Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the February 11th, 2026 East Lancing Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bartley, could you please take role? I can. Uh, Commissioner Chapen here. Commissioner Denalt here. Commissioner Hendris, Commissioner Lein, Commissioner Overby, Commissioner Putts here, Commissioner Seilleski, Vice Chair Wagner here. Chair Sullivan here. We have quorum. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Putts. Second. Seconded by Vice Chair Wagner. Uh seeing no discussion, all those in favor I. I.

I. Oppos. Nay. Okay, Motion carries. Agenda approved. Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes from the January 28th, 2026 planning commission meeting? Second. Moved by Commissioner Denal, seconded by Commissioner Putts. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I. I. Post. Nay. Motion carries. Takes us on to item number two, committee reports. Um, Mr. Bartley and then Commissioner Putts. Yes. Uh the only committee we have active right now is the community development advisory board. Uh Commissioner Puts is our representative on that. My understanding is that uh business is largely finished and the last meeting is tomorrow. Great. Uh that's my update. If Commissioner Puts has anything to add.

No, we meet tomorrow and hopefully that should round it out. So looking forward to it. Great. Crushed it guys. Any comments or questions? All right. takes us on to uh item number three, staff reports. Mr. Bartley,

thank you. Um, excuse me. Uh, just a quick report on uh city council last week. Uh, city council met last week on the 3rd and approved the special use request uh for the Sheets gas station, restaurant, and drive-thru at 111 East Sagena. Uh, immediately after that, they enacted an 8-month moratorium on new gas stations uh or auto service centers. Uh they also scheduled a public hearing uh for March 3rd for the proposed uh residential rental restriction overlay district uh that you this commission recently saw uh at Harvard Cowi. So that'll be on March 3rd. Uh and then looking forward to next week uh on the 17th. Um I'll be introducing an ordinance uh 1559 which is intended to uh amend our diverse housing requirement. Um, this commission looked at that requirement and had discussions uh at length this summer uh suggesting uh or recommending city council take a look at at various alternatives or alternatives path pathways to compliance with that diverse housing requirement. Uh the ordinance that we intend to introduce next week is uh would do two things. It would establish a fee and new program so that an applicant could pay a fee instead of uh providing the diverse housing units on site. Uh and the second item that would be amended would be to allow the transfer of diverse housing credits. Uh we sort of have we have a mechanism right now where one building uh in the diverse housing area downtown can send their credits if they exceed the requirement to another project that can receive those and then use those to meet their requirement. Uh the second zoning amendment as part of ordinance 1559 would allow for that transfer to happen uh for properties outside of downtown. So that will be our intent again is to introduce that uh and refer back to this planning commission uh next week. I'm sure there'll be some discussion. Uh this is the first step in the process. The next step would be that you would see it for a public hearing. Uh and then

as you know you'd make a vote recommending action by council. It would go back to council which time they they schedule their own public hearing and then they would bring it back for that public hearing and then make a vote uh on whether or not to approve the ordinance amendment. So that's coming up next week on council's agenda, the introduction of that. That's my report. Great. Thank you. Any questions?

All right, moving right along. Uh, up next is item number four, commissioner announcements. This is also your time to disclose any conflicts of interest on any items in the agenda. Seeing no announcements, that takes us on to item number five, communications from citizens. Uh, for the written communications, I did see uh I think it was three letters of support for item 6.1. Uh, didn't miss anything else, did I? Nope. Okay, correct.

All right, that takes us on to verbal from the audience. We ask that you keep your comments limited to five minutes. Identify yourself in a card up there. And if you're here tonight to speak to u tonight's public hearing, item 6.1, uh the reasonzoning on Grove, we ask that you um save your comments for that time if possible. Uh that being said, is there any members of the public that wish to come forward and address the planning commission? Okay. Do have a handful of cards up here. I will read those during the public hearing. Takes us on to tonight's public hearing. Item 6.1, um, a public hearing by the planning commission to receive comments regarding ordinance 1562, a request from Hagen Group LLC to conditionally reszone 743, 755, and 765 Gro Street from R2 medium density single family residential district to RM32 city center multiple family residential district for 743 and 765 Gro Street to be used as multifamily dwelling units licensed for four, unrelated, or a family. That was a lot, Mr. Barley.

Yes, it was. Um, for a relatively uh straightforward reasoning request, as straightforward as conditional resoning requests tend to be. So, the um the request here, as you mentioned, is a conditional request at Grove Street just north of Burchham, uh, south of Library Lane. You've seen a very recent or a very similar request recently um in in January of of last year, city council approved a conditional resoning of these parcels uh from R2 to RM32 for a residential building, a 14 unit, 48bedroom uh building that uh the applicant has since decided that they would bear preference would be to uh maintain the three houses that are currently on these properties. Uh 743 I have them up on the on the screen right now. 743 is the southernmost then 755 in the middle and 765 to the north. Currently 755 right there in the middle is and and if I if I mess this up applicants please correct me but I believe that 755 is zoned for seven people right now. Uh by reszoning these properties from R2 to RM32. Uh that would then facilitate the lensure of uh 743 to the south and 765 to the north. uh both to have four uh four individuals uh renting in those houses.

Correct.

Good. Thank you. Um so so right now under R2 zoning that that can't be done. Uh the applicant is proposing to change to RM32 to allow that. Uh this is a conditional reszoning request. Uh so the intent would be this reasoning request should you approve it would be conditioned or should should this body recommend approval in city council ultimately approve uh would be conditioned upon the use of these properties as proposed to stay in their current form as three individual houses and then to be licensed individually um for four for the north and south uh houses and seven to continue in the in the middle house uh subject to city council approval those licenses. So, I guess with that um that's the real the real uh short version of a conditional resoning request because there's no proposed changes to the uh the buildings except for the licensing for individuals to be within. Uh I don't have a site plan for you other than just the survey that's shown on the screen shown the three houses. Um can I answer any questions or defer the applicant for questions? I have a few questions, but I'm going to defer to you all first. Any questions?

Okay. Um, so when it was conditionally reszoned previously, was that to RM32? You know, I I know what this proposal is doing. Can you walk me through a little bit of why they need to go this route? Is it because of the the rental licenses they're requesting? They need it to be conditionally reszoned to RM32. So they're maintaining the structures on the site and they want to conditionally reszone it from R2 to RM32. So am I missing anything? Uh so they want to reszone from R R2 to RM32 to facilitate the the use of these houses as rentals for more than two people. More than two people.

Mhm. The conditional the previous conditional resoning was for a 14-unit apartment building. As to the why uh this is changing, I'd have to defer the applicant on that. Um that's their calculation. Um but as far as the resoning, yes, this was the previous resoning was conditioned uh R2 to RM32. This um the zoning does not have to be conditional for the applicants to do what they're in they'd like. The the applicants could do so if it were an unconditional reasoning to RM32. Uh however, the city council previously did not um I should say didn't entertain a a resoning without conditions. I think that's the the reason behind making this one conditional as well.

Got it. So, but we don't have to vote on removing the old conditional resoning. This essentially would replace that. So, that's the process is we need to vote on this to replace the current conditional resoning that exists on the properties. Correct. Okay.

The the actually the current conditional resoning has not yet gone into effect because we did not execute the conditional reasoning agreement because the applicants are seeking this current conditional resoning. But if this were turned down, they have still been approved for a conditional resoning for a 14-unit apartment building. We would, if this were turned down, we could still execute that agreement, and we still would. They would then still have to apply for site plan approval for that 14-unit apartment building. Uh, but the zoning is already in place. If this if this current conditional resoning request is approved, the previous conditional resoning request would be would become moot.

Okay. Then just two other brief questions. Any other questions for it? Okay. Um for the traffic study, are they required to do a traffic study? I didn't see that in there. It'd be kind of odd if they were no required to do a traffic study because they're not okay. They're not um addressing the structures at all. Um correct. If we if we expected a difference in traffic, uh we would require one or we could require one. We consulted the city engineer on this one as well and determined that there wasn't a need for one. Okay. And then lastly, this is potentially more of a question for the applicant, but do you have a history of the properties if they were previously used as rentals? Were they are they licensed as a a twoperson rental?

Uh, currently I'm aware of the license for 755 for seven. I'm not aware for the other neither of the other properties is. I defer the applicant on the history. Okay, cool. Any other questions? Commissioner Cheney. No, I actually had

Commissioner Dal. Um, but it might be a question better suited for the applicant, but I'll ask it and maybe you can answer. Maybe everyone will answer it. Um, I saw that 755 is not owned by the applicant. It's owned by 755 LLC. And so is this is that property just being included out of for a sake of ease because it's sitting in the middle of these other two?

No, the applicant has to have legal control. Uh so they have a a purchase agreement uh for that that property. They they they have control of all three properties enough to uh be able to be the applicant uh as they did before. So, uh, we didn't actually require a copy of the purchase agreement because we had that, um, documentation beforehand for the previous reasoning agreements. I just wanted to make sure we weren't making I know we're not making changes to 755 in this proposal, but I was like, I I hope that they have legal right over it.

Yeah, it's a good question. All right. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Bartley? Okay, this point we're ready for the applicant to come forward. Good evening. Matt Hagen, 927 East Grand River, one of the owners of Hagen Group LLC. Um, I'm sure you guys are a little tired of hearing about these three parcels probably over the last couple years, so hopefully this will be the last time. But, um, I guess just a couple things as far as, uh, the question about the site plan. Uh, sorry to contradict, but I do think that the site plan that we proposed is kind of part of the process. uh as part of at least eventually it will be if if it's not being considered tonight. Um looking that you know that we're looking to get them licensed as rentals have to meet all the uh codes and whatnot as far as setbacks and ground coverage and parking and all that kind of stuff. And so uh Kev did do the site plan to meet all those specs. Um we're having to add some parking to 743 Grove and so that parking and uh the removal of some concrete at 765 Grove. All that stuff is done in order to be compliant with the ordinances as far as uh ground coverage, parking, so on and so forth. So, uh we aren't asking for any variances. We don't need any variances. Everything will be compliant as far as the code goes. Uh we are, if you take notice on 743, uh making an effort to collect any water that's um being created as runoff. Currently, the driveway there is a gravel drive and we are putting in concrete. And so at the end of the driveway before the city sidewalk, there's going to be a drain there that's going to collect all that water goes uh into the backyard and into a retention area back in the backyard. So there not be any additional runoff from that site uh because of the additional concrete. So wanted to make sure that gets pointed out. Um you know, I think this area is uh

appropriate for the class 4 licenses. Um, we do need the RM32 reszoning in order to get them to uh license for four. Um, unfortunately, you know, license for two just wouldn't make it financially. So, that's the reason for going to the RM32 and and getting the four. Uh, the area I think supports that having sorities and fraternities licensed for seven so on and so forth. I think it's compatible with the neighborhood in that regard. Um, I guess I'll just briefly touch on, I hope I'm not shooting myself in the foot here with the 755 Grove situation, but uh, as part of the reasoning for the project that we had proposed in that conditional resoning, we did have an accepted offer uh, to purchase those as as part of this process. Uh, it was our understanding we do not need ownership of those. uh when we did a resoning a conditional resoning on Durand for our Durand Street apartments, there was uh a parcel that was included in the conditional resoning for that project that we did not own but was included in the par in the parcels that got reszoned. So, um I guess our reasoning for including it was because it's in the middle of the other, you know, the other two there obviously and to get to 743 seemed like it would have to be continuous uh zoning in that regard. So, that was our understanding of the situation. So, um, we do not currently own 755 and would not be purchasing it as part of this resoning process, just to be clear on that. But, um, from our understanding, the code only require the majority of the owners of the parcels getting reszoned, uh, to sign off on the resoning request, and we own two out of the three, so we were able to sign. So, uh, that's the situation in regards to the ownership aspect of things. Um, we're going to do significant amount of improvements to the properties. Uh, they are currently both three-bedroom

uh, houses and in order to get the fourth bedrooms, we're going to do, you know, some remodeling and interior remodeling. There's no exterior um, expansion of the structures. But interior wise, uh, we're adding a fourth bedroom to each location. They're both going to get new kitchens, bathrooms, you know, mechanical upgrades, all kinds of stuff. windows, uh, so on and so forth. So, um, you know, we'll be investing quite a bit of money in both. Um, like I say, adding the parking, containing the water, and I think overall will be, um, much more attractive for that that side of the street. Happy to answer any other questions that you may have.

Questions from commissioners? Vice Mr. Just a quick comment to Commissioner Don's question earlier about ownership and would just be clarified and that's fine if if they don't own the property but they're not doing anything to it as long as it's included. We're going to get the property owner signature of the uh 755 so it's so it's covered but the applicants are really looking at 743 and 765 as far as the scope of their work. We're including 755 but we'll just get the property owner signature as well. So, in other words, they're not going to purchase it, but it's okay to be reszoned as part of this project. We're just going to get the property owner signature to confirm.

So, would we have the property signature before we vote on this? I mean, how do how do we know there really are interest? We don't actually need their signature, but we're going to get it. Okay. We have a majority of the property owner signatures right now out of the three properties. So, we technically can move ahead. I'm still going to request the third property owner signature to make sure we have that on file. Yeah, we we emailed and asked the question specifically said, "Do we need all three owners?" And it was looked up and the code was that you only need the majority. So that that was why we were able to proceed. Yeah. So they've met the legal standard essentially,

right? It it doesn't really impact their property. I mean, they're still going to be licensed for seven whether it's R2 or RM32. there's no advantage or disadvantage I guess for their their part. There is there is an advantage though in that their that property would then become conforming instead of non-conforming as it currently is. Oh, I see. So, does this make sense as far as legal standing additional explanation that's helpful? Thank you. We'll be here if you have any questions. Oh, I sure I was defer first. Um for the um renovations, you talked a bit about the interior renovations. Are there any um upgrades or remodeling that's going to take place in the exterior sites?

Yeah, 743 especially needs a lot. So, yeah, for sure. 7 765, you know, it's a brick house. It's a nice looking house, so there won't be really too much there uh that we'll need to do on the exterior. But what we are doing in the back uh as far as will require some cuz it's currently like screened in back porch area that's going to require some enclosure and and so on. and so forth, but it's not really visible from the street. So, um, that you won't really see too much of a a change from the exterior. 743 on the other hand will, yeah, quite a bit quite quite a bit of quite a bit of stuff. So, like I said, new windows, fascias, porch. I mean, it's

it it needs a lot of work, but the aesthetic will generally conform and be similar to the rest of the the block and Oh, yeah. Yeah. Um, can you talk a little bit about the the long-term use? Is this a long-term plan for the site or is is it a temporary? Yeah, my brother and I actually were just kind of talking about that earlier tonight. You know, with the amount of money that we're investing, it doesn't make sense for us obviously anytime in the near future to do anything different. I mean, it's just you're putting a lot of money into them at, you know, they'll be hopefully making us money at that point. And when you've re, you know, reinvested that kind of money, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to turn around and try and tear them down and do something different. So,

okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Do you guys have any last questions? Commissioner Denal and Vice Chair. That was related, I think, to the question that I had. Um, was there uh a reason why you all decided that you wanted to pursue this instead of what we approved back in January? Sure. I guess it's kind of a risk and reward type situation, you know. I mean, you've got a lot of different positive and negatives with the project. Um, you know, obviously there's the neighborhood opposition, you have the cost of acquiring the partial that we don't own. Uh, you have the water situation that we have to deal with. Uh, cost of construction, so forth. You know, a lot of unknowns, I guess, to

Yeah. the parking situation, so on and so forth. So, there's there's a lot of hurdles that, you know, you have to cross. and is it a road that you want to go down? We've obviously, you know, invested a substantial amount of money over the last couple years to try and to get to this point and is there is there light at the end of the tunnel or is this kind of the easier, safer bet and just um you know, obviously we do rentals all over the city and it's what we're familiar with and it's just kind of a riskreward. Do you take a couple million dollar gamble and hope everything works out or do you play it safe and put some money into them and have a nice return and neighbors are happy and it's less headache? So, I guess that was kind of ultimately the decision that we came to is why go down that road and deal with all that and this is a little simpler, much easier process and and project and you know so

and I had one more question. No, you're fine. We can we can great. Okay. Um I was reading the uh comments from um citizens and one someone mentioned uh issue of parking. Um is there any issues of parking that you um with with the um any of the um houses or

you know there'll be four parking spots at at both locations. They'll both be licensed for four. Um you know luckily there is some on street parking for for guests during the day and that kind of stuff. Um, I would like, you know, to have as much parking at our locations as possible, uh, as as guests and that kind of stuff goes, but, you know, this is kind of maxing out a lot of our coverages and some of that stuff. And so, we're kind of limited on being able to provide additional guest parking, I guess. But, um, I I don't think that there'll be a shortage of parking because there's a spot for each individual. Certainly there's going to be some guests coming over occasionally, but I don't foresee that as being like a huge parking problem for the neighborhood because of that. Um, I assume like most of your rentals that this these will be um primarily marketed to students, but is there are you also thinking about marketing to other types of folks who might be moving to East Lancing given that they are single family homes and there's like a single family neighborhood just to the north there?

Sure. I mean, we we don't necessarily, in our opinion, target a particular group. I mean, we we rent anybody who wants to come and rent them. So, um you know, it's it's hard for us to say who's going to rent them. I mean, given the location and and so on and so forth, will probably be students. Yeah. But at the same time, I mean, that's not, you know, necessarily, we're not saying yes or no to anybody. If they have the money and and want to rent it, then they're welcome to. Any remaining questions? All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. questions for staff before I open the public hearing. All right, seeing none, at this point we will open the public hearing for item 6.1. Up first is Tim Rzzowski. Hello again. Let's see. Uh Tim Rosowski. We live at 613 Grove Street. Um and so we're in the neighborhood to to the south there. And so very much supportive of this uh this project. I think this is really a great outcome for the neighborhood through you know all that we went through um before and and and also on the property on the east side of of Grove. So I think this is a really good outcome. I did want to say that I'm working with uh Matt and Kevin and and Brian Hagen on on several projects. Um so just in and to be transparent so you should know that. So I've been working on these two pro uh projects uh looking at what the renovations would be. So, I'd be happy to take any questions. You know, I've been through the houses, field measured them. The um easily can accommodate four people. So, at uh uh 7:43, we'll be converting um there there's there's really two living rooms. So, there's one in the upper level and one in the lower level. So, we'll convert the lower level by just adding one wall to uh a bedroom uh in the lower level. It has great access. Uh so, it's a direct access, you know, from there. Uh and then at uh 7 uh65 um we will be uh modifying the porch and a part of the dining room to create the the additional bedrooms. So be adding uh adding showers um electrical upgrades, sighting uh likely for um 743 uh porches will get repaired. So I think there it's very easy um to accommodate. This would be one of my smaller projects, but yeah, very easy to accommodate four people uh in these houses. Um, we first started talking about this, I think maybe late summer, and then I kind of mentioned it to some

of the neighbors that, uh, we had had this conversation and, uh, just to see whether they, um, you know, would be interested or supportive, and I got really good feedback and then, um, notified, uh, when we got a little more uh, formal, uh, I notified the neighbors in um, in November, kind of keep them uh, posted and again got very positive feedback. and then um before this hearing also um sent uh something to them and again we got positive feedback. So I haven't heard any negatives from anybody. I think everybody thinks this is a great outcome for for our neighborhood and very appropriate use of the of the properties there. So I I'd be happy to answer any architectural questions if you have any. But that's my comments.

Thank you for your comments. It's good context. All right. Up next is Lisa Homminck. Did I get that right? Yes. Lisa Homine, 222 Ridge Road. And just very short and I want to thank the Hagen group for this wonderful redirection. Um, clearly in support of it and as are several of our rid neighbors. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish to come forward and address this item? Seeing none, is anyone online in the the queue? There's no one in the queue. No one in the queue. All right. At this point, we will close the public hearing for this item. Um, what is the the will of the commission? I'm I would be fine personally comfortable voting on this given it's I was going to say I would be fine waiting until more of our members are here fine waiting too

well while the table's open I may cough here I think it's really quiet I mean it's been said in the written communications and again uh from the public but I think you know really we have to acknowledge a Hagen really I mean you just don't see people sitting down with neighbors and making some adjustments And uh we saw it, you know, last week I think with um the apartment building, but this is a another example of trying to work with the neighborhoods, trying to work with the community. And I think it's worthy of a comment acknowledging that that's what led us to this is cooperation and consensus and relationships and neighborhoods and the importance of all of those. And I think that's pretty apparent. I don't want to sound too preachy here, but the reality is I think we should acknowledge that that's clear. So, all right.

Yeah. Mask up. All right. Well, did you have any comments? I don't. Okay. Seeing no comments, I think we will see this at the next planning commission meeting, which What's the date for that, Landon? February 25th.

All right. February 25th. Thanks everybody. All right, since we have no unfinished business, new business, that takes us on to item number nine, commissioner concerns. Any concerns from commissioners? Guys are going easy on me tonight. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Putts, seconded by Commissioner Denalt. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Uh we are adjourned at 7:03 p.m.