Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the February 25th, 2026 East Lancing Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bartley, could you please take role? I will. Uh, Commissioner Chapen, Commissioner Denalt, here. Commissioner Hendris, here. Commissioner Lein. Commissioner Overby, glad to be here. Glad to have you back. Commissioner Puts here. Commissioner Seilleski, Vice Chair Wagner here, and Chair Sullivan here. We have quorum. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Overby, seconded by Commissioner Denalt. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I.

I. Nay. Motion carries. Agenda approved. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the February 11, 2026 planning commission meeting? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Chapen, seconded by Vice Chair Wagner. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of I. I. I. Oppos. Nay. Motion carries. Minutes approved. That takes us on to item number two, committee reports. Uh Mr. Bartley. Uh thank you. We we can report on three committees, I believe, uh or three items, but first the community development advisory board. Uh the last meeting was February 12th, uh just after your last meeting. And Commissioner Putts, um, do you have anything you wanted to report from that committee?

Um, the meeting was 13 minutes long. Very smoothly. Okay. No, really no discussion. Just everyone was happy with the allocations that have been made and we put in some amount changes. Commissioner, is your microphone on? Oh, I'm sorry. It's not perfect. My bad. Okay. But we heard a 13-minute meeting that went smoothly. Yeah, 13-minute meeting that went very smoothly.

Wonderful. Thank you. Uh, as far as age friendly communities committee, uh, the last scheduled meeting is tomorrow, uh, February 26th. Um, my our agenda is essentially uh, to decide what the committee's next purpose is. Uh, there's been a lot of interest in in from the committee members in staying on and helping with implementation steps. So, we're going to be discussing that at some length. And Commissioner Chapen, I don't know if you have anything you want to add. Okay. Uh the finally, it's not a committee, but I wanted to bring up that there was a parliamentary procedure training for chairs and vice chairs uh just after last planning commission meeting on uh that was on February 12th, and Vice Chair Wagner was able to attend. Uh vice chair, I don't know if you had anything you wanted to add about that event.

Um I thought it was really useful and I I think that we run our meetings really well. Thank you, Joseph, for doing a great job as chair. Um, I I know we always try to follow Robert's rules. Sometimes, you know, things get a little rowdy, but I think, you know, the the intentions are there. Um, I also learned that Robert's rules are crazy. Um, I mean, the the the person offering the training said, "We could do a one-hour brief training, we could do a two-hour training, or a six-hour training, and it's like six hours of Robert's rules is a lot." So, um, I think I think we're we're on track and we do we do well. So, it was it was nice. I sent with the transportation committee. So, it was nice to meet other see talk to other people. But um yeah, and it's also we had a good discussion about the open meetings act and you know what why that's important, what it entails and um yeah, I recommend it. It's good.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Um and we have uh had in the past received little yellow sort of cheat sheets on Robert's rules. I meant to bring those to uh hand out tonight, but we didn't have them. So, I'll make sure to have those for our next meeting uh which I should mention will likely be on March 25th. We don't have business for the March 11th meeting. So, Mr. Chair, that's it for committee reports. Can I move on to staff reports? Please do. Thank you. Appreciate the updates.

Um, we had a neighborhood meeting on Monday uh at MSUFCU to discuss a potential resoning. Uh, I'll discuss this more in item 6.1. Um, although the the meeting that we talked about on Monday was about a larger resoning that will be coming before you. uh that meeting was was very good and uh we had some good positive feedback and as well as some not so positive feedback about uh past changes. So I'll again I'll discuss that in 6.1. Uh next week we have city council on March 3rd. Um we'll have three public hearings uh one for 530 Albert that proposed uh residential or mixeduse um development which would be behind peanut barrel. We have a public hearing for the proposed Harvard Cowi uh rental restriction overlay district. That's ordinance 1555. Uh that would establish a rental restriction overlay district. Uh the Harvard Harvard Cowi neighborhood which is just at the northeast corner of Koolage and Sagena. uh this group uh saw that a couple months ago and and suggest or recommended approval and also um ordinance 1556 which is to require the finished side of a fence to be installed outwards uh out of the of the owner's property. Um this this uh commission recommended uh not to approve that ordinance, but we'll have a public hearing for that next week as well. Um, also on next week's agenda, um, I'll be introducing, uh, several ordinance requests, um, one will be an ordinance to reszone several properties that have Dit Township zoning, and I I'll be talking about that again in item 6.1 shortly. Uh, another property up on Stole Road near Chandler. And then we'll also be introducing a resoning ordinance for 1049 Cresenwood, which is in Chesterfield Hills. this that property uh had a couple major fires uh a couple years ago and the owners donated the property to the city for a park. So, we're uh seeking to reszone that property to C community facilities which

is the appropriate zoning for a park. Um so, I intend to have that those before you probably in April. And then looking ahead to your uh next planning commission meeting on March 25th, uh we're going to have three public hearings. Um, one's going to be for ordinance uh 1559, which is the diverse housing ordinance that you guys discussed at great length uh last year during the summer. Uh, another ordinance is 1567, which is uh that would allow additional height in certain circumstances, additional building height uh downtown in certain circumstances. And then finally, we'll have a public hearing for a proposed a renovation of the building at 601 Abbott. uh this this body um approved or recommended approval for a complete reconstruction a new building at that location. Uh but that project has since uh gone away. So we have a new um a new request that's going to be to renovate that building for residential. So that will be coming coming before you at your next meeting on March 25th. Anything I can answer any questions about anything I've reported on before we move on?

Questions for Mr. Bartley? I actually had a question. I'm so sorry. I meant to bring this up under um uh it item number two, but we moved on so quickly. Um Commissioner Puts, is there a place we can see where the various grants that were handed out, like the organizations and the initiatives that they were distributed to? Um I would have to talk to the chair and see. Okay. Um so there's no public I don't know off the top of my head. um that wasn't something that was um you know they didn't have a hey if you want to tell your friends and family about it. Uh here's a link. So I I'll ask and I'll get back to the committee on that. I was going to say do you have a an answer Mr. Bley?

I can just mention that uh I can also assist you Commissioner Putts uh to make sure that we get find the right uh document and distribute that to this group. So thank you. Sorry to backtrack us. No, no worries. Good question. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Um okay. Any other questions for city staff? Seeing none, uh, takes us on to item number four, commissioner announcements. This is also your time to disclose any conflicts of interest on items on tonight's agenda. Any announcements or conflicts of interest. All right, seeing none, takes us on to item number five, communications from citizens. Up first is written communications. I did see one new letter uh for item 8.1. I didn't miss anything else, did I? No. Okay, that takes us on to verbal from the audience. This is your time to address the planning commission on any on anything on or off tonight's agenda. We ask that you keep your comments limited to five minutes. Identify yourself in a card if you have yet to do so. And if you're here to speak to tonight's public hearing, which is item 6.1, um we ask that you speak uh at that time. Uh I do have a couple cards up here, so I'm going to start with these. Up first is Mark Bell. Good evening. Mark Bell, CEO, Harbor Bay. Dear members of the planning commission, city staff and city leadership. Although it is not on tonight's agenda, I want one which I acknowledge. My purpose this evening is to call on your leadership in the coming weeks regarding ordinance 1384 and proposed ordinance 1559. My connection to East Lancing is by way of the following. The Balline family and Harbor Bay partner with city staff, city leadership in the East Lansancy community to deliver the center city district project, including target landmark new loss and center city garage. Today we have the privilege of advancing another project, a 135 million investment in East Lancing, a project that not only strengthens the East Lance community, but also pays tribute to the late Howard Walline. To make this next transformational project possible, we need your help, please. At its February 17th meeting, the city council voted to refer ordinance 1559 to the planning

commission for further discussion. Much of the discussion centered on the fee and loo structure for supporting affordable housing, including calculating the fee using an affordability gap and using Ann Arbor as the main comparison city. A consultant's report noted that new developments in Ant Arbor use a fee and ll model and that applying Ann Arbor's method to East Lancing alongside East Lancing's affordability gap yields a fee and loo per square foot as high as $170 a square foot, the equivalent of $184,000 a unit. After listening to the city council, I was struck by how unusual the $170 a square foot fee and new figure was compared to other cities where we developed. I decided to dig into the numbers, the ordinances, and the policy. And here's what I found. My first finding, Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan that uses a fee and loo tool, making them progressive and leaders on the topic. Number two, there are seven active major developments under construction in in Ann Arbor, totaling over $1 billion of economic development. Of the seven developments, four have no fee in Loo or inclusionary zoning requirements. Each of these developments are in the downtown core D1 district of Ann Arbor. Conversely, three of the seven do have FU in structures, fe structures. Each of these developments are outside the downtown D1 district. Each development received a 500% up zone or more. A PUD was established and a fee and loo was implemented. My third finding in Ann Arbor's downtown, both the D1 and D2 districts, there is no affordability or inclusionary zoning requirements as evidenced by the four active developments downtown. In December of 2023, Ann Arbor City Council removed affordability incentives in their downtown because development was being stifled stemming from an ineffective 2019 ordinance. So, what do these findings really tell

us? They bring forward perspective, data, and facts, not just to inform, but to spark collaboration and drive me drive meaningful solutions. To that end, next Wednesday, we will be resubmitting the Howard project. We propose developing 292 market rate apartments, a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom, and four-bedroom units housing up to 775 residents in a 140 foot mass timber building. The mass timber design provides a strong public benefit supporting the requested SUP height increase from 112 to 140 ft. Meanwhile, at 909 Abbott, we will also develop 23 market rate condominiums. Finally, we will contribute 1,50,000 in fee and loo payments for 21 affordable units. Together, the 23 condominiums and 21 fianl units create 44 diversified units, meeting a 15% diversity offset based on a 1:1 transfer credit ratio. Our proposal also assumes 157 parking spaces are available to lease for Howard residents in city garages. Importantly, we recommend directing the fee and loo funds toward a targeted home ownership buyback program to help stabilize neighborhoods and address East Lancing's growing affordability gap. A neighborhoodbased advisory structure would guide acquisition priorities and ensure a community-driven approach. This initiative offers a practical high impact strategy to expand home ownership opportunities and strengthen the long-term neighborhood stability. Implementing this proposal will require amendments to ordinance 1559, including adjustments to the B3 B3 district's three-bedroom cap on multif family units. We are committed to collaborating with the city and providing any information needed to support these changes. In closing, our goal has remained consistent. Let's work

together and do something great for the city of East Lancing. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh Tim Rosowski. Um Tim Rosowski, 613 Grove Street, and I'm here to speak on 1562. So I'll be brief. I spoke last time at the public hearing in support of the project. And um uh also I'm I'm working with the Hagens on on uh these two houses and a couple of other projects as well. Um I've talked to all the neighbors. I found no neighbors who are in opposition to this. I think you have several several letters in your packet. I think four four letters in your packet. So, um, and then, uh, I I'll be available if you have any questions about what the specific renovations are going to be. So, I'll take my seat and if you have any questions at that time, I'll be happy to answer or or answer them now if you have any.

Thank you. Okay. Yep. Anybody else wish to come forward and address the planning commission tonight? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone online in the queue? There's no one in the queue. Okay, that takes us on to item number six. Tonight's first public first and only public hearing. Item 6.1 is a public hearing by the planning commission to receive comments regarding a request from Thomas Williams to reszone uh 2900 Coleman Road. Uh Mr. Bartley.

Uh thank you. So this request is a resoning request. I'm going to pull up my GIS map uh briefly. Okay. So, I've highlighted the uh the subject property that's uh considered for reszoning that's on the south side of Coleman uh road, which you can see sort of it's hard to show on this on this map. I'm realizing I don't have my mouse showing. Uh okay. So, Coleman is essentially the line that runs right across the middle of the map. Um there's this dark darker section. I'm sorry I can't provide you the names of the colors, but this darker section here, the north end of that section is Coleman Road. So, Coleman Road extends and then you can see it sort of bends down to the south as it approaches 127. So, the applicant is seeking to uh is proposing to reszone this property um from a its current Dit Township zoning uh to East Lancing B5 uh in order to facilitate future uh mixeduse development. I want to uh clarify a couple things right now. So, this this and several other properties um essentially all the properties uh surrounding this property to the north uh across Coleman to the east and west along Coleman, you can see a couple that go down West Road. Um and then also the properties to the to the east across Kulage um including up to the north. Those those colors are all those all represent Dit Township zoning. So these properties and many other properties were transferred uh essentially all the properties essentially all the properties west of Chandler and north of Lake Lansing uh were transferred from Dit Township um as part of a 425 agreement uh in 1998 and 2001. So I should say two for two 425 agreements. Uh so those properties were transferred from the township of Dwit uh to the city

of East Lancing, but at the time the zoning uh wasn't changed from the Dwit Township zoning. So this presents a little bit of an issue for current owners because uh I as East Lancing's planning and zoning administrator cannot administer uh Dit Township zoning ordinance. So essentially we have a bunch of properties when they have dit township zoning, they're considered legal non-conforming. the applicant can continue to use or I should say a property owner of this kind of property could continue to use their property as they're currently using it uh with the existing land use but they couldn't expand that land use and they can't change to any other land use without reszoning the property. Uh, and when you want to reszone a single property, you can only do so as long as you're doing as long as you're you're uh I guess the resulting zone meets the uh matches the future land use map as adopted. So, our 2018 future land use map shows essentially all these properties to the north and south and west specifically of of this property as either C2 or C3, commercial zoning or excuse me, commercial future land use. And that essentially means sort of medium or high intensity commercial. Uh but it's it's different from M M1, M2, M3, M4, which is mixed use, which we see in other areas. But these are sort of commercial without mixed use, non-residential. Uh the the best analog zone district for both C2 and C3 are um is B5. And so the applicant is requesting B5 zoning because of that, but their their intended future use is residential. Um, and so I also want to mention there was an there was a a noticing issue where the actually the the address of the the property owner, the current property owner didn't get noticed. So tonight we can take public comment uh but we we cannot vote on this uh request and in fact we'd have to renotice the public hearing except that as I mentioned at

the top of the meeting uh my intent is to bring an ordinance and I'll be introducing that ordinance to the city council next week uh to reszone all of these properties that have current DIT township zoning. And so we had our meeting at MSUFCU uh the HQ2 building up at Kulage uh near state on Monday night. had about 20 uh 25 property owners show up in various stakeholders. It was a really good pro uh really good conversation. Um sounded like people weren't especially happy about the 425 having happened, but it's about 25 years ago. So that's happened. The properties are now all in East Lancing, but seeking to change their zoning from Dwit Township zoning to East Lancing zone districts is meant to be to facilitate their future use and development of these properties. So, our intent with the with the other ordinance is to actually include this and other properties around it and propose RM14 zoning. But tonight, the public hearing is for potential reasonzoning to B5. Although, again, this this ordinance isn't going to progress past tonight because we're going to uh bring the property in with the others in the in the the larger resoning uh ordinance coming next week. So, all that said, I guess this is kind of a special uh request before you. We don't we don't see these too often, but I wanted to still talk about it in case there are public uh comments about the the potential reasoning to B5. And I also know that several folks who were at the meeting on Monday were very interested in in this and sort of the the general moving forward for reasonzoning these properties and may have some comments about that. So, we still wanted to have uh the opportunity for public hearing uh for questions or concerns from the public. That's that's about it for this request. Uh can I answer any questions from the planning commission right now about this or even the future one knowing that I I want to be careful about talking too much about the future ordinance, but we still can.

Vice Chair Wagner and then

I just have a quick question for you, London. Do you know why these um properties weren't automatically reszoned when they went from to East Lancing? I I don't uh I've I've heard um from council members who were around at the time that oh this was kind of a placeholder and maybe it was intended to be changed in the future. Um it just hasn't happened. And so we're looking at the uh at at this uh individual request for 2900 Coleman as kind of a catalyst um to look at all of them together. And so we'll be bringing a a much larger request to you. Um, again, I mentioned uh if we introduce it next Tuesday, we plan to have the public hearing for that on April 8th to for this body. So, I wish I could answer that question. I I don't know why.

Two quick questions. Just clarify, Landon. Um, in your comments, you talked about this being city initiated zoning. Um, am I reading that correctly? The the present zoning request reading it correctly. No, I'm glad you asked that. Thank you. Um, and sorry to jump in. The the present request for to reszone 2900 Coleman from from the Dit Township zoning that it has now to B5 is not initiated by the city. It's by a private party that we wishes to eventually uh construct housing on that property. Okay. But the larger reasoning that will be coming before you is city initiated.

Okay. That that's where I was going with that. Then the other question I had is um under the terms of the uh 2001 agreement, tax revenues are shared with Dwit Township. That's correct. 50/50, 8020, 6040, or is that formula not developed quite yet? You know, I I've I've been meaning to look that up uh to to understand that before this hearing. I I wasn't able to. Um I will definitely have that information before our next words. Okay, fair enough. I believe it's 50/50, but I haven't I haven't confirmed that. And rezoning won't change that.

No, the resoning wouldn't change anything about the 425. The re zoning wouldn't uh wouldn't change the municipality. It wouldn't change the school district. It wouldn't change ownership. All all it would change would be the underlining zoning uh which would allow the property owners to do something with their properties if and I should say again for the larger the larger ordinance that will be coming before you but again that the question tonight is really just focused on 2900 uh Coleman but it's still worth having a discussion about the larger reasoning I think. Commissioner Denal.

Yeah thanks. Um I saw that so I guess I have two questions. The first question is um this current request is just for a reasonzoning. Will we see at some point a future site plan that we will also get a chance to approve? Yes. Okay.

Uh yes, the this is a a straightforward reasoning request without conditions. So I'm always hesitant to bring forward site plans or elevations uh to the planning commission or city council when there aren't conditions associated with the reasoning request. Uh that said as we can certainly provide those uh although I don't intend to at this point because we'll be reszoning this differently soon.

Okay. Um and then my follow-up question was um the applicant says that they have plans to build a 48 unit tax credit project financed through MISTA. And I feel like we have seen several applications that have discussed MISTA funding and how difficult it is to obtain. Um do you have any sense of if the applicant has already obtained MISTA approval or credits of some sort or is do they plan on applying for those?

I have that sense they have not yet. uh they do plan on applying for those in order for us to for the the city council would would uh approve a a letter to go to MISTA the pilot letter essentially payment at le taxes and the city council typically doesn't uh approve a letter without seeing a project uh there are essentially two rounds of April and October for applications to the state for low-inccome housing tax credits and the applicant won't be able to do it for April so they're they're going to be applying in October they will be that letter would say this project at least can be approved uh under the current zoning. So the zone would need to be changed for us to be able to issue that that letter. So it is their intent to get that letter and use it. We just haven't been able to that yet and we won't be able to until the zoning is changed.

Okay. And maybe this is um getting ahead of ourselves and I don't know if the applicant is here to be able to answer this question. Um um is there any sense of if those tax credits do not manifest themselves since we have heard how difficult it is do they still plan to develop? I was going to say I'd have to you probably don't have that answer actually. Let's um address all the questions the city staff call you up and have you give your your overview. Apologies chair. No it's okay. Did you have any other questions? That's it. Um any questions down here? Good. So, Lane, for the 425 agreement, does this require any sort of um consensus or approval from DWIT? Uh

it requires coordination with with Dwit. I've been in touch with their planner a few times and their city manager or township manager also attended the meeting on Monday. So, we've uh met our obligation. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I think for when we next see this, I think it'd be helpful for me if if there was some sort of table comparing the analogous zoning between the two or what's what's there now and what's being considered. I I do have that and I can bring it up if you Okay. Um, that'd be helpful. Um, and then is there any loss of use potentially or any downside to reszoning this to a a B5 for the property owners? It's more permissive, right? It's not

Yes, there would be a downside in that B5 in any B business district since we since late 2004, uh we changed the zoning ordinance to allow upper story business or upper story residential uh of three or fewer bedrooms in any business district. So, under the B5 zoning, the applicant could uh could potentially have a 48 unit uh residential, but they would have to have ground flooror commercial as well. And uh I think their intent is not to, but uh for the purposes of of moving forward with their with their letter and application to the state, uh we wanted to move forward with the B5 zoning. It ultimately won't matter at this point because we'll still be looking to reszone this to RM14. So, so I guess yes, this would be getting them closer to compliance and they could build something about what they want, but they would have to change their plans. Yeah, I guess it's more of a hypothetical question for the other sites there if this change in resoning is going to get them what they want to use the property for. If this is going to trigger another wave of resonings down the line where you you and whoever city staff is going to have to potentially do a lot more work than they'd need to.

Yeah, the intent is not to. Um, let me share this this zone district comparison real quick. So I I brought this Excel file to the meeting on um on Monday and was just trying to show essentially uh the difference between some of the dit uh dit zones and the different east lancing zones uh because I I proposed several different zones and I don't want to get into too much detail about which zones are where until we review the other ordinance. So, I wanted to show that a sort of range of East Lancing zone districts as well as the Dit zone districts. The Dwit zone districts kind of don't matter uh because they they can't use them for what it says right now and they won't be able to, but it's still illustrative and and helps us sort of understand what they were coming from. What I wanted to make sure and so I'm I'm proposing for uh down the road for this property and other properties nearby. uh and propose I'm going to propose RM14 and that's because right now there is in there are currently single family houses on those properties. Um there there is interest in continuing to use those potentially for single family but also uh in the RM14 single family is allowed. It's permitted by right as is two family as is uh low density multif family. So less than four bedrooms uh is permitted outright. So we would end up if this were changed to RM14 this and other properties nearby we would end up not creating non-conformities which is the goal of a reasonzoning or to with with any reasoning you want to at least limit to the extent possible any non-conformities and this will do that.

Got it. Okay that's helpful and I think that tees up the the conversation for when we see the the full proposal. Yeah. And I'll bring this type hill back up for a discussion about the next reasoning question too. Okay. Thank you much. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Bartley? Okay, ready for the applicant.

Good afternoon, Thomas Williams. I'm the applicant um for 6.1. To your question, yes, th this project will only be developed if the tax credits are awarded by MISTA. Um this is not something we will build and if we get the tax credits, it'll be um you know, tax credit property. If not, it will be market rate housing. will strictly only be developed if the uh project is awarded tax credits through MISTA. And do you just as a follow-up question, do you plan if you don't get funding this first round, do you just plan on reapplying or

So right now with the current owners of the property, we have this property just under contract. Um so we don't own it outright. So we have written in that we can submit this April and this October. As Landon said here, we're missing the April submission. So, we're submitting in October. Um, a lot of the times if that gets pushed or we do not get funded that round, we do look to extend and and resubmit, but that kind of depends on where the the points score and how it comes out. If we're dead to rights and and it's a waste of time and and money and effort to resubmit, we wouldn't. But, yes, our our goal would be to resubmit um in the following funding round.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you for answering that question. Is there any other questions for commissioners? Do you have any other information you'd like to provide?

I guess the only thing is it this is a tad confusing because when we brought this forward to to the city um to reszone it. You know, Landon brought up that well this is a perfect time to kind of batch reszone all these projects. And so, yes, right now you're seeing us request B5, but at the end of the day, we're going to reszone with what the city recommends and what Ultimate recommends with this batch reszoning. So, I don't want anyone to think here that we're trying to go and do our own thing or go against what is being proposed. This is all going to be together. It just happened to be a weird timeline kind of matching up. So, um, at the end of the day, when the battery zoning comes comes along, you can kind of forget this request even happened. I I don't want it to be thought of as us going rogue and and doing something different. It'll it'll all be together.

Understandable. Appreciate that. Um, Commissioner Den and then is there um this might be more relevant when we get to the actual site plan part. So um do feel free like if folks are like this is not a good time for this question but is there a particular reason um why this area or this partial stood out as far as citing affordable housing?

Yeah. So the way MISTA um scores points and ultimately awards projects it's it's based on um if you are considered rural or if you are considered urban. And so those two categories kind of go up against each other and projects get funded in both of them. And so part of these scorings is they score every census tract in Michigan across the entire state. And then you are going up against every rural census tract or every urban census tract across the entire state. And this census tract um well well I guess so census tracks score these points and then you can be within 0.25 miles of a census track to basically take their points as as your project. And so this site specifically is 0.25 miles away from a Bath Township

U census tract that scores the maximum points. So this site scores the maximum points, but this site is considered urban and we would rather submit our application under the urban designation because it has a better chance of being funded based on the scoring parameters. So just based on overall scoring and how how the QAP in MISTA scores projects, we believe this has a very good chance of of being awarded. Excellent. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you. You pull out a card for me, please. Oh, yeah. Please. There's uh should be cards up there. Just put your

Yeah, that'd be great. At this point, we will open the public hearing on this item. Is there any members that wish to come forward and address the planning commission? All right, seeing none, is there anyone online in the in the queue? There's no one in the queue. Okay, easy enough. At this point, we'll close the public hearing and um we will not see this item on a future planning commission agenda. We will we will see a new item that uh Landon's going to make shiny and nice and and bring to us I think at the the 25th, right? Potentially. No, no, later meeting.

I intend to have the council will introduce it uh if they introduce it next week as proposed then we'll probably have it on the April 8th agenda for you for a public hearing. All right, fair enough. Thank you. and we will make sure that everyone is notified as needed. That's complicated. We understand that the time. Am I on? Yeah, I guess I am. Yeah. No, it's a complicated issue. Makes sense to handle it like we did tonight and uh we're all briefed and we'll be ready in April. It's teed up and it's going to save you a lot of time at the next hearing.

Um okay. Uh as we have no unfinished business, that takes us on to new business. Um 8.1 consideration of ordinance 1562 a request from Hagen Group LLC to conditionally reszone 743 755 and 765 Grove Street from R2 medium density single family residential district to RM32 city center multiple family residential district for 743 and 765 Grove Street to be used as multifamily dwelling units licensed for four unrelated or a family. Mr. Marley.

All right. Uh thank you. So these um three properties uh have been before you before uh a few times. Um and most recently in January of 2025 were approved for re for a conditional resoning from R2 to RM32 uh for construction of a building uh multif family building. And that uh that application has been uh sort of set aside um because of this current application uh from the same applicant and that would be to conditionally resone these properties again but to not propose any new buildings. Uh rather the new zoning of RM32 is proposed um I can bring this up on my screen too. Uh the new zoning would simply permit uh the existing let me see here would simply permit the existing properties uh to be licensed as rentals. The the goal of the applicant is to license uh 743 and 765 for four uh four up to four people each which would be allowed by RM32s but not by R2. and the existing house in the middle uh 755 uh is owned by a different party uh but it's currently licensed for seven and so by changing uh the zoning to RM32 that would become more conforming as well. We had some detailed discussion last time. Um, so I'd like to leave it there, but unless there are questions from the commission for me and answer here tonight,

I think it should be noted that there were some four additional letters in the packet into in supplementary to what we heard and read uh two weeks ago. I think that's worth acknowledging. So, um, I would just add that just to make sure we highlight that is I think just one is new, right? I think three were in the the last pack. Was that I'm mistaken that I didn't cross reference. You're correct. There's four. Yeah. No, no cross referencing. All All four in favor. Yep. Question. What What caused them to want to make these changes? I'd have to for the applicant on that. Um, they are here tonight. if you if you'd like to invite Emma for questions.

How you doing? Kevin Hagen, Hagen Realy, uh Hagen Group. Figured we'd give you guys a break from listening to Matt all the time. So, um man, after listening to the scoring system with that housing and the tax breaks that a lot of these highrises ask for, uh that might answer your question why maybe we have to switch gears and and maybe not build something. Um but uh ultimately we you know we did have discussions with the neighborhood. Um we felt that you know there was we felt it was a good location to build what we were what we talked about. Um ultimately and working with the neighborhood and uh Tim who became our architect uh who lives nearby uh we felt that during rental properties would also be a good use for the site as well. So, but again, you know, again, it's it's kind of a tough, you know, because we we still have that application there. If we're not approved, we will probably look to do that. Uh we still think it's a decent site that backs up to businesses with, you know, sorities and fraternities around it. But with the neighborhood, you know, we we live in the city as well. Uh so we don't want to upset everybody. Um so we we backed off and went with houses. Yeah,

thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions for the applicant? Quick comment question. Thank you for taking into account the wishes and needs of the neighborhood and your proposal. Appreciate it. Yes, they've been great to work with, you know, talking with Tim and and other neighbors and uh uh you know, it was a learning experience, you know, for us certainly going into projects and and talking with neighbors and um so again, we're this won't be the last time uh we're before you with a project. We know that. Oh yeah. So, thank you guys for your time. I'm here if you guys need anything and any other questions or any seeing none. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Mr. Bartley,

just a comment, not a question. No worries. Um uh just uh he mentioned that the previous application, the conditional resoning application was approved to build a new 14 unit 48 bed apartment building. So, um that's that's still active. Um but had the the conditional reasoning agreement hadn't been executed yet because they were considering other options. So um depending on how this goes, uh whatever planning commission's recommendation to council is if council were to ultimately deny the current conditional reasonzoning request, they've already approved the other one. And so the applicants could still go forward with that other conditional reasoning or excuse me with that uh site plan. They would still need to come back to planning commission council for approval of the site plan, but they have already been approved for that conditional reasoning. So, just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you. Good clarification. Okay. See no additional questions. Is there Oh, one more comment. I'm so sorry. Oh, please. Just one more comment. Uh I did include a sample motion in your uh in the staff report tonight. If uh the planning commissioner who reads that um just please read all the bold text including the conditions uh because it is a conditional reasoning request. So, uh, unless unless you uh if you move to deny, you don't have to include conditions. If you move to approve, please include the conditions. And it's on page two. Thank you. It's a lot of reading. Who's up for the challenge? Okay, Commissioner Ps.

I move to recommend approval by city council.

Thank you. I move to recommend approval by city council of the conditional reszoning request from Hagen Realy Incorporated LLC to amend the zoning use district map of chapter 50 zoning of the code of ordinances to reszone three parcels totaling 87 acres located at 743 Grove Street parcel number 33207313006 755 Grove Street parcel number 33207313005 5 and 765 Grove Street, parcel number 3320731304 from R2 medium density single family residential district to RM32 city center multiple family residential district conditioned upon the use of the existing three residential structures as single family rental units subject to the requirements and procedures for rental licensing for the following reasons. One, the resoning is consistent with the policies and use uses proposed for the area in the city's comprehensive land use plan. Two, the uses allowed under the proposed conditional resoning spec specifically as licensed residential rental units would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area. Three, public services and facilities would be sign would not be significantly ad significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested resoning. And four, the uses proposed by the proposed conditional resoning would be equally or better suited to the area that uses allowed uses allowed under the current zoning of the land. and if approved that the following conditions shall apply. The property shall be subject to and governed by the rules and regulations of RM32 zoning code. Two, any use other than rental houses licensed for four unrelated or a family at 743 and 765

Grove shall require a new resoning application. Three, applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the city of East Lansing's housing commission and building department prior to issuance of abovementioned rental licenses. Four, that no site or building plan is approved as part of this approval, but that any land use contemplated by the proposed conditional resoning shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying RM32 zone district, which may require review and approval of a proposed site plan in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 50-36, a special use permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 50-93, andor one or more non-use variances granted by the zoning board of appeals in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 50-62 through 50-64 of the zoning ordinance if site layout requirements cannot be met. five that all requirements for conditional resonings as specified in sections 50-11 through 50-123 I'll resay that sections 50-11 through 50-123 of the zoning ordinance shall be met including reversion of the zoning designation as specified in sections 50-116 and 50-117 that this approval shall take effect upon the expiration of 7 days after the publication of the notice of the ordinance adoption in accordance with the requirements of section 401 of the Michigan zoning enabling act MCL 125.3401 and section 50-31 of the zone of the zoning ordinance unless a later effective aid is specified by the city council or unless a notice of intent to file a petition seeking to submit the ordinance to the electors of the city for action is filed with the city clerk in accordance with the provisions of section 402 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL125.3402,

following the execution of a conditional reszoning agreement between the applicant and the city of East Lancing. Well said. Is there a second? I second. Commissioner Chapen gets the second equal pots is our official alltime long motion reader. Yeah, equal credit. Okay, discussion. Uh, what are the thoughts on this?

Well, I'll open up. I think we had pretty good discussion uh at our last meeting. I thought the neighborhood did a nice job. I thought the Hagen group came forward with a proposal that uh compromised perhaps some of their ideals, but uh supported the uh input from the neighbors and uh and those uh surroundings. So, I think it's a pretty clean motion in my mind and a pretty clean project in my mind and I'm going to vote yes. Well said. Everybody's being shot. Yeah, I agree. I think winding path for these sites, right? So, I think that I like that there was a compromise there that they worked with the neighborhood address as many of the concerns that they could and that they're working with him to get the interiors and a little bit of the exteriors tightened up to make them uh improved. So, I think it's a nice touch and overall I think we landed in a good spot here. So, I'm in support. So, with that, um, do you want to do roll call? Let's just do roll call to be safe.

We have a excuse me, a motion recommending approval of the conditional resoning uh made by Putts, seconded by Chapen. Um, and Commissioner Chapen, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Denalt, yes. Commissioner Hendricks, yes. Commissioner Overby, yes. Commissioner Putts, yes. Vice Chair Wagner, yes. And Chair Sullivan, yes. The eyes have it. Thank you. Uh, so this item is now on to city council at a to be determined hearing. Uh, and sorry I made you do a roll call vote, Landon. It was completely unnecessary. I felt important.

Yeah. Keep you on your toes. Uh, up next is item number nine. Commissioner concerns concerns or comments from commissioners. Commissioner Hendricks.

All right. Um, so I'm speaking today to formally resign from my position on the city of East Lance and Planning Commission uh effective March 16, 2026 uh due to the sale of my home and upcoming relocation. Um, it's been truly an honor to serve at the city of East Lancing in this role. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work alongside all you guys. um as well as contribute to the thoughtful and planning and development of our community. Although my home is currently scheduled to close on March 16th, I wanted to provide you guys advanced notice um to kind of create a smooth transition. So, um thank you for the opportunity to serve and be here with you guys as well.

Thank you. We'll miss you. That's all I got. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Enjoyed your your perspective and um our common chats about being being parents. So, appreciate all your your years on the on the commission here and absolutely um best of luck at your uh new I'm assuming it's a new city new city that you're moving to. Uh we ain't decided yet, but it could be could be. But I'll still be around. I'm still at the same position at work. So, well, we have your email address, so we'll reach out to you if we need.

Absolutely. I'm always here for you guys. Thomas, while we have a chance here, I've shared it with you on the side, but when you talk, I find myself leaning in because I think you're you're you don't speak on all topics all of the time, but uh you have some really uh insightful input and uh I've appreciated that. I think you've been a great help me. You were here before me, so you've helped me uh acclimate to this commission and thumbs up to you. Thank you for your contributions. Thank you. Yeah, you've been a great asset to us. Thank you. I appreciate it. That's all I got. Tough to follow that. Any any other comments or questions?

Mr. Bartley, do we really have to read all of the the conditions? I think in in the past we've just said, you know, subject is that a that's we learned something. I asked this very question and they said we have to read them once, but after that if we change the motion, we do not have to reread them again. Okay. Oh, that training time. Yeah, really took one for the hour training or the two-hour training? That was a short train. By the way, it was a 4 hour. Okay. All right. Well, seeing no other commissioner concerns, uh, a motion to adjourns in order. Oh, I had one thing. Commissioner Denalt, Mr. Bartley, did you want to us to discuss who was going to attend the planning conference or do you want to do that another time?

I do. I appreciate you bringing that up. Um so the national planning conference is in Detroit this year at the end of April and we do have budget uh to essentially either send cover the cost of attendance for up to two planning commissioners or there's also an online alternatives that's about half the price. So we could put potentially send up to five commissioners to the online uh online conference which is later in May. uh if if the commissioners are able to attend in person, they would also have access to the online um sessions as well. So, uh and in fact, I I should say we had the budget that we could potentially cover two commissioners to go in person plus one online. Um unfortunately, that's that's it. And we we'd only have really the budget for covering the attendance costs, uh not the travel costs that are associated, but luckily it's in Detroit, so maybe the travel costs can be limited. Uh so with that, I guess I I did want to look for the commission's interest uh in sending some commissioners either in person or online. Um our our planners will be going.

It's April 25th through 28th um in person and online it's May 27th through 29th. That's correct. That's a Saturday. Is it the same content at both? Uh slightly different. Uh, usually the online conference has a couple new sessions, but uh, often has some repetition from the from the national or the inerson conference. Okay, great. Thank you. And we don't have to decide now, but if we could respond to Mr. Bartley by email if we're interested, I think that'd be be helpful.

Yeah. And that that would be fine. It's not it's not board business, so we don't need to worry about uh meetings act, but it would be good to um I mean, yeah, please do think about it. I think we can make this determination over email. Um, and in this case, I would say yes, let's reply all. Um, don't do that for business, right? But for uh for this discussion, we can do that. Great. So, I'd appreciate that. All right. Motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Moved by Commissioner Denal, seconded by Commissioner Puts. All those in favor vote I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. We are journed at 7:28 p.m.