Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the April 22nd, 2026 East Lancing Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bartley, could you please take role? I will. Uh, Commissioner Chapen, present. Commissioner Denult here. Commissioner Lein, Commissioner Overby, Commissioner Putts, present. Commissioner Ramirez Roberts here. Welcome. Uh, Vice Chair Wagner here. and chair Sullivan here. We have quorum. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Denol, seconded by Commissioner Putts. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I.

I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Agenda approved. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the April 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting? So moved. Second. Moved by vice chair, seconded by Commissioner Putts. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Minutes approved. That takes us on to item number two, committee reports. Mr. Bartley. Uh, we have none. All right. Simple enough. Uh, takes us on to item number three, staff reports. Also, you, Mr. Bartley.

Uh, thank you. I'm just a a very brief um update on council last night. Uh we intro the council introduced and referred an ordinance to you that you'll see in uh at the end of May which is a resoning of 825 Westlake Lansing. Uh we also gave the uh downtown parking report which uh you might recall that I gave to this commission uh back in March. And basically as a refresher we have 3100 parking spaces in downtown East Lancing. We have average uh daily use of about 40 to 45% and average peak use of about 60 to 65%. So, um, that's my staff report, but I'd like to introduce and ask up to the podium a group of Michigan State University urban planning students. They've been, uh, working on a capstone project. It's the MSU urban planning program. Uh, final project is called the practicum program. And we've been working with them, uh, since late last year. Uh, this semester, they've been doing a lot of community engagement work in the East Village zone or East Village area, which is generally um, Bogue to Stoddard and Albert down to Red Cedar. So very excited to have them present their work to you. They've been doing some really great work and uh we have about a 15-minute presentation for you. So

great to go up. Thank you.

Thank you, Landon. Uh good evening members of the East Lancing Planning Commission. We are a team of Michigan State University students from the School of Planning, Design, and Construction known as the Red Seedar Squad. We today we are honored to present our planning practicum project uh the east village concept plan which we have developed over the past four months in partnership with the city of East Lancing planning department. My name is Clinton Morales and I am one of the community engagement leads for this project. My name is Luke Dylan. I'm one of the policy and implementation leads.

My name is Max Levenson. I'm the urban form and design guidelines specialist. And I'm Rachel Olner, the project manager.

And then you go to the next slide, please. Thank you. So to start us off, I would just like to give a overview of the study area. Uh the study area for this project includes the East Village District, the Grand River corridor from Bogue Street to Stoddard Avenue in the area north of Grand River Avenue bounded by Kedzy Street, Albert Avenue, and Stoddard Avenue. Uh through collaboration between Michigan State University and the city of East Lancing planning department, our team was tasked with evaluating current conditions and identifying planning priorities and growth strategies that will benefit stakeholders and visitors alike. Next slide, please. Throughout this presentation, we will highlight four key phases of the project. research findings, strategic framework, and recommendations. These phases focus on data collection methods that resulted in findings which were used to identify emerging themes and translating those themes into a strategic framework which inform the development of actionable recommendations based on feasibility, community priorities, and overall impact. We'll begin with the methods used to collect the data and the input that shaped this project. Next slide, please. So, at the beginning of the project, a strong emphasis was placed on qualitative field research to better understand how stakeholders and various or I'm sorry and visitors experienced the study area. Multiple site visits were conducted to observe walkability, circulation patterns, the quality of public spaces, and as well as holding informal interviews with neighborhood

residents and business owners to gather firsthand insight into current challenges, neighborhood strengths, and desired improvements. In addition to Oh, next slide, please. I'm sorry. Uh in addition to field research, our team reviewed US Census and American Community Survey data on population, housing, and employment trends while examining zoning regulations to identify redevelopment opportunities and constraints. Additionally, to assess pedestrian mobility and transit access, CATA routes, stop locations, and wrership data was analyzed. Together, these sources helped us understand how transportation infrastructure, zoning policies, and neighborhood trends shape our study area, more specifically the East Village District. Next slide, please. Thank you. Uh, community engagement was a central component of the East Village concept plan and one of the most valuable tools for gathering direct stakeholder input. Our team facilitated three public events titled the east village conversations using a sharetesbased engagement model along with a dedicated focus group for business and property owners in our study area. Also an online survey was created the east village survey and distributed through outreach materials and posted on various social media platforms which expanded participation beyond in-person meetings. Next slide, please. So, across the three public events, 22 participants shared perspectives on transportation, walkability, amenities, development, preferences, and their lived experience. A consistent message

within feedback we received from the community was the desire for a more vibrant, walkable, safe, and welcoming neighborhood that supports mixeduse development while maintaining housing options that prioritize affordability for current and future residents. These combined findings reinforced the core themes that guided the creation of a strategic framework and planning priorities, which Luke will discuss next. Thank you, Clint. Um, next slide, please. Thank you. Across all of these methods and findings eventually lead to our actionable recommendations that we have provided to our client, the city of East Lancing. But first, we'll cover our three emerging themes that will inform our further approach for actions. The first of which is weak infrastructure. So many residents reported a lack of infrastructure that serves their daily needs such as bike paths and sidewalks. Secondly, the underperforming public realm. Many residents identified a need for key amenities such as grocery stores, gyms, and parks. And finally, the student housing capacity gap. Many residents have concerns about finding housing that is close to campus that is also within their price range. Next slide, please. Thank you. So some further data that backs up these three emerging themes is the fact that the bus routes within East Village are not necessarily students serving. There is the bus route one that goes to Okamus and downtown and there are several bus routes but none stop within the East Village side streets and none stop or none are free for students. Secondly, about 40% of households in East Village according to census data do not have access to a vehicle or do not have a vehicle. So this indicates a clear need for alternative modes of transportation such as bike paths or pedestrian trails.

Also, Bogue Street experiences few pedestrian crossings or intersections. Many residents felt a little unsafe crossing Bogue, especially with no dedicated signals. And for the underperforming public realm, you can see that image on the left. A lot of public infrastructure is pretty minimal. Um there's a bench here kind of outside the Cedar Village apartments um in a parking lot, but beyond that, a lot of community participants asked for a little more um as far as parks and gyms and things like that. A lot of residents also labeled the neighborhood if they could describe it in one word as dingy or bland or boring, indicating a lack of a strong neighborhood identity. And finally, for the student housing capacity gap, about 70% of participants we asked support mixeduse development similar to um the hub, which you can see on that image on the bottom right. And there's also about 16,000 students who have to find housing off campus, not just within the East Village area, but they have to look for housing in places like Okamus or Holt, going farther and farther from campus. They also have affordability concerns, as I mentioned. Next slide, please. From these three emerging planning themes, we developed three guiding principles that will guide our actions going forward. The first of which is access and mobility. We aim to improve connectivity within East Village and create a more welcoming and accessible environment for all users. Secondly, for place identity and quality of life, we aim to improve East Village's currently not great identity into a more livable neighborhood with revitalized commercial spaces. And finally, for mixed use and affordability, we aim to promote development that is close to campus but is also affordable for students, which again was a key concern among residents in the community engagement. Next slide,

please. Thank you. So, from these three guiding principles, we finally get to our seven planning priorities, which Max will go into a little more detail. Some include to improve pedestrian accessibility through bike paths or sidewalk improvements, and some of these guiding priorities include to add character to East Village through neighborhood banners and etc. Next slide, please. And speaking of these specific actions based on the priorities, we have 33 of them, but we won't cover every single one today obviously. But these actions r range from short term, so actions that may see some change in East Village within zero to two years or a few months. And the longer term actions require a lot more stakeholder coordination and further investment achievable within 5 to 10 years. And I'll now pass it over to Max who will go into more detail about our actions and priorities.

Thank you, Luke. So, as Luke said, our actions are sort are sorted based on their guiding principle and then their planning priority. These actions are also sorted by their key partners. Our key partners are different city departments like the planning commission, the public works planning department as well as private organizations and neighborhood committees. Our actions are also based on their priority. We prioritize actions depending on the timeline as well as the amount of key partners, funding mechanisms, and the overall amount of coordination required to get these actions done. I'm going to give a brief overview of the actions in each of our planning priorities, and then I'm going to pass it on to Rachel so that she can go more into detail on a specific action. You can go to the next slide, please. So, for our first priority, supporting multimodal transit, we want to replace street parking with bike lanes in East Village. We want to reroute the kata route 31 into East Village, pop it out from campus, and we want to add a dedicated bus lane on Grand River, which was specifically pulled from a a bus rapid transit plan in 2017. We believe that adding a dedicated bus lane can contribute many of the benefits that a bus rapid transit would while minimizing costs. For our second planning priority, improving pedestrian accessibility, we want to add more crosswalks across Grand River Avenue and Boke Street. East Village is located directly next to downtown East Lancing as well as MSU's campus and we want to make sure that the neighborhood is as accessible as possible. We also want to create a portal for residents to submit photos of sidewalks and disrepair in the neighborhood. You can go to the next slide. Thank you. For revitalizing the Grand River corridor, we want to partner with a major grocery chain to add an urban format market in the neighborhood, which was the most requested amenity from our community engagement. We also want to add benches and trees, as I mentioned, along the street to really bring it to life. And we want to limit further drive-throughs along Grand River Avenue to focus on more pedestrian

accessibility. For developing more public spaces in East Village, we want to develop vacant parcels that aren't being developed and turn them into urban plazas. We also want to develop a riverfront park off of that riverfront trail that can really activate the river space which is currently being used for informal parking and informal waste. Finally, for adding character to East Village, we want to work with the neighborhood and create an East Village neighborhood committee. This committee can create their own branding and flags to hang around the neighborhood. We also want to partner with Michigan State's College of Arts and Letters to commission murals throughout the neighborhood. Next slide, please. Thank you. We also want to incentivize mixeduse development. This includes a few zoning amendments to spur development such as decreasing parking requirements for new developments. And we also want to connect property owners with existing development resources. We're gifted with many in the city. And we want to make sure that current property owners are aware of them and can take advantage of them. For our final planning priority, ensuring affordable and attainable housing options, we want to make sure we want to use LITC financing, which is the lowincome housing tax credit, partnering with MISTA, the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. We also want to implement the current downtown diverse housing ordinance, but specifically the 25% low to moderate income housing requirement to make sure that this housing is specifically designed for the students that live there. Thank you. Now, a full implementation plan for each of our actions can be found in our report, but to give you an idea of how these actions might be implemented, we want to highlight one action in particular for you tonight, and that is rerouting Kataba bus route number 31 so that it stops within the East Village. This action aligns with the previously discussed guiding principle of improving access and

mobility and it aligns with the planning priority of increasing multimodal transit throughout the neighborhood. So on the screen right now you can see the current bus route in red and then you can see our proposed reroute in green. Our quantitative analysis revealed that over 90% of the residential population in the East Village are renters and many of them are students. Yet, there is no current bus lane that is dedicated to getting students from the East Village to the MSU campus. While there are several bus routes that do run along Grand River, those bus routes run rather infrequently and are largely targeted at providing connectivity between East Lancing generally and the wider area. So, they take students to downtown Lancing or Okamus. This action is one that we classified as a high priority because um bus service throughout the East Village was something that was brought up by both students and longtime residents during our community engagement meetings. And because this project is really intended to directly address resident concerns, we felt that placing those um placing a high priority on those actions that stemmed directly from those conversations was appropriate. On this slide, you can also see that we categorized this action as a medium-term time frame. If you go to the next slide, you can see our proposed timeline for this actions implementation. Um because this action would require a lot of coordination with KATA and probably with MSU. Um and because it would require doing a pilot route or a test route, the city could expect this action to be completed within several years, putting it in that mediumterm category. Finally, on the next slide, we just wanted to highlight one of the key

partners that would be essential for completing the East Village concept plan generally, and that is you all, the planning commission. So, several of our proposed actions begin either with the city planning department and with the city um planning commission. in particular those actions that involve zoning amendment changes um zoning ordinance amendments I should say will begin here for recommendation before moving on to council. So if our plan is followed some of those amendments that you could expect to see presented in the future would be amending the zoning ordinance to limit drive-throughs along Grand River or amending the ordinances to reduce parking requirements for the properties along Grand River. These actions would help create that more walkable, pedestrian-friendly space that we heard residents desired. So to sum up, the purpose of us giving this presentation tonight was not to present you with data and information that we gathered over the last four months, but it's really to help you see our vision for the walkable, mixeduse, and vibrant community that we know the East Village residents desire. By implementing a mixture of long-term and short-term actions that are based in community desire, we can really make East Village a neighborhood where students, long-term residents, and businesses can all thrive. We thank you for your attention, and we also give a special thank you to your own planner, Landon Bartley, for all of his guidance over the last four months. It is he has done a lot for us. So, we welcome any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much. We appreciate your work on this, your creativity, and your very thorough presentation. So, uh, any questions from commissioners? I had a question. Um, you said that your all of your recommendations were available in your report. Where could we find your report? Yeah, we are printing the report as we speak. And yes, it it's due for our class tomorrow. So, we will have a PDF copy available. We will pass it along to Landon who has been our client throughout this and he will be able to distribute that to you all. Great. Uh,

great. That'd be helpful. And and the only question I had and I was uh very happy to see that you guys had highlighted the riverfront um in your and your project. I it's it's such a unique uh asset that the city has. I think it's the really the only uh city riverfront properties there. And so your your thought process is to expand the park and some of the um surface parking that's there and utilize it as more of a public feature to draw people to potentially live in that area. Um is there anything else you guys wanted to add on that particular component? So our idea for a riverfront park was first it started kind of as a wish list like wouldn't it be awesome if we had this beautiful riverfront park with all these restaurants and whatnot. As we continued our data collection and our community engagement, we saw that there was a lot of public interest. However, developing a riverfront park requires a ton of coordination, including state and even federal departments. So, a lot of our actions guided around that are specifically to set up the ball so that it could roll towards doing that. So that means gathering more community input so that there's a clear strong support for this, connecting with MSU as right across the street is the natural area that is not supposed to be developed on and talking to property owners because while right now a lot of that space is used for informal parking, having a public feature right there would benefit the local property owners and could potentially assist them in increasing their developments and density. So that was the main idea with the riverfront park. However, we know that it's going to be a long process.

Great. Thanks for the explanation. I'll add something that to that too. In terms of community engagement, um when we talked to residents of the area into the community, one thing that they did say, uh is that they don't visit the river very often. Um and when we asked them if this was something that they would if there was opportunity, they gave us a lot of feedback on it. um a lot of remarks to having somewhere that they can go and hang out at or enjoy the river. Um so that was another big part of why we brought this in because the community really echoed that and the community engagement that we did.

Great. Thank you. Um any additional comments or questions, vice chair? Yeah. U so I I really appreciate your input here. It's nice to hear from students and we we like your enthusiasm and excitement. Um how did So you gave us a range of short-term, midterm, and long-term projects. How did you choose the bus um project to start with and can you just give us a little bit of thinking about like what was your number two project or um you know how how did you basically uh come to this conclusion here for the bus?

Yeah. Um, yes, by highlighting the bus reroute in this presentation, that was not intended to say that this is the action that you should start with. Um, it was one that we felt was a good one to highlight because it has a lot of implications for the for the community. Um, but there are other actions in our report that are also classified as high priority. Um, and again, we looked at a couple of different things. A lot of it was dependent on what did we hear from the people we talked to from the residents. We wanted to put the highest priority on those things that we heard the community wants of course. And then as Max I believe mentioned uh we also looked a lot at okay how long is this going to take to implement? What is the funding going to look like? Is this something that's really expensive or is this something that's relatively cheap that the that could bring a lot of value to the city? Um, so we based a lot of it on how much collaboration is this going to take, how difficult is it going to be to implement and how much value is it going to add.

Okay, thank you. Uh, as we receive the report in a future packet, uh, we'll have an opportunity to discuss and kind of think about how we can help and support uh, the good work coming out of the future grads at Michigan State. So, I think that'd be a nice uh conversation for us to have. So, that's the way you see it, Landon, coming forward. I do. I was thinking that um we've talked about a retreat to look at the future land use uh categories and map, and I think that this could be a good topic to also cover in a retreat like that. Thanks. Good job, guys. Thank you. All right. Seeing no additional questions. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Okay, that takes us on to item number four, commissioner announcements. Uh, first up, um, I think many of you noticed we have a new planning commissioner here, Josh Amir Roberts. I don't know if you want to, um, introduce yourself or say a couple comments. Uh, my name's Josh. I didn't wasn't expecting this, so I'm happy to be here. Um, I look forward to doing the work.

Well said. Um, this is also the time for planning commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest on items on tonight's agenda. Are there any conflicts of interest? Seeing none from anybody. Okay. Any additional commissioner announcements? All right. That takes us on to item number five, communications from citizens. Um, for written communications, there are a handful of letters in our agenda packet on various items um for your review. Um, on to verbal from the audience. This is time for the public 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 to five minutes and identify yourself on a card up there if you have yet to do so. Um I will say it's a pretty lengthy agenda. Uh but the only two public hearings tonight are items 6.1 and 6.2 for the Koolage Road item and the 601 East Grand River item. So if you're here to speak on those items, we generally ask that you speak during the public comment period for those items. Uh, but there's several other items on tonight's agenda. So, now is your opportunity and and only opportunity to discuss those items. So, um, I'll read from the cards I have up here. Um, and then we'll go from there. Uh, up first for item 7.1 is Mark Bell.

Good evening. Um Mark Bell, CEO, Harbor Bay. I'll be back for you next uh time, A13, talking about the Howard. Um but tonight, uh the purpose of coming is um and driving 10 hours in a day is to discuss 1559. Um 1559's on your your uh agenda today. I love 15 1559 like to talk about 1559. However, I think 1559 as it relates today, the scope was extensively expanded as a result that was published on Friday. So, specifically the there was an insertion as far as the special use permit and the diversified housing geography that got expanded. What specifically happened? The special use permit has lived in ordinance 1384 for 9 years. 1536 was introduced in the staff report. That's an environmental ordinance. We can talk about that uh next planning commission. But really what happened is um with the motion, if you approve today, it does what? It expands the diversified housing ordinance to the entire DDA. What does that mean? It means that first and foremost, properties east of Collingwood Avenue would now be subject to the diversified housing ordinance for the first time in their nine years. That would instantly devalue those properties materially. properties west of Kleinwood Avenue right now in the B3 district can can develop eight stories as of right without this pulling the special use permit out of the um excuse me the diversified housing out of the special use permit and putting the building overlay district and then saying on I think it's number six on your recommended motion putting this into the entire DDA effectively um really undermines a lot of the I would say over 200 properties in the DDA. Okay. From a value standpoint, more importantly, there's been no notice

whatsoever on this particular topic. The first time, and we've talked about this for probably three sessions, great discussion, civil discourse, collaboration, different things, talking about transfer credits, talking about fee and loo, talking about um how do we build more housing, right? Um not one time has it ever been brought up that we're going to all of a sudden move the diversified housing requirement to the entire DDA, right? So, I think my recommendation tonight, for what it's worth, um, is to I'm not saying that we shouldn't move the 1559 forward. God knows there's been a ton of discussion on 1559. And if you want me my honest opinion on 1559, I emailed Landon uh, my notes on that and was very objective. Um, what I don't think should be happening tonight is the expansion of 1559 to include the expansion of the diversified housing requirement and taking the special use permit that's embedded in 1384 and putting into the building overlay district. Um, I think we should have public comment about that. I think we should talk about it. I think every all the 200 property owners in the DDA should get notices on that. Um, some of them are in the audience. I talked to many of them. To the best of my knowledge, not one person received any notice that this is happening tonight. So, appreciate your time. I'll see you on the 13th regarding the Howard um, which has nothing to do with 1559, but appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you, Matt Hagen.

Good evening, Matt Hagen. Hagen realy 927 East Grand River. Um we do own a fair number of properties in the DDA and uh it was recently brought to light the change that was being discussed tonight. So I figured it was important to come and uh vote to or give my objection to that change. Uh certainly this would be a significant financial impact on those properties. uh including East Village in my opinion to have the diverse housing is just trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. I just doesn't make any sense. But uh I assume that we will have some future discussion of this. Um there's, you know, a group of landlords that are definitely own properties in this area that are not aware of this significant change and would uh I'm sure be willing to continue to fight and discuss this as it goes forward. So I appreciate Thank you. Thank you. Uh Luke Allen Hackne. Good evening. Uh Luke Hagy. I'm uh the vice chair of the downtown development authority. I've been on city board since 2010 and own a retroduct screen printing embroidery in downtown East Lancing. Um I'll try to cut this in half as Mr. Bell did say quite a bit of this. Um but yeah, I I too do not support sub subsection 6 of section 5094 as proposed in ordinance 1559. Um even if this provision is intended as just a recommendation, I believe property owners within the affected district should have been formally notified that this was on the planning commission's agenda. Uh changes that may influence development standards and property values warrant direct communication with those actually impacted. Um, furthermore, I believe that the East Lancing Downtown Development Authority should have received notice and been given the opportunity to provide its own recommendation as the body charged with supporting and guiding downtown development and actually putting in a fair amount of money into the downtown.

Its input is both relevant and necessary. Uh, for these reasons, I do not believe section uh six should move forward without broader notification and actual stakeholder engagement. Thank you. Thank you. Carrie Freeman.

Hello all. Carrie Freeman, uh, attorney in Lancing working with the ball lines and Harbor Bay on the Howard. Um, I just want to address the staff's suggestion to relocate that section 1594 B4E out of the special use permit section to article 7, section 8 and staff's related sample motion. Approving the suggested sample motion today will absolutely violate the due process rights of our East Lancing citizens. 1559 is the ordinance that was introduced and referred to the planning commission. Uh the planning commission held that public hearing for 1559 on March 25th and extended the discussion to April and now today. Staffs described other proposed changes clearly will affect article 7 division 8 and require a new ordinance. It may also affect 1536, which is an environmental ordinance, has nothing to do with diverse housing, which is what we're supposed to be talking about. And it will likely affect several other ordinances. To be honest with all of you, this new proposed ordinance came out of left field last Friday, and I barely had an opportunity to fully appreciate the ramifications that it may have and the far-reaching effects. The suggested modifications to 1559 related to article 7 have never been previously discussed, suggested, or even mentioned at a meeting, uh, let alone introduced, referred properly, or notice for public hearing, which would allow for the vote on a sample motion today. The seemingly innocuous and uh, other proposed changes the staff has recommended doesn't just change how the requirement applies, it changes geographically where it will apply, which is what Mark was talking about. This suggested change brings in an entirely new unnoticed subject matter and affects an entirely new unnoticed property owners today. Um, ordinance 1384 currently applies the diverse housing requirements only to the properties west of Collingwood. Recommendation number six in the motion expands it to the entire DDA, both sides

of Grand River, east to Hagort and south to Red Cedar. That is a substantial geographic expansion. I've heard it it reaches about, as Mark was suggesting, about 200 new property owners that probably have no idea what's going on here today. Property owners east of Collingwood who have never been subject to this requirement in the 9 years since 1384 was adopted have received no direct notice, as I've said, uh that their property is about to potentially be subject to it. They have had no opportunity to speak at a public hearing. Even if the commission believes that this policy would be a good idea, um I imposing new development restrictions, especially ones this severe on property owners on specific parcels without notice to them is a massive overreach of city government and is completely contrary to the city's clear process uh on how to enact its ordinance changes. I'm not sure where this recommendation came from or why, but I strongly encourage the planning commission to slow this down today and uh study the ramic ramifications of approving this relocation of the divi the diverse housing requirement. Um is the action as is today would be a clear violation of due process and could result in unconstitutional actions against the citizens of East Lancing which I know are not intended or desired. And then on one last point um about the fee in LOW, I think it would behoove the commission to have their attorney review the reasonleness of the uh fee that would actually apply to each um uh development. If it it can't be used as an a tax if it's exorbitant, the fees can make it unconstitutional and be considered a violation of the takings clause. And I think it'd be very appropriate for you all to have that aspect of 1559 looked at by your attorneys before you move forward with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh there's two names on this card here, but uh Tammy Wowski and then uh Brian Beasley. Yes. Hello. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Tammy Wowski.

Brian Beasley. And brothers and sisters, we are owners of 370 East State Road. Um, and this is regarding to the ordinance uh 1564, which is approximately reszoning of 40 properties in the area. Um, my brother and I actually own one of the larger partials, which is like 50 acres. Um, and talking with Mr. Bartley with a few of his meetings, um, we like to keep this as a agriculture. has been agriculture in our family for years. Um, we're going to continue farming it like we've have. Um, I do know the growth is a lot in that area and I do know that they were trying to reszone it to um multi-dwelling. I think it was an R2 or medium dwelling R2. Um, when I had we had spoke with Mr. Bartley, we would like to continue it and if there is a change of the operation of the land more or less, then I could see it maybe going to a different reasonzoning. But as long as we keep the agriculture that we would like to remain that you have anything else to say?

That's pretty much sums it up. We just since we're farming it, we just like to keep it as agriculture. I mean, who knows once it changes or developer comes in and changes it to the R2 medium density. Um, we also would like to keep the option open for it to be commercial too since all the property west of us is commercial. So, just a thought out there, but just to keep it agriculture for right now since that's what we do as far. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Mike Curtis.

Good evening. My name is Mike Curtis. I live at 3731 Perua Drive in the Hawk Nest subdivision. I live just down the road from Miss Seals who spoke two weeks ago in a very educational and eloquent manner in opposition to the resoning of 3303 and 3255 East Coleman Road and the adjacent parcel from agricultural to RM14 lowdensity multiple families. I understand that Mr. Martley has changed this his recommendation for 3303 East Coleman Road to R2 medium density single family residential just like the Hawks Nest subdivision. You should have in your planning commission's packet uh email photos and two short videos I sent to Mr. Bartley regarding my opposition to resoning. There is no need to reiterate all the contents of my email. However, I truly was surprised by the water flowing like a small stream in my neighbor's yard after recent rains. I know water drainage is a huge problem for the residents on Perlua Drive, but I guess I never paid as close attention as I am now. The only thing I would like to mention this evening is actually a question. Given what we have learned over the past few weeks and the very real concerns that people have voiced, why bother to take the city council's time to even consider and debate resoning? Just leave it alone as it is. I understand that the current resoning code that was inherited from Ba Township afforded to these parcels of land do not fall within the ordinance language of East Lancing. But if it is obviously something that shouldn't even be touched, given the biodiversity of this precious ecosystem and natural benefits it offers, such as water drainage for the residential homes already built, why

are we even talk taking time to talk about this issue? I can't imagine even considering anything that would further threaten the drainage that is already compromised in our neighborhood. I know changing the ordinance is not an automatic proposal for building, but it certainly is a slippery slope that could come that could become its own force and could make for some political dynamics in the future that could be difficult to manage and threaten a God-given natural resource that can never be restored. Thank you for listening. Do you have any questions? Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Up next is uh Julia Msawitz. Mscowitz. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Julia Mscowitz and I would like to add to what Mike just presented. I um I live in Hog Nest um at uh 3721 Perula Drive and uh this is also in regards to resoning uh of 3303 East Coleman Road from agricultural to uh residential, multi-ousing residential or even single housing residential. I sent my comments prior to the um last meeting on August um I'm sorry on April 8th. I wasn't here. Um, but then I heard that this meeting was taking place where it would be also discussed. Um, I don't think any of our neighbors uh knew about it except for Mike who uh let me know. I would like more um of our uh residents, Hawk Nest residents to come forward and uh also speak and believe me there are a lot of them and especially on Perua because I was also the one that submitted petition to this filed petition with the city council um about it. So I went from home to home um um on Perula Drive also Bhutel um and I checked how many people oppose it opposed that uh resoning um ordinance. Um we um all agree on it that we wouldn't want to have it reszoned to any residential area. We love having nature there. We would like to keep it agricultural or if there is any other designation that would be similar to it. There are wetlands there, woodlands. We have a great um diversity of animals. Um we have that vernal pool that uh Melania was talking about at the last um meeting as well. Um and we got that property myself and also other residents either

they built there or they purchased these properties uh intentionally. We didn't want to back into uh other houses. We wanted to border with nature. A lot of our houses don't even have fencing. uh we enjoy peace and quiet and I cannot imagine uh that there could be another subdivision or even street uh running there and that would affect um it would affect traffic there would be um a lot of noise there um and that's not what we signed up for and I don't know um how the news spread around but definitely we all got a notice either it was from realtors or it was from inspectors ers or from developers that nothing will be built behind uh that we were safe because of the gas pipeline uh because of wetlands how um much flooding we got and that's what Mike mentioned is very true I mean our yards are completely flooded it's like a pool which um in the end I mean it dries out uh later on and during summer um but we do get flooded basements as well and we don't know how feather development would affect flooding. Um you could maybe tell us, yeah, there would be further development. There will be a pond there or um different drainage system because you cannot even hook drainage into our neighborhood. It wouldn't sustain it. There is no way because there is water rushing down the street um like crazy, like a river. Um so uh yeah we definitely oppose reszoning there and people that purchase these properties paid extra. We paid premium for that uh to to back into the woods and have nothing behind. And I mean it's ironic that we are talking about reszoning from agricultural or from nature conservation on Earth Day. Today is April 22nd, Earth

Day. and we are talking about stewardship over land and community land about sustainability. Uh we are close to MSU. We care about it. There are a lot of species in our um in the backyard that are either endangered or uh they are rare and I listed here a few white crown sparrow, golden wink warbler, great horned owl, red shouldered hawk. We have eagles that are close also to uh MSU FCU. It's this is similar area just west of uh 30 seconds road.

Okay, I'm done. Well, we oppose it. So, I would like to know like if so many residents oppose and we come forward last meeting, this meeting, uh we sent comments, what else can we do to stop it? Do we have any say in it? You will move forward with your decision. Can we do anything about it? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Uh this next card doesn't have a name on it, but it says ordinance 1570. Is my home involved? How do I ensure I get Okay. What's your uh name?

Alison Morardi. Um, I don't have a prepared statement um here tonight because I just learned about uh the 425 agreement that took place between the city of East Lancing and Dwit Township. Um, I learned about it Sunday walking my dogs. Um, and I'm here today to confirm my involvement. I did uh send an email to someone on the on the planning commission um I think yesterday uh throughout the 425 agreement. My address andor parcel number is not explicitly listed. However, there in my email I outlined that there is a paragraph in the original agreement that um has a vague reference to my home. Um so I wanted to confirm our involvement. Um, I did also want to question how we would receive communication because like I said, I literally learned about this walking my dog from my neighbor. And um, you know, I've been in the home for 10 years and I don't know why I didn't know about it. Um, and I would also like to say that we would like to continue to be Dit Township if we could stay under Dit Township. Um, my home receives no services from the city of East Lancing. we don't have sewer or um water service and so we want to just keep it as it is if we can. And then I would also like more information in l uh about the vague language in um ordinance 1570 that speaks about the highway interchange and the language used is not presently contemplated for many years. And I want more information on what that actually means because my home would be involved in that interchange being put in.

So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bartley, could city staff connect with the last two speakers to address any outstanding process issues or questions they have? Yes, I've emailed both of them this afternoon. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh would anybody else like to come forward and address the planning commission? All right. Uh, is anyone online?

We do have an attendee. So it looks like caller with last three numbers 149. If they want to unmute they can speak. Lind if you click ask to unmute you should be able to. He's with us for um for the sake special language. Listen. Okay.

Okay. Mystery solved. All right, that takes us on to uh tonight's public hearing sessions. So, uh up first is item 6.1, a public hearing to receive comments on an application from Gibb King on behalf of US Fish and Wildlife Services for the property at 2651 Koolage Road. Grace,

um so the applicant is requesting to remove five trees on the property um along Abby Road and is planning to install a pollinator garden in that location. Uh currently the applicant is doing work on the adjacent site um to restore an existing wetland that's there um and turn that into an observation um location for wildlife species. Um and so as part of that project they are moving soil to this location um that's in some of the pictures of the site. You can see that there's the excess soil that's been located there. So they are looking to remove these five trees and um install a pollinator garden in that location. Oh, here we Okay, sorry. Um, yes. So, they are um requesting to remove these five trees in order to install um a pollinator garden at that location and cliff walls with uh DPW and environmental ser this year. Um if you have any specific questions about trees or the wetland uh restoration project, he could probably answer those.

Great. Thank you. Cliff, do you want to come up and provide any uh additional commentary. The applicants are here too as well. Okay. We'll get to them after city staff. Yep. Um excuse me. Cliff Walls, DPW. Uh happy Earth Day. Is there any specific question you want to go over? Just like a history of what they're doing here. I think just your perspective on it and yeah, the history of the site and

Yeah. So, this is um it's a storm water detention pond on the site that's also a wetland. They have an eagle permit. they were exempted from the city's wetland um rules as a habitat restoration project and evasive species removal project. um that was a really choked out buckthorn fil um kind of mess there and it's really been cleaned up and they're using it to not only increase the hydraulic capacity as I understand it but also uh US Fish and Wildlife is a tenant of the the buildings there and so through their federal technical assistance program are working working with the landlord to restore that. Um, like Grace mentioned, there's some nesting islands that they're putting in removing again the invasive species. And then these trees that are being proposed for removal. They're relatively young. I think the largest one is 12 in. Most of them are maples. Um, they're preserving the shag bark, hickory, and the oak, which are some native species. And the goal behind that is to create like a savannah habitat. From my understanding, um, their staff at US Fish and Wildlife involves the pollinator, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, pollinator task force coordinator who's involved in that. Um, so it's experts working on their expertise for something that we promote as a city and um, I I'm fully supportive of it and I'm not don't have any concerns with this request before you tonight.

Great. Thank appreciate the context. Any questions for city staff vice chair? Thank you very much for that. That's super helpful because I'm not a I'm from the northwest but I'm not a tree expert.

Um so because one one of my first questions is why not just put it on the other side where there are fewer trees or why you know why do we have to get rid of trees at all? And um another question I had was what's what absorbs more water five trees or a pollinator garden? I do you mean like for storm water runoff? That's that's tough to quantify here on the spot. Um, you know, it all it's all depends on the size of the tree, too. It's not just infiltration, it's interception from the leaf canopy. Um, like I said, these are relatively kind of medium age tree. They're not super mature. Um, I would think, you know, this is a a bonus for this area that has previously been full of invasive species. adding in intentional native diverse plantings that support pollinators um and have deeper roots that support storm water goals at large. You know, that's going to be relatively modest to some of the challenges that we face as a community. Um but overall, from both perspectives, I think it's a positive one. Plus, the work that they're doing in the wetland because it serves as uh drainage for those buildings. Um it's it's going to increase the hydraulic capacity available in storms. Um at the same time improving habitat at the same time increasing the or you know making it more likely for diverse species to flourish in that area. Um but we also have biologists here who may be able to answer that a little bit more eloquently than I can.

Yep. Yeah. Do we know what species? Commissioner. Oh yes. Cliff pointed at me, so I got excited. Um, do we know what species of maple they are? Are they even native? Are they Norway maples or something? I'm pretty sure they're sugar and Norway. Norway. They're not native. They're not native. Yeah, I was cuz right along that area, I'm like, I can't imagine sugar maples naturally grew there. So, yeah, cutting down Norway maples. That's fine. Yeah, that's my perspective, too. Good question. And I had assumed everybody from the Northwest was a tree expert. So, thanks for educating me on that one. Um, any additional questions?

Chelsea, I'm ready for you to say something about this. I was ready for the counter to say it. I'm ready for the counter. So, I've looked at her three times. So, I think she's good. All right. All right. Well, I just I think it's pretty cool that the US uh let me get this right. Fish and Wildlife Service is here asking the planning commission about removing trees so they can put a pollinator garden in. I'm struck by the irony of that on Earth Day as it was brought to our attention. So, it seems pretty pretty clean to me. I'm just

One thing I'll note, it's kind of bonus information, but in January, the city council passed an update to the wetland ordinance. Previously, things like this were not um exempt from wetland permitting. So, it becomes very administratively and, you know, costly for an applicant who was seeking something that we can all agree is good and meets city goals. And so, the timing is unique. I didn't really expect anyone to use it, especially so fast. Um, but it was able to kind of speed this up. I'm sure they're I'm sure the feds are not used to coming in front of planning commissions. Appreciate them for being here. But, um, it's just kind of a from my perspective kind of worked out really well that, you know, the city council was adaptive to a need. you know, we don't want to make it harder for someone to do invasive species removal and habitat restoration. And then two months later, you know, we had somebody reach out with that.

Okay, I think we're ready for the applicant at this point. Thank you very much. Good. Do you guys have any comments questions? I just your opportunity to address us if you have any additional background. Great job. Unless there's any questions for me, I think we're good. I have Go for Oh, well, I think there are some questions. So, and I agree you did do a great job. Thanks. Hi. Hi. Um, my name's Gibb King. Thank you. Wildlife biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. And Commissioner Dalt,

thank you. Um I it was really helpful I think to hear um about the ver the perspective from Cliff about the varieties of maples and about right their general youth uh you know relative uh I think to um other other trees that we've seen have to go. Um, I think my only question was a what what motivated y'all to prioritize putting in a pollinator garden versus right trees that are already there contributing to the environment? Like what was the you don't need to tell me the need for pollinators right in our you should see my yard. Um, but right, what was the maybe the thinking behind prioritizing putting in a pollinator garden versus maintaining the trees that were there? Um, so I'll let's start with that.

That's what we do. We put in pollinator habitat all over the state. We've lost 99.9% of our native grasslands. We're a tree state by nature. Anytime you let something grow, it's going to grow to trees. And, you know, you pretty much have to control what trees grow. We needed some more sunlight to that area in order to facilitate a better growth of the pollinator garden that we're going to plant in there and we chose the non-native species to remove to get a proper canopy cover. Did you have a followup?

I did. Um so I think um Vice Chair Wagner mentioned the gosh maybe it was our newest commissioner um mentioned the site right across from that. um is I don't know if that is land that's owned by that the building that y'all are in, but there's a I wish we could pull up a map. Um well, I can tell you why we chose that little island that we did. Um part of was to facilitate the movement of the soil right on the same site, but also there wasn't any infrastructure in that area that we would have to contend with.

Okay. Um, and we didn't necessarily have to go onto the roads, which at that time when we were doing it, we may have frost laws and other things to do and then clean up a city street versus clean up a private parking lot. So, we kept it all on site, which uh, you know, it worked out great because originally, you can see my red little circles around the we were going to basically stockpile it next to the wetland and then move it at a separate time when it was dry enough, but it worked out well um, to move it all at the same time. So, I super appreciate Landon you pulling this map up because my question is why so to the the little traffic island to the right of where you're proposing to put it is already a large open space. Is that not associated with y'all's building? Is that why that was

to the right of it? Yeah, we actually that was going to be overflow if we did because there's infrastructure and um sprinkler systems in there that we would have to contend with and and stuff like that. So, water main shut offs that blew up before. And so when we're dumping with a heavy truck, we don't want to risk breaking any of that infrastructure and then burying it and then have to rem, you know, so there were a lot of reasons we went with that. It was um offsite. It was there was nothing growing underneath the trees there anyway. It was in pretty poor condition. So it was going to be a good enhancement for that island as it is. So we looked at it from a lot of perspectives as far as you know helping facilitate water um runoff from the roofs which was uh was part of the impetus of this project was we were having some backup issues in our building and um you know Chris and I are buddies and he's seen me build wetlands before so he's like can you solve my problem with this? I was like I don't know if it'll solve it but we can kill a lot of birds with one stone and improve a wetland. uh get some of my office people out of the office and doing something fun and engaging. Um which I didn't have that much participation in, but we got some uh and then you know make a wetland that we can all enjoy and get some educational opportunities out of it when we're having meetings. We can go out and and show it showcase what uh some of the little projects that we do with the pollinator garden with a kind of a uh music or uh forested wetland. uh re restoration and removing the invasives and improving a a wetland that was probably emergent at one point but has filled in over time and now is was full of invasive cattails. So we did a lot out there to do um something that's kind of beyond what my project normally does, but we engaged a lot of people had some opportunity for education here and elsewhere and hopefully it'll continue. I guess I'm just surprised that someone

from the Fish and Wildlife Service would use the phrase, "Kill many birds with one stone." Oh, yeah. I I love killing birds. That's why I do what I do. Yep. Commissioner Muse Roberts on Earth. I had a question. So, are is this something that would be, I guess, visitable by the public? Like, if I came into the parking lot, is it something I could see? You'll have to ask Chris that. There might be a a a fee, parking fee, and a a visitation fee. Um, and you didn't make a point to put signage up that this is a community effort or an effort by fish and wildlife service. Do you want to come up to the microphone? Sorry. Here we go.

Hello everyone. My name is Chris Redmond, director of facilities with Samite Management. Um, where were we going with that question? Yeah. I just wanted to know like is this something that I could come and visit? Certainly. Yes. It's it's right along Abbey Road, but we made a point to putformational signs up that says this is what we're doing. This is why we're doing it. Um there are signs out that is a US Fish and Wildlife project. So, it's very easy to see with public. That's great. That's great. Good.

Yeah. I will add that signs are there now, aren't permanent. We're going to be having more better signs that will be permanent there. Um there's a QR code to scan that will give some information on that sign. Um I noticed it might have blown off the other day. So when it's permanent, have you guys already excavated the cattails?

Almost all the work is done. We're waiting for the spoils to dry out. Um and we'll probably actually be leaving those trees that we're asking your permission to cut down today for a while because I think there's at least uh a nesting um crow in one of them. Um um they're very dilapitated trees as they are. There's some damage in the top which actually from a wildlife perspective is a good thing. So there's a off chance I won't cut all these trees down. I might actually just push dirt around them and let them perish on their own and create a snag, which is very good for wildlife as well. So any additional questions? Seeing none, thank you for your time, gentlemen.

Um this point we'll open the the public hearing. Does anybody wish to come forward and address the planning commission on this item? No additional people are on the queue. Right. Okay. This point we will close the public hearing for this item. Um I know we talked about being more flexible preo premotion for uh discussion on an item. Is there any comments uh about this specific item? I think it makes a lot of sense to me. It's it's relatively straightforward. But I like that that they were able to answer all of our questions. Any other comments?

Um, yeah, I'll go.

Thank you. Um, you know, I think as much as my fellow commissioners know me as the the tree lady who always wants to protect all of the trees, um, I think it makes good sense both for the what we sort of get in return. Um, right. These are invasive species that are relatively young and right are not the healthiest of trees. I do think it's wise to leave the crows tree because we know that crows are very bitter. Um, if you didn't know that, look that up. Um, and so, um, I normally I would not be in support of something like this, but it actually makes good sense.

Well said. Um, what's the will of the commission? Sure. I I'm I'm I'm comfortable with moving forward. I don't know where we are. I am too. Yeah. Okay. Considering it's relatively straightforward, I agree. So, seems to me sounds like you're about to make a motion. So, uh actually I was not, but Ryan was ready, weren't you? You have that on your

Commissioner Pots. Uh I move to approve a request from Gib King on behalf of US Fish and Wildlife Services to remove five mature trees from the property located at 2651 Kulage Road as the planning commission has found the following to be true. Uh the proposed tree removal uh will not which I do that's right

will not substantially affect or reduce privacy between this property and those adjacent to it. substantially affect or reduce screening or buffering from adjacent activities, wildlife habitat and movement, soil and slope stability or regulated wetlands. Specifically, we are practice or they are practicing good custodianship of the land and not being too aggressive about changing the environment that's there. They're making very poor plants. I'm going to stop talking. Um, and proposed tree removal is necessary for if it's economic use really. We can mix that.

You can choose one like there's two. So, we'll mix that the the and we'll just I think there's conditions though. The following conditions of approval shall apply. The applicant or property owner shall install a pollinator garden and location of the removed trees. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Putts, seconded by Commissioner Chapen. Any discussion about the specific motion? I I do have one com. Um should we say remove five or remove up to five mature trees? Um because that's why you might not do them all. Does it matter? I I don't know that matters because we're giving them authorization to remove all five. They don't necessarily have to, but it's a friendly amendment. I think that's agreeable. No problem.

So, all right. Yep. Commissioner Puts okay it so it's good. Um okay. Any additional discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor vote I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. This item is on to city council at a to be determined city council meeting. There we go. What? Oh, it's our decision. So, we're done. Congratulations. You We just did it. You're done. We just did it. One meeting. There you go. Can I just make one comment, please? Um, I wish we had you in the room a couple years ago when we were discussing trees around um the mid-century modern property on Abbott and Sagena. Um, because we do need tree experts once in a while. So, um, thank you for all your expertise. That was interesting.

Yeah. And Commissioner Denol, my comrade and friend, that was a friendly tease. I respect your viewpoint on this very subject. Seriously, I do. That was a friendly tease. We appreciate it's on the record. Okay. All right. Can I make one more comment, please? Yeah. Briefly. I would encourage you guys highly with all the 7,000 acres of land that you guys own and manage that a lot of it is forested to have a forest management plan if you don't already have that. It could be sustainably managed to improve the forest because a lot of them are in very poor condition. Second. Sounds like you're giving Cliff some homework. So, can I say something?

Yes. Get up. Just kind of a FYI, I think there's some good um you know, just relationship building out of this. Not that we've interacted too much, but just like kind of you know, breaking the ice. Um, so like we're had that recent um change to the pollinator uh nuisance lawn ordinance and we're throwing like a no may retirement party at the library and the pollinator expert from Gibbs team is now one of the panelists that we're using for that. Um and then we're meeting with her and our whole parks and DPW team. uh I believe just in a couple weeks I got to confirm that but um to try to see what like for public um property owners what sort of technical assistance is available. So it's good having this resource now having um you know faces and names and so things like that and you know the pollinator um conversion of some of our park natural areas. think, you know, there's there's other positives than the the project, but just kind of those connections that are being bridged here.

Awesome. I'll add to that. All right. Come up come up to the mic and then Okay.

Sorry, we do got to wrap it up. I'll just throw a little plug in for our program. It's called the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. We work on anything that's private land. Anything for us is not state or not federal is private. So, we could partner with anyone with cities, counties, etc. to do habitat work. And what we mainly do in this state is wetland restorations and native grassland establishment. The people I put you in touch, our bee squad, our bee team, um not be in the letter, but be it as as the bug. Um the pollinator task force, they uh work a lot with municipalities and Detroit. They've been huge over there doing a lot of conversions from all their blight to to uh pollinator garden. So something that they they could speak to and they are going to speak to at some point for you guys. So there's a lot of opportunity for partnership with our program and it's not just technical assistance. We offer financial assistance as well.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. That takes us on to item number 6.2. A public hearing to receive comments and a request from Michael Mudrey on behalf of For Crepe's sake for approval of a special use permit located at 601 East Grand River Avenue. Okay. Um, so the applicant is here um to request a special use permit um for alcohol service in a restaurant. Um, the business is currently located on uh MAC um but they're looking to move to this location on Grand River um and add alcohol service to the business. Their current business does not serve alcohol. Um they are doing interior renovations um to the new suite as part of uh relocating the restaurant. They are looking for um approval for 80 occupants with seating for 60 people. Um they're estimating about eight staff people. Um and they are looking for proposed hours from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 7 days a week. And I will add there is a motion on the last page of the staff report if planning commission decides to move forward with this at this meeting.

Any comments, questions for city staff, vice chair? I do have um Grace, is is the hours of alcohol service 8 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Is it or is there a limit? Um does it begin and end at a certain time? Um, the applicant could probably answer that better, but it's my understanding that it's for the duration of the business hours.

Okay. Can I ask an a different question? So, I did see in the report that it said um there were 25 establishments in the DDA that have alcohol licenses um or liquor license and um and it said something out of 5,000 seats or something. And those are just different units of analysis. So I don't know like it was the argument there that there there are very relatively few um alcohol liquor license in the city and and it's okay to have another one or is it I wasn't quite sure how how to read that. So yeah, so I just provided that information because one of the standards of review um for alcohol service at a restaurant under the special use permit requirements um is a determination that there's not an undue concentration of this type of business in the location. Um so that's something for you to weigh that if you feel like that is an excessive amount or not. Um you can also take into account um nearby. So within the few blocks around there, there's relatively few um compared to that whole DDA area. Um so that's just meant as information for the planning commission to determine if they feel that that's an undue concentration or not.

Okay. Thanks. I had a follow up to his first question actually regarding the hours. Were those the the hours that they had recommended? That's what they're seeking. Yes, that's what they requested. So, I just I asked because I I recall previous applicants had come forward a second time to expand hours based on change of business use. So, uh but that's a question for the applicant. Uh Commissioner Chapen. Yeah. And that is consistent with their current location 8 to8 alcohol on Mac Avenue. I don't think they have alcohol. They do not have alcohol service at the current location. Yep. And I I'm not sure what their current business hours are. Okay. Okay. We can ask the applicant when they get up here, though. Vice Chair, do you have another question?

I do. I do have one more follow-up question about the proximity. So, I know there's a there's a church within 300 feet. Um, and there's nothing saying that we you can't have alcohol service that close to a church or the Bailey Community Center or anything like that. Yeah. Yep. That's correct. It's just that one of the standards of review is about proximity to those types of facilities. So, I provided that information for you guys to determine if you feel that that is too much of a proximity to these facilities or not. And just so that you have that information.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, there it is. I'm gonna ask the applicant the same question, but I I didn't note any changes to the facade or the exterior of the building. I mean, this is just um an SUP, so I don't know if they in theory, they could apply for if they um finish this renovation and have the SUP and are operating, but they could apply for building permits for facade renovations. That wouldn't necessarily require an adjustment to the SU, but it's my understanding that right now the work that they're proposing is interior. Got it. So it wouldn't trigger necessarily a planning commission review based on mostly got understand

that answers my question.

Any additional questions for city staff? Seeing none, I think we're ready for the applicant to come forward. Good evening. My name is Hans Renrop. I'm an attorney with a new down Renrop representing the applicant. Our firm is handling both the liquor license itself as well as this uh hearing tonight. Um, as as planning staff stated, um, for Crepe's sake was is located in 21 and one MAC Avenue. Uh, it's proposing move to the new location at 609 East Grand River, which is currently vacant. It was formerly a Taco Bell. Um, they are not proposing any major changes to the exterior. Signage changes will occur, but other than that, no exterior changes. They are proposing interior changes, renovations of that nature. Um, at this point I'll turn over to Gina Mudre who's the operator who can tell you a little bit more about what they actually do for creep sake.

Hi, I'm Gina Mudrey. Um, my husband Michael who's listening in. Um, he was unable to make it, but we own for crepe's sake and we moved it from downtown Lancing to downtown East Lancing. We live in East Lancing in 2021 and we've really enjoyed being in the community but we have outgrown our space on MAC. So, we are just looking to um expand our offerings that keep the same cozy vibe. Um we want more seating, improved service speed, and um we do want to serve specialty drinks like mimosas with our crepes or wine pairings with some of them. Also, um our hours are going to say stay the same. We are we are not coming back to ask for later hours. Um but we're just excited to be in the community and expand Yeah, I mean I think it's important to note unlike the traditional liquor license, this is not a a restaurant bar type scenario. There will be no bar. It is merely a supplemental thing. And in this modern day industry, you have to have a diversification in your menus and options. Um, and it seems well suited for this location. Um, we've reviewed uh and appreciate Miss Whitney's write up regarding the application and find it factually accurate. Um, I have gone through the proposed motion and addressed each one of those questions and why it's would be supportive for this. Um, if you want, I'm happy to go through that or otherwise address any other questions you may have.

I think questions is sufficient. Um, any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Nol. Hi. Turn on my microphone so you can actually hear me here. Um, so I noticed on the um drawing of the interior that you're proposing um that there's a section just to the west um that's labeled community seating. Um is that available to y'all to be able to serve in or is that No, there will be no alcohol served out there. Okay. That is a that is community area outside the building and we've already discussed that and it will not be a licensed area and there'll be liquor will be prohibited in that area.

Okay. So it's not associated with the restaurant at all. It is it's I guess it's a part of the whole building concept but it's not specifically the least area. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Cards. Cards. Oh no. Yeah. Can you please identify yourself in the card? The card is up there just for the minutes. Certainly. Thank you. And then you said um so you've outgrown your space on on MAC. Just curious. So you're like relinquishing that, ending that lease, and then your intent is to move that existing business over to this new location on Green River. The intent is to move it over. Okay.

Um I'm not quite sure what's going to happen with the current lease. Okay. Commissioner Ramirez Roberts, I just wanted to say I this building has been or this specific space has been vacant for so long and I walk by it every day. I'm so happy something's finally going in there. So that's all I had. Yep. Agreed. Agreed. Okay. Oh, vice chair. I I agree too. I I live close to it and it's nice that it wouldn't no longer be a Taco Bell. Um in your description for proposed actions, it says um you know basically alcohol service will remain secondary to food service.

Um would it be acceptable to you if we put that in a condition um to to getting the the alcohol license that if yes, food food would have to be sales would have to be more than I I get the vibe from you that that's what it is. But just to make sure um Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it.

This point, we will open the public hearing for this item. Are there any members of the public that wish to come forward? Okay, seeing none, uh, nobody additional online in the queue or does the gentleman that's here on behalf of this item wish to speak? I think we just I think we just spoke with him. He was just at the podium. I believe that was the attorney. Yeah. Got to check. Gotcha. I'm with caller with the last three numbers. 149. You're now available to speak to the commission.

I don't think just listening. Okay. Okay. We had to check. Yeah. Oh, there he is. Nope, he's gone. Oh, all right. I muted him and then it removed it. Okay. Um, so at this point, we'll close the public hearing for this item. Um, discussion, comments, questions from commissioners. I'm biased. I really love this little spot. So, not that I would go there more often if they had mimosas. I would go there an equal amount of time because the crepes are so good. Exactly.

Yeah. I, as has been stated, I'm I'm glad that something's moving into this space. It's been vacant for quite a while. I think it's uh it's it's a good fit. I like that it isn't something exclusively tailored to college students and has broader appeal in the community. So, and I think it's really heartening honestly that a small business in an I think in a climate where we're seeing a lot of small locallyowned businesses closing because of a difficult economic situation. I think it's really heartening to see a small business actually choosing to expand um and especially into a really prominent Grand River location. So, congratulations. Hi. Agreed. Vice Chair.

Uh go ahead, Landon if you want to. Nope. I I just wanted to make a a quick note. I guess um I think the crepes are great, too. The It's a special use permit. Yeah, I go there off far more often than I should, but uh but I just wanted to remind you that the the tenant may change. So, you're really looking at the the location and whether or not alcohol would be permissible in this location, even if the tenant changes. That said, I think that it's a pretty safe bet if the plan tenants planning on moving in. But just wanted to bring that up. Okay. Thank you.

Good point. Thank you. Yeah, that was my exact question for you. If so, the the alcohol license stays with the building. Um, so if they wanted to expand even bigger and move someplace else, take over, you know, something else, it would there' still be alcohol license with that building. Is that right? Uh, slight nuance that the license wouldn't stay, but the land use approval would stay. So the approval goes to the property. They would have to bring a license. If assuming that the tenant would leave with their license, a new owner or tenant could bring a license though because the land use approval goes to the land, not the not the owner. Great. Mr. Chair, you have another question. Oh.

Yeah. With um I guess the condition that was discussed in terms of alcohol being secondary to food, would that also transfer to the next occupant? Yeah, that's correct. So all the any conditions of approval if you choose to approve would also uh would also go with the property and not with the applicant and the operation of hours would that be

yeah so yeah the the hours of operation the capacity and seating for the um numbers of people in the restaurant would also run with that special use approval. So, if anyone came in um in a future restaurant um down the road and was looking to do alcohol service, but they wanted to have more people or expanded hours, they would have to come back to request um a change to the special use permit. Thank you for that. I'm sorry. Can I just ask one more question? Sure. Go ahead.

How often do um alcohol licenses are do we like is this like a a rare thing or do we do we I haven't seen one of these for a while. like I'm a little hesitant, you know, and just to think about in college town, we have a lot of bars, we have a lot of people drinking. Um, how often do we give liquor licenses like the trend?

I I think the last special use approval that you guys looked at for that was about a year ago. Um, I think we had maybe two that came to the planning commission last year. Um, so it does come up, but um, in terms of the, you know, like I said, the hours of operation are something that you guys can condition and so if someone was wanting to expand that to say a more traditional late night bar operation, they would have to come back to you guys um, for that review. Great. Thank you. Makes me feel better. Okay. What's the will the commission Josh? I think this would be a great opportunity for you to make a motion and get in the game right now. Um, it wasn't session. No.

Um, I'm sorry. Never mind. It's okay. Do you have a Are you going to make a motion? I can. Let me find the recommended one. Sorry, we probably haven't walked you through the We changed the format a little bit. So, No, it's fine. It is okay. Um, so, and for the condition, I would just tack that on at the end, I'm assuming. Yep. You'd like to add.

Okay. I move to recommend city council approve a special use permit request from Michael Mudrey Mudrey Mudrey on behalf of for crepe sake Lancing LLC including site plan approval at 601 East Grand River Avenue for renovation of the existing building for a restaurant to include on-site alcohol service. Uh this decision is based on the following findings and determinations as to each standard applicable to this special use permit under section 5093 5094A and 5094B2 with reference to in reliance on the applicant's application plan submissions and other submissions relative to its proposed development. Uh one section 5094A uh requires use to be consistent with the purpose of the use district in which it is located. The proposed use meets this requirement. Um, mostly because I think like we discussed, it's not putting in a whole, you know, new college bar. It's food that is, uh, paired with alcohol, not the other way around. And then section 5094A1 requires the proposed use to be consistent with the purpose of the special use purpose division of the zoning ordinance, which is identified in section 5091, as being twofold. first provide greater flexibility in the placement of certain kinds of uses when because of their unique characteristics. These uses are such that they can be compatible with and complementaryary to the uses now permitted in the zone provided that appropriate safeguards are imposed. Second, to provide an adequate review and tighter control of certain uses which have a marked effect on the surrounding area due to their unusual design or operational characteristics or the amount of traffic they generate. The proposed use meets this requirement for the reasons set forth in the remainder of this motion with reference to the standard in section 1594A2. The site plan submitted to city council under this application meets the requirements for site plan approval as specified in sections 5036 and 5038 of the city zoning ordinance. Section

5094A3 requires the proposed site height, architecture, characteristic, and placement of the new structures on the site to be reasonably compatible with the existing or anticipated buildings on adjacent properties. The proposed use meets this requirement. Um, and then section 1594A4 requires the streets and access facilities serving the site to safely accommodate the expected traffic generated by the proposed use and the proposed use to not cause excessive traffic congestion or delays, obstruct access to adjacent properties or impale the safety of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. The proposed use meets this requirement. Uh section 5094A5 requires that the proposed use will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties by generating excessive noise, vibration, light, glare, odors, or any form of pollution or nuisances. The proposed use meets this requirement. Section 5094A6 requires that the proposed use will not materially diminish the economic

We got to do the because

Oh, sorry. The because um pros use meets this requirement because I mean it's usees a restaurant. We have restaurants surrounding there, coffee shops surrounding there using the community seating that won't add any additional alcohol to that outside portion. Uh section 1594A6 requires that the proposed use will not materially diminish the economic value of adjacent properties or the city as a whole. The proposed use meets this requirement because it's adding a new restaurant into that building which if anything increases the surrounding property values. Uh section 5094A7 requires that the proposed use will not materially diminish the privacy, safety, security, or enjoyment of any residential dwelling or residential neighborhood within the vicinity of the site. The proposed use meets this requirement. Um it's let me think of a good because there uh there's not any the apartments won't really be effective. There's not going to be excessive noise generated. Those sorts of things. Uh section 1594A88 requires that the proposed use will not be located with direct access to front to and frontage on a major street designated in the major street plan or within an area designated for adaptive reuse in the city center element of the comprehensive plan. The proposed use meets this requirement. Um there's not going to be serving alcohol directly on the street or anything like that. Section 5094B2A requires the establishment shall not be located in such proximity to churches, elementary or secondary schools, child development centers, or community centers so as to annoy, injure, offend, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the activities conducted thereon, or the persons conducting, attending, or traveling to or from such premises. These this restriction may be waved by city council at the request of the church, school district, child development center, or community center whose location would otherwise prohibit the proposed use. Or if there is an objection to the waiver of this restriction by the church, school or development of community center, city

council may wave this restriction only after hearing and good cause shown. The proposed establishment will not be in such proximity so as to annoy, injure, offend, disrupt, disturb or interfere with the activities of the particular church, school, or development of community center. Uh the proposed use meets this requirement. We didn't have any concerns about it being too closed to the Church of Christ scientists down the road. There's enough space in between them there. Um 11 section 5494 uh 5094 B2B requires that the establishment shall not cause or continue undue concentration of similar uses in the neighborhood such that liquor establishments and trade become a dominant influence or feature of the district or neighborhood. The proposed use meets this requirement. There aren't because there aren't a lot of surrounding liquor establishments, coffee shops, restaurants, those sorts of things that don't already carry liquor license. Um the following conditions of approval shall apply shall apply. Approval is in accordance is in accordance with the plans provided by the applicant and per testimony subject to revisions as required. All required permit shall be obtained from the department of planning, building and development for all interior renovations as well as four exterior signs in accordance with chapter 32 signs of the city code. The project shall be designed and developed in accordance with all applicable state and local statutes, codes, and regulations. This approval shall take effect upon the filing of an executed memorandum of special use permit with the Ingam County Register of Deeds per section 5096 of the city code. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. And then with the uh added condition that alcohol service is secondary to food service. Yeah, I was I was trying to word smith something that alcohol use shall be secondary to um the sale of food or alcohol use shall be um in conjunct

complimentary to the sale of food. Alcohol service. Alcohol service. Yes. Yeah. And adding also the condition that alcohol service will be complimentary to the sale of food. All right. We have a new uh motion reader. Thank you. Um uh motion by Commissioner Ramirez Roberts. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Putts. Any discussion on the motion? I I do have a vice chair

a question about um finding 10 um is about the the establishment shall not be located in such proximity to churches. I mean is 300 ft that seems I don't know that seems close to me but um it's maybe not. It's what? It's like a block or half a block. Yeah, it's not directly connected to not adjacent to I thought it was 600. Wasn't it 600 in your report?

So, there's a couple of different facilities. Um the nearest one is about 300 ft um which would have been close enough to receive a public notice about this application. We didn't receive any comments from them um or concerns. Okay. Any additional questions? Well, I mean, if 300 feet isn't I requires the establishment shall not be located in such proximity. The 300 feet is not considered close and I don't know what is I think of like you know the graduate has very close to the church next door and you know there's there's other examples. Okay. Um I the downtown area I would vote to just remove it but I'll remove the condition.

Yeah. that finding. So, that one isn't a condition and that's a required find. Like, you have to find that that requirement is met in order to approve a special use permit for alcohol service. And how do we how do we decide 300 ft is not too far or not too close.

So, we haven't had any complaints. I That's your discretion to decide what is too far and what's not too far. That's kind of what you guys get to decide. Um, I will say that we didn't we didn't get any complaints or concerns from any of the um groups that were mentioned as being in somewhat proximity. I tried to list kind of the closest couple, but we didn't receive anything from them. Um, and I'd also say you can kind of weigh um where exactly it is. You know, it's a couple blocks down. I know it's 300 feet. That's from like parcel line to parcel line. Um, but that's for you guys to weigh and decide, but you do have to find that that condition is satisfied to recommend approval.

So, in short, in short, it has to be a a criteria that we have to consider and and we have to make the decision as to whether or not the threshold's been met. Mr. Bartley, and if I could just add to that that the this is sort of reminiscent of the MLCC, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission standard that where they'll reach out to uh land uses like that to say, "Do you have any concerns?" And if they don't receive any any concerns back, they typically would issue the license. So, okay. Uh I think we could we could follow the same logic that if we haven't received concerns, it's not

right. Yeah, I'm I'm okay with that. I mean, if we if we've asked them. I mean, I'm pro I'm sure the church is probably would be would rather have uh you know, a crepe place next to it than a Taco Bell that you know, with students. I'm there until 2 or 3 in the morning. And it hasn't been a Taco Bell for a a long time. Okay. I'm commence. Thanks. Okay. Um, seeing no discussion, a couple things before you vote. I know it's not an order, but I thought there's some clarifications that would Okay, please.

Just two items quickly. Number one is you were correct on the liquor control. We had been before the liquor control commission and there were no objections at that time. Number two is there was an inconsistency we noted uh in during the discussion between the planning report and the plans provided and I think the motion covers this because it relies on the plans but the plans call for 78 patrons 12 employees for a total of 90. The report indicated 72 uh proposed customers eight employees for a to eight employees. So I just want to make that clarification. The plans actually have 10 more people occupancy and that's because we additional workers. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Um, Landon, that doesn't require any modification to the to the motion, does it? Or grace? No, the occupancy wasn't specific. Okay, great. And it's per the Great. Just double checking. Okay. Um, let's just do a roll call roll call vote real quick. So, there was a motion and there was a second. I believe it was Ramirez Roberts motion. Putt second. Uh we do we have a motion to approve uh recommend approval uh made by Ramirez Roberts and seconded by Putts. Uh Commissioner Chapen, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Dalt, yes.

Commissioner Overby is not here. Commissioner Putts, yes. Commissioner Ramirez Roberts, yes. Vice Chair Wagner, yes. Chair Sullivan, yes. And that passes. Okay. Sorry for making you do a roll call. Thank you. Appreciate Thank you. Yep.

Thank you. Okay. Now, this item is is now on to uh city council for approval at a to be determined city council meeting. Okay. That uh closes tonight's public hearings. That takes us on to uh item number seven, unfinished business. Up first is 7.1 consideration of ordinance 1559 which would amend section 50-94 of the zoning ordinance which defines a diverse housing requirement in downtown East Lancing.

Mr. uh so ordinance 1559 uh was introduced and referred to the planning commission by city council in February. uh you had a public hearing on this in March 25th and then discuss it at uh some length at your the previous meeting on April 8th. Um tonight's step uh if you choose to do so would be to make a recommendation uh to city council at which point we'd uh forward it to them for them to schedule a public hearing and have a a uh and and then decide. Uh and and I do want to just take a moment to uh clarify the process um because I think there's some concerns about that uh for an ordinance change including a resoning uh so an or a text amendment or a map amendment. So this applies to both uh ordinance 1559 and al also the uh resonings proposed for uh the township zone properties. Uh so first off uh for an ordinance is introduced and referred to the planning commission by the city council at a public meeting as a as a business agenda item. So we discuss it with the council and then they introduce it and refer to planning commission at which point we schedule a public hearing the initial public hearing by the planning commission for that ordinance or that resoning request. Uh as you know after the planning commission you can choose if you feel like uh forwarding it to the plan city council at that time you can take action. you don't have to uh if there's a second meeting to discuss that, that's not a public hearing. Uh that's that so that's not noticed to the public, but public hearings have a notice sent out uh to all properties, property owners and tenants within 350 ft. State law requires 300 uh but we send out to 350 ft just to make sure. Uh so for a second meeting after a public hearing uh there there should be no expectation of another mailer going out either a mailer or another public notice in the paper. Uh for an ordinance change including a a resoning or text amendment we then after the planning commission

makes a recommendation we send it to council. They take the action of scheduling their own public hearing for that uh that item. Uh so then they once they've scheduled that we send out the public notice and we publish it in the paper. So, a notice would go out again to affected property owners uh and in the paper for the council meetings public notice. After that, uh public hearing uh held by the council at that point uh they can choose whether or not to approve, adopt or not adopt and that would be done either at that meeting or typically more often done at the following meeting. So, I just wanted to clarify how the process goes. Uh there were some concerns that I also want to bring up in this process about the ordinance changing between from what it was introduced as. So, uh, the process with it going back to the planning commission from the or excuse me, back to the council from the planning commission. The council introduces and refers an ordinance to the planning commission. The planning commission holds a public hearing. If if changes to the ordinance are are made evident that they should happen or that the planning commission determines that there need to be changes made to the ordinance, you would make a motion uh to recommend adoption of an ordinance with the following changes recommended. And then you would list out the recommended changes. Uh so in that and and then that way then the city council comes back has another public hearing on the ordinance change as proposed as amended. Uh which would be notified uh to the public as required by law. So I just wanted to sort of clarify how why why we can have ordinances uh that are changed from the original initial uh what was the initial draft that was sent to you. uh you can recommend changes and it goes back to council at which point they then notify the public about the changed ordinance. So I wanted to clarify that uh as far as this ordinance in front of you 1559 uh we have talked about this at some at some length at our last meeting. Uh there was sort of a feeling it seems among the commission members of some

being overwhelmed. uh there was a lot of different variables and when we change one variable another one seems to be affected

and so there was a general feeling of can we see a recommendation from staff uh as far as what we recommend how we'd approach uh these various changes which are specifically uh to create a fee and new and of of providing diverse housing and also to allow for transfers. uh we have added since uh fairly recently there were a couple of changes that were added uh that have been discussed in past meetings. One was and one wasn't. So I want to go through each each uh sort of item of what we're proposing uh and then and then open it up for questions. And I have Heather Pope here who's our director of community and economic development uh who she and her team have been uh doing a lot of research continuing a lot of research from last summer uh about fees fees and loo that are adopted in many other cities around the um country and around around the big 10. So what I've pulled up on this uh screen is the highlights are essentially what our current proposals are. um the fee and loo we've we've been bringing to you a proposal for essentially looking at an affordability gap model which is saying and that's similar to Ann Arbor's which you're saying what can people afford what how much do houses cost or residential units cost what's the difference what's that affordability gap and then base our fee on the B on that number uh this is somewhat changed from that because uh that was pretty complicated uh as far as how to calculate that uh we are hearing of some uncertainty on how would this be calculated at what time, how often uh and also that it makes a lot of sense for an affordability affordable housing ordinance, but city's uh diverse housing ordinance as it currently is or diverse housing requirements in the zoning ordinance is not just affordable housing. Diverse housing is affordable or owner occupied or senior uh 55 plus. So, what we've uh proposed instead, looking through a lot of different models, and I'm going to ask Heather to

sort of describe how we come to this, is essentially 5% of your residential construction cost uh with some potential ways to reduce that amount. Um, and I' I'd love to have Heather describe sort of how what other cities are doing, how they've applied that, and how this might look in East Lancing.

Thank you. So this model is actually based off um Eugene, Oregon. Um and then there was also State College does something similar to that where they take the cost the construction cost. Um actually state college takes the construction cost and land value and sets a fee for the year based on that. And that was shared with you two weeks ago or a week ago when we were here. So with Eugene Oregon um can you jump to that is up there on the screen in Eugene Oregon what they do is they take um a percentage um and apply it to the actual construction cost. So what we did here to show that same approach which is very simple is we took the construction cost and this as as built and you pulled we pulled this number from the building permit. So when a building permit is filled out, they have to include that value of the construction what it cost to build that. So we take that um we took the number of floors and then we divide it by the number uh the construction cost per floor. So in this case the hub was 49 million. There's 10 floors. The construction cost for um per floor is 4.9. Then we backed out anything that's not residential. So with the hub, they have parking and they have first floor commercial. So we backed out those floors. So then you take your eight residential floors, times it by the construction cost per floor, and then we calculated it out. Um, so it says it's about $39 million for the cost. So then if you took the three different approaches, a 10%, an 8% and a five or a 5%, we outlined what that would look like for in each of those cases. The same for the Abbott and the same for a landmark. And again,

you're taking the actual construction costs, what it costs to build to build that um property, and then you're backing out anything that's not residential. So this gets down to I know that there was you know the affordability gap is challenging to had to determine this. This looks at actual construction cost. So now if you were going to construct that that a floor or whatever that is of residential that's what the costs are going to be. So you can apply and it would be per project. So, you know, some communities set it based on um you know, uh a standard of this year it's going to cost and you know, construction value is at this level and we're going to set that as a standard and put that fee in their actual fee in their um budget and then that's set for the year and then annually they update this where this is applied per project.

Yes. Uh just to add um there we did discuss I mean as as you see here it's sort of um calculated based on cost of construction per floor uh but there's a little note here that may be worth considering uh square footage too uh instead uh which would have to be defined as far as like residential square footage does this just include rooms does include hallways etc utility rooms as such but so this but the p looking at the square footage of residential use versus the whole floor could account for mixed uses on a floor. Uh so there are certain ways of different ways of calculating it. We just sort of wanted to present both both to you. Uh but this the table is showing sort of calculated based on floors. We have vetted this with a couple developers. Um some fairly recently, some last week, but this this essentially has come out. I mean this is new, right? We we propose this as of last week because we've been working through on the staff level of how do we make this workable and and uh and so we have received uh some comments. We certainly heard some tonight in public uh comment uh specifically about takings clause about some concerns about expanding the area etc. And I'll talk about that. Uh but as far as um the the fee we've heard some that hey any fee is too too big. Uh, also some people saying we really got to watch out because our construction costs can get so high and they're just going to go up higher. Uh, and I want to mention that we look did look at 2026 construction costs, I think, as well. Um, and then and then there were some also a couple developers that told us East Lancing is is in high demand and uh it's okay to uh as far as new construction, it's okay to uh provide some sort of fee, but you just want to make sure that we're not overcharging and making the the project not pencil. Um and I think there was yeah like I mentioned uh sort of overcharging uh could lead to essentially the project not being viable and developer could argue there are some sort of takings. Uh I think a takes

claim is very difficult. You have to show that you're you've lost the value of a property but um that's certainly something to consider. So just wanted to point that out as far as our construction cost model. Do you want to add anything else?

I had a question on this item before we move on to the next. Um, so right now your recommendation specifically is related to 5% construction costs with a few qualifiers to to lower that percentage. That's not in addition to square footage. That's not in addition to um any other standard, right? So I know at the last meeting we had discussed square footage or unit. So you're purely basing it off construction costs because the concern I had as we were deliberating kind of between the two of those and you know candidly we've been talking about this for months right as we've been deliberating this um I think developers could potentially game the incentive system through square footage or units in ways that maybe I'm not envisioning maybe you're not even envisioning. So, this seems like a more objective measure um that would be more evenly applied, but it's just based on purely the construction cost, not the square footage or units. Right.

Correct. So, um when we provided, it might be in the packet still. Um last time we were here, I also provided a um a schedule that showed if we were to do a 10%, but it also breaks it down and you can go back to that spreadsheet. Some communities use it um per unit and there were some communities that do it per bedroom. So yes, so Bloomington, Indiana, it's per bedroom fee and then Iowa City um State College um and Columbus, Ohio was unit. So there are a couple different options.

We're also going to bring up Elise Hodgees who is our director of planning, building, and housing. Hi, sorry. I just wanted to add um I've come into this late into the game, so Heather and Landon have definitely led this charged. Um but when we were doing a lot of the calculations for square footage or per unit, the numbers were tracking about the same as floor. So, um the concern too is yes, the hallways and the closets and how do you calculate that, right? When you're getting to the nitty-gritty, the other consideration for unit is is that a studio, is that a one-bedroom, is that a two-bedroom? Developers might want to use all studios because that's the smallest. get their fee reduced as much as possible, that's why the the floor was presented as kind of a clean option. Um, and if a developer said 50% of this floor is amenities and 50%'s residential, it could be 8.5 floors. So, calculating that way seemed to make a little bit more sense just as we're looking at the raw numbers um, and not having to negotiate those finer details of closets and units and what unit should be standard and and that kind of thing. So that's that was our justification or rationale while we were talking it through.

Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions on this point for vice chair? I I do have a quick question. So this is super helpful Heather. Thank you. This like this research is is great. Um I have a my question is so the 5% fee 1.9 million. I don't know if that's relatively a lot or or a little. Um, some of some of the comments tonight suggested it was a lot, but I do know that there are other options, right? Um, so do you know how much the these either any of these projects spent on their diverse housing um requirement? Like, you know, did the hub spend $5 million to build something or um any idea like how much they spent to actually meet that requirement? Sure.

Well, the hub wasn't subject to the hub. Uh the Abbott and the Landmark both use transfers from other properties. Uh the Landmark used transfer from Newman Lofts and the Abbott from a project that didn't ultimately uh come to fruition. So yeah, the AB or the Abbott has um parcel C was attached to it. So that's the affordable housing development that's still waiting to get LITC approval. So that's that's where that project is. So they haven't spent any money yet on the divers the diverse housing requirement? No, you only have human loss. That's the only example. Yes, human constructed. Correct.

Is there an opportunity for anybody else to comment at all? We the public comment period was was over. This isn't a public hearing, unfortunately. I get that. But the but I think there's new things in the in the packet that weren't weren't available when we spoke a couple weeks ago. I I think it's I I I mean I Let's let the city staff go through it and then we'll I guess I would I would suggest that coming out of tonight's meeting if you if you choose to move this forward to city council I just reiterate that there will be another public hearing for this as it's an ordinance amendment um which we won't know what when that will be until action's taken here. Uh I just want to mention public hearing at the city council. At the city council

um we did talk about the potential uh reductions in the in the 5% in our staff report. Um suggesting that there could be a 1% reduction for certain construction materials. Uh we suggested mass timber that's been uh a priority of regressive interest from planning commission and council. Um also suggested a fee reduction for providing transit passes uh for all tenants for 5 years. uh as an example, we're providing at least one car share vehicle on site uh to help potentially uh defray some concerns about new units and parking concerns. So, uh just wanted to sort of bring that up as a possibility for how you could um adjust the fee and live.

Mr. Chair, you have some comments or questions? I don't have any comments on on this component, but um from your commission, you know. Oh, sorry. Um I didn't see who was hand first Roberts. Oh okay. Okay. Um I just so reading through I know it said that you know green roofing lead certification that stuff was talked about. Is there a reason it isn't recommended?

Yeah. Um so we we I guess not necessarily uh that these these different ideas uh came from developers uh saying you could you could provide any of these different amenities and we think that that would be a community priority. So um we kind of I I would say chose mass timber because that or construction materials because that's come up recently as an as an interest. I think any of those um any of those items could be considered for a mod modifier to the field and I pulled that up on the screen as well for um visibility.

Can I follow up on that please? So is I guess for each one of those is there I guess let's say like a geothermal or green roofing that kind of thing would that you think be best served by a 1% half% reduction because I know you know there's variability there I guess or I don't know if you could say that right now just because you haven't looked into it more.

Yeah we kind of went with mass timber because it's a pretty significant change to the building. Um, a mass timber building is defined as more than 50% of construction materials using mass timber or should say structural materials. Um, and so that's a pretty significant change to a plan. And so we thought that a 1% uh adjustment would be appropriate given the sort of amount of change to a plan that that would entail. Uh, for things like transit passes or car share, uh, we thought it' be a lower amount of investment, I guess, and so probably a lower modifier to the field loop. As far as things like green roof or green wall or geothermal, um those could be contemplated. Uh we we have those those would likely be included in a lead certification. Uh which I should say mass timber and lead are both currently incentivized in downtown um with additional floors. I think that we probably have just our understanding is that the mass timber is sort of a higher priority right now, which is why we chose that. certainly up to uh be changed or discussed.

I'm open to broadening that. So um so I'll let you finish your overview. Uh any last questions on this component? Oh, Commissioner Nol. So I didn't see you. No, you're totally fine. I just I just raised it. Um, Landon, can you clarify for me if the reductions of fee and loo can developers stack those? Yeah, that would be the intent. Okay, thank you. Good question. Yes. Okay, please proceed on to the next item.

Uh, thank you. We also proposed uh there has been some questions about how would the any funds received under the field new program be uh managed or dispersed. Um the community development advisory committee has been very successful in doing a similar um I guess having that activity for community development block grant funds uh where it's a ad hoc committee that meets about four months uh out of the year. Uh Commissioner Puts was the most recent representative to that and we recommend a creation of a similar body uh to oversee the management of this fund. uh we don't really um recommend any specific uses other than made to be be a restricted fund uh to use be used for housing purposes, but we kind of wanted to uh leave a little bit of flexibility as far as how that would be managed. So I guess any questions about that idea or management of the fund?

No questions right now for me. Any questions on that? I have comments later, but I'll hold them. Um the other items I guess transfer of credits um and the the area in which the diverse housing uh applies. So as far as transfer of credits, this is an existing mechanism uh that's currently allowed where you have uh a building currently the transfer is allowed from the same uh area in which diverse housing is required. So you can have a transfer like I mentioned earlier uh the excuse me the landmark transfer credits from Newman Lofts Newman Lofts as 100% 55 plus uh building far exceeded its diverse housing requirement which is 25% currently and so that excess uh the excess units were able to be transferred over to the uh landmark so to help landmark meet its its requirement. So that's how that worked. Uh we're proposing to continue that transfer mechanism uh but expand the area from which credits can be transferred. So specifically the B3 district which is downtown uh and the EV zone district which is east village that that's the zoning between Bogue on the west and Hagedorn on the east and south of Grand River Avenue. Uh so that area as well as the core of downtown B3. We suggest this could continue to happen in the B3 but be expanded to the EV district so that if uh projects were constructed anywhere in that district, they could be transferred into uh the diverse housing area. Um we also propose based on uh developer requests and from some interest that we've heard from this commission and from council to expand the area from for transfers into B2 zoned areas uh RM32 which B2 is a retail sales business district. Uh most of our b business districts uh are B2 zones. Um retail business districts such as Hagenor and Grand or Hagenor, excuse me, Harrison and Michigan. Uh Sagenon,

Abbott, uh Lake Lancing and Abbott. Those are B2 areas. RM32 is a city-c center transitional uh higher density residential district. You'll see this close to downtown, but there are a few scattered areas of RM32 around the area. Uh I have also included maps of all these zone districts at the end of your packet. And then finally, RM54 is university oriented. It's essentially high density residential district. We have very few of those properties, but essentially along Michigan on the north north side of Michigan um east of Harrison, there are a few properties. So, we're proposing for those those properties uh that aren't B3 or EV that we would still allow this transfer, but uh to sort of recognize that we really still want to be see seeing diverse housing uh downtown in the DDA area or half of it. uh that we would uh have something of a disincentive by only having properties outside of that area be able to transfer with a 10% on a 1.1 to1 basis. Right? So it's sort of 10% disincentive. 11 units would count as 10 to be transferred into the area. So and and also based on uh comments we heard from commission this commission and council we recommend that the transfer area be limited to properties south of H saga highway uh south of the entire uh corridor. So, not on the north side of the street. So, any questions about the transfer area changes proposed. Okay.

Quick question. Yes, sir. I know there was some discussion previously about uh rental properties. What was what we would look at typically in the past as a residential home. So, those are now rental properties. Does this connect to that part of the conversation? It doesn't sound like it does. So, for example, there's some rental properties in the MA Bailey School area and there was some discussion I know at the last meeting or the meeting before about making those residential again, not rental properties. I don't think this connects to that. So, maybe we haven't captured that concept here.

Right or wrong, I just want to know for sure. I think that's a I think that's a couple things. So I think that's you're taking essentially the money from the fee and loo um designating it to this this new commission that's being created and that could be one of the eligible uses that they have. So within the new commission decision that way. Yeah. I don't think that would be I don't think that would be a specific geographic boundary. I think they can potentially buy that makes sense. And I just point out that you said residential and rental. I mean so be owner versus rental. And I think what you're saying is talking about a buyback program where the city would buy owner or rental properties and make them owner occupied properties.

Uh that could be a possibility or it could be a use of funds. Uh but I just point out that there's no positive relationship between rental and ownership and price. There's tendencies but um that's not generally a strategy to increase affordability. Very good. Commissioner Roberts. Yeah. So, I had just a I guess a clarifying question about what kind of housing or I guess what zoning it could be transferred to. So, I guess specifically I'm thinking about senior housing as one of those options. Um, and particularly, you know, a lot of senior housing think about like singlestory maybe duplex type things

would I guess I don't know if that would traditionally fit all fit under like an RM14. I just didn't know if that kind of project you'd be able to transfer the credits to or if in order to do that you would have to go into the, you know, RM32.

No. Um, basically you wouldn't be transferring credits to that to that kind of uh development. You'd be transferring it from if it was large enough. The the transfers can come from currently from the diverse housing requirement area and they can go into the diverse housing requirement area. So that's currently the DDA boundary west of Collingwood A. I want to talk about that a little bit in the future in a moment too. But essentially you can transfer into that area to help a project in that area meet its diverse housing requirement. Uh so a senior a senior living facility would automatically be diverse housing under our definition of diverse housing if they exceeded 25% or if this if the requirement changes. should talk about that too. Uh whatever percent is required for diverse housing, if that diverse housing project exceeds their requirement, the excess units could then be transferred into where it's required. So let's talk about that briefly if I if I may, Mr. Chair. Um we are proposing to reduce the requirement overall uh for diverse housing. It's currently 25% of your residential units if if if applicable must be diverse housing. uh based on uh comments we've heard from this commission and also from the council uh we we understand there's an interest in reducing that number. Uh so we're proposing that would be reduced down to 10%. Uh so you'd have to have 10% in a multi- family residential building. That would be uh if the diverse housing requirement applies that would have to be diverse housing. And like and similarly a project that would el be eligible to transfer credits if they then exceeded 10% of their units as diverse housing units. They could then transfer all those excess units as credits to a project needing those credits to meet this requirement. Does this make sense? Okay. So we are

proposing based on what we've heard to reduce the requirement from 25% to 10%. Um I I do want to mention yes uh there has been some concern that's come out come up about expanding the area. Uh I got to say I have talked about this at at least two other meetings uh including the the March 25th meeting. Uh but we have talked about there has been a discussion about uh when or where where is this diverse housing area most uh appropriate. Currently it's the DDA boundaries which is essentially the north side of Grand River out to Valley Court Park uh and just sort of along the north end of the buildings fronting Elbert uh all the way down to Collingwood A. The DDA boundaries extend uh east to Hagar Road which include uh the properties on the north side of Grand River but also on the south side all the way down to Red Cedar. And so in discussions and what you've heard in public comment tonight is that yes in the in the current uh proposal staff is recommending that we expand the area in which diverse housing is required. We believe that reducing the the requirement from 25% to 10% and allowing many additional transfers uh could essentially reduce the amount the total amount of diverse housing that we're seeing in the area in which is required. Uh and with the extra mechanisms to get to to meet your requirement, we felt like it was uh and we've all I should say we've also heard this from uh council an interest in expanding this area. We felt like this makes sense. uh if you're going to expand the area, where should it be to? Since it's currently the DDA boundary, but just to the west of Collingwood, we thought it might make sense to expand it to the east of Collingwood. Uh there was a concern expressed at the in public comment too about uh the DDA's role. Typically, uh anything downtown is going to go to to the DDA for review and recommendation before it goes to council for their public hearing. So like as I mentioned after action tonight uh if you

take action tonight our next step would be city council council would schedule their public hearing uh which would be scheduled sometime in the future likely it would be in June if not later at this point uh and there are two DA two DA DDA meetings between uh now and then although one is tomorrow. So, we'd look at bringing this to the May meeting at least uh in in in typical practice, which would be to bring this to the DDA for a recommendation, but it has not been discussed at length at the DDA yet. So, uh just wanted to mention that. And we're just noticing that uh Commissioner Overbe is arriving at 8:45. I stole my line.

Thank you. Uh so, so there's certainly concerns uh about whether or not diverse housing the requirement should be expanded. Uh we're proposing to expand through the DDA boundaries. uh certainly want to have DDA's review and recommendation. Uh but if you recommend this change to the ordinance, uh that change and all the other changes proposed would be included in the notice would be included in the ordinance that's being noticed for public hearing by the city council at a future date. Okay. Um finally,

can I ask a question? So, several uh some people commented tonight about this expansion of the GD area would cause an economic hardship um to their business or to some people. Can you comment on that? I don't I didn't quite follow why would that be an economic hardship? I think that if if uh sort of predicated on the on the belief or the notion that the diverse housing requirement represents an economic hardship. So by increasing the area in which it's required now you're subjecting more people to the diverse housing requirement which could change the economics of their property. I I think that's the best I can give you.

And would that affect uh property values? That's very hard to say. Commissioner Puts, did you have a uh just just a comment for clarity on we have the summary of the recommended changes at the top of the staff report, but the change. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, we have the sum in in the staff report, we have the summary of the recommended changes, but I don't see the recommendation of changing the diverse housing requirement from 25 to 10. Can that be included in the summary as well just for visibility? Thank you. Yes, I'm I don't see any other sure why that didn't happen. Page seven, item two.

No, but on on page one there's a summary. Oh, okay. I understand. And that's not included in there. And I think it would if you didn't scroll down to page seven, you wouldn't see it. Got it. We're just assuming that the planning commission is reading all the pages. That's that's one. I'm I'm I'm the guy who reads the whole thing and makes sure the summary. Sure. Uh so yes, that is that is certainly uh included in the sample motion. Yes. And it's been discussed in in in past, but yes, it's not called out in the summary. And I appreciate you mentioning that. Yeah, not a problem. Okay. Um Mr. Mr. T, are you good if I address the last few concerns that came up? Yes. And then I had a comment. So, go ahead.

Uh, so, uh, we we talked about moving the diverse housing requirement out of a, uh, the special use portion of the zoning ordinance and into a more general building height overlay district, uh, section, which would essentially also be uh, also be changing the the properties and the type of projects that would be would be subject to the diverse housing requirement. before an ordinance that was passed in late 2024, ordinance 13, excuse me, 1536, uh the diverse housing uh requirement applied to multif family residential zone districts in the diverse housing, excuse me, multif family residential uh properties proposed in the diverse housing area, which is the DDA west of Collingwood. um when when those pro properties uh require special use approval and that's because the uh section the diverse housing requirement is housed in the ordinance within the special use section. uh that essentially we we changed as as a result of ordinance 1536 upper story residential units of three bedrooms or fewer were made to be a uh permitted use when it's new construction with site plan review but a permitted use in business districts. And so it that that changed to essentially remove special use approval from many types of multif family residential um properties including in the diverse housing area. that wasn't staff's intent to change that and it wasn't council's intent to approve that and I don't believe it was uh planning commission's intent to uh recommend that change either when it when it changed. So we look at this as an unintentional consequence of ordinance 1536. We certainly understand the concerns and we we don't want to do anything that is problematic or conflicts with state or

otherwise or other law. Uh so if this isn't the right the right method um and our attorneys have been reviewing this but uh I guess we're what we what we're looking to do have the end outcome be that there's no longer essentially a loophole around where special the the diverse housing was required and for what kind of projects. Uh I don't know if I can really call it a loophole but that's kind of how it's how it's turned out. uh because suddenly we have housing that is no longer uh subject to diverse housing requirement when it always has been or at least since uh the ordinance was the zoning ordinance was changed by ordinance 1384 back in 2016. So we are proposing that in some fashion the diverse housing requirement is meant to apply to all multif family residential housing within the diverse housing requirement uh area that at least requires site plan review. I'm not sure about other types. We have essentially byite which is building permit site plan review which comes to the planning commission and currently city council uh for special use which comes to planning commission and city council. Um and there was also just another what I would consider minor uh change that in that same section there's a discussion about additional building height that is unrelated to the diverse housing requirement. uh we think that it makes sense to clarify that language by also moving it out of special use and moving it into the building height overlay district or a similar section uh subject to legal review. So I just wanted to um I guess address that. Any questions about that or anything else we've talked about tonight? Seeing seeing none, did you have any other updates to provide on this?

I don't think so. Okay. did want to do something a bit atypical, but I I had actually reached out to uh Tim Rzzowski for some feedback on this and we hadn't had time to connect due to my shoulder surgery and everything. So, if you do want to come up and add the brief comments, I would appreciate it. Okay, just using my discretion there.

Yeah. Oh, excuse me. Uh Tim Rosowski, 613 Grove. Um the uh and you know, I have views on a a lot of sub aspects of this, but I did want to just comment on the construction cost element there. I think if you use construction cost, I think you need to um tighten up the language quite a bit. You know, as being in the construction management program at MSU for for 40 years, I have some knowledge of this subject and there are a lot of things. Uh so, uh is the construction cost um what the applicant says when they apply for the permit, the value? Uh is it the Marshall square foot guide that's used to evaluate it? Um, it seems like it incentives building a a a lower quality building. If I build a lower quality building, then I have less diversity housing requirement. So, and does construction cost does it include the cost of the bonds, the cost of the insurance, the cost of the AE fees, the fee, the fixtures and equipment. So, I think I think construction cost really needs to be tightened up in terms of what the definition of it is. Does it include um uh uh uh Landon mentioned corridors or utility rooms? Very difficult. You know, you're building a a 15story building, very difficult to isolate what portion of the structural frame or the foundations or the quesons could be separated out for the say the first floor occupancy. So to me to me, I don't think construction cost is the cleanest, easiest way to do it. um you know whether that's per bedroom or per unit. I mean those things are much easier to count. Uh but but but if you do with construction costs you really have to narrow the definition and define what construction cost means. And I don't know if when the city did this the study of the other ones whether maybe those cities have very very clear definitions of what construction costs are. That's that's what I wanted to comment on when I heard that part. So,

but uh all right. Thanks. Thank you for the background. Okay. Um any additional questions or comments, Commissioner Ch? Well, I I was hoping for some internal discussion. Is that okay? I think unless there's any comments for Commissioner Denal, did you have a a question for city staff? If not, okay. I suggest we discuss openly for a little bit um with a potential motion looming. Um, do you want to kick us off?

Sure, I'll I'll start. First of all, I want to let you all know I uh spent the afternoon uh looking at the video of the March 25th meeting and the April 8th meeting so that I was up to speed. And I just, you don't need to hear this from me, but I really appreciated the commentary from the commission, the questions, the dialogue, you know, made me feel really good to be part of a a group like this. So, you don't need to hear that from me, but I I'm going to say it anyway. So, um I left at about, you know, six o'clock today, having just finished the last little bit of my review on video, kind of fired up. I'm thinking, you know, Heather, you did a great job with some research from around. We don't like the Evston model, that's for sure. But I left thinking we got to make this happen. And we have sort of an antiquated uh methodology in place right now. We spent a lot of time reviewing this and uh I thought, you know, we want to be part of this. We want to move this forward. The numbers can be calculated in a lot of different ways. In fact, Tim just identified, you know, how that that construction cost, which was one of my questions here, um could be construed in a lot of different ways. So, um, but getting a number out there, getting a plan out there that finds some kind of good balance between development, encouraging development, this is nothing new here in the city of East Lancing, and providing some affordable housing or some uh diverse housing. I think we're kind of confusing those terms a little bit. Is a really is is we want to be part of that. I think everybody in the audience wants to be part of that as well as the commission wants to be part of that. How we tweak this um is kind of subject to conversation tonight and beyond. I'm

comforted, Landon, by you saying that let's remember that DDA DDA is going to review this. Uh there'll be a a planning uh or city council uh public hearing. Uh and so I think it's kind of inherent on us to kind of move something forward. Uh, I hear loud and clear the concern about moving the um the the area west of or I'm sorry, east of Collingwood and how that's going to be problematic in some ways. Um, I also hear what Landon's saying about how we got there. And I heard that theme sort of pop up in our conversation as I was reviewing the video as well. Could we move this out of the traditional DDA? I'm sort of inclined. Um, I'm really kind of interested in the feedback here tonight, but I'm sort of inclined to move this forward and um, uh, I think there's some glitches here and, uh, maybe, uh, the process will allow us to refine those glitches, but, uh, I think we have something really significant here and important for our community. And I think we, um, I think I think we need to move this forward. And that's kind of what my orientation is tonight. So, but I'm I'm still I'm not all there. I'm very interested in what everybody says.

I some minor modifications I'm going to make and propose when we're done with this discussion, but I I generally agree, Commissioner Denal. Yeah, I would think Yeah, I think I would just agree um that right, we've gotten some great input from city staff. Go. Oh, yeah. Landon, do you want to wait?

Oh, okay. Um, we have some we've had some great input from city staff. Um, some great research that I think has really helped contextualize what we're trying to do. Um, and I really think the what we the conclusion that we came to our at our last meeting was providing a menu of options was more desirable than just a few options. And I think that that's what we're doing here. I I think I was the one who might have suggested that we expand outside of to the entire DDA. Um so, you know, developers, I guess if they want to throw firebombs in my front window, that's fine. Um but I think that that's a really useful way, right, to um sort of spread out the where where we're trying to encourage more diverse housing. Um the I did have two questions that I only remembered after we started the discussion portion. Um, the first one was, um, Landon, it sounds like y'all have done a great job of reaching out to developers to ask for their feedback on the plan, but I also wonder, have we reached out at all to groups like the Capitol Area Housing Partnership, right? So, groups that are right because I think we've decided that this ordinance is meant to both encourage development, but also to increase diverse housing. And so I just want to make sure that both of these sort of stakeholder groups are being consulted in equal measure. Um and then my second question was um about the transfer credits. So right, we've already talked a little bit about the Abbott and the you know parcel C I think they call it. Um, I I wonder if there's a way that we can, and maybe city staff have already thought

about this, but a way to prevent a a parcel C situation from ever happening again, right? Where a developer says, "Oh, I will build a whole other building that is 100% affordable housing, but they prioritize it second." Right? And I think that there has to be some sort of mechanism for holding developers who say that to account. Mr. Putts, um, one thing that we talked about at least at the last meeting was to include some sort of language in this about a review period for what rates we're charging.

Um, I know like we threw out like annual to start with and then wind it down after I don't know, five years, just something like that. But, you know, just a reminder, this is new for us and like it it just behooves us to make sure that we have checkpoints built in because um you know, as as as a software developer, you know, the motto is if you're going to fail, fail fast. Um I know that's not always super helpful when you're dealing with brickandmortar buildings. um you generally don't want to fail at all, but if you're going to run into problems, it's better to hit them fast and be able to pivot quickly. So, I think making sure that there's some language included on this so that we have at least a you know, we need to at least review this after the first year.

Mr. Mr. Bartley to respond on that too

uh to these questions and I want to make very clear uh staff is not we are we are not wedded to you moving forward tonight like we are okay if you want to wait. We have made some changes relatively recently that may need more time and like to to really be worked through if you want that at the planning commission level. We do have several steps ahead of this point uh with the city council and so opportunities to change it. But I think that that the planning commission should be comfortable with anything you're you're moving forward and if you're not there, we can certainly bring this back at the next meeting on May 13th or future meetings beyond that. We we don't we don't necessarily have projects who are clamoring right now to use this. So it's okay to it's okay to to slow down if you'd like. I just want to make that very clear.

Sure. Um, as far as Caterpillar Housing Partnership or others, um, I certainly haven't. I don't think we have. That's a great idea. We could certainly do that. Uh, regardless of what happens tonight as far as the transfer credits and parallel C.

Uh, I should mention and and this hasn't been a topic of recent rec recent discussion about this ordinance, but ordinance 1546 was adopted last year. Uh, that was introduced by Council Member Meadows. And actually, I don't think it was recommended for approval by this body, but the council ultimately approved it. 1546 restricts the transfer of credits in this situation when from an affordable property when that affordable project has received local financial uh incentives, which is going to make a significant difference as far as how many affordable housing developments will transfer. I think it might be worth considering whether or not that should apply uh still uh to Commissioner Puzza's point. Maybe that could be considered uh in review process later on as well. But that that is meant to be a protection that's in ordinance right now. We had also proposed it could be a condition of approval that you just must build that first. But that that ordinance did happen. So that's currently in effect that they can't transfer if it's received public local public financing or uh financial incentives. And then to your point, uh, Commissioner puts about review period for the ordinance after a year or something like that. That's a great idea and we would love to include that. Um, and however this moves forward whenever.

Yeah. Yeah. I would so certainly support that. Yeah. So, thank you. That's that's the comments I had.

I'd some more if everybody's comments are I had some more granular feedback if that's okay. Um, I guess just to preface it, I wouldn't be comfortable moving this version, but with these changes, I I would be comfortable moving it tonight. I know you said we don't have to move it tonight, but we've been deliberating this thing for months. And I, you know, I think the more we tweak and add to it, it can add to the confusion, and I think it's it's in a good spot if we can make a few tweaks uh to be moved tonight. So, starting with I'm just going to go subsection by subsection. Starting with subsection one. Um, I was curious about those uh modifications and clarifications you were making. um if they make sense to me and I'm comfortable with that. Sub two agree with 10% but it should be added to the

chair. I'm sorry. Can I just clarify? You're looking at the sample page seven just as they're listed. Yeah. I'm going to pull that up on the screen then real quick. Yeah. Or page six. Sorry. And that's the sample motion that we provided. Yes. Okay.

So the first one again fine with clarification. is good with the 10% listed um on item two. Um although I think it needs to be added to the summary as Commissioner Putts pointed out. Uh on item three, you know, I I wavered kind of back and forth on the on the square footage or the per unit. I think construction cost, you know, again, it's another metric that can be gamed. I think there's more clarification needed. I don't think we need to do that tonight. I think we can pass that note along to the city attorney to clarify what that actually means and how that standard can be held um and what other ordinances specify, but I think of the three metrics that's that's my preference. Um at least at this point I can be convinced otherwise. Um item number four regarding the the composition of the of the commission or committee. Um I think it should be specified that there should be at least seven members. And then there was one thing we discussed at the last meeting that wasn't added, but I think a line needs to be added to the end that says the dispersement must be specific to an item related to housing.

Um I don't I don't see that there unless I missed it somewhere else. We talked about it. We talked about it. Yeah, this is good. Good.

Uh item number five, uh a northern boundary is specified, but a east, west, and south boundary aren't specified. I assume that would mean city limits, but just maybe the city attorney needs to take a look at that and see if that needs to be specified. Uh item six regarding expansion of the district boundaries. You know, I think this deviates from the original content is is kind of where I'm at on that point. I think it should be struck. I know Commissioner Denalt originally talked about doing a a pilot or a smaller area and I think if we expand this it sort of deviates from what our original mission was was to look at the original ordinance ultimately had been used once since 10 11 years it had been passed. Um let's try to swing the pendulum and incentivize it to be used more to spur development to get more of the housing types and other parameters we're specifying to be built. I think later on we could always expand the boundary if it's super successful. Um this is sort of a a living program as I see it. If developers are steering really towards fee and loo instead of some of the other options we can adjust those over time. Um but at this point I would suggest striking that. I think it's added to the confusion. It's created a whole separate side discussion. Maybe you guys feel differently. Maybe city council will feel differently. But I think at this point um I think the easier path forward is just to strike that Uh, and that's essentially kind of where I'm at on it. I think you guys did a tremendous amount of work. Um, you know, a lot of research went into this. A lot of city staff time went into this. I truly appreciate it and I I want to be respectful of that and try to move this forward in a in a meaningful way. Um, but I'm happy to hear any additional thoughts. Commissioner Denalt.

Um, I had a comment too about sub about item four about the commissioner committee. I think one of the things that we discussed was also having language that specifies that someone from the planning commission and the housing commission should be on that. Um so if we can add that language as well that would be really helpful. Um, I think I also would be amendable to um what Commissioner Ramirez Roberts suggested about adding lead certification as another perhaps.5 point value um that could be stacked. I understand that a lot of the things that we're already offering here would be part of a lead certification. So, um, it might be redundant at that point, but I I I would be interested in that, um, as well, right? Sort of encouraging other types of environmentally sustainable development

to cl to clarify would be not modifying A, B, or C, but essentially adding a adding a D. Correct. Thank you.

Um, and then I feel like Oh. Uh, and then, um, item number six, expanding it to the entire DDA. Um, I think my clarifying question would be to I think when we said that we were interested in potentially expanding the area, that's why we lowered the number of diverse housing units to 10%. Right? I think I think the logic and correct me if I'm wrong that by lowering the percentage and expanding the area we would achieve a similar scope to what we wanted. So I think if we if we are not interested in expanding this to the entire DDA which I you are correct Mr. chair that I did propose a pilot project and maybe the pilot project is um the ever evergreen what am I thinking of the thing that we just saw a presentation east village evergreen village

um right maybe that's the pilot project area for something like this um but I would also I would be amendable to expanding it to the entire DDA I think if we make it smaller Um, we should reconsider the 10% to maybe 15.

Any other comments? I Josh.

Yeah, this is my first time getting to speak on this, so I'm kind of jumping in late. Um, and I want to, I guess, preface the fact that I agree with the chair in the sense that some of this can be decided by council. And I think one thing for me just you know first time speaking on it and echoing what um Mr. Misowski said is there's a lot of I guess construction can be nebulous in the sense of are we making them pay that up front? Are we making them do so afterwards? Um all the different costs that go into that. I mean just looking at it I think particularly when you look at like the Columbus Ohio per unit it it comes out to pretty much the same amount of money and it's a much easier to administer way to do that. And I think I mean you'd have to come up with metrics in terms of how like the 0.5s and 1% reductions would apply to that. But I do think that's something that maybe we don't have to decide on tonight. But I think just going to council I think would be something to consider in terms of just how easy it is to administer and how upfront it is to calculate versus you know if COVID happens in the middle of a construction project and all of a sudden construction costs skyrocket halfway through

it could make the project no longer viable in terms of them being able to pay. So I think that's also something to consider.

I I share the same concerns and that's that's why I raised them. I think we understand what the the idea is, but I think there needs to be more parameters about what that actually means like and you know to uh Commissioner Denalt's comments about the you know the boundaries of where this is applicable and kind of doing a pilot what I don't like about a pilot is essentially sets you back a decade right because it's going to take a year or so for this to get through and then you know a couple years for a design page and then a project's built and then you know I think when that happens you look at it and you see you know what you already know it's it it's being utilized and developments are happening they're not. So um I view sort of expansion the DDA as a separate subject and I I think you incentivize incentivize this add this menu of options it becomes overused you you scale it back you change the parameters to to get more of the policy outcomes you want but that's just my opinion so okay comments down here

well I was just simply going to say that

this is not a finished product right now it's going to have some great reviews DDA and the city council. It's going to be a lot more public input. We're going to tweak this and we're going to make it work and then we're going to review it on an annual basis um or by annual. You know, we've got to get back to it and make sure it works for us. But I think um I just think the process can sometimes be too cumbersome and I don't want to be part of that cumbersome process. I think it's been great feedback from and I reviewed everything online for those last two meetings. So, a lot of lot of good work here and uh needs to be tweaked, needs to be finalized, but um I'm very comfortable with the yes vote tonight. One person,

vice chair, I'm I agree with everything. We have learned a lot in LA the last like month or two or 10 or however long this has been. Um the city staff has been great and helpful. I think we've done most of our charge that city council asked. So, I recommend that um Chair Sullivan make the motion because he's got some great tweaks and I agree with him and I don't know if I could repeat them all. So, but have you seen my arm? Yeah, that's Yeah, I don't know if you're okay with I'm fine. I'll do it. Yeah. Found the motion. Ryan cheese. Um as long as somebody promises to second off tonight, man.

Okay. Um, so motion made by me, uh, Chair Sullivan. It's the bottom of page five, right, Landon? So, be it resolved that the planning commission recommends the following changes to ordinance 1559 as introduced and referred by city council. Mr. Chair, start. I'm sorry. Sorry. It's going to be the top of page five. I move to amend.

Sorry. I move to recommend the city council adopt ordinance 1559 which would amend section 50-94 of chapter 50 of the city code zoning to allow for a fee to be paid in lie and meeting the diverse housing requirements in areas of downtown east lancing that define a formula for the fee and allow for the transfer of diverse housing credits from areas outside of downtown for the following reasons. The amendment is consistent with the policies and uses proposed in the city's comprehensive land use plan because the proposed zoning amendment will facilitate new diverse housing being provided in areas identified as desirable in the recent comprehensive plan update. Those areas include downtown East Lancing, the East Village area, and other business districts, as well as areas with existing highdensity residential zoning. Two, all of the uses affected by the proposed amendment would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area.

Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry. Uh, in you mentioned the areas that include East Lancing, East Village, and other business districts. And I suggest if you're not interested in expanding the area in which this is required that you strike that sentence if if your if your motion won't will not include expansion just because that area describes areas outside the So what do I what all do I need to modify in in these conditions here that won't be mod that won't be met with me modifying one through seven below just that just that okay thank you um so strike that strike the line on item one. Uh that starts with those and ends with zoning. Is that sufficient? Yes, thank you.

Okay. Number two, all the uses affected by the proposed amendment would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding areas because the proposed zoning amendment would not change the review or approval process for any specific land uses. Number three, public services and facilities uh would not be significantly adversely impacted by development or use allowed by the proposed amendment because the amendment would affect proposed developments only in areas with existing infrastructure or buildings and not in green field locations. Number four, the uses allowed uh under the prop proposed amendment would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land because the amendment would be would allow uh greater flexibility and more methods to meet the desired outcome of providing or facilitating the development of more diverse housing units. Uh be it further resolved that the planning commission recommends the following changes to ordinance 1559 as introduced and referred to city council. Number one, uh the diverse housing requirement currently described within section 50-94 V4E of the zoning ordinance shall be moved to article 7 division 8 of the ordinance titled building height overlay district and duplicate words or sentences shall be removed. Uh a uh section 50-94B5 additional building height shall be moved to article 7 division 8 of zoning ordinance titled building height overlay district.

Yeah, I apologize. Uh this is the section about moving the the text within the ordinance that we've had some uh concerns about legal jeopardy and I would suggest that uh you might reward that to say and shall be moved or rewarded as appropriate. instead of where it says uh currently described within section 50-94B4E of the zoning ordinance shall be moved or rewarded as appropriate. Got it. Section 50-94B5 uh additional building height shall be moved or rewarded as appropriate in order or revised as appropriate

in order to meet the outcome of applying to residential uses within the diverse housing in order to meet the requirements of diverse housing. Diverse housing I guess where we're eligible. Okay. I think I think that we can also refer back to our discussion if you'd like. You can say in accordance to discussion during the making of the motion. In accordance to discussion when making the motion. Thank you. Got it. Thank you for walking me through that one.

Keep me on my toes. Uh, number two, the diverse housing requirement currently described within section 50-94B4E of the zoning ordinance, which currently requires 25% of applicable residential units to be marketed and or sold as owner occupied housing or housing offered to and restricted to residents 55 and older, restricted to lower moderate income housing, or restricted to some other occupancy that would add diversity to the area, shall be reduced to 10% of applicable residential units. Number three, um applicants may propose a fee in lie of providing diverse units on the subject property in the amount of 15% of construction costs. 5%

Oh, sorry, 5% of construction costs of all building space dedicated to residential use. Um this will be further clarified by the city attorney andor city staff. Uh the amount may be um reduced by 1% in exchange for constructing a mass timber building as defined within the zoning ordinance. The amount may be further reduced by half% for providing a transit pass to every residential tenant for 5 years uh beginning at occupancy. The amount may be further reduced by a half% for providing at least one car sharing vehicle on the property for 5 years beginning at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy made available to all eligible tenants. And then D, what

sorry uh you have D coming, but I would just mention in A that you had talked about having lead also be a incentive for the 1%. We we talked about not revising A but then adding B. I apologize. Uh so item D, the amount may be reduced by a half% uh in exchange for constructing a leadcertified building as divine defined within the is that in the zoning ordinance as well? Uh I would suggest specifying which lead. So probably lead gold or higher. Lead gold or higher as specified in zoning ordinance. Sure.

Got it. Okay. Item four, uh, a commission or committee, uh, of at least seven members shall be created, um, and appointed by city council for the purposes of recommending, uh, dispersement of any fees received in lie of providing diverse units on the subject property. At least two members shall be from the planning commission uh, and housing commission. Um, the dispersement must be specific to an item related to housing. Yes. I'm so sorry. Can you please uh clarify? Do you mean two members from each planning commission and housing? Two members. One, one from each the planning or housing commission. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh item number five, um the diverse housing requirement may be met by transferring credits for diverse units provided within properties located elsewhere uh in the city and providing more diverse units than would be required for the same project if subject to the diverse housing requirement. Um, a credit may be transferred for excess uh diverse housing units for properties located south of Sagenar Road and the um east, west, and south boundaries defined by uh city staff and or city attorney is necessary and having either B3 or EV zoning. One excess diverse housing unit shall transfer as one credit to a proposed development subject to the diverse housing requirement. and B credits may be transferred for excess diverse housing units for properties located south of Sagena Road and having B2 RM32 or RM54 zoning. Uh 1 and 1/10enth excess diverse housing unit shall transfer as one credit to a proposed development subject to the diverse housing requirement. For calculation purposes, fractional units shall be uh rounded down. Uh, and then strike um section or item six and then uh replace item six with the requirement for city staff to do a um one-year review of the um impact of the changes to the ordinance.

Would you want to specify that that review comes back to the city council and or planning commission? Yes, I would. Thank you. And that review shall come back to the planning commission and city council. I think that captures everything we discussed. Is there a second? Seconded. Seconded by Commissioner Puts. Can we get a uh any discussion on the motion specifically? Commissioner Overby,

just a brief comment. Like all the rest of you, I've studied this over the past several months and this is good public policy and and we should do this. It's an opportunity for the city. It will help the developers. We've got enforcement mechanisms built into it. So, I I'm planning to support it. Well said, Commissioner Ramirez Roberts.

Yeah, just in regards to uh item six getting struck, I support that getting struck tonight. I do just want to I guess state though that this is something that should be looked at in the future in terms of expanding it to the entire DDA. The area as it stands right now is really quite small and with quite a few projects having been built in there already, there's only so much you can develop it. Um, so if we really want to maximize the benefit of the program, we should be looking at expanding that later on. Agreed. Comments done here. All right, seeing none, uh, roll call vote, please.

All right, we have a recommendation to or a motion to recommend adoption. um with amendments. Uh made by Sullivan, seconded by Putts. Uh Commissioner Denalt, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Overby, yes. Commissioner Puts, yes. Commissioner Ramirez Roberts, yes. Commissioner Chapen, yes. Vice Chair Wagner, yes. And Chair Sullivan, yes. The eyes have it. Okay. Apologies for the roll call vote again and thanks everyone for your patience as we

bumbled through that. I appreciate that. So, okay. Takes us on to new business. Up first is item 8.1, consideration of ordinance 1564, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to reszone approximately 40 properties north of Lake Lancing Road, west of Chandler Road and east of 12 US 127 from their current Dwit Township zoning to East Lancing zone districts. Mr. Bart,

uh, thank you. So uh this this ordinance 1564 and the next item 1570 uh are essentially tiebarred. So I'd like to consider those together. 1564 uh is is many properties about again about 40 properties that have existing dit township zoning that's left over from a 425 agreement or a couple 425 agreements that were made in 1998 and 2001. Uh so that's a transfer of properties from the municipality of DA township into East Lancing. Uh that was done and typically that includes a reasonzoning of properties to East Lancing zone district but that wasn't done done at the time. Uh so we we have a resulting uh situation where essentially we have properties that are non-conforming because they have a they're subject to an ordinance that cannot be administered by the city of East Lancing. Uh so we're looking to change the zoning of all the properties uh from Dwit Township zoning to East Lancing zone districts uh to allow for continued use of this properties. And the reason I say continued use is the properties have been quietly enjoyed for the last 25 years. However, uh because they're under the Dit Township zoning ordinance and I can't administer that. They're technically considered legally legally non-conforming uh which means that they cannot expand or uh rebuild if destroyed. uh their existing property without some sort of variance or zoning. So we want to change the zoning of all the properties that have existing dwit township zoning but are located in the city of East Beast Lancing to rectify that situation. Uh we strongly recommend adoption of an ordinance that changes the zoning of all the properties uh from Dwit Township. The question is uh to what? So, we had a um a public meeting uh community meeting at MSUFC HQ2 up on uh Kulage Kulage Road uh back in late February. Uh and then we have had a public hearing uh on April 8th at which

time I I presented an initial recommendation. We had several comments uh about that initial recommendation of people asking essentially no I I want something different. Uh so I want to go through those initial recommend or the modified recommendation uh in some detail. I'm going to pull that up uh on the on the screen momentarily. Okay. Okay. This is the the whole map. uh all the properties that are shaded, including this hatched property, are all proposed to be uh reszoned. So, I I want to go through sort of area by area. Um and I think I should also refer back to my initial staff recommendation as well. The initial staff, let's look at the properties up on Stole Road near Chandler. Uh and and a person in public comment uh mentioned earlier that they were concerned about these because their houses uh nearby. I just want to mention that house is on the north side of of uh I69 along Chandler and is located in Bath Township. It is not subject to this 425 agreement uh and is not is not proposed to have any zoning changed uh and it's about 3500 ft from the property on stool that's proposed to be changed. So it's that property would not receive a notice uh because it's well outside the distance that we'd send a mailer. Uh but it would be posted for uh the public hearing last last time or the city council's public hearing uh will be posted in the in the newspaper either city pulse or or uh state journal. So uh we still will send notice um depending on how I I would also just request I think if if people are concerned about timing uh please reach out to me directly sometimes especially if you're not getting receiving the notice because you live too far out away from the property it can be very confusing. So I

would ask uh elartley@c cityof eastlansing.com uh shoot me an email and I'd love to uh discuss uh that with you. So our so these properties up on uh Chandler at stole were proposed in my initial recommendation as B2 uh retail sales business including this property uh at 35 3859 stole. I call that out. That's ordinance 1570. That property currently has East Lancing zoning. So it's an East Lancing property with East Lancing zoning unlike the properties around it which are East Lancing properties with Dwit Township zoning. So we're showing that these all three properties were proposed uh as B2 we had which is retail sales business that had been uh essentially responding to a potential plan down the road for a highway interchange. Our understanding again is echoing a person's comments from the uh public comment. Our understanding is that that that interchange is not proposed for many years if at all. So we don't feel that uh I guess combined with that knowledge and also we had a a gentleman from a property just sort of in between all these properties that is still within Dwit Township uh say that he was opposed to this change. He has a residential uh property and would like the properties around it to stay residential as well. So the initial recommendation was B2. The modified recommendation based on that uh feedback that we've received uh is R1, low density single family residential. Uh certainly can be reconsidered down the road if and when a an interch interchange is proposed. Uh but at this time since that's not the case and the prevailing land use in the area is residential uh for that corner, we propose to maintain that. And I should mention that the property to the south uh which is the Eagle Eye Golf Club currently also has R1 residential zoning. Any questions about those properties about that end? And just so you I'm going to kind of speed through this at for the next ordinance at 1570 because that's about this these

properties as far as the initial zoning recommendation for this property uh next to um DPW. Uh that's currently proposed to remain the same as the initial recommendation which would be RM22 medium density multif family. Uh that's proposed to remain the same in the modified recommendation. Uh the dit township zoning is multif family. We don't necessarily expect multif family but that's the closest analog to the existing uh dit township zoning and we feel like that might might be just fine. Uh a little bit east at 20 2870 uh state that's proposed as B4 which is a restricted office business. Uh that's the prevailing zoning of all the properties to the south of that. So along Koolage and West, Koolage Park, those are all zoned B4. Uh so so 2870 is proposed to also be B4 to reflect the zoning of the property surrounding it. Any questions about either of those two properties? Okay. Just to the east, uh we have 370 State Road. Uh that's a 50acre property that the a couple who owns it or excuse me brother and sister uh mentioned earlier tonight uh that they'd like to maintain the agricultural use of that property. It is currently zoned agriculturally in uh Dway Township zoning. So this would maintain that uh agricultural zoned uh zoning. I typically uh shy away from trying to uh change the zoning of one property that's spot zoning. Uh however this is a very large property and could very be it's about 50 acres could be very easily subdivided in the future. So we our understanding is that it's okay to uh pro propose a reszoning of the single property because of its size. Uh any questions about that?

Okay.

So it's analogous essentially you're changing it from dit a a agriculture to um proposed eancing racial agricultural. Okay. Uh the properties immediately to the south I want to spend a little bit of time on and then we'll get to the properties uh along Kage or along Coleman between Kage and West. But to the east of Kulage um on the north side of Coleman, our initial staff recommendation had been to be RM14 and that was essentially in line with existing uh land uses further to the west. However, we heard a lot of concerns from uh neighboring uh residents last time, including tonight uh from the Hawk Neck subdivision, which is immediately to the east. Um and because of those concerns, we're proposing to change this large parcel of 3303 Coleman to R2, which is the zoning of the Hawk Nest subdivision. Um the properties to the west, we still proposes RM14. I should mention RM14 is chosen because it is a multif family district. Uh however, it allows single family and two family houses by right. Uh so so it would not create any non-conforming uh situation for the existing houses on those properties. Um and there are not currently any uh buildings on 3303 or the adjacent properties. However, in in response to the environmental concerns uh and the concerns about higher density residential, uh we are proposing our modified recommendation to make this R2 which is um consistent with the adjacent properties to the east. One thing I should also mention is that uh we do have a a pretty significant I think Cliff had to take off. Uh he was here tonight but Cliff is our environmental uh sustainability specialist or manager and he um he mentioned that we do have a pretty significant protection ordinance. Uh chapters 48 and 49 are about wetland protection and uh vegetation in the in the city. So every new development one proposed is subject to those regulations. You can't build on a

wetland. you can't remove a wetland uh unless it's considered unless it's very small and considered uh not contributing I guess to the environment and that's that happens now and then. Uh my understanding is that wetlands up in this area are all fairly large and considered to be environmentally uh important. So we'd certainly have to look at uh we certainly consider that if and when a development project was proposed on any of these properties. Um that said, I I can't guarantee that uh a development would be stopped because of its protect the wetland protections. It could still there may still be development. So I guess in response to the environmental concerns, we do have protections in place. Certainly reszoning a property to any zoning in which something can be done which is not the current state. Uh that would facilitate future development. So we do have that sort of I guess risk if you want to look at it that way. there is there is potential for future development once you propose or approve a reszoning.

So Landon, for those agricultural sites there, have the owners weighed in at all about the proposed zoning change or just the the neighbors?

Uh the agricultural site to the north along state? Uh yes. Uh I talked to the owners of the properties 3303, 3203, 3255 in this unadressed property. Uh that's IDES. Um they were interested in the RM14 uh the higher density. Um I haven't heard I haven't heard response to the uh the current proposal of changing net 323 to lower density. Again I I guess um there the next step in this process if you choose to act uh tonight would be to go to be forwarded to the city council in which case they would again have their own public hearing and notice it. So we'd have that another opportunity uh for anyone in the area and the owner to um respond. Mayers Roberts, go ahead.

Yeah. So, I had a question I guess just due to concerns about the wetland status. Is it typical for resoning like to do any kind of wetland analysis or anything like that when considering resoning? Uh it can be if the planning commission chooses to refer a resoning request to the um coun commission on the environment. Uh for what it's worth, I did send uh our initial recommendation to the council on environment or commission on environment for their review. Uh and they said this is interesting. If the planning commission wants to refer this to us for further uh review or recommendation, we would be happy to look at it, but they haven't provided a recommendation. They're waiting on your referral if that's important.

Take this this back a step. Is there a a looming deadline or a a need to get this done within the next month or so that I'm unaware of? No, there's there's no urgency. This has this has been 25 years in the making. And essentially, we had a I shouldn't say that. There is a proposed project at 2900 Coleman, which is right in the middle between West and Kage on the south side that you saw at a public hearing a couple months ago, uh, which they would then withdrew because they're interested in uh, being part of this resoning. their their end outcome is to be RM14. Their intent is to apply for a housing project at some point which would potentially uh be seeking funding uh from the state in an October funding round.

So my understanding is that they would be looking for some action on this resoning before October. Yeah. Um, that said, I mean, we could certainly for the purpose of for the purpose of uh requesting a housing project and they would if the reasoning came through, they would then return to you to request approval for the unit and and I think we could I mean there's a lot of time between now and October. I mean, it'll be here before we know it, but I think you could break that off if needed. But, um, okay, that was the main question I had. I have some other questions, but I want see if there's any. Commissioner Puts and

Landon, thank you for all the work on this. I I understand what you're trying to do or what city staff is trying to accomplish with this for that block of properties. Again, uh 3151, 3203, 3255, and 3303, I think. And there's an unressed property in the middle, too. Yeah. The the Tetris piece in the middle there. Yeah. Um, so originally they're all into do it at agricultural zoning I believe. Yeah, go down to the Yeah, I'm sorry. There it's real.

So all those properties originally or I should say currently are in do it agricultural zone. So yes, did the owners of any of these properties indicate that they wanted a different zoning than agricultural agricultural freestanding? Uh yes, when I talked to them, uh they were interested in a residential zone district. Okay. To potentially have future development. They don't have anything proposed um and didn't signal that they have future plans anytime in the near future, but Okay. Certainly the the reasoning would facilitate potential future development. Okay.

Commissioners Roberts.

Yeah. I guess and I don't know if this should wait until later or not. I guess for me I would almost like to break the since there has been contention and concern around it the 3303 Coleman into essentially its own item or and potentially you know consider referring that to the commission on the environment so we could get a better answer because I guess if there is if it would fall under our wetland statute I guess I wouldn't understand reszoning it if the development on it would be limited by the wetland. So, I feel like we should probably get a better understanding of that first so we can figure out an applicable the best zoning for it,

but I don't know how other people feel. Mr. Barley, yeah. Uh that's that's possible. Uh you can certainly remove uh properties and say these should still be reszoned, but we want to take a closer look and it would become a separate ordinance with those properties. If you were to split off 3303, I would suggest probably the other properties as well up until Koolage. So 31, the ones that uh Commissioner PZ mentioned, 3151 and the properties east of that because of spot zoning, not necessarily, but I think that those all those properties were sort of concerns of the neighbors. They they certainly brought up 3303 the most, but also some were talking about the other properties as well. And it technically wouldn't be spot zoning because they'd be in they'd be have the same zoning as the 3070 property above them. Okay. You have a lot.

I'm not I'm not looking at the map. So, right now Yeah. Looking at the map, I

They are I guess part of the same a lot of those lots are wooded or just plain grassland right now apparently from satellite. So, I guess if we're reviewing that, they probably would count as one wetland or one ecosystem there. I have some general comments um about I think some some guidance I think they'd be helpful and and and next steps. I think like look there's no sense of urgency on this. I think we're we're good to wait until the next meeting. It's very late tonight. I don't think we're going to resolve this uh tonight. Um, my thoughts are unless a specific property has asked to reszone to something different that's not analogous, then everything should remain as analogous as possible that prevents, you know, any spot zoning issues. I mean, look, I understand what you're trying to do. There's a lot of logistical and legal issues you're trying to solve because it's been 25 years since these properties have been annexed by the city of East Lancing and it's not Dit anymore. and at some point they need to have a an appropriate East Lancing zoning. I think what what we heard from the public is there's concerns about potential changes to zoning in certain areas and in particular if it's from a property owner I think we need to be cognizant of that. But I'd like to give just a couple more weeks for for public feedback and then we can

discuss next steps when we're a little bit more.

Okay. Can I mention I think the last sort of area that I didn't really touch on too much though the sort of southwest area just these properties uh closest to like between Coleman and excuse me between Kig and West on both sides of Coleman. Uh my modified staff recommendation for that is essentially the same as the initial uh for RM14 along for all those properties including 2900 which is in the middle. Uh again, that that's because uh we know that we have an interest in additional housing and we don't want to create any non-conforming situations. And so I I wanted to look at the RM14 as as a possibility to have uh not just one and two families, but those are currently permitted in that district. So we would not be creating non-conformities, which is the the whole sort of purpose of this resoning. Uh we had had a an interest initial interest uh from a gentleman northeast corner saying uh retail he's gone since gone back and said no I want residential uh and that's that's fine this reflects that residential interest there was some interest in retail business on the southeast corner um we felt that after after considering that in some detail we felt that that might require some additional planning uh and some sort of additional uh I guess scrutiny as far as whether or not a retail district would be appropriate at that intersection Uh and then the properties to the south along west 16825 51 and 77 are currently proposed on the modified recommendation uh for B4 uh which is the same zoning as the prevailing zoning to the south and west that would create uh I believe that there is at least a house on at least one of those properties and that would create a non-conformity uh in our modified staff recommendation that's just meant to match the rest of the surrounding zoning. I think that if uh if the planning commission is interested in not creating that situation, you could uh also stick with

the residential zone. I'd suggest RM14 because that's my suggestion for the properties to the north. We could explore other ones, too. So, just wanted to bring that up. Any questions about that or how you'd like to It sounds to me like you'd like to postpone this uh until the next meeting on May 13th. Is that Yeah, I think it's semantics essentially not act on it um until the the next planning commission meeting to give the public a little bit more time to engage and also take a closer look at this and see if there's any additional recommendations or emails come in. But, you know, again, to reiterate, I think anybody that spoke tonight, especially if it's their property, I think that should be

considered. And I just mentioned if if you're inclined to post postpone this one, uh that you'd also postpone the next item, which is uh 8.2. We're talking about 81 and 82. Yes, correct. Both items. Good call. Okay. So, I don't know any any additional thoughts on that. I don't I don't believe we needed to vote on that. Right. I just You should It would be nice to have a motion if you're going to postpone it. Um I'll just make the motion real quick. I propose postponing items 8.1 and item 8.2 to the What's that? May 13 is the next schedule to the May 13th planning commission meeting. Is that sufficient? Sure. Or May 27th is past that if you do the 13th and then we'll

Can we get Cliff to do some work in the inter room to address with with the direction to city staff to um take into consideration recent public feedback um adopt the zoning as analogous as possible to current zoning um with consideration of of spot zoning concerns. So Okay. Okay. I think that's What about 3303? 330. Are we going to um send anything to the commission on the environment before we vote or I I think that could be I mean this is a separate vote but we could that gives us a couple weeks and I mean they would probably not consider it between now and then so it would delay it even further but

yeah I believe the next meeting is uh Monday of the commission on environment I believe it's May 16 excuse me that's not a Monday May 18th I think it's May 18th Thank you. Okay. So, to move this to the later meeting date in May um and then we can refer um any sites with wetlands here to the commission on environment. So, so you're looking to postpone to May 27th, correct? And and refer the question for any property with a wetland to the commission on environment. Correct. Review. Okay. Thank you. I second that.

There's a motion motion by by me Sullivan, seconded by Vice Chair Wagner. Any more discussion on this item? Does that do you have sufficient feedback and and guidance from us? Okay. All right. Um all those in favor vote I I oppose. Nay. All right. Motion carries. So this item 8.1 and 8.2 are postponed to the May 27th planning commission meeting for additional review. Um and any sites with wetlands are referred to uh the commission on environment. Thank you.

That takes us on to item 8.3 uh consideration of a request from 246 uh Equities LLC for a site plan approval located at 601 Abbott Road. Grace,

so the public hearing for this item uh was held at the planning commission on April 8th. Um and there were no public comments that were received on the application. Um this application is for three or sorry for nine three-bedroom units. Um within the existing building, the site changes that they're proposing are to reduce the um impervious surface area. Um the applicant has since the April 8th meeting addressed outstanding staff comments um which included a parking deficiency, bike space deficiency and scope of work for the engineering department. Um the multif family recycling will be required to be provided. Um but the location has not been shown on revised plans. So staff recommends a condition um in an approval motion explicitly requiring uh recycling just to address that. Um they have also adjusted the plans based on feedback from the planning commission to include a walkway from the Abbott road sidewalk to the parking area um while still staying under the maximum lot coverage. Um in reference to landscaping, they made some minor changes. Um they're not removing any plants that are on site currently and are adding some additional around the building.

Questions for city staff? Commissioner Dell and then Roberts. Um, I just wanted to clarify, it looked like in the most recent um, plans that we received that they did add a recycling area outside next to the dumpster. Are y'all referring to adding a recycling area, like collection area inside as well that's not being shown? If that's something that you guys are interested in, I know there was a discussion of that, but public works I I only mentioned it last meeting because public works says it's required.

Yes. Yeah, they are required to have it. I just meant sorry I might have misspoke when I said but I meant if you guys are wanting them to provide something indoors but yes as long as they are providing it they meet yes they meet the requirement for public works right where's Roberts yeah I have a question about I have a question about the parking aspect I wasn't here for the previous uh meeting but so it's going to be I'm assuming 27 bedrooms overall yes I I guess My question is being so close to campus, I don't know what the what was the previously supplied parking amount before this meeting.

Um, so there the existing site has 30 spaces. Um, but the previous plans had 22 spaces. Our parking requirements in the zoning ordinance require 23 based on the number of units and bedrooms. Okay. Okay. It and it's still a reduction in pavement. Yes, it is a reduction in the number of spaces that are there currently. Um, but they did add the one additional space that was missing from the previous plans to meet the minimum. Got it. It was just my thoughts with it being close to campus and everything that it probably didn't need as many parking spaces there. Yeah.

Any questions or comments down here? Um, are they are they keeping the retaining wall and everything right? Like they're making some L. Okay, got it. Um, all the questions I have. I don't know if the applicants here if they want to add. Yes. Yeah, the applicants here if you have any questions. I don't know if you have anything. I don't know if there's any additional updates or comments they want to provide before a potential vote, but seeing none. Okay.

Can I just mention um on page 10 uh Grace has laid out sort of how how this uh this request meets different standards. Uh so that might inform your motion as you're making it. Uh the sample motion has areas for reasons. So we just want to point out if you can find reasons, potential reasons to use in a sample motion in the staff report. Gotcha. All right. Is there a motion for it? I can't. Not it.

I'll do it if someone helps me with some of the reasoning. Okay. Yeah.

Um, I move to recommend council, city council approve um of a site approval a city council approval of a site plan request from Andrew Aboud of 246 Equities LLC, including site plan approval at 601 Abbott Road for renovations of the existing office building into a 9 unit apartment building and associated propose proposed site work. findings. Uh, this decision is based on the following findings and determinations as to each standard applicable to the site plan proposal under section 5038 of the city's zoning ordinance with reference to and reliance on the applicant's application, plan comm submissions, public testimony, city staff analysis and review, and other submissions relative to its proposed development. Uh number one, section 50381 A throughD requires the site be designed and developed to provide a logist 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

it aligns with the comprehensive master plan. It aligns with a comprehensive master plan and matches surrounding

Oh, it matches the surrounding environment, uses code. Okay, thank you. Uh number two, section 50382 A throughD 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. Uh the proposed use meets this requirement because let me see if you look at number Um what page was that on? Um

the applicant has proposed a reduction in imperous surface area. Okay. Leading to less project runoff compared to existing conditions. Okay. The proposed use meets this requirement because the applicant has proposed a reduction in in permeable uh impervious impervious surface impervious on site leading to less runoff. Okay. On site leading to less runoff. Thank you. And then no proposed storage of hazardous substances on site. Okay. And there's no proposed storage of of hazardous substance substances on site. Yep.

Thanks. Uh, number three, section 50383A through Q 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. Uh the proposed use meets this requirement because maintains the existing access drive. Yeah. Which is like entryway and and exit ways. Okay. The proposed use meets this requirement because it maintains the current access drives and exit and it meets the minimum parking requirements

and meets the minimum and bike spaces and bike spaces. Thank you. Section, this is kind of messy, but this is Thank you. Um, it takes a village here. Section 50, uh, 384 A throughJ requires the site to be designed and developed to facilitate the efficient propos uh, provision and maintenance of adequate public spaces of services. The proposed use meets this requirement because it's serviced by municipal water and sewer. It is serviced by municipal water and sewer and it includes dumpster. Oh, and it includes dumpster um services. Yeah. And trash service. Has ample room for emergency vehicles. I don't know if that falls under.

Yeah. And recycling services. And recycling. Yeah. Thank you. And has ample or have meets the the requirement of I think that's sufficient. Yeah. I think you're good there. Yeah, that's sufficient. Okay. Recycling services, sorry. Um, okay. Uh, number five, section 50-385A throughJ 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. Uh the proposed use meets this requirement because um impervious surface reduction less runoff impervious surfaces and there's less runoff of

uh and then storm water calculations show a decrease in runoff from the site. Yeah. No trees are proposed to be removed and there are no trees that are proposed to be removed. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Uh number six, under section 50-386A through E, unless the project is exempt from this requirement pursuant to subp paragraph 50386D, the site shall be design uh designed and developed to contain public art and is defined by section 2 313 of the city code. Here the the proposed project meets the requirement for exemption under section 50386D2 because it is a renovation of an existing building with a total project cost of less than $500,000. Uh moving on to approval conditions pursuant to zoning ordinance sections 5036D and MCL uh 125.35044. The above approvals are subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval uh 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 MCL125 uh 35044. Number one, approval is in accordance with the plan provided by the applicant and testimony subject to revisions as required. Number two, all required permits shall be obtained from the department of planning, building, and housing um for all interior renovations as well as for exterior signs in accordance with chapter 32 of the city code titled signs. Uh number three, the project shall be designed and developed in accordance in in accordance with all applicable stat state and local statutes, codes and regulations. Number four, the applicant shall provide adequate recycling service to residents. Number five, the proposed dumpsters on site shall be screened as required by

zoning ordinance section 51 uh 50-147. and six, all plant materials installed shall meet the resize requirements of article nine of the zoning ordinance. Um, that concludes the motion. Second move by Wagner, seconded by by Japan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the on the motion, all those in favor vote I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Uh item 8.3 is approved and is now on to city council for review uh at a subsequent planning comm or a subsequent city council meeting.

Okay. Uh that takes us on to item number nine, commissioner concerns. Uh first up, sorry tonight took so long. Uh we get we'll get through it quicker in the future. Um any other concerns? Concerns about the length. Is that why you were concerned? No concerns at all. I I bear some responsibility in that. It was a lot of heavy stuff on the table. You did a nice job. Thank you. Yeah. I do have a question about our, you know, our process now for this. We're reading a lot of stuff and I feel a little strange not having I mean, I understand that that it's our it's up to us to figure out the the conditions and and the fill in the because

but I mean, it seemed a little bit Yeah. a little cumbersome. I think we can we can work on that process. way to make it. I think uh we've discussed whether we could use some sort of table with some reasons or try to fill them in. But like the bounce in between looking at the motion, looking at the staff report too. It's Do you feel like it would be helpful if we like printed a copy of one of those two things like printed a motion sheet so you could just look at the 100%

the review comments on your computer and then have the motion itself that would be great because I was scared when I'm reading this if I start to scroll down everything. I don't know. Okay. So, if we could print off I just need to bring a second laptop. Do that or you know red or yellow, you know. Yeah, I just need to bring my full screen later meetings more efficient. So, um, any other comments or concerns from the group? Seeing none, motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Second. Moved by Commissioner PZ, seconded by Commissioner Denol. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor vote I. Oppos? Nay. We are journed at 10:02 p.m.