Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the May 27, 2026 East Lansing Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Bartley, could you please take roll? I will. Commissioner Chapin? Present. Commissioner Denault? Here. Commissioner Greening? Thank you. Commissioner Lupien Ray. Here. Commissioner Overby. Here. Commissioner Putz. Here. Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts. Here. Vice Chair Wagner. Here. Chair Sullivan.

Here.

We have quorum.

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved. Seconded.

Moved by Commissioner Lapine, seconded by Commissioner Putz. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor, vote aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Agenda approved. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the May 13th, 2026 East Sainting Planning Commission meeting?

So moved.

Moved by Commissioner Overby, seconded by Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor, vote aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Minutes approved. That takes us on to item number two and three, committee reports and staff reports. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you. The Age-Friendly Communities Committee, a subcommittee of the Seniors Commission, and which Commissioner Chapin is the Planning Commission's representative to, that committee met on May 14th, the day after your last previous meeting, and essentially checked in with the other members about implementation steps they're working on. That committee is going to keep checking in with each other quarterly. Our next meeting is in September to just sort of continue to implement the age-friendly work plan that was adopted last year. And otherwise, we have a data center committee. I mentioned last time our staff work group with some commission. I reached out to commissioners Putts and Greening in the last couple days. Both have expressed interest in being on that work group to discuss data centers and come up with a reasonable ordinance recommendation for this body and city council to consider later this summer. So I think that's my committee reports. Commissioner Chapin, I don't know if you had anything you wanted to add about age-friendly. Well said. Good group.

Any comments or questions on committee reports? Do we need an agenda action item for appointing commissioners to the data center?

No. If it were a planning commission-created committee, we would. It's a staff work group, and so simply the interest. If you'd like to make a motion, you certainly can.

So I'm hearing less work, let's go with that. Okay, on to item number three.

staff reports. Just briefly, I'll mention a couple items. It happened at council last night. Council was a momentous council meeting last night. I'm sure people have seen news about that. But we had several public hearings that planning staff have been working on. We had the public hearing for Ordinance 1568, which was to rezone 1049 Crescentwood Road from R2 to C to be a new park. and council approved that ordinance. We also had a public hearing to receive comments on ordinance 1567. This group had recommended adoption. That's to allow some flexibility with the maximum height cap when that maximum height or exceeding that maximum height, which is currently 160 feet, in the highest it can be in downtown. If it's necessitated by construction materials and the council discussed that, didn't receive any comments, but did not act last night. And finally, they also had a public hearing for comments on request for crepe sake to move to 601 East Grand River and to serve alcohol for onsite consumption. And they approved that request. So just wanted to mention those items that happened at council last night. I think that's, oh, and one more thing. I'll ask you at the end of the meeting. We had earlier this year, I think maybe it was late last year, we changed the 2026 meeting calendar to accommodate a planning conference that planners like to go to. They changed the dates of those. There's no longer conflict. So we proposed to change that meeting calendar back from October 21st to October 28th. that meeting so I'll be asking you again if you at the end of the meeting or we can pick it up next time we have some time to change that calendar but we'd like to change that meeting date back from the 21st to 28th that's all for me for staff reports yeah I propose we push it to the next meeting so we can all look at our calendars and make sure we can attend any any questions for Mr. Bartley Actually, I have just one more thing that I'll mention. Again, we see, I've included council manager reports, and those are fairly new as of the last meeting. Those are just reports that are created by staff, sent to the manager. who sort of compiles them and sends them off to council every week. And we were recently instructed to include those in the planning commission and other commissions packets as well for your awareness. So we've been including those. So that's just what those are in case that was new for anyone. And that's all from me. Thank you.

You sure? I think so. All right. Thank you. That moves us on to item number four, commissioner announcements. Up first, we have a new commissioner attending tonight, Lorna Greening. So would you like to say hello in a few words?

Hi, I'm very happy to join the Commission. I am an energy economist by training and roughly 40 years of experience and have worked on Electricity issues, transportation, climate change, just a broad spectrum of issues. And planning is an important component of addressing problems in all those areas.

Great. Welcome. Thank you. Welcome. Yeah, it'll be great to have your expertise with us. Welcome.

Any other announcements from commissioners? All right. Also...

I would just like to say happy birthday to Commissioner Denault. Thank you very much for spending your birthday with us for probably several hours here at the Planning Commission meeting. So happy birthday.

Thank you. Planning never rests, so...

It's going to be a quick meeting.

Also, this is your time to disclose any conflicts of interest on items on tonight's agenda. Are there any conflicts of interest? That's unrelated to the birthday announcement. All right. Seeing none, that takes us on to, thank you. Item number five, communications from citizens. 5.1, written communications. There was several written communications submitted in our agenda packet on various items on tonight's agenda. Up next is verbal from the audience. This is your time to come forward and address the Planning Commission on any items on or off tonight's agenda. We ask that you please keep your comments under five minutes. Identify yourself on a card if you have yet to do so. And if you're here tonight to speak to tonight's two public hearings, which is the rezoning on Lake Lansing and the Coolidge Road proposal, we ask that you speak during those agenda items. However, any other agenda items, now is your time to address the Planning Commission. And I did just get a couple new cards, so give me a second. Okay, I'm going to start with the cards up here. Up first is Molly Spunner.

Thank you. Molly Spooner, 815 Stewart. Thank you for all the time everyone gives to our community. Just really quickly, I want to say I am very concerned about proposed ordinance 1572. I think many really insightful comments have been raised about the ordinance. And I think it was probably hastily put together. And I think that we can probably all agree that Just as overly as we've begun there should be a way to take them out I think it should be the same process and I do think that the city materials already say that but if we want to codify that I think that would be fair I also think All of your expertise at this panel or tables, I don't know what we're going to call it, but the dais. It would be great if these minds and your experiences and your knowledge of our neighborhoods were put together to come up with solutions. And I know that that's what you do. I'm not saying you don't. But I think that there's a need in our neighborhoods to make sure that single families, partners, people who want to live here longer than a year can buy houses in East Lansing and they're not competing with investors because that's the affordability problem. It's not that the rental license makes it affordable to renters, it makes it affordable to college students who can combine four or five payments and rent that at a price that a single family simply cannot pay for. So single families are priced out of that rental market near campus. So I think we have a need to look at numbers and look at single-family housing, maybe some rezoning in some areas to create more single-family housing would be good. But I look at our elementary schools and the population going down and that's a concern for me. I also think just quality of life. I did not buy my house to make money. I will never make a dollar on that house. I bought it because I love living here and I think that's why many of us do and I really enjoy knowing my neighbors and knowing who drives on the street and they know my kids ride scooters. I'll be quick. But the I mean, last week, I got a text from an elderly neighbor I don't talk to that often. But she said, Hey, your daughter was racing down the street without a helmet on. And I don't think that you get that if you're in a very transient neighborhood where people are just sought after by investors as page as their paycheck. So appreciate your time consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is Theodore Benka.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Theodore Benka.

I'm also known as Ted. I live in 945 Pebble Brook Lane.

I'm the president of the White Hills Neighborhood Association. I've spoken before you at your last meeting, so I'll not repeat word for word what I said, but I want to draw your attention to a couple aspects of the communications that you have received most recently the other day by Lynn Richardson. I strongly encourage you, if you haven't read it, to read it. It's a very good historical analysis of how overlay districts Were created why they were created how we got to this place with this ordinance as I've stayed in the past I believe this ordinance is fatally flawed it is not the vehicle upon which to create an Appeal process or an opt-out process for overlay district the intent as I recall at the council meeting were council member Meadows introduced this was to fix a defect in the, in the ordinance that does not provide for an appeal process or, or, or some way to challenge an overlay district. I think we understand through staff analysis that there is one, it was identified as onerous, but it was onerous to create these overlay districts too. The other aspect I want to touch on is that these overlay districts were not created like ordinances. They weren't brought before the planning commissions or any commission and were voted on by the council, by uh, three members of the council. These were the vote of them people. These were the, these were 30% of the residents of these neighborhoods hood had to vote. That's a direct vote of the people. This ordinance would usurp that process and create a council driven process. And I wouldn't be too concerned about that, but I've heard Councilmember, and I'm not picking on him, but he's on record. Councilmember Meadows has been stating for many times that regardless of what you all do or what any other commission does, and you've experienced that recently, Council can do what they want. I think he'll live to regret those words someday. So anyway, I ask that you not approve this amendment and I ask that you not try to, excuse me, this ordinance and I ask that you not try to amend this ordinance tonight. Because any language that you would put in there, I don't believe would address the core issue that we're dealing with. If you feel you want to codify a process, I would suggest you refer this back to staff. Let the staff work with the neighborhood associations and with residents to come up with something that is palatable to everybody and not just an ordinance that benefits a few. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Justin M. Booth.

Thank you. Yes, my name is Justin M. Booth. I live at 710 Chittenden Drive in the Bailey neighborhood. I was part of the few blocks around myself where I was collecting signatures to help build this overlay district over 20 years ago. I'm here today to ask you to deny this amendment and to send it back to council. It is my feeling that this is a reactive amendment to a well-established overlay. It was hastily put together by a few people. And I don't think it's our job to be solutioning this situation. I think we should be denying it and sending it back. Once an overlay rental district is approved, it requires two-thirds of the affected property owners. And we should expect the same for those that want to get out of these districts. And I think that's where we should stand.

And the first speaker made the affordability comment.

What are we trying to solve here? WE'RE LOOKING TO SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IF WE NEED AFFORDABILITY YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS AND I THINK PUSHING THIS BACK AND PUTTING IT BACK ON CITY COUNCIL TO WORK ON THAT TO COME UP WITH SOME REAL SOLUTIONS IS WHAT I WOULD BE RECOMMENDING SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS THANK YOU MATT STEINER

Thank you. My name is Matthias Steiner, but if I write that, it always goes sideways. So Matthias Steiner, my wife Charlotte and I live at 1426 Melrose and have for almost 30 years. And I find myself, I'm not angry, I'm just irritated. I have been trying to figure out why this thing, this ordinance has been getting so much traction. There's something here, people are worried about it. Mark Meadows hinted at something might have to be done in court. Landon Bartley said something about it's not best practice to not have a process to amend, adjust. So here's the thing, there's probably some truth there. So somebody please articulate the problem and then we'll discuss it. With the neighborhoods, with the people who created these overlay districts, as was just said, they're a big deal to do. This is not like voting, right? An overlay district reaches into somebody's pocket and takes $100,000 of property value away from them. This is a big deal. I wouldn't like it if it happened to me. There's nothing wrong with building a portfolio of rental houses and having that part of your fortune, that's just fine. And we made that harder, we made that impossible. The house is still, you can still rent it. Rental houses haven't changed in 20 years because of this. So this is a big deal, hence the two-thirds rule. If I want to reach into anybody's pocket and take some tax money out, all I need is a proposal, an off-year election, and 18% of the population. And I'm done. I'm voting it on myself, too. But keep that in mind. These two-thirds and abstentions are a no. That's a big deal. It took us nine months in my neighborhood. That's 18 houses. I know everybody. That was easy. It was three and a half years in Bailey, was it, or in Chesterfield Hills? Just to keep that in mind. Okay, so that's one thing. Figure out what the problem is. Now let me tell you what the problem isn't. There have been four emails sent in support of this. by Jeffrey Hank himself. He also spoke quite eloquently two weeks ago. I listened to it like three times. There was one by Ashton Henderson and I wanted to be very careful because he sounded in his email like he lost a bunch of money and I'm not going to make light of that because that's no fun, right? He lived there very briefly. He got all his money back. I have no idea what he's on about, as the kids say. He paid 350, he put 75 into it, he got 425 at the end. He lived there for three years and All the drag costs, the tax on the realtor, that's on him. He's got nothing to worry about. I didn't think that could be done, but property values went up. He sold to the Genovese-Gomaro family. They wrote also in support because they would like a rental license. Their son lives there by himself in that house. And Amy Glode is in the same situation. She lived in her house by herself for four years. Bought it for 156. There's no privacy in America. You can look all this up. And it's worth 300 according to Zillow. Zillow doesn't write checks, but it means something. And... And Mr. Hanks said this is not where he lives. It was okay when he was single and I lived in an area like that. I get that. He's right. And it's not a home for a family. His words, not mine. And these three people have one thing in common. They want to own income property in a place where a lot of work would put in to forbid that. That is the emergency. That is not an emergency. That's an inconvenience. That also loses some money. But everybody who doesn't want to live where they live, they can't rent it. That's the rule. That's how we made. Like I said, it's a big deal and it's quite the process. But that is it. You live there or you take a sabbatical. There's ways to do that for a year. But otherwise, you sell it or you let it sit empty. It's your house. It is not the city's problem. It's just not. And that is all I have to say. It's important. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about what the real problem is if somebody can figure it out. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Diane Wing.

Hello, my name is Diane Wing. I live in the Chesterfield Hills Historic District, which is one of the 22 rental overlay districts established by residents within the City of East Lansing. Chesterfield Hills residents followed the codified overlay ordinance to establish our overlay district, as did all of the other existing overlay neighborhoods. As I stated at your last meeting, establishing an overlay district is laborious and time-consuming work, taking many hours to bring to fruition. Any effort to unwind or revise an existing overlay district should take at least as much time, effort, and deliberation as the process it took to establish. As such, I oppose the proposed ordinance in front of you tonight. On a personal note, at the last meeting, your last meeting, the last public speaker spoke in, he's in favor of this ordinance, and he intimated that those of us who are opposed to the ordinance don't have any personal knowledge of what it's like to live near rentals. Here to testify. I live directly behind two student rentals. These are single family homes that are rental homes that are directly next to each other. They are in my backyard. We are backyard neighbors. I've lived in my home for 26 years. They've been rental homes for 26 years. I am well aware of what it's like to live near rental homes. This year has been particularly fun. There has been several large parties, two in which the East Lansing Police were called, at several points in time from my backyard as well as from my home and my neighbor's home. My neighbors are a married couple with four young daughters. They're all under the age of seven, I believe. They could see out their back window of the party goers who are urinating against the garages that are in the backyard. Multiple times we were witness to these young men partying and urinating, publicly urinating in our neighborhoods. That was fun. I've sat, watched after the close of school this year, there was a large party that weekend. As the party went on, it was probably hour eight or hour nine of the party, the drinking had been going on. I'm well aware of the refrain of full beer or flip cup. That's fun, haven't joined into the flip cup yet. But I hear it through my windows at night, which I also can't sleep with my windows open. The partying drug on disintegrated and they started burning furniture in the back of their backyard, which remember their backyard is essentially my backyard. We back up to it. Plumes of smoke, lord only knows what was burning. At one point they were throwing things in it and dancing around the fire like the ever so dignified college students they are. Please let us not suppose that because I personally am opposed to this that I don't know what it means to live next to rental homes. What I want to make sure of is that there are no additional rental homes that start stringing along beside those other two that I and my neighbors already have to contend with on a daily basis. Finally, Thank you to staff for recommending for you folks not to recommend this particular ordinance. I ask that you do not support this ordinance. I ask that you return it to council saying that you do not support it because it simply does not allow the neighbors that actually set up the ordinance, the ability to participate in unwinding or revising the ordinance, that council be instructed to work with staff, planning staff, housing staff, potentially zoning staff, to craft an ordinance that will allow for revisions under certain circumstances and with another codified process. Thank you all so much for your time.

Thank you.

I have a card up here from Joseph Vaglicka. You're here as the applicant, right? Okay. You are? Got it. I figured. So do you want to speak during the agenda item? I'm assuming. Got it. Thank you. And then I have a group of cards up here from the Howard. I'm assuming also you want to speak on that agenda item. Anybody else wish to come forward and address the Planning Commission?

Good evening, Jeffrey Hank, 349 Division. I'll talk now since other people are. I support Ordinance 1572. Excuse me, I didn't catch your name.

Jeffrey Hank.

Thank you.

It is a community-first, sound public policy approach that protects overlays while also providing relief to a limited number of properties and locations that are otherwise harmed by the current overlay system. This good government approach fixes a legal flaw to someone else's point. Why does this need to be done? In the original ordinance and represents as your planning staff has said, best practices in planning. The City Zone 2023 McKenna Housing Report notes that the city's housing policies need updating to be fair. We have a law in the United States called the Fair Housing Act. It's a federal law. It also notes that an impediment to reform and fair housing is community opposition. This is the city's own housing report. My own neighborhood association, Bailey, the BCA, voted 6-3 at the last meeting to not oppose this ordinance, somewhat to my surprise. Some of my neighbors understood the limited impact on the handful of properties and the unique circumstances those neighbors face that speaks volume over the voice of a small but vocal minority, some of whom, not all of whom, don't necessarily understand how the ordinance works, such as even though it requires a two-thirds implementation of property owners, city council can adjust that boundary when an overlay is created. It can expand it. It can remove it. This ordinance before you would give a little piece of that power back to city council to do that again, which again is a best practice. I think this is a balanced approach. In a democracy, we don't vote on everything nor give up all our rights to our neighbors. We protect the rule of law, property rights, family decisions, and other personal matters from state overreach. Of course, in our history, we have often had a majority or loud minority still seek to harm or otherwise cause harm by indifference. And we should learn from those past mistakes and not let it happen again. The Planning Commission can be an antidote to this, a city in crisis, a city facing turmoil. I don't think we should be going back and trying to redo entire overlays. That's going to create conflict. It's going to create neighborhood turmoil. It's going to create stress. It's not necessary. Just like when you do another zoning decision, the affected properties immediately surrounding that, to the other commenter's point a minute ago, should be given notice and an opportunity to speak. We don't need to open up a small little area to everybody getting involved in creating that kind of drama in the neighborhood. We're already having a lot of tension in this community from a lot of people who I think sometimes, and this isn't anybody here, but there's a vocal minority on a lot of issues in this community that I think sometimes are intolerant and close-minded. And it's causing the inability for us to have a rational discussion and come up with sound public policy to fix some of the issues that we face. And we face a lot of issues. This is less serious than many of them, especially after what we've seen these past couple of weeks. So you, the Planning Commission, have a role in this. This is why you should encourage council to adopt this current ordinance. And if you think there are other suggestions that should be taken in mind, to propose those as well. They don't need to happen right away. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of good. If there's other ideas, there's always time to change those later. Some of what staff said to expand the scope of this amendment, I think those are good ideas. But again, we don't need to do those now. Ordinance 1572 is very narrowly tailored to deal with a problem that has been acknowledged by council, a problem that's been acknowledged by city council, and others looking at the facts in the law again to why do we need to do something about this because there's a problem with the ordinance it lacks process a process that again exists on the front end of the ordinance i encourage you to adopt a motion moving approval of this ordinance to city council with any other recommendations for possible changes included And to conclude, I'm not really an AI person, but I did an AI query today, and I said, which college towns in the United States have the most restrictive rental housing laws? And it gave me six examples, and East Lansing's on the list. Now, some people say, that's good. I don't know if that's good. We should protect the neighborhoods, and that's what this ordinance does. And that's how I approach this as a community member, knowing that other community members really care about the overlay. So that's why I talked to city council members and I said, I think it's good that you would protect the overlay, create limited exceptions, fix the process, and that's what they did. But should we be in the top six or bottom six, however you look at it, of the most restrictive housing policies of college towns in the United States? And anyone else up there, maybe on your own computer, you can look that up yourself, see what it tells you. I don't think we should. So I'd encourage you to think about how can we make some progress, how can we move the community forward, and how can we not create more community drama over other issues that are not necessary. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Does anybody else wish to come forward?

I'm Paul McAllister.

I live in the Bailey neighborhood. Chuck's my neighbor. 439 Butterfield. I would say yes, I'm glad we're in the top six of the most restrictive rental rules in the nation. Bailey is surrounded on three sides by rental properties. I have rental properties within half a block of me to the west and to the south. Constant party noise. We used to have people trapping, you know, fraternities and sororities trapping through the neighborhood and large groups of 20, 30 kids hooting and hollering and things like that. People wanting to convert homeownerships, residential properties, to rental properties all around us. That was late 90s, early 2000s, well over 20 years ago when me, I, and many other people collected many, many signatures and petitions to form what I think in Bailey was one of the first overlay districts because we were the one under the most pressure. To go back now and have a process where people can opt out And I only heard about this ordinance or amendment in the last week, which is one thing I would say probably needs to be more outreach to the overlay districts. I think there's a lot more people interested in this than know about it right now. And I think a lot of people would be amazed at what is being proposed. Tremendous amount of work, three years plus of gaining petitions and signatures. So I think we need to think a lot more about this and how to have more community involvement rather than just a council and a few members of the public or of commissions. And really get out there and talk to the different overlay district boards. and find out what they think and what's a solution for them. I really don't like a kind of a piecemeal thing where you kind of nibble away at it on the edges and things like that and somebody wants to make some money on a property that they bought and now they want to make more money on it by being a rental owner rather than a homeowner. So I'm just thinking I need to know more about it. I think the public needs to know more about it and I think there's a reason to be a more involved thought process in getting everyone's input from those overlay district boards and citizens. So I'd rather that you just delay this and vote no now, and there needs to be more consideration about this whole issue. So that's my comments. Thank you. You're welcome.

Anybody else wish to come forward? Paul?

I need him to fill out a card, please.

Oh, they're up at the podium.

Sorry, I had my speaker card here. I hadn't planned on addressing the commission this evening, but I wanted to take a moment once again. My name is Lynn Richardson, and I live at 1300 Blanchette Drive here in East Lansing. I want to correct first, I think a misstatement by Mr. Hank. It's my understanding from speaking with at least one member of the Bailey Community Association that there was never a vote to oppose or to support the proposed amendment that is before the commission this evening. The only vote that was taken was on whether or not to draft a letter to this commission with respect to the proposed ordinance. And that was voted down. To that extent, Mr. Hank is correct, but it was not a vote on whether this proposal should move forward or not. And I also want to remind you that there are 22 neighborhoods under rental restriction overlay districts, and Bailey is only one of those. The other thing I want to take a moment to address before the Commission is a personal matter. You've heard lots of personal testimonies here over the course of two meetings, and I'd like to just briefly let you know that as I stand before the Commission, I'm widowed and I have no children. So I can literally live anywhere in the world I want to. I'm not a Michigan native. I was never a lifelong resident of East Lansing. But after 40 years, I called this city home. And I call it home because I live in the Pinecrest neighborhood. I have people I can call on if I need help. I have new neighbors on either side of me in the last several years. They both have children. It's fun to see them grow up. We wave at each other. This morning, I'm walking my dog. Usually in the mornings, I wave to the bus drivers as I go here and there. And this morning I'm walking my dog and we turn down Harrison and I hear this beep, beep behind me. I'm thinking, uh-oh, what happened? Is the dog veering? No, it's one of the bus drivers I wave to every day. That's what makes this community so important and why everybody here is so protective of the neighborhoods in which we live. And I think that's an important background against which you may want to consider this overlay amendment. I spent my Memorial Day weekend, I jokingly sent a copy of my letter to a few of the other people I've gotten to know from working on this issue and said how I spent my Memorial Day weekend. And you all have a copy of the letter I wrote to you at the end of my Memorial Day weekend. I don't want to belabor the points in that. I just want to highlight a couple of issues for you that I think are a problem with this. One is I think the proposal itself is unclear. As introduced, the proposal would allow the owner of a parcel on one side of a city block to petition for removal where the other homes on the same side of the city block are not subject to the rental overlay. The current overlay ordinance doesn't allow overlay districts to be gerrymandered, so I'm not sure how even this first criteria can be met. The second point I want to raise with or emphasize to the Commission is that during Mr. Hanks' remarks to the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission, he clearly stated on the record that he doesn't intend to sell his home. The 2024 Michigan Municipal League Handbook In its chapter dedicated to local ordinances, unequivocally states that, and I quote, an ordinance must advance a public purpose, not the interests of a private person or an arbitrary class of persons. An ordinance that grants special privileges to a single person or entity exceeds the scope of the governing body's powers. Here the proposed ordinance would do just that. It would grant a special privilege to Mr. Hank. The next point I want to emphasize is, again, something that was alluded to by Mr. Penka. I find it troubling that the city would require, under this proposed ordinance, I'm sorry, I misstated that. I find it troubling that the city requires 22 thirds of the affected property owners to support an overlay petition, but under the proposed ordinance, the one before you this evening, Only three of the five council members would be able to alter or amend the district. Lastly, I've heard several people talk about the flaws. There is in the city's website on the rental restriction overlay district petition information, It says that once a request residential rental restriction overlay district has been approved, it can only be changed or removed by using the same process as was used to establish the overlay. I respectfully ask you to recommend the council deny the proposed amendment and instead codify the very language that's on the city's website. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to come forward? Seeing none, is there anyone online in the queue?

We do have people on the queue. The person with the phone number 336, you're now able to address the commission. You may need to unmute. Sorry, go ahead.

Can you hear me? Thank you. My name is Owen Rock. I live on North Lawn Avenue in the Glencairn Overlay District. I was hoping to connect really quick to support the development of the Howard downtown as well as to chime in with regards to this proposed revision to the overlay districts. I'll be quick. I won't belabor this conversation any further. Um, but, um, I just wanted to say that from my standpoint, um, I think it makes sense that two thirds of neighbors can, um, set rules that impose the restrictions on other neighbors and their abilities to use properties, uh, to, uh, an effect that may, um, disadvantage, uh, the rest of the neighborhoods. That all makes sense at the same point. I do think that it makes sense that a smaller group of folks, um, for instance, a simple majority. Um, should be able to adjust those boundaries and correct for potential problems. Um, with, uh, an overlay district boundary, um, and adjust for changes in property uses over time as, uh, properties evolve within the overlay district. Um, so just wanting to voice my support for that. Um, I'm, uh, I've got two young kids too. Um, I certainly hate, uh, the rowdiness that we can see on certain weekends in this town. Um, but part of what makes this sound special is those students that we hate partying too. So that's my two cents. And I just think, uh, they're human beings as well as is your, uh, neighbor that, um, in the Bailey neighborhood that wants to be able to use this property for something other than just hearing the parties next door. Um, that's my two cents on that with regards to the Howard and of it. Um, it sounds like it can do a lot of good things with regards to the property tax base in the city. So I wanted to voice my support for that, while at the same point expressing my concern about the parking situation between the Howard and the development that's being talked about at the corner of Bailey and Albert. We're talking about, I think, something to the tune of 1,250 additional residents in this town without any measurable increase in parking. parking capacity in the downtown corridor. I recognize that that's intentional as it relates to our parking administrators position that we are over-served from a parking space perspective. I just fundamentally disagree with parking administration staff's position on that. And I fundamentally disagree with the understanding that folks shouldn't be able to park their cars in the same building that they live. So that's my two cents, and I just wanted to share it. Thanks very much. Bye.

Caller with the number 713, you're now able to address the commission. You may need to unmute.

Good evening, Council. My name is Jacqueline Genovese, and I'm the property owner at 353 Division Street. I'm speaking tonight regarding the ongoing discussions of the overlay. I want to urge council to move away from the rigid blanket rental restrictions and instead embrace housing flexibility. As noted by one gentleman, my son is a student at Michigan State and currently lives in the house. He is quiet, respectful, and takes care of the house. We have done safety upgrades to our house. We are respectful neighbors to all that we meet. This is how we are good neighbors and good citizens of East Lansing. The argument that I'm hearing tonight for these overlays is often framed as a battle over neighborhood peace, but the reality is that it punishes property owners. When we purchase a home, as I believe Jeff Hanks mentioned before, our title should include the fundamental rights for that property and to adapt that property to our changing life circumstances. If a resident needs to relocate for work, downsize financially, or need to take in someone that they are caring for, the city should not strip away their right to rent out their most valuable financial assets. This is not the way that the Fair Housing Act and fundamental property ownership operate in East Lansing or in the US. We also must address the geographic and economic reality of where we live. We all benefit from East Lansing. Being a college town, Michigan State is literally the lifeblood and defining economic driver of this city. And buying a property within walking distance of a world-class university carries an inherent predictable expectation of student housing. But when we use the overlays to wall off half of our residential parcels from rental licenses, we aren't stopping student housing demand we are distorting the market we are pushing these students into hyper dense expensive complexes and we lower the pool of available suitable rentable property for our students the reason we purchased that house is we did not have suitable and safe housing in the city of east lansing for my son and I believe that in these discussions I'm hearing, we're creating an adversarial us versus them when I really think this is a common sense ordinance. It is narrowly tailored for only a few affected houses that would really benefit from the opportunity and a process to have this overlay reconsidered for our houses. The fact that city council has had to introduce options like this ordinance proves that the current overlay system is creating unfair and unintended bottlenecks for property owners who find themselves trapped by these rigid rules. So I am fully in support of adopting the current ordinance. Again, for me, this isn't about a financial gain. This is about being able to provide housing for other students should they choose in a safe walkable community, close to a world-class university. And I urge the council to support the common sense rollback and opportunity for process for these overlay restrictions. and expand the pathways for property owners to utilize their land and accept that a vibrant student rental market is a sign of a thriving college town, not a problem to be zoned away. Thank you for the opportunity.

You can, I think she has one more caller on there.

Caller with the number 470, you're free to address the council. They did not unmute.

Okay, thank you.

We have one more person. Nolan Moody, you can now address the commission.

Good evening. I'm actually here to address the issues related to the Howard development.

Okay, now is his time.

Now is your time to speak on that. We've already had the public hearing.

Thank you. My name is Nolan Moody. I am an attorney representing the State News Media Group. I submitted a letter earlier today with regard to Cameron Jacobson's May 19 letter to Alyssa Wrighton. I understand the letter did not make it into the public record, so I just wanted to highlight the points that the State News has. As the Commission, I believe, is aware, the State News owns the neighboring property to the Howard And last we spoke, we had indicated to the commission that we did not object to the development in the purest sense that we don't want to stop it from occurring. But we are here tonight for much the same reasons as the prior meeting. And the reason is that we still have a number of unaddressed issues that we want to raise to the commission for their consideration. And they're really threefold. And the first is that since the last commission meeting, Harbor Bay and its partners have reached out to the state news. It asked for a meeting in the next week or two, and the state news is seeking to accomplish that. But as of tonight, that meeting has not occurred. And because of that, we still have a few issues that are unclear to us. And even though the letter that was submitted attempts to address them, our concerns are that it's too soon to approve the site plan because these issues exist. The first is the setbacks or step backs that are currently proposed by Harbor Bay. The state news realizes that while they meet the technical sense of the zoning ordinance, what we believe they do not meet is section 50-38 subpart one. And that requires a new development to be compatible with and minimize the impacts to adjacent properties. As we've documented before, our concern is that the currently proposed setbacks and stepbacks will impact the state news' ability to build in an upward manner at any point. The Harbor Bay's response to this, and I'm quoting a component of it, is, They should have a zero-foot setback because it, quotes, is eliminating a narrow side yard which avoids creating dark, inaccessible gaps between buildings that can become susceptible to crime, vandalism, trespassing, loitering, or homeless encampments. I think this highlights the issue with the state news having not yet had an opportunity to sit down with Harbor Bay because our objection is not to the setbacks on the lower two levels. We have no problem with the setback going at or near the property line. It's with the higher levels where there's going to be windows. And that is what we are requesting a further setback for so that if the state news one day wants to raise the height of their building, they're able to do so. They can't do it with the current five foot setback. So again, I think it just highlights the fact that we need the opportunity to sit down and speak with Harbor Bay before anything is approved because we have this misunderstanding and it's just based on a lack of communication. The other issue that we have not spoken with them about is that we've had no meaningful discussions regarding future maintenance access rights or related issues like that. The next issue is the alleyway. And I know the commission is familiar with this because we spoke about it a few weeks ago. But Harbor Bay represented in its recent letter that there will be no impact to the state news operations in the alley because they're only going to take essentially the two-thirds of the alley that deals with their building and not the component that's right behind the state news. That doesn't really make sense to us. And again, we need to speak and understand how this is going to work. And just to give the commission an example, 53 foot semi trucks delivering food come through that alleyway. They pull in, they go all the way through and out the other way. If that semi truck is required to pull in and then back out, that creates a lot of issues for the semi truck to get in and out. We don't understand where the construction is going to be around the alleyway. Even if our alleyway is open, We don't understand how and where we're going to be able to get that semi truck back there or if this is a feasible proposal because we just don't have any details. And then finally, construction access and monitoring. Harbor Bay has made some general representations regarding construction operations, but we don't have an agreement between the State News and Harbor Bay and there's no condition in the site plan approval allowing for anything concrete that allows us to understand what our rights are or how we're going to be protected during construction. Just a few examples would be crane swing rights, scaffolding or sidewalk shed placement, excavation access, temporary underpinning, material staging, all these things, insurance, all these things require something to be in writing and we haven't had an opportunity to speak with Harbor Bay yet. So for all those reasons, what we're asking for is for the commission to either condition a recommendation of approval for an executed agreement that lays out these terms or that they recommend Harbor Bay site plan is delayed until we can reach an agreement. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Would you like to come forward?

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you very much for your time. My name is Sally Newton. I live on Sunset Lane in East Lansing, Glencairn neighborhood. I'm here in opposition of the Ordinance 1572. Overlay districts are critical to stabilizing our neighborhoods. A few years ago, Glencairn had an overlay placed And in the last year alone, I have four new neighbors just on my 900 block. Three of the homes were sold in the $250,000 range. Those people are first time home owners. Another home was sold in the $350,000 range. They are close to where they work on campus now. And rather than living far away, you know how gas prices are, They can walk to campus. Two of those families have children who are going to be walking to Glencairn School in the fall. Two of those families have joined Hanna Community Center. They are involved in our neighborhood and our families. I too live close enough to students. As a matter of fact, a block and a half from me, we had the whole hockey team in one of the rentals. Lord knows those boys have more time on their hands. You would think they'd be on the ice. When they left this spring, one of the doors was missing on the garage. They hadn't paid their water bill. We all listened to their parties throughout the year that they were there. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to speak and our overlays are really, really important. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, seeing no one else, that takes us on to our next order of business. Tonight's public hearings. Up first is item 6.1, a public hearing by the Planning Commission to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1573, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone 825 West Lake Lansing Road from RM32 to RM14 in order to bring an existing single family residence into conformity with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you. Let me pull up my map real quick.

Screen.

I realized that I didn't include a map, and that's a pretty important thing to include in the rezoning request, so I apologize. The parcel in question, I've highlighted on the map, this is just two parcels away from the, just west, I guess, of the intersection of Lake Lansing and Harrison. So it's, oops. this property right here. And so this property is zoned RM22, as is the property immediately next door to the east at the corner of Lake Lansing and Harrison. Properties to the west are all RM14, which is the applicant's proposed property. zoning. The difference essentially, RM22 is one of two zone districts, residential zone districts that we have in the city that doesn't allow single family houses. So that makes the existing structure on this property non-conforming, which leads to some issues if the applicant Excuse me. If the applicant were to seek to rebuild the property, if it was destroyed, you can't rebuild a non-conforming structure after a certain amount of damage, for example. It's often very difficult to refinance non-conforming structures, so the applicant is seeking to make his property conforming by changing the zoning from RM22 to RM14. That's it. We don't have any real concerns about this request. We think it makes sense. And as far as the adjacent properties and the zoning, we don't see a problem with this, so we recommend adoption. We haven't heard any concerns so far. I believe the applicants here tonight is a public hearing, and typically the Planning Commission doesn't take action the same evening as the public hearing. The applicant, we discussed that. It doesn't really matter if you take action tonight or at the next meeting. This will likely be heard before the City Council for their public hearing on July 21st. With that, can I answer any questions?

Questions for Mr. Bartley? just a few clarifying questions for me real quick. So this came at the request of the owner. The owner's here tonight. Staff agrees with the recommendation to change the zoning for this property and there's no spot zoning concerns. Correct.

Okay. I believe the property owner is here.

I'm not, I'm not sure, but yes, property owners see someone waving their hand from the audience. So, um, before you come up, any additional questions for city staff on this? Okay. Okay. Do you want to address the commission at all? Simple enough, thank you. Okay, any additional comments or questions for Mr. Bartley? I think this one's pretty straightforward. What is the will of the commission?

Open the public hearing.

Oh, we gotta do that too, yeah. At this point, we'll open the public hearing. Does anybody else wish to come forward and address this agenda item? Seeing none, we can kick it over to the queue again.

That's the same person who has already spoke.

OK. All right. At this point, we'll close the public hearing. What is the will of the commission? Take action or take it up at the next meeting?

I don't see any reason to delay it.

I agree. Sounds like, OK, Commissioner Potts wants to make the motion.

I move to recommend the City Council adopt Ordinance 1573, an amendment to Chapter 50 of the City Code to rezone 825 West Lake Lansing Road, parcel number 33-20-01-01-304-033, from RM22, medium density multiple family residential to RM14, low density multiple family residential for the following reasons. The rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for the area and the city's comprehensive land use plan because this is currently a residential parcel and is proposed to remain a residential parcel. All of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area because the subject property would continue to have residential use and would no longer be non-conforming. Public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by development or use allowed under the requested rezoning because the site is currently served by existing services and none would need to change as a result of this rezoning. Finally, the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of land because the current non-conforming use would be brought into conformity if rezoned.

Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Putz. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Chapin. Any additional discussion? Okay. I think because Landon sufficiently answered my questions about the rationale for this, I'm in support. So seeing no additional comments, all those in favor vote aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously. This item is on to city council at a to be determined city council meeting. Okay, moving along to item 6.2, a public hearing to receive comments on a request from Cassava Coneparity on behalf of Brightwell Group LLC for approval of a site plan for a 37,748 square foot addition to the existing Brightwell Behavioral Facility at 3512 Coolidge Road, property zone B1, General Office Business District. Grace?

So the applicant is proposing an expansion to the existing facility. The existing facility was approved by city council in 2018 as part of a site plan approval. They were approved for a facility that was just over 15,000 square feet and 23 inpatient beds, the applicant is proposing. to add just under 38,000 additional square feet and an additional 28 patient units within the same facility. As part of the site work, they are proposing to add an entry drive off of Coolidge Road and then an additional drive off of the access road to the south as well. They have proposed well in excess of the number of parking spaces required, so staff has discussed with them if they would consider reducing some of that impervious service area. They're not required to do that. They are permitted to have that much parking, but just to assess if that is really the need of the facility. There were a number of outstanding comments.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

There were a number of outstanding comments just related to some landscaping things as well as a number of comments from engineering that the applicant is working directly with the engineering team on and they're working through those. Those are all things that staff feels that they can work through by probably the next planning commission meeting and have those all sorted out. I think that's really all I have.

All right, crushed it. Any questions from commissioners? Per city staff? So you noted a parking reduction that city staff had proposed. Do you know approximately how many spaces or ballpark or percentage?

No, not exactly. So they have 34 spaces currently. They proposed to add 97 spaces to that, which is a total of 131. Based on our ordinance, their minimum parking requirement is 40 spaces. So they have over three times as much parking as is required by the ordinance. And just based on general concerns within the city about impervious surface area and stormwater management, staff just suggested to them that they might want to evaluate if that is truly the need of the facility to have that much parking, and they can probably speak to that a bit more. They haven't submitted any revisions since we've submitted comments to them, so I don't know if that will be a change that we would see going forward. They would probably be able to speak more to that.

And then it looks like on the, is it the northeast portion of the property, there's some water retention on site? Yes. Surface water, right?

Yes. Yeah, and that is an existing facility, I believe, and they're working with engineering about what exactly, what amount will be needed based on calculations for stormwater.

Any other questions for city staff? Okay, thank you. At this point, the applicant can come forward and address the Commission.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Welcome to the Planning Commission, and happy birthday. My name is Dr. Vaglica. I'm the head engineer at the Gateway Engineering. And I'm here to answer any questions you have on this particular site plan. We actually redesigned the parking lot and we lowered the number of parking spaces. Because we had already submitted the application, we did not understand that we could resubmit it, being that we needed to be part of, you know, so many days ahead of this Planning Commission. This is something that really never happens, where they ask us to reduce the number of parking. So it's actually a very welcome comment. It makes things a little easier for sizing the pond. We have a parallel drawing that would have 92 parking spaces. And we're adding much more landscaping area. So that's something that we're willing to do and submit to the planners. A retention pond is existing on site. We're actually just moving it to one of the side of the properties. There's already behind the building some type of retention. We came to a city meeting where we met with everybody not too long ago. And we spoke to the city engineer, and we spoke to pretty much everyone in the city. So we were confident that this submittal met or exceeded all the city requirements. These particular type of projects, unfortunately, come, you know, we have licensing from the state of Michigan, and they have some timelines, and they're pretty strict timelines. So we would ask, you know, for, you know, we actually, at the meeting, the owners were asking, is there any way we can get, you know... foundation permits and obviously it couldn't happen because we have to go through a big process. So anything that you can do to minimize the timeline we're eager to get going. We pretty much already prepared all the CD drawings so you know we have the structural, we have geotechnical, we have you know mechanical and plumbing and so on and so forth because The day that the city gives us the green light, we're coming in for permits. I'm here to answer any questions you may have, and I appreciate this time.

Thank you for that background. Commissioner Overby.

I have a quick question for city staff. Have all of your unanswered questions and follow-ups been addressed on this project? Or are there still things that are outstanding?

Yeah, I have not seen the updated set of plans, so I couldn't say if they address all of them or not. So I'm not sure if they have been or not.

Commissioner Lapine.

Sorry. Going back to the parking thing, that doesn't really concern me at all. And I'm not sure if this is a question you can answer, given that you're on the engineering side or not. But do you know today how many staff are working at the facility and how many patients you're seeing and how that would change with the added expansion? Because I'm assuming you're going to change the number of people that are in that building pretty significantly with the added 23 beds. So you probably will need more parking.

Well, we're proposing more parking. Whether we need the parking requirements that the city wants originally. We followed the city ordinance and it calls for so many parking, so many beds. I don't believe we do. I agree with the city that maybe we can reduce the number of parking. We can always show a parallel drawing that shows some bank parking just in case it's needed. We can get 131 parking, which is what the ordinance wants, but we can reduce that. To 92, and I have it here. I have a plan, but basically we would get rid of all the parking on the northwest side of that plan up there. So we would kind of get rid of everything and add all landscaping area in that area there. Okay. which would reduce our impervious area and kind of make our pond work better. So we're good with that. Client has no requirements.

I just had a follow-up to that actually. So you're obviously proposing an expansion. What's the reason for the expansion? Are you expanding the services or just volume?

These particular type of projects go through the state of Michigan. Once they get a license, then they won't allow any more licenses in the area. And apparently in this particular area there is a demand. Part of this new, you know, area is going to be for geriatric. And then they have a pediatrician, you know, type of area. So that's why of the design that you kind of look secluded. You know, we kind of have different wings that are not connected for that reason to separate the patients. And like I said, the state of Michigan already approved it. And honestly, they actually had, they gave us like three months to design it and get it approved, which never happens. So we had a deadline of May. Now we have a deadline of August. So we're trying to push this vote forward so we can get the state not to revoke the license. And, you know, any condition we will meet. I mean, if there's landscaping issues, you know, we work with landscape architects. We actually had a rendering as well. I don't know if you guys can upload that. It shows the type of facility that we're proposing.

Yeah, I do. Yeah. There we go, okay.

We feel it's going to be an improvement.

Mr. Dinal, do you have a question?

I do. Um, I, um, I, I feel like we have seen a proposal from this facility recently in the past few years. Um, and I recall one of the points of discussion. Um, so I think my first question is why are we seeing it again after? I think we approved the first request.

The request a couple years ago was to rezone this property from DeWitt Township zoning to be one. And that was essentially to facilitate this future development.

Perfect. And I remember one of the points of discussion at that earlier meeting was the number of trees and wetland space to the north. I didn't see any comments about any tree removal, and so I was just wondering if the city's arborist had had a chance to look at the site plan and make any comments about any trees that meet certain thresholds for being preserved?

Yeah, I did share that with the city arborist, but I haven't gotten feedback from them about any removals or anything like that.

Okay.

All set? Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts.

Yeah, I don't know if I'm missing this in the report. I guess, let's say you, you know, you get approved and everything by your August deadline. What's your, um, goal for having the construction done and having, you know, it's going to go really fast.

Uh, you know, they, they have, you know, uh, they're already working, you know, we have everything in place and these type of facilities, you know, we're doing many statewide and, um, The time of construction is going to be less than a year to do these buildings. The money's been earmarked. There's not a money issue here. So if you have money, you can make it go fast. The state of Michigan is pretty strict on all these rules and regulations. It's a hospital, basically. It's going to be a Class A building with exceptional everything. So I think it's going to be less than a year after we get it approved.

Thank you. Vice Chair. I have more of a comment rather than a question. Yes sir. I just see a lot of things that the staff point out that are issues that have not been resolved and the engineers I understand you want to go quickly, but I would recommend working with staff. Oh, absolutely. Because, you know, it's hard to approve something when there's lighting issues or parking issues. I mean, I know you've been doing the parking stuff, but, you know, all those things we take into consideration when we approve things.

We actually have everything, you know, everything was resolved except that, usually we're not allowed to resubmit, being that we have a timeline. And again, you can make a contingent to all of, and then the engineer, basically once we have the parking lot redesigned, which we already have it, then the calculations for, it was all about stormwater, and he mentioned that There's a change in the stormwater design basis. And although it was not adapted, he may want us to, you know, follow it. And we have no issues. I mean, there is no issues. There's no engineering issues for this project. You know, whatever requirements we need to meet, we'll meet them.

Great. Thank you.

Any additional questions?

OK.

I'm seeing none. Did you have any other updates? OK. Thank you. So I think it sounds like there's still a few outstanding items, Grace. And the complexity of this, I think typically we would use a two meeting process for review. Is that correct?

Yeah, and I would say that there was a fairly substantial list of things that needed to be adjusted, but I would say that almost all of them were very minor items, so I don't have... doubts that the revised plans will be able to address those it wasn't anything that was you know catastrophic or a very large deficit in the plan it was just a large number of small comments so i anticipate that at the next meeting we'll have um a revised version we'll have a better understanding of what we're actually voting on yeah commissioner nolte

I just wanted to ask staff, I know there's, like you said, you routed this to a handful of departments, and there are a few departments that just haven't provided comment yet. If and when they do, I assume that that will be part of the packet. Fire department, police department, and maybe the arborist? Thank you. Yeah.

OK. At this point, we will open the public hearing on this item. Does anyone wish to come forward and address this item before the Planning Commission? OK. Seeing none, is anyone online in the queue? Any additional people?

No.

OK. At this point, we'll close the public hearing. And as I'm not seeing a motion, we'll see this at the next Planning Commission meeting. And what is the date for that, Landon? I didn't write it down. That'll be June 10th. For June 10th. So we'll see this item on June 10th for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Takes us on to item number seven, unfinished business. First is item 7.1, consideration of ordinance 1564, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone approximately 40 properties north of Lake Lansing Road, west of Chandler Road, and east of US 127 from their current DeWitt Township zoning to East Lansing Zone districts. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you. I'm going to pull up the map on the screen very quickly. All right, so this is a request. I'm showing a side-by-side, essentially a batch rezoning that is proposed by staff. We have several properties north of Lake Lansing, specifically sort of north of Coleman for the most part, that have DeWitt Township zoning left over from a 425 transfer that happened about 25 years ago. And so typically in a 425 transfer, the properties are rezoned to the, I guess, receiving municipality zone districts. That didn't happen in this case, and so We had received an inquiry to rezone one of the properties, 2900 Coleman, which is just sort of centered between Coolidge and West on the south side of Coleman, to rezone that. But for many reasons, rezoning that one property wouldn't make as much sense as just rezoning all of them at the same time. So we're requesting to rezone all properties that currently have Dewitt Township zoning. but are located within the city of East Lansing, two East Lansing zone districts. This has been before you before, I believe it was April 20, excuse me, April 8th or 22nd. April 8th was the public hearing for this and April 22nd, there were some additional comments at that time. The Planning Commission wasn't comfortable making a recommendation to council, but requested a couple more changes. So I'd like to go through briefly what those changes are. I guess also I should mention that we've received a few more letters recently, largely surrounding the properties 3303, 3255, 3203, and also a vacant parcel, or excuse me, unaddressed between those that are sort of on this, and that's on Coleman, north side of Coleman, directly west of the Hawks Nest neighborhood, concerned about rezoning. So I guess I'd like to just briefly start going through all the properties quickly from the northernmost end. We have these properties up at Chandler and Stoll that are currently Dewitt Township, B.C., which is a business district. We had originally proposed to switch those also to, I guess, an analog township. East Lansing zone of B2 after some public feedback we proposed to not change that to a business but rather to R1 residential single family residential which is consistent with the property to the south which is the Eagle Eye Golf Club and that was requested by owners of properties nearby, including a DeWitt Township property that's completely surrounded by East Lansing properties. I also want to mention the sort of related ordinance to this, 1570, specifically looks at 3859 Stoll, which is this property way up to the north, sort of surrounded by a larger property that has a little curve on top. That little piece, actually I can zoom in. This 3859 Stoll currently has East Lansing zoning, before zoning, but we want to change that to align with whatever the future zoning is for the DeWitt Township zoned properties. So we would, in the next item, which is ordinance 1570, I'll be requesting that that parcel, 3859 Stoll, also be changed to R1, which would match, let me move this, which would match the zoning of the parcels around it if those are also rezoned to R1. Also, north side of State Road, just east of US 127, is a vacant parcel that was previously M4, DeWitt Township Multifamily. We're proposing to change that to a comparable East Lansing Zone District, the RM22, Medium Density Multifamily Zone District. I should ask, real quick, any questions about any of these properties north of State? Yes, sir.

I have a question. Okay.

Are we to assume that everything you're talking about here is okay with the property owners? Because I know there was some disagreements and there's some back and forth. What you're projecting or telling us now, has it all been resolved or are there any recommendations that you're making that go against what the property owners have requested?

As far as we know, we don't have any concerns from any of these properties to the north of state. We did hold a community meeting at MSUFC on Coolidge Road in February and talked to several property owners then. We reached out to all the property owners with a mailer and talked to many of them. We also had phone conversations, mostly by phone, as well as here during and after the public hearing for this. So we do have a couple properties specifically on the south side of West Road, excuse me, the east side of West Road, south of Coleman, that I'm proposing to change zoning sort of that isn't what the property owners want. And I'll discuss those. But otherwise, I believe that when I've been in conversation with the property owners, in general, I've been hearing that they're okay with what I'm proposing. I haven't heard more comments tonight in public comment. I have received letters recently, not from property owners, but again, like I mentioned, from the property owners in Hawks Nest. So I'm going to switch down to the south side of the state now. Briefly, 2870 State is currently zoned agricultural, A, Dewitt Township. But the surrounding properties are currently zoned B4. All the properties on the east and west sides of Coolidge here just south of State are currently B4, which is the restricted office business district. I'm interested in potential changes down the road for that, but at this time we don't have any reason to recommend anything other than B4 to match that property up with the surrounding properties. Just to the east, we have a large property, 3070 State Road, there on the south side. That's currently zoned Dewitt Township Agricultural, and the property owners have requested that it continue to be agricultural, and so I'm showing this hatch being residential agricultural, which does allow sort of limited residential use, but primary agricultural use. In response to concerns expressed at previous meetings from residents in Hawks Nest, we're proposing a change. My initial recommendation had been for RM14 for these properties on the north side of Coleman, east of Coolidge, and I'm proposing to change those to agricultural, RA, residential agriculture, again at the request of property owners to the east in Hawks Nest and also a direction from the Planning Commission last meeting to make those the sort of analog East Lansing to do a Township Ag. So I'm proposing RA, which is residential agriculture for those properties. There's currently a residential property on Coleman just to the east of those. that I'm proposing to maintain as residential because of its size and location. I'm proposing RM14 that is a fairly flexible low density multi-family residential zone district. I'm also recommending RM14 for essentially the rest of the properties along Coleman to the north and south side of Coleman. So west of that property 3203 East Coleman. So that would include 3151 Coleman and the properties on the south and then all the properties to the west all the way up to West Road. on both sides of the street. And essentially the reason I'm recommending RM14 for those properties is that the existing land uses are largely single family residential. There's a school, but we don't want to create nonconformities if we can avoid it. And RM14 allows for single family, two family, but also allows for low density multifamily, which was the request of the applicant at 2900 Coleman. which is essentially why we were proposing RM14 for that property, and then we felt that it made sense for the surrounding properties as well. Finally, there is proposed, the properties I mentioned just south of Coleman on west, There had been some discussion by owners at the corner about commercial. I suggest not doing that. I think that it's worth sort of a deeper dive planning consideration whether or not a commercial corner there would be appropriate or not. I'm not sure about that right now. I'd like to recommend continuing to have a residential zoning, which would be consistent with its current residential R3, which is Dewitt Township. And finally, I think I mentioned, yes, the properties south of there on west, had originally talked about residential, all the properties surrounding those to the south and east and west are currently zoned B4. And so I wanted to maintain that and sort of align those three properties with the surrounding zoning of B4, except have the properties to the north and sort of the south property lines of those be the boundary of the zone district. Does that make sense? Can I answer any questions about what I've

presented here I hope this isn't an overgeneralization but in hearing your summary you've essentially rezoned everything as analogous as possible from DeWitt to East Lansing and then in a few cases have even down zoned or zoned residential where appropriate and if there's ever a potential for upzoning to a commercial district. You left that out for future and separate consideration. Is that correct?

Well, that's correct. I would say there is some commercial districts proposed in the B4. It's just a restricted office district, so it wouldn't be a commercial zone district. I do want to mention 3151 Coleman is a fairly large property just to the northeast of the intersection of Coolidge and Coleman. I am proposing that that be RM14, which would be different from the current agricultural zoning. That's because of the properties immediately to its west, which are kind of split by Coolidge. And I wanted to align the zoning with those. And also we've received several inquiries about the properties to the northwest on the east side of Coolidge about potential residential development that's currently zoned B4. And so that would be a separate rezoning request down the road. but we felt that that request will also probably be for RM14. So I felt that it would align these properties with that if that rezoning were to occur in the future. I do want to mention a couple things sort of for the benefit of public who has reached out. over the last couple days. Number one, I received several letters after 5 o'clock today. We have to have it cut off at some point to get them into the packet. We will add those to the packet after the fact, and those will continue to go forward. When this progresses, if this progresses tonight, it will go forward to the city council as well. But those would not have made it into your packet if they came in after 5 o'clock. We're also changing our policy for several reasons so that relatively soon, probably in the next month, we're gonna have to change that deadline for public letters to 5 p.m. the day before the meeting. They'll still make it in the packet eventually, they just won't be making it in the packet for your review. So I wanted to state that openly for at least who's here or who's listening. I think that was it. Did I answer a question? Are there more questions?

Commissioner Overby.

This is a comment and not really a question. There were lots of competing interests and lots of people that wanted things a certain way in this request, and I commend you and your staff for making as many people happy here as you can, and I thank you for doing that.

I appreciate that. I'm not sure that that's, I hope that's accurate. And I want to also mention that the next step after this in the process, it's a rezoning request, will be for it to go to City Council if you take action this evening. City Council will then schedule their own public hearing for this request. So there is another public hearing at which time more comments can come in and then City Council will make a decision after that.

Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts. Yes.

So my comment, I just wanted to make, not comment question, I just wanted to make sure, I know you said that there was some properties where below State Road where they weren't getting the zoning that they wanted. I just wanted to clarify, was that just the corner on West Road that wanted the commercial or were there other properties?

The property owners that talked to me about a retail commercial district were on West Road at the corner. And I pushed back on my initial staff recommendation, I believe. Yeah. And haven't heard too much, I guess, pushback since then.

Sorry, which parcel?

I'm sorry. The properties, I think Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts, you were talking about the parcels on West Road, on the east side of West, south of Coleman?

Yeah. OK.

So those are the last parcels I talked about, 16, 825, 51, and 77. On west, just south of Coleman, I'm zoomed way in to them right now to point out which properties I'm talking about.

Mr. Chapin.

So I think I sort of echo Chuck's comments about the amount of work that your staff has done here, Landon, back and forth several months back and several modifications. I think you have a policy in front of us. Very seldom do we get a recommendation. This is for the good of policy, the good of the city, the good of domain. I'm not sure what the right word is. But I'm comfortable making a motion. I'm comfortable voting on this tonight. I'm comfortable approving the work, knowing that there are some other steps in play here after us. But I think you've done a really nice job here at this point. I know there's a couple of chapters left here, but I'm very comfortable making a motion and voting in favor of this tonight.

Sounds like a motion about to be read, a little foreshadowing.

The chair is asking me to make a motion. Is that right? All right.

Mr. Chapin, before you do, if I may. Yeah. Sorry, Mr. Chair. So I have prepared a sample motion for you that's at the end of the staff report. What page?

Yeah, I have it.

Oh, that's a great point. I don't have pages in the agenda. He has it. You don't even have to do it. I have it. You have it. But if you essentially what the – The ordinance or the motion that I've written out changes or recommends changes to the original ordinance that was introduced. So all the different modifications would bring that ordinance as introduced in line with my final recommendation. If there's anything you want to change from the final recommendations on the screen.

I think I understand that, but I'm going to read the motion as you presented it. So I think that's where I went ahead with this. If there's modifications, we can amend perhaps after. So ready to go? May I roll? All right. So I move to recommend that the East Lansing City Council adopt Proposed Ordinance 1564, an amendment to Chapter 50 of the City Code to rezone approximately 40 properties north of Lake Lansing Road, west of Chandler Road, and east of US 127. from their current DeWitt Township zoning to East Lansing Zone districts for the following reasons. One, the rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for that area in the city's comprehensive land use plan because a majority of the proposed rezonings are consistent with the designation of the area by the 2018 future land use map. And the area in which the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the map is for several properties and is responsive to community needs, which have arisen since the map's adoption. All of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses in a surrounding area because a rezoning will facilitate conforming use of these properties as property ownership through use of the East Lansing Zoning Ordinance. Number three. public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested rezoning because such services and facilities presently exist in the area and serve these properties. Number four, Anybody have water? No, just kidding. Number four, the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current rezoning of the land because significant non-conforming conditions burdening the subject properties will be removed and permit existing land uses to continue. I think I'm going to continue with be it further resolved that the Planning Commission recommends the following modifications to Ordinance 1564 in the form in which it was introduced. Number one, 3070 State Road. and the 0 East Coleman Road 1920-5036-220 shall be rezoned to RA Residential Agricultural. Number 2 3303 East Coleman Road and 3203 East Coleman Road 3255 East Coleman Road and 0 East Coleman Road, 1920-50-36-300-019 shall be rezoned to RA Residential Agricultural. Three unaddressed parcels, 0 Stull Road, 19-20-50-24-400-015 and 0 Stoll Road 19-20-50-25-100-013 shall be rezoned to R1 low density single family residential. Number four. Commissioner Chapin, if I may. Stop.

If you stop right there, that will be the final staff's recommendation. If you'd like to change the zoning of those properties on West Road, south of Coleman, to RM14, which was the request of the property owners.

I'd like to line up with your recommendation, so I'm going to stop unless I'm advised otherwise by the commission.

Sounds good to me.

OK. I'll pause my motion there. And it's complete.

All right. Moved by Commissioner Chapin. Is there a second? Second. Ramirez-Roberts, second. You win. OK. Any discussion on the motion? Yeah. okay all is in favor vote aye aye opposed nay all right motion carries this item is on to city council at a to be determined city council meeting up next is item 7.2 consideration of proposed ordinance 1570 an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone 3859 stole road from b4 to r1 mr bartley

Thank you. This is that other property that I mentioned in the last item, 3859 Stoll, which is the small property way up north near the intersection of Stoll and Chandler. That's after the recommendation just adopted by Planning Commission would be to be rezoned to R1 single-family residential. Can I answer questions about that request? And that's essentially meant to align the zoning of that property with the ones around it.

Questions for Mr. Bartley? The owners in support?

The property owners in support?

I've reached out with the mailer and I haven't heard.

Okay, seeing no additional questions, is there a motion? If anyone's interested, it's on page two and it's much shorter than the one Commissioner Chapin just read.

I'll make the motion.

Okay.

I move to recommend that city council adopt proposed ordinance 1570, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone 3859 Stoll Road from B4 restricted office business to R1 low density single family residential for the following reasons. The Planning Commission has found that the rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for that area in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan because the proposed zoning has been found to be consistent with desired future uses in the area as expressed by property owners, nearby residents, staff, or others. All of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding areas because adoption would result in the alignment of this property zoning with that of the adjacent and nearby properties following the adoption of Ordinance 1564. Public facilities and services would not be significantly adversely impacted by development or use allowed under the requested rezoning because the proposed R1 zoning is of a lower intensity than the current BC zoning designation and in line with comments received from nearby property owners. The uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land because existing land uses on this and adjacent properties are residential in nature and would not become non-conforming as a result of the proposed zone change.

Motion by Ramirez-Roberts. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Putz. Any discussion on that motion?

aligns with the previous motion. And I think, in my mind, they both go together. It would be reasonable to approve both tonight. Commissioner Lapine.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask. I should have asked it previously. But Landon, now that we've made a motion and have a path forward on this, will there be additional communication that goes to the homeowner?

Yes.

OK.

I should say, at the very least, a mailer out for the next public hearing by council. My intent is after the, if it is adopted, we would also send a notice at that point.

Thank you. Any additional discussion?

Seeing none. Let's take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. This item is also on to city council at a to-be-determined city council meeting. That moves us on to the new business section of tonight's agenda. Up first is 8.1, a request from Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures for approval of a site plan for a 12-story mixed-use development consisting of one, two, and three-bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River Avenue. This property is owned B3 City Center Commercial Business District. Ms. Wrighton.

Hello. We were here two weeks ago with a version of this plan, which has had some significant changes since that time. The applicant did take into account the concern for trying to understand each of the elements that they updated. So they ballooned out in drawings, as shown on this first floor plan, some of the items throughout the set. um they addressed some of the comments that had been previously received this set of drawings has not been i have not received comments back from fire or engineering i did talk to engineering and the building department briefly to try and encapsulate some understanding of the things that they still felt needed to be addressed this is a moving target if you will it's a very large project and they are working to constantly try and update the plans according to what the ordinance says uh... the latest iteration shows that there are still some items that do need to be addressed particularly with the alley access, which was a concern of the building official. There's some concerns related to how the trash will get taken out of that back alley with a perpendicular access. They did do an update to the loading dock, which is on the other side of the building. Not on the alley side, but on the other side. Still working through some of the additional items. Throughout the project, there have been questions and concerns about lighting. They have a plan, but some of the questions from the building department also talked about the expansion related or the lighting, how it, it has to stay onsite and some of their projections are showing that it goes offsite. The limits of their demolition preliminary plan shows it actually going through the building to the north. So there are still some items that need to be addressed. Uh, you'll see in my staff report that I did list a substantial number of conditions that need to be answered. Um, Several of them are standard. Um, some particular to this project are related to the fact that they're proposing mass timber and lead gold certification to get four additional stories as incentives. So in this district, a reminder that parking is prohibited on site and they are not providing any, they are providing plenty of bike parking. The lead gold certification requirement to achieve a vote, um, for that incentive would require them to provide a pre certification prior to city council's approval. the mass timber is listed as a condition for both the approval for the incentive and then as well for the final construction to be allowed to be granted occupancy of that floor. The same thing will happen for the lead gold certification that they'll have to provide that certification prior to getting occupancy for those additional two stories. So in the, in the district, The first floor requires a principal use. They're providing two, they say retail, but then it also discusses restaurants. They have outdoor dining that they're proposing with those, which includes bonus allotments to give them the full coverage of the property. They have provided some stormwater calculations for their volunteering customers. on-site basin. I haven't gotten response back from the engineering department yet on those calculations. The incentive would have to carry forward, I'm sorry, the bonus allotment would have to be carried forward if the restaurant outdoor dining were to be abandoned. Those numbers are provided in the section with the related conditions. There's a lot going on in this project. I'm happy to answer any questions. Do you have anything you want to add?

Thank you. Questions from commissioners?

Alicia, could you, you're right, there's a lot going on and I'm admittedly starting to confuse some of the revisions and updates because I feel like we've talked about this a good amount. Can you talk to me about the parking?

Parking is prohibited in the district, meaning they can't have it unless they ask for it with a specific delineation of why they need it. And they would have to be able to convince the planning commission that it's just needed, but it it's prohibited otherwise. And so they're not providing any.

So we would have a 12 story building with 147 units at least and no parking.

Correct. But we do have a substantial city set of parking. It might not be the most convenient for where people want to park, but there is a garage a block away. The applicant has indicated that students or the individuals that are expected to rent these units have a vehicle on a 0.2 basis. That's where they've provided their calculations, which comes to around 150 spaces. The city's downtown parking system has indicated that they're willing to provide 215 monthly parking spaces between all downtown development. That doesn't mean that students or other occupants couldn't go to the city individually and potentially obtain their own individual spaces, but there would need to be a parking agreement, which their owner has provided a draft to the parking department. Their comments were included originally. That has not been reviewed by city attorney or... obviously hasn't gone to council yet, so they would have to agree to that as well. But the available number of parking based on what the applicant is indicating they need seems to sort.

Okay, that's helpful.

I thought I read in the packet that they had reached an agreement with the parking department to lease. I don't know the number right now, but maybe I want to say 175, but it would be less if the other proposal that's come before us on Abbott, I'm sorry, Albert, would actually take place. Did I just clarify that in the midst of your answer alone?

They have provided a parking agreement with the parking department, and I believe they asked for 150 spaces of the 215 that are available, but there isn't an actual agreement. It hasn't been reviewed by our city attorney. It's still a conversation. It's still a pending issue.

Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

From a procedural perspective, It hasn't been reviewed by the city attorney. It hasn't been reviewed because we haven't made a decision at planning commission and it hasn't gone to city council? Yes.

Or it just hasn't been reviewed yet? It wouldn't go until we get to the city council standpoint.

Thank you.

Questions in this end?

Vice Chair? I just want to get your opinion, Alicia. So we heard from the attorney for, or someone from State News today. So in your opinion, like if they wanted to build an eight-story, if the State News wanted to build eight stories up, you know, in three years from now, would there, and this plan goes forward as proposed, would there be issues? I mean, would it be a... Something that we should consider, I mean, with the setbacks and with Windows and, I mean, I don't quite know. There's a lot of information. I'm not quite sure how to parse it all.

So the ordinance applies the same to each parcel. So they could go up. Whether or not they have comfort for that is not something that I could speak to. But if the ordinance as it is today is still in place as it would be at that time, they also would have a zero foot setback. So they could be, like, think of downtown Chicago. Buildings are smack up against each other. There ends up being firewalls and building code requirements that have to be met. But it's the same for any development.

OK.

Could you talk about the alley one more time? They had issues with the construction and alley and swinging cranes and all that sort of stuff.

The alley is narrow and it is difficult for vehicles of any size to back in or out, so they do use delivery trucks. Vehicles picking up materials from the backyard, or the alley, they go straight through. I've not actually seen anybody back out except for right at the edge where they couldn't get in because it was being blocked. The building department did have concern about that as well. They showed a portion of how the alley would be impacted in the updated drawings, but the building official asked for additional details related to it. It's narrow. All of our alleys are very narrow. As far as the crane and the mechanisms that the gentleman was talking about in his letter, I'd have to ask the applicant to further elaborate on how they intend to satisfy those things.

Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Overby.

Both Landon and Alicia, this is a question for you. So it seemed to me in reviewing these materials that there were a significant number of outstanding issues that we needed more information and that you needed more information to really finalize your recommendations to us. Is that correct?

So from the first meeting to where we are today, they had taken into account the questions and comments that they had received from all of the outside departments and myself as well. Since that time in this plan being presented to you, I have not gotten comments back from the other departments to be able to provide to you what they have concerns. Like I said, I had a verbal conversation with the engineering department and the building department. but they haven't had an opportunity. It's a short turnaround time from when we actually review the updated plans. They got them to us and I turned them around straight away to the other departments, but they, other departments, we usually try and give them two weeks to get comments back. And with a plan of this substantial size and the multiple moving parts and the different elements that are related to the construction, the uses, they have not gotten back. And so I'm not sure what additional information may be coming from them.

So with that in mind, and I guess I'd ask my other commissioners what they think, I would prefer that we delay this vote until we have this additional information. I think it would help us in making our decision. But I ask my fellow commissioners, what are their wishes?

I'd like to hear from the... Yeah.

I guess, would you comment on that? Are the outstanding issues largely technical in nature that will be reviewed and resolved at the city staff and council level? Are they significant enough for us to hold this back to another meeting? We've seen this a number of times already. Not in this forum, but...

Some of the comments that are in here are actually carried over from the initial plan from when it was a 15-story building that still need to be addressed. However, I would say a good dozen of them will stand throughout the whole process because of the LEED certification, the mass timber, your standard testimony in accordance with what the applicant provided. following all rules and regulations, the screening for the rooftop mechanical, those are the basic ones, but there's a good 15 or so that could be addressed, but again, I don't know what else the planning, I'm sorry, the building department, fire department, or engineering may have. Like I said, I did have a verbal conversation, but that was just a quick, let's throw it up on the screen on Friday, I gotta get this report out, and did a quick conversation to try and encapsulate any major items that they could see.

Commissioner Nault, did you have a question?

Yeah, I think just quickly, I think you're right that there are a lot of comments and outstanding things that have already been resolved, and I really commend the applicant for doing their due diligence and bringing those to bear. for all of us to see and for staff at various departments to comment on. I do hear your concern as well and my several commissioners have also mentioned that there are still some outstanding points. I know I asked at the last meeting about the diverse housing requirement and I remember Landon you saying that this was still being worked out with the city attorney as far as what was progressing when, and it's sort of like a race to the end situation?

This is a site plan, so it doesn't require diverse housing. There is a proposal moving forward through the system to... return Upper Sawyer Residential to be required a special use, which in turn would then require the diverse housing. Right. How fast or slow that goes. Right. With the new ordinance that's in front of City Council.

That's sort of my question is like...

Putting the egg before the... Yeah, I don't know. At least you have a better idea.

Oh, Mr. Bartley.

Thank you.

I don't have a comment about that, but I just wanted to get back to the question about is it ready, I think. And we do have a lot of feedback still to get, and hopefully not too many additional changes to this plan. You have a lot of conditions written out in the sample motion, I think 30. And that's intended to kind of fill in the gaps where we're missing or have concerns still. So presumably if you were to delay this, that number of conditions might become fewer because we'd have more of the items addressed. But the intent of this motion is that if the Planning Commission wants to move forward tonight, this would cover as well as we can, if that makes sense.

Thank you for that.

Commissioner Chapin and then Vermeer's reference. Commonly, I just like to maybe have some open conversation here. Commonly, we would make a motion, but it is so cumbersome. I'm wondering if we can just sort of have some open dialogue here before we put a motion on the table that we may not be ready for or not.

I think that makes sense. The applicant hasn't come up yet either. Okay. All right. So I'll, I'll just kind of wait. I suggest that too. We have a ask questions of city staff, ask questions of the applicant, and then we should discuss and then consider if we want to make a motion.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I've got some things to say. I'll pause though. Okay. Sounds good. Ramirez Roberts.

Yeah.

So I just had a question and this is in relation to the comments raised by the state news. So in, I'm looking at like the standards of over review for site plan approval and it talks about, you know, uh, compatible with surrounding properties as that ordinance is written. It only has to be compatible. We're only looking at compality compatibility with the current structure, not future developments, correct? Or is future development the ability for the property owner to develop that property in the future? part of that consideration in terms of how it affects surrounding properties.

It's a little bit of both. So you've got to look at the existing conditions as they sit today and what is being proposed against what the buildings are adjacent to them. You can consider what may happen in the future, but it's what is on the ground today. OK.

Seeing no additional questions, uh, commercial opinion, just briefly, um, Alicia, the, the comments that are in the letter that we have from Dickinson, right. Um, on behalf of the state news, I mean, there are a number of concerns that are voiced there. Do those match with some of the remaining kind of 15 outstanding items that you're still waiting on? Because to me, those are significant concerns. And I guess where I'm at, and maybe this is after we hear from the applicant, but I, you know, I certainly want to be responsive and move forward with something that we've been working on for months now. And I'm sure the applicant is also frustrated in that regard, but I'm also not comfortable at this stage, moving forward with something that is going to significantly change the look and feel and dynamic of the downtown community without getting some of these questions answered. I just think it's too big of a project. So, um, so the, the comments, I guess, going back to my real question about what's outlined in the Dickinson, right memo. Is that in alignment with what you're still waiting for from city staff or is that above and beyond?

Some of it is in alignment with the city staff comments, particularly related to the alley, the use of the alley. The applicant has provided a basic construction schedule and impact, but as I mentioned, their limits of demolition actually go into the building in the north. It may just be an oversight that's easily corrected, but some of what is listed in the letter does overlap with concerns from staff, but also some of them are just civil concerns.

Okay, that's helpful to me, thank you.

Mr. Chapman. I was concerned about the state news. We addressed this last time as well. I even drafted an addendum be it further resolved. I think it's critical they haven't met yet. I don't know if you read that in the letter from the state news. So I think that we know we at least need to have that meeting take place before It goes in front of the City Council for a public hearing and I would put the onus on the developer Mr. Williams and the owner of the ball line family to call that meeting and Address the issues that were the three issues that were stated. I think we need to get that into some verbiage in any motion that we move forward. So I'm strengthening your comment, I think, Lauren. I think that's really important. So anyway.

I had a couple of technical questions. I should have asked them on the front end. So I don't see any of the elevations looking west. So at the side of the building, unless I missed it in the agenda packet, the side of the building that would about the state news property, I'm trying to visualize what that would look like, especially with a five foot setback with the current footprint of that building and then a hypothetical eight story upscaling of that building.

Hold on. There is here. So there's the east elevation on the right. which would be the one that's immediately adjacent. It looks just like the west, with the exception of the first two levels.

So is the state news building the gray box at the bottom?

Yes.

Okay. So that side of the building is fully windowed. So with a five-foot setback, potentially you could have a scenario where there's an eight-foot building next door with windows five feet away from each other, which is, as you said, common. Yes. in urban cores across America. But unusual for the city of East Lansing. I can't think of another example of that. But anyways, thanks for the clarification on that. And then you talked a little bit about the patio and the lighting. So lighting can't shine off of the property.

It's supposed to be maintained the way that the ordinance is written within the boundaries of your property line. And they do have some casting just beyond onto the public sidewalk.

With the patio, it looks like the lighting is above though, so the patio extends out a little bit and the lighting is above, so that would be...

So the way that they've shown their drawings for their photometric plan. One second.

I had the page number, but I lost it.

I'm going the wrong way? There it is.

I was just trying to better understand the lighting concerns, I guess, is my point. Was it the patio or was it elsewhere in the building?

Well, it's all the way around the site. They're showing that the lighting continues out onto the public sidewalk.

Page 88. No, 89.

All right, I'm trying to... There we go. So the way that the ordinance is written, for one, they indicate that they're going to provide degrees of cutoff, but there's three different levels of degrees of cutoff, and they don't actually show fixtures to indicate how those are going to impact. It's very difficult on a small plan to envision what that actual light fixture would be. Not a huge item to overcome. They can certainly do so. Excuse me. It's just that they're supposed to keep all of the impact of their site on their site with the exception of restoring sidewalks that get damaged or removed, paved areas that are outlined in your report. street trees that are required to be installed. Anything else that relates to the property is to stay within the confines of the property lines.

Could you go to the renderings on page 88?

Do you want the close-up one?

Yeah, they close up one of the patio, and then they show what look like wall sconces.

This one?

No.

That one?

Yes, that one. So is it the sconces that don't meet the ordinance requirement? What's in noncompliance? Because I think the patio picture looks great, honestly, and I'm trying to better understand what would be a violation.

I'm not quite sure because the way that they've got it illustrated versus the way that the photometric plan identifies the cast, they don't kind of line up. So if anything, according to this image, it would be the sconces, but the way that this image shows it, they don't project, but not knowing the limits of the actual public sidewalk in the rendering versus what they're showing in the photometric plan. I can't tie those two together, but they could speak to it.

Yeah. Sorry. That piqued my interest. Okay. At this point, the applicant can come forward and address us and hopefully answer some questions.

I brought PowerPoint presentations, I think, two planning commissions ago, and I got the boards last time, so I thought I had to bring something. And you know I'm not a PowerPoint guy, so I brought the block of wood. You guys are more than happy to grab it or what, but that is the superstructure of the proposed building.

I feel like you should stand up.

That's very happy. Okay, do you guys want me to kind of just dive in with some of the comments you guys were making, kind of provide some helpful comments?

I think so, and then we could fill in the rest with other questions as they arise. Sure.

Okay. First and foremost, state news. And I think that Mr. Reichardt is in the audience, so happy to talk afterwards. Admittedly, I am confused. And no blame, not casting any blame. It's not a blame game here. But we're talking about a code-compliant building that is in conflict with a hypothetical building in the future. So I don't quite know how to address it. And I don't know what Mr. Reichert and what Mr. Moody is actually asking for. So for example, they don't like the setback, which is five feet more than what we need to do. But what is the ask? I don't know. In addition, would they be able to put an encumbrance on their title to provide a five foot setback when they develop their building? Don't know. We're not asking for it. Again, it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to pin the tail on the donkey here. What I do think, and which is really important for you guys to understand, is that there is a responsibility as a developer to communicate with your neighbor, which is a good thing to do. So I just want to set the record straight, not pointing the finger here, but following last planning commission, and I really kind of compliment Brad and Greg because they're really the neighbors. And we all know, I think, the story Howard Ball Line sold the building to the state news. I don't know what year, but that is maybe some historical context. But on May 15th, Brad and Greg reached out to Chris and Matt to meet. Chris and Matt were busy, and six days later wrote back and said they were at a conference. And then, I just want to get these facts straight. This is important. So on May 15th, two days after, then in response to Chris's email on the 21st, Greg wrote the following on the 21st. And it's a little bit long, but it's really important because I just think this is a kind of a nerve that's been kind of unearthed here. I just kind of wanted to treat it fairly. Quote, Chris, we'd like to keep this one informal, just the four of us, you, Matt, Brad, and me, with Mark and Evan available to join if helpful. Our dad always spoke fondly of his dealings with the state news when he sold you the building, and we'd like this conversation to feel like a continuation of that neighbor to neighbor. Before we meet, again, this is, we're asking to meet, we wanted to share where things stand on these items raised at the May 13th Planning Commission by Councilmember Moody in order to keep the conversation most productive. Number one, setback in dimensional requirements. The B3 City Center's commercial district requires a zero foot side yard at this property line. We have provided a voluntary five foot one at floors two through 12. More than the code requires, not less. We did that on purpose so that drainage, maintenance, and construction activity all stay on our side of the line and your future redevelopment options are fully preserved. Number two, future redevelopment of 435 East Grand River, the state news building. Michigan building code section 705.5 and 705.8 governs how buildings on shared lot lines treat fire rated walls and openings. Our east facade is built to those standards, one hour and two hour rated assemblies, with 25% glazing in a fully sprinkled building. Number three, construction protection. We've already committed on record to a pre-construction condition survey of your building, crack monitors on any existing cracks of concern, vibration monitoring during work that would induce it, and optional tilt and settlement monitoring. These are kind of standard things, but it's important to put this in writing. The piloting method is auger cast from a structural standpoint, which is specifically a low vibration approach. Number four. This is important. Building height. We reduced our building height from 168 feet to 139 feet, a 21% reduction in direct response, in addition to other things, to your concerns, comments raised in December. This is state news spoke in December. That change was a deliberate concession in good faith to be cognizant of your comments and be good neighbors. Number five, construction coordination. The maintenance of traffic MOT plan, alley access, and right-of-way restoration will continue to be refined through the building department. We'll keep your team in the loop at all times on schedule and staging as those details firm up. Sixth and last, your portion of the alley will be unobstructed during construction, thereby maintaining your loading, deliveries, egress, et cetera. This will not be an issue. It goes on with a closing paragraph that's probably not relevant. Here's the point. We develop in urban situations all the time. The building is code compliant. We have voluntary setbacks. I'm not trying to point fingers here, but I do really want to make sure that this is really crystal clear, is that this should not be a sensitive issue for the Planning Commission, in my personal opinion. In my experiences, we work with the neighbors. We can do construction easements, which is all done in a civil way, like neighbor to neighbor, not planning commission purview. They preserve all their rights. We're not asking them to pull their building back five foot. I do also, just from a practical standpoint, they just put in a coffee user. I'm guessing it's probably on a 10-year lease with renewal options. I don't see the practical application. However, I just want to be fair-minded to it. Chris, if you want to meet afterwards, I'll be right in the hall. We can meet tomorrow. Evans is still in town. Happy to do that. I even texted Carrie Freeman. I said, hey, has Nolan Moody reached out to you in the last two weeks? Answer is no. So again, you guys have to make your own decision. I can only supply the facts. I'm not casting blame. I'm merely just giving our point of view. Any questions on the state news?

Hey, I appreciate that. I appreciate the email from Greg. I do. Very much so.

Thank you. I just felt like I didn't want to be perceived or Greg and Brad be perceived as being irresponsible. So, okay, got it.

I have a question. How many of the, I guess, other cities that you've developed in, I know it was in Columbus that you recently had another project.

Right.

Cities of those size, do they traditionally have ordinances or, I guess, rules around air rights and those sorts of things that you see in larger cities, or are those not really as common in cities of... our size or even medium size?

They're super uncommon. I mean, there's real practical reasons why these are uncommon. I mean, take for instance, and I don't throw this number out cavalierly, but I do know the number well because, you know, Evan Williams does a great job of reporting. I asked him, I'm like, what have we spent on this deal, right? We've spent $793 and change right now in our plans. architectural engineering, why is that important? We would never do that if we had to worry about neighbors, right, that would have recourse as to dictating, we have to rely on the ordinances, which is super important for you guys, so we follow your plan, right? And so we have faith in that, and we spend time, money, and resources, and we rely on those plans. So to answer your question, we typically don't get in this situation because urban design principles are just that, right? The B3 district is pretty consistent, wanting tall density on TOD, you know, right there in your comprehensive plan. And in those situations, different than probably B1 or EV or other districts, you know, M32, for example, in this situation, lot line to lot line all day long, it's good, sound urban design principle.

I have another question. Okay. So I guess... I'm imagining the MSU FCU building down further on Albert or technically Abbott, whichever one it is, and how it has that sheer brick wall so that something can be built right next to it. In my understanding, apartments in East Lansing, those new builds, they have to have windows, correct? Or no? Or is there any kind of requirement around that? OK. So I guess you probably wouldn't build those units if windows weren't there, I suppose. Do you know how many, if you were to completely eliminate those windows up to a certain extent, how many units would be removed and then essentially that's a complete rework of the project at that point now?

Yeah, it would be a significant, would be an understatement, rework, number one. Number two, I don't know the exact three. Number three, more importantly for me, I guess, as an urban design enthusiast, I think that actually you're cutting off the nose despite the face, so to speak, in the sense that If I'm coming westbound on Grand River, and I'm looking at the east facade of this building, and it's just windowless, and it's all of a sudden just like either metal panel or masonry, or we would never do this, ephus, it gets... I can't stand that personally. So I think the glazing glass factor is super important from an aesthetic decor. Again, it's hard to say... what hypothetically may or may not happen, right, and drive purposeful change to a status quo development. That's where I'm kind of struggling right now. And I, again, I don't want this to be personal. I just, I'm really having, and then furthermore, if they were to develop down the road, they would have the same rights we would have. They could actually go to a zero lot line condition and be right up against our building if they wanted to. We're voluntarily point ours back five feet.

Please, Chair.

Can I change the subject just a little bit?

And can you address all the conditions or things that have not been met that you're working on currently? Sure. And we'd like to hear more about that.

For sure. I have a kind of a philosophical response, if you don't mind. So it may help, it may not. Again, I think we are here, let me speak plainly, to ask kindly for your motion to approve the site plan tonight and push it to city council. I'm a big believer that to try to, within reason, cut out the red tape at the planning commission. Again, this is super philosophical. Just working in other cities, not saying that that needs to be done here. There will always be conditions, right, that are, we work hand in hand with the fire marshal. Like for instance, that mass timber, we are gonna be lockstep with the fire marshal and the building official, huge. I mean, it's gonna be a tutorial, it's gonna be, you know, we're gonna be lockstep. There's gonna be so many questions, right? And that's us to get that. And suffice it to say that But prior to a building permit being issued, regardless of if we were fortunate to get approval at Planning Commission and City Council, you cannot get a building permit until that gentleman or ma'am is ready to deliver it. Your conditions have to be met, right? So now, should there be whole scale conditions and huge blanks that a developer is not having a complete application? No, I'm not saying that, right? So it's finding that balance. That's for you to decide. We have basically, in our terms, a 50% design development set, so we're very far along. We're out to 62 subcontractors throughout the divisions of construction. We're incurring, like I said, about $800,000 in A&E. Again, our issue, our risk, but we're very far along on the architectural. And any questions or conditions or what have you, suffice it to say, that's on us to answer.

Let's talk about lighting specifically. That was a new issue raised tonight that I don't think we talked about specifically before. And maybe there's some distinction between what your renderings are showing and what the elevations are showing about what's on site and shining off site. So anyways, generally, could you speak to that? Sure.

And I should say, I'm kind of rude. I have a fantastic team behind me. They're standing. And they probably know the answer to this question better than I. I'll give you my philosophical, another philosophical answer, and then maybe you guys want to step up. Okay, cool. And Nate's awesome. So I love lighting, and I'm probably accused of putting too much lighting, so if we need to take away lighting, but I do love that rendering and washing the light up and down with the sconces on the facade and exposing the mass timber, which really was a core tenant to the design of taking mass timber, not just through the consumers and how they get to experience the mass timber, but how does the public, good comment by Tim in a town hall, how does the public get to experience the mass timber as well? So with further ado, I'll give it over to Nate.

Nathan Castile, principal architect with DLR Group. As it relates to the photometric, that's a preliminary plan that hasn't been fully vetted with selected light fixtures. So that's something that will play out during the process. And I want to note one thing with the LEED Gold certification. we'll have to adhere to all dark sky requirements and light pollution requirements. So that'll be something that we dial in throughout the construction drawing process and select those fixtures to make sure that we're not having any light pollution outside of our boundaries. And one thing with those canopies that will protect the uplight from causing any dark sky concerns.

Any additional questions on that?

I can also circle back to that setback. That is an international building code prescription for that five-foot setback. So if we're between 5 and 10 feet, we're prohibited to 25% glazing. When we go above 10 feet, then we're 45%. So that is a common thing across the country. And that is adopted from the international building code.

Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant or applicants? Do you want to talk about parking at all?

Sure. Any updates on parking? OK, cool. It's a topic that comes up. We started this process a long time ago. There's been good iterations and good community feedback throughout the process. And parking always gets brought up. So I don't pretend to have the answer. I know the data. Fortunately, the city had kind of an updated parking report, I think, in March or what have you, for what it's worth, right? And I'm probably belaboring the point. And I think I have the facts right in my head. I don't have them on a sheet. But peak capacity, 1,100 vacant spots. The vacancy in the spots are more profound in the eastern garages versus the western garages. So, for example... division in Charles at peak occupancy are 50% vacant, plus or minus. I think one's 48, one's 52, but right in that range, right? So the question is, is that, and the question for the city, because I don't want to be presumptuous, is what's the right fit, right? We've heard a lot tonight that as a planning commission staple that was passed, I don't know when it was passed, but that in an urban situation, it was decided that there was no parking, right? So to be compliant, we can't put parking. Many people disagree with that, right? Many people agree with that. As an urban design enthusiast, I agree with that personally, but it's a personal opinion. We do see other cities across the country, Madison, Columbus, two that come to mind that have zero parking requirements. The deal that we're building in Columbus right now, we have zero parking. um so the question really becomes is like caleb charro the director of parking is what would be the available limit that's a question right that i don't pretend to know the answer the question then becomes is does the city want to enter into an agreement with the developer to lease the spots there's pros and cons of that right we could do we could not do that and then we could just let the free market say okay if a resident would like to approach caleb and rent a spot on a monthly permit great right they could do that right now There could be financial advantages for the city to enter into a long-term agreement with a developer so you can have that stable income with CPI adjustments. That could be something, right? So I just provide context. It's really a matter of city policy, what really they want.

Thank you. Yeah. I think we're good on the topic of parking.

Yeah, I just wanted to come up.

Sorry, Evan Williams, Harbor Bay, and Eric Stanley, also a DLR group.

We're kind of more on the technical side, so if you guys had any specific questions, we wanted to get the guy out of talking and back against the wall. And then also, one of our thoughts here, and we're not trying to run long or anything like that, would be to potentially bring up the 30 bullet points of the – the requirements that are within the motion for approval because we can pretty quickly, I think, speak to a lot of those if that is what the Planning Commission would like to do. Or we could speak to any individual ones, but.

I don't know that we need to go through all 30 unless the commission wants us to.

No, I prefer that just to be shared with city staff.

Yeah. The one curiosity I have is just, can you talk about updates to the alleyway access, both for during construction and then post-construction for vehicle access and any potential changes or updates you're making there, communications you're having with the city?

Yes, absolutely. So one of the sheets that was updated in the new packet, you'll see a diagonal loading dock there in red. That's specifically going to be used for move-in, move-outs, and retail loading. So any of the food deliveries that are required for the two retail spaces. The trash room specifically, I stated this back in December. It still holds true. It's just going to be a typical garage door keypad that waste management or Rumpke, whoever the trash manager is, the refuse company is, will simply open the door and they will just pull down the alleyway. open the door, the compactors will already be set next to the door, they'll roll them out, load them into their truck, push them back into the garage, and then close the door. Same way that Landmark on Grand River and Newman Lofts operate. And then to the point of construction, specifically for scheduling MOT plans. We wanted to keep it super general for now because we have no idea what the city engineer would like to see. We have general practices, best guidelines on the MOT plans that we wanted to meet. We know what all the OSHA requirements are. We want to make sure that we work with the businesses as we work through planning commission approval and into city council approval, be able to make sure that everyone has signage that meets what they would like to see for open for business. And then the schedule specifically, it's kept super, super high level because if we don't receive approval say right now or three weeks from now, that schedule will continue to shift. So before we start to explode it and get into a lot more granular detail, we wanted to just keep it at that high level.

Questions about those items? Is there anything else from... the recommended conditions that you'd like to address specifically or additional updates that were not in the staff report.

I would just say, in general, across all 30, we're 100% committed to satisfying all those requirements. I'm sure City Council will come up with more conditions for approval, but none of these are a surprise whatsoever. It's everything that we've been tracking. I think, as Ms. Wrighton noted, at least half, if not potentially more, will always be conditions of approval for our building. It is a very large building. There are a lot of details, and the The planning department has been working very hard on a lot of different projects, not just ours. So again, we ask you guys to consider approving this motion today.

Just that statement. Commissioner Chapin. I think I heard you say 100% will meet all 30 of those conditions. And that's our checklist as well right now. Absolutely. Essentially. Yeah. OK. Yeah. That's important for me to hear.

Any additional questions or updates on your end?

No. Just here to answer questions that you might have.

Okay. I think we're going to openly discuss this a little bit, so stand by. We might have a question or two. City staff, any additional comments before we chat about this?

I just wanted to note, Mr. Chair, you had mentioned a couple of at a couple points you were saying specific page numbers in the PDF. Yeah. In like the 80s, those are old plans. And so the newer ones are like the 300s. So I just bring your attention to the lower left, or excuse me, lower right corner of the plans that will typically have the date. And you'll see, and also in the file names, you're going to want to look for the May 19th. The patio didn't really change, though, on the lighting for the patio, did it?

Yeah. Sorry. I was referenced the wrong page, but that was the one I just wanted to point that out. Got it. Thank you.

This is just a logistical question for staff that I should know the answer to, but, um, there's somewhere in here, there's a note from the applicant about, um, the alley being, uh, that they work with the city to close the alley for moving times. Is that something that we do for, um, other. businesses or apartment complexes downtown or is that a new process? Because closing the alley seems challenging given the fact that it's like the one through fare for delivery drivers and there's a lot of foot traffic so I just I have lived here my whole life I don't remember closing the alley for much.

In the short time that I've been here, I've not seen that happen. Typically, what I have seen for move-in and move-outs for different developments, like the hub, they actually use the road and get a road closure permit when necessary, and they have to coordinate the times for, like, 15-minute intervals that the people are dropping their things off and picking them back up. But that's always on the public main street.

That's on the Grand River side, isn't it?

On the hub. The hub does it on... Or the...

I think one of the applicants has more context they can provide too, and then I don't have a card for you up here too. Oh, Greg Ball, I am, sorry. I'm the applicant.

So just to address this really quickly, the landmark on Grand River, same thing. We actually used a ramp there. And we run tubs up and we run them down, you know, of their stuff. Sometimes people do pull in the alley. We unload them as quickly as we can and we move them along because we know we can't let parking take place in the alley. So usually we contract the spaces with the city knowing that move-in days and we stagger those move-in times so that, you know, they've got from 10 to 12. They got from 12 to 2. They got from 2 to 4. So that not everybody arrives on the same day at the same time. And we don't overwhelm either the parking system or the ability to get things into the units. The difference is, too, is that we are also fully furnished. It's not like people are pulling up with trailers with couches and stuff like that. You have people that are coming in with suitcases and much smaller items. It's not like move-in in a neighborhood. it's more of an urban move in if that makes sense so and we'll we would coordinate all that stuff with caleb and with the parking department so that we take care of getting the items from the ramp to there to cause as little disruption for the eye but again that's our goal we'll send those directions out inevitably you'll have somebody pull in with a trailer that can't go in and they're going to be silly and i wish i could control that but Yeah, unfortunately it is. But we try to mitigate that as much as possible. Because it's hard not just on our movement, it's hard on our neighbors. And we need to be respectful of that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

OK. Any additional questions for staff or Landon? Did you have anything else? OK. Shaking his head no. So OK. Mr. Chapin, would you like to lead us off?

Well, I think the commentary was really helpful for me tonight. I appreciated the letter addressing the state news concerns. That was an issue for me. I don't think I need to add anything to a motion if ever we get to a motion. I think this is a huge project. I support this project. I tip my hand. I'm ready to vote. I will even submit or put the motion out there. I don't want to put a motion out there if the commissioners aren't comfortable with that. If you need to wait, that makes sense to me. I think wait just a little bit so we can talk about it. I just want you to know.

I appreciate your eagerness.

All right. Well, it is eagerness, but at the same time, I think we as a commission have a responsibility to respond. So I'll be quiet.

I also have really appreciated the discussion that we've had today and frankly previous discussions. I think the applicants have shown that they're trying to move forward towards I think a place where staff's comfortable, they're comfortable, we're comfortable. I do think though that I agree with Commissioner Lapine who earlier I think mentioned that because this is such a big project, I don't know, I think we need to be doing our due diligence and I don't know that I would feel comfortable approving a project right now with 30 conditions. That's a lot. That's definitely more than I've ever seen in my time on commission. I would be, I think, more comfortable if that conditions list was slightly shorter. And I totally hear what the applicant is saying, that they're committed to meeting all of those conditions. I think they would meet them all if there were 15 or 20 versus 30. I think they would meet them if there were 30. But I think I'm just not as comfortable with a project that has a project this big with that many sort of like loose details still.

I'm of the mindset similar to, um, commissioners and all of, I'm not, I guess I'm not as concerned about the number because it is a, it is a large project and, um, you know, there will be things that we don't know yet, but I agree very much that the dialogue and the updates today have been really helpful, um, in order for me to feel comfortable moving this forward with a yes vote personally. I'd like to see it reflected in the packet, um, and have it reviewed by staff at our, at our next meeting. And I also think there needs to be some level of a followup on, um, uh, a meeting or something else that's documented in terms of the, uh, concerns that the state news folks have been, um, have shared. I think that there's still, it's warranted to have another followup in the packet. So my preference would be, um, to have what has been vocalized and voice today be reflected. shared with the city and reflected in our next packet. And then I would feel more comfortable voting on something of this size. But again, I mean, that's just, that's just me. I'm one, I'm one commissioner.

Yeah.

Yeah. I guess I'm of the mindset of commissioner shape and in the sense where a lot of these conditions in my mind are just stuff like, you know, uh, let me find it here. I was looking at it right before, but like approval from MDOT is required. prior to issuance of permits and those sorts of things. I, for me, I think at this step with the knowledge that, you know, there's going to be probably at least two weeks before it goes to council. And then that's just for, you know, the public hearing. And then also another two weeks in between or no, sorry. Oh, there's no public hearing at city council. Okay. So it just goes right from here. to a vote for city council.

Was there a meeting that they have to schedule the meeting? No.

So for a site plan, it just goes to the next regular available agenda, which would be the 16th of June. The 16th. It's just because it's a site plan. It doesn't require a public hearing. They may or may not vote that same night. They may wait to vote their next meeting after that would be July 21st. Okay. I guess,

With that, I guess I'm still fine with the conditions in the sense where there's a lot of time with council for it to get resolved and for those to get narrowed down by getting the reports back from staff and everything. Where I guess the amount of conditions, in a way, is good for me in the sense where we are requiring these things and we're not leaving things unturned when taking a motion. But I still feel that we're at a point now where we can move it on from us and any remaining things can get worked out at the council level.

Can I ask a staff clarifying question based on that? You said if we voted on this tonight, it would go to the June 16th meeting. If we vote on this on our next meeting on June 10th, would it still go on June 16th?

If I didn't sleep for two days.

You don't need to sleep.

It would depend on how far we are along with the updated drawings. Okay. And we would do our best to keep it on that schedule.

Um, I obviously don't want to, uh, ask anything unreasonable of staff. You are already, uh, whatever your jobs wonderfully. Thank you.

What it comes down to is we have deadlines for submission to city council that have to be completed by Wednesday at five o'clock. Okay. Um, we could do a, um, placeholder if you will. And, ask for permission to have until noon on Thursday.

OK. That's really helpful as far as timing, I think, timeline for me. So thank you.

I'm just going to chime in with some thoughts. I think at this point the building kind of is what it is. They've scaled the footprint down. They've tried to accommodate. Some of the concerns of the state news, within reason, I still think they should meet with them and try to be a good partner with them. They say they're going to meet the conditions because they have to meet the conditions. We're adding them as potential conditions. And there's a lot of things that need to be resolved. But I don't have the expertise to answer all of these. And we're basically telling them, you have to go to city staff and work with city staff and work with city council to try to resolve these sort of last outstanding items or you're not going to get approved, right? So that's kind of where we're at with the process. The parking. is what it is. I understand their argument. I understand the city's requirements. I think this is sort of a blessing that we have all of this underutilized parking on this exact part of town that can be utilized for this building. So we're, we're meeting housing demand potentially. Well, I know we're meeting housing demand because that's what every study nationwide and locally we've done is said is that we have a, lack of housing in our downtown core. We have a lot of unused parking spaces. I understand they can go the lease option where they could lease some of those in bulk or the free market can sort of take control and the residents of that building can find cheap parking solutions outside of there. I guess long term I'm convinced that You know, parking garages are not a great investment for downtowns. They just are not. They're super expensive with ride sharing, with autonomous vehicles. Who knows what that's going to look like 20, 30 years from now. And I actually like that they're not putting any parking on site and they're finding a creative solution to that. So I'm not as concerned. Appreciate all the research they did with the parking ratios and all of that. I thought that was actually really helpful for me. The mass timber is a massive benefit, no pun intended. I think that's going to be great for the community. I can't wait to see what that looks like when it's done. But I do like behoove them, really work with the city staff to work out these last remaining engineering and technical issues. But I'm not at the point where I think we need to hold this up for another two weeks when we've already been talking about this project on this site for what seems like over a year now. I can't remember when we started this process. So that's kind of where I'm at with it. I don't think anything's really going to move the needle between now and then for anybody. And I am sympathetic to the thought that this isn't a 100% finished product. But I think there's time to get to that point. And I'm confident that they will. They brought a lot of people in, a lot of expertise. I thought that was helpful for me. I think tonight, kind of hearing those initial concerns, I was reluctant to take a vote on it. And after hearing some of that feedback and listening to city staff, I'm in a spot where I think we can move on this. Unless there's any major considerations or changes that we want to see done, I think everything else is outside of my realm of expertise and really is just technical. So I don't know. That's my thoughts after kind of digesting all this. Any other comments, Commissioner Nolte?

I think I just really appreciate your comments about bringing it all back to housing need. I think that's something that this commission has talked about and dealt with a lot recently. I really appreciate your point of let's not get lost in the sort of ticky tacky details that city staff who are experts in their various fields can work out. Right? Our mission and our goal here on Planning Commission is to review a site plan and hopefully create a housing need that we know we have. So I really appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. I think just long term, I try to look at what's there on the site now, what are the goals of the city, and I think we could do a whole heck of a lot worse than what's being proposed. And I know it's not finished, but just envisioning what it will look like potentially when it's finished, I think it'll be a great asset for the city.

And I am excited about these restaurants.

And the motion's six pages, and I don't want to read it, so I've done enough talking. Chapin already did one, so he shouldn't have to do it either.

If Josh reads it, I'll be happy to second it.

OK. I can do that. Let me get some water first.

Joseph, do you want to give him?

Oh. Oh, there's.

We have to fill in our reasons.

Oh, OK.

I move to recommend city council approval of a site plan request from Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures located at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River Avenue using mass timber construction incentive for two stories above eight stories and LEED Gold certification for an additional two stories above eight stories for a 12 story mixed use development consisting of one, two, and three bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space. This decision is based on the following findings and determinations as to each standard applicable to this site plan proposal under Section 5038 of the City Zoning Ordinance with reference to and reliance on the applicant's application, plan submissions, public testimony, city staff analysis and review, and other submissions relative to this proposed development. Section 5038 requires the site be designed and developed to provide a logical relationship between functional elements to effectively serve the purposes for which it is to be developed and to be reasonably compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed use meets this requirement because the use aligns with the comprehensive master plan and matches the surrounding uses. for Section 5038 requires the site to be designed and developed to minimize the disruption or loss of its desirable natural elements and to enhance its overall appearance by incorporating those elements into required open spaces and setbacks. The proposed use meets this requirement because the site is less than the minimum one acre, which is exempt from the stormwater requirement standards. However, although the However, although the applicable applicant has not proposed a reduction in pervious surface area, they've included an on-site retention basin, leading to show a new increase in pre-development conditions of site runoff as compared to existing conditions. There is no proposed storage of hazardous substances on site. Section 5038.3 requires the site to be designed and developed to provide safe and efficient access for all forms of travel and to minimize impacts on adjacent public facilities. The proposed use meets this requirement because the proposed use meets the minimum parking bike spaces. There are approximately 700 total parking spaces in the public parking system within one block of the site, 616 in Division Garage, 67 in Bailey Garage under Albert Place, and 35 left over in Bailey Lot 11 at the corner of Bailey and Albert. Also, there are stops for five bus lines one block away on Grand River. Section 5038 requires the site to be designed and developed to facilitate the efficient provision and maintenance of adequate public services. The proposed use meets this requirement because the use is serviced by municipal water and sewer and includes dumpster and recycling services. Section 5038 requires the site to be designed and developed to minimize any risk of pollution of natural resources and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed use meets this requirement because although the applicant has not proposed a reduction in pervious surface area, they've included an on-site retention basin leading to a no increase in pre-development conditions of site runoff as compared to existing conditions. All site trees are proposed to be removed but will be replaced with a minimum number of trees that are required along East Grand River Avenue and Charles Street. Under Section 50386A through E, unless the project is exempt from this requirement pursuant to subparagraph 50386D, the site shall be designed and developed to contain public art as defined by Section 2-313 of the City Code. The proposed use meets this requirement because the applicant has indicated in their application that they are committed to satisfying the public art requirement. Conditions for approval pursuant to Zoning Ordinances Section 50-36D and MCL 125.35044, the above approvals are subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval. which the commission finds to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the plan conforms to all applicable requirements and to otherwise comply with the requirements applicable to approval conditions under Section 5036D and MCL 125.3504 subsection 4. One, approval is in accordance with the plans provided by the applicant and per testimony subject to revisions as required. Two, all required permits shall be obtained from the Department of Planning, Building, and Housing for all interior renovations as well as for exterior signs. Three, the project shall be designed and developed in accordance with all applicable state and local statutes, codes, and regulations. Four, rooftop mechanical units shall be screened. Five, water and sanitary sewer extensions and connections shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. Six, final grading soil erosion control paving and utility plans for the site shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with all applicable requirements. Seven, a qualifying feature in accordance with section 50-59 of the zoning ordinance shall be maintained at no less than 445.3 square feet to allow 100% building or no less than 750 square feet to allow 100% lot coverage should the qualifying outdoor dining be eliminated. Eight, site runoff shall be limited to no increase from pre-development conditions as confirmed by the city's engineering division. Nine, the applicant shall provide the location and species of all existing individual trees which have a diameter of four inches or more. 10, a street tree removal permit shall be required prior to undertaking any removal of street trees. 11. A detailed project schedule and staging plan for the development shall be submitted by the applicant as required. 12. A public right-of-way permit shall be required prior to undertaking any work in the right-of-way, including for demolition. 13. Site lighting shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 50-155 of the City Code. Light fixtures shall be provided to ensure they are fully shielded and directed downward to prevent off-site glare and illumination. No portion of the lamp, reflector, lens, or refracting system may extend beyond the housing or shield. No lenses, lamps, or light sources shall be visible at the property line. The intensity of light within a site shall not exceed 10 foot candles within any part of the site and one foot candle at any lot line. The type, height, and placement of exterior light fixtures, including fixtures mounted on poles and buildings, shall be provided. 14, a corrected legal description of the existing site shall be provided as the legal description on civil page one appears to be inconsistent with the assessor's record. The correct legal description of the existing site shall be provided. 15, the existing private driveway from Charles Street that runs through Lot 35 should be vacated and abandoned. 16, the alley shall show all dimensions of travel width, not just the most constrained areas. 17, a triangular area whose size shall measure 40 feet along each street line from the intersection of two street lines shall be provided. 18, the existing separate lot shall be combined into one parcel. 19, lead goal precertification shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and confirmed by staff prior to city council vote to allow for the use of the incentive for the additional two stories above eight stories. 20, legal certification shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and confirmed by staff before occupancy of the two additional incentive stories shall be permitted. 21, mass timber construction shall be the construction type to allow for the use of the incentive for the additional two stories above eight stories. 22, mass timber construction shall be reviewed and verified by staff before occupancy of the two additional incentive stories shall be permitted. Twenty-three, approval from MDOT is required prior to issuance of permits. Twenty-four, pavement restoration will be required but not limited to A, Grand River Curbling, milling and filling, Charles Street full width, milling and fill, Alley full width, total restoration, Division Street full width to be determined. public sidewalks along east grand river avenue and charles street 25 the grading and soil erosion sedimentation control permit shall be obtained from the city of east lansing not ingham county prior to undertaking any site work 26 at least five feet of clear sidewalk space shall be provided for the free passage of pedestrians along both grand river avenue and charles street ada compliance required 27 limits of proposed demolition to the north shall not impact the adjacent building as indicated on sheet C1.1, 28, approval from the City of East Lansing Transportation Commission is required for the proposed Charles Street temporary loading area prior to undertaking any work. 29, an unmarked water surface cross connection line shown on sheet C2.0 shall be removed. And 30, provided loading dock shall be aligned to the trash and recycling area to facilitate vehicle access as needed. And that's the motion.

You're in competition with Commissioner Chapin for MVP tonight, so.

Oh, I think he wins. Yeah.

All right, yeah. We'll give you the win tonight. All right. So moved by Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Chapin. I know we already did a lot of discussion. Any additional discussion on this item?

Just one brief comment. I plan to support this for many reasons. One is a naive hope that if we can build housing that is attractive to the students near campus that it will allow us to draw students out of the neighborhoods and we will then be able to convert houses back to single family. I hope to live to see that happen.

All right, seeing no additional discussion, can we please do a roll call vote, Mr. Bartley?

I have a motion recommending approval made by Ramirez-Roberts, seconded by Chapin. Commissioner Chapin, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Denault?

Yes.

Commissioner Greening?

Yes.

Commissioner Lapine-Ray?

No.

Commissioner Overby?

No.

Commissioner Putz? Yes. Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts? Yes. Vice Chair Wagner? Yes. Chair Sullivan? Yes. The ayes have it.

The motion passes. Thank you. That item is on a, what's the date for the, potentially the June 16th City Council meeting. Thanks, guys. Oh, you can leave it. No. All right, that takes us on to item 8.2, consideration of proposed ordinance 1572, an ordinance to amend chapter 50 zoning, division 5, residential rental restriction overlay district of the code of the city of East Lansing to add a new section 50-778, removal of property from the rental restriction overlay districts. Mr. Bartley. Thank you.

Yes, this ordinance was introduced by council. It would essentially allow, if adopted as introduced, would allow eligible property owners to petition council to be removed from a residential rental restriction over the district in very specific circumstances. We've heard a lot this evening in public comment. I've received a lot of letters in support or in opposition to this ordinance. I'm happy to discuss the ordinance in some depth or cover any details about the ordinance as proposed if you'd like me to. We did discuss it at some length last time, and I think you've heard some details, but I'm happy to discuss more details if you'd like.

I think we can just kick it over to questions and see if there's questions.

For the members of our commission who weren't able to attend last time. Oh, sure. Yeah, if you want to.

Give an overview. Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts.

I didn't have questions. I did want to speak on this, but is it okay if I get momentarily excused? Oh, sure. Thank you.

We'll wait.

So while he's stepped out, how about I give a brief overview? Essentially, the The ordinance as introduced would allow eligible property owners to petition to be removed. The eligibility criteria to be removed from an existing residential rental restriction overlay are three. Number one, the applicant's property must be located on one side of a city block where other homes on the same side of the city block are not subject to the rental overlay district in question. So number two, the applicant's property must be owner-occupied and not currently rented. And then number three, no more than two owner-occupied unrented properties, including the applicant's property, may exist on the same side of the city block as the applicant's property. So those are quite narrow. We did, our housing staff did a brief analysis of properties around the city and found they believe that 10 to 15 Properties were identified across the city as being potentially eligible. There's also been some questions about the numbers of properties that are eligible or are currently within a residential rental restriction over the district. So I'm just going to review those numbers real quick as well. There are about 8,154 parcels in the city. 6,802 parcels have the zoning that's required to be eligible. to be included into an overlay district, a rental restriction overlay district. That's R1, R2, or RM8. With the parcels with that zoning and in an existing rental restriction overlay district are 3,702 parcels, which means that 54% of parcels with zoning eligible to be in our residential rental restriction overlay district are currently within one. And as also as... Some earlier speakers during public comment mentioned we currently have 22 active rental restriction early districts around the city. I'm aware of one more that's currently being proposed that's probably going to be introduced at council in June or July. And finally the numbers there are some questions about how many licensed rentals are currently located within an existing rental restriction early district. So being nonconforming that's 233. So that's six point three percent of properties. So if those licenses were abandoned for any reasons they would no longer be able to be rented. And finally, there's been a question about how many single-family houses in the city currently have a rental license. How many rentals are single-family houses? It's 13%, and that represents 11% of all renters in the city. So those questions that just came up before, that essentially covers what the district would do. My understanding from the ordinance is that if a property owner meets those requirements, they could then petition the city council or ask the city council to to essentially allow them to submit a rezoning request. So go through a rezoning process in order to be removed from that overlay district. And just for review, the rezoning process essentially is that an ordinance is developed by staff in sort of response to what the request is. It's then introduced at this council level and referred to Planning Commission. You then have a public hearing for it. make a decision, recommend approval or adoption or not adoption of that ordinance goes back to council. They then schedule their public hearing, have that public hearing, make a decision. So that's the same process for rezoning as for a text amendment. So that's what this process is tonight. You've had your public hearing. Tonight's step is to make a decision to recommend approval or excuse me, adoption or not adoption of the ordinance. If you decide you want to recommend adoption and wanted to make changes, you would also want to include those amendments to whatever ordinance amendments that you'd want. You'd want to include that in your motion as an amendment to the ordinance as introduced. With that and Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts having returned, are there any questions that I can answer about this proposed ordinance?

Any questions for Mr. Bartley?

I apologize because I wasn't at the last meeting where this was discussed, so maybe I'm just missing something big. But I see that this obviously went to the housing commission as well, and they recommended to city council to not adopt the ordinance as it was introduced.

That's correct.

Which is helpful to know what another counterpart kind of commissioned how they view this. But where did this start from? Because to me, in reviewing the packet materials and in hearing from the, um, the public comment, I feel like this is a solution in search of a problem, but I keep thinking that I must be missing something. So do you know, did this come from a one individual homeowner that wanted to rent their house and then it, you know, started to get traction with city council or am I missing something that's like a broader issue that city council is trying to address? Cause this seems so, It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Okay. Uh, my understanding is that at least one homeowner, possibly a small number, but I believe at least one homeowner, uh, approached at least one city council member or to allow them to get out.

And then that city council member then requested the city attorney prepared the ordinance, but it's not part of like part one of a broader strategy that city council the direction the city council wants to head in and this is like part one.

It's hard to say.

It's just a narrowly focused.

Yeah, the ordinance as introduced is quite narrow and does provide, you know, I have heard that there is an interest in providing some sort of a clear, explicit process to remove a house or property from an overlay district. And there really isn't right now. Essentially our best understanding is essentially that it's the way that you establish one, which is petitioning and then asking city council to introduce an ordinance to do that. put one in. And that would be the same process to get out. We have talked to several people in the time that I've been here, two and a half years. Somewhere between 20 and 30, I'm not sure. But a couple handfuls of people who have expressed interest. And I've told them This is my understanding of how to get out. No one has ever come forward with a request to get out. When I have received feedback, they said we talked to some neighbors and they weren't interested in supporting me petitioning there was also a discussion of some sort of practical difficulty because the method of establishing is to petition but you must be within the area that's proposed to be the rental restriction over the district and a property owner of one of the properties affected in order to petition and so a person trying to step out of the district would not be able to petition but would rather have to rely on somebody within the district to do the petitioning for them and that seemed to represent a potential practical difficulty. So we have had some discussion as to whether or not there should be some sort of more, this is a start. I'm not sure there needs to be. We've certainly heard some comments saying don't make a different process. Don't approve this ordinance. I think where this goes from here is somewhat up to the Planning Commission and Council.

That's really helpful. Thank you for taking the time to go through that with me. Um, the only, the only comment that I would provide after the, um, for the commission, after, uh, the public comment that we heard earlier this evening, um, I went back and pulled up the East Lansing housing study that was completed in 2021. Um, and there's a really helpful document that summarizes like 10 kind of top takeaways from that document. Um, it's clear that at that time, and I think it still stands now having lived here my whole life. the main thing that we continue to need is single family housing. There's nothing in the housing study that says that we need more rentals. And so to me, this is creating another opportunity to develop more rentals and make it more challenging for people to buy a home in our community. Um, so I don't, I'm pretty firmly, uh, in the camp of recommending to city council not to adopt this ordinance. Um, but again, that is just my own personal opinion, but I did need to go back and look at the housing study and take a look at, um, the outcomes of that.

Okay.

I speak as a resident of the Bailey neighborhood and I appreciate your comments, Commissioner, about the housing study. There is very little or virtually no support in the neighborhoods for for breaching the rental overlays. We feel that they are supportive of us in the neighborhoods and I feel in the Bailey neighborhood particularly vulnerable. Other neighborhoods I don't believe are as vulnerable as we are in Bailey. And so I very clearly will not support this proposal. And I would add, if we want to make a mechanism to get out of the overlay, it should be as difficult to get out as it is to get in. I urge us, if we look at this, look at options, not to make an option that allows you to get out in a way that is easier than to get in. I feel very strongly about that.

So, Lauren, I think you get the idea here. So one of the things that struck me last time, two weeks ago, is there were individuals trying to get out of this, and it took whole neighborhoods and communities, that was really the unit of analysis that we were talking about, to develop them. So, I mean, I think there should be a mechanism, but it should be at the the unit of analysis should be the neighborhood, right? Two-thirds of a vote or something like that. And I don't think that's, you know, people can still sell their houses. We're not saying you can't sell. Baby houses sell in days, right? So for full value, right? You know, you used to live there, right? So I don't think that's a problem. But I don't support this as it is written here. And if council would like to try a different approach and add something about two-thirds of a majority changing the boundaries, that's fine. But I don't support this as it is.

I agree with that entirely. I don't think this is the right mechanism. I think it undermines community organizing. Right.

Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts.

Yeah, I'm not in support of this ordinance or recommending this proposed ordinance. And one of my big things here is when looking at the guidelines to make a property eligible for removal, the one that really strikes me is the applicant's property must be owner occupied and not currently rented. that doesn't state that it doesn't need to have, it can't have a rental license, right? So although this is just intended or I guess marketed in the sense for it would only apply to a select number of homes that are currently occupied by families, if I'm a landlord, and I guess it also doesn't set the restrictions around owner occupied and how long that has to be owner occupied. If I'm a landlord, I have a student rental property, students move out over the summer, I can move into that property temporarily, not even have to give up my rental license, apply for removal from the overlay and then exit, right? And then that can also create a cascading effects for other properties. So where you don't even have to remove the rental license as this ordinance is written to be able to remove a property with a rental license from the overlay. And also, just going back, so I'm not in support of it for that reason. But also, just when we're talking about there does need to be a mechanism, I think that that mechanism is, once again, going back to the community level, to the point where it's not just an amendment of the proposed ordinance. It's a complete rewriting of something new, where this right now just isn't a workable structure for what we need going forward or what would work going forward.

Any additional comments?

Commissioner Putz? Yeah. I typed this all out on the plane today because I wasn't sure I was going to be here because we flew in from Italy at 5.30 this morning, which was... Actually, 11.30 p.m. last night in Eastern Time. So much like my phone and laptop, my battery is running very low. So I'm going to try to keep this short. I do think it is a good idea to codify in ordinance the abilities of an overlay district to be modified, and I am going to expand that not to just removing properties, but in the event that an overlay district wishes to add a property or somebody wishes to become part of one, I think that should be included in it as well while we're here. However, I don't think the language of this proposed amendment is the right path to go about this because it's sidestepping all of the work that goes in. I mean, I'm going to rehash a lot of stuff that's already been said, so I'm not going to claim originality on a lot of it. But it's sidestepping... By adding a mechanism where we sidestep all the work that went into setting up an overlay district, we're really undermining the trust and social fabric of the neighborhoods by doing that. I agree with, I can't even think of names right now. I agree with Ed. I would prefer to see language with two-thirds majority to pass things or if we're gonna modify a border of an overlay. I would also like to see explicit consent from owners of properties that are gonna be added or removed. I think that just kind of makes sense. I honestly would hope that if we did something like this, if somebody finds themselves geographically isolated in an overlay district, I would really hope that they would be able to work with their neighbors in the overlay district to come to a solution, even if that is petitioning for removal of the property from the overlay. I feel like this, as proposed, it's It's not really encouraging cooperation amongst neighbors, which I think is a big strength of East Lansing.

I just want to say one last thing about some of the people who were in the room tonight. You heard a lot of people speak who were heads of their community organizations. We have 22 overlays and several neighbors. This is a very important issue to neighborhood community associations. We've had a discussion about Bailey. I know they had it at Glencairn. Um, like Chester, like you named the neighborhood and they've talked about this and supported the, um, the overlay districts for their neighborhoods. So, um, I think it's important to just know who was in the room tonight and two weeks ago too, and who's written letters.

Just chiming in a little bit. I agree with all those comments. I think it was really well said. Um, I think the process to opt out should be the same or more difficult than it is to create and establish the initial boundary. I think the unifying theme we've heard is the goal to preserve the single family neighborhoods. That being said, I think there needs to be some sort of opt-out process. And I think that was sort of consistently said amongst the folks that spoke before us. And I think maybe even a clearer, easier process to expand the boundaries would be preferable. I think we've ran into that a few times when we've had overlay districts where We've really got in the weeds of, is this the right boundary? This is going to be a permanent solution to this. We've got to make it easier. So I think maybe a more comprehensive look at this is ideal. I'm not opposed to looking at this issue. I just don't think this is the right solution. There's a lot of issues with it, which I don't need to belabor the point on. And ultimately, the status quo we have now is preferable to me than what this is proposing. However, if city staff or city council were to take a more comprehensive look at this and come up with a different solution that more closely aligns with the feedback we've heard from the commission during our comment period here in the public, um, that spoke to us, I think that's my solution. And then, um, you know, just to clarify one thing that was said on the, um, the housing study, cause I was involved in that kind of intimately a couple of years ago or back in 2021, I don't think it said we don't need rental housing. I think it said of all the housing types, that is the one we need the least. And I think a lot of variables have changed since then, but like, again, the goal I think should be to preserve the single family neighborhoods and even look at opportunities to potentially expand single family neighborhoods to new areas. So, Um, that's how I feel about it. I don't know if there's any other comments or guidance or suggestions for city staff before we vote on it, but okay. All right. Um, who wants to make the motion? Just make it an affirmative for consistency. That's my suggestion. Oh,

I move that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council not adopt. Is that what you meant by that?

I like to do it in the affirmative, and then we can vote yes or no, just for consistency.

So you've sort of blown my mind here. I don't know.

Well, we've never made a motion not to approve. We've always made a motion to approve, and then we vote no on it. Mr.

Chair, may I suggest the opposite? Okay. That if the motion is to not adopt, make the motion to not adopt. Okay. All right. I understand where you're coming from, but it's a little clearer for the record. Okay.

Let's go with Landon's suggestion then.

Okay. My apologies. So I move that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council not adopt Ordinance 1572 to amend Chapter 50, zoning Division 5 residential rental restriction overlay districts of the Code of the City of East Lansing to add a new Section 5778, removal of property from the rental restriction overlay districts.

Second. Second.

A motion by Vice Chair Wagner, seconded by Commissioner Dinnall. Seeing no additional discussion, all those in favor of not suggesting City Council adopt this ordinance, vote aye. Aye. And those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. This ordinance is suggested not to be adopted to City Council. I don't know how to phrase that. The Planning Commission suggests that City Council does not adopt Ordinance 1572. And then Mr. Bartley, to clarify, this is still going to be sent to City Council for consideration with the recommendation of not approval from the Planning Commission. OK. Now that we made it through there, is there any commissioner concerns?

Do you know when that will go to city council?

My expectation, based on our publishing schedule, is probably going to be July 21st for this year at council.

Okay. Good question. Seeing no other concerns, is there a motion to adjourn? Move by Commissioner Putz. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts. All those in favor, vote aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. We are adjourned at 9.55 p.m.