTER: The Assessor's Office raised a question regarding any contamination on site. There should be at minimum a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the site prior to purchase. Also, an inspection of the property was done on February 6, 1998 (See enclosed). The property is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial District. A storage facility is a use permitted by right in the zoning district. Therefore, the character of the area will not change as a result of a multiple use warehouse being located at the subject site. EXTENT: The property is currently vacant. Positive impacts associated with the sale of the property at 506 S. Hosmer would include improved building conditions, improved, consolidation of city operations at one facility and the nominal cost of acquisition. If the building is used for storage the cost associated would be minimal. However, if the building is used for office space the cost to rehabilitate would be substantial. SUMMARY The character, location and extent appear to be reasonable. Staff would suggest that prior to the sale that the following conditions comply: financial impact statement is submitted and an environmental assessment is conducted. ACT-23-98, 506 S. HOSMER PAGE 5. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer for the purpose of using the building for multiple uses which would include storage space and consolidation of other city operations with the following conditions: that prior to the sale a financial impact statement is submitted and an environmental assessment is conducted. l SIG R r� e 1 r- r 1 —� 0 ❑[] o ono � � .. - - 14 July 23, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: The Hosmer Neighborhood has no objections with the City of Lansing acquiring the property at 506 S. Hosmer from the State. What we do ask though, is that if the city does purchase the property, that they maintaine it better than the State did. Currently the weeds in front of the building are three feet tall. Also, trash has blown up against the building, once in a while someone dumps bags of trash by the building. Every Spring and Fall our neighborhood has a neighborhood clean-up in which we average two bags of trash from around the building we don't mind doing it, but the building looks like a dump with all the litter. We ask that you consider this when acquiring the property. Sincerely, ,_�"�L- k4�� Shawn J. Bouterse Treasurer, Hosmer Neighborhood Assoication a R N T E R v�,jr(,'t MEMOp�V t�urwici O F F I C E To: Mr. Emil Winnacker, Planning and Development From: Derek Beiderwieden, Lansing Police Department Subject: Storage needs for police department Date: February 9, 1998 I have talked to the various units in the police department and have some preliminary estimates of the square and cubic footage needs. The storage estimates are based on current usage with an estimate for nominal growth for the next 10 years. Each unit is broken down into the type of property or items to be stored, the length of time required for the storage, and a ten year projection of the space needed. Included in the storage sizes are aisles that conform to ADA specifications. None of the spaces needed are for meetings or office use, only storage. Administrative unit--_This unit currently stores its retained records at the helicopter/training/ pistol range facility on Airport Rd. What-stored: time and payroll records Record retention: Divisional time records=3 years; department time records = 7 years. Have now: approximately 24 storage size boxes or 72 cubic feet (24 square feet) 10 year projection: an additional 6 boxes per year minus record destruction every 3 or 7 years = approximately 35 boxes stored equaling 35 square feet of floor space. Central Records unit--The unit stores department records in a storage facility in the basement of the police building. What stored: case files, old homicides or death cases. Record retention: for misdemeanor cases-7 years total; for felony cases-25 years total; homicide and death cases-permanently Have now: a 20X30 room filled with case files back to 1988 top to bottom in a 9 foot ceiling. Two aisles not in ADA compliance are also in this room 10 year projection: microfilming constraints leave more boxes of case file in the room than necessary. It is estimated that the room will not be able to handle the addition of another years worth of storage boxes. Old homicide and death cases can be stored in an off site. If the homicide type cases are moved, that would free enough space to handle incoming cases that are waiting for microfilming. An area of approximately 1 OX20 feet could handle all the old and projected new homicide cases for the next ten years. (200 sq.ft.) Mr. Emil Winnacker Page 2 February 9, 1998 Automated Data Operations unit-- ADO has used computer equipment stored in the radio lab on W. Holmes. What stored: computer equipment Have now: a 1OX12 room 10 year projection: it is projected that with the increase in technology, there will also be an increase in the ADO units computer equipment. The current room is not filled. 120 sq ft would be the projected space need. Property and Supply --Formerly known as Quartermaster, this unit stores evidence, etc. What stored: other than old homicide evidence, all other evidence,bicycles, and supplies need to stay near in a central location. The old homicide evidence is currently stored in two locations at the department. This is using valuable space that needs to be used for current case evidence. Have now: a underground former pistol firing range that leaks water and minerals in the basement of the police department. The old homicide evidence takes up approximately 200 square feet of ground space and 600 cubic feet of total space. Retention: homicide evidence has to be keep forever. 10 year projection: at the average rate of homicides and attempts per year, the estimate would be approximately 10 sq ft per year or 100 sq ft total projection Detention -- Currently has boxes stored in the upper portion of the pistol range/helicopter pad. What stored: bond receipts and arrest logs Have now: an area of approximately 45 cubic feet or 15 sq ft now Retention: arrest logs 10 years, bond receipts three years. 10 year projection: adding about 20 boxes per year and destroying on schedule, the estimated total square footage would be 150 sq feet. Internal Affairs -- Stores complaints against the department and officers and the case files associated with the investigations. What stored: case files Have now: a cramped 4X3 area 8 feet high Retention: 10 years 10 year projection: the unit estimates it would need a 12X12 area. Human Resources -.-HR stores information regarding current and former employees What stored: previous employee records, training records, field training files. Have now: records are kept in the upper portion of the pistol range/helicopter pad. They are kept in locked filling cabinets. There are several filling cabinets. Retention: kept in house for 5 years, medical records for 30 years. 10 year projection: due to the number of recent retirements in the department, there will be an increase of archived files going to 30 year storage. It is estimated that an area of Mr. Emil Winnacker Page 3 February 9, 1998 approximately 30 sq feet will be needed for these filling cabinets. A total of 875 square feet of floor space will be needed to store all of the projected records and equipment for the different units. Each unit would require separate storage containment areas that would be accessible to only those units personnel. A cage and lock system would be adequate. The overall facility would have to be alarmed and have fire protection. The facility would also have to be free from excessive moisture as the humidity would cause archived files to mold. Included in this report is a projected estimate of the facility and storage requirements for the Dive team equipment. cc: Chief Teszlewicz Mr. Dennis Sykes, Planning and Development To: Sgt. Derek Beiderwieden From: Sgt. Ron Hansen Refr: Dive Team Facility Proposal r%-#-. ')_Q_OQ I.JQLG. L.'V'JV I was asked to submit a basic proposal on the Dive Team's minimum storage space needs and facility requirements. This is to be used by the city for future Dive Team facility considerations. If you have any questions, please contact me. Equipment to be stored: GMC Suburban (approx. 25 ft long) Starcraft Boat and trailer (approx. 35 ft long) Zodiac Boat and trailer (approx. 20 ft long) Kawasaki Jet Ski and trailer (approx. 15 ft long) Personnel and equipment lockers (14) Equipment Shelves (5) Facility Requirements: Large Overhead door (approx. 10' x 10') Hot and cold water in bays for cleaning equipment Floor drain in bays for wet equipment Heat Electrical outlets in bay area for charging equipment Men's and Women's restrooms with showers Minimum Square Footage: At least 35 ft deep by 70 feet wide or 60 ft deep by 40 feet wide. Total square footage would be at least 2400 square feet. S 1 �, vepartment of running ana G Neighborhood Development • 316 North Capitol Ave.,Suite C-1-Lansing,MI 48933-1238-(517)483-4355-Fax(517)483-6036 Dennis Sykes,Director Building Safety Office David C.Hollister,Mayor lack Nelson,Mgr. Gary Biddinger,Chief Mechanical Inspector 5174834141 5174834375 5174834373 Off Ho.8 to 9 AM 12 to I PM Friday, February 06, 1998 SUBJECT: Inspection at 506 S.Hosmer Street, 4 level Commercial Building. TO WHOM CONCERNED: The very old building had approximately 15 hanging unit heaters of the 1950 vintage, Bryant's 200,000 BTU's. Most were operating and could see no real problems such as holes in heat exchangers that were evident of these 40 plus year old units. Two more hanging units were less than 10 years old. All bathrooms had improper ventilation as required , and not vented outside of building. The Stack gas vents were broken off at the third level and will need addressed as sewer gas.might infiltrate into the building at this level. Bard Furnace and an Air Handler found on the first floor do not meet code, and some duct work has fallen down. Fireplace on upper level does not meet code standards and is capped on the roof. Gas Piping seemed adequate at this time. West wing not inspected and looks to have an non-code vent protruding. It was stated this wing was non-conforming and was to be torn down. One heater at the basement level,venting on the n/w corner, does not have a proper Code vent. B Vent is multi-level and shows condensate/corrosion from the unit heaters on the third level. B Vents are not properly fire stopped between floors. Q4P S f�� CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner FROM: Jack A. Nelson, Manager- Building Safety Officerpl__11' SUBJECT: AGENCY REFERRAL,ACT-23-98 506 HOSMER STREET DATE: July 20, 1998 The.purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Agency Referral dated July 16, 1998, which solicits comments pertaining to the City's acquisition of an existing building which is located at 506 South Hosmer Street, which is currently owned by the State of Michigan. The following report is based upon a cursory inspection of the premise;which was conducted by Mr. Jon Wadsworth (Building Inspector)and myself on November 12, 1997. General Building Code Data Construction Type 3-N Unprotected • Use Group S-1 Moderate Hazard Storage Fire Suppression Yes Allowable area based upon construction type Allowable area 12,000 sq. ft. Area increases open on 2 sides. 50% (if wood frame addition on west property line along railroad is removed) Fire Suppression: 100% Multi-story increase 100% The building based upon current construction type, fire suppression and open perimeter can not exceed 72,000 square feet, exclusive of the basement. The actual area appears to be 74,964. Thus the building is non-conforming as it relates to construction type. Building History Constructed in 1907 as a screw factory. The building has been utilized by the State of Michigan up to 1997 as a liquor warehouse. The building is currently vacant. The City is proposing to acquire the building for multiple uses which would include storage space and consolidation of other City operations. Apparent Code Deficiencies • Numerous mechanical vents penetrate multiple floors. These vents must be located in a rated shaft enclosure. • The elevator is not located in a shaft. • The building is deficient in exit illumination and signage. • The integrity of the fire rated stair enclosures has been compromised, through lack of maintenance. • P.V.C. plumbing vent pipes penetrate the floors. These vents must be located in a shaft enclosure. • The root rafters which consist of 2 X 8 members placed on 16" centers appear to be overspanned. • The building is not accessible to the handicapped. • Several exit stairs have been removed along Hosmer street. • Travel distances to exits exceed authorized limitations. Code Analysis The extent of code compliance will be dependent upon proposed uses and the extent of renovation to accommodate the proposed City functions. The building appears to be well suited for storage uses. The Building Safety Office will limit the use on the upper floor, pending completion of fire safety and existing issues. A certificate of occupancy shall be detained from this office prior to occupancy. ROOF' "Ca otm M 1 ah1 M a POLE BLDG. SQUARE FT. 4,800 'R'M v/ owfc IIw RENTABLE 4.800 M i ` BJW w a1s.� /6a.s n. • ' "W is LOA . . . . . . • :rw,ba_J . • . . .... . . . •u+a wl/ lailuaa �Ii/ w a f[•..la . . A .ala R`JLK •WVLrIw• ucnwus vw c R MVA ,YbIH11 la,a no.lu[ juw V•w rlv Yn• QI Pi ca WI bl SQUARE FT. 18,790 SQUARE FT. 27,094 RENTABLE 18.490 RENTABLE 26,374 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN LEGEND IWu1w Yi or,•r rul D00 SQUARE FT. 98.554 RENTABLE 96,094 UNHEAIED 12.244 n Cocoa"WT ft.a IL1 C-00mc wf • • • WI/ .M •'M/��0/"M4 110 0 I1�11� W( oaa "I • • • • • • %;.m R Mw • ' )a NMYIOO •yK If,I-W • • • • • • fa+M[n.IX W J'a . . . . . . fw.frL IVw . . . wwfa[•i iJ_wl n [�•. aallai iW[ [ORuI[ am W/ Wa •wa *Till, .i1 u [Yw v/ vi v/ SQUARE FT. 30.474 SQUARE Fr. 17.396 RENTABLE 29.754 RENTABLE 16.676 FIRST FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN C ACT-23-98 606 S. HOWER NORTH E. v KALAMAZOO —1 Zoo 9io-/Y . 7J8 1 \ qy'. /oo c�.is• N - — — /o/•tt' boo-�Y �!c c 35 D z t4 r,o/ &a' 7s• 7p' - o 19 ( 18 17 116 too 071 3 o I N 207, 01 ti rd N 06l of ioa�• ec .EN m o \ ;1 0 0l \ h t w Jp C0 4 4 . . . 5cf3 f 79 a.9t ta•9' cs \ go B// 8 �. oy �',� BEMENT 0 8o s' hoe Biz ;- 00 '> W M9 Q / O V 0ZI w J x �� / M � 0311l O / � �IO � II 12 13 p U 0 .� / . y.�• �u a . �l 01 LE 10 �� � h0 �. Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 49) 7 p.m., Tenth Floor City Council Chambers, Lansing City Hall Tuesday, October 6, 1998 AGENDA 1. OPENING SESSION in City Council Chambers at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call B. Excused Absences C. Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A. Z-14-98, 2325 S. Cedar St., "D-1" Professional Office and "J" Parking Districts to "F" Commercial.District B. Z-15-98, 213 & 221 E. St. Joseph St., "DM-4" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District C. Act-26-98, E. St. Joseph St., Vacate from Cherry St. to Grand Ave. D. Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) 6. RECESS (The Zoning and Ordinance Committee is scheduled to meet RE: Z-11-98, PRD-3-98, Hunt Club, 3115-3205 Forest Road) 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: September 1, 1998; September 15, 1998 B. Committee Reports - 1. Committee of the Whole 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Next meeting Wednesday, October 14, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee a. Act-23-98, 506 S. Hosmer, Acquisition for City Use Next meeting Tuesday, October 13, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee C. Report from Planning Manager PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA October 6, 1998 Page 2 D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh & Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (fabled October 15, 1997) b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District (fabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1"Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (fabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station#4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) I. Z-11-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., "A" Residential to "DM-1" Residential District (fabled September 9, 1998) M. PRD-3-98, 3115 & 3205 Forest Rd., Planned Residential Development (Tabled September 9, 1998) 3. Urban Development Committee a. Act 19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved. b Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - Election of Officers 1998-9 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LOUISE H.CHRISTIAN AT 483-4066 OR 483-4088 TDD. APPROVED AS PRINTED ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998. Draft 110498 Approved 110398 To Clerk 111198 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers -"' Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hallr 124 West Michigan Avenue , c� Tuesday, October 20, 1998 _ ° = 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Miller, Ruge; Smith; five members present. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Greiner and Mr. Nischan at the meeting of October 6, 1998 requested and received excused absences. Mr. Goolsby, who phoned for an excused absence because of recent surgery, was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval- October 6, 1998. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of October 6, 1998 as presented. Mr. Ruge noted one correction as follows: Pg 9 Ln 6.45" Pos 6.58" Mr. Ruge asked if it was necessary to mention sidewalks in the motion; Mr. %ge GOOLSBY said no, costs of sidewalks if installed would be assessed against the property owners. Voice vote (5-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of October 6, 1998 with that correction were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 2 1 (`nmmittaa of tha WhNim - nid not mPP_t 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. Mr. Miller was elected Zoning and Ordinance Committee Chairman, and Mr. Frederick was elected Vice Chairman for the 1998-99 year. a. Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth St., "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District Because only five members were present, this case could not be taken up. TABLED. b. NCU-5-98, 301 N. Butler Blvd., Class A Nonconformity The applicant requests a Class "A" nonconforming status for a structure at 301 N. Butler Street in order to retain current non-profit use as an "institution of the usual philanthropic nature" under Section 1294.02(c) of the Zoning Code and to renovate the structure. The property is zoned "DM-Y Multiple Family District. This is a nonconforming structure based on use; however, under the Lansing Code of 1961, Section 36-24 (5) during which time the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs was utilizing the building, "institutions of the usual philanthropic or eleemosynary nature" were allowed in the "DM-3" District. On July 21, 1969, City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to rezone this property from "C" Two- Family District to "DM-Y Multiple Family District. Class A nonconformity would permit the restoration of the structure for the nonconforming use. This is not a matter of rezoning. The committee received a referral response from the Historic District Commission regarding the need for the structure to be historically preserved and that any work on the structure be in accordance with preservation standards. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the request is in conformance with the Zoning Code, and the structure is important to preserve due to its historic nature. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 4-0, to approve NCU-5-98, 301 N. Butler St., Class A Nonconformity Request with the condition that all improvements be made in accordance with historic preservation standards. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 3 Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve NCU-5-98, 301 N. Butler St., Class A Nonconformity, with the condition that all improvements be made in accordance with historic preservation standards. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge said in the report, Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the criteria for evaluating a Class A status. One of the things that is required if the use is nonresidential is that the property have access to a nonlocal street. This is a nonresidential use. It is used for office for this philanthropic organization, which apparently is a very good organization. The streets that it is on, Butler and Ionia, are both local streets. Ms. Love said, in the Master Plan, as a one-way street, Ionia is more than a local street; it is considered a collector street, collecting and moving traffic from other streets toward the downtown area. "I do believe that it meets that criterion." Mr. Ruge said the report states that it is a local street. Mr. Ruff said it is an institutional use, similar to a church, or a community facility like Foster Community Center. As part of the use, it is an office for the nonprofit organization, but principally it is an institutional or community facility use. When it was rezoned for this use, this type of use was allowed in this district. It was rezoned to the Multiple Family District so it would have that particular use and not be strictly a general office use. Churches and other institutions are allowed on local streets as such, and so it meets that criteria. In dealing with this request, we considered it as a Class A institutional use located on a street that would allow that type of institutional use. It's not an office. Mr. Ruge asked how streets are designated. Ms. Love said the Public Service Transportation Division maintains the Master Street Map; also, in the back of each of the Master Plans, there is a large single page diagram delineating the different types of streets and their characteristics. A local street carries traffic primarily destined for locations on that street and carries volumes typically less than 1500 a day. Collector streets have 1,000-3,000 cars a day destined about half and half. Half have destinations on that street and half have other destinations, in other words, collecting traffic from other locations and funneling it to nonlocal destinations. Ionia in this situation would be classified as a nonlocal street. It has higher ADT (Average Daily Traffic) than most local streets, and secondly, it carries traffic not destined for a location on that street. Mr. Ruge further quoted "Parking requirements are met." In the report, the statement is made, "Four spaces are available on site." Mr. Ruff said the ordinance allows that parking either meet code requirements or that applicants don't need more than what they have. Apartment buildings with single-bedroom units, for instance, that in previous codes had one parking space now are required to have one-and-one-half parking spaces. We require the owner to document that no more is needed than is provided on site. Ninety percent of the time, the applicant does not exceed the four spaces. Upon occasion, they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 4 will have a meetina with cars parked on the street. At the committee meeting. Mr. Goolsby said you don't even notice them there. We believe it met the intent of the ordinance for the parking requirement. Mr. Miller added that Mr. Goolsby at the committee meeting noted that he lives three doors down from them, and that they are exceptionally good neighbors. The committee was impressed with his strong endorsement. Mr. Ruff reiterated that prior to 1983 it was an allowed use under the ordinance. "Yet I didn't want them to rezone to office in that location, and I don't want to force them to move, and we do want to get the building rehabilitated, and we want to make sure it is done in an appropriate manner." On a voice vote, Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous 5-0; carried; NCU-5-98, 301 N. Butler Blvd., Class A Nonconformity was APPROVED WITH CONDITION. Next meeting Wednesday, November 11, 1998 in the Department Conference Room. Mr. Ruff noted that Veterans Day, November 11, is a holiday, and City offices are closed. 3. Urban Development Committee - Ms. Keene. Next meeting Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, at which time officers will be elected. 4. Executive Committee The committee met at 5:30 p.m. prior to the Planning Board meeting to discuss the master planning process. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love checked with Jack Roberts of the City Attorney's staff concerning Mason's Rules and seconds to motions. Typically, substantive issues require a second; administrative items do not require a second; however, each body has its own rules of administrative procedure. Mason's defers to individual bodies' rules of procedure, which take precedence. The Planning Board does not differentiate between substantive and administrative issues; therefore, a second would be required to a motion. The resolution which has gone to Council relative to the Groundwater grant for the EPA challenge grant has passed. We are working on getting the actual sections written. It can be only ten pages long, so we are paring down a wide array of issues. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 5 Council also held hearings on the rezoning for 4000 Hunters Ridge, the Ronald McDonald house on S. Holmes Street, and the Glenn Buege Buick on S. Pennsylvania. The committee today recommended approval of the three items, plus Act-23-98, the purchase of the Hosmer Street warehouse property from the State. D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. 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) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98), k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 6 9, C.nMMFNTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Ruge asked about PRD-3-98. "I think that their guest parking situation is still inadequate. It seems to me that our code was written not with a PRD in mind, but rather an apartment building. It was never anticipated that you would have a garage for one parking space and another space in front of the garage door which would be the second parking space. Does the code need to be changed to address that situation? Mr. Ruff said the PRD option allows us to add to that number, which was an encouragement of the Planning Board. We will continue to work on increasing the number of visitor spaces. We could also make a code amendment that would put a standard of number of additional visitor spaces. It would have to be defined. If there were fewer driveway spaces, and more of a congregate area for parking, it would be fine, because the spaces would not be designated for a specific unit. Ms. Keene said parking seems inadequate, but it meets code. It should be amended. Mr. Ruff said they have agreed to add more parking spaces. "We will continue working on that through the site plan review process to pick up more visitor spaces. They did not want to have wide public roads with parking on both sides, yet the transportation engineer specified minimum widths for emergency circulation. It presents some conflicts. We are continuing refining the plan to provide visitor parking without destroying the green space." Chairman Ruge said his ID card expired in June of 1997; Mr. Miller does not have a card, and Mr. Smith's has expired. Ms. Love said, in response to Chairman Ruge's question asking about the statement Municipal Area Clearance, that you are recognized by the municipality as having a clearance to perform your duties within the municipality, i.e., the City of Lansing. Mr. Ruff said three new Board of Zoning Appeals members' ID cards must also be scheduled. The Planning Office maybe able to arrange for the camera to be set up in the library for a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that members could have photographs taken before subcommittee meetings. A Polaroid camera takes the pictures. The ID is laminated separately. We will organize a schedule for members whose IDs have expired. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked about the parking lot at Grand and Michigan and about the sign code enforcement. Mr. Ruff said for the parking lot, the deadline is up at the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1998 PAGE 7 beginning of November. The signed Certified Mail receipt has been received. Regarding sign code enforcement, Ms. Love said there has been fairly good compliance with the sign code regulations, particularly in the south end. The sixty- day moratorium period is up on October 23. We will be going through the area at the end of this week. Then we hope to start moving north of Jolly Road on M.L. King for the next segment, Jolly to the railroad tracks, probably. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn100698\46 sr �.� T DRAFT NCU-5-98 Page 1 301 N. Butler Blvd., Lansing Class A Nonconformity GENERAL INFORMATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Lansing Association of Women's Clubs 301 N. Butler Blvd. Lansing, MI 48915 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Nonconformity Class "B" status change to Class "A" EXISTING LAND USE: Multiple Family District EXISTING ZONING: "DM-3" Multiple Family District PROPERTY SIZE &SHAPE: 80' X 87' = 6,969 sq. ft. (0.15 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Two Family Residential South: Two and Multiple Family Residential East: Two and Multiple Family Residential West: Two family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "C" Residential District South: "DM-3" Multiple Family District East: "DM-3" Multiple Family District West: "C" Residential District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan, Amendment 1990, designates this area for moderate density residential (6-20 dwelling units per acre) development. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant requests a Class "A" nonconforming status for a structure at 301 N. Butler Street in order to retain current non-profit use as an "institution of the usual philanthropic nature" under Section 1294.02(c) of the Zoning Code and to renovate the structure. The property is zoned "DM-3" Multiple Family District. This is a nonconforming structure based on use; however under the Lansing Code of 1961, Section 36-24 (5) during which time the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs was utilizing the building, "institutions of the usual philanthropic or eleemosynary nature were allowed in the "C" Two-family District. On July 21, 1969, City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to rezone this property from "C"Two-Family District to "DM-3" Multiple Family District. Class A nonconformity would the permit the resumption of the nonconforming use. This is not a matter of rezoning. NCU-5-98 Page 2 301 N. Butler Street, Lansing Class A Nonconformity AGENCY RESPONSES: Assessor's Office: No comment. Genesee Neighbor. Assoc: No response received; however see communication dated June 11, 1998 Transportation: No response received. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Class "A" Nonconforming Status to allow the necessary rehabilitation of the structure and the continuation of the use by the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs of the building under the previously approved 1961 Zoning Code, Section 36-23 (5), which allowed "institutions of the usual philanthropic or eleemosynary nature" in the "C" Two- family District. Also, on July 21, 1969, City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to rezone this property from "C" Two-Family District to "DM-3" Multiple Family District. The building was built circa 1886 as a two story fieldstone structure and has been used for offices since February 23, 1970 for a non-profit organization. Class A nonconformity would the permit the resumption of the nonconforming use and the rehabilitation of the structure. Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the criteria for evaluating class A status proposals. These include: 1. Has direct access to a non-local street if the use is non-residential; 2. No more pollution generated then would be associated generally with uses in that zoning district; 3. Parking requirements are met. Direct Access to a Non-Residential Street The subject property has a nonresidential use and is located at the northwest comer of N. Butler Blvd. and Ionia Street, which are local streets. The building fronts onto N. Butler Blvd, but parking (which is limited on the site) is accessed from Ionia Street. Pollution Impacts Activities associated with the subject property will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise that is more than the level associated with the uses permitted by right in a "C" Residential District. Parking Requirements Parking requirements according to Section 1284.13 for a two-family dwelling (one, two bedroom) requires a minimum of four parking spaces. Four spaces are available on site. NCU-5-98 Page 3 301 N. Butler Street, Lansing The applicant has indicated that parking has not been a problem since most of the activities of the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs are held in the evenings or occasionally on weekends. Other Carol Wood, President of the Genesee Neighborhood Association, indicated (by telephone on October 8, 1998 and in a communication - see attached) the neighborhood association's support of the applicant's request based on the continuing use of the property by the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs. Similar letters of support from the following groups are attached: ► Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. ► N. A. A. C. P. Lansing Branch ► Black Men Incorporated of Greater Lansing ► Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., Sigma Upsilon; and ► Individuals Robert Brown, Jr., Fred Porter and Rudolph V. Wilson Summary The proposed continuation of use and restoration of the nonconforming multi-family dwelling will create no significant traffic, pollution or parking problems for the area in which it is located. It does increase the density level in the Master Plan area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a Class "A" Nonconforming Status be approved as requested. _ CU-5-98. 301 N. Butler Blvd. I I NORTH Class A Nonconformity a u Clb`/.J 24 co El J 2/ C ❑ m '6 25 25 23 25 23 El 28 33 29 36 E EEE 26 �HIANIL1g4EE �� 864.2 25 28 30 BUB 27 E 28 37 .� 24 27 25 30 a El 32 865.0 2s /3 E 863.4 D / 1 32 YYY 28 E( X 86 5.t 523 32 865.0 � 863. 864.6 25 865.7 h❑ 3q a uG ❑_ m r ❑ 3 30 3/ 8 30 30 32 ,g2 32 27 25' � � r m h I O N I A S T 863.7 862.8 862.7�~'3 81 3/ 30 all 30 26 864.8 3/ e 532 34 N 864. l/► , Genesee weighborhoodAssociation WACaroCWood President .Antonia miernik `Vice President HazeCBethea Secretary 1o18 ^West Lapeer Lansing, Michigan 48915 Phone 517 482-0213 Fax 517 482-0213 June 11, 1998 Mayor David Hollister Office of the Mayor City Hall, 9"' Floor 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Mayor Hollister; Subject: Lansing Association of Women's Clubs at 301 N. Butler The Lansing Association of Women's Club has been a fixture of Genesee Neighborhood Association for several years. We have worked well with the staff and officers and feel this organization needs to remain part of Lansing and this neighborhood. As with any organization there are times when funding is limited, but needs are great. The Women's Club recently had an inspection done on the property at 301 N. Butler. Due to the age of the building and normal repairs, many items came to light. Unfortunately this organization does not have the funds to under take a project of this size. Because of your commitment to the neighborhoods and their interest, we request your help in finding the funding needed by this organization to make the repairs to this building as soon as possible. We realize that there are many groups that come to this office and city council asking for funds to run programs or repair building, but Genesee Neighborhood along with West Town Redevelopment Association and Watch 120 encourage you to make every effort on behalf of Lansing Association of Women's Clubs. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Carol Wood President Genesee Neighborhood Association Cc: Dennis Sykes Planning and Development Rev. Mike Murphy 4"'Ward Council Member Tony Benavides President of City Council Vacqueline Porter-Bradford President of Lansing Association of Women's Club U6/I/98 • Mayor David Hollister I24 West Michigan Ave. 9th Floor City Hall �--� Lansing,MI,48933 t i Dear Mayor Hollister. This letter is to express deepest concerns for the current building situation with the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs located at 30I North Butler. The Association has been a long time pillar in our community and plays a vital support role to many community groups in the Lansing area. My organization uses the Women's Club as our point of operation for much of wour community programming and general membership meetings. The membership of Kappa Alpha Psi,Fraternity,Inc.is a strong community oriented group. Our group has contributing to the betterment of the Lansing area youth for over two decades and we depend on the Lansing Association of Women's Club for support As an organization we will be doing everything in our power to help the Association,but we feel that the city should be involved too. I think we all have a vested interest in the survival of active community groups in the area. I hope you feel the same way! Julian J.Darden Polemarch P.O.Box IZZ78 Lansing,MI 4890I (5I7)334-177I CC:Michael Murphy (5I7)334-5489 Fax CC:Jacqueline Porter Bradford ,`eou N. A. A. C . P. ig NAACP rM s Lansing Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Telephone;(517)484-9171 1801 West Main St. Fax:(517)484-505I Lansing,Mlchtgan 4891-1-1011 May 27,1998 Re: Lansing Association of Women Clubs 301 North Butler Honorable David Hollister, Mayor 9th floor City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Lansing,MI 48933 Dear Mayor Hollister: On May 9,1998, I along with other concerned citizens and charitable organizational leaders,met at the request of Mrs. Jacqueline Bradford President and Board Members of the Lansing Association of Women Clubs. This meeting was called because of the possible closure of the clubhouse due to several code deficiencies found during a building imspection. The amount needed to repair and bring this historic building to code is in excess of $5,000 dollars. While the Association has taken efforts to raise funds to keep this important building open for use by the many groups and organizations. It is unlikely that the association will be able to handle the improvement costs. We are hoping that because of the historic value that this building has, it will be eligible for CDBG funds. We would appreciate your help in reviewing this matter for possible CDBG funding. Sinc •ely, Geneva S. Smith president Lansing NAACP cc Council member Michael Murphy Jackie Bradford,President L.A.W.0 BLACK MEN INCORPORATED OF GREATER LANSING P.O. Box 13182 II ansinbi Mirhiaaan 48901 May 11, 1998 Mayor David Hollister Office of the Mayor City Hall, 9th Floor Lansing,MI 48933 Re: Lansing Association of Womens Clubs Building at 301 N. Butler Dear Mayor Hollister: On behalf of Black Men Incorporated of Greater Lansing, I am writing to support the Lansing Association of Womens Clubs request for the city's help with the repairs to their building at 301 N. Butler. As I believe you are aware, a number of repairs have been identified and are required in order for the building to satisfy the current city codes. Further inspection is expected to identify other repairs that should be made too. Due to the age of the building and the limitations they have with respect to their own funds, it is unlikely that the Lansing Association of Womens Clubs will be able to handle the cost of these improvements. It will be necessary for the Association to seek the help of others to assist them in obtaining the funds they need to address these needed repairs. While the Association has undertaken an effort to raise funds, one source of funds that may be available to them are the Community Develop Black Grant funds. If the repair-and rehabilitation of this structure qualifies as an eligible activity for CDBG funds, we encourage you to use your influence to assist the Association with obtaining some of these funds at a time that is a crisis for the Association. Accordingly, we would ask that your office have this matter reviewed for a possible CDBG funding at the earliest opportunity. Please advise if you have any questions. Very truly yours Melvin S. McWilliams,President MSM/jec cc: Jackie Porter Bradford Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., Sigma Upsilon Chapter P.O.Box 12277 Lansing,MI 48909 Omega Psi Phi Fraternity,Inc. Sigma Upsilon Chapter P.O. Box 12277 Lansing, MI 48909 May 27, 1998 Honorable David Hollister,Mayor City of Lansing Lansing City Hall Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Mayor Hollister: This letter is written in support of the Lansing Association of Women's Clubs(LAWC)quest for funding from the City of Lansing. The history and origin of the LAWC is a storied one. Its importance to the City of Lansing,as well as Lansing's African American community cannot be over emphasized. The rich and proud legacy the LAWC holds, and in particular its significance as one of the first public meeting places for the African American community is something we all can, and should be proud of. Historically,the City of Lansing has provided the wherewithal in addition to the wisdom,that has assisted local nonprofit and community organizations with identifying the necessary funding for assistance. As we move toward the next millennium,your assistance will go far in ensuring the LAWC remains a vital and integral part of Lansing. We are respectfully requesting assistance for the LAWC from the City of Lansing. Honorable David Hollister Page 2 May 27, 1998 Respectfully yours, Brian Sydnor, Basileus Omega Psi Phi Fraternity,Inc. Sigma Upsilon Chapter cc: Councilman Michael Murphy, 4th Ward --AMs. Jacqueline Bradford,President Lansing Association of Women's Clubs ROBERT BROWN, JR. Criminal Justice Consultant June 8, 1998 The Honorable David C. Hollister Mayor City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48933 Re: Lansing Association of Women's Clubs Dear Dave, I have been told that you have been made aware of the history of the Lansing Association of Women's clubs clubhouse. It has a long and rich history dear to the Black Community in Lansing. My mother, Georgia Brown has been and remains an active member of the association and my wife Joy and I hold memberships and participate financially in support of the activities. The clubhouse structure needs attention to correct code violations. I urge you to use the influence of your office to assist in obtaining resources to meet this need. Sincerely, Robert Brown Jr. C- 1912 Kuerbitz Drive•Lansing,MI 48906-3525•Phone: (517)323-1183/Faa: (517)323-8183 1920 William Street Lansing, MI 48915-1049 May 20, 1998 David C. Hollister, Mayor City of Lansing City Hall 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mayor Hollister, I am a member of many organizations and on many boards in the Greater Lansing area, but I am sending this correspondence as a very interested and disturbed concern citizen regarding the necessary needs of the Lansing Association of Women's Club located at 500 N. Butler here in Lansing. I attended a meeting with the president, Mrs. Jacqueline Bradford and other members representing organizations on May 9, 1998 to discuss ways and means of bringing the club house up to the current city codes. The Club House was given as a philanthropic gift and is a historical structure that is needed and used by many groups in the Black community. The building is in much needed refurbishing and repair, and in order to keep the gift, the building must be maintained. It has been estimated that $5,000.00 plus dollars is needed to assist in some of the repairs and building expenses before the next city inspection. I want to emphasize the fact that the club house is a historical site in the downtown area and funds are needed to improve the structure. The operating monies for the club house is raised by luncheons once a month and personal and organizational membership fees which is not sufficient for operating expense. Any financial support from the City of Lansing will be greatly appreciated. Very sincerely and concerned, Rudolph V. Wilson cc: Councilman Michael C. Murphy Jacqueline Bradford May 13, 1998 David C. Hollister, Mayor City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mayor Hollister, My correspondence to you today is on behalf of The Lansing Association of Women Clubs, located at 301 N. Butler. I attended a meeting held on May 9, 1998 conducted by the club president, Mrs. Jacqueline Bradford. Mrs. Bradford told us about the citation that was issued to them by the City of Lansing's Code Compliance Division. This citation states that the club is now under an obligation to make exterior repairs that will cost an estimated $5,000.00. Another inspection is scheduled for sometime this week for the interior. It is possible that they will be required to make additional repairs. The money need to undertake these repairs is not available through the membership. I hope that your office can offer some suggestions as to how The Lansing Association of Women Clubs can comply with this mandated repair order. Sincerly, Fred R. Porter copy: Councilman Murphy President Bradford APPROVED AS PRINTED NOVEMBER 17, 1998. Draft 111698 Approved 111798 To Clerk 021099 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD r- 7 P.M. City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall ��! 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, November 3, 1998 77- C71 = 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m., remarking that at 8:30 election results will begin. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Ruge; Smith; six members present. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Nischan at the meeting of October 6, 1998 requested and received an excused absence. At the meeting of October 19, 1998, Mr. Goolsby indicated that he might need to request an excused absence; granted on a voice vote. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter dated October 19, 1998 from LISC to members of the Planning Board Re: FY1999-2000 CDBG Program B. Memo October 22, 1998, John M. Roberts to William C. Rieske, Re: Act 285 Matters, Amendment to Rules of Administrative Procedure C. Memo dated November 3, 1998 from Sam Quon to the Planning Board for a revision of the staff report clarifying criterion No. 1 for evaluation of Class A status. D. Memo from Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator, concerning Nonconforming Use, Class A Review Criteria. 4. HEARINGS A. Community Development Resources & CIP Needs Hearing Chairman Ruge said that this is the time for a public hearing which will provide an opportunity for citizens to express preferences for the use of federal funds to address housing and priority nonhousing community development needs in the city in preparation of the City's Consolidated Strategy and Plan for FY1999-2000. The City expects to receive funding PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 2 through the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1, 1999 and ending on June 30, 2000. It is also appropriate at this time for citizens to comment on their needs and priorities in regard to projects that should be funded under the City's Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Years 1999 to 2004. Any person in the audience that wishes to address the Planning Board on these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and address, and provide us your comments. Written proposals and requests will also be accepted for consideration. It is required that all verbal proposals made at this time also be submitted in writing to the Planning Department prior to November 3, 1998. AMY SALISBURY, REPRESENTING LISC, 530 W. IONIA. I am program officer with the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, better known as LISC. LISC builds partnerships. We link grass roots community groups and the nation's major corporations, foundations and government. We are catalysts for change, and as such, we help communities rebuild themselves into thriving neighborhoods. LISC helps community development corporations, CDCs, transform distressed neighborhoods into healthy communities through loans, grants, technical assistance, and training. Lansing LISC has worked with ten CDCs to build or rehabilitate over 150 homes, provide affordable housing for lower income families. LISC was vital in bringing the Main Street program to Old Town, which has stimulated a significant amount of commercial revitalization over the last year and a half. During 1998 alone, LISC provided technical assistance to 8 CDCs and invested $638,000 to support over 60 units of housing and 40 small businesses through the Lansing Community Micro-Enterprise Fund as well as many Old Town initiatives. A Strategic Neighborhood Plan was created with LISC support in the Northtown Neighborhood which was then approved by MSHDA through their Neighborhood Preservation Plan program. I have included many other accomplishments and our 1999 Goals in my written proposal. All of this would not be possible without the support of the City of Lansing and the CDBG program. I want to thank you for your past support and I urge you to continue to support LISC so that we may continue to provide the resources to move the community development movement forward. Are there any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. STEPHANIE WHITBECK, 620 W. IONIA, HERE AS CHAIR OF THE LANSING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. Actually, I am not here on that issue tonight, I was here to address something else, but I am pleased for this opportunity as we didn't know that this was on the agenda. Very briefly, and with no great surprise, we would hope that you will make certain that in the plan there is appropriate mention of the historic aspect of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 3 City's rehab program. Over the years, there has been a number of homes I believe the City is quite proud of. As a matter of fact, there was just a big open house last week at 601 Sycamore, which was the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition's fiftieth house, and we were intimately involved in their plans, and I think everyone is quite proud of the way that house came out, and I think it acts as an anchor property in that area, and that it will sort of generate the caliber of work that needs to be done. I think that if you do your part and see that this is in the plan, we are going to be able to have more of that. I would hope that we could have some consideration of at least seed money or historic money in commercial properties, something we talked to the City Council about years ago. It has sort of gone into a nether world. We don't know what ever happened to that, and at least in places like Old Town that clearly have been working toward an historic approach to their commercial properties, tying it into residential, and more and more in the Central Business District, there is an interest in looking at the appearance of the commercial structures in the Washington Square area and a hope there will be an ability on second and third floors to tie residential to that. I would point out that with Community Development Block Grant funds including the historic aspects of it that we sort of joint ventured with overlays of funding for a similar project in Old Town that would really be an appropriate jump start to the Central Business District. Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board on the CDBG program FY1999-2000, Chairman Ruge announced the close of the hearing. This hearing is for information gathering only. The information will be referred to the Community Development Program for needs assessment. Ms. Witherspoon noted the activities calendar attached. B. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Lansing Parkview LLC representing the owner of the property to rezone the property at 215 W. Lenawee from "E-1" Apartment Shop to "G-1" Business District. The property is approximately 1.25 acres in size. The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan Amendment 1990 designates this area for commercial/business development with professional office use on the south side of the block. The property is also located in the proposed Capitol Historic District study area. The purpose of the rezoning is to redevelop the site, removing the existing structure, the former Days Inn Motel, and building a new 14-story structure having four levels of parking. Mr. Ruge asked how much parking would be needed for a building this size. Mr. Ruff said we do not as yet have the particulars of the buildings; that will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 4 be determined. It would likely be based on the formula of one vehicle for every 200 sq. ft. of usable floor space. In a new building, usable floor space is typically 75-80 percent of the gross floor area. It will vary, depending on the size of the building. Mr. Greiner said, going to the "G-1" District, that providing parking won't be required; Mr. Ruff replied that is correct. Mr. Greiner asked if we know why the application is for "G" instead of "F". Mr. Ruff responded primarily for height and for setback purposes. They are aware of the lack of a parking requirement in the "G-1" District, but they are also keenly aware that the size of the building and the tenant would require the parking. it would be necessary for the development so they are likely to build it onsite, so it is primarily for reasons other than parking, though we do not have any control over that if they go to "G". MARK LATTERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, LANSING PARKVIEW LLC. This development is at the very beginning, and we are in the process of developing additional plans as we go forward. As we go forward in the committee process, both at the Planning Board and Council level, we will be developing the project. It is at its infancy at this juncture, and that is why you don't have any more detailed information, which we are working on as we proceed. We appreciate your indulgence in this regard. I really don't have anything in addition at this point, but as we proceed in the next several weeks, we will be filling in the spaces and moving forward as best we can. That is what we hope to do and we are excited about the prospect of this potential building. We think it is a tremendous location. We know that property has been an eyesore; it has been vacant for at least five years. We have no plans to do anything other than demolish the building and build a new building. That I want to assure you. From our perspective, there are no options to that, so with that as our plan, as we get specific, I will of course be working with Planning staff and your committees to move forward as we proceed. Thank you. STEPHANIE WHITBECK, 601 W. IONIA, CHAIR, LANSING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. The Historic District Commission could genuinely embrace and recommend this rezoning proposal if a few tweaks, fully consistent with the developer's proposal could be made in the zoning classification. Those technical changes could go on at the same time that this is moving forward, and as Mr. Latterman indicated, they are filling in the blanks and this could happen at the same time. We would strongly urge the Planning Board to consider one of two things, to either do an amendment to the "G-1" zoning classification or create something you might call "G-3" because, as you were discussing earlier, the reason they need to apply for the "G-1" is that this is the one zoning classification that has no height PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 5 restrictions and no setbacks, and they can build to the sidewalk. It does, in this location, present two problems, and we think that this can be overcome easily with some changes. The major one is the issue of the parking. If you look at the Grand Tower Building--if you paid attention to the State Journal story that showed different buildings of different heights coming up when this story was announced a week or so ago, this would be a building roughly similar to the Grand Tower. If you look at the kind of parking necessary for that, that is problematic in this location. As you know, you cannot make any requirements on zoning; everything has to be part of the package. If you want to make that work, you need to make it part of the zoning classification. It does meet with what the developer is proposing anyway. I can't imagine any objection on their part. The reason it is difficult in this location is that this particular property faces onto a very historic park. Reutter Park, which sometimes has bad reputations, is historic. It has had three names over the years, it has been Third Ward Park; it has been Central Park. It is named after a many-time mayor of this city whose name was Reutter. In many historic documents assessing what is going on in the City, the properties that surround it are determined to be historic. If enough property has to be demolished to deal with this as off-site if this gets through without dealing with the parking, there are numerous properties that are around that property and would have to come down that have been mentioned in Historic Lansing `76, the `86 Recon, etc.; it is mentioned in the staff report. A fourteen-story building is quite out of scale with what is going on around that park. We think that is capable of being overcome also with perhaps some design standards. It is wonderful that this developer is talking about parking on the first four floors. We would hope (I imagine you would hope also) that what they come up with for those first facades that are visible from the street do not look like the kind of parking ramps we have in Lansing. Other communities have other possibilities. We would hope that perhaps some design criteria would be in an amended or new zoning classification. We have appended to the material we sent to you, one page from your existing zoning code from the "D-2," the newest zoning code you have from 1987 that has some design criteria. You could look at that as an example; we would suggest that. Otherwise, you would have no way of dealing with what that looks like on the street view, to mitigate perhaps the towering size in that area. The lot-to-lot ability to build is potentially a problem as this property abuts other property that is not like the shoulder-to-shoulder commercial property downtown. You might want to look at some sort of way to deal with parking there. A major reason why dealing with the parking is important not only for the buildings and those buildings that surround it are productive either residentially or commercially. They are generating property taxes and income taxes. The loss of those for parking would be a bad thing in that area. I do not know if you are aware of how we tax parking lots, but if it is a parking lot that is charging for the parking, we tax it on the income string. If PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 6 it is the kind of parking lot that does not charge specifically, it is perhaps available as part of the rent for an office, it is taxed as vacant land, improved with three inches of asphalt, and that is depreciated. It has a serious impact on tax base, and I hope you would consider that. I don't think the City is in the position as they did in with the Grand Tower, bonding to accomplish purchasing all of that property and paying the relocation benefits that had to be paid when they did that as well as the closing or vacation of River Street. I haven't heard that the City is interested in building a ramp, so some kind of parking has to be provided, and if it is not really required in your zoning classification, there is no guarantee that for good and forever that what you are intending will happen. I am sure the developer has the best interest of their ability to rent that property and to do what the City needs, but you know your obligation is the zoning code. Thank you very much. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge declared the hearing closed and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, next meeting date to be decided. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS Mr. Miller requested a recess to take up NCU-6-98. The Chairman declared a five- minute recess. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: July 21, 1998. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of July 21, 1998. Voice vote (6-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of July 21, 1998 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval: July 21, 1998. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of October 20, 1998. Voice vote (6-0), unanimous, carried; the minutes of October 20, 1998 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. Mr. Miller was elected Zoning and Ordinance Committee Chairman, and Mr. Frederick was elected Vice Chairman for the 1998-99 year. a. Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth St., "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 7 This is a request by IBS Properties Inc. to rezone property located at 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth Street from "D-Y Residential District to "J" Parking District. The applicant wishes to use the area for parking to supplement the adjacent building located at 827 E. Michigan Avenue. The proposed rezoning of the subject site is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding land uses. The East Michigan Revitalization Study and the Sparrow Expansion Plan have recommended this area for parking. There is potential for an increase in vehicular/pedestrian traffic. There should not be any adverse impacts on the environment, public service or future patterns of development. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth from "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z- 16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth St., "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District . PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge remarked that this address faces onto a residential property across Jerome St. Is there a requirement for screening and buffering? Mr. Ruff said that the action of the rezoning will require screening and buffering on the north side of the site. Jerome St. on frontage the north is residential and buffering views of the parking lot may also require additional landscaping on the east side. They won't be able to put blacktop all the way up to the sidewalk. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . Absent Greiner. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absent Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; carried; unanimous; Z-16-98, 121, 123, 125-27 N. Eighth St., "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District APPROVED. b. NCU-6-98, 311 Isbell Street, Class A Nonconformity The applicant requests a Class "A" nonconforming status for a single-family home zoned "H" Light Industrial. The site is next to a railroad track. The house was built in 1886 and has PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 8 experienced interior and exterior deterioration over the years. The applicant has applied for rehabilitation assistance from the City. Upon review, staff discovered that the property is nonconforming because the use does not conform with the zoning. Staff also discovered the cost of rehabilitation exceeded the amount allowed for a Class "B" nonconforming status. The applicant does not qualify for Class B nonconforming status because of the amount of work done in the past will only permit $1,406 to be used for rehabilitation. The applicant is therefore requesting a Class A nonconformance status to allow the necessary repairs to the structure that will exceed 35 percent of the fair market value. The appraised value of the structure is approximately $15,159, according the City Assessor's Office. Past repairs total $4,200. Currently, the cost to rehabilitate the house is estimated at $6,469. Repairs to the structure include weatherization, repairing the structure, improving the bathroom, and providing smoke detectors. These repairs will bring the home up to code. Class A nonconforming status is required in order to rehabilitate this building. Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the following criteria for evaluating Class A status: 1. The request does not involve a nonresidential use located on a local street; 2. No additional pollution would be generated with uses in that zoning district; and 3. Parking requirements are met. The committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the request is in conformance with the Zoning Code. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 4-0, to approve NCU-6-98, 311 Isbell Street, Class A Nonconformity Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Greiner, to approve NCU-6-98, 311 Isbell Street, Class A Nonconformity. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 9 Mr. Ruge observed that land use to the east, west and south of the house is all residential. To the north is Nellers Court, vacant land that the City is selling for nonresidential use. Nellers Court was vacated a year or so ago. Mr. Ruge said much residential property is zoned industrial. Why don't we rezone it residential? Mr. Ruff said in 1942 , during the war, the property was rezoned to industrial, along the railroads and major arterials, to help the war effort. Rezoning these properties back to residential to reflect their land use would have to be funded in some way, because this would involve a huge number of parcels. Through the master planning process, it is possible that a blanket action could be taken by Council. Mr. Ruge said we had a request on the north side of the city. Did we grant nonconforming status? Mr. Ruff said yes. The property was not rezoned. Some rezonings to "C" Residential were done in conjunction with the North Lansing-Old Town plan on Center Street. Individual property owners came forward and paid the appropriate rezoning fees. In this case, it was a HUD-funded process, and weatherization and other improvements needed to be done more quickly. The nonconformity request seemed to be the most expeditious route to accomplish the improvements. It is a permanent fix for this particular situation; however, if fire damage over 50 percent of value should occur and repairs should be necessary, a petition would have to be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals. From a master planning standpoint, we might not want every residential property zoned Industrial to go back to residential zoning. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried; NCU-6-98, 311 Isbell Street, Class A Nonconformity was APPROVED. Next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held during the recess of the regularly scheduled meeting November 17, 1998. 3. Urban Development Committee - Ms. Keene. a. Ms. Keene reported that the Urban Development met on October 27, 1998. In his absence, Mr. Nischan was reelected Chair, and Ms. Keene was reelected Vice Chair. b. Act-5-98, SE Corner Jolly & Pleasant Grove, Acquisition for New Fire Station Donna Wynant presented the case, with Fire Chief Greg Martin. Both cited the Fire Department Resource Utilization Study, dated December 20, 1995. The Development Division, on behalf of the Fire Department, submitted an Act 285 Review application on January 21, 1998. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 10 Consideration of the request was delayed until after voters approved a bond issue to finance the project. The site is proposed for a new fire station to replace Fire Station #6, located on Pleasant Grove near Holmes Road. According to the SW Area Comprehensive Plan, the proposed site is at the southeast corner of Jolly and Pleasant Grove, two minor arterials. Pleasant Grove north of Jolly is classified as a collector street. The response time would equal or improve that of the current station. The cost of constructing a new station at this location is equivalent to that of rehabilitating the existing station, but new construction offers a better location to reach southwest Lansing, with a better layout to accommodate equipment and space needs. Also, the proceeds from the sale of the existing Fire Station #6 could be used to partially offset the cost of a new station. A Special Land Use permit is required for the construction of the new station in the A" Residential District (Editor's Note: The property is zoned "F" Commercial District, and a special land use is still required). A public hearing will be held, and impacts such as traffic and noise will be further addressed in the SLU permit process. Staff recommends approval. The committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal that- 1. The response time of Fire Department service from the new location would equal or improve that of the current station; 2. A new station would provide locational and layout advantages at the same estimated cost as rehabilitating the current Fire Station #6; 3. Proceeds from the sale of Fire Station #6 would partially offset the cost of new construction. 4. Further review of the project will take place in the Special Land Use permit approval process. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-5-98, SE Corner Jolly & Pleasant Grove, Acquisition for New Fire PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 11 Station subject to an environmental review and title commitment showing clear marketable title and with the understanding that the fire station is permitted by SLU permit which involves a public hearing process and review by the Planning Board and City Council. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recommend approval of Act-5-98, SE Corner Jolly & Pleasant Grove, Acquisition for New Fire Station. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.- On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nay: 0; Act-5-98, SE Corner Jolly & Pleasant Grove, Acquisition for New Fire Station was APPROVED. C. Act-25-98, W. of 3317 Felt St. (PPN 3301-04-108-021, E. of Cameron St. ROW), Acceptance of Donation Donald W. and Bonita V. Shaw wish to donate the subject property as an addition to Jones Lake Park. The property is landlocked, and a substantial portion is wetland. it is not suitable for development. its location immediately east of the park makes it a good candidate for parks use. The Parks Board has voted to recommend acceptance of the donation for parks purposes. Staff recommends approval of the proposal to accept the donation of the parcel for parks purposes, contingent on the receipt of adequate title commitment for the subject property. The committee found, based on testimony and evidence on the location, character and extent of the proposal, that the parcel is adjacent to Jones lake Park, and is not buildable, and that acceptance of its donation is recommended by the Parks Board. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-25-98, W. of 3317 Felt St. (PPN 3301-04-108-021, E. of Cameron St. ROW), Acceptance of Donation, subject to an acceptable environmental review, and title commitment showing clear and marketable title. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 12 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to recommend approval of Act-25-98, W. of 3317 Felt St. (PPN 3301-04-108-021, E. of Cameron St. ROW), Acceptance of Donation, subject to an acceptable environmental review, and title commitment showing clear and marketable title. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Greiner asked who pays for title actions. Ms. Love said in cases like this, there is a fund established through the Finance Department for doing appraisals, closing costs, title searches, and other things. The donors will not be expected to assume these charges. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Act-25-98, W. of 3317 Felt St. (PPN 3301- 04-108-021, E. of Cameron St. ROW), Acceptance of Donation was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, November 10,1998 at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, at which time officers will be elected. 4. Executive Committee - None. Executive Committee meetings will not be scheduled until after the first of the new year. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love said we have been working on the EPA grant. It is an application for $200,000 from the EPA to do a sustainable communities program. The first phase is to put together a design and build a database with ARCVIEW with GIS attached to it, and with the information in that database, we would be able to do a variety of technical analysis. A major component is the availability of this information to the general public through a program called "Smart Places," a program designed to help the public make effective and efficient decisions regarding the balance between environmental and economic development choices. Also note the six goals that we have identified in the proposal. If we can implement this program, we would have something well worth replicating in other communities and in other parts of the country. I think we have a good chance of being awarded this grant. On the second page are listed all the partners that we have identified who would be participating with in-kind services or through actual dollars. It is a fairly impressive list. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 13 The other matter that relates directly to this is that the Planning Board had talked about sending a letter of support for this initiative relative to wanting to include environmental evaluation as a part of our master plan process, and that we could use the information and data that is included in the effort we would be making to develop the GIS in our master planning process. No.4 in the goals, Building Community Identity through Strategic Planning, one of the major outcomes of that goal is to do our land use plans so that we are sensitive to environmental issues as well as still providing appropriate amounts of land for various economic development uses. Mr. Miller was asked to provide us with some points that could be included in a motion and a letter from the Board that would also be accompanying the EPA application. He has done that. You have those points this evening. If you feel comfortable with this information, we would put that into letter form and with a resolution that would cover basically these same points. I would ask for the Board's support in that endeavor. Mr. Miller said that basically, the points came from Community Planning and Zoning for Groundwater Protection. Any member wishing to borrow the book is welcome. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to take this material and put it into letter form over the signature of Chairman Ruge addressed to the EPA. We would attach a resolution similar to the resolution passed by City Council last Monday night indicating that this is a worthwhile endeavor, community-based and that we would utilize it in our master planning process. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; the motion was APPROVED. Continuing, Ms. Love said it is budget time again. At the Board Chairs meeting, I discussed with Mr. Frederick and Mr. Greiner making the Board's Annual Evaluation a more effective document. We decided to have a dinner meeting on Tuesday, December 8 in between our two regular Board meetings in December where we would have an outside facilitator to participate with us and structure looking at the things that are most important. We would look at the work program, look at establishing priorities, look at adding and subtracting to the work program to make this meaningful input to the mayor and City Council. Members agreed to a dinner meeting on December 8, 1998 date. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 14 D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. 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) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge, citing a Michigan Planner on parking that advocates periodic review of parking standards, asked where did our parking standards come from, and have they been reviewed, and how could we review them if we so desired? Ms. Love said in 1983 when the ordinance was revised, the parking standards of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 15 the International Transportation Engineering Association were used. There are industry studies over the years, there are APA parking studies. Parking requirements for major categories were taken from those kind of standards. In some cases, there were special cases that occurred locally, and some individual parking requirements addressed individual problems in this community. As we apply the standards on a daily basis, some cases are somewhat excessive. The one that comes to mind is the one for malls. There is always parking away from the building that is never parked on, so malls started putting buildings out there. Our parking requirement is about 7.1, industry standards are now about 4.5:1 or 5:1. We require more parking than typical industry standards. The two parking facilities that have requested variances had our support on the basis that the industry standard required less than we do. One of these was Ramco-Gershenson for the Edgewood Mall, and another was Celebration Cinemas. Frandor was the third one. Every time we find things in the code that we feel may be a problem or issue, we have been filing them as to-be-addressed items. Home Occupations and nonconformities are others. It has been suggested that we put our code in LotusNotes, and create a discussion space for items that need to be strengthened. Planners and Code Compliance Officers could make entries in this format. This will help with parking and also with other sections of the code. Mr. Ruff said his goal is to bring the Board code amendments once a year, during the winter. At present we are working on the nonconforming use section. Chairman Ruge said the other thing he encountered was performance guarantees. Delta Township has performance guarantees written into their zoning ordinance. is that in the attention file? Mr. Ruff said when the Landscape Screening and Buffering ordinance was first drafted, performance bonding was required, but it was taken out by Council. We believe it could be put back in. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge asked about Grand and Michigan. Mr. Ruff received a call from the president of the Martin Companies last week who has contracted parking lot design services and rededicating the 10 x 44 ft. space vacated in front for the gazebo in front of Jim's Tiffany. We should be getting the plans by the end of this week. Mr. Ruff also reported on sign code enforcement. We have scheduled a strategy plan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1998 PAGE 16 next week to make sure we get enforcement in the areas we have covered. We will also be discussing the next area next week. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:23 p.m. R�tspectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn110398\47 Z-16-98 121, 123, 125-7 N. Eighth Street "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: IBS Properties 912 East Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48912 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning EXISTING LAND USE: Residential structures EXISTING ZONING: "DM-3" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: "J" Parking District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 297' x 132' = 39,204 ft2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Parking/Office E: Parking/Sparrow facilities W: Parking SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "DM-3" Residential S: "J" Parking/"F-1" Commercial E: "J" Parkingf'D-1" Professional Office W: "J" Parking MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area for residential use. The East Michigan Revitalization Plan recommends this area for parking. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: This is a request by IBS Properties, Inc. to rezone property located at 121, 123, 125-7 N. Eighth Street from "DM-3" Residential District to"J" Parking District. The applicant wishes to use the area for parking to supplement the adjacent building located at 827 E. Michigan Ave. The property is more particularly described as: N 115.5' of lot 6 also east 8.25' of N 115.5' lot 7, Block 1, Jerome's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Z-16-98, 121,123,125-27 N. Eighth Street, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking, Pg 2. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received yet. Assessor: Assessors record show 123 N. Eighth street is not owned by IBS properties. BWL: See attached. Building Safety: No response received yet. City Attorney: No response received yet. Consumers Power: No response received yet. Media One: No response received yet. Development: No comment. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: Per telephone call on 10/6/98, the rezoning is consistent with the long term plans for the area. Fire Marshal: Per telephone message on 10/2/98, accessibility for fire trucks should not be blocked in the event of a fire/emergency. Lansing Neighborhood Council: Talked with Jack Stauffer of Sparrow Estates and he is aware of the proposed rezoning. Parks & Rec.: No response received yet. Public Service: Engineering has no objection to the proposed action. Storm water detention will be required for a parking lot on this site. We reserve the right to review plans through the normal site plan review procedure. Sparrow Estates: No objections to the change as long as Eighth Street remains open to traffic. Only one of the houses are occupied, the others have been empty for quite a while and are quite frankly Report Prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,10/98. Z-16-98, 121,123,125-27 N. Eighth Street, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking, Pg 3. an eyesore. Trans. Eng:. See attached. ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: Sparrow Hospital, a part of East Michigan Ave, has been instrumental in the implementation and development of several plans and studies in and around the East Michigan Avenue area in efforts to revitalize the surrounding areas. The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study provided a catalyst for the economic and aesthetic revitalization of East Michigan Avenue. Sparrow Hospital has taken efforts to improve their hospital facilities which included involving the surrounding community. Sparrow has been working closely with the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood groups to create a positive community that will fit into the area and create as few adverse impacts as possible. Recently, the building at 827 E. Michigan Avenue has been proposed to be used for another medical facility, Ingham Regional Medical and the adjacent parking is still in line with the plans for the area. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land uses consist of residential uses to the north, parking is located to the south, east and west of the subject site. In October 1992, the Planning Board approved the rezoning (Z-5-92) of property at 112, 122, 124 and 126 N. Eighth Street, which is immediately east of the subject site, from "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking for Sparrow Hospital's expansion. With the addition of landscape buffer along the north border of the subject property, the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential uses. However, policies and goals for hospital expansion have been directed to the west, which includes the subject site. The East Michigan Revitalization Study and the Sparrow Expansion Plan have recommended this area for parking. The removal of the three residences will provide the opportunity for additional parking associated with the building located at 827 E. Michigan Avenue. Also, the plan shows that this was proposed for outpatient services for Sparrow Hospital. However, the property is being used by another medical facility, Ingham Medical. The rezoning of this site Report Prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,10/98. Z-16-98, 121,123,125-27 N. Eighth Street, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking, Pg 4. is consistent with the plans for the area. Since there is a residential neighborhood to the north, the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code must conform which includes adequate landscape, screening and buffering, lighting, control of ingress and egress to the site and setbacks that will complement development in the vicinity. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The use of this property as an off street surface parking facility may impact the immediate area with increased traffic and activity. However, there should not be any adverse impacts in the neighborhood which is located to the north of the site. Existing residential curb cuts should be closed, and since this is an addition to the adjacent parking lot, it should be able to be served by the commercial parking lots existing curb cut. Also, any commercial curb cut for this property on Jerome Street should be eliminated unless there is a demonstrated need and adverse impacts to the residential area are mitigated. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There will be some interruption such as noise, dust, etc. associated with the removal of the houses. Also, development of an off street parking lot should not increase any potential pollution if the runoff water is adequately handled in accordance with the Public Service Department requirements. Therefore, there should not be any adverse impact on the environment. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACT None anticipated. The Public Service Department will review runoff water and grading. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT The rezoning of this site for parking should not have any adverse impact on future patterns of development. SUMMARY The proposed rezoning of the subject site is consistent with the zoning of surrounding land uses. The East Michigan Revitalization Study and the Sparrow Expansion Plan have recommended this area for parking. There is potential for an increase in vehicular/pedestrian traffic. There should not be any adverse impacts Report Prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,10/98. Z-16-98, 121,123,125-27 N. Eighth Street, "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking, Pg 5. on the environment, public service or future patterns of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the properties at 121, 123, 125-7 N. Eighth Street be rezoned from "DM-3" Residential to "J" Parking with the condition that proper landscape, screening and buffering is implemented. Report Prepared by Doris M.Witherspoon,10/98. NCU-6-98 311 Isbell Street Page 1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Alicia Cena STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner & Occupant REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant is requesting a Class "A" Nonconforming Status in order to rehabilitate an existing single family residence. EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residence EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 2,728 sqft. triangular lot SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential and Railroad right-of-way S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential and Railroad right-of-way SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial S: "C" Residential E: "H" Light Industrial W: "C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, designates the land use as residential 12-20 units per acre. Specific Information The house was built in 1886 and has experienced interior and exterior deterioration over the years. The applicant has applied for rehabilitation assistance from the City. Upon review, staff discovered that the property is nonconforming because the use does not conform with the zoning. Staff also discovered the cost of rehabilitation exceeded the amount allowed for a Class "B" Nonconforming Status. NCU-6-98 311 Isbell Street Page 2 Analysis The applicant does not qualify for Class "B" Nonconforming Status because of the amount of work done in the past will only permit $1,406 to be used for rehabilitation. The applicant is therefore requesting a Class "A" Nonconformance Status to allow the necessary repairs to the structure that will exceed 35% of the fair market value. The appraised value of the structure is approximately $15,159 according the City Assessor's Office. Past repairs total $4,200. Currently, the cost to rehabilitate the house is estimated at $ 6,469. Repairs to the structure includes weatherization, repairing the structure, improving the bathroom, and providing smoke detectors (see Estimate of Code Related Repairs). These repairs will bring the home up to code. Class "A" Nonconforming Status is required in order to rehabilitate this building. Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the following criteria for evaluating Class "A" Status petition: 1. Non-residential uses require direct access to non-local street; 2. No additional pollution would be generated with uses in that zoning district; and 3. Parking requirements are met. Direct Access to Non-Local Street The property is located on Isbell Street which is local street in a residential neighborhood. The use of the structure is residential. No additional traffic will be generated by the residential use. Pollution Impact Activities on the property will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare, or noise that are more intensive than current levels. Parking Currently, there is enough space on the site to meet the required off-street parking under Section 1284.13(a)(1), but the site does not meet the hard-surfaced parking requirement under Section 1284.15(a). The proposed rehabilitation includes paving the driveway from the public sidewalk to the slab on site. This improvement will satisfy the third criterion. NCU-6-98 311 Isbell Street Page 3 Summary The proposed request for Class "A" Status to rehabilitate the nonconforming use will not create any additional traffic, pollution, or parking problems for the area. Improvements to the house will be an added benefit to the neighborhood. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Class "A" Nonconforming Status be approved as requested. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner NCU-6 -98, 311 Isbell NORTH Class A Nonconformity Vicinity Ma BAKER ST, T❑RRENCE CT, j GARDEN ST. Q v �� ►� WI S❑ AV❑N ST, z c� a W z ISBELL H Q Q � W � v N❑RMAN ST, W V) > H J Q MT. HOPE AVE, ly- NCU-6 -98, 311 Isbell NORTH Class A Nonconformity Zoning BAKER ST, FICIF "H11 W GARDEN ST, v // /V W I L ❑ za //c // W � Irc FICIF If if z H /IC // q U 311 Isbell Estimate of Code Related Repairs Outlet cover at outside outlet-Front Porch 15.00 Storm/screen door front entrance 287.00 New porch guardrail and handrail 520.00 New deck and step structure at side entrance 550.00 Storm/screen door at side entrance(incl. aluminum trim repair) 350.00 Outside light at side entrance 150.00 New vinyl window on west wall of living room 585.00 New screens in 7 windows(storms look OK) 364.00 Replace broken glass East side of house, back window 39.00 Chimney repair and tuckpoint 550.00 Cap open sewer line in basement 45.00 Replace gas shut offs at water heater and stove 95.00 Repair sanitary trap of bathtub 75.00 Replace drawer front and repair drawer 150.00 New shut off valves at laundry supplies 91.00 New sanitary to toilet 145.00 New shut off valves at lavatory supplies 91.00 Complete trim in bathroom 185.00 Bathroom vanity needs new doors 175.00 New fluorescent fixture in bath 75.00 New pull chain fluorescent fixture in closet under steps 75.00 New guardrail at stairway-first to second floor, AND at second floor open area 475.00 Hardwire smoke detectors in both second floor bedrooms, and at open area at the top of the stairs 292.00 Smoke detector in basement 25.00 Smoke detector in dining room 25.00 Finish paving driveway from public sidewalk to existing slab 1,040.00 TOTAL $6,469.00 APPROVED DECEMBER 15, 1998. Draft 121498 Approved 121598 To Clerk 012299 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, November 17, 1998 F_ ; 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Greiner, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith; seven members present, one absent. B. Excused Absences - C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved with the following additions. Under New Business, Chairman Ruge added A. Discussion of ID Cards, and B. Discussion of Subcommittee Assignments. Mr. Ruff added, under Report from the Planning Manager, a possible hearing on December 15, 1998. Also, at the Council meeting last night, there was a request to televise the Planning Board's discussion on the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo dated November 6, 1998 from Sharon Bommarito to Board Chairs regarding Ethics Training and transmitting Ethics Manual. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - MARK LATTERMAN, REPRESENTING DAYS INN PROJECT. I would like to make comments on new information that we didn't have at the time of the public hearing. We are excited about this project; that we think will be a substantial plus for the area and also generate new business for the downtown businesses as well. We are strongly committed to this project and are moving forward as quickly as we can. We hope you will agree with our request. I have Barry Woods, the architect, here tonight to respond to any questions you may have. There are two items we didn't talk about at the public hearing, one item with regard to parking. The options are, if we have a state lease, we would plan to build the 400,000 sq ft building. There are state lots available that would take pressure off street and ramp parking. The additional information I want to mention tonight is, in the event that we are not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 2 able to obtain the state lease, we would very likely build a substantially smaller building, and therefore, the pressure on the on-street parking would be considerably less. That is information I did not have at the last meeting. We do have a proposed drawing of what we would like the building to look like (passed around rendering). Mr. Wood has handed me some additional pictures (also passed around). Mr. Wood and I would be happy to respond to questions. Mr. Ruge asked what state parking lots are located in the vicinity of the building. Mr. Latterman said he can't give the specifics; it is too early in the project to do that. 6. RECESS - Mr. Miller requested a recess for a meeting of Zoning and Ordinance Committee to consider Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "GA" Business District and SLU-22-98, 1235 S. Pennsylvania, Construction in Floodplain. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 3, 1998. Mr. Goolsby said that, since he had an excused absence from that meeting, he will not be voting on the approval of the minutes. Mr. Greiner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the minutes of November 3, 1998. Voice vote (6-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of November 3, 1998 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. The Committee met earlier this evening. a. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District The Committee discussed this proposal and determined that it is a significant development. Given the fact that the Urban Development Committee has been considering the Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan, that it would be good for the full group to consider the proposal. The case was referred to the Committee of the Whole. b. SLU-22-98, 1235 S. Pennsylvania, Construction in Floodplain The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit to put in a telecommunications but which is a pre-cast concrete PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 3 building set on a concrete foundation. The building size is 10 ft wide X 22 ft long. The applicant has indicated that the site may include 2 additional buildings in the future. The first floor elevation is at 838 ft, which is 3 ft above the floodplain elevation. The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, that the area for the placement of the building has a pile of dirt that was heaped in this location some time after flood mapping was done around 1981. This pile was created without permit. Therefore, even though the proposed building location is above the flood elevation, it needs approval by City Council. The railroad tracks block the floodwater flow; the site sits back in a protected area. Further, the Committee concurred with testimony, evidence and the staff report. It was moved, seconded and carried to approve SLU-22-98, 1235 South Pennsylvania Ave., Construction in Floodplain, with the following three conditions. a. That the structure and all mechanical equipment be elevated as planned; b. That the applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality or other federal, state, or local jurisdictions; and C. That the applicant be notified that construction in the floodplain may result in increased premium rates for flood insurance, and such construction may increase risk to life and property. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, to recommend approval of SLU-22-98, 1235 S. Pennsylvania, Construction in Floodplain, with the above three conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays; None; Unanimous; SLU-22-98, 1235 S. Pennsylvania, Construction in Floodplain, with three conditions, was APPROVED. Next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 1998 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 4 3. Urban Development Committee - Ms. Keene Next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, 1998 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. Mr. Ruge asked if the Urban Development Committee planned to meet on Saturday, November 21, 1998; Ms. Keene said yes, a special meeting will be held 1-5 p.m. on Saturday, November 21, 1998. Mr. Ruge said he will be unable to attend November 21, and also November 24 because of being out of town. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that the Board resolve to the Committee of the Whole to consider Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. Mr. Greiner, as Board Vice Chairman, presided. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request to rezone property containing the vacant Days Inn Building and Rumors Restaurant from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District to allow construction of a building, diagrams of which are shown in the packet. The building would face on Lenawee and Reutter Park and also have frontage on Capitol Avenue. The draft report that was included in the packet contains amendments. One is a correction to some parking numbers as discussed with Mr. Berridge. The other is a graphic site plan for review of the footprint of the building on the property. In the development plan, there is parking for approximately 433 vehicles on the first four levels, with office above that. The south facade would be approximately 2 to 3 stories high until you get to the building itself; then it would rise up to the 15-story height. The "G-1" Business District is requested primarily to allow the structure to go up to property lines as well as to exceed the general height limitations of all the other office zoning districts. The proposal is to provide approximately one-third of the parking spaces for this building on- site. The "G-1" District does not require parking to be developed on-site. The development itself would require on-site parking, so they are proposing to build 4 levels of parking. The property, as stated before, is across from Reutter Park, and on Capitol Avenue. The River Island Comprehensive Plan Amendment of 1986 designates this area for expansion of Central Business District uses. In the River Island Amendment Plan, we looked primarily at two issues; one, saving residential structure areas and saving residential land uses north and west of the Capitol, and two, where would be the best place to expand office opportunities for either small or large offices. That was determined to be to the south of the downtown along the expressway, to help avoid traffic through the residential areas. Through other areas, traffic could have easy access onto the expressway. There was more of a mixed development between the Central Business District and the expressway at that time. By having office extend south, we would also have a better anchor to the downtown on the south side of the CBD. On the north is LCC; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 5 on the west is the Capitol Complex; and on the east is the entertainment district. The applicant is purchasing the property, and desires to build this building. It would result in a continued mixed-use block. In trying to make comparisons, there are similar blocks with larger and smaller buildings together, such as Ferris Park Apartments, and Lansing Towers, where larger structures are directly adjacent to smaller structures. This has some differences in the fact that there are some substantial structures around it as well--the YMCA directly to the west, and the full block park area, which is a good amenity. We believe this is a significant development that would anchor the south end of the Central Business District and provide support to surrounding facilities. A big concern, of course, is how parking would be handled. Depending on the type of development, whether the full building or a scaled-back development, we still would be looking at redeveloping a site that would be a benefit to Capitol Avenue. From a visual standpoint, driving down Capitol Avenue, what you see above the Days Inn are the stacks of the Board of Water and Light Power Plant, with a larger structure, the view of the stacks would be obstructed to a greater extent. Mr. Goolsby asked, regarding parking, would 70 percent of the building be usable, and what would be actual parking requirements? Mr. Ruff said approximately 70 percent would be usable. Mr. Goolsby said Mr. Berridge states actual parking requirements as 2.5-3/1000 sq ft. Mr. Ruff said you need to look at the differences. If we apply parking requirements, we look at usable floor area. The 2.5-3/1000 sq ft approximation Mr. Berridge uses for gross floor area is more accurate for the downtown environment. Mr. Berridge operates the parking system, so he has a better feel for parking characteristics associated with a downtown structure such as this. His estimation is based on gross square footage. Mr. Goolsby's concerns about parking include the old Civic Center and old YWCA. The state has already signed leases. We don't know where those workers are coming from. They are from consolidation of offices, but are they from out of the downtown area now, coming in? Mr. Ruff said, about the Civic Center, approximately three-fourths of those are already in the downtown. Approximately 300 would be coming from outside of the CBD. With the development of the Civic Center, they would not be developing the parking lot, they would be leaving it as parking. Mr. Miller said he understands that the Department of Agriculture, now in the Ottawa Towers, will go in the old YW. "I think it will result in a lot more people seeking parking spaces." Mr. Goolsby said the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Building, planned to be built on the west end of the Capitol Complex, would take a substantial amount of the current parking. The state owns a sizeable expanse of land between Ottawa and Ionia. This proposal looks good, and it would definitely be an improvement to the area, but "we would have to be very sensitive to the parking issues involved because of all the other things going on downtown, too. . . ." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 6 Ms. Love said we have been trying to move to the south, and there is a need for that end of the downtown area to be seen as a significant location for a variety of office users. Three lobbying groups, Michigan Manufacturers, the State Chamber of Commerce, and Michigan Retailers, are located on the south end. This is the type of facility that helps recognize the significance of the south end of the downtown and helps people to reorient their thinking to the south. Mr. Goolsby said he helped support that concept, and it is a good goal to get people to the south, but we do have to be aware of the parking situation and deal with it. The new consolidated courts for the City near the Grady Porter Building has not had adequate parking planned for its needs. Mr. Greiner said the state lot closest to this property is at least four blocks away, at Pine Street between Kalamazoo and Lenawee. The lot originally served the Lewis Cass Building. When the Ottawa Street Towers were built and used up parking there, some of those people were forced to go to that lot. Then the Capitol Commons Building was built, and those employees also use that lot. There is parking on residential streets surrounding those buildings. Another thing is that when the state has vacant property, quite often parking is allowed on it. The state has said that they have no interest in providing parking for employees. They are not concerned with whether or not there is parking available. If this zoning change is approved, the City must understand that it must come up with the parking, because the tenants aren't. Mr. Miller said some statements in the staff report were particularly troubling. Concerning impacts on historical properties, the last sentence, that the residential structures in the 500 block of South Capitol and along Hillsdale and Townsend could be threatened if parking is not available, and point No. 4 under Summary, the scale of the development would impact the properties directly south of the proposed development as well as significant historic community resources surrounding the park, and the scale of the architectural design, does not illustrate clearly whether this infill will be sensitive to the adjacent historic properties. The staff recommended approval if the following concerns are addressed: The potential parking pressures on residential properties be resolved, and a sensitive architectural treatment be designed and input. How we address these issues is a concern, once we rezone this. "I am supportive of elimination of that building that is there, and for development on that end of the City, but concerns outlined here and the significance of that location, associated with the parking problems, raise concerns." Mr. Ruge echoed concerns with parking, and elimination of setbacks. The building is built to the lot line on the east and to the lot line on the south. It is not built to the lot line on the west, but it appears to be about 26 feet. In the picture, it is the building entrance, parking level P-3. On the property just to the west, there is an outline--is that of the apartment building. "I would consider that to be a historic building given that it has housed many legislators in the past." Mr. Ruge was concerned about this 14-story building being less than 50 feet away from the 6-story apartment building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 7 Ms. Love remembered Planning Board concerns about how surface parking created those seas of asphalt. In downtowns, the issue is slightly different than in commercial properties in other parts of the city. There is an acknowledgment in a downtown area that there is a responsibility by the City and other potential private parking providers that if parking is at a premium, then the entrepreneur can step forward and construct a ramp. We have to be careful and balance parking concerns with the idea of what a downtown is. It is a more densely developed space than a commercial development on South Cedar Street or Edgewood or elsewhere in the City, and parking is going to be at a premium. There are buildings downtown where developers who already have the "G-1" designation have found that if they didn't provide some parking of their own, that their building was not attractive enough to draw tenants. The idea is compactness. We are working on a project now to bring businesses back to the City to utilize existing infrastructure and to put the land to better use than a surface parking lot. This is an opportunity for the community to get additional revenue and tax base, to revitalize a part of downtown which has long been languishing, and an opportunity to have a building which will face the park and help frame the park. The Henry and Henry draft report says this is an important urban square, and it needs definition. Clearly a building facing Capitol Avenue such as the Days Inn does nothing to frame the urban square. Smaller buildings to the south and west will not be deprived of light and air; they will still receive light in the same proportions as before. The building as it comes close to those properties is stepped down. The recent newspaper article relating the height of this building to other buildings shows it as not that large compared to some other buildings. Downtowns are supposed to be compact. This is an opportunity for us to fulfill some of the things we have been trying for a long time to do with the master plan and to move some Michigan State employees closer to downtown. Mr. Smith said CATA is trying to increase both numbers of routes and passengers carried. Does the state encourage mass transit packages? If so, this may be something worth considering rather than building more parking lots. Mr. Ruge said a parking study should be done taking into account new development, and new workers in the new office spaces. Mr. Greiner said he was not opposed to the project; rather, he is concerned about some of the issues addressed in the staff report, particularly because in the recommendation, staff recommends approval contingent on the following concerns being addressed, and parking is a concern. The Board in its approval cannot be conditioned. Once it is rezoned, there is no hold on anything. Everyone should be aware of that. Downtown needs something, and on the south end, but it doesn't come without drawbacks. Mr. Goolsby said his concern is the parking situation. With all the new buildings going into this area, there is going to be a concentrated demand. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 8 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to table Z-17-98, 215 West Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District, in order to get more information concerning parking; Voice Vote; Ayes: 1; Nays: 5. Chairman Greiner declared that the motion failed. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to refer Z-17 back to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for its consideration; Voice Vote; Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously; Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District was returned to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Goolsby commented that he agreed with Mr. Ruge, that the Board should see as much information as possible about parking and vacancy rates. Mr. Smith urged keeping in mind, that to the extent that we accommodate cars and parking, we are discouraging the use of mass transit and other modes of transportation. As the city develops and becomes a truly urban environment, this is increasingly going to be a problem. Chairman Greiner stated that there is no further business before the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the Committee arise; voice vote; unanimous. Mr. Ruge resumed the chair. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love reported that we are finishing up the historic inventory being done by Henry and Henry; it should be finished by November 19, 1998. We are moving ahead with the RFP for the housing study. Next Wednesday, November 25, 1998, we will be submitting to the EPA a grant for a groundwater program. Ms. Love has not as yet been able to secure the services of a facilitator for December 8, 1998. The discussion will concern how to make our annual evaluation a more meaningful document--look at our priorities for next year and work on developing our project list and define which ordinances we want to work on, and which have the highest priority, so that our annual evaluation is meaningful. Mr. Ruff said the Planning Office has been asked if the Board would want to hear a rezoning for the Civic Center on December 15, 1998. In January, meetings are the second and fourth Tuesdays. Ms. Love said there will be an advertised public hearing regarding the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruff asked if the Board would want the meeting to be televised. The consensus was that the hearing should be held in the regular course of business, on the first meeting of the month, January 12, 1999, and that the decision will be made later regarding televising the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan public meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 9 D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. 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) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98), h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98), I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - 1. Approval of 1999 Meeting Schedule Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve the 1999 Meeting schedule; voice vote; unanimous; the 1999 Meeting Schedule was approved as presented. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 10 2. Dinner meeting, 6 p.m., Tuesday evening, December 8, 1998, at the Parthenon. 3. Ethics Training for Board Members Chairman Goolsby received a memo from Sharon Bommarito, Personnel Director, regarding Ethics Training, and transmitting the Ethics Manual. There is a 15-minute training video. Mr. Goolsby suggested a 15-minute recess at an upcoming meeting for viewing the video. 4. ID Cards Mr. Ruge, Mr. Miller and Mr. Smith are scheduled to have new ID cards made on November 19, 1998. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge asked if members wished to be reassigned to different subcommittees of the Board. Owing to the ongoing review of a large and comprehensive document, the decision was deferred. Chairman Ruge commented a recent Lansing State Journal on three new developments going in on the River near Grand River Park. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Goolsby invited members to his annual Christmas part on Saturday, December 12, 1998. This year's theme is food from Jimmy Buffet songs. Mr. Greiner, who will be moving from the City, said he will be resigning from the Board. This will be his last Board meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick reported that 612 E. Jolly is a residence that continuously has at least ten cars in various states of repair parked there. Some have no plates, others have commercial plates. It looks like overflow from a used car lot. Mr. Ruge asked about the sign code enforcement program. Ms. Love said the building inspectors, who are charged with enforcing the sign ordinance, are proceeding with enforcement. After the first of the year, they will be moving to the next segment of both M.L. King (north) and Cedar Street (south). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 11 Mr. Ruff has received a response at the deadline regarding the parking lot at Michigan and Grand. By resolution, they were required to landscape the front of the 44 ft of Tiffany property. They will install and complete landscape islands along the entire Michigan Avenue side of the lot, according to a plan they have submitted, by mid-year 1999. They are also proceeding with returning the vacated portion of Michigan Avenue right-of-way to the City. Mr. Smith said, about the Bad Habits place on Pleasant Grove and Holmes, only a remnant of the banner over the old Drake sign in front remains. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn111798\47 Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lansing Parkview LLC c/o Patrick T. Reid Suite 400, Business and Trade Center 200 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933-1384 STATUS OF APPLICANT: In a purchase agreement with the owner, Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences, 639 Whispering Hills Road, Suite 500 Boone, NC 28607 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Motel and Restaurant EXISTING ZONING: "E-1" Apartment Shop PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" Business District SIZE AND SHAPE: 165 ft x 330 ft = 54,450 sq ft approximately (1.25 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Public Park South: Professional Office District East: Business District WEST: Multiple Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "A" Residential District South: "D-1" Professional Office East: "G-1" Business District West: "DM-4" Multiple Family District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan, Amendment 1990, designates this area for commercial/business development with professional office use on the south side of the block. The property is located at the corner of Capitol Avenue and Lenawee Street. Capitol Avenue is a major arterial. The property is also located in a proposed Capitol Historic District study area. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 2 "E-1"Apartment Shop District to"G-1"Business District CASE HISTORY: City Council action #403 on January 2, 1957, changed the property at 215 W. Lenawee, described as: Lots 1 to 12. Block 148 (property bounded by Capitol, Hillsdale, Townsend and Lenawee Streets) from "D" Apartment District to "D-1" Professional Office District. City Council action #2026 on April 6, 1981, changed the property at 215 W. Lenawee (500 South Capitol Avenue), described as: Lots 1 to 12, Block 148, Original Plat of the City of Lansing, from "D-1" Professional Office District" to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. The property is located in the proposed Capitol Historic District . The area surrounding Reutter Park is recommended as a potential national or local historic district in the recent Lansing Architectural Survey II draft report prepared by Henry & Henry, Preservation and Architectural Consultants. On the north, the current property faces the historic Reutter Park, formerly Central Park, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. On the west side of the block, the six-story Porter Apartments (considered one of Lansing's fashionable addresses of the period and home to many state legislators), located at 501 Townsend Avenue and the Mid-Town Apartments at the corner of Townsend and Kalamazoo, are Classical Revival style architecture. Both are listed in the Historic Buildings Inventory of Memorandum `76, Historic Lansing. Along with other properties in close proximity or surrounding Reutter Park (i.e., the Grady Porter Building, YMCA, Mid-Town and Porter Apartments), they also meet criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Lansing Parkview LLC, representing Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences (Michigan), is requesting to rezone the property located at 215 W. Lenawee Street, from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District. Draft plans are attached. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received at this time Assessor's Office: No response received at this time Board of Water & Light: The Board requires 10 days notice for referrals. A response will be forwarded by November 6, 1998. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 3 "E-1"Apartment Shop District to"G-1"Business District Building Safety: The project is subject to the City's Plan Review and Site Plan Review process. For further information please contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381. The department has no objection to the proposal. City Attorney: No response received at this time Consumers Power: No response received at this time Development Office- No response received at this time Downtown Neigh. Assoc: No response received at this time Downtown Neighborhood No response received at this time Assoc. Fire Marshall: No response received at this time Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission is not opposed to the demolition of the Days Inn. It has recommendations regarding the proposal and zoning (see attached). Historical Society of No response received at this time Gr. Lansing: Lansing Neigh. Council: The Downtown Neighborhood Association boundaries include this area. Our office contacted Bob Cochran regarding this issue. MDOT: No response received at this time Parks & Recreation: Distant views to the State Capitol Building from the east have been obliterated with the introduction of high-rise structures, pedestrian skywalks (Sparrow), billboards etc. This would block views from the south. Building heights should be four stories or less. It seems the highest and best use (and most economical) would be a hotel use. The 1998 Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan (draft) calls for a quality limited-service motel. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 4 "E-1"Apartment Shop District to"G-1"Business District Police Department: No response received at this time. Rick Cook Public Service: Public Service - Engineering has no objections to the proposed action. We reserve the right to review plans prior to approval of a building permit through the normal site plan review procedure. Transportation Dept: No response received at this time ANALYSIS This block was included in the Original Plat of 1847. This area is potentially included in a proposed Capitol Historic District, and also the Architectural Survey Level II study area report by consultants Henry & Henry. Many of the buildings surrounding Reutter Park meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and are considered contributing structures for a national and/or local historic district. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed planned office development of 14 stories, approximately 195 ft, is comparable in scale to the new state legislative office building (under construction), or the Grand Tower. The Porter Apartments, the Mid-Town Apartments, YMCA, Grady Porter Building, Lansing Public Library, and other structures in close proximity to Reutter Park range from four to seven stories in height. Immediately south of the proposed development are residential structures which have been adapted for office use. The two lower levels of the structure, particularly the southern portion, are more in keeping with the scale of the adjacent residential structures. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The developer's request is to rezone the property, located at 215 W. Lenawee Street, from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District, in order to erect a new 14-story office building which incorporates 4 levels of parking. The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan, Amendment 1986, designates this area for Central Business District (CBD) development with professional office use expansion south of the Capitol in the entire area west of Townsend, east of Pine, south of Kalamazoo and north of 1-496. Z-17-98, 216 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 5 "E-1"Apartment Shop District to"G-1"Business District IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The property is located at the corner of Capitol and Lenawee. Capitol is a major arterial. The developer proposes parking incorporated into the first four levels of the office building. The ingress-egress for the four-level parking ramp is located at the southeast corner of the proposed development, on S. Capitol (as shown in site plan). The generation of traffic from the proposed development would be consistent with downtown traffic flow along Capitol Avenue (with traffic flow from the east to Washington to Lenawee'and S. Capitol to access four levels of parking, or from the west along Kalamazoo, a collector, to S. Capitol Avenue). The proposed office development, with 393,432 sq ft gross, provides for 433 parking spaces within the first 4 levels of the structure. At 70 percent usable space, this would require 1,380 parking spaces. If the State of Michigan is the primary tenant, some part of the staff will park in nearby state lots, and part in city lots and ramps. If the primary tenant is not the State of Michigan, a large part of the staff will have to park in city lots and ramps. Public parking may need to be added to the south end of the Central Business District. As a part of the downtown, developments such as this are typical. The location close to 1-496 is more appropriate for easy access to the expressway. When discussing this development with Mr. Berridge, Transportation Engineer, it was noted that downtown buildings such as this only require 2.5 to 3 cars per thousand sq. ft. of gross floor area. This estimate would then equate to the building needing 1,000-2,000 spaces. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Landscape buffering, particularly between the proposed development and the residential-scale properties immediately to the south, should be considered in the site plan review process. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is consistent with the Central Business District development patterns for the area south of Kalamazoo, west of Capitol, east of Pine and north of 1-496. IMPACT ON HISTORICAL PROPERTIES Many of the buildings surrounding Reutter Park meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and are considered contributing structures for a national and/or local historic district. This infill development, proposed at 14 stories, would represent approximately 2 to 3 times the height level of the surrounding historic Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 6 "E-1"Apartment Shop District to"G-1"Business District structures: Porter Apartments - 7 stories; YMCA - 4 stories; Grady Porter - 4 and 5 stories; and the Mid-Town Apartments - 4 stories. The adjacent area also contains numerous structures along S. Capitol, Hillsdale, and Townsend which are residential structures adapted as office buildings. The residential structures in the 500 block of S. Capitol and along Hillsdale and Townsend could be threatened if nearby surface parking is not available. SUMMARY 1. The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the River Island Plan, Amendment 1986. 2. The proposed development could require access to approximately 947 additional parking spaces. 3. The site plan as proposed would not adversely effect the environment and pedestrian/vehicular circulation significantly beyond current levels for downtown traffic. Pedestrian use of Reutter Park as an open space for passive leisure opportunities may be increased. 4. The scale of the proposed development would impact the properties directly south of the proposed development as well as significant historic community resources surrounding Reutter Park. 5. The scale and architectural design does not illustrate clearly whether this infill will be sensitive to the adjacent historic properties. 6. Lansing Parkview LLC, which is a newly formed corporation, has a "purchase agreement" with Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences and an unknown deadline. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request from Lansing Parkview LLC to rezone the property located at 215 W. Lenawee Street from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District, if the following concerns are addressed; the potential parking pressures on the residential scale properties surrounding the proposed development are resolved; and a sensitive architectural treatment, particularly of the lower levels of the proposed development, could be incorporated into the design. Report prepared by S.Cantlonla:lz-l7.98 To: The Lansing Planning Board � From: The Lansina Historic District Commission Re: Z-17-98 Dated: Novemb r 3, 1998 The Historic District Commission could genuinely embrace and recommend this rezoning request if a few tweaks, fully consistent with the Developer' s proposal, could be made in the language of the G-1 zoning classification. Technical changes in the zoning classification could be simultaneously processed. THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STRONGLY URGES THE PLANNING BOARD TO EITHER AMEND THE EXISTING G-1 CLASSIFICATION OR CREATE A NEW "G-3" CLASSIFICATION (G-1 PLUS PARKING AND DESIGN CRITERIA) TO HELP THE CITY AND DEVELOPER DELIVER THIS PROPOSAL AS AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING THAT BLENDS WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS AND THAT DOESN'T THREATEN SURROUNDING HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITH DEMOLITION FOR SURFACE PARKING THAT ALSO HARMS THE TAX BASE. (Attached are the D-2 design standards from Sec. 1262.11 . ) 1 . We have no objection to the razing of the Days Inn building. 2. We are pleased that the developer proposes 4 floors of parking rather than surface parking. THE CITY'S LACK OF LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE PROPOSED PARKING RAMP A CONDITION OF THE ZONING IS THE MOST SERIOUS DRAWBACK. 3. A 14 story building is out of scale with all properties around historic Reutter Park and the adjacent historic buildings . We hope that the facade, particularly the lowest levels, are sensitive to the area and more attractive than any Lansing ramp. This is consistent with activities in Old Town, the PSD and the pending comprehensive plan. THE CITY'S INABILITY TO GUIDE DESIGN . COMPATIBILITY IS ONLY REMEDIED TO DATE IN THE D-2 CLASS. 4. We recognize the attractiveness of a zoning class with no height limitation or set-back requirements. We believe that building to the lot line is a problem for adjacent properties that are not the shoulder-to-shoulder commercial buildings of Washington Avenue. THIS NEEDS A REMEDY IN THE ZONING CLASS. 5. Failure to provide parking on the existing site would threaten surrounding properties, many of which are historic, all of which are productive either -as residences or businesses and all of which generate income and property taxes for the City and contribute to the economy. LOTS THAT CHARGE FOR PARKING ARE TAXED BASED ON INCOME; LOTS WITHOUT A SPECIFIC CHARGE ARE TAXED AS VACANT LAND, IMPROVED WITH 3 INCHES OF ASPHALT AND DEPRECIABLE. THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR EROSION OF THE TAX BASE. This building will require a parking lot comparable to the size of, the Grand Tower's lot if a ramp isn't mandated. That lot required millions in bonds to buy numerous buildings and pay relocation benefits. River Street was closed/vacated. This option is not available. The City is not planning to build any ramps. ,Y 1262.11 PLANNING AND ZONING CODE 144 1262.11 EXTERIOR BUILDING Rre tTr etions shall apply in the D-2 The following exterior building . Residential/Office District: residential Residential Structures• The* existing (a) Existin ro osed change to the exterior facade shall be retained. Any sPa building :permit shall be of the structure 'which vieh b�the Planning Division. Any Pro- t. re reviewed and approved posed changes which change the thearc Planningg Board;. which building shall also be reviewed by modify, the may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly,. or may Y Planning Division's recommendations. proposed changes to (b) Existing Nonresidential a building per- existing nonresidential facades which require. shall be in keeping with the architectural character of the the mit roved Eby neighborhood and shall be reviewed and the Planning Planning Division. Any proposed chang arctect Division considers will change b e the Planning Board' 'ural style �which building shall also be reviewed Y or 'map modify, the may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, ; Planning Division's recommendations• New Construction. The architectural style of proposed new (c) with the architectural character structures shall be in keeping roved by of the neighborhood and shall be hangesaconsidered to be the Planning Division. Any prop substantial shall also be reviewed and approved by the Plan- ping Board. (Ord. 748. Passed 2-9-87.) 1262.12 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE; the maxima Tlot coverage shall In a D-2 Residential/Office District, The total .square be not more than sixty percent of the total all structures sh footage of area whi all be not ch may `be covered by The determination of percent of the total lot area. , more than forty p ter 1284. shall be in accordance with Chap , required parking ; (Ord. 748. Passed 2-9-87.) J MAUS CON ROOF -- MEGHAMCA1, 'M-M I OFFICE 15 _ 28,163 5F. ' ' I OFFICE 14 28.16 5F. 'M'm I OFFICE 13 28,163 5F. OFFICE 12 27,026 S.F. 11M' 'Mil I I III OFFICE II 25,271 5 F. ' 'Mil I I III OFFICE 10 25,271 S.F ' MllIIIOFFICE 9-. .. 25,271 5P ' 'Mil I I III OFFICE 13 25,271 S.F. ' ' I I III OFFICE 7 25.271 S F 'M'Mll I I III OFFICE 6 25,271 S F ' 'Mll I I III OFFICE 5 25 271 S.F 'M'Mil I I I I OFFICE.4_.... . ___. 25,271 5 F 'Mil I I I I OFFICE 3 _ 25271 5F ' 'Mll OFFICE 2 25.271 5F OFFICE 1 25,506 5F _ _ _ -_ PARKIIJG 4 45.106 S.F. 1138 5F PARK11.15 3 45.106 S.F. 2.548 5 F PARKII`* 2 55.084 S.F. ' I PAPKII15 1 55.054 5r. PARKII 15 AMA 200.300 S.F. 433 CARS DUILDIN6 5EGTION OFFICE AREA 393437 5.F 0 10' 20' 40' 101 A L t.P,F A Yl� .,12 ;r IIII II ! I III III ! y i � Fki ■ ■ PARKING LEVEL PI A m., i 1 roT 1 1 PAKKWC2 LEVEL PZ w � 1 I � I - - IJ PARKIPd6 - 105 5P.4CE5 LU I 1 1 1 1 1 1 CAPITOL AVE _BUILDING ENTRAWCE / PARKING LEVEL P3 ��� i I PAPKIHG - ]I] 5PA.GE5 1 1 PARKING I,E EL P 4 OFFICE AREA �- Ltd OFFICE LEVELl 1 �' 70' Air OFFICE AREA H=-j i OFFICE �EVE�S 2 - 11 Uv oZ D o Zl 19 91 ggIj�O f- IL nn _ dad a�i��o —� OFFICE AREA z �4 y ' OFFICE I,EVEl,5 13 - 15 O 0' 2o, 40 0 II Q 0 4 i -L I � 1 ■ _ o r1. SLU-22-98 1235 S. Pennsylvania Construction in Floodplain GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER: The Spe4ker Company 8350 Fremont Pike Perrysburg, OH 43551 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: Office/Warehouse PROPOSED LAND USE: Telecommunications Facility PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Leased area of parent parcel: 30' wide X 60' long (1,800 sq. ft.) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Light Industrial S: BWL property & Grand Trunk RR ROW E-. Light Industrial W: Light Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial District S: "H" Light Industrial District E: "H" Light Industrial District W: "H" Light Industrial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for industrial/warehouse development. CASE HISTORY: Act-18-96: An exchange of properties was approved between the Lansing Connecting Railway (LCRR) in this area to facilitate a consolidation of properties for the Board of Water and Light. LS-32-98: A lot split involving the east 331.5 feet of Lot 20 was recently combined with other property primarily to add additional land to the Board of Water & Light property for parking. SLU-22-98 naQP 2 1235 S_ Pannsy[Jyania APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit to put in a telecommunication but which is a pre-cast concrete building set on a concrete foundation. The building size is 10' wide X 22' long. The applicant has indicated that the site may include two additional buildings in the future. SPECIFIC INFORMATION AGENCY RESPONSES: PUBLIC SERVICES: Public Service- Engineering has no objections to the proposed action. Description of Site The subject property is bounded by Board of Water and Light property and the Grand Trunk Railroad right of way to the south, industrial/warehouse development to the north, Lansing Connecting Railroad right of way to the east, and BWL property to the west. The elevation of the subject 60' X 30' property, which is part of Lot #20, is shown on the attached survey. The base 100 year flood elevation for this area, which is in the flood plain of the Red Cedar River, is 835.0 feet (as shown on FIRM Community Panel #Z60090- 0006-13, dated March 2, 1981). The area for the placement of the building is a pile of dirt/gravel that was piled in this location sometime after flood mapping was done around 1981. This pile was created without permit. Therefore, even though where the building is going is above the flood elevation already, it needs proper approval by City Council. The elevation of this 60' X 30' property ranges from 834.74' at its southwest corner to 842.50' in the northwest corner. The building, shown in the Grading and Utilities Plan, sits at an elevation of 838.00 feet which places it three feet above the base flood plain elevation. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to build a 10' X 22' telecommunication but on a 60' X 30' piece of land, which is part of Lot 20. The site will covered with 6" of aggregate and enclosed with a chain link fence and have a gated entry on its west side. Ingress and egress to the subject site will be across Lot 17 and Lot 20. SLU-22-98 Pane 3 1235 S_ Pennsylvania The petitioner has made application with the MDEQ for a flood plain permit. It does not appear that the location or the elevation of this small part of the site will adversely impact the flood plain of the Red Cedar River. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit to put in a telecommunication but which is a pre-cast concrete building set on a concrete foundation. The building size is 10' wide X 22' long. The first floor elevation is 838.00 which is above the flood plain elevation by three feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this building and the two proposed expansions with the following conditions: ► The structure and all mechanical equipment be elevated as planned. ► 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 in the flood plain will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance and such construction increases risk to life and property. ..r• d lo.,,. 17 + Q�� 75 76 77 7S 7f e0 tl e2 1 e3 i4 e6 e6 Is; 189 <M1 •it :•4� or`•.,• '• �; t�a\ a�\ ?` �,` �{0� ►��, 14, ,y�1 i'/i� �O "�` ��, ,71 ,,` V. 10 sS� \ r 911 2 , V . D� 1% r 6y !lam T 0 "T' lugs o , Ott: LP �� 7✓• v Q � �� LC7!"1 1 �N 'z � p /rt�' t��-5 a-� �. �,•,• �2� 11 1 Q ` 17 101 `a 2 3 \ . L tip, 7 toil Z •G�lr Dig >^yo ` _ ..1. Z) ♦ yr` f. _ '7 1. 6 \I 2 z � � ���. I 5it� Yd V v �,}� 10 •, Y �1 B�,l ti ? �. �y�• 1�1 ►1 .t L �i ll I t +�fzOF 1 f W. \\ 01 20 I I'ze�-'t� LOT 21 ....�• � /•o/•red by '`• i � /s�• t.• j 1 � ; u ,o'� � QGeSG !t� �r 14� � J *15 d i I 9 � � I � 19 �1} Blr/L .► •�! - 1. �� y1... _ I (3) �.+—'�.NIJBIWAT"AONE[MEM7 asD1- 2-ts9-001 GRAND TRUNK R.R. w p Q1 '' 1 •1 QT. et CITY,4•10-1903 �0 C 0 N O A 7 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY a egal Description (SEE PAGE 1 OF 2) L-OT # 7 w BENCHMARK: P.K. NAIL /N POWER POLE ��.� 1 "=20 X ±f 50' N.W. OF. PROP. 00C. -� 0 G� I'2.50' 0� EL. 8 CO l' 838.10' �� S 89128'30" E (n 60.00' A O 3 -� 4. s , o $ SURVEYED PARCEL o gg 0 co . _ y 132.0' 409.7' 331.5' 60.00' N89'28'30'W EL. � ' EL. 834.74' "d` 836.30' f.O.e, I oo YEAR FLOOD LOT #1 9 CONTOUR 66' o BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT r,o R/W f i l I 501 Jr�' CIL G. T. W. RAILROAD hereby certify that we have surveyed the property herein described, and that there are no visible roachments upon. the described property, except as shown hereon. further certify that we hove fully complied with the requirements of lion 3, public act 132 of 1970, and that the ratio of error of ure of this survey is no greater than 1/5000. �! /l Ln �'tit '•• - [tJ :'J Q.A' .q '�'•=�� C° T N N 1 Z z LIJ •l, _ � •yii ii L > 'C/.= 'lc�,'' 1 h%t.a:J�,.:e�':tZn...� ;,�:•'J:.'•` .ri.:•�.+ q ol ;4 1. "_% 0 z .. «'3 ,A {<' . '�t rl,�ir+kjJ '�Z.,dr])� ' Cy71t7 n W t 3 •i '. •.tiy(iG, N• 0 •�•Vltl ,• aN•2•./' r' .v.'iR•w,...N;.-`•` 1,•'fF �i' %',f'1r' :•✓'ta-'�-S•�' z Ln ,r,l.�lv.�'.'�'�{' '`^ N �%^ :it`l' 4 ''t'"'.: •r. .R'` � s^.�Y/• Y.•r:..— eYr.�.-�i �:`�. •fAa {' ' N ',£�'',,. 4•J •It %. \ 'a;}„:: Q �';�'" ?:''. ; ii•,... •�,•� • :r..'a •'C'!r:•%(rs.Ji ui •�. ..�'!t .f; •`� ._ • •... •,r: hC ! s %.:. .S �''. = I�. `r t f•` � 'r:ti (f}:r� � .'• •I. ( r •.• ";�+ .•z� ',y• 'Oar � 'y::' O ; '•�� ,� •mil-+',,1 y �j ••�•.s;• •/. '`^Zr�/1'`r•..... i Il. . .����y^..t.•:2,.. ;.A:•: ~t''_�f::r j. °r �?i.. N �• 1{ +. it i''o •.D ��r. _ ..�.:rF: •,^ ;;.0. ''X.. '.,• '"rQ.•f.2: S_ •'��-'r��\�.J . . ._,t � .t �1ei.1��� .4. r �+ •,,r.. ., !• .{ , .•1� :".':';Cif ' �.�' '�+ , .: ,':�•,• :,�?Y '.'•,A:'`���,':+;,ut,'�,-' r to � �;' 'CS r: y - _ :,:,..i•: 'y•' v "� `S. : r.gFCar{rl ,if71 / S' �. f•''1q,rtr'r'r,ej W �,I; .r,'+s+�:�' •a 'his;:: r i►.? +_: w t 'l• t:'ie_ .. �••. .•% Sty, t'•.Cr[/Z' :.-rt; r r .,,,;'r':�• ..?,^. ..^:�•: a. �• r;.°!y r. "••I, '_ ,� a�r.;~ '•'�':(r,: r,y ,�•• r "f' e!• :ch'.'Y: Sri:= _ : �• Z t .. ,.y.-• „a/•it` i ` ��i• Y`L! 'c' � •7 i�_Y �' U j,. Q `'t-.�['-:Ty%'-��I~�i•'�:.'':_"=r. ,c+••yy.���,�;�',� `• c �;���o�y"' ,�,�s^���� �-Tt��,'�.'!�•�. �, '. �,��,1� .*�c �?'w.:f'9(��t1,2- k •i •�+._ .ti�� „'.S'[;, ' ••T"+��`=...�i�af'�,'f'F.�" �11��t�,�-^'r', i Y.�..4,!__ t���� J 'A�•;.r::�'r f:w.,.�,1/.^:r�VVVrlla.t•.i. •�i a+.;i•7r: �ti "�..+;1_ .�: ._r�:' co,.c. t.:.l►,.• k'•3,1'7.,t...:.•''j '1t 4r-i. tt� ja '+�,,�;�e,i •r ti- Q• � ' e';tr ia`:!'�`ems J.3 1.7 •' .. r.•�••S .wegA f� �.�' '` { �r ,; -.. t�J�11 , •.i: �v..: brY e• ^a '+c"r� fFl � ,h 'x'—�;'• s`•..t.. C� 4:; ` >'.' �rJ. 'tt•..• t 't.'•. '�hS ,'•' s. 'Y,�`tt� L 3 S a :l'`' ..a1.:� .ti..'��.'4'�� '��t i:. •�:iL��, }..i,� a .: -, -_\�i •('`d \- 4 S,1tj a`{; I''�/. _•(t.i.` ♦, �Ni/1 y •-\..'�:•li.}� ../{•ru �; �' 3�4- �'�i �'3 L�:. w.'•.''y-N`• .L�,Y`;'. W �fi �.M�1'Q;'� Y!=�'i��y'•1.ati�'I�j i � ^4".�.'.R � �f.,, •S .''I.y�;� {/y�'la.ci•Y a/LS.c7 �'. {�' � 'ri'3}C��(� IC•' � I ,4_'••:a' r,l� - i J,. .S ~. ,. 4 t�r ..��M-a'.(aa����___}iii:` z I.i �t���,�- ; •� 'f;. >t ,l. a T� 3�'�i ;�� •r;� ��'�li., .�', •y , '��N-'i1i.•.�y '�`tss...,-'•?t; •--.:i("+� a .*,,rt ,•c. its. ;'�'iri�,,i�t' t i� � �;�1 N,!� •p� t!riSi�� ! i •' 3 t•r: �� 'y'•�r1.U°'''.,.y'��+!'C�. ' ..1� �r' 't y . 1i�r�c 3aS::l� .F`; yC•— �y:n r v` ,: :;; -'`�., �J •ti. r : t.pt ir; r,,}• 'cc„'a.,. '.rtj l?' �s.7Y,'8 .,i".. h-._ w XNndl ONtI d'J •'� •::i 1` ''~'+�r��_.i�•M`^(•��j ter e v�f �}.�' ►i'x1 '.�".'�.}• t ..k 5. ,�.'�} � > •f''�'1.r "I. '•' r _ i�'.r t I a�r•I tfv,IV f� •' '!.�'I 1'Q' — rl;i• I• ,,' t ifj = ��:� r .[r:�x"',-}"'Xy/j 11 v •.1 y}_��"�''1711 c: �.,� e Y.Y•. F ` �'�y.a'.t�.S:i ne:S{r 'r` -" =Y,v' •� r tl rS, J Y .''1 S�;�•�' r Y iT yc�' If A. `G•?r•' .2'i' 'dbl _ �fr• s 1 �' "Sl_ y �' y•Jp y'' N , 1\■ 1 1 1 : � ( 1 •i'�it�l �`f'p�,tl:ry'1./' .1► 0 • 1„OT s. 4N.r 60.00' X . . x . x x x x 1.00` TYPE 01 BWLVNO 220 S.F. g I Ix '" i " A I � GATE UY I .. T DOOR THRESHHOLD ISE�f SHEET Si.X X. X X X I S w LOT Is BOARD OF WATER + UGHT NOV 03 '98 11.37AN P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC P.2i3 PETITION FOR CITY OF LANSING ' SPECIAL LAND USE PLANNING DIVISION File No.AV Date Submitted o The Honorable Mayor and City Council: The undersigned do hereby petition for approval of a Special Land Use on the following described property. ddress or Location of the Property 1235 S-• Pennsylvania Ave. , Lansing MI egal Description **see attached i Phone Number Interest in Property Applicant Address 8350 Fremont Pike 419 872-7000 (Check) � rHE SPIEKER COMPANY Perrysburg, OH 43551 ❑ Option to buy Name of Owner Address 221 N. Washington Phone Number ❑ Owner ('rf different from applicant) ❑ Leasee ASC Services Company Lansing, MI 48933 17 334-3964 ® Represent t3wrfap 1~rr ❑ Other, specify ew�ern- t'�+M.TA�. �RflS f more space is needed for the items listed below attach extra sheets. i tN , 1. Proposed Special Land Use: Telecommunications Facility E!.epoVL IQ Check: ❑ Child Care (7 or more) ❑ Residential Care Facility(6 or more) Zoning on the Property: mmerri a r L,,e K-r Ti tDUM%lw- District. 2. Size of Parcel: C.ti Aim A&4W CMIZ Width 30!_Feet, Len;h 60 —Feet. Area— 1800 _Sq. Ft. Irregular. (specify and attach scale drawing with dimensions) 3. Please describe your proposal(include specific background information and copies of permits,approvals and program information). ' We pro osed to put in a telecommunication but which is a re-cast concrete building set on concrete foundation. The buildin size is 10' wide X 22' long i We would like to include the entire site for this permit for the possibility of two (2) more buildings in the future. ' i S LU-2 / Qo Fwm &-M D n m T a 7 is $ v, �Q7 O m 8 m C Z C) a S o m m 4. Submit the following information: a. Lot Plan (showing location of existing structures and include adjacent properties and setback dimensions). b. Site Plan (showing parking areas, driveways, accessory building3, trash receptacles). a'Landscape, Screening and Suffering Plan i�a� nw wr�/i Chapfu'/Z9O. d. Photographs of the site. e. Flood Plain Elevations If applicable, f. Copies of permits from other agencies it applicable. - We are in the process of getting a MDEQ Permit i lease have this petition reviewed by the Planning Division prior to Ming it with the City Clerk. Signature of icant or assistance.please contact the Planning Division,2nd Floor,119 N.Washington Square,Lansing,Michigan 48933, j hone(517)483-4066 L CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Legal Description THAT PART OF LOT 20, Of ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO. 26, ON NORTHWESr 114 OF SECTION 22, T4N, R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY MICHIGAN. DESCRIBED AS:, BEGINNING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 20 AT A POINT 331.5 FEET, N89'28150 W OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21; THENCE CONTINUING N89'2$'30"W,. 60.00 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID L07 20; THENCE NOA31'30''E. 30.00 FEET; THCNC£ Sr19'2a'J"C, 60.00 FEET; THENCE S00.3P30"W, 30,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINS 1,600.00 SQUARE FEET. t THIS PARCEL IS TO HAVE RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND ACROSS LOT 17 AIYD LOT 20 OF SAID E ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO. 26. C a THIS PARCEL LIES PARTIALLY WITHIN A ZONE A-13 AND THE 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ON rIRW COMMUNITY PARCEL NUMBER Z60090-0006-13• DATED MARCH 2, 1981, (ELEVATION 835 NGVD) BENCH MARK: P.K, NAIL IN WOOD UTILITY POLE 150 FEET NORTHWEST OF SITE-ELEVATION 833.70 NGVD (SEE PAGE 2 OF 2) I i i t 1 I I i i I - �.I I I � We hereby certify that we have surveyed the property herein described, and that there are no visible encroachments ui)on the described property, except as shown hereon. We further certify that we have fully complied with the requirements of Oz.- - - . .. -- - xc: F/8.5/2536-17 TENG L.Fung/ASC M.Lysy A. Leifel TONG&ASSOCIATES,INC. K. Sherlock T.Morriss T. Walker ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS E.Pawlowski C.Bicknell H. Barnhardt 205 N.MICHIGAN AVE,CHICAGO,IL 60601 S. Mikottis L.Ori P. Turowski DATE: 1115198 NO.: 3 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN PROJECT: ACI—Lansing PROJECT NO.: 08-2536-17 Fiber Building TO: The Spieker Company RE: Civil Clarifications PA. Box 533 Perrysburg, Ohio 43552-0533 Attn: Andy Keller GENERAL: This bulletin is issued to define the scope of revision in drawings and/or specifications for a contemplated change. The work required by these revisions shall be in accordance with the general requirements of the original contract documents. This bulletin is not a change order and work shall not be started without written authorization to proceed by Owner. The Contractor is requested to submit an itemized proposal for the revised work and identify the effect this change will have on construction cost and schedule if any. DESCRIPTION OF REVISION: ITEM 1 —DRAWING REVISIONS 1, Drawing C1 (Not Reissued): See sketch CSKL Site to be covered with 6 inches of coarse aggregate as shown on sketch, 2. Drawing C2 (Not Reissued): See sketch CSK2. Added notes: 1. Base 100-year flood elevation is 835.0 (NGVD), as shown on F.I.R.M. community panel number Z60090-0006-13, dated March 2, 1981. 2. No sanitary or storm services proposed for the site. Copies of the F.I.R.M panel are included for your reference. 3. Drawing C2 (Not Reissued): See sketch CSK3. Added arrows to denote direction of runoff. ATTACHMENTS: CSKI, CSK2, CSK3,F.I.R-M panels ISSUED BY: Michael Kelly Project Civil Engineer r%document108253617\admin%specs\cb3.doe Page I of 1 h � '01 60.00' xx .. ••~` f.I ::r� .• 1.' ./:ate•• tea• 4 .�'..r'.r 1 �7•' •.f�L�� �.•�•;�,. •�•�. • ., �,•. L �• 'a`...h... .J1� ..• .tom • ••F•. •;\S.� •.-•• t�� tea,J�N••�_ \.•,•f..•... • �a •S •.. f�..r,":f` •\��: .i`1.1'L_'.ti• .`..s:• 'a•\�r •a:v a•'a`�,•\�Lr�•'�'• �•r' r �•�•�•` .••1 •••?.``..a.. •��'\:��'',•'''.,,r F� a `•l M� TYPE "D" .♦,—'ti•.� :• 1;\�:�r.t•�::•.?`.a.� '►•s';'••. ��•� ,.00'��; _` r ^^ 'v 1 ,A:. ==:� BUILDING ;Y:a ' :? ;� ; .1= '•'':�� :' 1.i.:,�;Y,..�:,�•:•, r.�.,;�Y'.�. L� 220 S.F. at'.,_ tZ�:.•:L'�,c.•z+;r. •.�a•- a _ w.`-'•i;+:'�: ..r�� .�1.''S:•.'a�l..i aw+•/'!� ,•�; N•'�.i.a,:.r. ce(/� �i•l �' \1 (n •`4't<' .L�•t::�.•'f'•_'a::�".%s'�".",'•:+; '�` 'N ..��7•L~��,�,;_ZZ , �aati, N Qvp L -• M N •rya r':'':': Qr:�"s GATE , :ac .TIED •CONC.~PAD T DOOR THRESHHOLO' '"�"�` "'`: : ::f: ``• �. . r ;SE� SHEET S I 10.00' tea."\• � "'•`\•,'t.'.,: •V• 3 "4 6' COARSE AGGREGATE LOT 419 BOARD 4F WATER + L -F SETS PLAN.w �north , = , C S K 1 DRAWING CSK1 i -I c2vu TITLE LANSING, MI / 08-2536-17 Italc• � SCALE AS INDICATED l "+a ti + DATE 11/05/98 DRAWN EY MPK REVISION CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN 13 CHECKED SJM REDUCTION 3 N01ES= 1. BASE 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION IS 835.0 (NGVD), AS SHOWN ON F.I.R.M_ COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER Z60090-0006-13, DATED MARCH 2, 1981. 2. NO SANITARY OR STORM SERVICES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE SITE. JORADINQ AND UTILITIES, north + = 1 CSK2 DRAWING CSK2 TENG -TITLE LANSING. MI 08-z536-17 SCALE AS INDICATED DATE 11/05/98 DRAWN BY MPK REVISION CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN #3 CHECKED S.1M REDUC710N - BENCHMARK: P.K. NAIL IN POWER POLE t 150' N.W_ OF PROP. BLDG. EL. w 833.70 Vol &A�0 60.00' EL. 20 S.F. _ y = • O _ f W,O,� WO X O ,0 1 4T F 838.0 ' 'E` z- o 5 a IJII837.95 / U- x x W W GATE f .33' C---L OP OF F37 FUND ION - _ 83750 x x TIED CONC. P 38.00 ` ... T MOR—THgESHHOL 837 838 Q \ SEX SHEE1�Sl x Lc L. ` 8 4.7a % \ ��G 836.30 10.00' 3 100 YEAR (BASE) FLOOD CONTOUR LOT #19 BOARD OF WATER + LIGHT 2 GRADING ANDUTILITIES. north + = '10 CSK3 DRAWING CSK3 TENG TITLE LANSING. MI / 08-2556-17 � SCALE As INDICATED i ar WAY m,�.�+ DATE 11/05/98 DRAWN BY MPK REVISION CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN #3 CHECKED SJM REDUCTION - DU-09 98 12:25 FRUM:PUBLIC SERUi�_E 4bJ-blJbb I U:Jl i 40J OUJO r"ur_;eji I1UV V�7 '7t1 11•JbM'1 f-WIV LLVLLUr-VW-111 Ur k, r•ii 1G I FAx TRANSMISSION j CITY OF LANSING,DEPT.PLANNING&NucBBoRuow DEYELOPMFNT 3140 N. CiwrrQ6 gave. -5UIre 011 1...wsimo, MI 41BO33 j 51 7/483.4076 rAX: 8 1 7/483-6036 I i To: Public Service Department Date: November S. 1998 Fax 483-6082 Pages: including this cover sheet. From: Donna Wynant Subject: SLU-22-98: 1235 S. Penn. Ave. ; I COMMENTS: 1 I am sending this SLU-22-98 agency referral for your comments on the development of the proposed 10'X 22' telecommunication hut, which is in the 100 year flood plain, at 1235 S. Pennsylvania. The site may eventually include two more buildings in the future. (See attached SLU application_) Please submit your comments regarding this development as it relates to any concerns about development in the flood plain as soon as possible. (Special Land Use permits are required whenever development in the flood plain takes place on parcels greater than I/, acre in size.) 1 I I understand you have already received construction drawings/site plan for the Plan Review process from the Building Safety Office for this telecommunication building. j I I will be completing the report of this for the Planning Board by Friday,November 13, 1998 and would therefore appreciate your comments regarding this flood plain development by that date. Please feel free to fax your comments to 483-6036 in the space below. Thanks. 1 c Q_iey\ I Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Dale(1 1p'8.Uglsl. I I chi. Y'►� ��-emu-^ ! I Co./Dope. Co. S Z-^ , Phone k Phone M Fam 0 ()2N6 Ftuc k 8Z I APPROVED JANUARY 26, 1999 AS PRINTED. Draft 011498 Approved 012699 To Clerk 021099 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers - Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue -- Tuesday, December 1, 1998 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge; Smith, six members present. B. Excused Absences - None. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present; Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Miller said at the recess he intended to request a meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee to take up Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo dated October 30, 1998, Ms. Robin Benson to Marilyn Slade, City Clerk, transmitting letter to Mayor and City Council RE: the Seven Block Project. B. Telephone Message dated November 30, 1998 regarding LS-23-98, 300- 306 S. Holmes Street from Donald Frey, 308-10 S. Holmes, no objection. C. Letter dated December 1, 1998 from Wanda Roderick Bolton, R&W Associates, as Managing Trustee for Ronald L. Roderick Trust, RE: LS-34-98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street, in support. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-21-98, 700-708 E. Oakland, Residential in "I" Heavy Industrial District Mr. Sturdevant presented the case, a request by Harry Hepler, representing the owner, Trooper Jake L.L.C., for a Special Land Use for property located at 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue. The applicant proposes to renovate existing industrial buildings for 50 residential units as shown on the draft of the site plan for the project. The four existing industrial buildings are located south of Sheridan Street and Oakland Avenue, east of the railroad tracks, and north of the former Prudden Wheel Building. The property is zoned PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 "I" Heavy Industrial District which allows residential development if the special land use request is approved by City Council. Mr. Ruge remarked that the property appears almost completely covered by buildings and parking lots. Mr. Sturdevant said there is sufficient property to meet the parking requirements for the proposed number of units. Mr. Ruge asked, concerning Sheridan Street and a proposal from the railroad to close Sheridan St. at the railroad, was there discussion with Mr. Hepler? Mr. Sturdevant said Mr. Hepler has applied for an Act 285 review, which will be before the Board in January, asking that the City vacate the Sheridan Street right-of-way so that it can be incorporated into his project, be closed to through traffic, and have the Railroad close the crossing. Mr. Ruge noted the Assessor's office indicated there was confusion about the parcels--has there been discussion regarding combining the parcels into one? Mr. Sturdevant said the developer has expressed the intent of developing condominium units, which will be done as part of that. Mr. Frederick arrived at this point. HARRY HEPLER, REPRESENTING TROOPER JAKE, L.L.C., 734 MAY ST. From the standpoint of condominiumizing the project, we are doing this because you may remember about a year ago you approved a special land use for 180 units on the Prudden-Wheel site, a thirteen-acre site. Even though it doesn't have anything to do with this, and it doesn't have the same ownership, they do tend to work with each other. The banks are not comfortable lending on loft units, though they believe there is a market. We were trying to work out alternative plans. There is demand by the 25- to 45- year age group, then skipping to age group 55-65, the empty-nesters. Banks require an appraisal, so that they can sell their loans off to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC). When the appraisal is complete, they ask for three competitive properties that have sold within the past six months. Those are the banks' standards of comparison. Since there aren't any loft units in Lansing at present to compare, the bank can't see its way clear to finance the 110 units on the Prudden-Wheel site. The idea is to condominiumize these units, keeping the same parcel units so we can build eight units in a phase, although we may build all phases at once. If you don't condominiumize a project up front when you are building, you have to wait three years before you can condominiumize. We need to condominiumize up front, keep the parcel numbers, build eight units at a time, go through the entire project, then lease them out. Then, it is still an industrial loft project, so the banks can establish value based on income PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3 rentals. The income rentals can establish value on loft units; then the appraiser can return to the project which is complete at that time and base values on the Prudden-Wheel project for the condominiums we would like to sell over there. At a later date, we may choose to sell these rental units as condominiums if we so choose. We are capturing the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone, which is a tax credit, a 50-percent reduction in improvements in the tax base. What it also allows us to do, if we don't capture that up front, when we go to sell those units, we cannot pass it along to the consumer buying the unit. That is our intent. The NEZ program basically is designed to incubate urban development programs such as this, both in single-family units and eight units or less. Regarding the question of much parking lot coverage over the green space, the answer is yes. It is an industrial space. That is commonplace. Comparing this project to several projects I've seen recently, this one has threefold the green space because the buildings are split up, and they have green space between them, garden areas so to speak. That is a definite bonus. Is it mostly covered by parking lot? Yes. Would it need to be even if we had more green space, yes, because it was an industrial site. If you referred to the survey on Prudden-Wheel, almost all of that is covered in parking lot. There is a reason for that. It is an environmentally sensitive property. Some of the requirements of the Baseline Environmental Assessment is that the property be covered with asphalt so that the groundwater cannot push anything down into the aquifer which we drink from. It is a requirement of BEA that we cover as much of this land as possible. Now everybody wonders why would anybody want to live in an environmentally toxic place. It is not environmentally toxic. It was an industrial space. You don't want to push any hazardous materials that people don't have knowledge of in the ground, so you go into it defensively so there are not future problems. It did pass the BEA--there is a letter of recommendation from DEQ. About the railroad, the reason we are asking for the vacation of the road is that one of the audible requirements for residential, even though we probably wouldn't fall into those, is a certain decibel rating. I don't have that material with me to tell you the exact reading, but I can tell you that we exceed the normal decibel rating because of the railroad signal crossing. It is not the signal, it is the audible horn blowing that is required by CSX. When the horn blows, it spikes heavily through the normal level, so we would like to loose that signal, so that CSX is not required to blow the horn. Once they do not blow the horn, we are below the normal level, even with a train passing. That is one of the main reasons for wanting to vacate the road. If the road is not vacated, CSX has no choice because it is a public road and they blow the horn. If it becomes a private road, they have the option to pull it, which they have demonstrated in the past that they would like to do. By vacating Sheridan Street, sometimes called East Oakland, it also provides another 60 PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4 spots, which kicks us way over. We have estimated 60 units as two- bedrooms which require two parking spots for each unit, which would be 120 spots. We are about 139 or 142 spots so we have more than adequate parking in the downtown location, which once again would be fairly rare. Mr. Miller asked for a copy of the report from the Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Hepler said the report is several hundred pages long; the letter does not say a lot; however, he will provide a copy. Mr. Ruge asked about Sheridan Street. If it is vacated, will it be used for a parking lot? Mr. Hepler said yes, and also to maintain easements for public utilities, lights, water, sewage. A number of revisions have been done, yielding more parking spaces and more green space just by rerouting traffic and making it flow better. Sheridan Street is an unsafe road condition, and we are going to feed it back to the south a couple hundred feet before it joins back in at the southeast corner of the property where there will be a new cut. Mr. Sturdevant said he had a copy of a more recent site plan if members wish to see it. JOHN FISHER, REPRESENTING THE FIRM OF FISHER ROSS WIEGAND, INC., 618 E. OAKLAND, THE ONLY OTHER EXISTING DWELLING ON THE STREET. I have heard it referred to as Sheridan and Oakland, but officially it is Oakland, even though it has a Sheridan Street sign on the corner. The concern that we have is what we have just heard tonight for the first time, and that is the consideration of the possible closing of the street, because, as Mr. Hepler said due to the decibel reading, but I think the issue may be more of gaining parking spaces, because a half a block to the north, and a half a block to the south of the intersection on Oakland, there are other intersecting crossings where the train would still have to blow the horn going either way. Unless something is being considered to lower the decibels within that one block span on either side, you are not going to diminish the problem other than gain the other benefits as he indicated with the parking. The specific issue that we have is that if you close that crossing, any customer that comes to our business from the east will be forced to go at least four and a half blocks out of their way due to the one- way traffic patterns around our business in order to get to where we are. This was news to us tonight, so we would like to have you take this into consideration until we can consider the ramifications of what this proposal to close the street would do to our business. Ms. Love indicated to Mr. Fisher that when the matter of the street closing is taken up by the Planning Board, there will be another public hearing, and PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 5 you will be notified of that. This is just to consider his housing proposal. Even though they are related, we will have another public hearing. MR. FISHER. I understand that, and that is why this caught us by surprise. We were interested in finding out the extent of the proposal, whether it was low income, whether it was condominiums, what was entailed here. We are certainly familiar with what is being done with the Prudden Building, and we approve of that development, but this is a concern to our business. Likewise, we would like to know what is going to happen with the other crossings. Are they going to vacate other traffic rights-of-way, because now that they are razing or doing the development of the Prudden Building, they are taking the parking lot areas and a lot of the old Eyde property parking that they were developing, they are using it for a dump area right now. Ms. Love reiterated that Mr. Fisher will have another opportunity to comment on the street closing. HAROLD KING, 1563 N. HIGH. I am here to gather information for Northtown. This is another project that is happening in our community. We learned about it by newspaper clipping. This is going to have quite an impact. I don't know what level of income the rentals are going to be. We are right now 50 to 52 percent rental in Northtown. This is nothing against Mr. Hepler, because I don't think he would go into something that is not going to be in his best interest and hopefully the community's, but we really wish that neighborhoods were involved in this. I heard about the horn blowing. They fixed the one at May Street and repaired the one at Sheridan Street. They have also put up the new blinkers there. One of the things in the Prudden Building project has to do with the street configuration. That appears to be a really odd configuration where the new street is going to come in to Oakland because the new street will be Sheridan, Oakland, and kitty-corner, Ballard. I don't have the footage, but it is very strange, the way this is coming in. As far as the horns on the engines, they must blow those so many feet from a crossing, and taking that one out is not going to affect it, because they are going to be blowing those horns for May Street, which is just being rebuilt. I wish we knew more about this project, because how can you back something when you don't know what it is, or how can you add input other than what you already know. We need to keep ourselves apprised of what is happening. Ms. Love informed Mr. King that, upon checking the file, "the neighborhood organization that you represent was notified." The person who should be receiving it, Norma Bermudez, received notification approximately 15 days ago regarding this matter. If Northtown wishes to change the person who PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 6 receives this information, the Planning Office needs authorization in writing, not verbally. BEVERLY MILLER. I can't believe you would consider a mixed zoning like this again. It is going to create another huge fiasco. As far as the noise from the train, I live two blocks from the nearest railroad track which has three horns blowing, and it's very loud. I can't believe you would even consider a different land use for there. It's heavy industrial. Mr. Ferguson's project is heavy industrial, he got it rezoned to "DM-3", but you have people living in lofts by the river that is still heavy industrial. This is illegal. You continue letting people do things illegally zoned, and still you want to do another zoning mix-up. Believe me, you should not be doing this. This is no place for homes, in the middle of super highways and railroad tracks. If people really need housing, they will find housing. There is a lot of houses for sale and rent in Lansing. What we are considering here for Mr. Hepler is an income, an investment. Now if you are really concerned about housing and where people live, you should take that into consideration first, and then if you feel you really have to do it, then consider Mr. Hepler's project. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the public hearing for SLU-21-98, 700-708 E. Oakland, Residential in "I" Heavy Industrial, and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance, meeting Wednesday, December 9, 1999 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. LS-34-98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street. Ms. Love presented the case, a request by Diane Burns for a lot split to create two separate parcels for two apartment buildings, with both located on a single lot at present. Each building contains four 1-bedroom units, in an area surrounded by one- and two-family homes. The property is zoned "C" Residential. There has been some concern--we have had several communications from area residents who have no objection to the actual lot split, but they were all concerned about how people who lived in Parcel B were going to get to the south most parcel since the driveway, as she has it presently configured, would have to go across the north parcel to reach the south. With four 1-bedroom units, she is required to have six parking spaces for each of the parcels. Four of those six spaces must be accessible. That can be achieved. Eight spaces are shown originally, but, as configured, that would be fairly unworkable. We are working with the applicant to look at other parking arrangements that would allow her to meet the minimum, six, and make them accessible. It would meet the minimum requirements for PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 7 setback, but since it is in the "C" District, it is not going to be conforming for zoning. Mr. Ruge said he lived in the neighborhood. There are four houses that are similar, in a row, accessed by driveway behind the houses. Mr. Ruge was concerned about the driveway being provided continuously. There needs to be some access somehow. Are all the houses owned by the same person? DIANE BURNS, 309 S. HOLMES, LANSING. I have been in business for 20 years in the Greater Lansing area. I am the owner of 206 S. Holmes, 300-302 S. Holmes, 304-306 S. Holmes, 312-314 S. Holmes, 313-315 S. Holmes, 309-311 S. Holmes, 1224 Prospect, 916 Bensch, 1224 Main St., 922 Eureka St., 500 S. Holmes, and 504 S. Holmes, all within a half-mile radius. I live at 309 S. Holmes St., across the street from 300-302, 304-306 and 312-214. If you have any questions regarding the 300 Block of S. Holmes, I probably could help you out. My first investment was 309-311. The purpose of this lot split is quite simple. It is a lending institution requirement. I personally have put over $25,000 in exterior and interior renovations in the 300 S. Holmes Street block. I am running out of money. It's time to have my projects work for me. I would like to refinance my properties and pull out capital and do more renovations. After I did a title search, not knowing 15 years ago when I was young and naive, I found that these two buildings were on one parcel. There are four identical buildings in a row, four-unit structures, brick, actually quite attractive. They are not single-family houses chopped into four units; they were built as four units of 1-bedroom, living room-dining room, kitchen and bathroom and back porch area. The southern buildings, 308-310, 312-314 are on their own lots. believe the lot widths are 41.5 ft each in width. The depth is 131 feet. I also own 1224 Prospect, which backs up to all these properties, the four brick units. I have ample parking. I have installed a community garden for my tenants; however, if I need to increase more parking, the community garden will have to go. I am not an absentee landlord. I understand that the requirement is 60 ft in a lot on inside of the block area, and 70 ft on the corner. As I look at this block map, there are maybe two lots in the whole block from Jones to Prospect to Holmes to Kalamazoo that meet that requirement, 60 ft. There isn't a corner lot that is 70 ft wide. Why these two buildings weren't split many years ago, I don't know. I don't know why two were split and the other two were not. I am not asking for any physical change. I am asking for a solid line drawn on this map. DENISE KELLY, 1220 PROSPECT. My husband and I live at 1220 Prospect. Our backyard goes right up to her property. The question I have PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 8 is: You were talking about the alternative parking options. Exactly what is that. We are the lot that is 66 in the back. We are right up to our fence. We actually technically own most of the 1222's backyard; it's really ours. We brought a copy of our survey. What are the parking options? Are you talking about bringing cars farther up to our line? Ms. Love, checking the maps and surveys, proposed some solutions with positive benefits to help organize the parking better and help people be able to figure out which parking area is theirs and which belongs to each of their houses. It should be helpful to the tenant, and better organize the green space between the parcels. DENNIS KELLY, 1220 PROSPECT. Our property butts up to hers, and I know she is asking for exceptions to the rules as far as the width and the width-to-depth ratio. My question is, if that should be refused, would you try to purchase the property behind there to increase the depth ratio? Ms. Love said, concerning the depth-to-width ratio, she is asking for 41 ft. Typically, a lot is not supposed to be more than 2.5 times as deep as it is wide. For a lot that is only 41.5 ft wide, the maximum would be 102 ft. deep, and her lot is actually 130 ft. deep. It is not the depth that is the problem. When you separate it, it becomes a long skinny lot, as opposed to a wider long lot. Her problem more than anything is access to the interior lots on the parcel. If we can solve that, I think that the lot she is asking for is not much different than most of the other lots. It is comparable to other neighborhood lots. It is not out of character, but we do have to solve that access issue. Chairman Ruge announced the conclusion of the hearing for LS-34-98, 300- 306 S. Holmes Street and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting Wednesday, January 13, 1999 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - BEVERLY MILLER. I would like to ask about the zoning for the Spiral Bar in North Lansing. When the Planning Board gave the special land use to build the bar, the requirements were so many spaces for parking. Is the policy of the Planning Board to build bars or businesses like that or adult businesses and not follow through after they have been built to make sure they are in compliance with zoning codes? Ms. Love said there were no actions before the Planning Board regarding the Spiral Bar at the corner of Clinton St. and Center Street. There was an action requested by Mr. Donal before the Board of Zoning Appeals. That was a request to reduce PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 9 the number of parking spaces required. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the application. That meant that he had to find 76 parking spaces within 1,000 ft of the facility. The property was already zoned industrial which allows for bars and restaurants to be located there as long as he could meet the site plan requirements and the parking requirements. He was allowed to receive a building permit and eventually an occupancy permit. He has a certain number of parking spaces on- site, and he has under contract a number of other spaces within 1,000 ft as required by the code, which is why Mr. Donal was allowed to open his facility. Ms. Miller said Mr. Donal's off-site off-street parking was not in place at the time the liquor license was pending. The Planning Office had to approve that site for the liquor license, too. Your signature is on that application. Chairman Ruge stated he understood that the Spiral Bar is causing problems, but the Planning Board didn't have anything to do with it. 6. RECESS - Chairman Ruge declared a short recess. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 17, 1998 - not as yet available. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. The Committee meet during the recess. a. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-V Business District The zoning change is consistent with the River Island Plan. Some concerns were discussed concerning parking. The staff report indicated some issues of scale; further staff discussion indicated, and the Committee concurred, that it was not a major concern in this situation. Following the discussion, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval for the rezoning. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-V Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 10 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge voiced concerns involving parking and scale; however, he believes the parking eventually will be worked out. Regarding scale, he was concerned about a twenty-story building next to a historic six-story building. He believes it will block morning sunlight and that the two-story parking ramp will be visually unattractive. He was also concerned about making Lansing a pedestrian-friendly, walkable community. It is not pedestrian-friendly to have a parking ramp on an entire block face. There is tension between providing parking in a building and providing a building front that is friendly to pedestrians. Parking ramps are not friendly in the same way as shops and restaurants. "I am concerned about this proposal because of the scale and the unfriendly side of the building. The facade is very attractive, but the side of the building I do not find it nearly as friendly." Mr. Goolsby said in terms of the appearance of the parking lot, what it would look like, there are ways to make parking ramps attractive. It could be done here. In terms of scale, we have only to look on Ottawa Street to realize that, between the building that is going up and the Victor Building, there are three other buildings of varying size. The point was made that this is what happens in cities, and sometimes it is unfortunate. It is a sign of progress for the City. We hope it will be the case here on S. Capital, too. As Ms. Love pointed out, it is entirely consistent with the River Island Plan. About ten years ago, we started encouraging offices to go in this direction. We have been successful in terms of the Chamber of Commerce and Michigan Manufacturers on St. Joe. Hopefully, it is the beginning of a number of other such building locations. Mr. Ruge said we just had the building next door go in as a state office building which is not a pedestrian-friendly building from the first floor. Most pedestrians are going to walk by, having no reason to stop. If we want a vibrant downtown, what we need is first floors that are commercial, that invite people to come in. This proposed building is not going to have any commercial on the first floor; it is not going to be inviting; rather, it is going to be an obstacle to walk past. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby Ave Keene Nay Miller . .Ave Nischan . Nay Smith . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 2; motion carries regarding Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District; however, a rezoning requires six affirmative votes. Noting the 5-2 vote, therefore, Z-17-98 will be forwarded to the City Council with NO RECOMMENDATION. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 11 Next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr Nischan The Urban Development Committee has been meeting on the Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan and is making great strides. We met this evening at 6:30 to consider a motion, a copy of which is before you. Mr. Nischan read the motion to locate the changes in wording: Finding: The Committee finds that the proposed changes in traffic patterns in the draft Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan are of such significance as to warrant a detailed traffic and parking study for the planning area and its immediate surroundings. A traffic study is needed to implement the circulation portion of the plan. Committee Recommendation: To recommend that a traffic study be conducted that focuses primarily on evaluating the circulation and parking proposals in the draft Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, extending to South Street and South Washington. The study should be undertaken as soon as possible, and should include the following activities, at minimum: • Gather circulation data on auto, truck, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic circulation patterns. • Introduce the two-way street variable. • Identify impacts, both positive and negative. • Identify mitigation measures. • Identify costs (public and private). • Recommend strategies and priorities for: • Vehicular circulation patterns and mitigation techniques. • Maximizing the utilization of transit. • Maximizing the utilization of pedestrian and bicycle circulation. • Potential locations for parking facilities (public and private). PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 12 • Mitigating land use impacts. • Establish an implementation timetable. In Committee it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously to support conducting a traffic study for the Central Lansing Comprehensive Planning Area. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to support conducting a traffic study for the Central Lansing Comprehensive Planning Area. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Goolsby was concerned with introducing two-way street variable, saying it is premature. The matter should be studied in a neutral way; the above indicates we are advocating the two-way street variable. He is not convinced that two-way streets will accomplish what some people want, namely, slowing down traffic in the neighborhoods. It could create a far more dangerous situation than currently exists. Part of the street system is to get workers to the workplace efficiently, and to get them out at night. Suggesting that two-way streets are going to encourage people to stay downtown after work is not necessarily true. We would be better off to study it and see if going to two- way is supported by empirical data. The wording needs to be changed, to eliminate the word "Introduce", and say "Study the desirability and feasibility of an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of converting existing one-way streets to two-way streets." Mr. Goolsby offered that as a friendly amendment. Mr. Nischan and Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Love asked Mr. Nischan for his copy of the revisions. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: All; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried; to support conducting a traffic study for the Central Area of Lansing including a study of the desirability and feasibility of an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of converting existing one-way streets to two-way streets. Next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love said we will be going into the budget process. The City Council is supportive of finishing our new master plan for the entire city by the year 2001. We did submit our application to the EPA for $200,000 to PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 13 develop a database that would include a groundwater movement model, existing well sites, zoning and land use, geological features in Lansing. last Tuesday. It has limitless possibilities in terms of the applications we can put it to. It has an incredible amount of impact. Our work plan dinner is scheduled for the Parthenon at 6 p.m. Tuesday, December 8, 1998, and we will have a facilitator from MSU. D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. 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) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G- 1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11- 98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); k. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue. (Referred back to Comm. July 21, 1998) Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS DECEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 14 C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Ruge, who will be out of town December 11-18, 1998, requested an excused absence for December 17, 1998. Motion, seconded, carried, to grant Mr. Ruge an excused absence. In the absence of the Chairman, the meeting would be conducted by the Vice Chairman, an office vacant because of the resignation of Mr. Greiner. Mr. Miller made a motion to nominate Mr. Goolsby to fill the unexpired term of Vice Chairman; by acclamation, Mr. Goolsby was unanimously elected. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn120198\48 Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St., "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District GENERAL INFORMATION I APPLICANT: Lansing Parkview LLC c/o Patrick T. Reid Suite 400, Business and Trade Center 200 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933-1384 STATUS OF APPLICANT: In a purchase agreement with the owner, Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences, 639 Whispering Hills Road, Suite 500 Boone, NC 28607 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Motel and Restaurant EXISTING ZONING: "E-1"Apartment Shop PROPOSED ZONING: "G-1" Business District SIZE AND SHAPE: 165 ft x 330 ft = 54,450 sq ft approximately (1.25 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Public Park South: Professional Office District East: Business District WEST: Multiple Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "A" Residential District South: "D-1" Professional Office East: "G-1" Business District West: "DM-4" Multiple Family District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan, Amendment 1990, designates this area for commercial/business development with professional office use on the south side of the block. The property is located at the comer of Capitol Avenue and Lenawee Street. Capitol Avenue is a major arterial. The property is also located in a proposed Capitol Historic District study area. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 2 T-1'Apartment Shop District to'G-1"Business District CASE HISTORY: City Council action #403 on January 2, 1957, changed the property at 215 W. Lenawee, described as: Lots 1 to 12. Block 148 (property bounded by Capitol, Hillsdale, Townsend and Lenawee Streets) from "D" Apartment District to "D-1" Professional Office District. City Council action #2026 on April 6, 1981, changed the property at 215 W. Lenawee (500 South Capitol Avenue), described as: Lots 1 to 12, Block 148, Original Plat of the City of Lansing, from "D-1" Professional Office District" to "E-1" Apartment Shop District. The property is located in the proposed Capitol Historic District . The area surrounding Reutter Park is recommended as a potential national or local historic district in the recent Lansing Architectural Survey II draft report prepared by Henry & Henry, Preservation and Architectural Consultants. On the north, the current property faces the historic Reutter Park, formerly Central Park, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. On the west side of the block, the six-story Porter Apartments (considered one of Lansing's fashionable addresses of the period and home to many state legislators), located at 501 Townsend Avenue and the Mid-Town Apartments at the corner of Townsend and Kalamazoo, are Classical Revival style architecture. Both are listed in the Historic Buildings Inventory of Memorandum '76, Historic Lansing. Along with other properties in close proximity or surrounding Reutter Park (i.e., the Grady Porter Building, YMCA, Mid-Town and Porter Apartments), they also meet criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: Lansing Parkview LLC, representing Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences (Michigan), is . requesting to rezone the property located at 215 W. Lenawee Street, from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District. Draft plans are attached. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received at this time Assessor's Office: No response received at this time Board of Water & Light: The Board requires 10 days notice for referrals. A response will be forwarded by November 6, 1998. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 3 T-1'Apartment Shop District to'G-1'Business District Building Safety: The project is subject to the City's Plan Review and Site Plan Review process. For further information please contact Christine Segerlind at 483-4381. The department has no objection to the proposal. City Attorney: No response received at this time Consumers Power: No response received at this time Development Office: No response received at this time Downtown Neigh. Assoc: No response received at this time Downtown Neighborhood No response received at this time Assoc. Fire Marshall: No response received at this time Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission is not opposed to the demolition of the Days Inn. It has recommendations regarding the proposal and zoning (see attached). Historical Society of No response received at this time Gr. Lansing: Lansing Neigh. Council: The Downtown Neighborhood Association boundaries include this area. Our office contacted Bob Cochran regarding this issue. MDOT: No response received at this time Parks & Recreation: Distant views to the State Capitol Building from the east have been obliterated with the introduction of high-rise structures, pedestrian skywalks (Sparrow), billboards etc. This would block views from the south. Building heights should be four stories or less. It seems the highest and best use (and most economical) would be a hotel use. The 1998 Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan (draft) calls for a quality limited-service motel. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 4 'E-1'Apartment Shop District to'G-1'Business District Police Department: No response received at this time. Rick Cook Public Service: Public Service - Engineering has no objections to the proposed action. We reserve the right to review plans prior to approval of a building permit through the normal site plan review procedure. Transportation Dept: No response received at this time ANALYSIS This block was included in the Original Plat of 1847. This area is potentially included in a proposed Capitol Historic District, and also the Architectural Survey Level II study area report by consultants Henry & Henry. Many of the buildings surrounding Reutter Park meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and are considered contributing structures for a national and/or local historic district. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed planned office development of 14 stories, approximately 195 ft, is comparable in scale to the new state legislative office building (under construction), or the Grand Tower. The Porter Apartments, the Mid-Town Apartments, YMCA, Grady Porter Building, Lansing Public Library, and other structures in close proximity to Reutter Park range from four to seven stories in height. Immediately south of the proposed development are residential structures which have been adapted for office use. The two lower levels of the structure, particularly the southern portion, are more in keeping with the scale of the adjacent residential structures. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The developer's request is to rezone the property, located at 215 W. Lenawee Street, from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District, in order to erect a new 14-story office building which incorporates 4 levels of parking. The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan, Amendment 1986, designates this area for Central Business District (CBD) development with professional office use expansion south of the Capitol in the entire area west of Townsend, east of Pine, south of Kalamazoo and north of 1-496. Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 5 'E-1'Apartment Shop District to'G-1'Business District IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The property is located at the corner of Capitol and Lenawee. Capitol is a major arterial. The developer proposes parking incorporated into the first four levels of the office building. The ingress-egress for the four-level parking ramp is located at the southeast corner of the proposed development, on S. Capitol (as shown in site plan). The generation of traffic from the proposed development would be consistent with downtown traffic flow along Capitol Avenue (with traffic flow from the east to Washington to Lenawee'and S. Capitol to access four levels of parking, or from the west along Kalamazoo, a collector, to S. Capitol Avenue). The proposed office development, with 393,432 sq ft gross, provides for 433 parking spaces within the first 4 levels of the structure. At 70 percent usable space, this would require 1,380 parking spaces. If the State of Michigan is the primary tenant, some part of the staff will park in nearby state lots, and part in city lots and ramps. If the primary tenant is not the State of Michigan, a large part of the staff will have to park in city lots and ramps. Public parking may need to be added to the south end of the Central Business District. As a part of the downtown, developments such as this are typical. The location close to 1-496 is more appropriate for easy access to the expressway. When discussing this development with Mr. Berridge, Transportation Engineer, it was noted that downtown buildings such as this only require 2.5 to 3 cars per thousand sq. ft. of gross floor area. This estimate would then equate to the building needing 1,000-2,000 spaces. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Landscape buffering, particularly between the proposed development and the residential-scale properties immediately to the south, should be considered in the site plan review process. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is consistent with the Central Business District development patterns for the area south of Kalamazoo, west of Capitol, east of Pine and north of 1-496. IMPACT ON HISTORICAL PROPERTIES Many of the buildings surrounding Reutter Park meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and are considered contributing structures for a national and/or local historic district. This infill development, proposed at 14 stories, would represent approximately 2 to 3 times the height level of the surrounding historic Z-17-98, 215 W. Lenawee St. PAGE 6 T-1'Apartment Shop District to'G-1'Business District structures: Porter Apartments - 7 stories; YMCA - 4 stories; Grady Porter -4 and 5 stories; and the Mid-Town Apartments -4 stories. The adjacent area also contains numerous structures along S. Capitol, Hillsdale, and Townsend which are residential structures adapted as office buildings. The residential structures in the 500 block of S. Capitol and along Hillsdale and Townsend could be threatened if nearby surface parking is not available. SUMMARY 1. The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the River Island Plan, Amendment 1986. 2. The proposed development could require access to approximately 947 additional parking spaces. 3. The site plan as proposed would not adversely effect the environment and pedestrian/vehicular circulation significantly beyond current levels for downtown traffic. Pedestrian use of Reutter Park as an open space for passive leisure opportunities may be increased. 4. The scale of the proposed development would impact the properties directly south of the proposed development as well as significant historic community resources surrounding Reutter Park. 5. The scale and architectural design does not illustrate clearly whether this infill will be sensitive to the adjacent historic properties. 6. Lansing Parkview LLC, which is a newly formed corporation, has a "purchase agreement" with Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences and an unknown deadline. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request from Lansing Parkview LLC to rezone the property located at 215 W. Lenawee Street from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "G-1" Business District, if the following concerns are addressed; the potential parking pressures on the residential scale properties surrounding the proposed development are resolved; and a sensitive architectural treatment, particularly of the lower levels of the proposed development, could be incorporated into the design. Report prepared by S.Cant1w%aAz-17-98 To: The Lansing Planning Board From: The Lansina_ Historic District Commission !�4 Re: Z-17-98 Dated: Novemb r 3, 1998 The Historic District Commission could genuinely embrace and recommend this rezoning request if a few tweaks, fully consistent with the Developer's proposal, could be made in the language of the G-1 zoning classification. Technical changes in the zoning classification could be simultaneously processed. THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STRONGLY URGES THE PLANNING BOARD TO EITHER AMEND THE EXISTING G-1 CLASSIFICATION OR CREATE A NEW "G-3" CLASSIFICATION (G-1 PLUS PARKING AND DESIGN CRITERIA) TO HELP THE CITY AND DEVELOPER DELIVER THIS PROPOSAL AS AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING THAT BLENDS WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS AND THAT DOESN'T THREATEN SURROUNDING HISTORIC PROPERTIES .-WITH DEMOLITION FOR SURFACE PARKING THAT ALSO HARMS THE TAX BASE. (Attached are the D-2 design standards from Sec. 1262.11. ) 1 . We have no objection to the razing of the Days Inn building. 2. We are pleased that the developer proposes 4 floors of parking rather than surface parking. THE CITY'S LACK OF LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE PROPOSED PARKING RAMP A CONDITION OF THE ZONING IS THE MOST SERIOUS DRAWBACK. 3. A 14 story building is out of scale with all properties around historic Reutter Park and the adjacent historic buildings. We hope that the facade, particularly the lowest levels, are sensitive to the area and more attractive than any Lansing ramp. This is consistent with activities in Old Town, the PSD and the pending comprehensive plan. THE CITY'S INABILITY TO GUIDE DESIGN . COMPATIBILITY IS ONLY REMEDIED TO DATE IN THE D-2 CLASS. 4. We recognize the attractiveness of a zoning class with no height limitation or set-back requirements. We believe that building to the lot line is a problem for adjacent properties that are not the shoulder-to-shoulder commercial buildings of Washington Avenue. THIS NEEDS A REMEDY IN THE ZONING CLASS. 5. Failure to provide parking on the existing site would threaten surrounding properties, many of which are historic, all of which are productive either as residences or businesses and all of which generate income and property taxes for the City and contribute to the economy. LOTS THAT CHARGE FOR PARKING ARE TAXED BASED ON INCOME; LOTS WITHOUT A SPECIFIC CHARGE ARE TAXED AS VACANT LAND, IMPROVED WITH 3 INCHES OF ASPHALT AND DEPRECIABLE. THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR EROSION OF THE TAX BASE. This building will require a parking lot comparable to the size of. the Grand Tower's lot if a ramp isn't mandated. That lot required millions in bonds to buy numerous buildings and pay relocation benefits. River Street was closed/vacated. This option is not available. The City is not planning to build any ramps. Y 1262.11 PLANNING AND ZONING CODE 144 1262.11 EXTERIOR Ub ffdNingRre tTr RESTRICTIONS. shall apply in the D-2 The following exterior Residential/Office District: - The' existing residential (a) Existin Residential Structures• . e to ,the' exterior Any proposed Chang permit. shall be facade shall be retained• wires a bung `p of the structure 'which by the Planning Division• AnY 'PrO reviewed and approvea the architectural style . of the posed changes which Chang by the Planning Board;! which building shall also be reviewed or pai+tly...or may modifyo the may reverse or affirm. wholly , , .. planning Division's recommendations• proposed- changes to Existin Nonresidential Structures. a building per- (b) nonresidential .facades whichrequire. existing with the 'architectural character of he mit shall be in keeping be reviewed and - appro"ved `by.. neighborhood and shall a proposed changes which 'the Planning Planning Division. Any change the architectural style of the Division considers w the Planning Board:-'whieh building shall also be reviewed by. artly. .or 'map modify, the may reverse or affirm, wholly or P , Planning Division's recommendations. used new (c) New Construction. The architectural style of prop res shall be in keeping with the architectural character structu roved by of the neighborhood and shall be revie .i es and approved to be the Planning Division. Any proposed Char by the Plan- substantial shall also be reviewed and approved ning Board. (Ord. 748. Passed 2-9-87.) PARKING 1262.12 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE; OFF-STREET t a shall a 12 Residential/Office District, the moaxim.g� The°to�igsquare In ercent of the total be not more than sixty p be covered by all structures shall be not footage of area which may lot area• The determination. of more, than forty Percent of the total. ter 1284. required parking shall be in accordance with Chap (Ord. 748. Passed 2 9-87.) MAUS ;OPY ROOF ------ - MECHAN ilmAL - 'm-m I OFFICE 15 2816 5. ' • OFFICE 14 2a.16 3 5- ' QFF F- 13 28163 5. OFFICE 12 27,026 5 I IN QFFIGE 11 25.271 5 OFFICE 10 25,271 5 ' -milIIIIOFFICE 9__ _ _ 25.21ilm1 5. ' 'mil QFFIGE 8 25.271 5 Ilm-m'mil QFFIC-5 7 _ 25.271 OFFICE 6 25.271 E llm' 'mll OFFICE 5 25 271 c lm-m mll ' I OFFICE.4 .... . _._."... . ._ _._ .25,721 E 'mil I I III OFFICE 3 _— 25271 ' 'mil OFFICE 2 . 25.271 ' I OFFICE 1 _ 25 Q0 ' _ ____ PARKJIY� 4 45 —106 S.F. 1138 — --- PARK345 3 45.06 5F, 25,18. - ------------- ----------- r -------- -- PARKRJG 2 55.054 S.F. -- _„ PAPrR6 I _�SU84 5•f: PARKn-6 AREA 200MO 5F. 433 C/ BUILDING 5E00N OFFICE AREA 333437 0 X7 2a 4a 101 AU AP.F,A y�3 p PARKING - 101 SPACES • u�u'�u u-- - a PARKIN6 LE EL PI 0 J' 70' t0' I I PARK11,6 - 116 5PA.GE5 1 • � T PARKING LEVEL. P2 0 0' 20' a0' w 1 I i - i ,74 Jl _ PARKM6 I05 SP.AGES I 1 _ I I I I - CAPITOL AVE _ BUILDING ENTRANCE / PARKING LEVEL P3 i I - TMM PARKIN6 - III 5PAGE5 I , • KI L.E ,P R NG fL V P4 � IF OFFICE AREA + OFFICE LEVEI, 1 OFFICE AREA nc= OFFICE LlEyfLI5 2 - 11 OFFICE AREA uu Li OFFICE LEVEL, 12 OFFICE AREA 4'. lk jl OFFICE LEVEI,S 13 - 15 0 V' 2(Y ^7 e i li ■i� m � � V MMP-MAAMR -r//j Fri p0l), IF MAI ON APPROVED JANUARY 12, 1999 with one correction Pg 4 Ln 5.19" Pos 6.71 regarding Street Draft 122298 LS-34-98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street, Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PesrAYE Approved 011299 To Clerk 092099 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD14 7 P.M. City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1. OPENING SESSION: In the absence of the Chairman, Vice Chairman Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Smith; six members present; one absent; one vacancy. B. Excused Absences - At the meeting of December 1, 1998, Mr. Ruge requested and was granted an excused absence for the meeting of December 15, 1998. C. Introductions. Ms. Eleanor Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. Diane Burns was present as a visitor. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: November 17, 1998 Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve the minutes of November 17, 1998. Voice vote (6-0), unanimous; carried; the minutes of November 17, 1998 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - Did not meet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 6 Miller. . . Aye Nischan. . Aye Smith. . . Aye Frederick. . . Aye Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue, with the above six conditions was APPROVED. Next meeting Wednesday, January 20, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr Nischan Mr. Nischan reported that the Urban Development Committee has met and discussed the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. The Committee is continuing its work; however, as yet there is nothing to report. Next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms: Love presented the Proposed Work Plan for FY2000 together with a brief summary. Some clarification of the work plan priorities was made. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the Work Plan for FY2000, Voice Vote, Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously, the Work Plan for FY2000 was APPROVED. Ms. Love presented the proposed Budget for FY2000 together with a brief summary. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve submission of the proposed Budget for FY2000 to the Mayor and City Council; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; submission of the proposed Budget for FY2000 was APPROVED D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 3 Service regarding separate sewer leads must be addressed prior to final approval of this application. The separation of these lots would not set a precedent since the identical set of buildings is on two lots directly south. The proposed split, if all conditions are met, would be harmonious with the neighborhood; create organized parking; improve aesthetics; and permit the applicant to receive refinancing necessary to make additional improvements to both of the apartment buildings. The proposed lot split would create an opportunity for an improvement to the existing situation. J. Ruff noted that normally when a lot split is being requested, new construction follows; whereas this request will not result in any new development, only in site improvements to the property. Mr. Miller asked about whether or not this variance request would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Ruff explained that the variance for lot dimensions in the Subdivision Regulations is a function of the Planning Board and the City Council, since the Planning Board and the City Council review plats. Staff would recommend approval of the lot split at 300-302 S. Holmes Street, with the following conditions: 1. Owner must demonstrate executed permanent driveway easement across Parcel A before final execution of the lot split. 2. The front yard parking situation along Prospect Street is eliminated. 3. At minimum, there should be four accessible parking spaces for each unit with the understanding that additional spaces can be made available by the owner by removing the garden if needed. 4. The area should be hard surfaced with portland concrete or bituminous asphalt no later than November 30, 1999. The committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report. In committee, it was moved and seconded to approve LS-34- 98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street, with the above four conditions. Motion carried unanimously, 3-0. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 4 J. Ruff noted to the Committee that the staff is not supporting the continued use of the nonconformity by supporting this lot split. The lot split simply divides a "C" Residential property with eight dwelling units into two "C" Residential properties with four units on each. If a major catastrophe occurs to either of these two structures, the Code would allow reconstruction only in conformance with the "C" District unless a Class A or a rezoning were requested and approved. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve LS-34-98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street. Mr. Ruff noted that Mr. Kibby, Eastside Neighborhood Organization, called and said they had no objection if an easement is provided for access across the parking lot. Mr. Miller asked if the easement allowed access? Mr. Ruff said we would have to have an easement prepared and signed prior to signature of the lot split. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Keene. . . Aye Miller. . . Pa"AYE Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; LS-34-98, 300-306 S. Holmes Street, with conditions, was APPROVED. C. SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue This is a request by the Lansing School District for approval of a Special Land Use permit for the construction and operation of a structure which is owned or operated by a public utility. In association with the special land use request, a petition has been filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval of a variance from Section 1254.10 to permit a proposed structure over 35 ft in height, the maximum height permitted by right in the "A" Residential District. The applicant proposes construction of a communication monopole tower, to a maximum of 200 ft, that would provide antenna space for as many as three telecommunication providers. This is not a matter of rezoning. The location may have an existing tower or light pole that may be replaced by a monopole tower for the co-location of existing services and telecommunication providers. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 5 The practical difficulty or hardship exists because the Code only allows heights up to 35 ft, and anything over that height must be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The location, size, and character appear to be reasonable with appropriate landscaping. There should not be any impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The construction of the communications tower should not set any type of precedent. If approved, the 200-ft tower and any mechanical equipment shed should include the following conditions: 1. The tower is recommended to be placed in lieu of an athletic field light standard (existing or new). 2. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas. 3. The proposed contract with the Lansing School District include language helping to ensure compatibility with the use of this tower with the hospitals. 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties. 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security. 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away as possible from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact. The committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report. In committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue, with the above conditions. Motion carried unanimously, 3-0. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue, with the above six conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 6 Miller. . . Ave Nischan . Ave Smith. . . Ave Frederick . Ave Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene •Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; SLU-17-98, Sexton High School, 102 S. McPherson Avenue, with the above six conditions was APPROVED. Next meeting Wednesday, January 20, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr Nischan Mr. Nischan reported that the Urban Development Committee has met and discussed the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. The Committee is continuing its work; however, as yet there is nothing to report. Next meeting of the Urban Development Committee will be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Did not meet. C. Report from the Planning Manager. Ms. Love presented the Proposed Work Plan for FY2000 together with a brief summary. Some clarification of the work plan priorities was made. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the Work Plan for FY2000; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; the Work Plan for FY2000 was APPROVED. Ms. Love presented the proposed Budget for FY2000 together with a brief summary. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve submission of the proposed Budget for FY2000 to the Mayor and City Council; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; submission of the proposed Budget for FY2000 was APPROVED D. 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. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 7 b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand RiverAvenue, "F-1"Commercial to"G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) g. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center, 2400 Hall Street (Act-6-98); h. SLU-7-98, Washington Park, 2516 S. Washington Ave. (Act-8-98), I. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); j. SLU-12-98, Fire Station #4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98), Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-97, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. MPA-1-98, Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Tabled September 8, 1998) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick received a complaint from a citizen concerning 718 W. Northrup concerning auto detailing work operating from a garage at that address. The work apparently is being done under contract from a local auto dealership. The matter was reported to Code Compliance about three weeks ago. 12. ADJOURNMENT - was at 7.35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn121598\47 a w Sit.. - - f SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Trooper Jake, LLC (AKA Harry Hepler) 734 May Street Lansing, MI 48906 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit (SLU) to renovate three existing industrial buildings for 50 to 60 residential units EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant industrial buildings; formerly the Lansing Pattern Shop LOCATION: South side of Sheridan Street/Oakland Avenue, west of the rail-road and north of the old Prudden Wheel building. EXISTING ZONING: "I" Heavy Industrial District PROPERTY SIZE: 3 acres SURROUNDING LAND N: Industrial USE: S: Residential Conversion of Industrial property E: Residential W: Commercial & Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "I" Heavy Industrial S: "I" Heavy Industrial E: "C" Residential District W: "H" Light Industrial District, "I" Heavy Industrial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for industrial and warehouse uses. AGENCY RESPONSES AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received. ASSESSOR: 1) How many of the parcels shown on the attached tax map are included in this plan? There could be as many as six at this time. It SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 2 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units is difficult to trace these buildings across so many property lines. 2) Will applicant be required to approach our office about combining any of these current parcels into a single description, or a split and combining of descriptions, etc. in the future. 3) With the grade separation, and Oakland Ave./M-43 in this locale as a viaduct; should these parcels be addressed of"E. Sheridan St", rather than "Oakland"? 4) This would be a good time to change the street name to something like Oakland Access or Oakland Service Road because Sheridan is already the name of another street at the north city limits. 5) With a history of industrial use, especially with chemicals and solvents, has a Baseline Environmental Assessment been conducted? ATTORNEY: No response received. BOARD OF EDUCATION (LANSING): No response received. BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: Electric No comments. Wate No Comments on land use request. Need to know water service requirements. BUILDING SAFETY: The Building Safety Office performed a survey inspection on this building on September 11, 1998. When the inspection was made no use for the building was stated. The building appears to be in satisfactory structural condition. There is some evidence of water damage on the single story section as well as on the 3 story portion. The inspector could not ascertain the location of property lines, the location of property lines may affect fire ratings of exterior walls as well as the installation of opening protection or blocking openings. The use would entail major alterations which would trigger handicapped access to all levels. The inspection report indicated that the building is SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 3 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units equipped with a fire suppression system which will have to be maintained. The project will require the submission of construction documents sealed by a registered architect licensed in the State Of Michigan. The project will be subject to the city's site plan and building plan review process. Additional information pertaining to the above mentioned processes may be obtained by contacting Christine Segerlind at 483-4381 CATA: No response received. CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: No comment other than proposal is consistent with development of site. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: This letter is intended to voice the Economic Development Corporation of the City of Lansing's (EDC) support for the proposed special land use (SLU-21-98) at 700-708 E. Oakland Ave. by Mr. Harry Hepler. The proposed project is located in one of the City's New Construction Neighborhood Enterprise Zones (NEZ). As you know, the NEZ program is intended to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of residential units within the City. For this reason, it is the opinion of the EDC that the proposed Special Land Use is consistent with the City's development plans and goals for the NEZ areas and should be approved. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at 483-4140. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. FIRE MARSHALL: This proposal looks fine. LANSING NEIGHB'HOOD COUNCIL: No response received. NORTHTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD: No response received. SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 4 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units NLCA: No response received. OLD TOWN/MAIN STREET: No response received. MEDIA ONE: No response received. MI DEQ: No response received. MI DNR: No response received. MI DOT: No response received. PARKS AND RECREATION: Does not impact parks operation & services. LANSING POLICE DEPT.: Will the units be owner occupied or renter occupied? PUBLIC SERVICES : No response received. TRANSPORTATION: No response received. DESCRIPTION of SITE The 3 acre site is located on the south side of Sheridan Street, east of the CSX railroad, north of the Prudden Wheel redevelopment project, and west of Pennsylvania Avenue (See Figure 1, Area Map). Sheridan Street is a two-block long street that is a remnant left from the construction of Oakland Avenue. It begins where Oakland Avenue begins to curve north to go under the railroad bridge, and ends at northbound Larch Street. The site is characterized by three old industrial buildings which includes the former Lansing Pattern Shop property See (Figure 2, Proposed Development Plan). The largest of these buildings is situated adjacent to the south right-of-way line of Sheridan Street, is approximately 420 feet long, two stories tall, and varies in depth from fifty feet to two-hundred feet to the south. The other buildings are situated behind (south of) the first building: the largest of these is two stories, while the smaller building to the west is 1'/ stories. Because the site is essentially a complex of abandon industrial buildings, there is very little area of the lot that isn't covered by either building or parking spaces. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to renovate the three industrial structures and construct fifty to sixty residential dwelling units. The applicant has stated that most of these units will SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 5 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units be one or two bedroom units. In addition, while the applicant intends to prepare the site so that it may be subdivided and individual units sold as condominium units, the project will initially be for the rental market. The applicant has filed a request for review under ACT-285 for the vacation of the Sheridan Street right-of-way in front of the proposed project (see ACT-29-98). If granted, the additional right-of-way that the project will pick up will allow two advantages for the project: 1. it will permit additional off-street parking to serve the project; 2. and closure of the railroad crossing on Sheridan Street will reduce noise from the adjacent railroad facility. Access to the project will be entirely from Summit Street which is under construction as part of the Prudden Wheel redevelopment project. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT (SLU) 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 Actually, the project will be a significant departure from the current industrial character of the area, the industrial character of the Demmer Corporation facilities located north across Oakland Avenue, and the existing CSX Railroad facilities to the east. It will be consistent with the proposed Prudden Wheel redevelopment project, which is a mixture of commercial and residential uses, that was recently approved immediately south of the project, and will be more compatible than industrial development with the existing residential neighborhood to the east of Summit Street. Construction of off-street parking areas as shown on the proposed plan will be similar to, and appear as an extension of, parking areas constructed on the adjacent property to the south. The proposed closing of Sheridan Street east of the railroad tracks may significantly alter the existing character of traffic circulation through the business district. Traffic that now accesses the Fischer-Ross-Weighand property at 618 Sheridan Street would be forced to use Larch Street (which is one-way northbound), or cut through the redeveloped Prudden Wheel site on Summit and May Streets. SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 6 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units 2. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY This proposal may effect the character of surrounding property to the west along Sheridan Street. The proposed closure of Sheridan Street, and the change in traffic patterns that would result, is potentially the primary cause of this impact. 3. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY The single business located on-Sheridan Street west of the railroad tracks may be affected because of the loss of access from westbound Oakland Avenue. Because of the previous approval of the Prudden Wheel redevelopment project, approval of this project will have very little interference with the general enjoyment of any of the other adjacent properties. 4. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IN GENERAL, AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOT The proposed project presents a continuation of a major land use change within this traditionally industrial area. The change to residential use, if done correctly, does represent an improvement to the character of the property. Most importantly, it is consistent with the previously approved Prudden Wheel redevelopment project. 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 Staff anticipates a reduction in impacts caused by traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. 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 Public services to the site are adequate. The project is proposed to have its primary access drive form the newly constructed Summit Street on the east border of the project. In addition, as part of the Prudden Wheel redevelopment project, May Street will be reconnected over the CSX Railroad tracks to the east, providing and additional source of vehicular access from the east side to the west side of the railroad. SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 7 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units 7. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE WILL NOT PLACE DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT CAPACITY With the construction of Summit Street, public services and facilities will be adequate. The Fischer-Ross-Weigand property at 618 Sheridan Street will still have access from northbound Larch Street, as this property has frontages on both Larch and Sheridan Streets. 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 Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for industrial and warehouse uses. This proposal essentially creates an "overlay' in which residential uses are inserted into an industrial district. While the proposed plan indicates the proposed uses are intended to be entirely residential, it is possible, under the present zoning, that mixed uses could occur, including some unique "home occupation" arrangements. If it is the developer's intent to deed-restrict the project to entirely residential use, it may be viable, though not mandatory, to seek an amendment to the Master Plan and rezoning of the property for residential use. 9. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED The "I" Heavy Industrial zoning district permits residential development, with approval of a Special Land Use Permit, if the proposed development meets the dimensional requirements of the "DM-4" Residential District. These dimensional requirements are 1,400 square foot of lot area for dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms. If the entire property were developed with three bedroom units, the three (3) acre site could accommodate 94 residential units. The applicant is proposing fifty to sixty units, each with one or two bedrooms. In summary, the total number of units proposed is well below the number permitted by the current Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator has determined that requirements for building setback, building coverage, lot coverage, etc. are the same as required for the "I" Heavy Industrial zoning district. In an area that is completely zoned industrial, the setback requirements are essentially zero, and there are no building and lot coverage standards. The requirements for off-street parking cannot be met entirely within the subject property. Some of the off-street parking will have to be accommodated on adjacent SLU-21-98 700-708 E. Oakland Avenue Page 8 Renovate existing industrial buildings for 50- 60 residential units property to the south, and/or some by the additional property gained for the project if the adjacent section of Sheridan Street is vacated. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use permit (SLU) to renovate three existing industrial buildings for 50 to 60 residential units. The proposed project presents a continuation of a major land use change within this traditionally industrial area. The single business located on Sheridan Street west of tof the railroad oad tracks may be affected because of the loss of access from westbound Oakland Avenue. The proposed closing of Sheridan Street east of the railroad tracks may significantly alter the existing character of traffic circulation through the business district. Traffic that now accesses the Fischer-Ross-Weigand property at 618 Sheridan Street would be forced to use Larch Street (which is one-way northbound), or cut through the redeveloped Prudden Wheel site on Summit and May Streets. The proposed development has not yet been well enough designed to determine safe traffic flow and circulation, and to determine if all the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Code can be met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board table this request pending the opportunity to hear case number ACT-29-98 for the vacation of Sheridan Street east of the CSX Railroad, and further refinement of the proposed development plan. 1 e �_� � J11r�i1 •tV;' ., i I11r�ir �'� � 1�. 1 �: 1�1� i�/1•; F • 1 � 1 11-� ��: '� .t � � � � ����� � ^ � I I 1 •� ' �''��� ® � 4 � 1 1 +"��f�' � �il� �w 1 ••rl !1 i 1'• ��alli - I ,• +I — �' r� .> •. a ,. ; . �] •1f■•■1! .- 1 � +� itOt� • I � I � � � II � I �� � - �r� i 1 a a • ! f If �t � I i, 7:lfLLil:I�el - -- —Ai��7i:J;:i• •. ��t 211 OAWArAF ZIP IdIA `S'" ■ —i 1 t.tT 11!� !► a..1ti1 . . •- '�� . .. �1 r its n gill a'- aim 1 tl�■■ rye _` I ; � TI _. -�—_ - -- - I / �d1f1 • �a11 I � 1 .. 1 ■ r CO "53 ivs 'I ti o � �LKS) fU e i �. ��•'�l,,jj� t� `• � i �°, fit co 46 S':��i, R �'• ��� •tom A ,�• s V � � f a:• .t t5 A � f l N _J_ O Z LS-34-98 300 Block of South Holmes GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Diane Burns 309 S. Holmes Lansing, MI 48912 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split EXISTING LAND USE: Residential EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 82.5' X 130.68 ' = 10,781 sq. ft. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Church S: One-Four Family E: One-Five Family W: One-Two Family SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential S: "C" Residential E: "C" Residential W: "C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area as residential. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Diane K. Burns, 309 S. Holmes Street, is requesting a lot split to divide the property at 300-306 South Holmes Street which has an 82.5 ft. frontage on Holmes Street in two (2) equal lots resulting in 41.25 ft. wide x 131 ft.± deep lots. The property contains two four-unit buildings and the applicant wishes to place each building on its own lot. Section 1236.07(b) of the Subdivision Regulations LS-34-98, 300 Block of S. Holmes, Page 2. requires the lot at the southwest corner of Prospect and Holmes Street to be 70 ft. wide and the interior adjacent lot to be 60 ft. wide. Also, Section 1236.07(d) of the Subdivision Regulations allows a maximum lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. Since this exceeds the width-to-depth lot ratio, and the minimum lot width of the two lots does not comply with requirements, variances to the Subdivision Regulations are requested. SPECIFIC INFORMATION AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response received yet. Assessor: If granted, send us a copy of the approved. Lot split or variance. Would this split allow access to the interior lot for parking? BWL: See attached. Building Safety: It does not appear that the proposed lot split would put either building in violation of the Building Code relative to location on the property. It appears that there will be a problem with access to parking for 306 S. Holmes since it would have to cross 300 S. Holmes to be used. Moving the property line between the two buildings more than two (2) feet would put at least one of the buildings out of compliance with the Building Code. Code Compliance: No response received yet. Development: What improvement will occur as a result of proposed lot split? Property will still be nonconforming, overdeveloped and overcrowded. Joint driveway will result and one (1) parking space will be lost. Recommend denial. Fire Marshal: Ok. Eastside Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. ABC Neighborhood Organization: No response received yet. LS-34-98, 300 Blk. S. Holmes, Page 3. Public Service: Public Service Engineering has the following concerns: 1) It needs to be verified that there are two separate sanitary sewer leads - one for each building. 2) If the lot is split, there is not room for a driveway for both lots. 3) We cannot approve until these concerns are addressed. ANALYSIS Location, Size and Character The property is located at the southwest corner of Prospect and Holmes Street. The lot measures approximately 82.5' x 130.68' = 10,781 ft2. The surrounding land uses consist of a church to the north and single and two family residences to the east, west and south. There are two four-unit (2 upstairs, 2 downstairs) with one bedroom per unit brick structures on each lot. The property is residential in character and a lot split will not impact the residential character of the neighborhood. The existing situation is nonconforming due to the number of dwelling units on one (1) lot and the eight dwelling units on a lot in the "C" Residential District. However, the applicant is trying to comply with the code as best as possible. The applicant is proposing to split the lot so that both houses are on individual lots with their own tax identification number. In fact, the two houses directly south which are identical, are already on two separate lots. In comparison to the surrounding lots, the proposed lot division would be compatible. Also, these are also compatible because there are no other 70 ft. lots in this entire area because it was platted prior to the regulations being adopted into the subdivision regulations. According to Section 1236.08(d) of the Zoning Code, the maximum width to depth ratio is 1:2:5. The proposed width to depth ratio is 1:3.2. Section 1236.07(b) of the Subdivision Regulations requires the lot at the southwest corner of Prospect and Holmes Street to be 70 ft. wide, since it is on a corner, and the interior adjacent lot to be 60 ft. wide. Therefore, variances of the subdivision regulation are required. The lot division will not change the residential character of the area. The location, size and character are reasonable. Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic The subject site is adjacent to two similar structures which are located to the south with separate parcel identification numbers of which the applicant also owns the one farthest south. The parking area consist of a dirt lot, with a "community" garden to the west. The required number of parking spaces is as follows: Address # of units #of parking spaces required 300-02 4 (2 upstairs, 2 downstairs) 6 (4 must be accessible) Report prepared by Doris Witherspoon, 11/98. LS-34-98, 300 Blk. S. Holmes, Page 4. 304-06 4 (2 upstairs, 2 downstairs) 6 (4 must be accessible) Since this lot split involves the properties at 300-02 & 304-06 S. Holmes, the area at the rear of these two structures is the focus of this lot split. The entire rear half of both lots is unpaved and four (4) spaces per house are available with a garden lot along the west side of the parcel. There is a single family house directly west on the cross street, Prospect. It is on a very small lot. If the applicant is required to hardsurface all of the spaces required by code, it will allow cars and pavement within 6-7 feet of this house along its entire length. Since the subject property appears to function with the four spaces/house, it may be appropriate to recommend hardsurfacing only the four (4) accessible spaces leaving the community garden as a buffer to the adjacent property with the understanding that the garden will be removed and paved for parking at the owners expense if parking problems arise on either of these two parcels when separated. Physical Character The concern raised by public service regarding separate sewer leads must be addressed prior to final approval of this application. The owner has been contacted regarding public service's comments and is investigating this concern. Impact on Future Land Use Patterns The separation of these lots would not set a precedent since the identical set of buildings is on two lots directly south. However, in order to recommend approval of this split, access to the interior parcel must be provided and assured. A joint drive to Holmes could be required however, it would be more problematic and require more asphalt thereby decreasing green space and still requiring an access easement on both properties. The drive on Prospect appears to work allowing cars to enter the street face forward. A second option would be to require a deed restriction across the corner parcel to permanently permit vehicles from the interior lot to reach Prospect. Given the advantages of this arrangement, Option 2 is recommended. Summary The lot division will not change the residential character of the area. The location, size and character are reasonable. Since the subject property appears to function with the four spaces/house, it may be appropriate to recommend hardsurfacing only the four (4) accessible spaces leaving the community garden as a buffer to the adjacent property with the understanding that the garden will be removed and paved for parking at the owners expense if parking problems arise on either of Report prepared by Doris Witherspoon. 11l98. LS-34-98, 300 Blk. S. Holmes, Page 5. these two parcels when separated. The concern raised by public service regarding separate sewer leads must be addressed prior to final approval of this application. The separation of these lots would not set a precedent since the identical set of buildings is on two lots directly south. The proposed split, if all conditions are met, would be harmonious with the neighborhood; create organized parking; improve aesthetics; and permit the applicant to receive refinancing necessary to make additional improvements to both of the apartment buildings. The proposed lot split would create an opportunity for an improvement to the existing situation. Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the lot split at 300-02 S. Holmes Street with the following conditions: (1) Owner must demonstrate executed permanent driveway easement across Parcel A before final execution of the lot split. (2) The front yard parking situation along Prospect Street is eliminated. (3) At minimum, there should be four accessible parking spaces for each unit with the understanding that additional spaces can be made available by the owner by removing the community garden if needed. (4) The area should be hardsurfaced with Portland concrete or bituminous asphalt no later than November 30, 1999. Report prepared by Doris Witherspoon, 11/98. Q � , ®r�/� ■ I I ■ Q © LS-34-98 300 Blk of S. Holmes NORTH L©t ill t T. CERTiFl a a y ; Fast LarLr}igq '§tttq Bank u the Noa;t-h 82.5 cant 3.3 feet of. UIC Nortb ai:if+'. T. 4��;`:��' Z� of lot 1, ahri ax strip 6.0 >CQ'�?;�! d.� .,�4�?71R0 cn tha o' ?:mL h 82.5 feat .of lot a Ok Addit:Lon tc i ty of Lansin In hlaw'. � �. r. r tc� _«r1 I PR-051PEG7T4"r ' .. :gill: ^•' s.;1-,.±t}�:.., ..�•. r _ IIj , I Q i� ----- a IN IVK CERTIFIED HAVING No ENCROACHIAENYS IMPROVEMENTS tMUMIM AS SHOWN ALI-)V':: �Gra:PU di A. .....—. _ .-...._.. .-1.-:i'L:: l-.J'/+Ud J�7 _._—..._._....._.._,-........�...---._.�-_._�_�___�_._...__.__..-.._-...�.-.-ram ,I'• .. I LS-34-98 300 Blk of S. Holmes NORTH SIDEWALK CO-302 I 304-3d(o 00RC N ° I tl� a i o I o PKI G ' )WWAY P"/p D 9 (LDS 7Z 7Q 7"r\ o ZD nIV` C) oUL G o n� IUG—�c,55�2`? M Lt lU—b 1-70 1 Ut e0'7 ;Z) r-I r1 rt oc w rtoou�.ar- �.� - ���+�• - �•� IM .Bt VW A S�f34 I1�T3E7es 6573 Marissa Loop, d#'204 Naples, FL 3008 PH: (941) 597.3656 FAX (941) 597-3668 December 1, 1998 VIA FAX Lansing Planning Board Department of Planning &Neighborhood Development 316 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933-1236 RE: Case# LS-34-98, 300-306 S. HOLMES STREET Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written in support of the proposed variance to the Subdivision Regulations to permit a lot split to divide the property at 300-306 South Holmes Street. The property has two almost identical four-unit buildings which are almost identical to the two four-unit buildings south of the property located at 308-310 and 312-314 S. Holmes. Those two buildings sit on lots that are of the same approximate size as 300-306 would be if the lot split is granted. Therefore,this lot split would not create lots that are any smaller than currently exist in the neighborhood_ This lot split is requested so that the properties will meet mortgage and title insurance requirements, and the split will not have any adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood or surrounding properties. I, individuallly and as managing trustee of the Ronald L. Roderick Trust(current titleholders and land contract holders of the property), hereby request that you grant this request for the lot split. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Z� - Wanda Roderick Bolton Individually and as Managing Trustee for the Ronald L. Roderick Trust T0'd _113101 WATERSU GHT BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT MEMO December 10, 1998 9 i TO: Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development FROM: Rosemary Sullivan, Administrative Secretary (517) 371-6034 RE: 300-306 South Holmes Street Request by Diane Burns, 309 South Holmes Street, for a lot split to divide property, which has an 82.5 foot frontage on Holmes Street in two (2) equal lots resulting in 41.25 foot wide X 131 foot +/- deep lots. The property contains two four-unit buildings and the applicant wishes to place each building on its own lot. Section 1236.07(b) of the Subdivision Regulations requires the lot at the southwest corner of Prospect and Holmes Street to be 70 feet wide and the interior adjacent lot to be 60 feet wide. Also, Section 1236.07(d) of the Subdivision Regulations allows a maximum lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5. Since this exceeds the width- to-depth lot ratio, and the minimum lot width of the two lots does not comply with requirements, variances to the Subdivision Regulations are requested. There is no change in the number of units. Lot division only. CUSTOMER PROJECTS Electric No objections. Contact Person: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water No comments on lot split. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 12-99-01.doc TO/TO'd SS89 TL2 LTS T 1HOI-1 �DiIJ1 d0 QH ab:BT 866T-TT-93Q �: �,. .�.. ,- : .� '"Fr � .•Y ^� ._. ?. �, i; 4 C _— - �1 ., A � �. . . .r, 1\ �,4 . 1� 1 � - / .� `�i 'h '1 i s L.- ^. _„ _ -�, x S _ .1' :A �.� �, . ;� _ . .� ». o� i � _ ��,��