Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody and welcome to the April 8th, 2026 East Lancing Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bartley, would you please take role? I will. Uh, Commissioner Chapen, Commissioner Denult, here. Commissioner Lein here. Commissioner Overby here. Commissioner Putts here. Commissioner Savileski here. Is your mic on? Uh, Vice Chair Wagner here. Chair Sullivan here. Thank you. We have qu. Thank you. Um, is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Second. Moved by Commissioner Denol, seconded by Commissioner Overby. Seeing no discussion. All those in favor vote I.

I. Oppos? Nay. Motion carries. Agenda approved. Is um is there a motion to approve the minutes from the March 25th, 2026 planning commission meeting? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Lein, seconded by Pots. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Uh minutes approved. Takes us on to item number two, close session. Mr. Bartley, would you like to tee this up for us?

I will. The attorney, city attorneys requested a close session uh to discuss uh materialists exempt from disclosure. Um so we'd like to request that the planning commission vote to enter that closed session uh which will be uh brief and held in a different room. Uh we do need a two-thirds roll call vote of members to enter close session. So with eight serving and appointed planning commissioners, we need a vote of a roll call vote of uh six in in uh affirmative votes to enter close session. So, I'd request a uh someone to read the motion that I've provided in your AIR uh to enter close session. We need six yes votes, please. Nicely done, vice chair.

Sure. I'm happy to read the motion. Um, I move that the planning commission enter into a close session to discuss and consult with the city's attorneys uh regarding privilege and confidential attorney client legal correspondence that is exempt from disclosure by state law as allowed under subsection 81H of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Uh moved by Vice Chair Wagner, seconded by Commissioner Overby. Um see no discussion. All those in favor vote I I post nay. Motion carries. Okay. Lead the way. Landon roll. Oh, roll call. Oh, do roll call. Sorry. My apologies.

Thank you. Uh, so roll call vote, please. Uh, motion made by Wagner, seconded by Overby to enter close session. Uh, Commissioner Chapen is not uh here. Commissioner Denult, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lein, yes. Commissioner Overby, yes. Commissioner Putts, yes. Commissioner Seilleski. Yes. Vice Chair Wagner. Yes. Chair Sullivan. Yes. Thank you. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Does motion carries. So now we should exit the room and go upstairs. All right.

All right, welcome back everyone. Um, we are now on to item number three, committee reports. Mr. Bartley, uh, we have no reports. Thank you for the short update. Um, I'll keep it with you for staff reports.

Absolutely. Uh, just a very brief, uh, I guess summing up of a couple things that happened at council last night. Uh there was a public hearing for the reszoning request from the Hagen Group uh for uh three properties north of Burchon Grove uh to reszone those a conditional reszoning to reszone those two use the properties for um to be licensed for up to four unrelated people or a family and that was uh actually approved. The city council acted on that and approved that uh ordinance. So we are working on the agreement right now. We also had a public hearing or I gave them a brief report on ordinance 1559 which you discussed last time and we'll discuss more tonight. That's a diverse housing requirement. And then also the uh council approved a resolution that opposes a series of bills in the Michigan House of Representatives that were introduced recently that essentially preempt local zoning authorities. So um there's a resolution opposing that those bills uh and I can forward that to you for your uh review after this meeting. Just wanted to mention some items that you might uh care about that happened at council last night. That's it for my staff report.

Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Seeing none, that takes us on to item number five, commissioner announcements. This is also your time to disclose any conflicts of interest on items on tonight's agenda. Anybody have any announcements? Commissioner Subleski? Yeah, I think I've caught up with everyone individually, but um I regret that I am resigning effective tonight um to do some recreational activities that came up recently and I really enjoyed my time and really learned a lot and uh I understand you have a posting for the prior absent or vacant position so hopefully you can fill it quickly. So, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. It was a pleasure serving with you. Appreciate your insights. Yeah. Um and best of luck on your extracurricular activity. Very ominous, but it's fun.

All right. Uh any other announcements? All right. Seeing none, that takes us on to item number six, communications from citizens. There are I think just a couple written communications for previous agenda items. So that takes us on to item number 6.2, two verbal from the audience. Obviously have a busy room tonight, so we ask that you keep your comments uh as as typical process to 5 minutes or less. Identify yourself on a card up there. Uh I've been told we might be short on cards, but there is paper up there if we run out. If you are here to discuss uh one of the items up for a public hearing tonight, generally it's better if you uh speak during the public hearing for that agenda item. Uh with that being said, would anybody like to come forward and address the planning commission? I think all the cards I have up here are for public hearings. So, uh, Mr. Mazowski,

uh, Jim Rosowski, 613 Grove Street, and, uh, thank you for letting me go ahead. I I can't stay here till midnight. Um, so I would like to just make my comments. I wanted to comment on several of the agenda items. Uh, 7.1, which is a 601 Abbott, I'm neutral on, uh, you know, I just live about a block and a half from that, but I really don't see any any problems with uh, that one there. So, um, and then 8.1, the diverse housing. Um, I made my comments at the last of meeting and some of you weren't there, but I can assure you my comments were very profound. Uh, so no. Uh, but anyway, so I'm still in favor of uh anything we can do to uh lessen the diverse housing uh requirement, whether that's uh stepping down the percentage uh or whatever or or expanding the the transfer zones. Uh 1567, which is the mass timber. I'm still in favor of that. So I made those comments last time. I saw 8.3. uh you have the uh somebody to be appointed to the international property maintenance code committee. This is important. I serve on the building board of appeals and uh miss state of Michigan has adopted the 20121 ICC standards for building code and that and our current law just uh for the property maintenance code references 2006. So it's time we update that. So I think that's an important thing. What I really wanted to talk about was parking. And uh when we when we look at uh uh the the projects that are being proposed um the ones in the downtown district, you know, we have a a little bit of a conundr conundrum because the the ordinance doesn't really allow for them to construct parking as you know. Uh but then uh we've heard many citizens really say there's not enough parking. So it really puts the developers, I think, into kind of an awkward uh situation. Uh, one of the things uh I uh uh was presented at city council I think two weeks ago uh was this parking study and I think we should look at the parking study really carefully because we've heard that um that maybe 250 spaces might be available for uh for leasing or

I don't know what the exact number was 215 250 something like that but when you look at the parking study uh if you if and if you get into it in detail you'll see that you know our peak our peak parking usage is about 65%. But it's not uniform across all of the uh all of the different structures. So, for example, in the Division Street ramp, the peak use is only about 36%. Uh and in the Charles uh ramp, it's I it's approaching 50%, something in the 40s. So, those two uh decks, I think one has like 680 spaces, another one has, you know, 6 600 plus minus whatever. So we have about 1,200 spaces uh in those two parking decks and we really you know have over half of them that are justow. So, you know, if you think about it, you know, I I actually looked at if you used like an an average uh leasing rate per month of 125, which is um there's we have one deck that I think is 130 some of the other ones that are 115 125 something in that range. But if you use I used a number of of like a1250 112 and50 cents and it generates if for for each hundred spaces you lease it generates about $150,000. So you know in our system we have about a,000 spaces that are fow. So that's that's $1.5 million. Now, I'm not a I'm not a parking uh inadmissible parking expert or anything, but I do think it we should look at those numbers and say, is is this the right amount? How did we arrive at 250? How did we arrive at uh you know, basically utilizing maybe a quarter of our extra spaces? So, what are we holding them in our pocket for? So anyway, the point here is that I think that we should look at that and and that will probably ease some of the comments uh some of the negative comments in terms of uh lacking parking for the residents for really for both of

the projects that are that are being considered. So you know maybe you and obviously you want to have some in your pocket but do we need to have a thousand in our pocket? Uh and also if you look at at where we have shortages or where we have extra, it seems like the the division in the Charles Street decks, you know, have the have a lot of extra capacity. I mean, I could easily see myself uh leasing say 500 of those spaces as opposed to, you know, 215 or 250 or whatever. What what was the number? Was it 250 or 215 that the

something like that? uh you know it's been a criticism for both of the projects and I think if we look at that we might see that that's not such a big problem. Also uh I'm generally doubtful of the parking studies or the uh traffic studies that a developer produced but in my neighborhood uh you know I have three rental houses to the two north of me and the one south of me and I watch the traffic. people don't come and go from those uh houses um in the same way that um like an adult or family might, you know, and I I have one rental house and and actually they almost never move their cars. So, I think that I've come to maybe put more faith in the traffic studies than than I might have initially thought just because generally I'm skeptical of them. Anyway, those are my comments.

Thank you for your comments. Yeah, I was going to wait till the uh 73 uh hearing, but I have a commitment that I had to get to, but it was suggested by the city. Excuse me. Could you state your name for the record, please? My name is Luis Alonzo Garcia. I live at 16 uh I have a card up here. You're good. Yeah,

you got it. Okay. I live on West Road. Um, it was proposed uh that our where we live now that the property be uh restricted to business. I want to uh I'm asking that that be kept residential. Okay. At 16825 also we own uh 2773 on Coleman and 2777 Coleman. It's proposed to change it to low density multiple family. We want to keep those properties residential as well. I appreciate y'all trying to do us all these favors, but I still I'm a little little nervous about that and uh want to keep it the way it is. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish to come forward now? All right. Some cards up here. I'll call you when appropriate. Um takes us. Anybody in line in the queue? There is no one in the queue. Great. Thank you. All right. At this point, uh we'll move on to tonight's public hearings. Up first is item 7.1, a public hearing to receive comments on a request from 246 Equities LLC for site plan approval. Uh site plan approval located at 601 Abbott Road. Mr. Bartley,

associate planner. Um so the proposal before you is to renovate the existing office building to include um nine three-bedroom apartment units. Um this had come to you as a public hearing at the previous meeting. Um the original proposal was for eight units. Um the applicant is now requesting nine. So we um advertised a new public hearing to um address that change. Um so this is within the existing building. It's currently an office space um three stories and they are proposing to renovate within the existing footprint. Um there are some site changes that are proposed. Um they're looking to reduce the parking count from 30 to 22 and then remove um some of the walkways as well as add one walkway from the um parking lot to the west side of the building. And overall these changes um bring the site into compliance with the maximum lot coverage of 60%. So the existing conditions are over that. Um these 22 spaces would meet the required parking count, but the plans that were submitted and are in the packet. Um there was a discrepancy with that um count number. So there is an updated version that was added this afternoon that I received earlier this week, but I have not had a chance to fully review that. It does address that parking deficiency. Um but I have not had a chance to address that those plans in its entirety. Um, additionally, the engineer for the applicant has been in touch with the city engineer about some additional information that the city engineer was looking for um, and had submitted in review comments to staff um, and so they're currently working through that and it should be resolved pretty shortly.

Thank you. Questions for city staff? I had a quick one. So, you said it was essentially a 9 by3 nine three-bedroom unit. So 27 beds y proposed 22 parking spaces reduction from 30, right? What was the discrepancy? Yes. So there were uh I'm sorry, there's supposed to be 23 for the is the required parking count and the plans only showed 22 spaces. So there was a deficiency of one space. It was just um the count was labeled incorrectly. So it was labeled as having 23, but there were only 22 spaces on the plans. So they've since fixed that in revision. Vice chair, was there a discrepancy in the biking?

Yes, the biking too. So there supposed to be 14 spaces and there actually only 13. Has that been taken care of? Yeah, I haven't had a chance to completely review, but I believe that has been addressed. Okay. Thanks. Does the 14 parking spaces for the bikes meet the city requirements? Yes. So 14 is the required number of spaces for bikes. Yep. They're only 13. They're only 13 on the Yeah. So, they had only showed 13 on the plans that were originally in the packet. Okay. I don't see any questions for city staff. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Evening. Hello. How are you?

Good. You? Andrew Aboud. on behalf of 246. I'm the owner and this is the engineer. He can answer probably more thoroughly than I can on the plans, but if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer questions. Could you speak briefly to the storm water mitigation and and what the plans are for that in the site given that you're retaining the existing footprint of the building but reducing the size of the parking lot or any other changes being made there?

Excuse me. So basically um the storm water uh with the calculations that were done were actually reducing the runoff because we're adding more green space. Um so we we ended up in theory we removed not in theory we actually did we removed the parking spaces. um in order to get the uh meet the 60% green space which also reduced the runoff. Um so the the development will be actually more friendlier as far as containing the runoff and limiting the amount that goes into the city system. James Carter, thank you. Vice Chair,

I um I have a question about that. So thank you for bringing it up. Um so I'm I'm reading the report. It says landscaping. Um the the applicant has not proposed any changes to site landscaping. Um the existing landscaping is legally nonconforming. So So we actually have changed the landscaping. Um we're basically standing around we're staying in the same footprint, but we there's only so much we can work with um in order to just make it look good. And so we we actually adding more uh vegetation, more uh bushes. Uh we didn't add any canopy trees because there's a bunch over already there but it's we are redesigning it but within the same footprint as existing.

Can you tell us about the sidewalk? Are you you're removing the front sidewalk that goes to Abbott? Is it is that did I read that correctly? Yeah. So we're removing the sidewalk that's on the because there's no longer an entrance on either the uh north or the south side of the building. So, we're removing the uh sidewalk that is on the east side that's that goes to the sidewalk on Abbott. That's going to be removed. The uh sidewalk on the rear on that same side will remain because of the parking. And then it's also to get access to some of the utilities that are there. There'll be a utility door on that side and same thing on the west I mean on the on the north. So, we're maintaining that parking but removing the parking to the uh parking lot because there is no access there.

Um so, how is If there's going to be a lot of students living there, how will students, you know, get to the bus? Are they all expected to go? Are are there any doors on the in the No, there's only doors on the rear of the on the parking lot side of the building. Okay, thanks. Any additional questions? Does that look like a maybe? I was just thinking I I don't know that I've ever been a part of a a review process where we've been re removing a sidewalk is and city staff are comfortable with removing a sidewalk at the at this site.

I'd say in in general we support uh more pedestrian access not less. The sidewalk is going to be removed to address green or green space requirements. And so I guess question for the applicant it what's what's the rationale for removing the sidewalk to meet the green space requirement because we had to be we were originally over 60 so we had to remove some of the hardscape which is the the pavement in order to get underneath the 60%. So we're we're adding green space removing sidewalk. Yes. And it's just access to where uh there's no more there's no longer no entrance. So those sidewalks were going to entrances are no longer there. So okay, Commissioner Silleski,

if I uh recall correctly, this wasn't aimed at students though, was it? This was aimed at condos or so. I'm wondering that was a previous project that uh I think was before Oh, okay. the committee in 2025 in the summer 2025. Got it. Okay. I I guess are there maybe this is a question for city staff. I don't know. Are there any other alternative solutions for the sidewalk that would have it built out of a different material or something that could essentially achieve both outcomes?

Yeah, right now we don't have any alternatives for like permeable paving, things like that. That's something that the green code committee discussed and is um potentially coming to city council and the planning commission in the near future. But at this point, we don't have any provisions in the ordinance for that. So, it requires an ordinance change. Okay, got it.

Sidewalk to the south, though. If you're familiar with that property, there's a big difference in elevation and there's this ramp and there's some doorways that are coming out. So this the south sidewalk doesn't on this existing plan wouldn't go anywhere and you couldn't access it really from the parking lot. I mean right it would actually leave it would actually lead to a window of one of the units. So that's helpful. Thanks. Okay,

Commissioner Nol. Um I saw that um public works says that due I think to the size or number of um beds in the facility that y'all will have to provide for multif family recycling services and I didn't see any indication of like a recycling room on like the ground floor for instance. So, is recycling going to be outside the building or do you have a space for recycling services inside?

Uh, yeah, that would we would we saw that comment. Um, basically there is there is some corridors where they can the the owner could provide for recycling. um when you enter uh and then each level lobby going up to the the the uh additional floors, there's a there's like a little hallway that that could be accomp accomplished, but we just didn't put that in the plans because that's something still had to be worked out if they were going to do it outside or inside. And the comment just came to us last week. So, but it can be resolved and taken care of on site inside. Okay. Might be a little tight to do in a hallway, but

Well, it's it's it's a pretty much a six by. It's it's pretty it's a pretty big area. We were using it just for storage. Um but it can be converted over. So, and will we see that in the new site plan? The updated site plan we'll get will in two weeks. Thank you. Good point. Uh any other questions, comments, guidance for city staff. All right. Seeing none. Thank you, gentlemen. Um this point we will uh open the public hearing. Does anybody wish to come forward and speak on this agenda item? All right. Anyone online in the queue? No one in the queue.

Cool. All right. At this point, we'll close the public hearing for this item and we will see this at presumably the next planning commission meeting, which is April 22nd, right? Yes. All right. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. Uh that takes us on to item 7.2. 2. A public hearing by the planning commission for ordinance 1568, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to reszone 1049 Crescentwood Road from R2 medium density single family residential to C community facilities for a new public park. Uh Mr. Bartley,

thank you. Uh so this property is located in Chesterfield Hills, uh just at the intersection essentially of Crescentwood and Kensington. Uh this there is a house uh at the property that was heavily damaged by fire in November of 2023 and again in January of 2024. Uh and that property the property has been uh turned over to the city of East Lancing for use as a new public park. Uh Luch Luchia Angaro Fox Park which I noted today was the first park in the city to be named solely after a woman. Uh so in November 2024, the historic district commission approved the demolition. uh October 2025, city council approved that demolition and the demolition took place in uh late 2025. In order to become a park, uh the city parks and reccks department is asking uh for this to be changed to C community facilities, which is the zoning of all the other parks in the city. Uh so we're requesting a public hearing tonight. Uh if there isn't much, we could see uh the planning commission acting on it tonight, but that's certainly up to you. Any questions for me at this point?

Could you repeat that last comment? You don't want us to act on this tonight. I think it would be okay if you want to ask act on act on this tonight. Uh typically the planning commission's practice is to wait. Uh not always. Um we haven't heard any any concerns from any citizens. Uh either way, only support. So we think that it would be okay if you wanted to act tonight. I see what you're saying. Uh vice chair, I just have a quick question about the park. Um, what will it have any sort of facilities? I mean, I know like I I did some work for Bailey Park and I know it's super expensive to get swings and slides and or will it just be green space? I mean, what makes it a park?

Yeah, my understanding is that there is some sort of amenity proposed at this point. I don't know if the parks department is is sure about what that's going to be, but they they wanted to introduce something. Uh, the parks director mentioned that this morning, but I'm not quite sure what that's going to be. Okay. any other So I guess to that question right now it's just being proposed as a green space we're proposing to reszone it to potentially be used for a park and if it would it require to come before us if there is playground equipment or anything like that I think that's

no if you approve the or recommend approval of the reasonzoning to a park and it's changed to a park it will become a And then we have no say over you don't have to approve anything. Okay. In the park. So kind of I think okay uh commissioner nol raised.

This is actually in um my neighborhood and so we were really happy to see that this sort of isore house finally uh went away. But um I think I also just had a question. If we do not approve it to be a park, and don't get me wrong, I love parks. I'm all about parks. But if we don't approve it to be a park, does it become a lot? Does it revert back to becoming a residential lot that someone could build a house on, that the city would receive property taxes from, and that the city would not be expending money on maintaining? If the resoning is not approved, then it would remain residentially zoned. It would be owned by the city unless the city were to dispose of it. Uh in which case, it could be developed as a single family house.

Okay. Um my my understanding is the intent is to create a park. Okay. I see what you're getting at. Yeah. Yeah. Any questions down here? I don't have any questions. I think this is pretty straightforward and the questions I did have were asked by the rest of the commissioners. So, I think we'll open the public hearing uh and see if there's any members of the public that wish to come forward and speak on this item. Assuming the city's the applicant, so there's no other applicant, right? There's nobody. Okay. All right. Nobody. Uh anyone online?

There is no one in the queue. All right. Maybe I'll just got to keep asking. Uh, all right. This point we'll close the public hearing for this item. What is the the will of the commission? This seems very straightforward as you said to me. I think it's a really good thing for the city that that we want to have that someone is donating this property for another park. Um, so I'd be inclined to say we ought to proceed with a motion tonight and approve it. And I don't see a reason to wait. Um, if others have a different view, I'm certainly glad to hear that. Sounds an awful lot like a motion to me. Would you like to? You I'd be glad to make a motion if you wish. Um, it's on page two.

Yes, I'm I'm there. I move to recommend the city council adopt ordinance 1558, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to reszone 1049 Crescentwood Road from R2 medium density single family residential to C community facilities for a new public park for the following reasons. The amendment is consistent with the policies and uses proposed in the city's comprehensive plan uh land use plan. All of the uses affected by the proposed amendment would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area. Public service services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed by the proposed amendment. The uses allowed under the proposed amendment would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land.

Moved by Commissioner Overby. Is there a second? Just like uh second by Commissioner Puts by here. Um any discussion?

Yeah, I I echo what you said when you read the motion uh about how this meets various criteria uh as outlined and I am also supportive of this. So seeing no additional comments, um all those in favor vote I I oppose nay. Motion carries. Uh this item is approved and now on to a subsequent city council meeting.

Thank you. Okay, moving right along to item 7.3, a public hearing by the planning commission for ordinance 1564, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to reszone approximately 40 properties north of Lake Lancing Road, west of Chandler Road and east of US 127 from the current Dwit Township zoning to East Lancing zone districts. Mr. Bartley,

uh, thank you. So, um I'm going to try to share my screen briefly. Here we go. Okay. Uh so, what I pulled up on the screen is uh essentially a map of several existing properties uh in the northern tier area of East Lancing uh that currently have Dit Township uh zoning. And this was uh essentially for the most part uh the northern area of East Lancing, north of Lake Lancing Road was transferred uh from Dit Township or Bath Township or Meridian Township about 25 years ago. All these properties were transferred uh from Dwit Township either in 1999 or 2001 as far as a as a result of a 425 agreement to transfer properties between municipalities. Uh at that time uh the zoning was not changed. Um I'm not not entirely sure why, but uh the the and that's that's okay. My understanding was that it was meant to be some sort of a placeholder. Uh however, the the the zoning hasn't changed in 25 years. And so we still have Dwit Township zoning. Uh and the issue with that is that an East Lancing planning and zoning administrator like myself cannot administer a different municipality's zoning ordinance. So essentially what we have is many properties the properties that currently have dit township zoning are considered legally non-conforming and technically they could not build anything uh on the property. They couldn't expand their existing uses because they're all considered non-conforming. You can't expand a non-conforming use uh without a variance or if if that's even possible. So uh I I uh essentially we we started with um looking at these different properties. These are all Dwit Township zones that are shown on on the properties, excuse me, on this map. I'm going to pull up the initial staff recommendation. So, my initial staff recommendation is to

change all the I should say a very very strong recommendation here is that we need to change the zoning to an East Lancing zone district. Uh that's that's a very strong staff recommendation. What the properties would be reszoned to is not as strong of a staff recommendation. Uh so when I put together the map that's on the screen, I'll I'll put it up just a little bit so it's visible over the captions. Uh but essentially uh my initial recommendation is trying to match up the properties with surrounding zoning except um essentially up at the north end we see those yellow properties. Those are B2. Uh currently they're Dit Township, BC, which is a a business district. There's one property right in the middle which is your next public hearing actually 38 uh 59 I believe stole that's East Lancing zone but we're proposing to change the properties surrounding that property. So we're looking up at the top of the map right now with the yellow properties. uh we'd look to change those to B2, which is a retail uh sales business specifically because that's uh very close to the uh crossing of Chandler Road and I69 and there is potential for an interchange down the road. It's been discussed. Uh we don't believe that it's going to happen anytime in the next several years. However, uh looking forward to that, the most potentially uh appropriate uh zoning for this properties could be B2. uh otherwise uh going sort of south on the map uh close to 127. Uh that property is proposed as RM22. The previous zoning uh was a multif family zoning from Dit Township. RM22 is also sort of a medium lowdensity residential that allows for multif family residential. Uh so it's the closest analog to the dit township zone. Uh, and just for reference, uh, the property immediately to the east of that, you can see the square outline is the Department

of Public Works, uh, facility up at State Road near the highway. Um, just to the south of that, along the south, uh, south and east along the south side of state, we have a property that we're proposing to be B4. Uh, in the initial recommendation is B4, which is a restricted office business. The reason for that is the surrounding properties are all currently B4. And so I'm showing a couple more properties down on the south south of Coleman on the east side of West um that are also proposed to be B4 by this initial recommendation because of the surrounding properties. All these properties along the west side of West West Road uh along Coolage north of the uh the drain here are all currently zoned B4 restricted office business. So without uh if we didn't hear any concerns from residents, we would propose that B4 be the zoning for those properties 2870 and the property down on uh properties down on west south of Coleman. That said, we we did have a gentleman earlier tonight and we've had others that have said, I'm not so sure I want that B4 zoning. So again, this is initial staff recommendation. I have a large block of these lighter colored properties and again I'm sorry I'm color blind but uh this this color here is RM14 and that's a low low or low density multif family residential district. RM14 is not uh sort of the most the closest analog uh to do with township uh zoning. It in fact does not uh meet the the comprehensive plans uh future land use map for this area which proposes uh business district and the the zoning of the surrounding properties to the to the west is B4 residential. Uh however, the prevailing land use in in on those properties is currently single family residential. There's also a school in there, but essentially single family or two family residential is the prevailing land use right now. And when we change the zone district, we don't want to

create non-conforming uses. Uh so the RM14 zone district is low multiple low density uh multif family residential district allows single family houses. It allows two family houses and allows multif family dwellings by right. uh site plan approval in most cases, but but essentially that district would not create non-conforming uses. If we were proposing one district to change or one property to change that, uh it would be considered spotzoning because it doesn't meet the future land use map recommendation. But if you're reszoning a bunch of properties, that's all right. And I think that I think we we've been hearing that there's a need for more residential in this area. I I believe that this could be a good way to look at uh reszoning these properties. That said, we have also received some concerns from uh from residents of those properties. I mentioned a couple properties at the southeast corner there of uh West and Coleman. There was an idea from from property owner uh that they'd be interested in more of a retail district. Uh a gentleman who spoke earlier talked about the properties in the northeast corner there 27 277 and I believe 2817 uh that we propo proposed to stay uh he mentioned to stay residential. My initial proposal had been maybe retail in line with the what the person on the southeast corner had talked about. Uh the RM14 district is a residential zone district. So it could continue to have the one two and one and two families by right and the multif family uh by right or excuse me with the site plan review. Uh, one other uh I I guess we have received some some concerns from the neighborhood to the east, the Hawknest neighborhood. Um, about the properties immediately to the west uh specifically 3303 Coleman. Uh, that's proposed in this initial recommendation as RM14. Uh, and we've heard from members of that neighborhood uh to the east that they're not interested in that zoning. Uh, one person had talked about affordable housing in specific. uh the zoning is is fully about the land use and not about

who is there or how much the co houses uh cost or are priced. Um but certainly I wanted to mention that as some uh feedback that we've heard. And then I just want to mention 370 State Road which is larger property up to just north of here. Um I'm showing that I believe as a residential medium density single family residential which is the same zoning as the properties to the east. Uh we have heard from the property owner that they'd prefer to keep that agricultural which is as township zoning uh which is the RA district which certainly could be done. I should mention this is a large property. It's a single property and and the future land use map does not show that property as being agricultural. However, it is a very large property and so a large property can sort of get around the spot zoning concerns because of its size. Uh so you could potentially have that as RA residential agricultural if you want to. So with that, I I I would suggest not not making a recommendation tonight. This is a public hearing. We have a lot of property owners and nearby residents who are very interested in this resoning. This is my initial staff recommendation. I would recommend that we take comments tonight, consider if and how the uh staff recommendation should be changed. I think some changes are likely warranted. Uh and then look at making those changes and come back in two weeks. So, any questions or thoughts on that process uh or anything I've said tonight so far?

I want to kick it off. I think that's really helpful context. So, you know, I guess to put a fine summary on your point, it's been what 25 years since this was acquired by the city of East Lancing and now this is fully aligning the zoning with the future uh of East Lancing in accordance with the comprehensive master plan future land use map. Um, I did see on I think it was page 11 of the agenda item, there was like essentially what looks like a survey that was sent out. When was when was that sent out and how was that distributed?

Uh, thank you. I I should definitely talk about that. So, I'll show on the screen. Uh, we had a neighborhood meeting on February 23rd at MSUFCU HQ2 which is up on Coolage. Uh and we this is the flyer that we sent out saying, "Hey, please uh come to this meeting. We want to hear from you." Um and then the the form uh that I think you mentioned looks like a survey. Immediately beneath that is just asking for feedback essentially. Hey, what do you think? What's your property? Uh how do we get in touch with you? What do you want your land use to be? Because maybe the zone district doesn't matter as much as long as we know what land use really want. Uh so we're just looking for comments from that. We received some good feedback. Um, I've tried to uh incorporate all the feedback that we have received since that meeting uh and including at that meeting into my staff report. Um, specifically, let me see here. I know I shouldn't be scrolling up like this. Here we go. So, I do have uh in community engagement in my staff report, I do mention uh some specific uh comments that we received and how maybe the property owners would prefer a different uh final zoning than what's initially recommended.

Does that answer your question about Yes, it does. And I actually I I found the the table on page 12 very helpful as well that outlines uh the different dit zoning and east lancing zoning and what's permitted by each. And I thought that was helpful. So, just pointing that out to the group. It is sideways, which is great. Um, any comments or questions on this item? No. All right. I'm eager to hear from the public. So, I'll read from uh some of the cards I have up here first and then we'll go to the rest of the audience. Up first is um Melanie Seal.

Hi. I have some pictures pertinent to my discussion. Can I come up and you can uh Sure. You give them the city stats.

Good evening. I am here to oppose the reszoning of 3303 and 3255 East Coleman Road and the adjacent parcel from Agricultural to RM14 lowdensity multiple family. My concern is twofold, environmental and water control. The proposed reszoning could potentially disrupt the habitats of several native species and remove important flood damage protections for the neighborhood. I live at 3681 Perula Drive in the Hawkness neighborhood and my property is next to 3303 East Coleman Road. The area just behind my house, north to 3701 Perua and south to Apple Tree Learning Apple Tree Childc Care Learning Center is a wetland with a vernal pool. The Verna pool not only borders my backyard, it also connects to a permanent water drainage ditch and a permanent pond at the south end of the property. A verna pool is a depression that fills with water in the spring and tends to dry up it by the fall. A verna pool is a vital and important wetland. According to Michigan natural features inventory, vernal pools provide critical habitat for many plants and animals, including rare species and species with specialized adaptations for coping with temporary and variable hydro periods. Vernopoles are important for the function and the health of a forest ecosystem, providing energy, food, and nutrients to the area. Vernopoles are used as breeding grounds for amphibians, such as numerous types of frogs and many kinds of salamanders. Fairy shrimp along with other invertebrates are also found in vernal pools. Every spring and I we've lived in this property for 14 years. We hear the cacophony of frogs in the springtime from behind our house during co when we were just looking outside the whole time. We saw frogs. We saw animals I' never seen before. green herand, um, bats, hawks, wood ducks, malor ducks, just to name a few of the animals we see in this vernal pool area

that uses vernal pool. The vernal pool is also bordered by moisture loving trees, including black willow, cottonwood, and other species, plush mar plus marsh plants such as cattails, sedges, and mosses. Verna pools are also an important wetland for holding water, which prevents flooding. Wetlands provide water storage and infiltration, groundwater recharge, improve water quality, and flood and erosion control. They catch and hold water that would otherwise flood not only our house, but our entire Hawkness neighborhood. The Verna pool and wetland area behind our house has flooded to at least 3 ft deep, if not more, each spring. This last weekend, it filled to over 3 ft, touching the ed of our edge of our lawn. The flooded wetland is next to eight properties on the western side of Hognest and Apple Tree Learning Center. Because of the wetlands and the vernal pool in particular, our homes and properties are protected from flood damage. Flooding has become a regular event in many parts of East Lancing, as evidenced with the rains we received over this last weekend. If this property is reszoned from multif family housing, what are the consequences? Brand new housing will be flooded. Hawkness will be flooded. homes and property will be damaged. I've handed you all pictures showing the early spring flooding in the vernal pool and wetlands behind our home and on the properties mentioned above. These pictures were taken in March 2026 prior to the heavy heavy rain we received this weekend of April 3rd through 5th. One of the mission statements for the city of East Lancing is to have an environmentally sustainable community. And I believe preserving these parcels and not reszoning them for further development aligns with the city's strategic planning statement to provide a highquality environment and to be responsible stewards. The northern part of East Lancing does not need any further housing, apartment,

or condo development. Traffic is bad enough and accidents happen frequently. Instead, preserve this area. Attach it to the Northern Tier Trail or to the Hawk Nest Park via the gas line easements. Provide signage for the wetlands to educate the community similar to theformational signs in Hawkness Park. Be wise stewards of a relatively undisturbed and thriving ecosystem that is irreplaceable. Further development will disrupt the wetlands and the fields that border it, causing irreversible damage not only to the existing ecosystem, but to the homes all along this parcel. Once these kinds of habitats are gone, they cannot be replaced. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Up next is Anne Hill.

Hi, Anne Hill. and I also live in Hawk Nest. Um I'm speaking tonight in opposition to any zoning classification that would allow multi-unit housing in the area of Coleman Road west of Hawk Nest or within the area of the 425 agreement within Dwit Township. Rather, zoning for single family housing would be more prudent. I moved to Hawk Nest in 2006, became a Hawk Nest HOA board member in 2010, and have served as president since 2012. During this time, I've been able to witness the coming together of community even though half the neighborhood is in East Lancing School District and the other half in the Lancing School District. However, there have been several threats to that continuity and stabilization within the community. Specifically, I'm speaking of the area of Chandler Road, Hunacer Drive, and Coleman Road west to Wharton Street. This area already consists of over 4,000 apartment units that were originally designed for student housing. As development downtown increased along with high-rise apartment buildings, much of the student population opted to move downtown nearer to campus, changing the composition of the residents in the northern tier apartments. According to the Clinton County Sheriff, a local real estate agent, and some residents in the units, only 50% of the units are rented by students with m with um with any remaining capacity effectively being used as low-income housing. That tells me that we already have exceeded demand for multi-unit apartments in the northern tier. For those who might think mixeduse units, commercial and apartments, would be a good idea, that has not worked out in the past. When the Bowmont was built, they tried a mixeduse classification, and it was miserable failure with virtually no commercial renters for several years despite their

best efforts. The Bumont came back to the city for a variance and spent $500,000 in renovation costs to retrofit the ground floor of a single building with commercial use units, converting them to residential apartments. The Bowmont has ceased plans for expanding the property as originally designed. This can be seen by the empty field between the Bowmont and block 36 and the very um strange location of the gazebo at the main entrance. This composition change has not been good for the area. In speaking with the Clinton County Sheriff, his department has been called on numerous occasions as backup due to parties of 50 to 100 people along with some shootings. For those who may not be familiar, this area was also part of a 425 agreement with Bath Township. The Landings Apartments and the Bowmont are in East Lancing while the club, the villages, the rocks, block 36, Noa lofts, and the cottages at NOA are in Bath Township. This means that the BA township shares in patrolling the apartment complexes in their jurisdiction and ELPD may never be aware of the 911 calls coming to Chandler Coleman area. Further, because of the location of the county line, Clinton County Sheriff's Department is called for backup, not Ingam County. In the proposed reasonzoning area of the 425 agreement with Dwit Township, it would be 100% ELPD responsibility for patrolling and responding to 911 calls with Clinton County Sheriff's Department acting as backup and MSU police assisting on occasion as available. I don't believe that ELPD has the manpower to deal with the level of activity that is currently seen on the east end of Coleman Road. Nor does the city have the finances to be able to afford a larger police force. Not to mention that the homeowners in Hawk Nest, the Villas of Stratford, and Eagle

Eye do not have an appetite for more rental housing. Why do you think that the Falcon Point transitioned from building the barracks style rental units to single family housing? it was due to demand. According to a housing study done by the for the city of um East Lancing around 2020, the average renter moves every three years. The average student moves every year. Single family housing would be more conducive to building a strong healthy community. Again, I ask you to oppose any zord any zoning code that includes multi-unit housing as an option in the area along Coleman and state roads. the area of the 425 agreement with Dwit Township. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. It's the last card I have for this item. Does anybody else wish to come forward? All right, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Um, any additional guidance or questions for city staff or queue? Oh, anyone? No one's online in the queue, right? I do have someone in the queue. Oh, you do. Do they want to talk? I I don't know. We'll find out. That's me. Um I have Sorry. The one time I don't ask.

Bless you. Thank you. You bet. Linda, you can just ask him to unmute if uh we have Chris, it looks like on the line. If this is Chris's, if this is the public hearing that Chris wants to speak to. Have I got it unmuted? I don't know. I don't think so. Can you close the chat window? Sure. Thank you. And then just hit the ask to unmute button. Okay. So if he if if he doesn't unmute then he doesn't want to talk.

There you go. So Chris, if you wanted to make comments on this public hearing, you can go ahead.

Okay. Not hearing it. So we're going to mute that. And I think this will be for another public hearing. Okay. So, we'll fully close the public hearing. Uh, and then as I said, any additional comments or guidance for city staff. I think the the public feedback is helpful and you know, I like how you characterized it as we're looking to change the zoning, but not necessarily change zoning to as proposed. So, uh, go ahead.

Could I just make uh just one more comment, I guess. Um, my email address is lb bartley@c cityofity of eastlansing.com. And I would welcome anyone with uh to be very specific, property owners or nearby residents uh with concerns. I this public hearing was very helpful, but I would just ask that people just email me directly and if they have concerns, uh that's the best way for me to understand what the concerns are and so I can adequately bring those back and make sure that you're aware of them too at the next meeting. Just asking putting that out there for anyone listening. I really appreciate that. Well said. Thank you. Okay. Well, we'll presumably see this at the next planning commission meeting, which is April 22nd, right? Yes.

Okay. Uh that takes us on to the next item 7.4, a public hearing by the planning commission for ordinance 1570, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to reszone reszone 3859 stole road from B4 restricted office business to B2 retail sales business. Mr. Bartley,

thank you. This one will be very quick. Uh I'm sharing a property on the screen um that I brought up. This is very similar to the last uh item. This is essentially one of the properties and I mentioned the potential for a a I think a far future interchange at Chandler and in I69. But this property in specific 3859 stole which is on the north side of stole just west of Chandler uh does currently have East Lancing zoning. Uh it's East Lancing B4 which is restricted office business. And we would just propose as basic the initial staff recommendation for the surrounding properties which currently have Dit Township zoning and are proposed to be changed to B2 with the initial staff recommendation. Our initial staff recommendation for this property on stole with East Lancing zoning would also be to change it from B4 to B2 if the properties surrounding it are also changed. So this is essentially tie barred with the previous ordinance. uh we'd ask you to consider together, but because it's because it's not due with township zoning, we had to have a separate public hearing for it. So, wanted to take comments on on this property if there are any separately.

Appreciate that. Any comments, questions? All right, this point we'll open the public hearing. Uh I do have a card up here from uh David uh Feele. Good evening. Uh my name is David Flegal. Uh my wife and I, if you could put your map back up.

Uh I'm not an East Lancing res resident. I'm a proud Duet Township resident and have been for nearly 30 years. Uh if you could put your map up. I am unfortunately an island. I'm surrounded by the city of East Lancing and have no say here except for the fact that I own a piece of property that the connotations in this suggested you want to reszone my residential home into a business and I I don't want that to happen. I don't want to be part of East Lancing. Never have. And I think this is a huge outreach on the behalf of East Lancing and big bullying on my behalf and I feel violated. Lost my I'm losing my rights to my home and have nothing to say about it except to stand here tonight the only person that owns property adjacent to this that can say anything because I have no neighbors. I want to say I'm 100% against this aggressive behavior by East Lancing upon the Wit Township. That's all I can say. You guys have any questions for me?

Actually, I do. If you don't mind, I'm sorry. Could you could you state your address so I understand? 3737 Stole Road. Okay. Thank you. And that's And is this on the map? Uh, it's it's the white square amongst the yellow. Yeah. 37. Thank you. I hope you consider this. I'm the only one that can speak out. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments. Any other questions on this comments? All right. Seeing none, um we will also see this item up at the next planning commission meeting for um you know unfinished business, right? Or new business. It will be new business. New business. Okay, that takes us on to item 7.5, a public hearing to receive comments on a request from Oh, um excuse nobody else wanted to come forward on the on this item, did they? I didn't close the public hearing. Sorry, I got distracted by your comment, Landon. It's on you. My apologies.

Uh, all right. Seeing none. Is the gentleman still in the queue? No. Okay. He's not in the queue. Not in the queue anymore. He left us. Uh, okay. At this point, we'll we'll close the public hearing for this item and then see it uh at a subsequent planning commission meeting uh later this month potentially. takes us on to item 7.5, public hearing to receive comments on a request from Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures for approval of a special use permit for a new building with height exceeding eight stories at 401,421 and 427 East Grand River Avenue. Uh Mr. Bartley or Miss Wright?

Yes, this project was proposed for a special use application uh in which the request was advertised for a public hearing to be held at tonight's meeting. Since that time, the applicant has modified their application, which now requires site plan approval, not a special use permit. But because the public hearing had been advertised and noticed, the public hearing has to still be held. The applicant is actually here and would like to speak for a few minutes um about the project, but it we will see the new version at the May 13th planning commission meeting. Understood. So, we'll see this all over again uh in a revised format. This format is not what they're proceeding with and then the applicant wants to address us.

Yes, they are here. Okay. Any questions for city staff before we let the applicant up there. All right. Seeing a bunch of nods. So, seeing none, ready for the applicant. And just I think you told me on the phone you thought it' be about 10 minutes. Yep. Yep. 100%. Uh good evening uh uh commissioners. I just wanted to briefly speak to what's specifically in the agenda packet. Um, and then what differences, please.

Yes. Evan Williams, Harbor Bay, 3412 Commercial Avenue. Um, specifically what's in the packet before you or online uh is accurate to the architecture, the size, structure, the height, the overall plat of the building, um, all the landscaping, hardscaping, so on and so forth. biggest thing that triggered the change from today's public hearing to May 13th is the special use approval changing to the site plan approval. And so there are two really important and key points that we wanted to reiterate that allows us through the incentive program of four additional stories uh over and above the eight by utilizing lead gold certification and utilizing mass timber as our superructure. We brought two uh consultants. Laura Steinbrink with Emerald Build Environments. I'd like to speak for three four minutes. And then Joshua Dorschbach with Forefront Structural Engineers are uh structural engineer of record. So if it's okay, we'd like to introduce Laura Steinbrink briefly.

Yep. Good e good evening. Um as Evan said, my name is Laura Steinbrink and I'm with Emerald Built Environments. We are sustainability consultants and work across the United States and internationally with firms like Harbor Bay to set and achieve sustainability goals for their projects including lead certification. And we have worked with Harbor Bay in the past and I'd like to hand this out to you.

Just hand to city staff. Thank you. uh which is a we call it by the numbers and it is a infographic of a project that we did together in Cleveland, Ohio called Intro Cleveland which my understanding is still the largest mass timber structure in the United States lead gold certified um several years ago. I want to to commend East Lancing for its mission to have an environmentally friendly community for this special use uh permit that you have for this type of a development. It is mostly across the United States large urban core cities who have adopted a similar type of provision where they're giving a special consideration to the developers if they do the above and beyond for their projects and Harbor Bay has experience doing that and we have experience working with Harbor Bay. So in preparation for today's meeting we also prepared for you what's called the lead scorecard. It's a one-page snapshot of the rating system which demonstrates that through the the initial design and conversation. So, of course, we've done this before, so we know a lot about how their development logic goes and how this project likely will come together. One does not achieve lead certification until the building is built. And approximately half of the way you achieve certification all buildings have to do the same thing called prerequisites. Then they can achieve optional points based on the design or the strategy that they've developed to achieve the certification and they have to amass a certain number of points to get certified silver, gold or platinum.

So, lead gold requires 60 points and through our initial analysis, some of these points are awarded at what's called design phase. So, they're based simply on the design of the building and calculations and um data that is gathered and analyzed on the design. And other points are demonstrated performance during construction, which is why a building cannot achieve the certification until it's designed and built and you submit it for final review to the third party certification body. But for you as a planning commission, the great thing about LEAD is that it is third-party verified. It has to undergo verification by an independent uh body. We help them put the paperwork together because we know how to do that and then it goes under review and then certification is awarded. It gives you the ability to say we know for sure that they did what they said they were going to do versus some communities who want their buildings to be sustainable but they haven't quite put the rigor and they say show us maybe that you're a little bit better than code but what what does that mean? So I want to just pause there to let you ask me any questions anything specific you would like me to share with you. I I going through the whole scarcard could take us way over the 10 minutes that you want us to talk today, but I want to just reiterate, we've done this with them before. You see the storm water mitigation. You see the embodied carbon analysis that comes by doing a building life cycle analysis as part of the project. They earn points by the use of mass timber, which is absolutely a phenomenal development tool and is very progressive. people just are not doing it in market rate development like Harbor Bay has proven it can do. So

I don't think there's any questions. Appreciate the the information and and background. It's really helpful for us as we consider this.

Thanks. My name is Josh Dorsbach. I am um principal and founder of Forefront Instructional Engineers. We work with Harbor Bay a lot around the country. And I just want to speak a little bit to why mass timber. I'm sure there are many here who are familiar with it. Um a little bit of our history with mass timber and then quickly you know how we can partner in that process. So mass timber there's really four reasons on this project and anyone that we look at and they relate as my colleague just said with regard to uh sustainability but I would even back up and say durability. So there's been a lot of conversation around is mass timber durable. We've proven that with two and threeh hour fire tests uh around the country and other projects. Um, I think it's equitable in different ways. So, most of what Mass Timber is doing right now is happening in large university contexts, um, where a cost per square foot is maybe $750, $800 a square foot. We have to build for half of that in order to make it at market rate. And we're finding ways to do that. And so, I think we're actually pushing, this is the next frontier in terms of pushing mass timber to the masses in that regard. And then lastly, it's nimble. We can build these things uh, faster than we can build concrete. Um, and so that total of story represents about for this project 1500 cubic meters of sequester carbon, right? Which is about 2500 roundtrip flights from here to QS, where I'd probably rather be tonight. Um, and that that alone is an interesting point, but I think the Y mass timber leads into uh our history and why we found our way to where we are. When we first were looking at this project, we actually looked at something taller with a traditional post and beam system. And we've done this all over the country. We've done a 31 story in Milwaukee. We've done the intro Cleveland project. We're doing one in Columbus right now with Harbor Bay. Um those floor to floor heights are taller. Given the specific requirements of this project and this height and I know we're trying to go beyond the eight stories, but in order to make the performer work, we found and developed a new way to go with uh cross laminated timber and cold form bearing walls in a way that has not been done yet. Uh we've done it up to five stories. We've developed a new technology that allows us now to go to

15 stories. That's not what this project is. It's 10 stories. But that brings our floor to floor heights down significantly which brings our costs down and allows the ROI to actually work on the project. So that innovation is a part of the process that's important for the history of Mass Timber for us and Harbor Bay. And then lastly, I think partnering um we're wide open to this conversation. Every municipality we've gone to has been a dialogue about how can we help educate the public, the university students and others. um the trades carpenters were cross-pollinating trades now. Not just building with uh one trade, but multiple trades helping to build these things. So, uh it's faster. It it it's more durable. It's sustainable. It's equitable. We don't think you have to pick two. You can pick all four. Um but it is going to take uh team effort to get there. So, I'll I'll leave it at that. Happy to answer any questions later, but I just got into my three minutes there.

I appreciate the the background. Um, we also enjoyed going through mass timber when the ordinance went through the planning commission. We're big fans of it as well. Yeah, we haven't it's a look, I came here from Chicago and I'm not doing any mass work in Chicago, right? And it's it's a testament to communities like like East Lancing that are initiating those things and so I give you a lot of kudos for that. Thank you.

Does that conclude the the presenters? Um I one question I don't know who best to address it to um but you know with uh consideration of ordinance 1567 on the agenda later tonight to take into consideration mass timber is are you guys are full full steam on uh reducing the height to to 10 and and not seeking to do a 15 story building uh with the with mass timber and the lead gold certification it would be to 12 stories Josh mentioned 10 stories because it'd be 10 stories of mass timber over two stories of concrete. Got it.

Um it's a timing thing. The ball lines business going out of business. Um not being, you know, uh 100% certain when all the ordinances will pass, when they will be updated, when we can fully um you know, steam ahead on the 15 stories we had to pivot. Um so that's the main reason why. Okay. Just curious. Thanks for that explanation. Any other questions on this? with the understanding that we're going to see the full application uh at a subsequent meeting. So, I think that's it for us. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. And uh as we get into May 13th, if there's any additional questions, we can bring these individuals in again.

Absolutely. Appreciate your time and the the presentations. Thanks everybody. Uh at this point, because it is on the agenda as a public hearing, we'll open the the public hearing. Does anybody wish to come forward and address us on this item? Okay, queue still empty. Q's still empty. Okay, this point we'll close the public hearing. Uh, any additional comments or questions for city staff? Uh, I just have one. What do you know which meeting we'll see this again? Is it the next meeting? May 13th.

May 13th. Got it. Did you say that already? If I missed it, I'm sorry. Okay, looks like that's it on this item. We'll see this in a revised format at the May 13th planning commission meeting. Thanks everybody. Okay. Uh that takes us on to the new business portion of tonight's agenda. Up first is item 8.1 consideration of ordinance 1559 which would amend sections 50-94 of the zoning ordinance which defines a diverse housing requirement in downtown East Lancing. The amendment would allow for a fee to be paid in lie of meeting the requirement define a formula for that fee and allow for the transfer of diverse housing credits from areas outside of downtown.

Mr. Bartley,

thank you. Uh this this commission has certainly had uh a lot of good discussion about this item and we're looking to continue that discussion tonight. I have Heather Pope the director of uh community economic development uh here with me tonight. Um and she and her team have been working a lot on the field new uh calculations and and formula. So um I won't I won't uh get too much into all the details because I know we've talked about these at at maybe at nauseium. Um, but essentially uh I wanted to report back, we reported back from the planning commission to city council last night and I want to report back a little bit on the uh discussion that took place last night. Um, and then also we'd like to talk a little bit more about the work we've been doing on the field in uh specific, but I also want to cover uh transfers and other items later too. Um, essentially we we talked to the uh city council and uh I believe we we accurately uh described the comments that had happened at the previous meeting on March 25th here. Um there I think that there's general interest on both commission and council in reducing the requirement it seems from 25% to 10%. Uh or at least considering a different requirement than 25%. Uh so we looked at that and as far as a fee in Lu if you were to change the requirement uh from 25% of diverse housing being required to 10% uh then you'd have far fewer square feet uh res residential square feet if that's how you're going to create the fee and loo uh to sort of respond to or to set the fee from. Uh so so when we when we reapplied sort of with a smaller requirement uh with the same fee and that would apply if we followed the affordability gap formula that we originally came up with we found that the fee would be 40% of what we would receive uh if we had a 25% requirement right so straight up 10%

versus 25% we see a 40% reduction uh so to sort of um I guess account for that that difference uh we thought a higher fee in L might be more appropriate when you base the fee in L based on income and we again the income I guess the affordability gap is found by saying what can someone at X income and in this case 50% of your area median income what could someone at 50% of that income which is considered very low afford and so we look at the past year's sales records consider what the income is and say what's that gap and then based on that gap we then create the the formula to come up with this fee and So, that's where I'm saying 50% or 80%, that's sort of the the number that is the a the potential uh owner or renters's income uh that would we would be trying to provide these affordable units for if it's affordable. Now, where it's uh where it's a little more confusing, I guess, is that the diverse housing requirement is not just affordability. It can be affordable for very lower very very low income. It can be senior housing for 55 plus. can be owner occupied and all those are considered uh diverse housing under this ordinance. So there has been also some discussion uh in the planning among the planning commission in the past as far as whether or not those three types should still be the diverse housing ordinance or should it be changed. Uh that that has not come up recently and that didn't come up at the council last night. Uh more was just discussing the fee and le how that was considered. Uh, one thing I want to bring up is that uh, we we've looked at other formulas based on other cities. We've done a lot of research. Uh, and thanks to Heather and team especially for uh, following up on that. I had a great intern who was doing a lot of work, but uh, she had to leave and Heather's team has done a great job of uh, continuing that research. So, we've been looking around the country uh, especially at college towns we consider maybe analog to East Lancing trying to understand how do they have a fee and new loop program if they did if they do

how is that managed? How much do they charge? Uh many places have an affordability gap kind of formula, but there are also cities that allow or look at look at the actual construction cost of the of the of the building and then set that uh set the fee based on that. That can be much more useful if the I guess depending on what the final use of the fee and loo funds uh is meant to be. So that's one thing that I think the city council is also looking for guidance from the planning commission recommendations, considerations, interest in like how could we use these funds. If we were going to use the funds to actually construct new units, it makes sense to say how much does that unit actually cost to construct in the building. Uh and therefore we would take that money and we'd know that it was a certain percentage of the building's actual construction cost. We could then use that money to actually construct more units similar to the size that were build built in the in the building. I wish there was a simpler way. I've been working on trying to figure out how to just talk about these more more simply, but I'm sorry. Uh, so I'd like to ask Heather to talk a little more about about the FE and new formulas and the cities that we've been looking at and how they've sort of managed and dispersed their funds. If you can go from there, please. Thank you.

Good evening. So, um, as Landon said, we really narrowed it down to, um, five different, um, five other college um, towns. Um the first being Ann Arbor, which you know was the basis of the report that we presented about a month and a half ago to city council where it's that affordability gap. Um Ann Arbor looks at it from 50% um and builds in the affordability gap using prior year sales home sales of 2,000 square feet or less single family homes. So there is that report. I won't go into detail in it, but that that is also shown in the staff report also that Landon prepared. Um but going past that what we looked at um we talked to spent some time with um speaking with Columbus Ohio. So they again they have a fee and loop program. um they um set their fee at um about $40,000 um per um unit and it's um at for go back to the sheet there's um it depends they have two options and and it has to do with it's tied to zoning. So option one they require 20% units um with a fee in lie of 40,000 and option two based on where the zoning is it's 30% of the units. Um and so again they calculate that out based on if you have a a building with 100 um units in it and you want to do a pay a fee and loo and if it's in one um zoning require zoning area it's 20% of the units is required. If it's another it's at 30%. and then they calculate that out and then they also um look at their fee and increase it um each year um based on um CPI. So this is an annual thing and that's another pattern we found is every year um most of these

communities are reooking at those fees. So um for Ohio um their staff um manages the program and the funds only go towards home buyer down payment assistance, nothing else. So, um, that gives you an idea of their how that program operates. And since, um, 2024, they've received a little over $2 million into that fund. The next committee we talked with, um, was Iowa City, Iowa. Um, they established their program back in 2016 and has generated just under $6 million. Um, these funds again are administered by city staff. um and they are um going to a fund for affordable housing but again it's within a particular development area of the community which is referred to as riverfront crossings area. Um so the success of their their feoo is they've had three projects um representing nearly 600 housing units that have opted to use the fe option. So then they're capturing those funds. Um they um have not spent any of the funds yet. They were working towards a development project. Um and working towards a LITC development project. Um and they're not sure at this if the opportunity still exists. Um but that's the type of project that they're going to invest in. Um Bloomington, Indiana, they um again they administer their funds um by their staff. So, similar to the planning department or community development manages that. Um, and the fund was established to expand the supply of safe, affordable housing for Bloomington residents earning up to 128% of the area median income. So, this is a little different than what we've looked at, but that is an option. Also, um they um provide lowcost loans and grants to support the development

affordable housing. Um, and we are still waiting for uh response from them. their stat. We've ran into some spring breaks with some of the staff um and so we've been able to piece meal some of this together, but we're still waiting for a response um on the success um of the FML program and then uh State College um and so we really started looking at their program more closely um today um after um getting some feedback from city council last night and they based theirs on actual construction cost and a land value calculation which was different than what we had been looking at. So it's not the affordability gap, it's how much does it cost to build this unit. And so again, they set the fee based on actual con construction cost. Um this current year in the city's fee schedule, that housing cost um is $129,000 for a unit. And then the land value um or the land cost are $30,585. So their fee per unit is $159,585. Um so with that they have um expended a total of over $4.7 million resulting in the creation of 40 units created with the fee and loo funds. Um 12 rental and 20 for first-time home buyers. So they do a mix there on that. Um they also have worked with private sector developers who have produced additional 62 units um through their inclusionary housing ordinance. Um they also have um as part of their ordinance that the developer has a year um after the building is complete to fill those those affordable housing units. If they do

not, the city can purchase them back or if the city chooses not to purchase them back and use them as part of the affordable um I'm assuming they have like a housing commission or something that purchases properties. Um they can pay the fee in L at that time a year later. So that's another option they rolled in. Um what we learned um through um some conversations is that the smaller the units the more successful for leasing. What happens when you get into three and fourbedroom units? If you have four different individuals living there, two individuals may be on their parents' taxes. Two parent two individual may be graduate students who are not. The way it's viewed is that is one household. So you have to count each person's income together. So that's where they've seen the struggle is with those larger units. They've been much more successful with those one to twobedroom units. So any questions?

I did. So I think the the piece I'm struggling with a bit is the the per unit fee versus the square foot fee and kind of the pros and cons of both of those. And I I did like the breakdown that was provided for each of these college towns uh in the agenda packet. Is there I guess an analogous per square foot fee for these towns that you saw? Is that listed in here? So, or is it all per unit? Oh, no. It was all per unit cuz it's okay. Yeah, because it's, you know, apples to oranges and I'm trying to figure out. Yes. You know, how that would translate to a per square foot, I guess. Do you have an approximate estimate or is it too difficult to determine based on

how it's calculated? We um we worked on that this morning. Um taking we what we did is we took the approach of um uh state college and we what let me bring up my I have a cheat sheet here. Hold on. So what we did is um for example 918 East Grand East Graham River the hub we took the permit value at the time um that the project was approved which was a little over $49 million and then we took the total square feet which was 190,000 square ft and we took the number of units. So then we wanted to know what the average square foot of those units were. So we divided by the square feet by the number of units and then came up with the average square feet of a unit is 550 square feet in that building. We then took 10% of the of the total residential square feet which was 19,000 square ft and then we took the permit value and divided that by the square feet to get that square foot um per price per square foot. And then we said, okay, if we took 10% of those units, took it by that price per square foot, what would that look like? And and again, these are very rough estimates because, you know, there's some commercial space on that first floor of the hub. There's parking, but this is just what would this look like if this was just and it's about $4.9 million. So, we started looking at that where so if a project comes in and they say we want to do a fee and loo um we could Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I was just saying the state state college model had it like 5.5. Yeah. So,

so very close similar. Yes. So, we just wanted to run some rough numbers. So, but yeah. So, we're we're just starting that. Um we're going to do a little bit more research, but again, these are just for illustrative purposes only because there's always it's not just a six-story building with nothing else and just units in it. And just to add a little detail to that, um, when we were discussing per square foot versus unit, u, I know I was certainly concerned with, uh, if we take it as a per unit, the developer would essentially have a a sort of incentive to just have more more like larger units. So fewer large units. Yeah.

Which could kind of uh I mean, I think we're kind of manipulating the market for no good reason at that point where maybe there's not the demand for large units. Maybe there is, but uh if there's a need for say studios, they'd have a far a disincentive to provide more studios because they'd have to pay more in a fee a fee in L. Whereas if it's per square foot of residential square footage, then you're really just focusing on the land use uh which is I think what we're really concerned with. So that was my personal feelings on why we'd go for it per square foot. But I think both have strengths for sure.

No, makes sense. Thanks for the background questions. Looking left side first. Commissioner Denalt, that looks like a hand you've raised. Not I don't think I don't think yet. Okay. I think I'm still trying to formulate.

Yeah, it's just a lot of information. And even though this is the second time we're seeing it, this is the second time we're seeing all of this data, but definitely not the first time or the like this. We've been talking about this for a long time now and I still feel like it's so hard to wrap my head around. Um, and I see some of my fellow commissioners looking at me and so I I know other folks feel the same, which makes me feel much better that I still feel out of my depth though. This is wonderful information. Thank you so much. That's good. About you guys down here.

Yeah. Um, yeah, I'll echo like thank you. This is really really good information. Um, as a data person in my in my real job, um, this is really cool to see. Um, it's a lot of variables, which makes it,

you know, really easy to, you know, you get a lot of fine-tuned control over things, but it's also really easy to change too much too quick, and then you get into trouble quickly. Um, so I I'm I'm just going to echo I I feel like a bit of a broken record from previous sessions with this is whatever we decide to do, I'm more leaning towards change it a little more frequently than changing a bunch up front and then locking us in for too long on it. Cuz like, you know, it we're we're new to this. We have a lot of good examples from other cities, but it's going to be really important for for us as a city to find like what is the good baseline and really dial it in because

we want to encourage development, but we also want, you know, we do have a housing shortage that we are trying to address with limited real estate. So I think it's it's really important for us to you know try to dive in even though it is a lot of information and you know just just think of the different outcomes that can come from it like you said with the square foot or the unit comparison.

Mr. Mr. Chair, can I um I guess that that that sort of discussion your your words uh they they that this happened last night where we were talking about how there are so many different variables that you change one thing and and you need to adjust something else and it it's overwhelming and we sort of understand that that the commission has you're you're we're sending you a lot of information that's very difficult to sort of sip through. So I think what we're looking for that would be most useful tonight is you know are there are there specific sort of concepts or approaches that you think are going to be make more sense and we can massage the exact numbers and and keep talking to builders and developers and interested you know applicants to say what what actually makes sense here but if you have a certain sort of I guess if there are concepts and approaches that you really like and say we like this figure out the details you know we'd like to come back to you again and we're still looking for recommendations and sort of thoughts but we'd like to come back to you and probably just give you a couple of options and just say, "Okay, we're taking all your recommendations. We're hearing what you're saying. We're hearing what council is saying, hearing what our developer development community is saying. How about this?" Because I think we're we're asking you to provide information that maybe you should just be more responding to it. So, I just wanted to check that with you and see if that's approach you like.

I'll go after you. Go ahead, Commissioner Nol.

Sure. Um, I think maybe two things. It might turn into more, but right now it's just two. Um, I think Commissioner Puts's comment about um making smaller making more smaller changes incrementally, right? Uh, really resonates with me and I know we're being asked to make an ordinance change right now. I mean, not right now, but eventually. And I almost wonder if there's value or the ability to try to try some of these changes out in a sort of pilot project, right? Rather than making a complete ordinance change, which then if we have to change, right, that's a whole another ordinance change.

And so I I don't know what that would look like. I don't know if there's models for that in other cities, but I like the idea of a pilot project, right? We're not committing to the city to anything for all development going forward, but we're seeing what works. Um, so that's one thought. Another thought, um, I know that this was brought up at the last meeting where we talked about this, but someone and and I forget who, so feel free to raise your hand if it's you. Um, someone mentioned um perhaps using the affordable the the feed loo for instance to fund the transition uh some kind of program to fund the transition of single family homes that are currently rentals to going back to single family homes. Right? I think that's something that was discussed a lot in this past city council election. multiple candidates, right, specifically mentioned deconverting rental units, rental houses back to single family homes. Um, and so I don't know if there's um other cities that have done something like that um that we could use as a model. And if not, maybe it's something like new that East Lancing could develop um for other cities to learn from. And I feel like there was one more thing But it's gone. But hopefully it'll come back.

Probably come back after I stream of conscious ranting about this for a second. Um, I remembered what it was. Oh, go ahead.

I'm gosh, I got I'm so sorry. Um, when I was reviewing all of this data, right, it's to me it's very overwhelming. Uh, and like like we're saying, there's just so many variables and if you if you tweak one and don't tweak another, right, you get this. And if you tweak both, you get this. And I think the thing that I constantly had to remind myself or ask myself is um what what is the goal, right? What is the ultimate goal of what we're trying to do? Are we trying to increase development? Maybe. Are we trying to provide for affordable housing in East Lancing? Maybe. Right. Um and and to me the data is really helpful but I think we can't lose sight of what is our actual goal in changing this ordinance. Is it to increase affordable housing and if so where and if so for whom and if so how? Um, but I think we should keep in mind ultimately what and and maybe define more clearly as a commission what we're trying to achieve.

Yeah. So I I want to talk about this kind of at the macro level of of how I view it. Uh, and that is essentially we've had the ordinance we've had for a while. You know, you can argue it's been successful or not been successful because it has led to one development. Um, in my opinion, I don't think it's been as successful as it should have been. Uh, and I think that's a unique opportunity for us to go through and kind of look at this bit by bit and try to figure out exactly why it hasn't been successful. And I view this as a a policy exercise to achieve our goals. I think the the the goals are twofold, right? It's number one to steer to the housing types that we want that we've set out that are in the ordinance, potentially expand them if we want to do that, but that's not on the table that I've seen so far. And I think option two is like unintentionally maybe that has led to other development not happening as a result of the high threshold that has to be met. So I think those are the two policy goals as I see it.

Um I think the ultimate outcome of this should be to create sort of a menu of options that alleviate some of those pain points and lead to more of those development that we want. And if it is fee and loo and the policy outcome is more of the rental houses are bought and transitioned to single family homes, I think that's a a great policy outcome. I share that same um objective. Um but I think my view is let's go in this add as many of these as we can. City staff has already done a lot of work on it. I think inevitably there's going to be unintended consequences that maybe we've thought of, some we haven't thought of. If one of these is really taken advantage of, then I think you go through and you change the ordinance a few cycles from now and kind of adjust that up to steer towards some of these other things. But I think us having all of these in the ordinance will really be insightful is how developers approach this and what type of housing and where they're building it. Um, we didn't really talk about uh expansion of the area, but I did take a long hard look at the map and have some ideas on that I can share later. I think that needs to be strongly considered. Um I at the last meeting I said I don't think families want to live necessarily in the core downtown. There's other areas just outside of outtown that I think are more suited for uh that type of housing.

Um I think the part of this I'm really struggling with is the process for spending those funds and what those funds can be spent on. Yes, I think those can potentially be figured out at the next meeting, but I would like a little bit of clarity on that. Is it city staff that's making the determination and how that money spent? Um, does it go to a separate newly created commission? Um, is it just city council's decision to make? I don't know if there's a precedent for that and other communities and then, you know, specifically what it can be spent on. I think you cited, was it Columbus that had the the down payment assistance program?

Um, that's something we could look at. I think my preference would be to have it be broader but specifically ti tied to housing

so that it's not spent on anything else. Um I'm more concerned about how it's determined what gets what gets spent um and how that gets debied up. Um 25 to 10 I I think that sounds like a great starting point. Again that could be bumped up if this is um not successful. Uh 170 a square foot I think is what you'd recommended there. I was thinking more along 150 if there's a CPI adjustment tethered to that. Um um you know transfer credits I still don't I want a better understanding of of what that would mean in practice if there was as simple as like a onetoone transfer and I'd love to keep talking about that. I just wanted to cover fu first but okay yes please keep

I'm jumping jumping ahead. So, anyways, that's that's my my thought process is let's let's proceed with some of these and if ultimately a lot of these cause pain points for the city in the future, I think there's an opportunity to to revisit these. Um, Commissioner Le,

I would just add that um I have I have two I guess general thoughts. One on what Commissioner Denal shared in terms of the overarching like goal and direction that we're heading. We've obviously talked about this a great deal and I completely concur that the feedback from staff has been incredibly helpful and I understand that this has probably taken a significant amount of time and research um and calling your colleagues in in different um cities. If if my recollection serves right, um this idea came about um really from the city manager and one specific developer and the need to start heading in in the direction to explore um the the fee and loo piece based on the feedback from one developer and I haven't necessarily seen other developers come and also speak to

um the need to make a revision around the diverse housing requirement. So, I have I would say continuously I'm hesitant about um making some of these changes while I also recognize to your point um Commissioner Sullivan that you know maybe let's try some other things and um and see what sticks. I'm I'm totally open to that. But um to me it seems like a way to relax in some ways the diverse housing requirement

at the request of um of of only one maybe two developers uh in the in the community. Um, the other thing that I would add, uh, that I think Commissioner Sullivan, you have a great point on, um, I am, I guess, mostly my my second piece is that I also would very much like at a further meeting potentially to discuss what the the fund what it would be used for. I agree that it would make sense to very much have it be targeted specifically on housing. And I think um I certainly wouldn't be comfortable moving forward with something that didn't have more parameters about a separate um a separate commission or a separate separate body that would have some level of oversight um outside of just staff and city council. Um I think it will be very important to have uh particularly for city lancing residents to have some assurance of how the funds created will be used for this piece. So, those are my um two pieces on this, but I I certainly um look forward to future discussion on this. It's it's probably a direction that we we need to head, but I just think we need to be thoughtful about how we do it.

Commissioner and all, before you ask a question, I was going to ask Landon, I know it was it was potentially one application that led to interest in this and review of this, have have any other developers come forward or applicants come forward and express similar concerns? I I've certainly talked to probably uh I would say more than five less than 10 uh generally in support of not necessarily a flu although I think that a fel is is generally supported uh but just flexibility and other ways to meet the the objective I think was across the board of interest and Heather I don't know if you had other conversations but a tough yeah

commissioner Denal thanks for those comments

yeah Um, I think just really quickly, I like the notion of a menu of options, right, that that um developers could choose from. Um, I just like the the sort of phrasing of that. Um, and I I also really agree with Chair Sullivan that I like the idea of expanding the diverse housing requirement outside of the just the DDA. Um, I don't think we need to restrict ourselves to a location, right? We need housing, not just downtown. We need housing in many other places in the city. Um, and I think the I I really echo um Commissioner Lein's concerns um about management of any sort of funds, right? who and who is managing them, who is accountable for them, and how our community members opinions and voices heard in that process. And I um really found what page is this? Page 60 um helpful um which talks about how Ann Arbor, Columbus, Iowa City, Bloomington, and State College all manage their fee and lube programs. Um and I really liked Ann Arbor's um fee and loo management right where they have a special commission they have staff review materials but then a advisory board makes some recommendations based on the reports and the the staff review um and then that advisory board recommends projects to city council. So there's sort of it it right it takes a long time but I think having those multiple steps right having professional review having community input and then having city council is a really good model to look at.

Good point. Um that led to a thought why I mean I think a commission is the the best way to approach that. I know we have the CDB the community development block grant group maybe something comparable. I don't know if they could be tasked with doing the same thing. It's probably beyond the scope of that commission, but something similar I think in structured would be ideal if can I can I I guess repeat back what I think I'm hearing just to sort of make sure I have good understanding. I uh we heard a interest in a pilot program. I I I guess I would respond very briefly that might might be difficult because we

in order to create some of these programs we'd need to have an ordinance change. So, it's hard to do that without Yeah, I guess it would be hard. We'll we'll explore options for that. Um, I'm hearing uh an interest in making sure that developers are okay or have or this will be realistic for developers. A lot of interest in management dispersement of funds. Sounds like a restricted fund uh with some rules around but not not too many rules but saying this is housing focused. I think you could list specific uses and say but not limited to has a committee to to control that uh interest in expanding the area

and I want to clarify the area to where the requirement applies or the area for transfers or both for for um where diverse housing could be built expansion of the territory beyond the DDA. Okay. So I think you're that Mr. Chair, you're saying that transfer is more important that you'd still have the requirement apply downtown but you'd have more areas available to transfer credits from. But I think I was hearing from question. I think it could be broader than that. I mean, should they just allow the area to be broader where where it can be built where it's required to to not need the transfer? I'm not following. Okay. I think I'm hearing from Commissioner Denal that you're interested in having the requirement apply in other places, not just downtown. Yes.

But I think that I'm hearing from M the chair that you'd want to be able to I think it's you're saying they want to build extra 25% portion. And it doesn't need to be in the DDA. It can be in other areas of the city that we can if they want to, but not if they required to. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Um I heard some interest in rental rental buyback program. Uh and that was also discussed last night at council 2. I I would I would mention I guess that we'll certainly look into that. Um generally how that works. I mean the there there tends to be a correlation but not a positive relationship between renting and owning and price. Uh but um certainly an owner will have a little more control over what they're paying than a tenant will. Um generally what we see with a rental buyback program is that we'll buy a property at we'll buy it high and sell it low and have a deed restriction so that it must continue to be s sold low

uh and that the price must remain at a certain location and typically or certain point. And then typically it's a sort of land trust situation where the city or this uh third party would own the land but the tenant would own or occupy just the house. So I think we'll certainly look into that um and try to understand what options are available uh for use of these funds towards that rental buyback. Uh we had talked about this earlier and you had a number is are is there any number you can share about how the much that cost or oh for the for Chesterfield in specific I think there's

um what we were talking about is we were just kind of brainstorming the idea of a rental buyback. So, if you're going in and you're purchasing a property that's $350,000, but then you're turning around and the idea is that you're going to sell it to somebody who's at 80% median income. They may only be able to get a mortgage. I again just throwing out numbers. Let's say it's $200,000. So, you're purchasing the property and you're reselling it and then leaving that in that property. about what how you can keep that maintain that property to be you know you could put a 99-year deed restriction on it that it must be sold to the next person

at who is at that income level and there are and it that's what Landon was referring to as the community land trust there are community land trust and we have conversations with them about you know they buy this piece of property and they build four houses on it they sell the property to a p or they sell the home to a person but not the value of the the value of the land is deducted from the sales price to make it more affordable. And so then they pay like a dollar a year and then there's this whole again I'm just staying really high level. There's this whole formula about if you stay in the house for five years you earn so much equity you take a piece of it comes back and you're able to use that again as down payment assistance to help that ne next household. So there's a number of different things, but if you're looking at that, you're starting out paying 300, turning around and selling it for 200, and you're leaving that that's your subsidy in that property. Um, which can be pretty substantial in, you know, just in this market in general,

but we'll certainly look into that as a possibility and try to include that as a possibility in this package. Um, are would you can I move on to talk about the transfer a little more? Yeah, I don't think there's any other. Okay.

Uh, we just talked about transfer. um transfer of credits, sort of excess units that in properties that are currently in downtown, if they exceed the diverse housing requirement, they could transfer those excess units over the diverse housing requirement to a different project that isn't meeting it. Uh so we talked about expanding that area. Um I had originally proposed an idea of some sort of coefficient or some kind of ratio to change the value of those credits if they're in different areas. I haven't heard much interest and I I I think I'm hearing drop that idea. So, I just kind of want to check that against the the commission, but I'm I'm also seeing a face of surprise. So, I guess let's let's talk about that. But also, I wanted to uh the conversation last night with the council was uh we can look at these by zone district or geographically. There might have been some preference it sounded like from council for more of a geographic uh limitation to say I think it was just let's do south of H uh I think it was south of Sagena, west of Hagen, and east of Harrison as a as a starting idea. There was also some discussion of okay, maybe we have it in zones within that area. Uh but but the idea is that we wouldn't necessarily be be that way incentivizing more far-flung developments. Uh like we were talking about earlier tonight. Let's say there was some sort of development up on Coleman. Do you want that that toddly be incentivizing that kind of development by allowing the transfer some construction of that to then transfer credits into a downtown property? So, wanted to mention that because we had talked about sort of a zoning based approach before. That was my recommendation. Um, I'm open. I think that I I like the zoning idea because it's focused more on on land use and sort of you're going to have more uh similar uses in a in the same area. Um and and there tends to be a if it's a business district, there tends to be a good uh sharing opportunity for parking where you have less use of parking essentially over the

whole day. Um so I guess based on that zoning approach, I included maps in your packet of all the many different zone districts. just the maps show just showing those uh zone districts across town with an idea that you could that could sort of help focus your focus you as you're considering that approach but but I wanted to mention that we had talked about the zoning approach or geographic approach or both. Yeah. So, and with that, Commissioner Donald, I you had reacted with some surprise when I said I was kind of letting go of that ratio idea, but I'm not sure if that was in response to that.

And and maybe I need I want more information about it, but I the way that I understood it was that when you transfer credits, you help me here, Landon. you have to build more affordable units outside of the DDA as it is right now. If you have a building, you can only transfer, it's only required to have diverse housing and you can only transfer diverse housing within the DDA district. Yes. West Conway. Yes. And you can do so if you have exceed your diverse housing requirement. Yes. So you have the 100 unit 200 units buildings and one is the requirement is 25. Right.

This one can't make it. This one has 25 extra. So you take 25, right? transferred there. Good on that. Yes. Got it. So I But when you when you change the coefficient from one to one, right? So one to I think you proposed 1.2,

right? So you're asking you're asking a developer to create more of diverse units if they're you if they're transferring them outside of the DDA. Uh what I was proposing I guess originally would be that if you were transferring from a location outside of the DDA, the credits would be less valuable for want of a better term than those within the DDA. So say you have 25 extra units, you need to have 30 extra units to transfer to make it 25 within the DDA if you're building outside. It it seemed like the the response I was getting was that kind of complicates it. Are we really meeting getting uh getting close to the goals? Mhm.

of this policy seemed like it was just more sort of a confocation versus help. The thought process is just that the land's cheaper farther away from downtown. So, you're generally I would I was going to say incentivizing, but you're more so like almost a way punishing them by choosing to build outside. Disincentivizing outside, but I think we could accomplish the same goals uh disincentivizing by just having a geographical limitation. There was some discussion about why was this originally uh brought in the first place. It was to introduce diverse housing downtown, right?

So I think that was the idea is yes, we maybe have a need for more diverse housing elsewhere, but we want it downtown. So how can we still accomplish having more diverse housing downtown and not just pushing it out? And it's just an option, too. Like you're not required to build outside of the DDA. So they would choose that option. I think 1.2 two sounds reasonable to me with that in mind, but um I defer to everybody else. Yeah, I I think that's why I was I expressed surprise when you said, "Let's get rid of that idea because I actually like that idea." Um so, yep, I I should share that I I talked to some developers originally when I I'd say let's do two to one and they said that's a a killer. That'll kill the project way too much.

I agree. That's why reduce it substantially. I'm hearing that maybe there is interest in a coefficient not that high, but maybe 1.1 or 1.2. But that's why you throw stuff out there. You get feedback on it. Um, I think that's helpful. So, okay. Did you have any uh Justin, I'm interested in commission's thoughts on the approach. Uh, do you like the more geographic geographic approach? Do you prefer a zoning based approach? Uh, mixture of both. Uh, are there specific zones you think are more are better? um are you interested in expanding the area or changing the area in which the requirement applies uh or just transfer both? So yeah, again without changing too many sliders, there are a lot of variables here.

You I I think inevitably at the end of this there's going to be one or two of these options that the developers gravitate towards and I think that's when you maybe have to modify this down the line. But um walk me through the zoning because couldn't you just reszone a property anywhere else to whatever you want it to be and then it automatically would fit?

Well, yes and no. Um so you can you can certainly request zone changes uh anytime if you have standing on the property. Uh but uh typically it's difficult to change the zoning of one property uh because of spot zoning. So, uh, I mentioned earlier in the discussion about do a township do a township zone properties. Uh, if if you're looking to change one property, you have to make sure that it it matches what's said on the future land use map. Now, on our agenda tonight, we're still talking about future land use categories. My intent is to update the future land use map potentially this year. So, it could be a good opportunity to talk about that. Uh, but regardless, you have a future land use map in some form at some point. It may get changed, but your zoning has to match that future land use map if you want to just change one property. So, it kind of limits the ability of somebody to say, "Oh, I want to put my diverse housing here. I'm going to change one property to do that."

They could still give that option potentially if they were matching up with properties adjacent that had the same zoning or if it was a larger property or if it matched the future land use map, but typically reszoning one property is is difficult or impossible. Yeah, I I I don't know that it's mutually exclusive though. You could have zoning and also geographic outlined, right? So, you know, some of the areas I noted just I I took a look at the map today. I think you know along Sagenon I think that was you said that was mentioned by by council last night like sort of Harrison to Hagadorn Grand River Harrison to Hagadorn uh Michigan a city line to Abbott down Hagadorn to Mount Hope I think there's some opportunity there um up to Burchham the downtown area up to Burch I think most how far does the DDA go up remind me

uh DDA only goes up to Oakill I think not even that yeah so I think up to Burchham including the north side of B there's just a lot of apartment buildings there I mean I I think there's good opportunity there. Trobridge is is also unique um to Harrison. You know, I know we looked at some future land use map areas on Harrison. Um you know, kind of on that Trobridgeidge corner. Um so the Trobridgeidge Harrison corner. Uh and then I think Cedar Village area and then I'm just going to call it this because I you know I don't know to call it the Costco area. I think there's some opportunities in in those those spots. I mean

I think you know what I'm talking about. So originally the I guess my original zoning based approach would be look at B2 uh which includes those areas that you were talking about specifically Costco uh second on Abbott Trobridge um Michigan Harrison north side of Grand River uh east of Kzi uh the EV district which is sort of the south side of uh of Grand River uh east of Boke. Um so the areas that you talked about except that they're more farflung than that uh there are some for example B2 uh areas at Lake Lancing Abbott or um or east of there where it curves um head southward on Lake Lancing. So we have a couple B2. So if you wanted to limit that and still stick with zone districts and sort of talk about where the areas that you were saying I think that's totally

I'm Oh sorry Commissioner Subleski. Uh, I brought this up before and I know it's a wild flyer, but you know, the Lancing State Journal recent article about those thousand units that are right on Harrison that are all but abandoned. I mean, a developer could adopt a building and have, you know, a hundred units that were perfectly fine for families to live in for 70 years. I I would think, you know, they could be probably cost a lot to renovate them, but and they abandoned them for a reason, but it's just sitting there. The Spartan Village. Yeah. Yeah. For what it's worth, I mean, that's difficult because that's university property and we don't have I'm sure they would just donate it to the city.

Yeah. If you if you want to set up that uh you if you won't be a planning commissioner, you could be a private citizen making that deal for us. and welcome that. I used to work there. I would uh Yeah. So, we got the connection. Made that deal any day. Landon, you're easy to read. I could tell you prefer zoning. I could just tell. So, I I like the zoning approach. I think that a geographical limitation is totally fine, too. Okay. For what it's worth, you just Okay. I I think those are areas I think are we should focus on. I don't know if zoning captures that in its entirety, but

um so can we just discuss next steps? I mean, obviously, I don't think we're ready to to vote today. So, for next meeting, do you have what you need to to go on? Um I think Yeah, vice chair, were you going to somebody um I think that Oh, Commissioner Puts, I I just wanted to make sure Landon, you had your notes about also like an annual or every two-year review, some period of review for whatever we set. um just because making sure it's working, making adjustments as we need it to, some structure for that, you know, if if it's a good point,

you know, if we have, you know, a separate commission or body that's that's, you know, governing the fund, maybe that's something that, you know, they can produce recommendations for or studies for to indicate like how it needs to change. I don't know how that apparatus needs to work, but I know that's that's another system to worry about, but I I do think pretty strongly that it's it's a good one for us to think about, especially in these early steps or incorporate that reporting requirement. I think that that would give you like an analysis of which options that were chosen and it could inform policy decisions. I think that's a good that's a good good flag.

Um, okay. Do you have what you need? Any other comments or questions or direction on this? Commissioner Denal. Um, I do like the B2 zoning um recommendation, but I think I would not want to be limited by that. I think it's a good place to start. Um, but maybe not exclusively. I Yeah, I I agree. I like B2, but like RM32 or something for row houses, I think, would be Yeah.

You know, a good fit in some areas. So, as far as next steps, uh there currently is an ordinance that's introduced and referred to you. So, you could take action on that ordinance and suggest specific changes. Uh I think we have a a decent idea of what you're looking for and we can go back and suggest some changes, but still the ordinance as introduced is what's going to come to you. So, what I what I think I'm hearing is several suggestions, recommendations. We can come back to you at the next meeting. I hope uh and with with essentially recommended changes to the ordinance based on um this discussion tonight and what we've heard from council uh and then you could potentially act at the next meeting saying yes, this is accurate. We want to change the ordinance this way and actually have a motion.

Does that sound accurate? I think that sounds like a reasonable approach. I think we're there's consensus on a lot of this. So, I think you could put a couple decision points in there that we could deliberate and we could structure the ordinance in in that way at the next meeting potentially. I think I'm hearing a little more certainty about the transfer a little more than the feel. It sounds like maybe you like something maybe a couple options to respond to. Is that Yeah. Good. Okay. Um we we if you feel it's necessary, we could ask the council if you would want to have a joint meeting with them to discuss this and just have an open conversation. that's difficult to set up and it's difficult to schedule and we'd have to notice it. But if you feel it's necessary, we can try to set that up.

If it's not necessary, I would not suggest doing that. I I think, you know, almost it's we're reviewing this, making our recommendation to them, then they're reviewing it and taking into consideration hopefully what what we're proposing. I don't know if like a joint meeting. I think maybe a couple conversations might be helpful, but I don't know. I typically hasn't been done. So, okay. You think about it. So, okay, vice chair. Well, there's just so many different permutations. It's like it's hard. I think it'd be impossible for us to agree on something and council to agree on the same thing.

So, I don't know if it's a joint meeting or if we say these are the sort of proposals that we want we're we're interested in. Um, and you have all the information and you could they could take it from there. I don't like I don't know what the most efficient way to work is, but you've essentially been having a a facility conversation over time. If if you felt like there was a need for significant conversation, then we maybe do this. I'm not hearing that. I think it's we're still sending back and forth comments. Okay, that works for me. I think we're closer. Okay, I think we have Okay, so any last comments on this? All right. Thank you.

Bring this back at the April 22nd meeting. Yeah. Move bring it back at the April 22nd meeting and you know potentially with a couple decision points on it and if we need some clarification um reach out. Okay. Um okay. Um where we at? Right in the back of this. Uh still going. The next item is ordinance 1567

8.2. Yeah. So Up next is consideration of ordinance 1567, an amendment to division 8, building height overlay district, of the East Lancing zoning ordinance to allow council to approve a building height exceeding 160 ft when doing so is necessitated solely by the use of specific construction materials uh including but not limited to mass timber, does not result in additional floors or units, and is subject to the review and approval of city council under the special use procedures of section 50-94. Mr. Bartley, any updates to this?

Uh, not really. Um, there was some discussion. We discussed this at last meeting on uh March 25th. There were no comments at the public hearing. Uh, essentially this is uh introduced and designed to give the planning commission and city council some flexibility. If there are cases like what's proposed where you have uh materials that are necessitating a different height that wouldn't requ or or units. So maybe the impact might be not changed but you just have something that happens over that 160 ft. Um our only uh other suggestion that I brought up last time was that currently the there's a supermajority vote required at council uh for the excess height. So that' be four out of five. Um, and there's been some discussion about changing that that it would be appropriate if you wanted if you wanted to recommend changing that to include that as a recommendation in your ordinance

to include not having it be the supermajority. I would say like yes, if if you're interested in that, then when you're making the motion, you would just uh include that as an amendment. That's not one of the conditions, is it? It is not there. There are no conditions to a zone zoning ordinance amendment. So it would just be amending the the language but you don't have to be specific about amending a simple majority to simple majority but yeah that is a snap recommendation. Okay understood. I I do have a question about that. I'm just in our purview as a commission like it seems to me that that's sort of exceeding I agree our role. Well you're you're suggesting an ordinance change. So

Right. Well, I mean, but the the supermajority part, like I I don't know. Um I would be in favor of not adding that. I I agree with you on on that piece. It just seems like a political thing that council should um discuss. Okay. Preference is to not weigh into it. My Yeah, my preference is Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Oh, go ahead. Commissioner Denal.

No, I think I I think I understand um why my fellow commissioners maybe feel that way. I know we we have traditionally been sort of handsoff when it comes to uh um telling council what to do or how they should do it. Um but I think, you know, if it is a a staff recommendation, um I I do trust staff um to to not lead us down an incorrect path. But I don't get the sense that this is a recommendation. It's just an option. I think it's a recommendation. Or are you staff also recommend that the planning commission consider

changing the specificity the super majority? Uh I guess from staff perspective, yeah, I'd recommend it. Uh I personally find a simple majority a better practice than super. Um but and it's it can be within the planning commission's perview because it's part of the zoning ordinance. That said, it's completely fine to not recommend that change. I I don't feel super strongly about it. I guess I feel more strongly that the flexibility is important. Uh we just sort of like to see streamlining and best practices and that's a better practice in my opinion.

Okay. I think that's if I could jump in. We we make recommendations to the city council with everything that we do and I I see the supermajority as simply another recommendation to the city council on on how they ought to carry out their business. So I don't see any reason not to to make that as a recommendation. I mean worst worst case they say no. Well, yeah. Exactly. I wonder if it does have to do with just the general sensitivity that this community generally has about large buildings, right? I can imagine that that's why it was in put in place in the first place. So

okay, seeing no other comments, I think this is relatively straightforward to address a unique situation we didn't envision regarding um the difference in height with floors uh to accommodate for mass timber which you know I think most of us are in favor of. So um is there a motion to approve this? I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Puts. Uh, I move to recommend that the city council adopt ordinance 1567, an amendment to division 8, building height overlay district of chapter 50 of city code zoning to allow council to approve a building height exceeding 160 ft when doing so is necess necessitated solely by the use of specific construction materials including but not limited to mass timber. does not result in additional floors or units and is subject to the review and approval of the city council under the spec special use procedures of section 50-94 for the following reasons. The amendment is consistent with the policies and uses proposed in the city's comprehensive land use plan. All of the uses of uses affected by the proposed amendment would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area. Public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by development or use allowed under the proposed amendment. The uses allowed under the proposed amendment would be equally or better suited to the area that than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land. Um motion by Commissioner Putts. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Silleski. Um any any further discussion on this item?

I think it makes a lot of sense. Um like the the wording in it is very clear. It provides some guard rails, you know, and it provides a review process because like city council has to approve it. So like, you know, we're not we're not throwing the gate wide open with this. I think it's a very targeted thing for specific benefits. So, uh, personally, I am in favor of it. I'm very comfortable with the u the motion as as read, but just so I'm understanding, this does not include changing the supermajority piece. Correct.

That was not included. I don't I don't think it it's, you know, how the way I take it, I don't think it's commentary on it being in favor or not in favor of it. You know, council can make that change if they want, but it's not it's agnostic to that provision. Um, okay. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor vote I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. This is on to city council at a to be determined city council meeting.

Thank you. That takes us on to item 8.3, assignment of a planning commission representative to a committee created for the purpose of recommending the city's use of an updated version of the International Property Maintenance Code, uh, IPMC. Yes, Mr. Bartley.

Uh, thank you. Um, actually, a speaker in public comment earlier mentioned this that the city is currently using the 2006 uh, edition of the International Property Maintenance Code. Uh, the up-to-date version is 2021. Uh and so staff is interested in uh transitioning the city to use that 2021 IPMC uh ordinance and is uh creating a committee uh to do so and make sure that we have uh board and commission representation on that committee. So, they are requesting uh one representative of the planning committee or commission uh housing staff who's putting this together expects to meet uh monthly, excuse me, twice monthly for approximately 6 to 8 months uh and expects that that could begin as soon as this month uh depending on availability of members and uh believes that they'll have a an in-person meeting at the uh at least the first and then we'll probably have a mix of virtual and in person after that. So, uh, looking for interest from the planning commission and a representative for me. I'll just note that Dave Chapen is absent tonight, so he couldn't say no.

I'm joking, Dave. Uh, and this doesn't record a vote, does it? It's just a It doesn't. Okay. I I included a sample motion if if you want to. Okay. Looks Looks like a great opportunity. I don't think I can do it due to the heavy PT schedule I have coming my way in the next couple weeks, but um for I don't know, a shoulder or something. Uh, anybody else interested? Any interest looking around the table?

No. Starts in April or likely in April. Likely in April. Okay. Yeah, I can do it. That's fine. Congratulations. A true hero. Thank you. True hero. You've now been assigned as a representative to the committee created for the purposes of recommending the city's use of the updated version of the IPMC. Thank you for volunteering and um we look forward to hearing how that goes.

Okay. Uh that takes us on to unfinished business. Uh uh 9.1 continued discussion of current future land use map categories and potential changes. Mr. Bartley, any updates to this since last?

No, no updates to this. Uh so this I brought to you last time. Um and I'm I'm approaching it a similar way this time is that there is not urgency on this, but I would like to I would like to continue moving forward. Uh we currently have 15 unique uh future land use categories. um with with names that don't necessarily describe what they are. It's a good practice to have self-escriptive names, but also just to consider are these the right categories. Um and so I've included uh examples of several future land use maps. Uh that was requested last time. Uh so we tried to include some college towns uh showing some that had a lot of uh categories, some that had very few just to give you some ideas of what other cities out there are doing, what they look like. Um one thing I want to show you is that most of these future land use maps are not parcel specific. They might have uh general lines along that happen to correspond to parcel lines. Um, but that's the best practice is to not make your future land use map parcel specific because essentially you end up kind of zoning your properties uh for the future and that and that doesn't allow for uh much I guess future flexibility as needed. So if there are specific recommendations tonight uh that you'd like me to consider or things that you're responding to from these future land use maps, I'd love to hear it. I don't expect you to make a decision unless you're interested. uh if you are interested the the decision that I'm looking for eventually will be these are the categories that we would like. If you're looking for a staff recommendation instead, I can do that. The planning commission can decide on on the categories. Uh it's a comprehensive plan element. Our next step after we decide on the categories would be to go out and vet them and get the community to start assigning. Let's let's have that exercise of creating this new future land use map, which will take some significant engagement and some time. But we want to start with the categories. And so again, I don't I I

don't necessarily need a decision tonight. Um, I'd love interest or thoughts, comments, recommendations if you have them. Uh, I expect to come back with you to to you again with this, but wanted to leave that open. Richard Adolf.

Um, it's, and maybe this is selfish of me, but it has already been a very long meeting. And so I wonder if my fellow commissioners would be interested in taking this up on um a meeting that we don't have any like other any other business like a meeting that would usually be cancelled. um so that we can spend more substantive time on discussing this cuz I think it is a really big Yeah. change and I do not have the proper brain power to decide our future land uses right now. That's I agree

along the lines of what I was thinking. What I was going to propose Landon is um for something like this. I think you did a good job of teeing it up, provided a lot of good resources material for us to to look at. I don't think we need to go through and make recommendations tonight. I think it would be great to have uh a list of of staff recommendations to build off of as the basis that we can add or delete to and um you know how that aligns with the comp plan and uh we could really go through it and make some thoughtful um decisions about what this should look like. Um, but I think between now and that meeting, I think everybody again should take a a close look at this and um see if they have any initial thoughts or recommendations that they can bring to the next meeting. And

um appreciate that it's on the agenda, but that's what I think the logical next step is. I have a comment if please do. We don't I don't really expect any upcoming meetings to be free of business. Yeah, we have at least we have uh we have well stocked agendas for the next couple meetings. Uh and I expect it to continue through probably at least June. Um if there's interest, I think this could also be a really good uh topic for a retreat if you wanted to do some sort of a special meeting for that.

Uh knowing that that would have to be publicly noticed. So, it' be a public meeting, but uh Commissioner Chapen, I'm picking on him again because he was gone, but he talked about that specifically uh a few meetings ago and said, "I'd love to have a retreat to talk about planning concepts in general, the future land use, uh the comprehensive plan, etc." So, if that's of interest, maybe we can consider that and I could we could schedule that over email. Yes, I think it sounds like a great idea. We could dedicate focus to it and um really go through it. Um, right. So, eager to hear what the hear what the next few meetings look like and um yeah, I don't know. Any other thoughts on this? That sounds like a good next step. Yeah, I would be interested in a retreat, too. Okay.

And good to know that we have job security here on the planning commission with some full agenda soon. I know. Look at that. All right. Uh, any commissioner concerns? None. just concerned our good friend is leaving us to go do extracurricular activities. Something super exciting. Um but no, again it was it was great for everything working with you. Um any other last comments? Seeing none, motion to adjurnn. So moved. So commissioner Denal seconded by putts I heard. Um any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor I.

I post nay. Motion carries. We are adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Almost 3 hours.