Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is six. Whoa, it is 6 32. So, um, let's call this meeting to order. I'll call the meeting of the East Lansing planning commission, uh, to order on July 22nd at 6 30 PM. Uh, moving on to item 1.1, uh, Landon, would you mind, um, calling roll call please?

Certainly commissioner Chapin, commissioner Denault, commissioner Greening. Mr. LePine Ray here. Commissioner Overby here. Commissioner Putz here. Commissioner Ramirez Roberts here. Vice chair Wagner, chair Sullivan. And we do have quorum.

Thank you. All right. Moving on to item 1.2 approval of the agenda. Um, I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the agenda for tonight.

Motion to approve.

Second. Moved by, that's so awkward. Moved by Commissioner Dinnall, seconded by Commissioner Overby. Let's see here. All those in favor, please say yes.

Aye.

Aye. Thank you. I'm struggling along. All right. Item 1.3, approval of the minutes from the June 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. These are draft minutes that were included in your packet. I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the June 24, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Motion made by Commissioner Putz.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts. All those in favor, please say yes.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay. Great. Okay. Moving on to item two, committee reports. I'd like to turn it over to Commissioner Putz to give us any update that there might be on the data center's staff work group.

Yeah, we've had, I mean, it's just been a wonderful set of meetings to have. This last one was really focused on what are the things that we want to see out of any ordinance language that can build requirements that are meetable by anyone who's building but also protecting the residents and the city from any unforeseen consequences or mishaps that may happen in the process of potentially building a new data center. There's a lot of different directions we can go with it. I will reiterate from the last meeting, Commissioner Greening mentioned that As much as some folks would like to just outright ban data centers, it is prohibited by Michigan state law to ban a land use, if I remember that correctly. So unfortunately, that's not really on the table. We do have the option of doing moratorium as long as we are working towards something and can demonstrate that. So yeah, I think we're in a pretty good spot with it. We had a lot of really good feedback that Landon collected on the last meeting of what do we want to see as measurable outputs for an ordinance and what are the things that we can do to make it so that it's enforceable and measurable so that we're not just kind of leaving things wide open. So looking forward to it.

Are there additional meetings that are coming up of that work group?

Yeah, we're tentatively planning on meeting again next Tuesday the 28th. The next meeting is intended. Internally, we have been working on developing language after the last meeting, which was really kind of focusing on what are the outcomes that we want to see. And so we're going to have a first real early look, I think, for the committee to respond to before we bring it to our attorney to start drafting language. My tentative expectation is that we'll be bringing language to council to introduce probably at their first business meeting in September. And then it will come to planning commission. Commissioner Putz mentioned the moratorium. The council had adopted a moratorium on data center applications back in March, which extends until September 17th. I would expect that we're going to be requesting an extension of a couple months to that moratorium just while the ordinance goes through the process.

Any additional questions for Commissioner Putz or Landon? Okay. Moving on to item three on the agenda, staff reports. Landon, I know you had a late city council meeting last night, so take us away.

We had a late city council. Yeah, it wasn't the longest in recent memory, but it was close. I think we went until 1254 a.m., so... It was quite a meeting. We had a lot of items on the agenda as well. I'll just briefly go through those and what happened. So the council held a public hearing for Ordinance 1564, which is the rezoning proposed for all the properties that currently have DeWitt Township zoning. And they did take a public hearing and received very few comments and ultimately decided to adopt that ordinance. So that rezoning is going through in line with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Also 825 West Lake Lansing had requested to be rezoned as ordinance 1573. That property was to be rezoned from RM 22 to RM 14. It's a single family house. This commission had seen it a couple months ago and had recommended adoption and the council did also have the public hearing and then chose to move ahead and adopted that ordinance so that property will be rezoned as well. There was a public hearing on ordinance 1572 which was amendments to the zoning ordinance surrounding residential rental restriction overlay districts and that the Planning Commission and Housing Commission actually had both recommended not adopting that ordinance. The The council took many public comments on that ordinance and ultimately also decided to act. They acted to not adopt that ordinance. So I think that there was some discussion on council about maybe considering the idea again down the road. I'm not quite sure what the next step will be here, but for now that ordinance is gone. And then finally there was an ordinance 1576 that's a cleanup ordinance called cleanup ordinance that was intended to close an inadvertent loophole about diverse housing in downtown by changing upper story multiple family residential uses back to a special use from a site plan review requirement. Also to change a little bit of wording around alcohol and also to change, what am I blanking on last thing? There was one more thing I'm sure I'll think of it. Uh, they ultimately did not, uh, Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. It was about the incentive, uh, the building incentive, uh, for stories associated with, uh, lead. And they were adding some requirements around that. So there were several comments, uh, or I guess a comment, but, and there had also been a protest petition that was filed late on Monday, um, asking not to act on that, uh, in light of that. And for other reasons, the planning of the city council ultimately did not take any action. And we'll see that again at our next meeting on August 11th. There was a couple other ordinances that the Planning Commission had recently recommended action on. Ordinance 1575 about green code amendments to the ordinance and also Ordinance 1570 for rezoning at 3859 Stoll Road way up at Stoll and Chandler. That was associated with the Dewitt Township properties rezoning. Those did not have public hearings last night. Those have been rescheduled to August 11th. So we'll see those at City Council at that time. There were several items also on the business agenda. There was a site plan request at 401 East Grand River, the Howard, which you'll be seeing this evening for a parking plan, public hearing. City Council acted and approved that request. You'll also be seeing a parking plan for a public hearing tonight for 530 Albert. There was a site plan request from that and Council denied that request. They approved a requested expansion of the rooftop patio at the Graduate. You'll be having a public hearing tonight for the parking request to add parking spaces where there's currently a pedestrian plaza for that property at 133 Evergreen. They also approved the requested expansion of the Brightwell Psychiatric Hospital at 3512 Coolidge at the southeast corner of Coolidge and Coleman, north side of town. You saw that in the last couple meetings and recommended approval. And then finally, they approved the removal of an occupancy condition for an accessory dwelling unit at the Highland Apartments at 144 Highland Avenue. This commission hasn't seen that, but that was a condition of approval way back from 1994 saying the resident of that unit must be the resident manager of this apartment complex. And the applicant said, can we lift that restriction? And the council did that. So the council's next meeting will be on August 11th. Your next meeting will be on August 12th. Right now we don't have business for that, but we will be continuing the retreat that we had. Sorry? Thank you. We will have business. We will have business before you, most likely on August 12th, but we will be continuing the retreat that we had on July 11th that was focused on some legal training, but also the future land use map. We'll be focusing much more on the future land use categories and map at our next meeting on August 12th. And actually, I had the leading managers group of the city do that today. So that was a good exercise. You'll notice that I didn't include council manager reports in this agenda. Basically, we had some different instructions and have been told essentially, no, those don't need to go out. Just they can inform our staff reports. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to share any details about what's happening in those. But basically, I wanted to share the council actions from last night. That really is most of my staff report. Any questions about anything I've mentioned? Okay. Thanks.

All right. Moving on to item four on the agenda, commissioner announcements. Are there any announcements from commissioners tonight? Thrilling. Okay. Item 4.2, disclosure of conflict of interest. Do any commissioners have a conflict that needs to be disclosed tonight? Okay, item five, communications from citizens, 5.1. It looks like I didn't see any written communications in the packet and I think we've confirmed with staff that they have not received any. Moving on to 5.2, this is the time for the audience to provide any comments. I have one card before me for Mr. Dietrich, I'm assuming you'd like to speak on your agenda item on the public hearing. Any other comments tonight from citizens? Okay. All right, moving on to our public hearing section. So let's start with 6.1, a public hearing to receive comments on a parking plan for a mixed-use building at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River Ave, proposed by Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures. I'll turn it over to you, Alicia.

This parking plan request is a requirement of Article 50-593L3 of the zoning ordinance, which requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing for the parking plan. So this evening you will be holding a public hearing, and no action is necessary.

Okie dokie. And I just need to open the public hearing, correct? Yes. All right. Do I need a motion to open a public hearing? No. All right. So opening the public hearing. Any comments at this time? Nope. Then I will close the public hearing. Oh, I need to check online. Perfect. All right. We'll close the public hearing on item 6.1 and move on to public hearing 6.2, a hearing to receive comments on a parking plan for a mixed-use building at 530 Albert Ave proposed by Cody Dietrich on behalf of TDP Acquisitions. And with that, I will turn it back over to you, Alicia.

This is the same situation that the zoning ordinance requires a parking plan to be held through a public hearing at the Planning Commission according to Article 50-593L3. So this is fulfilling that requirement by holding a public hearing. No action is required.

Okay. I did not ask before any commissioner comments or questions on that piece for staff. All right. Then we will open that public hearing. Anyone here to speak tonight? You have Cody. I have Cody in front of me. Cody, I don't usually have to do this. This is not my forte, so I will turn it over to you.

You're all good. Cody Dietrich with Treen Development Partners. I just wanted to say I'm here to answer any questions if need be. I don't have any special presentation or anything like that, so thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? All right, with that, we will close item 6.2 and move on to item 6.3. This is a public hearing to receive comments on a proposal from the Graduate East Lansing to reconfigure an existing plaza space at 133 Evergreen Ave by adding five parking spaces and one van accessible space. And I will turn it back over to staff.

Yes, this project came to fruition due to a need for additional valet parking in front of the graduate. They are proposing to modify their existing site plan. In April 9, 2019, city council had approved a modified request to their project for the first floor. to use retail for the hotel lobby and back house and fitness and so forth. And then on May 11th, 2020 council approved a special use permit allowing the onsite alcohol service for the rooftop, the rooftop rock bar, They had 96 patrons last night. City Council approved an increase in occupancy to 199. This request kind of goes hand in hand to try and resolve some of the issues that they have with their valet. The proposal is to, again, modify an existing site plan that was approved in 2018. I apologize, I didn't say that sooner. to allow the plaza to be used for outside seating. It also includes an art mural on the wall. The proposal is for five parking spaces carved out as well as one van accessible space. They've identified a true single space parallel to the building. That space parallel to the building will be dedicated to the graduate as their valet, but the proposed cutout area is for temporary loading and unloading that will be metered for the public. It's not just for the graduate. And it's hoping to encourage that the Valley Services Can improve their operations to be more in and out, not park on the street where it says no parking. Use those spaces to help facilitate their folks that are coming to either stay at the hotel or use the restaurant. A couple of things that were identified that need to be addressed. Original site plan included three street trees. The way that they've proposed the parking allows for their showing for two street trees, which would leave one still needing a home. There are also landscape planters and trees in a planter box that kind of run parallel to Albert. It appears that that will be completely gone. which was part of the original approval. It appears that the landscape box that they have now that runs parallel to Albert was supposed to have three trees. There are two. I believe they're removing one, so only one would be left. And I'm not quite sure the size of that. But Article 50-840 does require landscaping for site plans, except when there is a when it's in the vicinity of rights of way that might conflict with clear view of traffic, which would be required to be determined for a reduction by the city engineer. They did not provide the landscaping in this plan, so that still needs to be sorted out. Also, the engineering department has identified making sure that they provide the information related to curbs, gutters for the sidewalks, verification that the ramp for the ADA is compliant because it does not look big enough. contradiction from the statement and the plan about the crosswalks, which I know that the applicant is prepared to discuss. I believe they don't intend to provide the raised crosswalks. So it would be something to the effect of someone else providing that. Part of this cutout does go into private property. So in order for it to actually occur, it will require The word escapes me. There has to be an easement with the city to allow that to become the metered loading and unloading. There is a PIV valve that falls on the line of two of the parking spaces that doesn't show any protection. It is required to be protected per the fire department. So it could either be protected there if it'll still meet the size requirements for the parking spaces, or it could be relocated, which was also reiterated by the building department. The building department also wants to ensure that, and I believe we have enough, although the landscaping may impact it, that there's a minimum of five feet of clear, unobstructed walking path for sidewalk for ADA compliance. As noted, there's not any information yet provided regarding the landscaping. There With the removal as shown, not having any landscaping now with this proposal will mean there's an increase in impervious coverage. That calculation hasn't been provided. But if they have a plan for the landscaping that they just haven't provided yet, that could offset that. So they would have to be able to ensure that whatever runoff is created is minimized for impacts. And I'm sure the applicant is able to speak to those requirements. That's pretty much it, unless you have any specific questions. Oh, I'm sorry. There is one light fixture that they have to remove to do this, and then they're going to put it back. So it's not going to be any new lighting. But there will be utility work that also doesn't appear to be identified. But some of that ends up being done at the permit stage. And we can take questions.

Questions for staff?

Yeah, I do. So I'm assuming when they're removing trees and then replanting, they're not using the same trees? No. OK.

So the trees actually have to be for the street trees. They have to be from the city's street tree approved list. The city's arborist and our environmentalists have looked at what they're proposing. The challenge is just where are they going to put the third street tree.

OK. All right. OK. Thank you.

Commissioner Janal, did you have a question?

I did. I just wanted to clarify. So it sounds like that they are both taking out the three street trees plus the two private trees for a total of five trees, yes?

But putting back two.

Putting back two, okay.

But for clarification, the original site plan had three private trees only that I can tell. And they could correct me if I've got that wrong. But it looked like there were only two there.

Any other questions? All right. We'll have the applicants come on up to speak.

And please remember to fill out a card when you're done. Please remember when you're done.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for having us. My name is Pablo David with the Graduate Hotel. First of all, thank you again for having us. We have made this proposal to the site plan and to modify it because as Alicia alluded to, we kind of have a little bit of a valet operations issue. A lot of that stems from limited real estate and no onsite parking when this project was approved some six years ago. And while we have and continue to implement what we think are positive changes operationally, meaning more manpower, meaning better staging hours, we need a little bit of help in terms of ensuring that we try to get those cars completely off the street and in turn being good neighbors, not causing congestion in the area, and just getting cars in and out quickly. Most of those issues stem from special event days whether that's a wedding whether that's a game day when Michigan State's you know on a football game day But there's no hiding we need to we need help fixing that issue so with that You know, I did want to touch on a few of the things that Alicia said in terms of some of the concerns. So as far as the easement is concerned with the city, that's not an issue at all. We're happy to grant that. You can take this as my commitment publicly on the record. That won't be an issue at all. as far as the landscaping is concerned if you look at the portfolio of graduate hotels you will very quickly realize just by looking at pictures we love landscaping so while I know we are only showing two if we cannot fit that third on-site we would also just be happy to put that on site where there is a need for another tree, whether that's in the downtown core or wherever you all or the planning department deems it suitable. And we will also put forth a full landscaping plan during the permitting process that will not be an issue at all as well. As far as the PIV valve that was mentioned, we have had a conversation, Lee Cody, our GM, with the fire marshal, and the fire marshal did express that he would be comfortable with putting that underground, so it wouldn't have to be sticking above ground and sort of protected within the parameters that code provides. So that's something that also we're fully committed to doing. And as far as the crosswalks, the crosswalks has been kind of a strange situation to put it lightly. That just kind of came out of the blue. The crosswalks, having two race crosswalks on the south and north end, we believe from a civil engineering standpoint that that creates a massive issue. We're in the Midwest, massive storms are coming through. It's getting worse. Obviously being in the Midwest we also get a lot of snow What happens with all of the pooling of the water? Between these two race crosswalks and what happens to snow getting plowed So those are things that we are prepared to talk about but those are also something that was the decision that was sort of made in a vacuum without consideration to our arguments at the Traffic and Planning Commission and on top of that the South Race Crosswalk is actually subject to approval by the Michigan Department of Transportation because it does run along Grand River which is a state road and not a local road. So that is even if we were to commit to that today that there's no guarantee that MDOT would actually even approve it. but all that said we're really excited that City Council we were able to earn their support for the rooftop expansion we know with that rooftop expansion comes more visitors and we just hope that we can continue to provide the great service to East Lansing and do so without causing massive congestion and we hope that this is actually going to help that problem and if you have any questions we're more than happy to answer them thank you

Thank you so much.

Can you do a card, Pablo? I'm sorry? Could you fill out one of those cards for us?

Oh, thank you so much. Let's start with Commissioner Overby.

I have a question. I was wondering if you could walk us through how the valet parking works. What happens, so I'm a guest and I pulled up in my car and what happens and then what happens to my car?

That's a great question and I think Lee Cody, the GM of the hotel is the perfect person to answer in better detail.

Thanks again. Good to see you guys. So yeah, guests arriving at the hotel will approach our entrance. One of the valet operators will open the door, assist that guest, take down their information, retrieve keys. The guest will proceed to check in after they've been assisted with luggage. We'll then take the vehicle to one of the city garages, primarily. We have a couple of surface lots we rent space in, but currently all lease space from the city. Then that vehicle would be parked there, valet operator returns to the hotel, and on to the next.

So how long does it take the valet operator to come back? I assume you have some number of valet operators so that they can be parking the car and have sort of a circle, a cycle of their work.

Yeah, correct. I would say depending on the lot because we operate in four different lots from lot 15 into the garages, Bailey, Albert, and And those ones are a little bit longer turnaround. About a five minute would be the quickest turnaround, and longest would be approximately 10, depending on which lot we're using.

Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts.

And just to add a little bit more to that, in your packet, you also have traffic studies. We've done three of them over the last five years to sort of better gauge what the traffic counts, who's coming and going, what kind of vehicles are coming and going. And the reality is that most of the traffic is ours because there's no commercial frontage outside of our main entrance.

commissioner ramirez roberts yeah i had another valet question i'm sorry so since these are public metered spots are you guys just planning on putting the cars there temporarily while the valleys can get to them i mean with it being public parking is there any concern that it will essentially fill up with the public before you guys are able to start utilizing them yeah we understand that that would be a community partnership that we'd have to

you know work work through the intent if it was valet operated is that guest arrives we do that quick process retrieving their information assist with luggage they move on to the check-in and then that vehicle has been unloaded into parts but of course we understand that somebody quick run into another business in the area could use that space as well okay

Commissioner at all. Um, that was one of my questions. Um, my other question was how did you determine that? What is this five spaces that that number of spaces would be sufficient to alleviate the valet issue? Was it just, was it that that's how many spaces alleviates the issue or was it like, that's how many spaces fits?

So I think it's a combination of both. So in our application, we had our traffic engineer not only come up with the conclusion, but also show the analysis of why those five and one, because it is five regular spaces and one ADA accessible space. why that's sort of the magic number within the confines of the real estate that we have to work with. And ultimately, to Lee's point, is these staging spaces, while confirming they are more than publicly available there for anyone's use, it's to get them off the street to not cause congestion, and having cars end up going in the northbound lane to try to go southbound. So at least they're away and within one to two minutes we get those cars out and then traverse, make that loop to where we park them.

Just a little bit of a conceptual question. I am a frequent visitor of the Rock Bar, and I love coming down to the Graduate. My organization, we've hosted some events there. The valet is always, always backed up, which I think in some ways is a good problem because it means people like going there. But it is... challenging to navigate and I think is kind of in many times it's a safety risk because there's so many cars and there's pedestrians. I'm struggling to understand how adding five spots that the general public could use for a short period of time is going to improve the valet process because in my mind I think it would do the opposite. It would complicate it. So can you help me understand, do you have other graduate hotels that do something similar to this? I am concerned it's such a small space in general right now that adding additional spots, this is a college town, people will stop, park there, leave their car. Then you're going to have to tow it and still operate a valet. So can you just help me understand how you see this making it better, not making it worse?

So what we have found is that local residents are not using valet. No one wants to pay who lives here locally $30 or whatever it is to valet their car. They're using publicly accessible lots and walking. And while we have our valet operator there, they're also monitoring the sort of timing of it all and reminding people, hey, this is not an actual parking spot. You may be ticketed, you may be towed, while also ensuring that we're not taking everything up for a prolonged period of time. I think the issue, if we're looking at it from a holistic standpoint, is cars are on the street. And by taking the cars off the street into a designated area, it allows for the continual flow of traffic, no matter how minimal it is from from residents and visitors, it's traffic that's being created because of the draw of the hotel, whether they're guests or potential visitors, maybe driving from 30 minutes out and don't know where the public lots are. But as part of the operational changes that we're making we're also reminding our guests who are arriving if you do not want to pay for valet there are city lots available to you within a very short distance and so by sort of improving those operational standards that we have and saying valet is not your only option if you don't want to pay $30 a day for your valet it's parking is within reach within a very short walk so reminding them there are other options because valet is there as a guest service. It's not always a necessity for every single guest. And some guests would rather save those $30 and walk a block. But reminding them and knowing that they have options as well.

But in this plan, just to confirm, doesn't add any additional signage that would say any of that outside for folks, correct?

Signage that says what specifically? Anything about where the other parking is or that would be in communication the email communications to the guests Whether if they are an actual hotel guests, I think if you're a local residents, I think you inherently know you don't have to go Valet there you can go park on the street or park at a lot But our guests they will have that via email communication to them. Yes, I

I think I echo Commissioner Lepine's questioning whether this will actually alleviate the valet issue, which I have encountered, as someone who, you are correct, does not park anywhere near the Graduate Hotel, I usually will bike in from my house, so I appreciate that you have ample bike parking, thank you. But I often find that the bike lane on, not on Evergreen, on Evergreen? Is that Evergreen? It is Evergreen, I think.

There's no bike lane, I never agree.

There's a bike lane, the street to the north. What's the street to the north? Albert. Albert, you are correct. That the bike lane on Albert is usually blocked by cars that are waiting to be valeted. I just want to, I think, echo your concerns that adding spots that are not just to alleviate valet but are open to anyone, I don't know that that actually addresses the backup issue. I had another thing, but now it's gone. But it'll come back, hopefully. Okay. Yes.

I have a staff question. For the meter loading and unloading, what's the time limit on that?

15 minutes. It will be signed as well. Oh, good. Similar to all other temporary spaces. Oh, I remember.

Yes, Commissioner . Who is responsible for enforcing parking there is the city is in pace. So it's not y'all at all. Okay.

They're just being nice. And by saying, Hey, if you park here, you'll get a ticket.

Um, okay. That's helpful. Do you have a sense of how often you get, um, complaints about the Valley situation? whether that be something coming from Pace or the city or even just a concerned citizen that's coming to the hotel.

yeah I think I don't think there's any hiding that there have been complaints in the past and hence why we're we're here trying to to fix it whether it was from pace or the city itself because to your point bike lane can't block it you know that's not acceptable and again it's it's sort of a A limited real estate issue, right? It's great that there's such a demand for the business, but it's within very tight quarters and trying to get creative with operation weather and also talking about getting other locations for staging spaces. Yeah, the complaints have been there. I think the PACE officer last night at city council and some of the city council members have acknowledged that it has improved over the last two years. That does not mean that we're perfect and that there is not room for improvement. And we're hoping, based on not only the empirical data that we showed and that our traffic engineer showed in the application, we hope that that continues the upward trend of less complaints, more accountability on that end, and getting cars in and out as quickly as possible.

Yes, Commissioner Obrey.

So this is a question and perhaps a suggestion at the same time, but wouldn't the issue of backup be addressed by having an adequate number of runners.

Yeah, that's also a part of it. We have met, and if you want much greater detail, Lee has been leading the charge on what that looks like. Especially, it may not always be on a sort of your run of the mill Tuesday where the issues are coming in, but if there is an organization that rents out the event space on a on a Wednesday or the obvious game day situation and what that staffing looks like. And requiring our valet operator, which is a third party, we don't do that ourselves, saying, hey, we need, whether it's 10, 15, 20 runners, we can't have five on a game day against Michigan. That's insane. We need more people. So those are all part of the operational changes that we have made and continue to make.

Commissioner Butz.

Kind of a mechanical logistics question. Maybe this is a better question for the GM. So when you get queues in the valet, does it usually run north to Albert?

No, our side would be the west side of Evergreen. So it would be queuing looking southbound towards Grand River and needing to take a right onto Grand River. okay so if we're adding five spaces north of the drop-off doesn't that mean that if we're queued we're going the queue is blocking those five spots no because the queue the theory before us today is that with the added runners with the adequate operations changes we're we're going into those loading zone spaces and getting people in and out much faster without blocking the southbound lane towards grand river so we're getting people off the street getting them out and then out as quickly as humanly possible does that make sense yeah i'm

Because that's 15-minute parking, so that's like hot swap parking for you guys. You would be putting it there to get the queue down, and then once you have availability, the runners would take the cars out of the hot swap over to the parking lots, because it's still 15-minute parking, right? Correct. So it would still be possible, I mean, unless you had a... like a lot of runners, which would be very cool to see, that you would still develop some sort of queue. So you would still have to burn down some of that queue to get one car in and out of the temporary parking. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just, yeah.

The quick conversations I've had with PMC, who is the third party operator, because we've had this conversation about how that queue would impact those spaces, would be that if we were at the point of capacity in those spaces that essentially are a part of the queue, that then those guests would be circled back around to keep that queue clear so we can bring vehicles out. They do the quick flip around up Valley Court, come back, and then they have the ability to access one of those available spaces.

Okay, so you're using the block as a circle to build this. Correct. Okay. You have to keep traffic flowing. Okay. That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

So I could be being obtuse on this then, but I think I just had the light bulb go off. So these are five spots. I was under the impression that these were reserved for public parking for 15 minutes. But are you planning to also be using those five spots to basically hot swap cars at the Graduate so it's not really public parking? They're just five additional parking spots?

The conversations we've had at this point is that both uses would be appropriate with this plan. That's what was reviewed originally.

I think that's where, but it's not public parking?

It is public.

It's for the general use of the public. Primarily the graduate will use it because they're right there, but if someone wants to go to Duncan, they can park there and run in and go to Duncan.

And, of course, the enforcement, as you said, would come from PACE, but our team, the valet team, would be there to communicate that as well.

We just would want to make sure that if all the spaces are full that we don't end up with cars blocking. And so that's going to be one of their operational challenges that they'll have to work through.

You're forcing people into being there longer than 15 minutes because they can't get out.

And it's not intended for parking. It's intended for loading and unloading to help them facilitate their guests.

Yeah, that makes sense.

And I guess, go ahead. Would the guest at the graduate be considered the public? So they're free to park in these spaces while they're unloading their car and the 15 minutes adds a time limit to their being there. It just makes logical sense to me.

Oh, here's a question for staff. So they are 15-minute metered spaces, so you have to pay for your 15 minutes.

The first 15 are free.

Okay, but anything after that you have to pay for. So someone theoretically could stay there for two hours while they go to karaoke at Crunchy's, for example, right?

I don't believe that that's the intent of the signage is going to say temporary loading and unloading. And I don't know really how the meters work, but the goal is for them to be 15 minute free loading and unloading. And the signage from the parking department will also verify that.

But they could are like, could someone take up that space? No. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think that's where I was confused. This metered, like using the language metered implies to me that they can pay money for additional time there.

It's a clock, basically. Okay.

Oh, like the city hall lot. Yeah, right, exactly.

Yes. Okay, okay. Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

I have another question for staff that just hasn't come up yet, but we obviously don't have a landscaping plan.

Well, we do. I want to correct myself. So there are still items that need to be addressed. So page 23 of the packet does have landscaping, but there are still items that are being removed and trees that need to be addressed that were part of the original proposal. As Pablo indicated, They don't have room for the third street tree. Coming up with a solution that they've offered to find a location for. The outstanding item that I was concerned about was the three that were part of the original site plan approval. So we're getting some landscaping shrubs and bushes, but we're losing more trees and trees tend to soak up water more and they don't appear to have a calculation on the amount and maybe I missed it. It's a lot of material and they can correct me if the amount is in there for the impervious coverage.

Perfect. While you're looking, I actually have another question, unless Alicia.

I just wanted to also reiterate that the Transportation Commission did recommend this proposal for the five spaces plus the van accessible on July, no, June something, June 1st of this year. Did you have a question?

I did. Yeah, sorry, Commissioner. Oh, no, you're totally fine. One of the things that Cliff from Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency suggested in his notes was for a condition of approval that would require the applicant to warrant that the two adjacent trees that are being put in right on either side of the parking, that they be, for a minimum of three years post-installation, have their, not their survival guaranteed, but if they die, that you promise to replace them for three years after installation. Is that a condition that y'all would be willing?

I'd be more than happy to do that.

Perfect. Thank you.

There's also a landscape bond requirement in the ordinance, which would help with that.

I also still need to open the public hearing for this, right? For the public? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff before we do that?

Just did they end up finding the stormwater numbers that Alicia was mentioning? Or the runoff numbers? Or is that something that can be provided to us at our next meeting? When we take action on this, potentially?

AJ Patrick with Kebs. We have the numbers on the pervious, impervious that's proposed right now, but I don't have the existing numbers to compare against. But that's something we can have for the next meeting.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I will now open the public hearing at 719 p.m. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak about this application that has not already? Okay. We will close the public hearing still at 719 p.m. Oh, and anyone in the queue online? There's no one in the queue. Great. Incredible. All right, any additional questions for staff? No? All right. With that, we'll see it again at the next meeting. Okay. Thank you so much. Which is in August, on August 12th. Yep. Moving on to item seven, any unfinished business, which I do not see any. Moving on to item eight, new business. I also do not see any new business unless I'm missing anything. Item nine, commissioner concerns. Any commissioner concerns other than how happy we are to have Chair Sullivan back next time so I never have to do this again?

We will not. I was going to say, actually, for my, I do have a concern.

My concern is that we all congratulate Lauren for leading us through this meeting very well. Thank you. And I appreciate her very much. Thank you so much.

We will not have Chair Sullivan next time. Thank you. Okay. Oh, no.

Oh, God. She didn't hear me.

Sorry, what was that?

We won't have Chair Sullivan next month. Oh, goody.

Someone else must do this.

We won't have either of them.

Okay. Perfect. I'd like to ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Moved by Commissioner Overee. And then seconded by Commissioner Gennalt. So we will adjourn at 7.21 p.m. Yeah, aye. Aye. Aye. Great. Guys, that was real tough.