Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

everyone and welcome to the January 14th, 2026 East Lancing Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bartley, could you please take role? I will. Thank you. Commissioner Chapen here. Commissioner Denult. Commissioner Hendrickx. Commissioner Lein here. Commissioner Overby here. Commissioner Putts here. Commissioner Sevelleski here. Vice Chair Wagner here. Chair Sullivan here. We have quorum. Thank you. Uh is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Seconded. Um moved by Commissioner Chapen, seconded by Commissioner Putts.

Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of I. I. Oppos? Nay. Motion carries. Agenda approved. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the December 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting? So moved. Moved by Vice Chair Wagner, seconded by by Puts. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I.

I. Oppos. Nay. Motion carries. Minutes approved. That takes us on to item number two, committee reports. Uh up first is 2.1 Age Friendly Communities Committee. Landon. Uh, Commissioner Chapen, feel free to jump in, but um the age friendly committee has not met since uh November when it um adopted its uh 2025 age friendly uh action plan and progress report. Um that was forwarded to council uh which reviewed that last week on the uh 6th uh and adopted that that plan. So, um, we've presented, uh, the plan to the, uh, Age Alive Leadership Council at MSU, uh, last Thursday and also the housing commission that night. Uh, we're going to be presenting, uh, the plan to the ARP, uh, statewide council next Wednesday, and also to the commission on environment and transportation commit commission the following Monday, the East Lancing uh, public libraries board of trustees, and the parks and recovery commission on the in February, February 18th, and also the seniors commission in March. So, we've been bringing around the plan uh to make sure that boards and commissions are aware of it. Um, and I'll also be presenting that to you uh this evening for your uh information. Um, also I want to mention that MSU's ag program is uh hosting their town guide series as they do every month. Uh, the next one is this Friday the 16th at People's Church at noon and that's Dr. Yor No about microlastics. That's my uh report for the age friendly communities committee. Dr. Chapen, do you have anything you want to add?

No, I just thumbs up to you, Landon, and you know, you did a lot of lot of work there. Uh uh great input. You know, reached out. Great input. Thank you, city council, for adopting that last week. We had a nice representation from our age friendly group at the meeting. Um we were placed last on the agenda. Thank you very much, Mayor. No, we're done just fine. Anyway, a lot to be proud of. I think it represents our community quite well and uh a resource a reference for for our community and uh thumbs up to you, Landon, and others that were directly involved.

Thank you. Uh as far as the CD advisory board, uh I don't believe that the board has met since the last meeting on December 11th. The next meeting is tomorrow. Okay. And I believe the next after that is next week. Correct.

Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Puts will have more to, uh, report back from that meeting at the next meeting, next planning commission meeting. I just wanted to mention as well, uh, as you know, your vice chair, Ed Wagner, is now an alternate on the, uh, zoning board of appeals. That board met last week, um, and approved a couple variances and denied one. Uh, I was going to add talk about those in my staff report, but, I'm just going to mention it right now. Uh the the board approved variances at 235 and 239 Hillrest uh which are in um Collegeville neighborhood Hillrest just south of Grand River. Uh there were several variances requested uh for site conditions. Uh they denied two variances that were requested by uh the Howard at 401 421 and 427 East Grand River. Those variance requests were for uh additional number of bedrooms. So to have four bedrooms instead of three. Uh three bedrooms are the max number per unit in the downtown district. Um they were requesting four that was denied. Uh they also requested excess height of about 8 ft above the maximum height allowed allowable by council which is 160 ft. Uh so those are both uh those requests were denied. Um I my understanding is that uh and Commissioner Shapen had asked before the meeting, hey, we were kind of expecting to see that project and 530 Elbert back uh at this meeting. Um so the Howard is going to is going to make a couple changes to their plan and we'll be back to you at a later date. Um not quite sure when at this point. We expect uh 530 Elbert to be back sooner. Uh it may be next meeting, maybe the following. They're currently undergoing a traffic study um and are waiting for the results of that before we bring them back. So I think those are my committee reports. Yes, sir.

Commissioner Landon, you said that that two of their requests were denied and they both were from the Howard, I think. Uh there was one or several variance requests for 235 and 239 Hillrest. Oh yes. And there were two for the Howard and both of those were denied.

So what happens now? What's their recourse and and and what happens with their plan to come to us in two weeks? they'll need to change their plans so they don't need to they don't require a variance. So that would that would mean uh reconfiguring their their building so it has only up to three bedrooms per unit and either figuring out a way to lower their building height. The the building height was a tough one. Uh I thought it was a very interesting meeting for what it was worth. Really good discussion. Uh the building height was was difficult because they are essentially able to stay within the 160 foot cap if they build uh typical concrete building concrete and steel but they don't want to. They want to build mass timber but mass timber construction requires uh different dimensions and essentially increases the height to about 167. They couldn't find a way to remove any floors and still make the the um project work financially. uh and so they asked for that additional height. That was a large uh part of the conversation was I think the ZBA was was trying to understand are there other reasons here other factors that are requiring your variance or variance requests other than economics and there weren't that many other reasons. So I think that was a large reason why the ZBA found uh against those requests.

Thank you. Yep. And commissioner, I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that, but

I I thought it was a very interesting and full meeting, too. Um, but we were we're given pretty strict criteria on which to judge the the request for the the variance. And um it's really about the property itself, not the materials um of which the building will be built. So, it doesn't seem like we're quite ready to I like there. We had nothing to to be able to approve it for. We we recommend going back to council to talk about, you know, if you want to use mass timber, it's a different, you know, I we we all understood like why they wanted the variance, but there was nothing in the rules that said that we can give it based on a different type of material. It's really based on the property itself. So, um like we're all sympathetic, but thought that we were not the body to to move forward with this. So,

yeah, it was good. Is there intent still to do a mass timber building or are they going to reconfigure it to a traditional concrete and steel structure? I think they'd like to if they can. Um I haven't spoken with them since the meeting uh to find out what their intent is at a later date when it's on the agenda. Yeah, for sure. All right. Uh and just noting for the minutes, uh Commissioner Denald arrived at 6:36 p.m. Hello. Um apologies for a little bit of car trouble because of this weather. You're here now and that's what's important. So, exactly. Um, any additional comments or questions for Landon? Okay. All right. Do you have anything that covered your staff report, right? Uh, actually, I have a couple more things. All right.

May as well. While I have the mic, uh, I wanted to first mention uh, congratulate and recognize my associate planner, Grace Whitney. She's not here tonight, but uh, she recently achieved her American Institute of Certified Planners uh, certification uh, which is a accomplishment for planners. sort of a the letters that we can get after her name. So, um I'm very proud of her and happy that she uh got that uh certification. So, I want to mention that. Um I also want to mention that I found out recently that we'll have a conflict with our October 28th meeting date. Uh we'll have early voting in this room at that time. So, uh the staff here has asked me to find an alternate location or date. Uh we're having some trouble finding an alternate location. Uh I believe that October 21st uh is workable for for this building to be in this room. Uh so I intend to bring this back to you at the next meeting. I just wanted to let you know. I think we're going to look at October 21st to change this meeting date. Want to let you know that now so you can check your calendars and let and tell us if you'll have a conflict. So uh please look for an item at your next meeting agenda to change the meeting date of that October 28th uh meeting. Lastly, sorry.

From the 28th [clears throat] to the 21st, right? Yes. It would move from the 28th to October 21st.

Uh, as long as we can get enough commissioners to make it work. And I'll try to find other alternative dates or locations to um that we can consider. I wanted to mention finally, uh, just I mentioned this last time, we have a couple of upcoming, uh, training opportunities, learning opportunities, the past and future of planning in Michigan. Uh it was a two-part webinar. My staff and I attended it uh last Thursday. It was very interesting sort of the history of planning in Michigan from 1900 to about 1960. The second part is tomorrow 12 to 1:30. And if anyone is interested, please let me know. We'd be happy to have you view that with us. Um we also have the student uh Michigan Association of Planning conference on Saturday, February 7th, which is going to be here in East Lancing. The following Tuesday will be the transportation bonanza, a transportation planning focused conference also here in East Lancing at the Marriott. Um we'll have a webinar we're looking at on February 12th, Thursday from 12:00 to 1:30 about data centers. So if you're interested in data centers, uh please let me know and we can welcome you to that uh shared viewing as well. the same day on the 12th uh of February in the afternoon. I'm not completely sure on the time or the location uh but we hope to have those details soon. There's a uh board and commission chair training or chairs and vice chairs. Um I'm still waiting on some details from the clerk's office and as soon as I have those, I'll let you know. And then finally, we have an uh inclusive design webinar from the planning association on February 18th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Uh please let me know if anyone on the commission is interested in any of those events. And then as I mentioned finally um [clears throat] at the last meeting, the National Planning Conference will be in Detroit this year uh from Saturday, April 25th to Tuesday, April 28th. uh we do have a limited amount amount of budget that's available to cover at least uh at least the conference registration. I can't guarantee expenses. Uh so I will be looking I'll

be asking the planning commissioners uh probably your next meeting uh if you if there's interest by one or more commissioners in attending that um that conference. That's all for my staff reports. Any questions for Mr. Bartley? Just a quick comment. Um, a lot of events you listed. Sounds like a lot of good opportunities. Could you re-up that by email just so we can have it in one place? Yes, I will. I'll do this tomorrow. Great idea. Thank you. Jotting it all down and I just figured I'd ask. So, okay. It's just fun for me to watch all the commissioners writing things down easily. So, thank you.

I'm sure it was intentional. Okay. Uh, up next is item four, commissioner announcements. This is also your time to disclose any conflicts of interest on items on [clears throat] tonight's agenda. Any announcements. Great. Takes us on to item number five, communication from citizens. I did not see any written communications in the agenda packet. Right. That's correct.

Okay. Um, so that takes us on to item 5.2, verbal from the audience. This is your time to come forward and address the planning commission on anything on or off tonight's agenda. We ask that you please keep your comments limited to 5 minutes and identify yourself on a card that's up there. If you are here to speak about one of tonight's public hearings, which are items 6.1 and 6.2, the ordinance change on fences and the uh rental uh restriction overlay, we do ask that you speak uh on those items um during the public uh comment period. Um that being said, does anybody wish to come forward and address the planning commission at this moment? Okay. Uh, is anyone online in the queue?

No one on the queue. Great. That takes us on to our first public hearing of tonight. Item 6.1, a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed ordinance 1555, an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which would establish RO1 rental restriction overlay district within the Harvey Kowi neighborhood. Mr. Bartley.

Uh, thank you. So, this is a request. Um, our zoning ordinance has a provision uh that allows for rental restriction overlay districts which are neighborhoodled uh changes. I guess a neighborhood um either more than 50 properties or sort of a discrete unit less than 50 properties as long as there's sort of basically their their own unit which this one is. I think it's about 18 properties. a um a neighborhood can propose uh that they have a rental that they essentially place upon themselves a rental restriction overlay district which is an overlay that restricts what if any uh rental licenses can be issued. The RO1 which is what's proposed uh for this neighborhood is the most restrictive. Uh it it prohibits any the issuance of any new uh rental licenses within the neighborhood. Um there are currently 21 active rental restriction overlay districts in the city. Um the most recently created was in Glen Karen about a year and a half ago. Uh the applicants uh the process is essentially to petition your neighbors. Um and then when you receive twothirds or more of your of the neighbors signing on that in support on that petition, uh you then bring the petition to the uh staff. I'm pulling up a map real quick of the proposed overlay district. Here we are. Um, it's almost there. So, essentially, they turn the position or petition. There it goes. Uh, to staff, the clerk uh verifies the signatures and then hands it over to me. I create a draft ordinance. City council introduces it. They've done so. And now this proposed um rental restriction overlay district is up for your public your consideration public hearing and then recommendation to council. The next step would be that council would schedule their own public

hearing, have that public hearing and then make a decision. So just to describe real quick what we have up on the screen. Uh these are properties uh just to the northeast of the intersection of Koolage Road and Sageno Road. Uh so Koolage off to the left on this on the screen and Sagena to the bottom. Uh you can see that there are Harvard and Cali streets. I'll just note that Cowi is actually a stub uh where it goes off of Sagena. So it does not connect between Harvard and Sagena. Um and the only properties that can be considered for a rental restriction overlay district are the um I believe R1, R2, and RM8 zones. uh and so all these properties are located within those zone districts. Properties immediately surrounding them are not necessarily zoned that that way. So this would be if approved uh this overlay district would be limited to this to his current boundaries as proposed. So any questions that I can answer about what's proposed the RO1 uh overlay type or restrictions or anything else? Um, Vice Chair Wagner,

I remember we we talked about overlay uh overlays a couple years ago. Um, is there a minimum number of houses or units you need to have constru? Yeah, typically 50. Um, unless unless you have a discrete neighborhood unit, and my judgment in this case was that it was a discrete neighborhood unit because all these properties are only accessible from Kulage via Harvard. So there are no other entrances into or out of this little neighborhood unit. So we called it its own neighborhood. So it would qualify for a rental district.

And just for my clarification, so the there's a property inside. So the little lines mean it's an existing rental license rental, right? So 9 was it 922 or something? Right. It's it's currently licensed as a rental and they can keep it because it's sort of grandfathered in if if the overlay That's correct. Right. Where the one 14 was it 1410? 1410 which is adjacent. Correct. Um that would not be affected. It's not affected in any way. Okay. So Okay. So 922 in this case because it has an existing license

if that license were abandoned. Uh it could not they could they could renew it but you can't have any new initial rental licenses. So no new requests but this one could stay. So, if someone sold the house, can you can you sell it with a rental license or they have to reapply and therefore not No, they could Oh, boy. That's uh I'm not I'm not completely prepared for that question. No, that's okay. Let me find that out. I can look up the the ordinance language right now. And I know a couple of the houses are there's like a maybe a a State Farm insurance or something on around that corner. Um, so you said there's some are there some properties that are not zone are zoned differently? Correct.

Um, so they wouldn't be eligible. Can you tell us if like is 1,00 um coolage I mean it's a big that big square up on the upper left hand corner. Is that do you know of anything that's any businesses or anything that's zoned differently in that area

at that location? You see 1000. We're just wondering because 1,00 it's a weird shape. It's a very big square. So, so I'm just going to pull up um the zoning map right now. And you can see that we have commercial zoning down at the corner. And then this one, I'm not sure right now 10,00 is B4 restricted office business. Okay. So that would not be eligible.

Commissioner Denal, did you still have a question? Um, I did. I um was also going to ask about the weird uh triangle corner. Um, I I was I actually walk through this neighborhood relatively often with my dog, so I knew about the 1,00 parcel being a little bit different, but the corner I was like, I'm not sure. Um, but my question actually was about partial 954. Um, it seems like it would be part of the neighborhood, right? It's in the neighborhood. I don't think it's a business. Did that do we know if that individual just doesn't want to be part of the overlay and is that allowed?

No, I'll go back to the map real quick. Uh that parcel is in a different oops something. Sorry. That parcel is is in a different zone district uh in an R3 zone district which is not eligible to be included. Here we go. So this R3 zoning, oh, and to the parcels to the east, those can't be included then because R1, R2, or RM8 are the districts can be included in an overlay district, B4, B1. So really, we're limited to these these properties.

How as as proposed within the district within this overlay district. Let me pull back up proposed. But it still does still look like there are a couple houses not volunteering to be part of the overlay, right? Like 1 2 3 4 1 228122 I think. And that that was done because they wouldn't be part of the sort of discrete neighborhood unit. They are accessed from Sageno out from Harvard or Cali. Oh. So if we started including those outside of this district, we'd have to get up to 50 par parcels

and we could find a way to do that. the the parcels on the lower left are excluded because of the zoning requirements. I think that's what you said. Lower left, upper left, and upper right or just to the right. I guess those are excluded.

Line, just a quick one. Are there other rental restricted overlays in this general neighborhood? Yeah. Um, in fact, I'll pull up the I know [clears throat] there are on the other side of Sagena Sagena, but I didn't know about this side.

Yeah. Oops. So, what I'm going to pull up real quick is the zoning map again. And this will show you uh the outlined areas are all rental restriction overlay districts. So, immediately up to the northwest, excuse me, northeast uh by Chartwell Carriageway, that's an existing overlay district. Then you have one for the northeast and one all the way to the north. The different colors mean different um types. And I I'm color blind, so I can't tell you what which ones they are, but they're different types of districts. Uh, and Commissioner um Wagner, to your question about um I'm going to pull up the code language real quick. Essentially, the RO1 residential restriction says except for the use of the occupancy of a one family dwelling unit, which is what these units are, as to require a rental housing license. So, you cannot get a new rental housing license. The what what sort of caught me was that there's language in the RO2 that's saying unless you're not going to issue a new license unless it's a class one rental and the owner of the property owned it on the date of the establishment of the overlay district. But R1 [snorts] doesn't say that. So my take on that, my read on that is that they would be continue be able to be able to renew their license and they could even sell the property and continue to have the rental license within the RO1. They just couldn't create a new license on that property. Does that make sense? Okay.

Any other questions? To me, what sticks out a little bit is the thousand and one kind of at the north end there. It looks like it's just a a larger house. [sighs] So just hypothetically that lot, you know, a 100red years from now if that were to be broken up into smaller lots, the rental restriction would still apply, right? That's correct. Okay. Uh my question about grandfathering was answered. I think most of my questions about the southwest corner there were answered. So those are all zone commercial. All those Yes. parcels there.

Yeah. The at the corner of Sackon Kulage. Those are commercial. 10,00 up the road is commercial and then the properties to the west along or excuse me east along Sagena are larger residential but they're residential and R3 zoning or outside of this discrete neighborhood.

Got it. And that answered my question about the the parcels to the east because they're not zoned um appropriately to be um applied to a rental overlay. Um, [sighs] yeah. I'm just trying to think of potential parcels. I know the last time we did this, we had a big discussion about people that potentially didn't think to sign on or maybe interested in doing it later being blocked out from joining onto the I I should I should I should clarify simply this is the biggest that this district could get. Okay. There are no more parcels that could be added.

That's very helpful. So, so yeah, I think that was what what the question was and I just wasn't actually answering it. So, that's the way to answer it. This is this is the extent,

you know, and and I guess my my last question is just is there some sort of impetus for why the neighborhood wanted to do this? I guess I can ask them if if any of neighborhood members are up. Is there a specific incident? Do you know what kind of led the charge on on the creation of this or the proposed creation of this? You know, I recall talking to the gentleman who did all the petitioning and he offh hand I don't believe that there was um a real urgent concern or anything. No one in the in the previous one in Glen Karen somebody had been worried about Airbnb establish establishment which requires a rental license and that was sort of the impetus. I don't believe I think there was a concern about someone wanting to rent more properties and they just didn't want that down the road. I don't think that there's a specific case though or a specific proposal.

But because all of the eligible houses are in this, wouldn't one of the houses that is opted into doing this be one of the houses that was considering a rental potentially? I think um no, I don't think that there was anything proposed. They were just concerned about future. It maybe it may have been a listing and they were worried about a future owner. I'm I'm speculating though at this point. I I honestly can't remember. I don't but I I don't believe there's any sort of urg version proposal that they're responding to here. Okay. I think all of my questions about the the water answered. I'm just trying to figure out the why.

Micheland, just a quick followup. I think you mentioned that that basically one person did the canvasing of the neighborhood. What What parcel do they live in? Do you know? Oh, I don't know. That's not a material. I don't know if he should say that. What was the question? What parcel was the the person I don't know and I I couldn't share that though. But maybe they'll volunteer up here. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for asking that question. I was silently asking the same question because I just not because I'm super interested, but because last time it was super controversial. Yes, it was. And we had a lot of neighbors here talking about, you know, whether it should be or should not be in the

Exactly. the overlay. So, I mean, we have a lack of public discussion here. So I we might have public discussion coming up here. Yeah, that's the next. So unless there's any questions for staff, I think it'd be be helpful to open the comment period. Sure. Okay. Seeing no further questions for staff at this point, we'll open the the public hearing. Anybody that wishes to come forward and address the planning commission on this item, please do so now. you can uh please identify yourself on a card up there.

Okay. My name is Richard Hess and my wife's name's Mary. She's not here. She didn't like the weather tonight. Can't believe that. But in any case, um I have lived on Harvard Road for 49 years in two houses. Uh the one one of them is not the largest lot, but it's the second largest lot in the area. And the other one was on a corner lot that I lived for 80 years before I moved into the one I do now. I I I'm having a little tr I'm 80 years old so I can't see that very well. I can't hear that. Just if you can just bear with me for a minute. Um I thought I heard you say something about the what led to some of this us doing this that the point we did it. My next door neighbor is Matteas Steiner and he's visited at the office here with some of your your full-time staff over the last year and he's taken a lead on this. Uh he works out at uh Michigan State and I believe he's probably there tonight working because he would norally definitely be here. Um he's my next door neighbor. But the uh the house sort of on that corner if I I thought I heard someone say that is is it uh what led to this whole thing starting out kind of a thing. And what really led to it was we've all had just owned the houses for a long time. It's very quiet neighborhood and uh but that one I can't read that number but right uh on the house that part of the property sticks out and reaches to Yeah. 914 is it? Yeah, 934. I think that's the one that was It was sold a short time ago, was owned by a woman and she wanted to sell it and couldn't sell it and decided she wanted to make a rental out of it and that's what started the whole thing when we found out about it. We didn't want it to go into it's a nice quiet little neighborhood that's been years ago. I

was one of the people, but our neighbors at the time had had a cut had cowi cut off just before it was running into Sagenol because it was causing this somebody changed the lights down on Koolage uh not on Koolage but on Sagenol and trucks were starting to come through the neighborhood and buses and every other kind of thing because they trying to beat that light and they finally put it blocked off Collie just before it runs into Sagena. Uh, but I think it's 9:34 is the house that it's either that or or 922, but I think it's 934 that the person sold the house. Uh, or she's trying to sell a house and ended up wanting to rent it. And I don't know, I haven't met the person that lives there now, but I don't know whether he's a renter or a purchaser, but that's what really started the whole thing. Other than that, we were pretty much uh, as far as I know, we didn't have any real renters in there. um over the number of years that I've been there, which again is a lot. And I'm I'm at the 1412 house on the straight up on it. It's kind of a large lot. And I don't know if anybody has any other questions on from me. I don't I was I I thought Mr. Steiner was going to be here because he's been leading this up and he's put a lot of time in it. He's the one that's actually gone through the neighborhood and collected the signatures and I think he got them for almost everybody but maybe one or maybe one or two and they were both people lived I think right on Coolage that had part of the property on Harvard.

Okay. But that's sort of all I did you ask me to just fill this out fill out your your information on that card. Anybody have any other questions for me? I just No, but thank you for your comments. It's helpful context. Sure. Thank you for handling this. appreciate it. I obviously in support of that change myself. Uh, anybody else wish to come forward and address us on this item? Okay, seeing none, is anyone online in the queue? No one on the queue.

Okay, at this point we will close the public hearing on this item. Uh, what is the will of the the commission? Any direction for staff? Any other questions? Can I actually ask one more question? Commissioner Denal. Um, so I was just looking at the map one more time and Landon, your comment about the reason that a a handful of parcels on Sagena couldn't be included was because they are on Sagena, right? They're not part of Cowi or Harvard, but there's a correct either either they're zoned incorrectly or they are fronting on Sagena and not the neighborhood.

Correct. There is one partial that's included that doesn't front on Cowi or Harvard. Okay. And that's 948 on Coolage. Okay. Would they still It's the only house between that and the commercial property though to the north. 948. Yeah. 948. And that's proposed to be within the district, right? But it it doesn't front on Harvard or Cowi, isn't [snorts] it on Cowi? Oh, that's a good point. It fronts on Coolage. What's it zoned? It's It's zoned appropriately. I think that that was just the homeowner seeking to be part of it.

Okay. So, we approve that. I I think I was just trying to anticipate um right if there's a handful of home owners on who that front on Sagena who want to be included and if our argument is well you don't front on Cowi or Harvard there's going to be one house that doesn't fit in that answer. So I'm just trying to anticipate future Sure. conflict or issues.

Yeah. No, that makes sense. Um, and I appreciate you bringing that up. Uh, we we basically defer to the applicant uh on the on the boundaries as long as they meet the requirements. In this case, I just I I recall that that property owner was interested in being included and that's why we did it. Um, but I I don't know. I think it would be worth um if there was a concern or question about the other properties on second given the same sort of opportunity at least. Yeah, sure. I think it would be worth um including comments and then that could be a decision of council

or if you want if you're inclined to make a motion tonight and I know this is a public hearing so you're not required but you can if you'd like you could also include that in a motion and say and we we would cons or encourage consideration of other parcels fronting on second. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. I was I I don't know about my other commissioners, but I'm inclined to make a motion to approve tonight. Um and we could certainly add in something if that's important to Commissioner Denal to

um you know recognize the opportunity for others. But in my mind, I think in terms of the criteria that's laid out for us in our packet, I think um what's being uh what they're asking fits all of the criteria and it's I mean initiated by the neighbors. I think this one I'm I'm pretty comfortable with, but I don't want to speak for others. Yes. Before you do, just noting Commissioner Hendricks arrived at 7:05 p.m.

You know, I'm refer to Dr. at all. You I remember you made a comment in a meeting, you know, a while back when we got to a public hearing. You want to make sure we did delay until the next meeting. I just want to make sure you're you're kind of in my head about that. I think it was good input. So, if you're comfortable with that, then I'm comfortable with the motion tonight. Um, I think it's pretty clear-cut myself. But the question is, do we play out the process and let it sit to make sure that the neighborhoods had a chance to um uh commit to whatever they want to commit to? So, that's fair. I see you're nodding your head. So, um that's the only question I would have. I think it's pretty clear-cut. I think we have to respect the work of the of the office staff, Landon, in terms of where do we draw that blue line and so be it. you know, I I respect that. So, personally, I'm ready to vote. Um, but I think we just need to ask that question.

I think just someone would have to make a motion and someone would have to second it and then we could vote on it. Go ahead. Do you want me to read the whole thing?

A sample motion. I make a motion to recommend approval by city council of ordinance 1555, an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which would establish an RO1 rental restriction overlay district within the Harvard Cali uh neighborhood as delineated in the provided ordinance for the next four reasons unless we add a fifth. I I think would prefer I know you're in the middle of making a motion, but I would prefer to at least give the neighbors on Sagenon an opportunity the same opportunity that the neighbor on Culage was given. So I we have my initial motion on the table. I could just say

you could withdraw. Yeah. Withdraw my initial motion, make a new motion to recommend approval for everything I just read for the four reasons that are written within our packet and adding an additional fifth component that would allow for um other residents that are eligible to be added into the overlay to have the time to be added. if necessary. Can I just Yep. Sure. If that was me, jump in. I would say that you know your your four reasons that you mentioned are the reasons for making the motion. Yep.

Or for supporting the motion. And then I have some text down below where it says if your change of boundaries is desired, I suggest in reading that uh instead of adding it as a fifth reason because it's not going to be a reason for your okay um motion. Um it's just an additional part. So, the planning commission recommends expansion of the proposed potential expansion of the proposed overlay district boundaries to allow for additional residences to be added if eligible. Okay. Is that clear? That's fine. Clear as mud. So, yeah. Let me Yeah. [laughter]

So, I'm in the mud here a little bit. If let's the it's the last two words here that kind of confuse me. If eligible. Well, I'm thinking that this so I guess I then I turn to Landon here and say I was assuming that you know on the screen the um now my map is gone. Uh inside the blue line uh the blue outline if you will that is eligible. I thought you sort of clarified that that was eligible. Yeah, that's my hangup of I didn't [clears throat] think we that anyone else could be added. Yeah.

And they they couldn't until I was uh corrected rightly so that we had included one property that otherwise wouldn't have been eligible because it wouldn't be considered part of the discrete neighborhood unit. But because it's bounded only by to the north by that commercial property and otherwise within so this is 934 excuse me 948 uh coolies that we're talking about. We included that even though it's just outside of the sort of rest of the neighborhood's boundaries because it was their that was their desire. We could include additional properties on Sagena if it's also their desire. We had left them out because we didn't feel that they were part of the neighborhood. [cough] But [clears throat]

but I thought you couldn't add additional properties in if they were if they had an entrance on Sagenov because that wouldn't be a distinct neighborhood unit. That's correct. And that's why we originally said no except we made an exception for 948 Koolage at the request. So I think that that was Dr. Denal's point is to allow at least if properties on Sagen also wanted to be included and would be eligible by zoning essentially that they could be. So specifically I'm sorry does does that make sense? Yeah, it's just those three properties then on SAG that are eligible 1234, 1228 and

1222. The other ones are zoned I think you said R3 and are not eligible.

Let me ask a a clarifying question. Um if we send this to council as is, they can they can modify it at the council level. So I think we're getting hung up on um some details that potentially aren't as important. I think they'll have another uh opportunity to see that on the agenda, more public comment. So, um I I agree. I think those properties on Sagen are are very distinct and I see why they're not included, especially if there were to be redevelopment or something there. They're not really part of the the neighborhood, right? You'd have to walk all the way around to get into the neighborhood from those Sagenoff properties. So, I think that the boundaries make sense to me. And if someone wants to make an argument to get expanded into it, I think they can do so at the council level. I was just trying to think about it for fairness sake

and we have a motion on the table that I'll actually second. Okay. As it is. Oh, don't die. With move by with the proposed with the expansion that Commissioner Leine suggested. Okay. Okay. All right. So moved by Commissioner Lein, seconded by Commissioner Denald. Any other discussion on this motion or comments? Well, could I just ask for a reread of the motion before we vote just fair? Yeah.

All right. Let me try not to add any extra words. Okay. So, I motion to recommend approval by city council of ordinance 1555, an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would establish an RO1 rental restriction overlay district within the Harvard Cowi neighborhood as delineated in the provided ordinance for the reasons provided within our packet. Additionally, the planning commission recommends expansion of the proposed overlay district boundaries to allow for additional properties to be added. Do you want us to articulate the specific partials? No. Okay.

I don't. Okay.

I mean, that's a that's a pretty broad I mean, to that point, I think that's a pretty broad as you know, unless we delineate the specific properties, that's a pretty broad statement. Anybody wants to join that overlay, um could [clears throat] expand out way into the the Pinerest neighborhood, it seems to me. Um although I don't think that's the intent at all. So, I I I'm a little uncomfortable that broad language. Um but I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm going to vote in the majority here. I'm quite certain. But I I I kind of like what you said, uh, Chair Sullivan, about let's take what we have here, uh, send it on to city council and allow for the public hearing there with perhaps additional input from the neighborhood to identify what those properties might be. Uh, it seems to me that um the language that additional properties without identifying them sort of expands it too much. Maybe we're quibbling here. Uh, which is not healthy either. Um, but anyway, I think we're just trying to find clarity.

Can I hear number five again? I don't know if I can remember. Yep.

Um, I said the planning commission recommends expansion of the proposed overlay district boundaries. I think I said to allow for additional properties to be added. So are because are are we recommending expansion of it or are we saying these other properties if they if they qualify can join it? I don't know that we're recommending expansion. We want to give permission to certain properties to join to join the overlay. Um, but we're not recommending that they do that. Am I quibbling?

So, what if we just say that our fifth component would be we allow we recommend expansion of the proposed overlay district boundaries if additional residents come forward and ask to be Thank you. included in the overlay.

Yes. Yeah, I think the sample text that's given underneath is actually really accurate. So the where it says the boundaries of the RO1 district are extended to also include properties zoned R1, it says in the following areas, but we could say on Sagenoth, but I don't think that we're asking to expand it, right? We're asking for there to be space to give them permission. Yeah, I don't think we even have to do

I I I agree if I may. I think it I think it's just causing unnecessary confusion. I think they they have that capability anyways. They could they could go to council and make their argument. I think we move it as is and then you know they have an opportunity. I totally hear your point. The intent is good, but I think they that any resident could do that today before it were passed by council, you know. I think the only reason that I'm I think being sort of a stick in the mud on this is how many of those people have even been notified that this is happening and are they even watching this meeting? Do they even know? Yes, I can answer that. Oh, perfect. Thank you, Lon.

I mean, we send we send notice for a public hearing to everyone all the affected properties and also everyone within 350 ft, which exceeds the state requirement. So we're making sure we catch them. Perfect. And notice means a letter in the mail. Yes. Right. So we send a mailing and then we also publish in the paper and online. So friendly amendment for me to strike that last condition or provision if you're amenable. Yes. I Oh. It's got to be Okay, you're okay. I just zoned out. Thank you. So I zoned out of the zoning commission.

Motion by Commissioner Lein, seconded by Commissioner Denalt. Any other discussion for a vote on this? Yeah, Vice Chair Wagner. [clears throat] Sorry. Um, so I'm I'm just looking at the ordinance 1555 again and it does say the properties we zoned included in this overlay district are the following, right? So we're and it gives like whatever the 20 properties So, we're saying that we we're okay with the expansion or we're we're we're not saying anything about the expansion of this to other No, you you're we're recommending the the expand the rental overlay district to include these properties, but the

Okay. the um proposals amendable at the council level according to Mr. Bartley. Okay. Thank you. So, let me let me just clarify. So what we struck there was the I think the thing that's kind of got us hung up a little bit and those are the last few words. Could you just repeat those uh Commissioner Lupin? So I think all we're doing right now is a motion to recommend approval by city council of ordinance 1555 an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would establish an RO1 rental restricted overlay district within the Harvard Cowi neighborhood as delineated in the provided ordinance for the following four reasons. Yeah. Cool. Okay. Yes. Okay. Let's take a vote. Um, all those in favor vote I.

I oppose. Nay. Motion carries unanimously. This item is now on to city council. Thank you. I think we navigated through that one. Appreciate everybody's patience. Uh, that takes us on to item number 6.2. A public hearing by the planning commission to receive Is that correct? public hearing to the planning commission to receive comments regarding proposed ordinance 1556, an amendment to section 50-147 to require the finished side of a fence to face away from the property. Mr. Bartley,

uh, thank you. So, the this this uh suggested amendment u originated with the historic district commission. Uh they have had a few uh requests in historic districts to put in new fences and they've found that across the commission they felt uh that the code should be changed to require uh where there are finished sides of fences which you'll see sometimes privacy fences for example um where you have the post and then panel and the panel the panel that the side does not have the post it would be the finished side. uh and they requested that we um propose an ordinance that would require that side to face out. Uh so we've created this ordinance amendment. I'm going to pull that up in the screen in just one moment. It's a fairly simple um amendment that would simply add the this phrase. The finished side of a fence shall face outward toward a budding lots and rights of way. The side of the fence facing inward may also be finished. So essentially that's requiring the the finished side to be out but if you want to finish both sides you can do that. That's the extent of the proposed amendment.

Can I answer any questions? I question and then I'll kick it over. What I mean I think we all commonly understand what the finish side is, right? But it's not defined here. That could be problematic potentially, right? I'm I'm not I mean I guess I'm not too concerned um because finish side is commonly used uh and we we we we could add a lot of definitions to this code and that I guess that one's not a super priority for me. Okay. But we could also add that if you'd feel more comfortable. Commissioner Line, mine is similar to yours but a much dumber question which is does every fence have a finished side? No. So you can have an entirely unfinished fence?

No. Uh I would say a steel fence uniform, right? Yeah. You have to have uniform materials. So you can't you can't make for example a fence made out of doors. So but but chain link for example wouldn't be considered finished to have a finished side because you have posts and you have material in between. But where you do have uh different sides of a fence, one side is not going to have posts or nails or whatever might be pickets. And so that would be the unfinished side. That would be the one facing it. And is this only applying to the historic districts of No, this would apply across the board.

Commission Overby Landon. Would a split rail fence have a finished side and would that be allowable an allowable fence? Um would not be considered finished. I don't see any anything that would prohibit a splitter splitter fence. Right. So, thank you. What if you didn't have access to the exterior side of the fence? Um potentially if there's brush in the way or if the neighbor was denying you access to their property to to build the fence or if there's a fence already existing,

what would the resident do in that circumstance? If there's a fence already existing, there wouldn't be an issue because this would only apply to new fences. So zoning only applies to new installations, right? Um if you have a fence that doesn't meet this requirement, it would be grandfathered. So until they remove that fence and want to put up a new one, no change. If you can't access for purposes of say brush, I mean, you're going to have to take the brush down. If it's a neighbor issue, that's between you and your neighbor. uh you in that case if your neighbor will not let you on that property to maintain the fence, you're gonna have to take your fence down to maintain it. But that would be a private property dispute that the city wouldn't get involved in. And my my point is a neighbor could essentially veto you having a fence if the exterior side of the fence has to face or if the finished side of the fence has to face them. They could veto you. How could you put the pickets on the outside?

Put a fence up a foot inside your property. There's nothing that requires your fence to be at the property line. So, in that case, if you have a hostile neighbor, I would say if your only option, if you need to be able to access the finished side of your fence, the neighbor's not going to let you on the property, you want to build it a couple feet back so you have room. Well, for example, my yard is surrounded by finished fences that aren't mine. What if I wanted to put my own fence up? How would I conceivably do that? you you'd put up a fence within your property with the finished side facing the finished side of your neighbor's fences.

I'm saying in a lot of circumstances, you can't do that. You can't how can you you can't hammer and a nail on a on a picket that's has a fence and how do you how would you get out of there? How would you get in there? That's a you problem. I mean, I don't mean to sound flipping, but I mean, you you'd have to figure that out. And if you can't construct a fence, in that case, I would say, yeah, probably put in panels, nail them to the fence, and then put the fence up, drop it into post holes. But I'm not a fence maker. Restrictions on how close the fence is to the property line. Yeah. No, you can have it right up against the property. You can't extend over, but it could be right up too. But in this case, you wouldn't want to if you have a neighbor that won't let you on,

or you can work it out with your neighborhood. [clears throat] So you do you want to have a don't fence me in amendment? [laughter] I but at least the finish side fences are facing you. Yeah. So I I looked up several other municipalities. I think I looked up Lancing, Meridian, Ann Arbor. Grand Nobody has this provision. Grand Rapids does. Grand Rapids does. What is They don't say the term. This is the exact language. I stole it because I work there. Okay. Lancing doesn't have it and Ann Arbor doesn't have it and I'm not sure about Ann Arbor yet.

You know, just spent some time reading about this today. It seems like it's more of an etiquette issue. I think everyone's in agreement that the finish side should face out, but I think to have it in an ordinance, just looking at the other provisions in this ordinance, they're more safety oriented. I don't see this as being a safety feature. It's more of an aesthetic feature. I I I I think a a good compromise in my opinion would be I think the city has a very excellent fence guide and there's a there's a good Q&A section in there. I think we could address this through that document instead of by ordinance.

That's my personal opinion. Maybe the commission feels differently. I I think that the language is ownorous to how you specifically have to build a fence and it could be you're adding additional costs on building fences for people potentially by requiring them to build it in a certain way that doesn't provide any safety features. Um, I agree it's being a good neighbor by putting the fence with the the nicer side facing out, but it, you know, in some circumstances it's not always possible to do that. And I think it is awkward to have to build a couple feet in on the fence line just so you can put the finished side facing out. And there's a lot of other circumstances we're probably not contemplating. And I just thought of a few, you know, after reviewing this today, but that's my general perspective on this. It seems out of place and um, just to be honest, I'm just not in favor of it. I'd love to hear everybody else's comments.

Landon, you um you mentioned it briefly that this, you know, came up with the historic commission, but is there is there any other impetus for this? Like it No, they just talked about it at the historic commission and thought that it would be something to add. Is it more like visually appealing? Is there any like rational? I think that that was their rationale is that they find it more appealing and uh more in character with the districts. Um and but but that's sort of the limit of my understanding. I wasn't at that meeting. That helps me. Thank you.

Other questions, comments? Questions or comments? We do have a public hearing, so there might there could be I'd like to hear from the Yep. Um I mean, you you make a compelling point. You've done a little more research on this than I have, Joseph. I'll be perfectly honest, and I'd like to tap into the public hearing component, so I can do a little work on my own. We've had our public hearing and we bring this forward uh in uh you know, in our next meeting would be my my way of addressing your comments and I appreciate the work that you did. I think that's uh appreciated. You didn't do much, but thank you. That's all right. I mean that you did you did.

Since there's no other questions for city staff at this point, we'll open the public hearing on this item. Anybody wish to come forward.

Good evening. Matt Hagen, 927 East Grand River. Uh debated all day whether or not I wanted to come spend an hour of my night to talk about fences. To be honest with you, as you can tell, I'm still kind [laughter] of dressed in my work attire game right here. But it would have irked me all night if I did not come and at least give my two cents about uh this ordinance I'm opposed to. So, um it doesn't surprise me, I guess, to be honest with you, that it comes from the historic district commission. Uh they have unfortunately a lot of control as to uh what we can do with a lot of our properties that quite frankly I don't really agree with either. And so, this is just in my opinion another reach. Um, I I guess I'm believer in property rights. I look at as it's my property, my fence. I'm paying for it. I should be able to put it in how I want. We don't put in fences necessarily on rental property. It's not really rental property issue that I'm here to speak about. It's more just a general property owner uh issue. And um I actually had a friend call me. He was upset about a neighbor fence that was installed backwards, if you will, or the you know, the bad side out. And he he wasn't happy. So, I'm sure if he sees me up here speaking in opposition to this, he's not going to be real happy with me. But, um, it's just not something I'm in support of. And appreciate your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Grab a card up there if you can. Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh, any other comments on this. All right. Seeing none, uh, anyone online in the queue? Great. At this point, we will close the public hearing on this item. Any additional direction for staff? If not, we can see this at the next meeting unless someone wants to make a motion. Commissioner Denalt,

Landon, you said that this ordinance came directly from Grand Rapids um the language that you used um and that it was enacted there. Um, in your experience in your time there, were there ever any issues in implementing the ordinance that are related to I think some of the concerns that have been brought up by my fellow commissioners?

Um, the ordinance predated my time there. Uh, so and I was I guess I mean I was there for 14 years. I don't I don't recall any uh issues ever. Um, and I should also just clarify the first sentence was from from Grand Rapids. The second sentence was added by staff. So just because we wanted to make sure to allow someone to have both sides finished if they wanted. Um but no, I mean this was I I don't know what it was like when it was first enacted because that was before my time. Okay. But while I was there it wasn't a problem

um I guess a question that I have I put it in jet gpt but that should not be a reliable source. Um maybe from your staff that have much more experience than me. Are there cost implications? Is putting in a um Jet GPT tells me that putting in a finished fence is more expensive. Are there cost implications that staff could tell us about at the next meeting?

I I can give you an answer. We just built a fence five years ago and it was we chose one of the fences that have a really nice finished exterior. It was more expensive. For what it's worth, the two main companies in town that seem to do most of the fences, uh, the one we chose, you know, they told me set it back 6 in. So, I didn't know that we could have put it on the lot line, but that was their minimum. They wouldn't get too close to the line um, and install it. and they insisted that it had to be the finished side outside. It did cost more.

Um, but I I saw a fence like that that we really liked. So, I I'll actually add on to that cuz we replaced our fence and one length of it. So, facing old hickory, there's these large flowering bushes right there and then the fence is right behind it. When they replaced it, they actually asked, "Can we face just for this length?" the finished side in because otherwise they would have to basically remove the shrubs in order to finish the finished side. Plus, it would be like another like $200 $250 in labor. Okay. So, in that case, we made the call to have the finished side face in just for this length because,

you know, threequarters of the year, nobody's going to see it anyways. And I asked if we could get a Swedish side and they said no. What? What? Finnish shots. Uh oh. There were no really painful. That was really funny. [laughter]

I was like, I don't know enough about

pencils. [laughter] Just just to add my comments to this this fine discussion, um in in my observation in the neighborhoods and from having Scott right across the street from me, most people do follow this. And I think as a general rule, in fact, I can't tell you of any fence that I've seen that I don't think follows this. I have no objection to putting it into a city ordinance for the reason that I think most people agree with it and and follow it. And I my belief is that the ordinance would only be used when someone wasn't following it and was trying to put up a fence that that you objected to having the side showing that was showing in in in your in your neighbor's property. Um I don't know if that's happened, but my guess is that that's a circumstance under which this would be used. And it sounds like the fence companies in town encourage you to to put the finished side out. at risk and I promise no more banjo. Um in fact as we were trying to look at fences and what we liked if you drive down Sagena and just there is a public argument here that you can definitely see the unfinished versus the finished side right

and it stands out and you know I guess in a visible spot it it is more aesthetic if you have the pole not showing. I'm not sure people really I never thought about it until we were trying to build a fence. Never thought I would thought think about it. But so you mentioned something uh here on talking about fence guidelines that are in place. Um now I Landon I may not have read my packet closely enough. I don't think it's in the packet. So if we're going to delay this, which I'm sort of advocating for, not really advocating a normal procedure.

Yeah. So a normal procedure to wait, I if you could put the fence guidelines in the next packet, um bring them up right now. That would be great. I'd like that. And I'd like to review that and think about this in a way that um you know makes sense and makes it easy to work with for those from the fence companies, those from the neighbors, something that works for all to the extent possible for you know for for reference for those that haven't read it. It's a It's a two-page document on the city's website titled building city v one pager plus. Did you put it on the There it is.

So, it it just details how tall a fence can be based on where it is in the property. Um uh and then several Q&A items on the second page. So, I think

Yeah. So, I would think if I'm working for one of the fence companies, um I would be very wellversed on what the guidelines are in the city of East Lancing. That would be my go-to document more so than something that we um we put in place here or the language can be added to. Um but I think your point about that is um important to me for what that's worth. Any other comments or direction for Landon? And I love your Finnish Swedish joke. I thought that was pretty It took me a minute. Took me more than

All right. Seeing no comments, we will see this at the next planning commission meeting. Thank you, Mr. Bartley, for humoring me. Of course. Uh, as we have no unfinished businesses stasis, on to our only item of new business. We have two items of new business. First up is item 8.1, presentation of the 2025 age friendly communities progress report and action plan. Mr. Bartley,

uh, thank you. I I think we can make this fairly brief. Um, I just wanted to uh, as I mentioned at the top of the meeting, um, the age friendly communities committee has been meeting uh, for the last well several years. The committee actually started meeting in 2017. Uh I joined that committee of staff when I started here in uh late 2023. Commissioner [clears throat] Shapen uh joined the group within the last year I think as a representative to planning commission. Um the the committee has been meeting monthly or uh semionthly for I would say since about 2023 with a express purpose of reviewing the former uh the adopted work plan from 2020 and updating it. Uh so it was a really it was good timing uh for me as staff because I was working on the comprehensive plan update at the same time and the two documents are very very closely related. The age friendly uh pro um progress of plan and action or action plan and progress report uh is essentially a a set of good planning principles uh but just sort of applied to the age friendly communities framework.

Nice document

uh the age friendly and Dr. is showing the the document right now um which is also in your packet. But the the uh ARP uh framework has eight domains uh in East Lancing. The committee sort of combined a couple of those domains but essentially focused on outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information and community and health services. So not all of those are about the built environment, but the ones that are generally reflect just good planning principles. So it makes a lot of sense for a planner to be involved in this committee and a planning commission representative. Um the committee uh ultimately adopted the age friendly progress report uh in November 2025. I'm just going to pull it up on the screen uh to point out a couple um [clears throat] I guess special places that I want to talk about. So here I have the uh cover um [clears throat] and just wanted to uh acknowledge briefly all the different committee members and the seniors commission and our staff that worked on this document. Um and essentially as you can see in the table of contents we have our introduction talked about the the community and it's uh the people you know the data uh that sort of led to this. Then we go through each domain uh one by one again combining um let's see the social inclusion respect and social participation domains. Uh and then finally at the end we have um appendices which are the sort of data points for East Lancing's population over the years. uh the entire results the senior survey that was done in 2024 and then also the uh student campus onampus survey that was done by our student team as part of the comp plan update in 2024 as well. Uh I guess I'm stopped at our letter from our former mayor. We have

our introduction here uh going through just the timeline and the domains. uh we wanted to call out our friends at Michigan State University with their age live program in the college of osteopathic medicine and then the prog progress report itself what we ended up doing was going through all the different steps from the previous work plan that had been adopted in 2020 and said hey have what kind of progress have we made and so those items that we had seen significant progress we put a check mark on and said yes this is this has happened it's ongoing work that work never ends but we've made some good progress the inrogress items with the little blue uh dial have been started but not quite enough to say yes, we've done something with this. We've just sort of started. The committee said, "Yep, we've made some progress, but not enough yet." And then finally, we have our f future actions uh um items that haven't really been started or not to a significant extent. And so we say yes, we're not going to let this go. I don't believe that the committee actually dropped any action items from the original. Actually, there might have been one or two, but very, very few action items from the 2020 work plan. The rest we're all if we haven't started it yet, we still want to and those are future action items. We have the community profile a little bit that talks about the age of population. You can see our uh 55 plus which is generally the focus of the ARP work. Uh that's about 12% of of the uh community at least in 2023 according to census data. Uh but I also want to mention and the committee's chair uh Dr. Dr. Jim Levandi brought this up at the comm council meeting last uh last week. Age friendly is is age friendly for everyone, all ages, right? So, it's not really focused specifically on seniors. Yes, it's sort of spearheaded by ARP. Uh but it's really focused on how do we take care of the most vulnerable people in our community being the el most most elderly and the most uh I guess the youngest. So, is as as long as you take care of those groups, you tend to catch everyone else in the middle. Uh so we have a few more data points mostly

talking about population and age uh in comparison to the counties in the state and then a little bit about our community engagement efforts uh which included the um events we had last year like every plan everywhere all at once or one plan two plan red plan blue plan and then we talked about the senior survey. Again, the whole senior survey is in this document as an appendix, but we wanted to have a a question from each from the senior survey sort of leading up for each domain. So, in housing, we have a housing question. Um, and then we go into all the different items that are completed or in progress and then we talk about our future action items. So, without going through this too much, I mean, it's it's in your packet. I would suggest uh doing a read through. Um, I just wanted to give the brief overview and allow Dr. Jen anyh time for comments if he has them. Um but just sort of give a brief overview about what this document is and our intent. Um now that the the council has adopted this uh this document we've passed along to ARP. We've sort of fulfilled our obligation as an age friendly uh certified community to have a progress report every 5 years. We'll do it again in a few years. I know that the committee is going to be meeting next in February 26th with the purpose of saying, "Hey, what do we want to do next?" Uh the committee doesn't really have a express charge right now, but I know that many of them want to continue doing the work, want to start seeing this uh plan be implemented. So, we have uh have some good discussion u to come about that. Can I answer any questions about anything I've shown so far or if you want me to stop at any certain point? This is your age friendly plan. So, um, yeah, that's all.

Yeah, Dr. Chapman, if you have anything you want to add. Said we commented briefly at the beginning of the meeting, but I think you just covered it quite well. Thank you. So, there's no action required by the commission tonight. It's justformational, but if there are questions, I'd love to answer them. Commission. So, as as someone who is unfortunately included in the 12.1% on page 12, I want to thank thank Dave and this this group for doing a bangup job. This is a lot of useful information. It will help people in our community and and and I'm pleased and proud of the work that this group has done. Thank you, Dave, and thank you to this committee. Well,

you're welcome. I'm sort of chucking. You know, a while back, Landon asked for a volunteer for this committee, and there were a lot of blank faces around the table, and I finally thought, "All right, I've got the most gray hair here." So, you're really thinking that I should be Anyway, it was a really good group of people. Glad it came my way. I had time to do that work. And um good group of people. So much so that you really gave us an opportunity to disband, but the group said no, we'd like to keep going and smart group uh active group and I think a very productive group. So anyway, all of that. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah.

Well, thank you for thanks for the overview and thanks for all the hard work you guys did on that. Much appreciated. Any questions for Mr. Bartley or Commissioner Chapen? All right, seeing none, thank you. Um, that takes us on to item number 8.2, election of officers. So, I'm interested in still serving as chair, if you'll have me, vice chair. You still interested in serving as vice chair? Um, sure. Unless someone else wants to do it, I'm happy to. Great. Alternate. Just requires a vote, right? It does. Is there a nomination? Nomination. to nominate.

I nominate Joseph Sullivan for chair. If we can do this in one one fell swoop, I nominate Ed Wagner as vice chair. They've done a great job for us. You've done a really nice job. Absolutely. This is I was a little concerned that you not going to continue. So, this is good news. So, um thanks for tolerating me and do a nice job. So, thank you. Moved by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Chapen. Any more discussion? All right. Um, all those in favor vote I. I. Oppos? Nay.

Thanks, guys. Appreciate you. Congratulations. Thank you. Uh, that takes us on to item number nine, commissioner concerns. Any concerns from commissioners or anything you want to raise otherwise? Finish Swedish jokes, fence jokes. All right, seeing none, is there a motion to adjurnn? Uh oh. Moved by Commissioner Putts, seconded by Commissioner Denol. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. We are adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Yes.