Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Planning Board Apr-Jun Minutes FINAL Approved as written 7-17-07 Draft to Clerk June 13,2007 Approved July 17, 2007 To Clerk August 15, 2007 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers " y� c� Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 5, 2007 1. OPENING SESSION r c) The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Frederick, Acting Chair. -; A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Bruch, Cordill. ,a B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Czekai. D. Absent: None. Dr. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Dr. Bruch to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. HEARINGS A. LS-8-2007, 511 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Lot Split This is a request by James Solomon to divide the property at 511 S. Pennsylvania Avenue into 2 separate parcels of land, one of which would be a corner lot. Sections 1236.07(b) & (c) of the Subdivision Ordinance require a minimum width of 70 feet for corner lots and a minimum depth of 135 feet for both newly created lots. If approved, both lots would be 60 feet in width and 79 feet in depth. Variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are therefore, being requested. Mr. Frederick asked if the Board approves the recommendation for the lot split, the lot line would go through the back portion of the house. Ms. Stachowiak said that it would not go through the house. She stated that the lot is being split sideways and each lot will have 60 feet of frontage on Pennsylvania Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Jeff Abood, representative for the applicant, stated that the application was submitted for the lot split to City staff who did a thorough review and provided the Board with the aerial photos and an accurate analysis. He does understand the difficulties with trying to do a detached garage. In light of everything else, he stated that this is the best use for that lot. He can bring a single family home to the lot and he stated that it is Mr. Solomon's intent to market the property for sale. There is a current tenant who is trying to purchase the property at 511 and he has gone over this proposal with them. They are in agreement to maintain the lot and it is somewhat burdensome for that property owner. He believes that it would be an improvement to the area and the surrounding property owners. For those reasons, he is asking that the Board approve the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Frederick closed the public hearing for LS-8-2007, 511 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Lot Split and stated that it is on the Consent Agenda for this evening. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Ms. Tracy Gorman, representative of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association located at 3233 Westwood Avenue, stated in reference to PRD-1- 2007, the applicant is asking for special variances and the neighborhood, in its entirety, is opposed to any special use or variances. They are not entitled to this special use and the neighborhood is single family home owner occupied dwellings. She stated that time and time again it has been this particular north end of Westwood Avenue that the individuals involved have blatantly usurped many codes and state laws, which the Planning Department has never fined or followed up with any kind of enforcement. It has always been up to the neighborhood to contact some authority to stop them from usurping the codes. She stated that if she wants to do something on her property she has to get permits and go through the process. The individuals at the end of Westwood Street have blatantly gone beyond what is acceptable. She stated that the City's Master Plan calls for home ownership. She understands that there is a plot of land there that someone wants to do something with. The neighborhood does not disagree with this. There is already a special use for a 6 bed residential facility. The individual running the facility has usurped state law and there is plenty of proof of that. Nothing in this plan is different from before. The neighborhood contends that it should be single family home ownership and the neighborhood has deteriorated because of what has been allowed to happen so far. She would sincerely appreciate some help from the City with enforcement of the codes so that the neighborhood does not keep deteriorating. Mr. Jack Zuk, representative for Bronte Construction and resident of 5226 Bunker Road, Mason, stated that there were things wrong in the past that were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 3 done and he has been speaking with the neighborhood to try and correct the situation. He would not do anything like that. At the last meeting, he showed the plans and the houses which are very fitting to the neighborhood. The plan has been reduced from 13 duplexes to 10 single family and now to this proposal of three single family homes. It is a nice use for the land and the current owners now want to sell the property because it is a liability issue on their part. Bronte Construction had an opportunity to purchase it and it will be home ownership. Just like most subdivisions, it will be single family condominiums. He is working with City Council and Councilmember Brian Jeffries gave him some names to contact about getting tax breaks for the individuals to promote it. He is looking into that in order to promote home ownership. He will follow all City codes and setback requirements. He will try to please the neighborhood as best he can and work with them. Mr. Rod Shangle, representative of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association and resident 3203 Westwood Avenue, stated that this has been an ongoing project and something has been done with the land for a long time. The same concerns that the neighbors had when this whole thing began seven years ago are the same concerns today. The biggest concern the residents have is that the close proximity to the railroad tracks really inhibits the marketability of the property. He has seen the plan Mr. Zuk presented and he commends him. Mr. Zuk is trying really hard to make this something very livable. It still comes down to the point that it is so close to the railroad tracks and there is so much noise. The neighborhood does believe that it would detract from the marketability and are concerned that the project will get started and then half way through be abandoned. Then the neighborhood ends up with the property at the end of the street that has been the same way for the past few years. There is tile lying around and piles of asphalt which has finally been taken care of. The weeds are overgrown and it just looks terrible for the rest of the neighborhood. The concern that he has is making the site livable and in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Many of the neighbors feel the same way. Mr. Frederick asked if the lawn ordinance would apply here. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would and she would inform the Code Compliance Office. Dr. Bruch stated that she would like to know what the code violations have been for the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that besides the weeds, she is not aware of any zoning violations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is not asking for any variances and are not requesting a special land use permit. The applicant is only requesting approval of a development plan and that is all that is going on here. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 4 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval: May 1, 2007 The minutes of May 1, 2007 were APPROVED w/corrections. Pg. 10, 2nd para. from bottom, 3rd line, change "chuck" to "chunk". 2. LS-8-2007, 511 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Lot Split This is a request by James Solomon to divide the property at 511 S. Pennsylvania Avenue into 2 separate parcels of land, one of which would be a corner lot. Sections 1236.07(b) & (c) of the Subdivision Ordinance require a minimum width of 70 feet for corner lots and a minimum depth of 135 feet for both newly created lots. If approved, both lots would be 60 feet in width and 79 feet in depth. Variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are therefore, being requested. APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, July 11, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. 124 W. Michigan Avenue, City Council Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Bronte Construction LLC for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.116 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 4 single family condominium units on the property, for a total of 5 units overall on the site. A 6-bed PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 5 residential care facility already exists on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of PRD-1-2007, for three new buildable units on the 7.116 acre site at the north end of Westwood Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood, which would be hard surfaced but without curb, gutter and without sidewalks; and 2. The buildings be designed so that the garages do not project closer to the street than the front wall of the house. Mr. Frederick stated that the last time the Board addressed this property, there were some comments from the neighbors during the public hearing about dust and noise. He believes that the Board attached conditions regarding dust control, street cleaning and noise control. He asked if these were still appropriate. Ms. Stachowiak stated that some of them would be appropriate given the scaled down project especially with the noise and dust. Mr. Ruge asked if the City had an ordinance for dust and dirt during construction. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City has a nuisance ordinance that basically says that any type of nuisance factor which would include odor, noise, dust, vibrations or anything like this, if it is to a level that disturbs the peace, is a violation of that code. It is a code that the police enforce more than anything else. Mr. Ruge asked if there was a specific noise code used during construction. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a noise ordinance concerning construction that limits the hours that construction can be performed. It does not necessarily set a decibel level or noise limit level during those hours but it says that construction cannot be done beyond the hours of 7:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Frederick was more concerned with noise off site from trucks running up and down the residential streets. On a construction site, it is going to be noisier than an ordinary residential neighborhood. It is something to be endured and will eventually go away. He would like the contractor to be on notice that the project can be shut down if they really annoy the neighbors with the typical dump trucks and pickup trucks racing up and down the neighborhood streets. With the noise and construction ordinances in place, this would be sufficient to leave out the noise part of the condition. The neighbors should also be aware that if this becomes oppressive, they can certainly contact the Code Compliance Office. He hopes that they would be cooperative enough to get out there and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 6 put an end to it and that someone will be there to make sure that the streets get cleaned up regularly. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the Board would like to say inordinate or unreasonable amount of noise that is not typical of residential construction. Mr. Frederick stated that would work. Mr. Ruge stated that he needed clarification because of the noise. Ms. Cordill stated that is good point of trying to get a handle on what is to be expected. If someone is in an area that is developing a subdivision, there is going to be some noise, dust and dirt. If someone lives in an area where the sewer is being separated, the City's contractors did not clean up and it is like living in a dust bowl. She does not know if a daily cleaning is appropriate. The contractor can oil now and then when the conditions get really dry. Then there is the other side where there is construction and it becomes a mud bath. She would like to have some wording added for the contractor. Are they going to be responsible? Are the trucks going to be limited to what streets they will be traveling? Would a route be established? Ms. Stachowiak stated that Westwood Avenue would be a straight shot and that it would be inconvenient for them to go any other way. Mr. Frederick stated that is a good point on the street and he believes it was one of the conditions then: with ingress and egress limited to Westwood Avenue. Mr. Frederick clarified that cleaning daily would be if it was needed. He does not expect the contractor to clean the street if they did not put any dirt on it. He stated that it could be changed to say that the streets be kept clean of any construction debris or product. Dr. Bruch stated that with the storm water management pond, there is a swale that is being brought in half way through the recreational area into the storm water management pond. Because it is a large area, she is wondering why it needs to be so deep. There is space to make it shallower and bigger so that it actually has more water infiltration. She stated that this is probably engineered so that it is efficient but it is not necessarily the best thing for this site. There is plenty of space and plenty of green space which would be nice to naturally have a larger area to pool. She recommended that the storm water management be reviewed to expand it so that it functions the same way and would have more space for water infiltration. Dr. Bruch asked about the grading between the houses and stated that there is a tiny ridge between each of the property PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 7 lines. She is concerned about this because it traps the water between the houses and she does not see water being pulled. Mr. Jack Zuk stated that was a design that Mr. White came up with because he runs into subdivisions now where everybody is worried about water running onto the neighbor's property. You can get sued for that. All water is supposed to be drained on your site, that is the standard requirement. It could easily be changed to a swale and go back between or level it out. As far as the drainage ditch, it is mostly there and is only 5 foot in depth. It is not very deep and the point of it is to hold water. It will not be holding water across the entire green space. Instead of limiting it to an area, you make less usage of the land and it would remain wet. Dr. Bruch stated that you would end up having a larger area that can absorb water much faster so that water does not stand as long and there would be a greater infiltration rate. Then it could only be three feet deep and much bigger. Therefore, there would not be an area that is unusable. If it is spread out and made much larger, the whole thing could be usable, maybe not usable after it rains because it is holding water. Some of the detention basin could actually be made so that it is more natural looking and gradual. When there is no water then it would be part of the green space. Mr. Zuk stated that if you walk out on the site and see how it looks now, it fits into the landscape and goes back to the woods and the wetland area. Dr. Bruch asked if it was already done. Mr. Zuk stated that majority of it is done and needs to be feathered out a little bit. This was the reason for the design based on what is there. He stated that it works nice where it is next to the woods. If that is what the Board is recommending in between the houses, it can be rectified without any problems. Dr. Bruch stated that she does not see any street trees in the plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Forester will require them but it will probably be done during site plan review. It certainly does not hurt to include it as a condition at the Board level. Ms. Cordill asked if street trees were indicated on the plan. Dr. Bruch stated that those are existing trees. Dr. Bruch stated that she would like a note to go out to inform the neighbors of the Code Compliance phone numbers, the noise and the street cleaning in case they see any code violations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5 2007 Page 8 Ms. Cordill inquired about street lighting for this area and if it was the fixture or the goose arm. Mr. Ruge called it the cobra head. Dr. Bruch recommended that this be changed to pedestrian scale street lighting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend approval of PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue with the following conditions: 1) The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood which would be hardsurfaced but without curb, gutter and sidewalks; 2) The buildings be designed so that the garages do not project closer to the street than the front wall of the houses; 3) An unreasonable or inordinate amount of noise that is not typical of residential construction be prohibited; dust from the construction be controlled and the streets kept free of construction debris including dirt and clay, and cleaned as needed; 4)Street trees be provided as required by City ordinance; 5) Pedestrian style/scale street lights be installed; 6) The storm water basin be made larger and shallower to increase absorbency and make it a usable feature of the site. In addition to the conditions listed above, the Planning Board also recommended that a letter be sent to the surrounding neighbors advising them of who to contact in the event of code violations on the subject property. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE b. PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Bronte Construction LLC for approval of a Planned Residential Development on a 7.116 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 4 single family condominium units on the property, for a total of 5 units overall on the site. A 6-bed residential care facility already exists on the subject property. Staff recommended approval of PRD-1-2007, for three new buildable units on the 7.116 acre site at the north end of Westwood Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood, which would be hard surfaced but without curb, gutter and without sidewalks; and 2. The buildings be designed so that the garages do not project closer to the street than the front wall of the house; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 9 Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue with the following conditions: 1) The design of the street fit with the character of the neighborhood which would be hardsurfaced but without curb, gutter and sidewalks; 2) The buildings be designed so that the garages do not project closer to the street than the front wall of the houses; 3) An unreasonable or inordinate amount of noise that is not typical of residential construction be prohibited; dust from the construction be controlled and the streets kept free of construction debris including dirt and clay, and cleaned as needed; 4)Street trees be provided as required by City ordinance; 5) Pedestrian style/scale street lights be installed; 6) The storm water basin be made larger and shallower to increase absorbency and make it a usable feature of the site. In addition to the conditions listed above, the Planning Board also recommended that a letter be sent to the surrounding neighbors advising them of who to contact in the event of code violations on the subject property. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . Ave Bruch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. Approved. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that she will not be attending the June 19th meeting. Mr. Rieske will be here and there will be at least one public hearing on an ACT 285 review. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-2006, 310/312 Chestnut b. Z-3-2006,W. Edgewood c. Z-17-2005, Polly& Benjamin d. Z-12-2006& SLU-7-2006 2727 Lyons Avenue 2. Urban Development Committee a. Master Plan Project 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board Ms. Stachowiak stated that special land use permit for the cell phone tower on Mt. Hope Avenue behind the assisted living facility has been reactivated but because it was so old, she did not feel it was fair to the neighbors to just start it up again and pick up where it left off. The neighbors should know that it is being restarted. The Planning Office is going to start over and hold a public hearing. This will begin in July. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 10 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill requested an excused absence from the June 19t" meeting. Dr. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Cordill for the June 19t" meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Dr. Bruch requested excused absences and stated that she will be gone all summer and will not be back until the middle of August. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve excused absence requests from Dr. Bruch for the summer meetings. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping&buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street- no landscaping(May 18, 2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3, 2004) h. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005) i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road. -registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5, 2006, July 18,2006&September 5, 2006) k. Clarion Hotel—two big signs advertising Great Lakes Condominiums (December 5, 2006) I. The Firm—review requirements for fenced outdoor patio(December 5,2006) m. 928 Pacific Ave.—6 foot fence in front yard on a corner lot(February 6, 2007) n. 4311 S. Cedar Str.—barber shop in a residential neighborhood & illegal signs (April 3, 2007) Ms. Cordill stated that at 2716 LaSalle Gardens the owner is parking an RV in the driveway instead of towards the rear of the house. Mr. Frederick inquired about item I and if there was any movement with fixing the patio. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Principal Shopping District is taking the lead on working with The Firm to get it resolved. Mr. Frederick inquired about the signs for item k. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she will send someone out to remove them. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 5, 2007 Page 11 Respectfully submitted, (JM4!�-- � , /C..SL William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.060507.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk May 1,2007 Pg. 10,2"d para.from bottom,3`d line, change"chuck"to"chunk". Approved June 5,2007 To Clerk rJuneSP2007 Minutes of the Regular Meeting �`j LANSING PLANNING BOARD )� 7:00 m., Tenth Floor Council Conference Room Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 1, 2007 -- r� r•> 1. OPENING SESSION C-' The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Frederick, Acting Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Czekai, Bruch. D. Absent: None. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board is down to five members and therefore, three members is a quorum. The Board can conduct business tonight. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Dr. Bruch for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Stachowiak pulled ACT-3-2007 from the agenda. There have been some concerns raised by the Public Service Department since they initially reviewed it and these need to be resolved before the case can be acted upon. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association regarding PRD-1-2007 4. HEARINGS A. PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue This is a request by Bronte Construction LLC for approval of a Planned PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 2 Residential Development on a 7.116 acre parcel located at the north end of Westwood Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 3 single family condominium units on the property, for a total of 4 units overall on the site. A 6-bed residential care facility already exists on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked about the railroad embankment and if there were any tracks on it. Ms. Stachowiak stated they are live tracks. Mr. Frederick stated to the public that they will have an opportunity to comment and if they do have information, they need to be recognized. He told them to please not interrupt the people who are speaking. Ms. Cordill asked about the lot area of each of these three proposed units. Ms. Stachowiak stated that unit 1 is about 10,000 square feet, unit 2 is about 7,300 square feet and unit 3 is about 7,900 square feet. In comparison, the City's minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet and these units exceed that. Mr. Ruge asked if the PRD involves the entire piece of property except for the property which has the senior care home on it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be included because that would become a unit of the PRD. Currently, it is the sole use of the lot but it would become a unit of the PRD, for a total of four units on the lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fifth unit would be the recreational area and there will not be anything developed on it. Ms. Cordill asked if these would be single-family condominium units. Ms. Stachowiak said yes. Mr. Jack Zuk, Representative of the Applicant, stated that there have been problems with the owner of the property in the past. His father-in- law did some business for Mr. Bower on his Giving Tree Farm and that was when he became aware of his desire to sell three lots. The reason why he is interested in them is because he has three potential buyers who are in apartments now who want to be close to the airport and be able to travel and do different things. He is running into problems building houses for them somewhere else in a subdivision because of the specifications of the size of home. What has to be there are minimum 1,200 square feet and they are not the right price range. Prices would be affordable here and these houses are basically sold once he gets past Planning. He does not have any desire in the care facility nor the open space of the fifth lot that will remain tax exempt. He is strictly purchasing them from the owner, Mr. Bower, with no affiliation whatsoever. He has done a lot of construction, multi-family apartments, commercial and residential. He knows that there were some problems in the past with the way things were done and we will not have any of that. That will be taken up and he is sure it will come up again in City Council meetings. He is mainly looking PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 3 for those three lots and the plans are nice for what is being proposed. Two of the people are older individuals who want to move there. The other is a younger individual who is flying all the time. He sets up displays across the country so he wants something close to the airport. He is running out of spaces in Lansing near there that will fit what he wants to do. This ideal spot gives them the money and gets him out of the picture. Hopefully this satisfies the neighborhood. He is more than happy to show projects that he has done. Ms. Cordill asked about the tax exemption. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure if it will remain tax exempt. What will happen is that the whole thing is going to be condominiumized, which means every person who has ownership interest in the condominium project is going to basically own a part of everything. She is not sure about the tax exemption part of this and would have to consult the City Assessor's Office. Ms. Cordill asked with the condominium situation would there be an association that the residents would be a part of and that association would be responsible for the maintenance of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all the owners form an association by state law and then the association is responsible for maintaining all the common space, which is all of the extra area outside of the four units. Mr. Zuk stated that this was something that he had discussed with Mr. Bower in establishing the price of the property. Ms. Tracy Gorman, resident of 3233 Westwood and Co-chair of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that she has had quite a few dealings with Mr. Bower and unfortunately most of those dealings have been extremely disturbing. The Board has the association's position statement that includes a lot of the reasons why. She stated that Mr. Bower time and time again has run absolute roughshod over City ordinances and zoning, and he has graduated with his six bed mental health facility to violating stated law, all of which she has evidence of and can prove. She has documentation from the State of Michigan, Department of Community Health. She stated that the association does not trust Mr. Bower. She stated that she has no misgivings towards Mr. Zuk whatsoever. From what she can gather, Mr. Zuk is a legitimate business man and the association does appreciate that. This is new in dealing with Mr. Bower. However, the only other zoning variances in this neighborhood are Marquette Condominiums. For the individuals who need occupancy, she suggests Marquette Condominiums because they are already developed and have been in place for many years. With Marquette Condominiums, there was a variance granted with the condominium association and it is not 80 percent owner occupied as per state law. This was something that was brought forth before. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 4 She stated that the association is opposed to the development due to experiences with Mr. Bower. If he can violate law and ordinances, he will. The condominium association, if a variance is granted with special use, cannot guarantee owner occupancy. Simply take a look at the makeup of the neighborhood. The only other variances in the neighborhood are Marquette Condominiums and two other special uses. Pull up the City of Lansing police reports and you can find out where the crime area is. She asked the Board to carefully watch this and how it goes through the process. Mr. Rod Shangle, resident of 3203 Westwood Avenue, asked how Mr. Zuk can purchase three of the lots when it comes as an entire plot of land. Ms. Stachowiak stated that someone can purchase a portion of a condominium but you have ownership interest in everything that is included in the condominium area. Mr. Shangle asked if Mr. Zuk decided to build more houses a year or two from now, he would have the right to do that because he owns the land. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Zuk would have to go back through the Planning process. Mr. Shangle asked if it was a process that Mr. Zuk could go through to build additional houses. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be the same process they are going through now. Mr. Shangle stated that he is not sure why he is here now because he thought he would see a complete plan of some kind. He has not seen the style and the size of the houses. The average square footage of the houses that are currently on the street is about 1,400 square feet. The proposed homes will be less than that. He asked if this would be in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. He has not seen floor plans of the houses and he cannot answer it. He would like to have this answered before he can go back to the neighborhood and tell the rest of the residents who he is representing what he has seen here tonight. Mr. Shangle stated that he brought pictures for the Board to see what the neighborhood has experienced over the last five years. These are pictures of when Mr. Bower developed the property two years ago and what it is like today. There is no change even though Mr. Bower said he would clean it up. As the Board can see, there is still no change. There is one neighbor who is looking at a huge pile of tile that has been there for four or five years. This is the type of thing that the neighbors object to when someone is going to come in to the neighborhood and be their neighbor and experience the things that they are experiencing when they are expected by City ordinance to clean up their properties. He stated that the neighbors are concerned that they will carry through with any kind of development. Mr. Frederick gave a brief overview of the process for this case and stated that in this meeting there will be another opportunity for comments during "Comments from the Audience". At that time, he stated that anyone can PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 5 comment on anything so if anyone wants another three minutes on this particular item, feel free to do so during that time. He stated that there are a lot of opportunities for the public to make their views known before this whole process is completed. If something else comes up, there will be another opportunity to say so. Ms. Jill Black, resident of 3303 Westwood Avenue, stated that she is a new property owner in the area and moved into the neighborhood in July. The house that she purchased had been vacant for approximately a year. She was told by the previous owner that the reason they would not live there was because of all of the development that had gone on with the adult care facility, which is near her property. They were concerned about the amount of traffic flow and the speed of the vehicles. With her being a new property owner, she is very new to the whole process. She is concerned with the increased traffic. She is happy that possible tenants have been found, but it sounds like they will be out of their proposed residences for quite a while. There will be opportunities for vandalism in a vacant area and it is extremely tempting to vandalize vacant areas. She previously lived in Bath and that is one of the reasons why she moved out of Bath. There were condominiums being proposed and have since been developed, and more people have moved out of that neighborhood. She does not want to move out of her neighborhood at this point but she knows others in the area will feel that way if things start coming in to their little neighborhood. She has never had any dealings with Mr. Bower and is not able to form an opinion about him at this point. Her concern is the neighborhood and the feel of the neighbors whom she is trying to get to know. Everyone that she has talked to is opposed to the development. She is also opposed to the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this would be the only item on the Zoning and Ordinance agenda and asked the Board if they wanted to meet next week or before the next Planning meeting. Mr. Frederick and Mr. Ruge agreed to meet for before the next Planning Board meeting. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Frederick closed the public hearing for PRD-1-2007, Planned Residential Development, North end of Westwood Avenue and was referred to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled to meet May 15, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room at 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Mr. Jack Zuk, Representative of the Applicant, apologized to the neighborhood for any previous problems with the subject property. He can certainly guarantee that he has never built anything like. He would be upset if he lived in the neighborhood with the similar situations. He guarantees that his job sites are always clean and he is on the job site himself. The reason he invested interest in these lots is because in today's economy, he wants to build some PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 6 houses so people would not have to move out of Michigan like everyone is doing. He is planning a children's museum in the City of Lansing and a lot of the profits will be put towards it from this job. This is an easier way to start that funding. He wants the neighborhood to look good. He worked in Sunset Hills with Bob Hubbell on the design and construction. He had a lot of input to try to make things nice. If anyone sees the plans, he thinks there is something that fits the neighborhood. There are different unique houses so he cannot match exactly. He is willing to take suggestions. He hopes to work with the neighborhood, get to know them and try to work things out. He stated that all of the comments pertain to Mr. Bower and he is not him. Ms. Tracy Gorman, resident of 3233 Westwood and Co-chair of the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that since 1999, ownership was transferred to Mr. Bob Bower for$1.00. Many hardworking, taxpaying families have moved away and out of the City of Lansing due to Mr. Bower and their experiences with this process. She understands that there is a new individual working in the neighborhood and she has no misgivings on his work whatsoever. Ms. Gorman stated that the neighborhood has been impacted negatively due to what has already gone on. Several of these homes have sat vacant for an extended period of time and some of these homes have turned over ownership more than once. All the while, values have decreased. Some damage has been done directly by previous builders and it has still not been repaired. Concrete driveways have not been repaired. Damage to the lands from construction vehicles has still not been repaired. These home values have decreased, taxes are not being paid and the schools are not being attended by the kids. There are many more residents who do have the means, and are sitting and waiting and watching what is going on at the end of the road. Many more will leave the City if the neighborhood is impacted even more negatively. Ms. Gorman stated that with 80 percent owner occupied, Mr. Bower is making promises he cannot keep. The law states 80 percent owner occupied and there is currently a variance in the neighborhood, Marquette Condominiums, that is supposed to be 80 percent owner occupied according to state law and it is not. Once everything has gone through the process, there is no follow up or enforcement. You cannot guarantee that these units are going to be owner occupied. It is statistically proven that housing alongside railroad tracks no matter how well intended, eventually becomes rentals and problem areas. It is her understanding that the City's objective is to increase home ownership and decrease rentals. She stated that the Shady Oaks Neighborhood Association is strongly opposed to any zoning variances to the seven acres that Mr. Bower is proposing. Mr. Rod Shangle, resident of 3203 Westwood Avenue, stated that he received a copy of the petition for the plan resident development and it says that the applicant is Bronte Construction LLC, Jack Zuk, member. He asked what it specifically means as a member. Mr. Frederick stated that he would have to get with Mr. Zuk and it may have something to do with the corporate structure and State law. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Shangle stated that he had a meeting with Mr. Bower, Tim Kaltenbach and another City Council member about a year ago. He would support anything that Mr. Bower would want the residents to do that is legally within the law without making any kind of changes. If he would like to subdivide then the neighbors would support it. He told that to Mr. Bower a year ago. Ms. Stachowiak stated that someone is not any more entitled to a plat of land than they are entitled to a PRD. Both have to get approval from the Planning Board and City Council, and both are just as discretionary. She stated that is completely inaccurate. Mr. Frederick stated that we are not dealing with Mr. Bower here. Mr. Shangle stated that he understood that. Mr. Shangle asked who they are dealing with. Mr. Frederick stated that they are not dealing with Mr. Bower and that Mr. Bower is the owner of the land. The applicant is Bronte Construction. The Board is evaluating plans and a request for a planned residential development from Bronte Construction. Mr. Zuk is representing Bronte Construction here because he presumably has some connection with them and he could represent them if he wanted to. Mr. Bower is not making this application to the Board. At this point, he is merely the owner of the land and the status of Bronte Construction is an option to buy, presumably the option of the PRD. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Shangle would have to deal with Mr. Zuk regarding their concerns. Mr. Frederick stated that what Mr. Bower has done in the past should not affect and will not affect the Board's evaluation of Bronte Construction's application. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval: April 3, 2007 The minutes of April 3, 2007 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. 124 W. Michigan Avenue, City Council Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 8 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard This is a request by Karrie McCrackin for approval of a preliminary plat to create 10 single family residential lots on the vacant 2.563 acre parcel at the southwest end of Valencia Blvd. The property was part of Lot 13 of Supervisor's Plat of Valleau's Subdivision. The plat was recently vacated by court order and is now unplatted land. The applicant intends to replat the property for 10 single family residential lots. Ms. Cordill inquired about sidewalks. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are sidewalks and there will be sidewalks. The City ordinance requires it. Ms. Cordill asked if there would be street trees. Ms. Stachowiak stated that street trees will also be included. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend approval of P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Fred White, White Engineering Company, stated that this is what is known a tentative preliminary plat. He had to go to the County Drain Commissioner, County Register of deeds and then come back to the City for final preliminary plat approval. So there is one more step. Then it has to come back before the Board for final plat approval. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard This is a request by Karrie McCrackin for approval of a preliminary plat to create 10 single family residential lots on the vacant 2.563 acre parcel at the southwest end of Valencia Blvd. The property was part of Lot 13 of Supervisor's Plat of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 9 Valleau's Subdivision. The plat was recently vacated by court order and is now unplatted land. The applicant intends to replat the property for 10 single family residential lots. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 3; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. Approved. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-2006, 310/312 Chestnut b. Z-3-2006,W. Edgewood c. Z-17-2005, Polly& Benjamin d. SLU-4-2006, 3215 W. Mt. Hope e. Z-12-2006&SLU-7-2006 2727 Lyons Avenue f. PRD-1-2006, New Faith Gardens,5304 Wise Road 2. Urban Development Committee a. Master Plan Project 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was contacted by T-Mobile and they want to reactivate SLU-4-2006, Cell phone tower at 3215 W. Mt. Hope Ave. She stated that there has been so much time that has gone by since then and she is going to have them go through another public hearing. She does not think that it would be fair to the neighborhood to just pick it up and keep going with it without giving them an opportunity to express their opinions. Mr. Frederick stated that the Master Plan Project is proceeding. There was a presentation from the MSU Practicum Group and they presented a neighborhood pattern book. This was a preliminary presentation and the final copy is due. It is moving along and looks good. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 10 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping&buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road. -registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5,2006, July 18,2006&September 5,2006) k. Clarion Hotel—two big signs advertising Great Lakes Condominiums (December 5,2006) I. The Firm—review requirements for fenced outdoor patio (December 5, 2006) m. 928 Pacific Ave.—6 foot fence in front yard on a corner lot(February 6, 2007) Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are all in progress. With the Clarion Hotel, she has not visited the site but was told that it was corrected. Mr. Frederick stated that the signs are still there. With item I, Ms. Stachowiak stated that The Firm is in violation. It is too big and is bolted down to the public sidewalk. Mr. Frederick inquired about the plan for Cavanaugh Road reconstruction between Aurelius and Dunckel Roads. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the ACT 285 was to allow them to acquire additional land to redo the intersection where Cavanaugh and Dunckel roads meet. The appraisal is in progress right now so that they can complete the land exchange. There was a huge list of conditions and they still have to follow those conditions that the Board originally set. The City Council approved every one of the conditions. Mr. Frederick asked if they are aware that it is in existence. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are very aware of it. Mr. Frederick stated that they must be pretty confident about acquiring that property because there is just a little tiny GhUGk chunk of dirt sticking up with a utility pole. Otherwise they have taken everything out, the street is gone and closed off to everyone but the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they may have actually completed the transaction by now. Mr. Ruge inquired about 400 Allen Street regarding the tiny windows. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was approved. Mr. Ruge said that the Housing Code enforcement people would not let anyone move into it because the windows are too small. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.050107.doc Approved as written 5-1-07 Draft to Clerk April 9,2007 Approved May 1,2007 To Clerk May 4,2007 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall ' Tuesday, April 3, 2007 1. OPENING SESSION c-, (J) i The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair.`` A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister. '- Y B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Czekai. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Dr. Bruch to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Dr. Bruch to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for the April 17th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Dr. Bruch to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard This is a request by Karrie McCrackin for approval of a preliminary plat to create 10 single family residential lots on the vacant 2.563 acre parcel at the southwest end of Valencia Blvd. The property was part of Lot 13 of Supervisor's Plat of Valleau's Subdivision. The plat was recently vacated by court order and is now unplatted land. The applicant intends to replat the property for 10 single family residential lots. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Dr. Bruch asked about the area to the south of the lots being divided. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are single family lots and are very short with PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 2 no depth. The lots are so shallow that the houses cannot possibly meet setback requirements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure how those lots were allowed to be platted/developed that way. Dr. Bruch inquired about the end of the cul-de-sac and if it had been built. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been built. Dr. Bruch asked why it was not connected to the other street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it cannot be connected and there is a good reason for it. She will bring the aerial photo to the next meeting and also talk with the Public Service Department. She knows that there is a very good reason why it cannot happen. Mr. Hollister thinks that is where the big utility easement is because it is in that area. Ms. Julie St. Onge, resident of 5658 Valencia Blvd., stated that her house is the last house on the left. Her concern is the amount of traffic that this will bring to the dead end street. As it is already, people are exceeding the speed limit of 25 mph by the time the vehicles reach her home. They are obviously not planning to have an outlet at the end of the dead end road. There are some large power lines or phone lines that would probably prevent them from having an outlet at the end of the cul-de-sac. She is trying to raise her family there. She purchased her home a year ago and bought it because it was a quiet dead end street. She thinks building 10 homes is excessive. There are only six houses on the north side of the street past her residence and they are all very close together. She does not see how it is possible to create 10 new homes at the dead end of the street. It just does not seem possible. Mr. Don Comisky, resident of 5705 Selfridge Blvd., stated that his residence is the last house on the street and he is representing the neighborhood as well. The neighborhood does not see where the applicant is going to put 10 single family homes on this land. The property next to his is vacant. They were told that the City owns that property now because of the street that was built. The water and sewer were put there either illegally or they were not done right, but it runs right down the middle of that property which goes all the way to Valencia Blvd. Mr. Comisky stated that property comes right up to the back of his property and the residents on Selfridge Blvd. do not have back yards. He asked if anyone, who was representing the case, was present. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has a representative here. He asked if the residents would have a chance to buy anything so that they can have a back yard. Mr. Hollister stated that he would have to speak with the applicant. Mr. Comisky stated that the neighborhood would like to have somebody come out and show them exactly how this development is going to come out. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Frederick asked for Mr. Comisky's address and stated that Mr. Comisky's house is on one of those really shallow lots. Mr. Comisky stated that he does not have a back yard. The proposed property abuts his property. Mr. Frederick asked where the water line is. Mr. Comisky stated that the property next to him is a vacant lot and that is where the water line is located. Mr. Charles Fee, resident of 5658 Valencia Blvd., stated that currently there are only 19 houses on their street and this is a little 2 Y2 acre parcel that the applicant is going to build almost half of what they have right now. There are only 6 houses past his on the other side. He purchased his house because it was a nice quiet area and now it is changing from that. The applicant is putting 10 houses on a spot where only 6 houses barely fit on the other side and there are only 19 houses total on both sides of the street. Mr. Fred White, of Fred White Engineering Company, stated that he is doing the surveying and engineering on this project and if anyone has any questions, he will try to answer them. Mr. Frederick asked that Mr. White pass along Mr. Comisky's interest in getting a bigger back yard. Mr. White stated that he would pass this along to Karrie McCrackin, the developer and owner of the property. Mr. White stated that the north part of the property is being developed and the south part already is and has been vacated by the Circuit Court to go through an amended plat process which will be recorded before this plat will be recorded. It will all tie together eventually. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is the only case for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, and asked if the Board members would like to meet next Wednesday or before the next Planning Board to discuss this case. The Board members decided to meet before the next meeting. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing for P-1-2007, Preliminary Plat, Valencia Boulevard and was referred to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled to meet April 17, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room at 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Hollister closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 4 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval: February 20, 2007 The minutes of February 20, 2007 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval: March 6, 2007 The minutes of March 6, 2007 were APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Dr. Bruch to approve excused absence requests from Ms. Cordill, Mr. Czekai and Mr. Ruge for the March 6th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. 124 W. Michigan Avenue, City Council Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Chair a. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) In Committee, Ms. Bennett presented a two page spreadsheet with the Mayor's proposed infrastructure budget for FY08, along a seven page explanation of the various line items. The budget contains proposed capital expenditures from nine different funding sources (including bonds & loans). Nine project areas were included for funding: Facilities, Finance/IT, Public Safety, Planning & Neighborhood Development, Parks & Recreation, Public Services, Act 51 Road projects, and Fleet Services/Garage. The list includes the Planning Office request for $60,000 for the Master Plan Project. If approved, these funds will be combined with $90,000 in carry-over funds for a total of $150,000. While this is not sufficient to complete the project, it may be enough to fund consultant services and other costs during the earlier phases of the project. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 5 The proposal attempts to meet high priority capital needs while preserving enough money for operations. The total FY08 capital projects cost is $49,723,500, with a General Fund share of$1.7 million. Mr. Rieske reported that agencies are becoming more in support of a multi-year approach to capital improvements, which is more in keeping with the goals of both the Planning and Budget Offices. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). Ms. Cordill stated that the Committee did discuss street trees in conjunction with the sidewalks, and asked if there was a need for replacement on existing sidewalks. Mr. Frederick stated that he would entertain a friendly amendment to change it to "new and existing" sidewalks. Ms. Cordill accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to recommend approval of Capital Improvements Program (CIP), plus street tree planting along new and existing sidewalks to improve community character and pedestrian comfort, and further recommended a multi-year, multi-agency approach to infrastructure planning that addresses the City's development priorities. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. ACT-2-2007, Request for Easement & Air Rights This is a request by the River North LLC for a 20-foot, non- buildable easement, south and west of and adjacent to the building proposed for the 200 Block of E. Grand River Avenue, as depicted on the attached drawing. The purpose of the easement is to allow the building to be constructed on the lot lines and still satisfy the Building Code requirement for a ten foot setback from building walls that contain doors and windows. The applicant is also requesting the use of air rights to construct balconies as part of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of Act-2-2007, with the following conditions: 1. The easement/deed restriction extend no further than 20 feet from the south and west property lines; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 6 2. The air rights extend not more than 10 feet south and west of the proposed building; and 3. The easement/deed restriction not interfere with the current use of the property for surface parking and access to the city parking lot. Dr. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of ACT-2-2007, Request for Easement & Air Rights. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). b. Z-1-2007, 3811 Aurelius Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Robert Ford to rezone the property at 3811 Aurelius Road, more specifically described as: COM 158.83 FT+/- S OF NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4, TH E 160 FT, S 79.41 FT+/-, W 160 FT, N 79.41 FT +/- TO BEG; SEC 35 T41V R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of allowing the existing building at this location to be used as a duplex. Dr. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Z-1-2007, 3811 Aurelius Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Community Center (tabled December 5, 2006) This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former Northwestern Elementary School) for a faith-based community center with living space for the operators of the facility. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits community centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Dr. Bruch stated that the Committee tabled the request. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 7 C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-2006, 310/312 Chestnut b. Z-3-2006,W. Edgewood c. Z-17-2005, Polly& Benjamin d. SLU-4-2006,3215 W. Mt. Hope e. Z-12-2006&SLU-7-2006 2727 Lyons Avenue f. PRD-1-2006, New Faith Gardens,5304 Wise Road 2. Urban Development Committee a. Master Plan Project 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Bruch stated that she was asked by some of the people from MSU whether the City actually has a plan for the Master Plan. Maybe the Board needs to start getting some sense of how the overall planning of the Master Plan is going to occur since it does rely on this Board and the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Hollister stated that he would like to make sure that the Board gets the funding in place, and once this is done, then it would be the appropriate time to come up with a game plan of how to plan the Master Plan. Dr. Bruch stated that the Board really needs new Board members and to fill the two vacancies. Dr. Bruch stated that the City Attorney was able to get back to comments on certain things but nothing on others. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she had to say that she would write it and all the City Attorney would have to do was review it. Otherwise, the Board still would not have anything on the church. Ms. Cordill wondered if Councilmember Dunbar could be instrumental in moving the vacancies and getting the necessary legal reviews. Dr. Bruch stated that she feels that the Board is at their mercy and the Board needs to move forward. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she will be meeting with Mr. Czekai and she will have him talk to Councilmember Dunbar. She thinks that might go a long way. Ms. Cordill stated that Councilmember Dunbar was very receptive. Mr. Frederick stated that there was a public notice of a public hearing regarding curb and gutter improvements in conjunction with storm sewer improvements on all lands fronting Cavanaugh Road from Aurelius Road to Dunkel Road with certain exceptions. The Board actually addressed this particular street regarding PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2007 Page 8 curb and gutter, had a long discussion and approved a lot of changes that essentially went no where because they decided not to spend the money on it. They just did nothing. His assumption is that it is still sitting out there and if they actually are going to assess property owners and get City and Federal contributions, especially on curb and gutter, then he thinks the Board should resurrect the Act 285 conditions as soon as possible. The Board should take another look at it and make sure that it still meets with their approval or if the Board has any more improvements that could be added to it, and send it to City Council, Public Service and Transportation. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK Blvd.-landscaping&buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S.Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18, 2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3,2005) i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.- registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs (July 5,2006,July 18,2006&September 5,2006) k. Clarion Hotel—two big signs advertising Great Lakes Condominiums (December 5, 2006) I. The Firm—review requirements for fenced outdoor patio(December 5, 2006) m. 928 Pacific Ave.—6 foot fence in front yard on a corner lot(February 6, 2007) Mr. Ruge stated that at 4311 S. Cedar Street, it looks like someone set up a Barber Shop in a residential neighborhood. There are illegal signs and banners trying to get attention. Mr. Frederick stated that maybe you can get there before April 15th and nail the tax accountant for some illegal signs too. They are right next door. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ndlt�— �— J William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.040307.doc