Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call the meeting of the East Lansing Planning Commission meeting on August 12th, 2026 to order at 6.30 PM. Landon, could you please call roll?

I will. Commissioner Chapin?

Present.

Present. Commissioner Denault? Here. Commissioner Greening? Commissioner LePine-Ray? Here. Commissioner Overby? Here. Commissioner Putz? Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts? Here. Vice Chair Wagner? Chair Sullivan? We have quorum.

Thank you. And could I have a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? So moved, uh, moved by Denal, seconded by Overby. Um, all in favor, please say, uh, yay. And all please say, uh, oppose say nay. Aye or aye. Um, all right, moving on to item 1.3 on the agenda, um, approval of the minutes. So the July 22nd, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes, um, are included in your packet. Um, could I have a motion please to approve those meeting minutes?

So moved.

Moved by Ramirez-Roberts. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Overby. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. OK, motion passes. Moving on to agenda item two, committee reports. We have the data center staff work group report. And Commissioner Putz and Greening are not here. Would you like to give that?

I can give a brief report on that work group. The data center's work group is an internal work group from several departments, planning, public works, IT, public works including the water, I guess wastewater and also water plant. They've been meeting essentially biweekly for a couple months and are getting close to, I would say we have a good conceptual framework so far for an ordinance, but haven't put together draft language yet because we had a little challenge over the summer getting in touch with several subject matter experts at MSU and we have a better chance now. So last night actually at council I requested and was given a six month extension of a moratorium that we passed in March. So we'll have uh six more months uh including the the extra months so and that more term will continue until march 17th of next year um but i i hope to uh have in language introduced at the council level potentially as soon as september october uh we'll see how it goes and then that will come to you after that um so i'm it's been good work uh by the work group and i'm excited to bring something to you in the next few months sounds good any questions on that for landon

Okay, hearing none, moving on to item number three, staff reports. Landon, I'll turn it over to you.

Sure. I'll just briefly mention, if anyone's watching online, it's currently 635, and we have a wet weather resiliency plan open house taking place in the lobby until 7 p.m., so people can still make it down to Hanna Community Center to the lobby to check out the wet weather resiliency plan. plan, open house, that's going on right now, or they can also go to eastlansingfloodstudy.com to find out more about that process and give feedback. Otherwise, I just want to mention a little update on what happened at Council last night. Council had a public hearing for Ordinance 1570, which was a proposed rezoning for 3859 Stoll. That's a small property way up at Stoll and Chandler. that was surrounded by properties that had DeWitt Township zoning. Ordinance 1564 changed all those DeWitt Township zone properties to have East Lansing zoning and those became R1 and 3859 Stoll was a little pocket of B4 zoning that was left over from previous zoning. So the council approved or adopted that ordinance to change that to be R1 as well to match the rest of the properties around it. Ordinance 1559 about diverse housing in 1576, a cleanup ordinance to change house, upper story residential is governed in downtown and several other items. Those were both deferred to September 8th. We'll be discussing those more at council on that night. Also, council had a public hearing for Ordinance 1575, which is the Green Code Study Committee's amendments proposed for the zoning ordinance. They had their public hearing last night. Just got, I think, one comment. And they'll be taking action, potentially, or reconsidering that ordinance on September 22nd. I think that's my update from last night. I don't think I had anything more. Did you have anything you want to add?

Okay, let me just look through real quick and see if there's anything else we should talk about.

Oh, the extension of the moratorium I mentioned. There was a public hearing just for your information about tree removal. We've had requests to remove trees come to the Planning Commission before. In this case, it was a removal without permission and the The applicant was appealing the decision of DPW to assess a fine for that. So that was interesting and we expect a couple more of those requests to come to council in the next couple months. And we'll apprise you of what happens to those as well. But that's my report.

Was that just the beginning of the appeal or was there a decision made?

It was decided. It was decided to, can you actually explain?

So the appeal was because they took down four city trees and the fine is associated with $200 per two inches of tree. But the council came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to get four new trees that are three inch caliber. were larger in place of what was there. And that they're responsible for the fees associated with the stump grinding and then what the permit and after the fact permit fee would be. So around about $800 I think is what their total fee would be, but then they have to plant those four trees. If they don't plant the four trees within 90 days, then they'll be subject to the original fine of 47-ish hundred dollars.

Got it.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Overby.

I have a question on the gas station moratorium. Is that still in effect and what's happening with that?

Yeah, thank you.

So council approved a moratorium for also in I want to say February until October 3rd of this year on new auto service centers, which include gas stations. They had recently approved a couple. I wanted to hit the brakes a little bit and determine if we have a need or should change regulations. We have done a lot of research internally on trying to understand sort of where we are compared to the region as far as pumps per capita, essentially. We've gotten some information about that. I don't necessarily think that we'll be proposing significant changes, but we may. I'll have more information for you guys probably in September about that.

Thank you.

Perfect. Any other questions? Okay. Moving on to item 4.1, disclosure of conflicts of interest. Do any commissioners have a conflict of interest that they'd like to disclose tonight? All right, hearing none, we will move on to item five, communications from citizens. I do have one card, but I'm assuming, Lee, that you would like to talk during the discussion later on. Okay, and then any other comments from citizens?

Cliff from DPW. what I was gonna say just I wanted to plug the East Lansing flood study calm and it felt weird to come and sit down and then immediately leave without explanation so just reiterating what he said that will be updated for tomorrow you're gonna miss the remainder of tonight but it's an important project September 15th there will be a presentation to council but in the meantime there's that virtual open house so for anyone listening and for all of you I encourage you to check it out and thank you

We don't need a card for that, right? Great. Perfect. I think I skipped over written communication, so I apologize. There is one written communication that it looks like is in the packet. All of the communications that were received since 5 p.m. last night are included. Any comments on that from staff or any?

Just that all written communications received before 5 p.m. last night. Got it. And this one, I believe, is about the future land use discussion, specifically talking about future zoning.

So we would probably get to this in more detail after we've figured out the future land use categories, which will be the topic of discussion tonight.

Because it's quite lengthy.

It is. It's about 25 pages. Okay, great.

Okay, I'm out of order now, so I apologize. We'll move on to item number six, our public hearings. It looks like we do not have any public hearings tonight, so we'll move on to unfinished business items. So item 7.1, consideration of a request from the Graduate East Lansing to reconfigure an existing plaza space at 133 Evergreen Avenue by adding five parking spaces and one van accessible space. I think we'll turn to the staff report first, so Alicia, I'll turn it to you.

There we go. OK.

So last planning. Last time we were here we got an overview of the proposal from the graduate to install six parking spaces, one of which includes a van accessible space within their existing plaza. The proposal includes some landscaping but there was concern about trees that had been removed as part of the proposal. I did receive an email from Greg civil engineer a little earlier yesterday they are dedicated to replacing the trees so two can fit on the property now so we have three street trees three private trees they're proposing two street trees in replacement of what threes are taking out so they'll flank the parking and then they've proposed to work with the city to relocate that third one in conjunction with an a location nearby, and then part of the proposal is also removing two of their private trees, which they have agreed to also find a new location with the city for those two additional trees. So we're losing some on the site, but they've agreed to relocate them within the vicinity, subject to what the city requirements would be as far as the type and try to get it in close proximity, maybe working with a neighboring property that has more room. So they have agreed to do that because this site just can't hold trees that would Thrive and we would want them to thrive they do propose the landscaping that is Now it's gonna be closer to the building, but they still are providing their clear path of not less than five feet of accessible space. They've dedicated to that verbally last time, and then I got it in the email again yesterday. There's a PIV valve, which is part of the fire suppression requirements that is currently located between spaces three and four, or two and three, which is raised, and so their choice for protection which they've worked with the fire marshal is to put that below ground, which will qualify for the requirements. Until we have an updated plan, that's why the conditions remain for these items. They have identified over on the, in front of the building that there is actually one parking space for their valet service that is dedicated to the graduate 100%, but it is only one based on the dimensions which their engineers provided. The six spaces, including the one van accessible, will be public parking spaces with meters for temporary loading and unloading. It will include a combination of potentially an easement and agreement, which they have already stated that they would agree to. The agreement is because part of it's public land, part of it's private land, and so the easement portion covers the private portion, but we have to have a parking agreement as is done with other parking areas like at the CVS and so forth. They've already identified that these things, that they'll work through them within the conditions that were provided. I did not write them. There were no outstanding conditions that we hadn't already discussed that they hadn't already addressed. There is one light pole that has to be removed during the construction, which will be relocated. One of the elements that will also still need to be worked through, which usually comes at permitting, is related to the actual lines for the electric service and any other lines that may be buried that they haven't investigated yet. They'll work with the engineering department to sort through that. what exists or doesn't exist and how that needs to be relocated to allow that light to be placed and still run and operate safely. I will mention that we have talked in length and Lee and I have talked many times about the concerns that we have heard as staff related to the valet operations. I observed it firsthand yesterday. There was an event, and the runners were running, but the cars were still parked where it says do not park. They were trying to valet them. People were literally getting out of their cars and just walking in. and it was spilled onto Albert on both directions. It was blocked at one point in both directions on Evergreen. So it would be a very strong encouragement to continue to improve your operations to be able to make this a success. It's definitely an operational challenge. But I believe Lee has explained that it's a third party that handles those valet operations. And they have to remember it's not a parking lot. It is temporary loading and unloading. And these spaces that are being provided are for the public. So if someone wants to pop in for 15 minutes and run to MSU, FCU, or over to the Donut store, they are allowed to use those spaces as well. With the operations, they need to be aware, which Leah's mentioned before, is that you can't block somebody in there. And then we have another traffic congestion. So this is intended to stop the street parking, which is not allowed and has been abused, unfortunately. And this was the solution that was determined to be the best of what could come from the challenges that they have. Uh, they did get a recommendation from the transportation commission on July 13th. Yes. July 13th for these spaces. So they were in support of adding those. It did go to the DDA. Last month, I'm sorry, I can't remember the date. 27th? 23rd of July, and they did postpone action for further discussion and to allow them the opportunity to review the plan. It hadn't been incorporated into their packet. That will be revisited on the 27th at DDA. Their recommendation will go directly to City Council. Any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Overby. A couple of questions. So we do not know what the DDA recommendation will be, and that will go directly to the council. Correct. That's what you said.

And that happens occasionally, the way that the meetings land. Right. That it could be the day after a planning commission vote. That would be the same thing. But yeah, we won't know until city council, whatever their recommendation is, that packet gets published.

And you saw firsthand what was happening at the... at this area at an event. And I'm struggling with this. We can't make any more space there. I wish we could, but we can't. And I personally think the only solution to this is that they have enough runners. Because you're going to have cars that will back up. I mean, there's, how many cars will it take for it to back up there? Five, six? And if you have an event, you're going to have that many people that will roll up all at once. And so I'm just struggling with what is the possible solution. And I don't know.

It's going to come down to enforcement that we are going to have to make sure that the city's PACE department is doing their enforcement and hope that the operations are improved to not have it to be a problem that we have continued to see.

Hope that they have enough runners. I mean, I felt that when we talked about this last time, I felt that the solution was that they have enough runners. Runners, I assume, are the people that drive the cars to the Grove Street ramp and then run back and get another car.

They do run. Yeah, and I know that Lee mentioned previously when we had a conversation related to trying to let their guests know before they arrive that they have limited space in front of the building for valet and trying to encourage their visitors to park themselves. He'll have to speak to how that's working. It is a challenge. It's a site that doesn't accommodate the need that the graduate has, so this was the best option that has been provided to try and soften the edges of a really rough bristle.

But if you're going to park yourself, you will still have to come up in front of the hotel to unload your family and your guests and your luggage. I mean, you're not going to drag your luggage from the parking ramp.

Well, I always took my kid from the ramp with his baseball bags and everything. It's just a culture of choice that I believe, and Lee will speak to this, what their guests are accustomed to.

Right. Right. Thank you, Alicia.

I had one question that I didn't see in the packet, so I'm assuming we couldn't figure it out. I think that I had asked something last time, but I can't remember. about whether we had any data on the number of calls that had been made to PACE about this specific issue. Was there any follow up on that?

So there was 280 or so over a course of a year. Staff probably has half of those calls that they've made and then it's exhausting to make those calls. Um, so the number of complaints has been reduced, but we do still see the challenges that they're faced with trying to accommodate their guests and, um, it.

No, that's helpful. Yes, Commissioner Chapin.

For staff here, we've been using a couple terms interchangeably. I just want to make sure we clarify this. Is this a 15-minute parking zone, or is this a loading area?

Loading and unloading. It's not for parking.

Okay, so I want to get back to your comment about you could park there and go to the donut store. So I think we need to sort of clarify that. That was confusing to me.

Okay. So you can, I guess temporarily park would be the way to, but it is 15 minutes. The meter won't allow it for a snap again for another 15 minutes. You can't put coins into it, but it's intended for loading and unloading. But at the same time, being that it's public, if somebody did want to pop their car there for a minute to run across the street, they have the right to do that. So it is kind of interchangeable and that it's intended for loading and unloading.

short-term metered to give the opportunity to utilize some time to go to the other businesses so i may have just a little follow-up i may have misunderstood we are going to have meters there yeah i thought we were going to have a sign or it was going to be signed uh in that area but there'll be meters and a sign yes so all right so loading area with meters yes okay maximum 15 minutes that was confusing to me but And I would also say while I'm asking questions, I viewed the video from a couple weeks ago. I want you guys to ask every question that I would be interested in, and I thank you for representing those that were not in attendance last night. Thank you.

And thank you for pointing out the confusion. I can understand how it is. It's intended for short-term turnaround.

I was just going to say, what type of meter is this? Is this one where you push the button and you get 15 minutes? Is it the one that automatically bills you? after your time expires? Is it the one where you have the passport app?

No, I believe it's a flip one. But technology could change by the time it gets input. There is a program that city council recently approved, which is working through the system to get the parking sticks, if you will, to help with enforcement. So the intent was for however the meter is sorted, it is 15 minutes period, whether it's a button or a flip switch, I'm not sure, but you can't passport. There's no cost to it. It's just you get 15 minutes and then you got to be out and part of the enforcement that we've talked about is PACE being able to do so if these sticks pass the requirements of the state to be able to coordinate whatever they got to do for that particular situation, that will help with the enforcement. Ultimately, I think Lee could speak to the fact that if those things do get put in place and the customer gets the ticket three weeks later in the mail, that's not something that they're going to be really happy about. The process is still working through the system. City Council did approve them, but again, it has to go through multiple steps with state approvals and the court and so forth. But the intent is 15 minutes and you're out. It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to have somebody unload their things and then have the car moved or get their things and move.

And I think the thing that I'm hung up on, and I might have said this last time, and I just have to work through it in my brain, is These are public spaces that you could use as the graduate for all of your valet needs as runners are running back and forth. So all five spaces could be occupied by graduate guests. So they're not really public.

They're intended for the public. It's not solely for the graduate because it is partially in public right of way. Okay. It'll be a balance.

Other questions for staff from commissioners? Sorry, Commissioner Donal.

The packet says that, so comments from environmental staff request that the applicant in public works will establish a mutually agreeable fixed cost figure reflecting infrastructure costs for the future street tree. Do you know if that has been...

So it has not. There is a modification to the tree ordinance that we have that is being worked through. This also is not the time that we want to be planting trees. Trees need to be planted later in the fall. Hopefully that ordinance gets sorted by that time. But the applicant has committed to that. And it'll be whatever the street tree allowances are based on what the recommendations from the Arborist and Environmental Health have. But again, the applicant has agreed to those standards verbally in testimony at the last meeting. And then I did get the email yesterday, I think it was yesterday, from their civil engineer also committing to that. Okay. So the cost related is not decided yet because we don't know the tree. Okay.

That was my clarifying question was, so it has been agreed that they will plant the tree, but the mutually agreeable fixed cost that DPW requests has not been agreed upon yet.

Correct. And it comes down to the type of tree that would be best served wherever it's planted and have the best survival rate.

Excellent. Thanks. Good, Josh? Yeah.

Okay, perfect. Yes, Commissioner Overby. Real quick question. Evergreen remains two-way, I believe. Correct. Because it looked like there was some discussion about making it one-way, but it remains two-way.

There had been maybe five or six iterations of attempts to try and find solutions through Evergreen Avenue, including various one-way options. In the end, this is what came back as the most as the best solution to a really difficult problem. But it does remain two-way.

Thank you. OK. If there's no more questions, then Mr. Cody, I'd call you up. I probably said that wrong. No, that's it, Cody. OK, great.

First off, just to go to your reference in the Graduate Hotel.

Nice to see you guys again. Thank you so much for your time and consideration on this project. As Alicia was mentioning, definitely view this as a positive for the area and a positive part of ultimately a multifaceted solution, which absolutely total headcount with those valet runners that we have is a huge part of that. So just wanted to update quickly on that. Over the last 30 days, after last time we met, Sat with our operator. We did some math. The number that we came up for total headcount to operate with complete efficiency and avoid these backups was a 35-person headcount. We have since then verbally agreed to within that contract that they're going to get to a 45-person headcount because of the fact that, if anything, we'd like to be in a position that we have more people than is needed. And they're about halfway to that goal, which is a positive. I think we were at about 25 as of 30 days ago and up to about 35 currently or starting shortly with that goal to get to 45. So that will be a huge part of the full solution in the area. But definitely view this project as a part of that solution and a positive to continue to alleviate backups and issues. improve traffic flow and safety in that area, which is our ultimate goal, and service the guests. And just one other follow-up with the question regarding us attempting to guide guests to alternative options for them, for us. Primarily that's for special events, like the one that Alicia was mentioning. That's really when the biggest bumps, if we've got a group that's hard start time at 9 a.m., they're all going to show up within 10, 15 minutes of that. That's when. We'll guide them to public options within the city, which has worked well for groups that have kind of over time got to know us, got to know the area, that we'll recommend that as a good option for them. We've also had a couple of groups that have contracted with neighbors of ours to be able to kind of self-park in some of those available spaces locally, which has worked well too, and we'll continue to guide people that way and pursue that as a part of this overall solution. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you guys may have.

Do you have one? Commissioner Ramirez-Rapids.

Yeah, I understand this doesn't necessarily come down to the planning aspect. I didn't know if you had any knowledge on this. I got a door hanger delivered to my house, essentially saying, call your council members. And it was about this project. And I looked up the mailing agency. It wasn't mail. Someone literally went and put it on my door. Oh, yeah. And it was for Unite Here. And I looked it up. It's a hospitality union. But it didn't look like they represented your building, correct? That is correct. Okay. Yeah.

I got the same one. Thank you. I didn't get it.

And one other note, just on the trees, as Alicia was mentioning, I was working not only with the city for those city trees and our full commitment to replace at Everyone here is discretion where that would go. Did have a good conversation with our partners next door and neighbors at the People's Church, and they said that they would be very open to us attempting to find good locations to replace a couple or three of those trees that need to be moved somewhere on their set. So that will be an option for us.

The only other thing I was going to ask you about on that front, and this might be minor and I can't find it now, but there was somewhere in here that you'd obviously been working through the tree piece, but there were also like the unresolved, the planters, and there was no idea for where, or I didn't see anything about where those would be moved. Are those just getting next?

So the existing landscaping is going to continue to exist, but will be kind of shifted closer to that side entrance of the property.

Okay. Okay.

So there's an existing planter box with landscaping that will be shifted a little bit to kind of the left-hand side of the screen.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

The box I think itself will be made smaller and then there's some trim plantings. It's not just the box anymore because it doesn't fit.

It doesn't fit.

Where it is. But they're making up for landscaping. The trees or the.

We're generally keeping the same look and feel of the trees and foliage.

The trees, yes. The landscaping will look different just because of the amount of cutout that they had to do.

Okay.

But there's still a good amount.

Okay. Commissioner Overby. So how many runners is your goal to have?

45 is the goal.

So there was an event yesterday that staff said was kind of clogged. How many runners were there yesterday?

So full transparency, I was not physically there yesterday. I was attending a Chamber of Commerce event. I know the event that she's speaking of was the Mobility Summit, which had a lot of unique factors to it, including some of their own vehicles that were being showcased and some trailers to bring some of those vehicles in. I could not speak to the exact number. Without going back to double check, I can tell you that halfway to the goal of 35 is what they expect as they get a few more students back that have signed on to join the team. They operate with a lot of students, which is great. And once we get to that number, that's why we've chosen to push them kind of 10 plus above the number that our math told us would alleviate everything.

Thank you. Yes. So I saw the two same people running yesterday, so I don't know how many were on staff. But for your 45 count, is that spread over a shift?

No, that would be their total head count that then would be dispersed on shifts based on needs. No, total staff head count. So of course some of those individuals might work three days a week.

So if you're having an event like yesterday, how many people would you expect to be able to have on staff to accommodate the run?

Yeah, I would say probably 15, probably 15 would be my best estimate. I mean, PMC ultimately, they kind of guide us on some of this. They are the experts in that area, but we've just continued to push them to say, hey, you think it's 12, let's get to 15. You think total headcount's 35, let's get to 45 so that we can have more bodies than we need.

If I may, one other. I neglected to mention in the traffic study. So consistently throughout the traffic study, we see the number of seven spaces required. At some point, there was a number upwards of 12. I can't locate that in the document. But seven is consistently the amount that's been listed as a need for valet spaces. So you have the one that's dedicated in front of the building. You get five more. So we're at six because the van accessible doesn't count. How are we going to deal with that additional?

Yeah, I think shifting those numbers a touch by the number of folks that are on staff. That changes the picture a small amount, yeah.

But what I'm hearing is if the traffic study is calling for seven and we don't have a way to get to seven spaces. Okay. Other questions for the applicant? Chelsea. Chelsea, or Commissioner Gennal.

One of the other points from DPW here was that y'all would guarantee the survival of... The new trees that you're putting in and DPW recommended a condition of approval requiring a minimum of three years post installation that you would replace the trees at your cost if They were to unfortunately die. Is that something that you would agree to have listed in one of the conditions?

Yeah, we're comfortable with that. Okay.

Perfect. Thank you.

Mm-hmm

And I feel like I had one more question, but now I don't remember what it was. Oh, I remember now. Yeah. So I just wanted to follow up on the planter question. So the planters, there will still be a planter. It'll be slightly different, it sounds like, but there will still be some landscaping similar to what's there.

Correct.

Does it overall, though, increase the amount of impervious surface that could result in more stormwater runoff?

I do not offhand know the answer to that.

We had asked the engineer for that information last time. He indicated it was close but that they were going to provide the number and I don't have that number.

I only ask because I'm not sure off the top of my head what like it's not sewer but like waste water infrastructure is on Evergreen and I could imagine if there's a really bad storm that kind of little corridor becoming overwhelmed.

Yeah. I mean, I can say from personal experience, knock on wood, that I can't recall a time that there was, like, standing water there in the two and a half years that I've been there. Of course, that is a possibility, but it's not something that I think about often. It's, like, a recurring issue that I've seen.

Okay. Any other questions? All right.

Motion. Thank you. Thank you so much.

I do have a landscaping wire. All right. With that, I'd like to ask for a motion for discussion.

I'll be happy to make a motion unless Josh wants to make the motion.

Motion by Chapin, seconded by.

Sure, I'll second it.

All right, there we go. I guess I'm in. I think this is fairly simple. I move to approve the site plan request from Lee Cody. On behalf of G.E.M.I. Lussie LLC to reconfigure an existing plaza space by adding five parking spaces and one van accessible space located at 133 Evergreen Avenue. Before I read the rest of this, A.I.R. stands for? Okay, thank you. Say it again.

A.I.R.

stands for?

attached agenda item report. It's in there. Okay.

That's all right. I know it's in there. I just want to make sure if I'm reading, I just want to make sure I knew what AIR stood for. This decision is based on the findings and determinations to approve a site plan for 133 Evergreen Avenue and the conditions of approval dated August 12, 2026, which is attached to the AIR for this agenda item and incorporated into this motion by this reference. And I have nothing further to add to that. OK. But maybe others do.

I believe Commissioner Denault wanted to add the

I did want to add that. So I was just going to propose a friendly amendment that reflecting DPW's request that the applicant would guarantee replacement of the tree for three years after installation, which the applicant has very kindly agreed to.

So noted. Are you looking at me because I made a motion to add that friendly amendment? I'm very friendly to add that amendment. So I'll be very friendly to add that amendment.

I think I have to make a motion though.

I think we need another motion. Very good.

Yeah. So I move what I just said to amend the motion that was on the table. Yes. I move.

I will just say it over.

I move to add an amendment to the motion by Commissioner Chapin to add language reflecting DPW's request that the applicant will guarantee the replacement of any trees for three years post installation as a condition of approval.

And does that require a second? I'll second.

Thank you, thank you. And now I think we vote just on the amendment. We're voting on the amendment.

But we sort of have skipped over the discussion piece.

We'll come back to it.

You can discuss now.

So we have the whole motion on the table.

We will vote on Commissioner, or not Commissioner, Landon, can you call roll for the motion on the table?

Sure. So we have a motion to amend the main motion by adding a condition about tree maintenance for three years. Made by Dinnall, seconded by Ramirez-Roberts. Commissioner Chapin, how do you vote?

Aye.

Yes. Commissioner Denault? Yes. Commissioner Lupien-Ray?

No.

Commissioner Overby? Yes. And Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts? Yes. That amendment passes.

So now you can have discussion if you'd like on the original motion.

On the original motion. About the gestalt and what we want to do. Yeah.

I'm glad to speak up.

I have really struggled with this and trying to think of what would be the solution for the city and the hotel with the traffic congestion in this area. And I believe it's a fault that should have been addressed when the hotel was built and there was more space there and perhaps more options at that point. But where we are right now, I see no other choice. I struggle with this and I don't like this because, Regardless of how many runners you have, I believe that when we have a football game and you have a full house, that area is going to be impacted. And it's going to be really, really difficult. despite my dislike for all of this, I plan to support this motion and I don't see another option. And I welcome the hotel folks and I welcome my fellow commissioners to say here is another choice. And I simply don't see it.

Yeah, I was just going to add that I agree with you entirely that I think this probably should have been something that was discussed when we were doing the approval and city council was also doing the approval on this initial plan. My challenge with this is related to the parking standards and the traffic study. I cannot rectify that this will make any improvement to the current process, even with the additional runners. And I do have concerns that by adding these additional public spaces, I mean, we've all lived in East Lansing for a long time. We're going to have people that will park in those spaces that will then be occupying those spaces probably for longer than 15 minutes. And then the backlog of cars will go. further into, I can't remember what that street is, and will likely impede traffic behind the People's Church and run onto the entrance of the parking garage that's there. So I am worried that adding these additional five, you know, quote, public spaces will lead to more of a backlog than we already have, even with the addition of the runners. So I will be voting no on this. Not because I don't think it's a... you know, a warranted request. I just don't think it's a solution to this problem. I understand that.

I'll tie into those very words, and I think Mr. Cody, you know, used the word solution often in your presentation. You just use it as well. I made a note, I think this is an improvement, but it's not a solution. And I think this is a move in the right direction. I think we need to do something. I'm going to trust the people involved to make sure this is an improvement. but I also hear you clearly say that this is not the end solution. It might be after we try this for a little bit, but I'm building really on the commentary from two weeks ago where the very questions that we're sort of raising now resonated with me. So I'm going to vote yes, an improvement, not a solution, and let's move it along, my mind.

Sounds good. Any other items of discussion or are we ready? Do we even have to call a roll call vote again?

You can.

I think we should. Could you call a roll call vote again, Landon, please?

So the main motion, recommending approval as amended, moved by Chapin. I'm sorry, I don't have it. Who seconded?

Ramirez-Roberts.

Thank you. And seconded by Ramirez-Roberts. Commissioner Donnell, tell me your vote.

Yes.

Commissioner Lepine-Ray.

No.

Commissioner Overby? Yes. Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts? Yes. And Commissioner Chapin? Yes. The motion passes 4-1.

All right. Good discussion. Yes. Thank you so much. And that will go on to City Council at the next meeting or a future meeting.

Okay. ideally at the August 8th. And we need to have a PACE officer stationed at this entrance to this hotel. Sounds like you're looking for a new job. With his pad right out there.

Or maybe you want to be a runner. Okay. Moving on to item 7.2, continued discussion of the current future land use map categories and potential changes. Mr. Bartley, I'll turn it to you.

Thank you. So... As you know, the Planning Commission adopted an update to the comprehensive plan for the city last August. But we didn't recommend at that time creating a new future land use map. We considered that an implementation step. And so now we've been discussing, I guess since early this year, how to approach that change. Should it be creating new categories for the future land use map? And if so, what should those be? And then to redesignate the city with creating new future land use maps. So the first step is to create new categories. We started discussing this back in, I believe, April, actually March. And then again in April, in early July, we had a retreat upstairs in this building and talked about this for a little bit, but much more of the retreat was about legal training. And so I wanted to make sure we have some time for discussion and conversations with you before the meeting today. I think that we probably won't be seeing a decision. It sounds like more of you are comfortable with waiting until we have a larger commission here. But I did want to certainly just, I guess, sort of just reopen the conversation and see if there are any questions, if there are comments since July 11th, if you had thought about this at all. I had provided you with several examples of future land use maps from other municipalities. within Michigan and elsewhere. And also the about, I think about 50 pages of descriptions from the 2018 master plan that described all the 15 land use categories that we have currently on that map. I also provided a sort of a description of some ideas for what could be examples of future land use categories. One item that I certainly recommend is right now our categories, we have 15 of them. Those categories are R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, M1, M2, M3, M4, C1, C2, C3, and then special academic parks and open space. And just sort of at the outset, those can be kind of confusing, especially the casual user, especially because some of those designation names are the same as zone district names. And so it's a best practice to have more descriptive names. So I sort of start there in your descriptive sort of category examples, sort of toward the end of your packet. I talk about, hey, right now we have R1 through R5 as residential land use categories, but it's really based on density. X units per acre all the way up to a higher X per acre. We can certainly keep considering sort of that density. That's an important concern to many citizens here, residents especially. about residential density, but a more descriptive, something like neighborhood residential or mixed residential or urban residential that's more high intensity, campus related housing, those are some examples I gave of a little more descriptive, just a little more than just the straight up R1 or R2. Similarly, for mixed use categories, M1 through M4 don't really describe what that means. And in fact, even when you start digging in and going, hey, what is the difference between M3 and M4, for example? It can be kind of difficult, so I recommend things more like what is the intensity of this business district? Is this neighborhood mixed use? Is it more of a corridor? Is it more regional? Is it an urban center? Or is it sort of, again, an interface between the campus and the city proper? And then same thing with commercial categories, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, ideas like this of how can we be more descriptive so that someone can have a little more idea when they look at that future land use map and that category listing of what those categories correspond to in real life. So I guess sort of with that, just to start with, I just kind of want to check with the group that's here today and What have the thoughts been leaving that retreat? Had you taken some time and thought more about this? We're going to continue the discussion at future meetings, and I'm not necessarily looking for proposals today, but if you have a proposal, I'd love to hear it. If you have thoughts, concerns, questions, I really just want to open the discussion and see how it goes.

Commissioner Dutton. I especially like in the suggested future categories, I really like that you suggest that we break up the parks, schools, open space, vacant bucket into several more descriptive types of categories. that could fall under what was once previously an enormous bucket full of things that were sort of disparate and didn't really match with each other. I especially like that you call out or you suggest that we call out parks and recreation as a category and natural areas and green infrastructure as a category because I think they are serving two very different purposes. And I also... like that we call out item D, future opportunity sites, which I think in separating that out, future developers who are looking at this map are going to be able to hone in on those areas maybe a little easier and not sort of conflate parks and natural areas as vacant land.

I appreciate that and one quick comment about there was a discussion I think about the number of categories too and I tend to recommend fewer categories versus more except in some cases it can make a lot of sense just to break up a special category into what is that special I guess I think that having fewer categories when it comes to your major land uses is probably more preferable, I think, than in the special categories. So I think I take your point. One thing sort of along those lines, though, is what we don't want to do is have so many categories that they're essentially zoning districts. In the same breath, I guess, and I'll talk about this more when we get to actually design the future land use map, but we don't want to be parcel-specific. That's essentially pre-zoning or zoning map, right? And sometimes those can... I mean, the comprehensive plan is meant to be a guidance document. So that's why we want to be careful not having too many very specific categories and not being too prescriptive and too granular when we get to actually design the map. So I just want to mention that in that context. I think Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts, you were going to.

Yeah. With the, I guess, I have questions. I have more comments, but I want to start off with a question about Section 4, the employment plus innovation categories. I guess how, I get what they are in concept, but in terms of like the actual zoning, how would they differ, at least theoretically since they don't actually exist yet?

Mm-hmm. So this was in one section we talked about special districts and splitting those up. Employment innovation categories, we have examples of innovation slash research district, employment or flex district, major institutional uses. How that would That's a great question. I'm really glad you asked about sort of what's the comparable zone district, because that's always a big question. And you want to generally have, once we, one outcome of having a feature land use map in feature categories is often they will change their zoning ordinance to match it. And you might create new zoning districts as well. That's not contemplated right now. That's a big, big job. I don't really know how these would match our existing zones. I think that we have, across the board, I think about our commercial zone districts, say B1 through B5, and EV, which is East Village District, and how those, I mean, those are funny because they don't really correspond to something, they don't correspond to intensity, for example. B3 is the downtown district, B4 is a restricted office business district, B1 is a very low intensity business district, so it's hard to say how these suggestions might correspond to existing districts. I think that if the commission starts to move in the direction of these special districts that have more of a thematic, especially about commercial or industrial research or something uses, I guess, that may turn into a new zone district that's proposed if the current zone districts don't fit. Does that answer your question?

Yeah. And another one I have is about the section above it, commercial categories. The two in the center, community commercial and regional commercial, I guess I don't, in my brain, those don't really differ in East Lansing. I feel like the only real places that we have are, I don't know if you can speak to this, how you think they would differ, because the only one I'm really thinking of is right near Eastwood with the Meyer and that sort of thing, and maybe Brookfield Plaza is the other. Sure. And I just didn't know if you had a vision of how those could potentially differ, or-

Yeah, I look at that kind of as far as the market area. And so if a regional center, maybe not, might be larger scale than Meijer, but it could be the area around Meijer, including I would say Eastwood Town Center and that sort of the entire area might be a regional pole. So a regional destination as far as commercial activity. I might see community commercial more likely, like Lickberfield Plaza or I was going to say Harrison and Michigan, but I might call it even smaller scale and more like neighborhood commercial. So these aren't hard and fast. It's sort of we decide how they work. But generally, and these are sort of examples of let's just get our mind in the right place. So neighborhood is small. Community is a little bigger. Regional is larger. And I think I conceptually agree with you that we probably don't really have any true regional commercial districts beyond, I would say, downtown, but I would put that in a mixed use category instead.

And then, not to take up too much time, but with the same on the commercial section, I guess from my mind, with the redevelopment commercial corridors, thinking about like East Grand River, in my brain, I guess, or at least for my thinking, I would like to just go to straight mixed use with that instead of doing a redevelopment with just having it be mixed use rather than this other category. That's just my opinion, though. Sure. And then with the neighborhood commercial, I guess I was also in my thinking about it, in my mind, I don't see where a low-grade mixed use wouldn't be just as applicable, I guess, or better, in the sense where it's maybe not the commercial is required, but just that it's optional.

Yeah, commercial I tend to differentiate from mixed use in that it would be solely commercial. So you'll see that more in strip commercial, like I think you mentioned along East Grand River, for example, but you could also say, yeah, we want mixed use That would be the kind of decision we'd be making when we're designing the future of land use mapping with a lot more public participation too to make sure that we're sort of in line with public sentiment and desires. So I also don't think that we'd have We shouldn't have that many mixed use and that many commercial. We don't need those in this town. I think we could have a couple mixed use and maybe one or two commercial for those areas that don't necessarily make sense to be mixed use. When I say mixed use, we're mixing uses within the buildings. So typically you have commercial on the ground floor, like more of a retail commercial, and then you might have office or more often residential uses on the upper floors. So that's where we're saying we're mixing the uses in that category versus purely commercial. So I think yes, we don't need all of them. I think that it might make sense And this is one way to frame your thinking, too, as you're going around town, going, what would make sense here? I think that mixed use could be really nice here, but not so much over there. What would make sense over there? Oh, that might be community commercial, whereas this should be more of a neighborhood mixed use. So I think that sort of checking out the community and thinking about what would make sense here in the existing, and then what might make sense how we want to see things go in the future. The future land use map category doesn't have to correspond to reality right now. It's just what we want to do down the road. So I would say think about both of those when you're considering what categories you want. What do we have right now? What makes sense? Because it's not quite like zoning where you have non-conforming uses. When you put a category on the future land use map, you're saying we want this down the road. to the point earlier I think that both commissioners made about the redevelopment commercial corridor, or Commissioner DeLong, you mentioned future opportunity sites. Those are sometimes used by communities just to say, hey, this is a transitional area or something that we really want to focus on. And that can be helpful as far as directing incentives, directing grant programs, whatever it might be. You know, state funding for redevelopment projects. You can say, hey, this is really our priority focus area right here. That's why we're designated as like redevelopment commercial or a future opportunity site. That is a great way to send a message saying, if you want to build here, build here, because we want to see change here. And some you don't, and you can also designate that way as well.

To that end, and this might be because we're still in the middle of doing the work group, but I wasn't sure necessarily in here where a data center would fit, like what type of zoning that technically would be. I mean, I have been thinking about, I don't think it matters for the sake of discussion today, but I've been thinking about under number four, the employment and innovative categories, whether I think there's really much of a difference between the innovative research district and the major institutional uses, and so I mean, potentially a major institutional use would be a data center, but then some of the examples that we have under the innovative research district is, you know, tech and labs. So maybe just something to think about for future discussions.

That's good. And again, these are examples.

Yeah, just examples. Yep.

I think that, I mean, I could see an innovation research district That might be a good place to fit. What I didn't really put here is heavy industrial. We don't really have heavy industrial uses. We have very, very little industrial space. I think we have eight properties across the city that are zoned industrially. And that might be just fine. We don't have that many industrial uses because there's not that much need for industrial here. But where there might be... industrial type uses but more like light or tech industrial would make a lot of sense in one of these categories. But you just would choose. I mean we do want the categories to sort of cover the expanse of land uses, possible land uses. But that's more important when it gets to zoning.

Yeah, I really liked your comment, Landon, about the redevelopment areas. And I know I pointed out future opportunity sites and Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts pointed out redevelopment commercial corridors. I actually, under item six, where it says redevelopment focus areas, I actually really like that very broad category so that we're maybe not signaling to in too much detail about what type of redevelopment we might want to see in a certain location, but we might be open to all types of redevelopment in a certain area. I think a lot about East Grand River and how those immense parking lots could be going towards a much higher, better use. And so I'd hate to point to that area and say, oh sorry, we only want commercial redevelopment here. Why not put housing there? And so I think if we as a commission are really interested in targeting areas for redevelopment, maybe I would argue for keeping those more broad and just seeing what comes our way.

Sorry if I'm late. That's a fine approach. I would suggest, though, that you have to be careful sometimes. If it's broad and not... like if it's a large area without specificity, because you can end up with things. Right now we have, for example, a special study area. Northeast area town is a sod farm. It was annexed from Beth 25 years ago. And that's a special study area. And presumably, in 2018, we were going to study that. But it didn't really specify how do we want to study this. What are the outcomes we're looking for here? Do we have a timeline? Who's going to be the champion? And we want to think about that if we're going to do some sort of a redevelopment focus area. Be a little more specific about what kind of focus is this? And do we have a timeline? If we do have specific uses that we want to see, Let's sort of include those in the description. At this point in the whole process, though, I caution against thinking too closely. You want to use specific areas and locations in town to help frame your thoughts. But I would caution against saying, yep, what I want is this right here, this category right here, because we'll get to that. And we want to really focus on the categories first. writ large before we start focusing on specific locations. But we'll get to that. We'll get to specific locations for sure.

Commissioner Trayvon.

Yeah, so that's a perfect segue to my comment really. I'm sort of at this point macro here and not necessarily down in the detail which we'll get to and is very important. But I appreciate you pushing us on this Landon and I think I don't mind saying I'm going to rely in large part on your leadership to sort of move us in a direction that makes sense for the community at large. I know you need our input, as we've suggested tonight, but you've impressed upon me that we need to push on this, make some changes, update, different context, new day, and I think I'm all on board to do that. So keep pushing us and provide your leadership, and I'll be paying attention. Just wanting to know that. All right. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Commissioner Ramirez-Ramers.

Yeah. So when it comes to the one and two, the residential land use, so with urban residential, the high intensity, I don't know in my mind if we're looking at the land use We're an area where we would want high urban residential, where we wouldn't also want the urban center mixed use. So I feel like that wouldn't be as necessary a category to me. And then also with the campus related housing versus the campus interface mixed use, I feel like probably also the campus interface mixed use might be better. I'm assuming that's more people per room and that sort of thing that's allowed. Not per room, but more beds allowed, I guess.

No idea. I mean, it would kind of depend on how we design these. We're at a blank slate right now. So if we say campus-related mixed use, what does that mean? I mean, college town type stores. You know, maybe a certain format and more student housing versus we don't want to see purposeful student housing and maybe a low-intensity neighborhood residential. So, I mean, and we don't have to have all the categories of residential and all the categories of mixed use as well. It could be low and high or low and medium residential. And we sort of define in there what that means. And then start with medium intensity mixed use. And we don't need a low intensity because we don't have those. As an example. I think I'm taking your comment, but I'm not sure if you had a question or if I'm answering your question.

No, no. I think it was just a comment. Perfect.

Thanks.

Other questions or comments for Landon tonight? Yes.

This is more a comment than a question, but at some point we're going to see all of these categories and see how the City of East Lansing dumps into those categories. And we'll be able to look at how we see the pieces fit together and that's what's going to be most helpful to me is seeing how it shakes out and then I can make a decision on whether I think this is accurate or not in the detail. And I also repeat something that we've already said, but I really welcome that we're going to have categories that we can look at rather than simply letters and numbers. The existing zoning, I'm going to have to sit next to you, Landon, at the quiz, or I'm going to flunk it. And so I'm hoping that I will have a better grasp of it with the new changes.

Commissioner Jean.

I was just looking at some of the examples again that you gave us Landon and I see some of these have won awards from the APA and I think I would be really interested to hear more about why these particular future land use maps were recognized for being excellent examples, whether that's commentary from the APA when they gave that award or whether that's your reasoning for why you chose them, it would be really helpful for me to understand why these are good examples, for instance, so that we can maybe apply some of that as we're making decisions.

That's very helpful feedback, and I'm wondering if I can ask the whole commission. How can I guide you the best? Do you have other specifics, because I think that's a really good suggestion that I can get that information. Is there other, would you like me to be recommending certain things, or like, narrowing the field or widening it, what would be helpful for you as we go into the next meeting?

If I could jump in, I assume that the organizations that made these decisions said this was really good, had some criteria that they used to make those decisions. And if we had that criterion shared with us, then we could know that this particular configuration was good for these reasons. So I would find that helpful and dovetail with your questions.

I think for me, obviously not being a planning or zoning expert, I would appreciate some recommendations that we could react to. I think that's probably when we can, or I should speak for myself, that's when I can give the best feedback is when there's a recommendation on the table. The other thing that would be helpful, and I know we've done this, we've talked about this in the past, but I don't think we necessarily need to recreate the wheel. There are other Cities and cities that are like us that are adjacent to a large university and it would be helpful I think for me to see a Maybe even like a table of how other similar kind of university centered cities have zoned Like what their land use maps look like So

I'm all about the recommendations and actually if you have a vision here, I would even encourage you to share your vision with us and then we dissect that and you would have some logic behind that vision. I've talked with you enough to understand that you do have a picture of what this might look like for a college town in Midwest United States and I think I'd love to see your recommendations respond to that, so that would be great. Commissioner Lapine, excuse me. I'm sorry.

All right, any other comments tonight? Does that give you enough to go on?

Okay.

All right, we'll close that portion of the agenda and move on to new business. I don't think we have any new business to discuss. Commissioner concerns, item nine on the agenda. Any commissioner concerns that you'd like to share?

I actually do. Yes, let's hear it. And I would like to share a concern. I don't have this scripted, but I just feel a need to talk about something. I don't really have an outcome here that... I conclude with, but I want to talk about the Albert Avenue apartment project. I know that we spent a lot of time with the developer. I know that the developer spent a lot of time in our city. He made a lot of recommendations and suggestions. We made recommendations and suggestions. The city council did. DDA did. Planning Commission did. in my mind it aligned with the comprehensive plan. And I think I'm not, I respect the city council, I respect our process. I'm not suggesting that that was flawed, but I do think that was a pretty big deal in my mind. And I think we need to maybe not let that float down the river and say, bygones be bygones, but rather be a little introspective about what we may have done differently, what we could do differently in the future if a project comes our way. And I don't know the entire back story. I know what was reported in the newspaper about parking. I don't, this was a pretty big deal in my mind, speak just for myself here, and I think to just let this pass, and maybe it's a dead deal, I don't know if it is or not. I know our mayor's with us tonight. But if it is, I think we need to be a little introspective about the time that our staff spent, about the time the planning commission spent, about the time the developer spent, and then to get to the final step and have it all dissipate. I think we need to be a little introspective. What could we have done differently as a city of East Lansing? I want to be a city that embraces new ideas, development. No, we don't approve everything, but do we move this development along the way for a couple of years adjustments left and right and then get to the final meeting and we say no. It just doesn't sit well with me and I'm just, I don't, again, I said I'm not scripted here. I'm not suggesting that I disrespect the city council or the process or anybody along the way, but collectively, the city of East Lansing, in my mind, we sort of fumbled this in some way, somehow, and I'm not sure what that is. how we might do something a little bit differently. And I've kind of put myself out there. Others are going to disagree with me. So be it. It is a concern. In my mind, it sort of winds up with a commissioner concern. So I share those thoughts tonight. And period, so be it.

Thank you. Any other commissioner concerns? Yes.

I actually have a couple tonight. So I know last year that the sheets on Saginaw and Abbott was approved. Nothing's happened there. Is that project still moving forward? It is.

OK. My understanding was they were waiting on some state approval for, I believe, some site work. And they've gotten that approval. So they should be moving ahead fairly soon.

OK. And the other one is, I'm forgetting the architect. It's the building that got taken over by the Ides. the Michigan Doctors Association, Medical Association. I remember I spoke a few years back about them cutting down the trees. And I believe as part of that, the Planning Commission had a landscape plan that was approved. And I don't know if that was a requirement of those trees being cut down, but it doesn't look like they ever implemented the landscaping plan. I drove by that yesterday. I'm like, nothing's changed here. So I didn't know if essentially was that a requirement of cutting down those trees and coming here for commission to implement that landscaping plan?

They were required to add some more trees. I'll follow up on that with our environmental staff and get back to you to make sure to find out what the status is.

Any other commissioner concerns? Okay, great. We're going to move on to adjournment. I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn at 7.47 p.m.

So moved.

Seconded by Commissioner Overby, seconded by Commissioner Chapin. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Perfect. Thanks, guys. Okay.