[5:49] Mhm.

[9:27] » to order. Um I call the meeting of the East Lansing uh Planning Commission uh

[9:31] meeting on August 12th, 2026 to order at 6:30 p.m.

[9:37] Uh Landon, could you please call roll? >> I will. Commissioner Stapen?

[9:42] » [laughter] >> Present.

[9:43] » Present. >> Commissioner Denault?

[9:45] » Here. >> Commissioner Greening?

[9:48] Commissioner Lipean Ray? >> Here.

[9:50] » Commissioner Overbey? >> Here.

[9:52] » Commissioner Putz? Commissioner Ramirez Roberts?

[9:55] » Here. >> Vice Chair Wagner? Chair Sullivan? We

[9:58] have quorum. >> Thank you.

[10:01] Um, and could I have a motion to approve the agenda for tonight?

[10:05] » So moved. >> Second.

[10:07] » Uh, moved by Denault, seconded by Overbey.

[10:10] Um, all in favor, please say uh, yay, and all please say oppose say

[10:16] nay. >> I.

[10:18] » I. >> I. Or I.

[10:20] Um, all right, moving on to item 1.3 on the agenda.

[10:24] Um, approval of the minutes. So, the July 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission

[10:28] meeting minutes, um, are included in your packet. Um, could I have a motion,

[10:32] please, to approve those meeting minutes?

[10:34] » So moved. >> Moved by, uh, Ramirez Roberts.

[10:39] » Second. >> Seconded by Commissioner Overbey. Um,

[10:43] all those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[10:46] » I. I. >> Okay, motion passes.

[10:49] Um, moving on to agenda item, uh, two, committee report reports.

[10:53] Uh, we have the data center staff work group report, and Commissioner Putz and

[10:57] Greening are not here. Would you like to give that?

[11:01] » on the work group. Uh, the data center's work group is an internal work group,

[11:05] uh, from several departments, planning, uh, public works,

[11:09] uh, IT, uh, public works, including the the water, um,

[11:13] I guess waste water, and also water plant.

[11:16] Uh, they've been meeting essentially bi-weekly for a couple of months, um,

[11:19] and are getting close to, I I would say we

[11:22] have a good conceptual framework so far, uh, for for an ordinance, uh, but

[11:27] haven't put together draft language yet, because

[11:29] uh, we had a little challenge over the summer getting in touch with several

[11:32] subject matter experts at MSU and we have a better chance now. Uh so last

[11:37] night actually at Council I requested and was uh given uh a 6-month extension

[11:42] of a moratorium that we passed in March. Uh so we'll have

[11:46] uh a 6 more months uh including the the

[11:49] extra month so and that moratorium will continue until March 17th of next year.

[11:54] Um but I I hope to uh have language introduced at the Council level

[11:58] potentially as soon as September uh we'll see how it goes and then it

[12:02] will come to you after that. >> Sounds good.

[12:04] » So I'm it's been good work uh by the work group

[12:07] and I'm excited to bring something to you the next few months.

[12:10] » Sounds good. Any questions on that for Landon?

[12:15] Okay, hearing none moving on to item number three staff reports. Um Landon

[12:19] I'll turn over to you. >> Sure.

[12:21] Um I'll just briefly mention if anyone's

[12:24] watching online uh it's currently 6:35 and we have a wet weather resiliency

[12:28] plan open house taking place in the lobby until 7:00 p.m. so people can

[12:32] still make it down to Hannah Community Center to the lobby to check out the wet

[12:36] weather resiliency uh plan open house that's going on right

[12:40] now or they can also go to East Lansing's uh East Lansing floodstudy.com

[12:45] uh to find out more about that process and give uh feedback.

[12:49] Otherwise, I just want to mention a little update on what happened uh at

[12:52] Council last night. Um Council uh had a public hearing for ordinance

[12:57] 1570 which was a proposed rezoning for 3859 Stoll.

[13:01] That's a small property way up uh at Stoll and Chandler

[13:05] uh that was surrounded by properties that had Dewitt Township zoning.

[13:08] Ordinance 1564 changed all those Dewitt Township zoned properties to have East

[13:12] Lansing zone uh zoning and those became R1 and 35 3859 Stoll was a little pocket

[13:19] of B4 zoning that was left over from previous zoning. So the Council uh

[13:25] approved or adopted that ordinance to change that to be R1 as well to match

[13:29] the rest of the properties around it. Uh ordinance 1559 about diverse housing and

[13:34] 1576 a cleanup ordinance to change how

[13:38] upper story residential um is governed in downtown and several

[13:43] other items. Those were both deferred to September 8th. We'll both be discussing

[13:48] those more at council on that night. Also council had a public hearing for

[13:53] ordinance 1575 which is the green code study committee's amendments proposed

[13:57] for the zoning ordinance. They had their public hearing last night

[14:01] just got I think one comment. Um and they'll be taking action potentially or

[14:06] reconsidering that um ordinance on September 22nd.

[14:11] I think that's um that's my update from last night. I

[14:16] don't think I had anything more. Do you have anything to add?

[14:23] Okay. Um let me just look through real quick

[14:26] and see if there's anything else we should talk about.

[14:28] Uh oh the the extension of the moratorium I mentioned

[14:32] um there was a public hearing just uh for

[14:36] your information about um tree removal. Uh we've had trees uh

[14:41] requests to remove trees come to the planning commission before. Uh in this

[14:45] case it was a removal without permission and uh the

[14:49] the applicant was appealing uh the decision of DPW to assess a fine for

[14:54] that. So that was interesting um and we expect a couple more of those requests

[14:58] to come to council in the next couple months.

[15:00] Um and we'll apprise you of what happens to those as well. But that's my report.

[15:04] » Was that just the beginning of the appeal or was there a decision made at

[15:07] council? >> Um it was decided to

[15:10] » Can you actually explain? >> So the appeal was because they took down

[15:13] four city trees and the fine is associated with two hundred dollars per

[15:19] per two inches of tree but the council came to the conclusion that it would be

[15:23] beneficial to get four new trees that are 3-in caliber or larger in place of

[15:29] what was there. And that they're responsible for the

[15:34] fees associated with the stump grinding and then what the permit and after the

[15:38] fact permit fee would be. So, round about $800 I think is what their total

[15:45] fee would be, but then they have to plant those four trees. If they don't

[15:48] plant the four trees within 90 days, then they'll be subject to the original

[15:51] fine of $4,700. >> Got it. Thank you.

[15:55] » And Commissioner Overby? >> I have a I have a I have a question on

[15:59] the the the gas station moratorium. Is that still in effect and what's what's

[16:03] happening with that? >> Uh yeah, thank you. Um so, council

[16:07] approved a moratorium for uh also in

[16:11] I want to say February until October 3rd of this year on new auto service uh

[16:17] centers, which include gas stations. Uh they had recently approved a couple um

[16:21] and wanted to hit the brakes a little bit and determine if we had a have a

[16:24] need or should change uh regulations. We have done a lot of research internally

[16:29] on trying to understand sort of where we are compared to the region as

[16:33] far as pumps per capita essentially. Uh we've gotten some information about

[16:36] that. I don't necessarily think that we'll be proposing uh significant

[16:40] changes, but we may. Um I'll have more information for you guys probably in

[16:44] September about that. >> Thank you.

[16:48] » All right. Any other questions? Okay. Moving on to item uh

[16:54] 4.1, disclosure of conflict of interest. Do any commissioners

[16:58] um have a conflict of interest that they'd like to disclose tonight?

[17:03] All right. Hearing none, we will move on to item five, communications from

[17:06] citizens. Um I do have one card, but I'm assuming

[17:11] Lee that you would like to talk um during the um the discussion later on.

[17:16] Okay. And then any other comments from citizens?

[17:20] » I'm Cliff from DPW and Layton said what I was going to say. Just I wanted to

[17:24] plug the eastlansingfloodstudy.com and it felt weird to come and sit down

[17:29] and then immediately leave without explanation. So, just reiterating what

[17:32] he said, that'll be updated for tomorrow. You're going to miss the

[17:36] remainder of tonight, but it's an important project. Um

[17:39] September 15th, there will be a presentation to council, but in the

[17:42] meantime there's that virtual open house. So, for anyone listening and for

[17:46] all of you, I encourage you to check it out and

[17:49] uh thank you. >> Sounds good. Thanks, Cliff.

[17:51] » I applaud you, Cliff. Thank you, Cliff. >> Linda, I don't need We don't need a card

[17:53] for that, right? >> No.

[17:55] » Okay. Great. It's perfect. Um

[18:00] I think I skipped over written communications, so I apologize.

[18:03] Uh there is one written communication uh that it looks like is in the packet. All

[18:07] of the communications that were received since 5:00 p.m. last night are included.

[18:11] Um any

[18:13] comments on that from staff? >> Just that all all written communications

[18:17] received before 5:00 p.m. last night are included. And this one I believe is

[18:21] about the future land use discussion. Um specifically talking about future

[18:26] zoning. Uh so, we would we'd probably get to this in more detail after we

[18:31] figured out the future land use categories, which will be the topic of

[18:33] discussion tonight. >> Because it's quite lengthy.

[18:36] » It is. It's about uh about 25 pages. >> Okay. Great.

[18:42] Okay. I'm out of order now, so I apologize. Um we'll move on to item

[18:47] number six, our public hearings. It looks like we do not have any public

[18:50] hearings tonight, so we'll move on to unfinished business items.

[18:53] Um so, item 7.1, consideration of a request from the Graduate East Lansing

[18:57] to reconfigure an existing plaza space at 133 Evergreen Avenue by adding five

[19:03] parking spaces and one van accessible space.

[19:06] Uh I think we'll turn to the staff report first. So, Alicia, I'll turn it

[19:09] to you. >> I'll share.

[19:13] You want me share from the end zone?

[19:23] » [clears throat] [laughter]

[19:31] » There we go. Okay. So, last uh

[19:35] last planning >> Okay.

[19:39] » Last time we were here, we got an overview of the proposal from The

[19:42] Graduate to install six parking spaces, one of which includes a van accessible

[19:47] space within their existing plaza. The

[19:52] proposal includes some landscaping, but there was concern about trees that had

[19:56] been removed as part of the proposal. Um I did receive an email from Greg,

[20:03] civil engineer, um earlier yesterday. They are dedicated to

[20:08] replacing the trees. So, two can fit on the property now. So, we have three

[20:12] street trees, three private trees. They're proposing two street trees in

[20:17] replacement of what three are taking out, so they'll

[20:20] flank the parking. And then they've proposed to work with

[20:24] the city to relocate that third one in conjunction with a an a location

[20:29] nearby. And then part of the proposal is also removing two of their

[20:35] private trees, which they have agreed to also find a new location with the city

[20:40] for those two additional trees. So, we're not losing We're losing some on

[20:43] the site, but they're they've agreed to relocate them within the vicinity

[20:48] subject to what the city um requirements would be as far as the

[20:53] type and try to get it in close proximity, maybe working with a

[20:56] neighboring property that has more room. So, they have um agreed to do that cuz

[21:00] this site just can't hold trees that would

[21:03] thrive, and we would want them to thrive. Uh they do propose the

[21:07] landscaping that is um now it's going to be closer to the

[21:12] building, but they still are providing their clear path of not less than 5 ft

[21:16] of uh accessible space. They've dedicated

[21:20] to that verbally last time, and then I got it in the email again yesterday.

[21:25] There's a PIV valve, which is part of the fire suppression requirements, that

[21:28] is currently located between spaces three and four or two and three,

[21:33] um which is raised, and so their choice for protection,

[21:36] which they've worked with the fire marshal, is to put that below ground,

[21:40] which will qualify for the requirements. Um

[21:43] until we have an updated plan, that's why the conditions remain for these

[21:46] items. Um

[21:48] they have identified over on the in front of the building that there is

[21:53] actually one parking space for their valet service

[21:57] that is dedicated to the graduate 100%, but it is only one based on the

[22:01] dimensions, which their engineers provided. This spaces, including the one

[22:06] van accessible, will be public parking spaces with meters for temporary loading

[22:10] and unloading. Um it will include a combination of

[22:14] potentially an easement and agreement, which they have already

[22:17] um stated that they would agree to. The agreement is because part

[22:21] of it's public land, part of it's private land, and so the easement

[22:24] portion covers the private portion, but we have to have a parking agreement as

[22:29] is done with other parking areas like at the CVS and so forth.

[22:33] Um they've already identified that these things that they

[22:36] they'll work through them. Um within the conditions that were

[22:40] provided,

[22:44] I did not write them. Um

[22:51] There there wasn't there were no outstanding

[22:53] conditions that we hadn't already discussed that they hadn't already

[22:57] addressed. Um there is one light pole that has to be removed during the

[23:01] construction, which will be relocated. One of the elements that will also still

[23:05] need to be worked through, which usually comes at permitting, is related to the

[23:08] actual lines for the electric service and any other lines that may be buried

[23:13] that they haven't investigated yet. They'll work with the engineering

[23:16] department to sort through what exist or doesn't exist and how that

[23:20] needs to be relocated to allow that light to be placed um and still run and

[23:25] operate safely. I will mention that we have talked at

[23:28] length and I Lee and I have talked many times about the concerns that we have

[23:33] heard as staff related to the valet operations.

[23:38] Um I observed it firsthand yesterday. Um

[23:41] there was an event and the runners were running,

[23:46] but the cars were still parked where it says do not park.

[23:49] They were trying to valet them. People were literally getting out of their cars

[23:54] and just walking in. It was on spilled onto Albert on both directions. It was

[23:59] blocked at one point in both directions on Evergreen.

[24:02] So, it would be a very strong encouragement

[24:05] to continue to improve your operations to be able to make this a success. Um

[24:10] that

[24:12] it's definitely an operational challenge, but I I believe Lee has

[24:16] explained that it's a third party that handles those valet operations

[24:21] and they have to remember it's not a parking lot. It is

[24:24] temporary loading and unloading and these spaces that are being provided are

[24:28] for the public. So, if someone wants to pop in for 15 minutes and run to MSUFCU

[24:34] or over to the donut store, they are allowed to use those spaces as

[24:40] well. With the operations, they need to be

[24:43] aware, which Lee has mentioned before, is that you can't block somebody in

[24:47] there. Um and then we have another traffic congestion. So, this is intended

[24:51] to stop the street parking, which is

[24:55] not allowed and has been abused, unfortunately, and this was the solution

[25:00] that was determined to be the best of what could come from the challenges that

[25:05] they have. Uh, they did get a recommendation from the Transportation

[25:10] Commission on July 13th.

[25:14] Yes, July 13th for these spaces. So, they were in support of adding those. It

[25:19] did go to the DDA

[25:23] last month. I can't Sorry, I can't remember the date.

[25:26] 27th? 23rd of July, and they did postpone

[25:31] action uh, for further discussion and to allow

[25:35] them the opportunity to review the plan. It hadn't been incorporated into their

[25:39] packet. Um, that will be revisited on the 27th

[25:43] at DDA. Their recommendation will go directly to City Council.

[25:48] Any questions?

[25:51] Yes, Commissioner Overbeek. >> Couple of questions. So, we do not know

[25:54] what the DDA recommendation will be, and that will go directly to the Council.

[25:59] » Correct. And that happens occasionally the way

[26:02] that the meetings land. >> Right.

[26:05] » That it could be the day after a Planning Commission vote.

[26:08] That would be the same thing. But, yeah, we won't know until

[26:12] City Council, whatever their recommendation is, that packet gets

[26:14] published. >> And and you saw firsthand what was

[26:17] happening at the at at at this area with doing it at at

[26:21] an event. And I mean, I'm struggling with this.

[26:25] There's very There's There's we can't make any more space there.

[26:28] I wish we could, but we can't. And I personally think the only solution

[26:34] to this is if they have enough runners. Because you're going to have cars

[26:39] that'll back up. I mean, there's How many cars will it take for it to

[26:43] back up there? Five? Six? And if you have an event, you're going to have that

[26:49] many people that that roll up all at once. And so, I'm just struggling with

[26:54] with what is the possible solution, and I don't know.

[26:57] » It's going to come down to enforcement that we are going to have to

[27:02] make sure that the city's PACE department is doing their enforcement

[27:05] and hope that the operations are improved to not have it to be a problem

[27:09] that we have continued to see. >> Let's hope that they have enough

[27:12] runners. I mean, I felt that when we talked about

[27:15] this last time, I felt that the solution was that they have enough runners.

[27:19] Runners, I assume, are the people that drive the cars to

[27:23] the Grove Street ramp and then and then run back and get another car.

[27:27] » They do run. Yeah, and I I know that Lee mentioned previously when we had a

[27:30] conversation related to trying to let their guests know before they arrived

[27:34] that they have limited space in front of the building for valet and trying to

[27:37] encourage their uh visitors to park themselves. Um

[27:42] he'll have to speak to how that's working.

[27:45] It it is a challenge. It's a site that

[27:48] doesn't accommodate the need that the graduate

[27:51] has. So, this was the best option that has been provided to try and

[27:56] soften the edges of a really >> Right.

[27:58] » rough bristle. >> But if you if if you're going to park

[28:01] yourself, you will still have to come up in front of the hotel to unload your

[28:06] family and your guest and your and your luggage. I mean, you're not going to

[28:09] drag your luggage from the parking ramp. >> Well, I always took my kid from the ramp

[28:13] with his baseball bags and everything. It's just a culture

[28:17] of choice that I believe and Lee will speak to this what their guests are

[28:21] accustomed to. >> Right. Yeah. Right.

[28:24] Thank you, Alicia. >> I had one question um that I didn't see

[28:27] in the packet, so I'm assuming we couldn't figure it out. Um I think that

[28:30] I had asked something last time, but I can't remember about whether we had any

[28:33] data on the number of um calls that had been made to PACE um about the specific

[28:39] uh the specific issue. Was there any

[28:42] follow-up on that? >> So, there was 280 or so over a course of

[28:47] a year. >> Okay.

[28:49] » Um staff probably has half of those calls

[28:52] that they've made and then it's exhausting to make those calls. Um

[28:59] so the number of complaints has been reduced, but we do still see the

[29:03] challenges that they're faced with trying to accommodate their guests and

[29:08] um it >> No, that's helpful.

[29:13] » Yes, Commissioner Shapen. >> For for um for staff [laughter] here,

[29:16] I'm uh there's we've been using a couple

[29:19] terms interchangeably. I just want to make sure we clarify this. Is this a

[29:23] 15-minute parking zone or is this a loading area? Loading and unloading.

[29:28] It's not for parking. Okay, so I want to get back to your comment about you could

[29:33] park there and go to the donut store. So, I think we need to sort of clarify

[29:39] that. That was confusing to me. >> Okay, so you can

[29:43] I guess temporarily park would be the the way to but it is 15 minutes. The

[29:48] meter won't allow it for a snap again for another 15 minutes. You can't put

[29:52] coins into it. But it's intended for loading and

[29:55] unloading, but at the same time being that it's public, if somebody did want

[29:58] to pop their car there for a minute to run

[30:01] across the street, they have the right to do that. So, it is kind of

[30:04] interchangeable in that it's intended for loading and unloading

[30:08] short-term metered to give the opportunity to utilize some time to go

[30:12] to the other businesses. >> So, I may have just a little follow-up.

[30:15] I may have misunderstood. We are going to have meters there? I

[30:19] thought we were going to have a sign or it was going to be signed

[30:24] uh in that area, but there'll be meters and a sign?

[30:27] » Yes. >> So,

[30:30] all right, so loading area with meters.

[30:33] » Yes. >> Okay.

[30:35] » Maximum 15 minutes. >> was confusing to me, but and I would

[30:38] also say while I'm asking questions, I viewed the video from a couple weeks

[30:42] ago. But you guys asked every question that I would be interested in and I

[30:46] thank you for representing those that were not in attendance last night. Thank

[30:51] you. >> And thank you for pointing out the

[30:53] confusion. I I can understand how it is. >> Okay.

[30:56] » It's intended for short-term turnaround.

[30:59] » Okay. >> What

[31:01] Um >> I have a follow-up. Go ahead.

[31:03] » I was just going to say what type of meter is this? Is this a um

[31:07] » city >> Is it one where you push the like the

[31:10] button and you get 15 minutes? Is it the one that automatically bills you after

[31:14] your time expires? Is it the one where you have the passport app?

[31:18] » No, I believe it's a flip one. Um but it technology could change by the time it

[31:23] gets input. Um there is a program that city council recently

[31:28] approved which is working through the system to get um

[31:32] the parking sticks if you will to help with enforcement. So

[31:38] the intent was for however the meter is sorted, it is 15 minutes period. Whether

[31:42] it's a a button or a flip switch, I'm not sure. But you can't passport.

[31:47] There's no cost to it. It's just you get 15 minutes and then you got to be out.

[31:51] And those part of the enforcement that we've

[31:53] talked about is Pace being able to do so if these sticks um

[31:58] pass the requirements of the state to be able to coordinate whatever they got to

[32:01] do for that particular situation. That will help with the enforcement. Um

[32:05] ultimately I think Lee could speak to the fact that

[32:09] if those things do get put in place and the customer gets the ticket 3 weeks

[32:13] later in the mail, that's not something that they're going to be really happy

[32:15] about. So the process um is still working through the system.

[32:20] City council did approve them. But again, it has to go through multiple

[32:24] steps with state approvals and the court and so forth.

[32:27] But the intent is 15 minutes and you're out.

[32:30] It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to have somebody unload their things.

[32:35] And then have the car moved or >> Right.

[32:38] » get their things and move or run into issues.

[32:41] » And I think the thing that I'm hung up on and I might have said this last time

[32:43] and I just have to work through it in my brain is

[32:46] these are public spaces >> Yes.

[32:48] » that you could use as the graduate >> Yes.

[32:52] » for all of your valet needs as runners are running back and forth. So, all five

[32:58] spaces could be occupied by graduate guests. So, they're not

[33:03] really public. >> They're intended for the public. It's

[33:05] not solely for the graduate. >> Okay.

[33:08] » Because it is partially in public right of way.

[33:15] » Okay.

[33:17] » It'll be a balance. >> Other questions for staff from

[33:21] Commissioner Sorry, Commissioner Donnell.

[33:23] » Um the packet says that

[33:29] so, comments from environmental staff request that the applicant and public

[33:34] works will establish a mutually agreeable fixed cost figure

[33:39] reflecting infrastructure costs for the the future street tree. Do you know if

[33:45] that has been agreed upon yet?

[33:48] » So, it has not. There is a modification to the tree ordinance that we have that

[33:53] is being worked through. It's not This is also is not the time that we want to

[33:57] be planting trees. Trees need to be planted later in the fall. Hopefully,

[34:00] that ordinance gets sorted by that time, but they the applicant has

[34:06] um committed to that. And it'll

[34:11] be whatever the street tree allowances are

[34:14] um based on what the recommendations from the arborist and environmental

[34:17] health have. But again, the applicant has agreed to those standards verbally

[34:22] in testimony last at the last meeting and then I did get the email yesterday.

[34:26] I think it was yesterday from their civil engineer also committing to that.

[34:30] » Okay. >> So, the cost related is not decided yet

[34:33] because we don't we don't >> that was my clarifying question was so

[34:36] it has been agreed that they will plant the tree but the mutually agreeable

[34:41] fixed cost that DPW request has not been agreed upon yet.

[34:46] » Correct. And it comes down to the type of tree that would

[34:49] be best served for where it's planted and have the best survival rate.

[34:54] » Excellent, thanks.

[34:58] Good, Josh. >> Yeah.

[34:59] » Okay, perfect. Um yes, Commissioner Overby.

[35:03] » Real quick question. Evergreen remains two-way, I believe.

[35:06] » Correct. >> As it looked like there was some

[35:08] discussion about making it one-way, but it remains two-way.

[35:13] » There had been um

[35:15] maybe five or six iterations of attempts to try and find solutions through

[35:19] Evergreen Avenue, including various one-way options. In the end, this is

[35:24] what came back as the most

[35:29] as the best solution to a really difficult problem, but it does remain

[35:32] two-way. >> Thank you.

[35:37] » Okay, if there's no more questions, then um Mr. Cody, I'd call you up. I probably

[35:43] said that wrong. >> No, that's it. Cody.

[35:45] » Okay, great. >> Hi, first off, just

[35:49] Lee Cody representing the Graduate Hotel. Nice to see you guys again. Uh

[35:52] thank you so much for your time and consideration on this project. Um as

[35:55] Alicia was mentioning, uh definitely view this as

[36:00] a positive for the area and a positive part of ultimately a multi-faceted

[36:05] solution, which absolutely total head count with those valet runners that we

[36:10] have is a huge part of that. So, just wanted to update quickly on that. Over

[36:13] the last 30 days, after last time we met, uh sat with our operator, we did

[36:18] some math. Uh the number that we came up for total head count to operate with

[36:22] complete efficiency and avoid these backups was a 35% head count. Uh we have

[36:27] since then verbally agreed to within that contract

[36:31] that they're going to get to a 45-person head count because of the fact that if

[36:35] anything we'd like to be in a position that we have more people than is needed.

[36:39] Um, and they're about halfway to that goal, which is a positive. I think we're

[36:42] at about 25 as of 35 30 days ago and up to about 35 currently or starting

[36:47] shortly uh with that goal to get to 45. So, that'll be a huge part of uh

[36:52] the full solution in the area. But, definitely view this project as a part

[36:56] of that solution and a positive to continue to alleviate backups and

[37:02] improve traffic flow and safety in that area, which is our ultimate goal and

[37:05] service the guest. And just uh one other follow-up with the question regarding us

[37:10] attempting to guide guests to alternative options for them for us. Uh,

[37:14] primarily that's for special events. Um, like the one that was Alicia that Alicia

[37:18] was mentioning. That's really when the biggest bumps if we've got a group

[37:21] that's hard start time at 9:00 a.m. they're all going to show up within

[37:24] 10-15 minutes of that. That's when we'll guide them uh to public options

[37:29] uh within the city, which has worked well for groups that have kind of over

[37:33] time got to know us, got to know the area that we'll recommend that as a good

[37:36] option for them. Um, we've also had a couple of groups that have contracted uh

[37:40] with neighbors of ours to be able to kind of self park in some of those you

[37:44] know, available spaces locally, which has worked well too and we'll continue

[37:48] to uh guide people that way and and pursue that as a part of this overall

[37:52] solution. And happy to answer any additional

[37:56] questions you guys may have.

[38:00] » Do you have one? Commissioner Romeo Roberts.

[38:03] » Yeah, I understand this doesn't necessarily come down to the planning

[38:06] aspect. I didn't know if you had any knowledge on this. I got like a door

[38:11] hanger delivered to my house essentially saying

[38:14] like call your council members and it was about this project and I looked up

[38:19] the mailing agency. It wasn't mail. Someone literally went and put it on my

[38:22] door. >> Oh, yeah.

[38:23] » Um and it was for like Unite Here and I looked it up, it's a hospitality union.

[38:28] But that's It didn't look like they represented your building, correct?

[38:31] » Uh that is correct. Yeah, they do not.

[38:34] Yeah. >> I was

[38:36] » You're good. >> the same one.

[38:37] » Thank you. >> I I wanted to.

[38:40] » I didn't get it. >> [laughter]

[38:43] » And one other note, just on the trees, as Alicia was mentioning, I was working

[38:47] not only with the city for um those city trees and our full commitment to replace

[38:51] at everyone here's discretion where that would go.

[38:55] Um did have a good conversation with our partners next door neighbors at the

[38:59] People's Church and they said that they would be very open to us

[39:02] attempting to find good locations to replace a couple or three of those trees

[39:07] that need to be moved somewhere on their site, so um

[39:10] that'll be an option for us. >> The only other thing I was going to ask

[39:14] you about on that front and this might be minor and I can't find it now, but

[39:17] there was somewhere in here that um you'd obviously been working through the

[39:21] tree piece, but there were also like the unresolved, the planters and there was

[39:24] no idea for where or I didn't see anything about where those would be

[39:27] moved. Are those just getting nixed >> So, the existing landscaping is going to

[39:33] continue to exist, but will be kind of shifted um closer to that side entrance

[39:38] of the property. >> Okay.

[39:39] » So, there's an existing planter box with landscaping that will be shifted a

[39:43] little bit to kind of the left-hand side of the screen.

[39:46] » Okay. Thank you.

[39:48] » Yeah. >> The box, I think itself will be made

[39:50] smaller and then there's some trim plantings. It's not just

[39:55] the box anymore cuz it doesn't fit >> It doesn't fit.

[39:58] » where it is, but they're making up for landscaping.

[40:02] The trees or the >> We're generally keeping the same look

[40:05] and feel of the trees and foliage. >> The trees, yes. The The landscaping will

[40:10] look different just because of the amount of

[40:12] cut out that they had to do. >> Okay.

[40:15] » But there's still a good amount. >> Okay.

[40:18] Commissioner Overbey. >> So, how

[40:20] how many runners is your goal to have? >> 45 is the goal.

[40:24] » So, there was an event yesterday that that that staff said was kind of

[40:28] clogged. How many runners were there yesterday?

[40:31] » So, full transparency, I was not physically there yesterday. I was

[40:35] attending a Chamber of Commerce event. Um I know the event that she's speaking

[40:40] of was the uh mobility summit, which had a lot of unique factors to it, including

[40:45] some of their own vehicles that were being showcased, and some trailers to

[40:49] bring some of those vehicles in. Um I could not speak to the exact number

[40:53] without going out back to double-check. I can tell you that um halfway to the

[40:57] goal of 35 is what they expect as they get a few more students back that have

[41:01] signed on to join the team. They operate with a lot of students, um which is

[41:05] great. And once we get to that number, that's why we've chosen to push them

[41:08] kind of 10 plus above the number that we Armac told us would would alleviate

[41:14] everything. >> Thank you.

[41:15] » Yes. So, I saw the two two same people running yesterday, so I don't know how

[41:21] many were on staff, but for your 45 count, is that spread over a shift?

[41:26] » No, that would be their total head count that then would be dispersed on shifts

[41:29] based on needs. Um no, total staff head count. So, of

[41:32] course some of those individuals might work three days a week.

[41:35] » So, if you're having an event like yesterday,

[41:39] » Yeah. >> how many people would you expect to be

[41:40] able to have on staff to accommodate the run?

[41:43] » Yeah, I would I would say probably 15. Probably 15 would be my best estimate. I

[41:49] mean, PMC ultimately, they kind of guide us on some of this. They are the experts

[41:52] in that area, but we've just continued to push them to say, "Hey, you think

[41:55] it's 12, let's get to 15. You think total head count's 35, let's get to 45."

[42:00] Um so that we can have more bodies than we

[42:03] need. >> If I may one other. Um I I neglected to

[42:08] mention in the traffic study, so there consistently throughout the

[42:11] traffic study, we see the number of seven spaces required. At some point

[42:15] there was a number up to upwards of 12. I can't locate that in the document, but

[42:20] seven is consistently the amount that's been listed as a need for valet spaces.

[42:25] So you have the one that's dedicated in front of the building. You get five more

[42:29] so we're at six because the van accessible doesn't count.

[42:33] How are we going to deal with that additional

[42:36] » Yeah, I think shifting those numbers that talked by the number of folks that

[42:40] are on staff. That changes that picture a small amount. Yeah.

[42:46] » But what I'm hearing is if the trap the traffic study is calling for seven and

[42:49] we don't have a way to get to seven spaces.

[42:52] Okay.

[42:55] Other questions for the applicant?

[42:59] Chelsea Chelsea or Commissioner Janel. >> [laughter]

[43:03] » Um One of the other um points from DPW here

[43:10] was that y'all would guarantee the survival

[43:15] of um the new trees that you're putting in um

[43:20] in DPW recommended a condition of approval requiring um a minimum of three

[43:27] years post installation that you would replace the trees at your cost if if

[43:32] they were to unfortunately die. Is that something that you would agree to have

[43:36] listed in one of the conditions? >> Yeah, we're comfortable with that.

[43:39] » Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> Mhm.

[43:41] » Um and I feel like I had one more question, but now I don't remember what

[43:44] it Oh, I remember now. Um so the I just wanted to follow up on the planter

[43:49] question. So the planters um there will still be a planter. It'll be slightly

[43:54] different it sounds like, but there will still be some landscaping

[43:58] similar to what's there. >> Correct.

[44:00] » Does it overall though increase the amount of impervious surface that could

[44:06] result in more like storm water runoff.

[44:11] » I do not offhand know the answer to that.

[44:14] » We had asked the engineer for that information last time. He indicated it

[44:18] was close, but that they were going to provide the number and I don't have that

[44:22] number.

[44:26] I only ask because I'm not sure off the top of my head what

[44:31] like it's not sewer, but like waste water

[44:35] infrastructure is on Evergreen and I could imagine if there's a really bad

[44:39] storm that kind of little corridor becoming overwhelmed.

[44:44] » Yeah. I mean I can say from personal

[44:47] experience knock on wood that I can't recall a time that there was like

[44:50] standing water there in the 2 and 1/2 years that I've been there. Of course,

[44:53] that is a possibility, but it's not something that I think about often as

[44:57] like a recurring issue that I've seen. >> Okay.

[45:03] Any other questions?

[45:06] All right. >> Motion.

[45:07] » Thank you. >> Thank you so much.

[45:09] » I do have a landscape plan. All right. With that, I'd like to ask for a motion

[45:13] for discussion. >> I'll be happy to make a motion unless

[45:17] » Okay. >> Josh wants to make the motion.

[45:19] » Motion by Chapin seconded by >> Sure. I'll second it.

[45:25] » All right. There we go. I guess I'm in. I think this is fairly simple.

[45:28] I move to approve the site plan request from Lee Cody on behalf of GMI LLC to

[45:36] reconfigure an an existing plaza space by adding five

[45:41] parking spaces and one van accessible space located at 133 Evergreen

[45:47] Avenue. Before I read the rest of this, AIR stands for

[45:54] Okay. Thank you. Say it again.

[45:59] AIR stands for >> [clears throat]

[46:02] » Agenda >> Attached

[46:03] » Agenda item report. It's in there. >> Okay, that's all right. I know it's in

[46:07] there. I just want to make sure if I'm reading it, I just want to make

[46:10] sure I knew what AIR stood for. >> Sorry.

[46:13] » This decision is based on the findings and determinations to approve a site

[46:17] plan for 130 133 Evergreen Avenue and the conditions of approval dated August

[46:24] 12th, 2026, which is attached to the AIR for this agenda item and incorporated

[46:30] into this motion by this reference. I have nothing further to add to that.

[46:37] » Okay. >> But maybe others do.

[46:39] » I believe Commissioner Denault wanted to add um

[46:45] » I did want to [clears throat] add that. Um so, I was just going to propose a

[46:50] friendly amendment that um reflecting DPW's request that the

[46:56] applicant would guarantee replacement of the tree for 3 years after installation.

[47:03] Which the applicant has very kindly agreed to.

[47:08] » So noted. Are you looking at me because I made the motion to add that friendly

[47:13] amendment? I'm very friendly >> [laughter]

[47:15] » to add that amendment. So, I'll be very friendly to add that

[47:18] amendment. >> I think I have to make a motion though

[47:21] and then we can vote on >> motion on that.

[47:22] » Very good. >> Yeah. So, I move what I just said.

[47:27] To amend the motion that was on the To Yes, I move I will just say it over. I

[47:31] move to add an amendment to the motion by

[47:36] um Commissioner Chapin to add language reflecting DPW's

[47:42] uh request that the applicant would

[47:44] guarantee the replacement of any trees for 3 years post installation.

[47:52] As a condition of approval. >> And does that require a second?

[47:57] » I'll second. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[47:59] » Very good. >> And now I think we vote just on the

[48:02] amendment. We're voting on the amendment.

[48:06] » We have but we sort of have skipped over the discussion piece.

[48:09] » We'll come back to it. >> Well, let's

[48:11] » You can discuss now if you'd like. >> So we have the whole yeah, the whole

[48:14] motion on the table. >> We will vote on

[48:16] » Yeah. >> Commissioner or not Commissioner,

[48:18] Landing can you um call roll for the um motion on the table?

[48:22] » Sure. Uh [clears throat] so we have a motion

[48:24] to amend the main motion by adding a condition about tree maintenance for 3

[48:28] years uh made by Denault, seconded by Ramirez

[48:31] Roberts. Uh Commissioner Chapin, how do you vote?

[48:34] » I, yes. >> Commissioner Denault?

[48:36] » Yes. >> Commissioner Lupien Raby?

[48:38] » No. >> Commissioner Overby?

[48:40] » Yes. >> And Commissioner Ramirez Roberts?

[48:42] » Yes. >> That amendment passes.

[48:44] » Okay. So now you can have discussion if you'd

[48:47] like on the original motion. On the original

[48:50] motion. >> About the Gestalt and what we want to

[48:52] do. Well, I I'm I'm glad to speak up.

[48:56] » Sure. >> I I have really struggled with this

[49:01] and trying to think of what would be the solution for the city and the hotel with

[49:07] the traffic congestion in this area. And I I believe it's a fault that that

[49:13] that should have been addressed when the hotel was built and there was more space

[49:18] there and perhaps perhaps more options at that point. But where we are right

[49:23] now, I see no other choice. I I I struggle with this and I don't like this

[49:29] because I regardless of how many runners you

[49:32] have, I believe that when we have a football game and you have you have a

[49:37] full house, it that area is going to be impacted.

[49:41] And and it's going to be really really difficult. I

[49:45] despite my dislike for all of this, I I plan to support this motion and and I

[49:51] don't see another option And I welcome the the the hotel folks and I welcome my

[49:56] fellow commissioners to say here is another choice. And and I simply don't

[50:02] see it.

[50:05] » Yeah. Oh, I was just going to add that I I agree with you entirely that I think

[50:09] this probably should have been something that

[50:12] that was discussed when we were doing the the approval and City Council was

[50:15] also doing the approval on this initial plan.

[50:18] Um my challenge with this is related to the

[50:23] the parking standards and the traffic study. I don't I

[50:27] I cannot rectify that this will make any improvement

[50:34] to the current process even with the additional runners. And I do have

[50:38] concerns that by adding these additional public spaces, I mean, we've all lived

[50:44] in East Lansing for a long time. We're going to have people that will park in

[50:48] those spaces that will then be occupying those spaces

[50:52] probably for longer than 15 minutes. And then the backlog of cars will go further

[50:58] into I can't remember what that street is

[51:01] and will likely impede traffic behind the People's Church and run onto the

[51:06] entrance of the parking garage that's there. So, I

[51:11] I am worried that adding these additional five, you know, quote public

[51:15] spaces will lead to more of a backlog than we already have even with the

[51:19] addition of the runners. Um so I I will be voting be voting no on

[51:24] this not because I don't think it's a um

[51:28] you know, a warranted request. I just don't think it's a it's

[51:32] a solution to this problem. >> Mhm. I understand that.

[51:38] I'll tie in with those very words and I think

[51:41] Mr. Corey you know, used the word solution often in your presentation. You

[51:45] just used it as well, and I made a note, I think this is an

[51:51] improvement. Um, but it's not a solution, and I think this is a

[51:56] a move in the right direction. Uh, I think we need to do something.

[52:00] Um, I'm going to trust the people involved to make sure this is an

[52:07] improvement. Um, but I also hear you clearly say that

[52:12] this is not the end solution. Uh, it might be uh after we try this for a

[52:18] little bit, but um I'm I'm building really on the

[52:22] commentary from 2 weeks ago, where the very questions that were sort of raising

[52:27] now >> Right.

[52:28] » uh resonated with me.

[52:30] Um, so I'm going to vote yes, an improvement, not a solution, and um

[52:35] let's move it along in my mind. >> Sounds good. Any other items of

[52:40] discussion, or are we ready Do we even have to call a roll call vote again?

[52:45] » You can You can. >> We should I think we should.

[52:47] » Could you call a roll call vote again, Landon, please?

[52:50] » So, the main motion uh recommending your approval as amended, uh

[52:54] moved by Chapin. I'm sorry, I don't have it who seconded?

[52:58] » Uh, Romero's Roberts. >> Thank you.

[53:00] And seconded by Romero's Roberts. Um, Commissioner Donnell, how do you vote?

[53:05] » Yes. >> Commissioner Lapine Ray.

[53:08] » No. >> Commissioner Overby.

[53:10] » Yes. >> Commissioner Romero's Roberts.

[53:12] » Yes. >> And Commissioner Chapin.

[53:14] » Yes. >> Motion passes four to one.

[53:18] » All right. >> Good discussion.

[53:20] » Yes, thank you so much. And that will go on to City Council at

[53:25] the next meeting, or a future meeting. Okay.

[53:29] Ideally at the August 8th >> to have a pace officer stationed at this

[53:34] entrance to this hotel. >> like you're looking for a new job.

[53:36] » WITH HIS >> [laughter]

[53:37] » WITH HIS pad right out there. >> Or maybe you want to be a runner.

[53:42] » Uh okay. Moving on to item 7.2 continue

[53:47] discussion of the current future land use map categories and potential

[53:52] changes. Uh Mr. Bartley, I'll turn it to you.

[53:55] » Thank you. Uh so

[53:58] um as you know, the planning commission

[54:01] adopted a update to the comprehensive uh plan for the city last August. Uh

[54:08] but but um we didn't recommend uh at that time

[54:12] creating a new future land use map. We considered that an implementation step.

[54:16] Uh and so now we've been discussing I guess since uh early this year

[54:21] um how to approach that that uh change. Um

[54:25] should we be creating new categories for the future land use map and if so, what

[54:29] should those be? And then to uh redesignate the city with a we can

[54:34] create a new future land use map. So the first first step is to create new

[54:38] categories. Um we started discussing this back in uh

[54:43] I believe April, actually March and then again in April. Uh in in early July we

[54:48] had a retreat uh upstairs in this building and

[54:52] uh talked about this for a little bit, but uh much more of the retreat was

[54:55] about uh legal training. And so I wanted to make sure we have

[54:59] some time for discussion uh in the conversations with you before the

[55:02] meeting today. Uh I think that we probably won't be

[55:05] seeing a decision. Uh it sounded like more of you are comfortable with waiting

[55:08] until we have a larger commission here. Uh but I did want to certainly just

[55:13] um I guess sort of just reopen the conversation and see if there are any

[55:16] questions, if there are comments since July 11th, if you had

[55:19] had thought about this at all. Um I I had provided you with several examples

[55:24] of future land use maps from other uh other municipalities um

[55:28] within Michigan and and elsewhere. Uh and also

[55:32] the about I think about 50 pages of descriptions from the 2018 master plan

[55:37] that described all the 15 uh land use categories that we have currently on

[55:42] that map. I also provided a sort of a description

[55:47] of some ideas for what could be examples of

[55:51] future land use categories. One one one item that I certainly

[55:55] recommend is right now our categories we have

[55:59] 15 of them. Those categories are R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,

[56:05] M1, M2, M3, M4, C1, C2, C3. And then special academic arts and open

[56:10] space. And just sort of at the outset those are

[56:14] kind can be kind of confusing especially casual user especially

[56:19] because some of those designation names are the same as zone district

[56:23] names. And so >> [clears throat]

[56:26] » it's a best practice to have more descriptive names. So I sort of start

[56:29] there. In your in your descriptive sort of category examples

[56:34] sort of turn to the end of your packet. I talk about it's right now we have R1

[56:39] through R5 as residential land use categories but it's really based on

[56:42] density. X units per acre all the way up to higher X per acre.

[56:47] We can certainly keep considering sort of that density that's

[56:51] an important concern to many citizens here residents especially

[56:56] about residential density but but a more descriptive something like neighborhood

[57:01] residential or mixed residential or urban residential that's more high

[57:04] intensity. Campus related housing those are some examples I gave of a little

[57:08] more descriptive just a little more than just the straight up R1 or R2.

[57:12] Similarly mixed use categories M1 through M4 don't

[57:16] really describe what that means. And in fact even when you start digging in and

[57:21] go and hey what what is the difference between M3 and M4 for example? Um

[57:26] it can be can be kind of difficult. So I recommend things It's like what is the

[57:30] intensity of this business district? Is this neighborhood mixed use is more of a

[57:34] corridor or is it more regional or is it is it urban center

[57:38] or is it sort of on a again an interface between sort of the

[57:41] the campus and and the city proper.

[57:45] And then same thing with commercial categories

[57:47] neighborhood commercial community commercial regional commercial ideas

[57:50] like this of how can we more descriptive so that someone can have a little more

[57:54] idea when they look at that future land use map and that category listing of

[57:58] what what those categories correspond to in real life.

[58:02] So I guess sort of with that to just to start with I just kind of wanted to

[58:06] check with the group that's here today and see if

[58:09] what are the thoughts been leaving that retreat? How have you

[58:11] have you taken some time and thought more about this?

[58:15] We're going to continue the discussion at future future meetings and I'm not

[58:19] necessarily looking for proposals today but if you have a proposal I'd love to

[58:22] hear it. If you have thoughts concerns questions I really just wanted to open

[58:26] the discussion and see how it goes.

[58:30] » Commissioner Edelson. Um I especially like in the um

[58:36] suggested future categories I really like that you suggest that we break up

[58:42] the parks schools open space vacant bucket into

[58:46] several more descriptive types of

[58:51] areas that could fall under what was once previously an enormous bucket full

[58:56] of things that were sort of disparate and didn't really match with each other.

[59:00] Um I I especially like that you call out

[59:04] or you suggest that we call out parks and recreation as a category and natural

[59:09] areas and green infrastructure as a category because I think they are

[59:13] serving two very different purposes. Um and I also

[59:18] like that we call out item D future opportunity sites which

[59:24] I think in s-

[59:29] I think in separating that out, future developers who are looking at this map

[59:33] are going to be able to hone in on those areas maybe a little easier.

[59:39] Um and not sort of conflate all parks and natural areas as vacant land. So.

[59:47] » Okay. I appreciate that and one quick comment

[59:50] about um there was a discussion I think about the

[59:53] number of categories too and I I tend to recommend fewer categories versus uh

[59:57] more. Except in some cases it can make a lot

[1:00:00] of sense uh to to break up a special category into what is that special uh

[1:00:06] I guess. I I think that having fewer categories when it comes to

[1:00:10] your major land uses is probably more preferable I think is than than in

[1:00:15] the special categories. Um so I think I take your point. Uh one thing sort of

[1:00:20] along those lines though is uh what we don't want to do is

[1:00:23] is have so many categories that they're essentially zoning districts.

[1:00:26] And in the in the same uh in the same breath I guess and I'll talk about this

[1:00:30] more when we get to actually design the future land use map but we don't want to

[1:00:33] be parcel specific. That's essentially pre-zoning or zoning map, right? So

[1:00:38] uh and and sometimes those can I mean the the comprehensive plan is

[1:00:43] meant to be a guidance document. So that's why we want to be careful

[1:00:47] not having too many uh very specific uh categories and not being too

[1:00:52] prescriptive and too granular when we get to the actually design the map. So

[1:00:56] just want to mention that in that context.

[1:00:58] I think Commissioner Myers-Roberts you were going to

[1:01:02] » Yeah. Um with the I guess

[1:01:05] I had questions. I I have more comments but I want to start off with a question

[1:01:09] about uh section four, the employment plus

[1:01:13] innovation categories. I guess

[1:01:16] how I get what they are in concept but in terms of like the actual zoning, how

[1:01:21] would they differ? At least theoretically since they don't

[1:01:24] actually exist yet. >> Mhm.

[1:01:26] So, this was in one one section we talked about special districts and

[1:01:29] splitting those up. Employment and innovation categories, we have examples

[1:01:34] of innovation {slash} research district, employment or flex district, and major

[1:01:38] institutional uses. Um

[1:01:41] » [clears throat] >> how that how that would

[1:01:43] That's a great question. I'm really glad you asked about sort of what's the

[1:01:46] comparable zone district cuz that's always a big question. And you want to

[1:01:50] generally have once we one outcome of having a future land use

[1:01:54] map and future categories is often they'll change your zoning

[1:01:58] ordinance to match it. And you might create new zoning districts as well.

[1:02:02] That's not contemplated right now. That's a big big job.

[1:02:05] Um I don't really know how these would

[1:02:08] would match our existing zones. Um

[1:02:11] I think that we have, you know, across the board, I think about our commercial

[1:02:14] zone districts, say B1 through B5 and EV, which is East Village district. And

[1:02:19] how those I mean, those are funny because they

[1:02:22] don't really correspond to something. They don't correspond to intensity, for

[1:02:25] example. B3 is the downtown district. B4 is a restricted office business

[1:02:29] district. B1 is very low intensity business district. So,

[1:02:33] it's hard to say how those how these suggestions might correspond to existing

[1:02:37] districts. I think that if the commission starts to

[1:02:40] move in that direction of sort of these special districts that have more of a

[1:02:44] thematic like especially about commercial or industrial research or

[1:02:48] something uses, I guess. Um that may be that may turn into a new

[1:02:54] zone district that's proposed if the current zone districts don't fit.

[1:02:58] Does that does that answer your question?

[1:03:00] » Yeah. And another one I have is about the

[1:03:02] section above it, um commercial categories.

[1:03:06] And the two in the center, uh community

[1:03:09] commercial and regional commercial, I guess I don't in my brain those don't

[1:03:14] really differ in East Lansing. I feel like the only real places that we have

[1:03:18] are I don't know if you can speak to this like how you think they would

[1:03:21] differ cuz the only one I'm really thinking of is

[1:03:24] right near Eastwood with the Meyer and that sort of thing and maybe

[1:03:29] Brookfield Plaza is the other. >> Sure.

[1:03:32] » And I I just didn't know if you had a vision of how those could potentially

[1:03:35] differ or >> Yeah, I look at that kind of as as far

[1:03:38] as the market area. And so if a regional center maybe not maybe be more larger

[1:03:43] scale than Meyer, but it would be the area around Meyer including I would

[1:03:47] say Eastwood Town Center and that sort of the entire area might be a regional

[1:03:51] pull. So a regional destination as far as commercial activity.

[1:03:57] I I might see community commercial more likely like like Brookfield Plaza or

[1:04:03] I was going to say Harrison in Michigan, but I might call it even smaller

[1:04:06] smaller scale and more like neighborhood commercial.

[1:04:08] So it's it's these aren't hard and fast

[1:04:12] like it's sort of we decide how they how they work, but

[1:04:15] generally and these are sort of examples of let's

[1:04:18] just get our mind in the right place. You know, so a neighborhood is small,

[1:04:20] community is a little bigger, regional is a larger. And I I think I

[1:04:24] conceptually agree with you that we probably don't really have any true

[1:04:28] regional commercial uh districts beyond

[1:04:32] I would say downtown, but I'd put that in a mixed use category instead.

[1:04:37] » And then not to take up too much time cuz I

[1:04:41] but with the same on the commercial section I guess from my mind with the

[1:04:46] redevelopment commercial corridors thinking about like East Grand River

[1:04:51] in my brain I guess or at least for my thinking

[1:04:55] I would like to just go to straight mixed use with that instead of doing a

[1:04:59] you know a redevelopment with just

[1:05:03] having it be mixed use rather than this other category. I don't

[1:05:07] that's just my opinion though. >> Sure.

[1:05:10] » And then with the neighborhood commercial I guess I was also I'm in my

[1:05:16] thinking about it, in my mind, I don't see where a

[1:05:21] low-grade mixed-use wouldn't be just as applicable, I guess,

[1:05:26] or better in the sense where it's maybe not the commercial is required, but just

[1:05:30] that it's optional.

[1:05:32] » Yeah, commercial I tend to differentiate from mixed-use in that it would be

[1:05:36] solely commercial. >> Yeah.

[1:05:37] » So, you'll see that more in like strip commercial. Like I think you

[1:05:41] mentioned along East Grand River, for example, but you could also say, "Yeah,

[1:05:44] we want mixed-use." That would be the kind of decision we'd

[1:05:47] be making uh when we're designing the future land use map and with a lot more

[1:05:50] public participation, too, to make sure it was sort of

[1:05:53] in line with public sentiment and and desires. Um

[1:05:57] And I also So, I also don't think that we'd have

[1:06:00] we shouldn't have that many mixed-use and that many commercial. We don't need

[1:06:04] those in this in this town. I think we could have a couple mixed-use and maybe

[1:06:08] one or two commercial for those areas that

[1:06:11] don't make necessarily make sense to be mixed-use. When I say mixed-use, we're

[1:06:15] mixing uses within the buildings. So, typically you have commercial on the

[1:06:18] ground floor, like a more of a retail commercial, and then you might have

[1:06:22] office or more often residential uses on the upper floors. Um so, that's where

[1:06:26] we're saying we're mixing the uses in that that category versus purely

[1:06:30] commercial. >> Mhm.

[1:06:32] » So, I think you're I think um

[1:06:35] Yes, we don't need all of them. I think that it might make sense

[1:06:39] And this is This is one way to frame your thinking, too, as you're going

[1:06:42] around town going, "What would make sense here?" I think that mixed-use

[1:06:45] could be really nice here, but not so much over there. What would make sense

[1:06:49] over there? Oh, that may might be commercial community commercial, whereas

[1:06:52] this would be a more of a neighborhood mixed-use. So, I think that

[1:06:56] that that sort of checking out the community and thinking about what would

[1:06:59] make sense here in the existing, and then what we might what may might make

[1:07:04] sense how how want to see things go in the future.

[1:07:07] Um the map the future land use map category

[1:07:09] doesn't have to correspond to reality right now.

[1:07:12] It's just what we want to do down the road.

[1:07:15] So, I would say think about both of those when you're considering what

[1:07:18] categories you want. What do we have right now? What makes sense?

[1:07:22] Cuz it's it's not quite like zoning where you have non-conforming uses.

[1:07:26] Excuse me. Um >> [clears throat]

[1:07:29] » You can when you when you put a category on the future land use map, you're

[1:07:33] saying we want this down the road. Um

[1:07:36] To to the point earlier I think that both commissioners made about the um

[1:07:42] redevelopment commercial corridor or Commissioner Donley mentioned the future

[1:07:45] opportunity sites. Uh those are sometimes used by

[1:07:48] communities just to say, "Hey, this is a transitional area or something that we

[1:07:52] really want to focus on." And that can be helpful as far as directing

[1:07:56] incentives, directing grant programs, whatever it might be, you know, state

[1:07:59] funding for redevelopment projects. You can say, "Hey, this is really our

[1:08:02] priority focus area." Right here. That's why we're designating it as like

[1:08:07] redevelopment commercial or future opportunity site. That is a That is a

[1:08:09] great way to send a message saying, "If you want to build here, build here cuz

[1:08:14] we want to see change there." And some some you don't, and you can also

[1:08:18] designate that way as well. >> To that end, and this might be because

[1:08:22] we're still in the middle of doing the work group, but I wasn't sure

[1:08:25] necessarily in here where a data center would fit. Like what

[1:08:30] type of zoning that technically would be. I mean, I would I have been thinking

[1:08:34] about I don't think it matters for the sake of discussion today, but I've been

[1:08:37] thinking about the under number four, the employment and

[1:08:42] innovative categories. Whether I think there's really much of a

[1:08:45] difference between the innovative research district and the major

[1:08:48] institutional uses. And so, I mean, potentially a major

[1:08:52] institutional use would be a data center, but then some of the examples

[1:08:55] that we have under the innovative research district is

[1:08:58] you know, tech and labs. Um

[1:09:01] So, maybe just something to think about for future discussions.

[1:09:04] » Well, that's good. And again, these are examples.

[1:09:07] » Yeah, just examples. Yep. >> I I I think that I mean, I

[1:09:11] I could see an innovation research or research district

[1:09:15] that might be a good place to fit. You know, what I didn't really put here is

[1:09:18] like heavy industrial. We don't really have heavy industrial uses.

[1:09:21] » No. >> We have very, very little industrial

[1:09:22] space. >> Right.

[1:09:23] » Uh, I think we have eight properties across the city that are zoned

[1:09:26] industrially. Um, so, and that it that might be just

[1:09:29] fine. We don't have that many industrial uses cuz there's not that much need for

[1:09:33] industrial here. But, where there might be

[1:09:36] industrial type uses, but more like light or tech industrial

[1:09:39] » Mhm. >> would make a lot of sense in one of

[1:09:41] these categories. But, you just would choose. And I mean,

[1:09:45] we do want the categories to sort of cover the expanse of land use land uses

[1:09:50] possible land uses. >> Okay.

[1:09:53] » But, that's more important when it gets to zoning.

[1:09:54] » Commissioner Janall. >> Yeah, I um I really liked your comment,

[1:09:58] Landon, about um the redevelopment areas.

[1:10:04] Um, and I know I pointed out future opportunity sites, um and Commissioner

[1:10:08] Ramirez Roberts pointed out um redevelopment commercial corridors. I

[1:10:13] actually under item six, where it says redevelopment focus areas, I actually

[1:10:19] really like that very broad category so that we're maybe not

[1:10:24] signaling to the in in too much detail about what

[1:10:29] type of redevelopment we might want to see in a certain location, but we might

[1:10:34] be open to all types of redevelopment in a certain area, right? I think a lot

[1:10:38] about East Grand River and how those right? Immense parking lots could be

[1:10:45] going towards a much higher, better use. Um, and so, I'd hate to point to that

[1:10:50] area and say, "Oh, sorry, we only want commercial redevelopment here." Why not

[1:10:55] put housing there, right? And so, I think if we if we as a

[1:11:01] commissioner are really interested in targeting areas for redevelopment, maybe

[1:11:05] I would argue for keeping those more broad and just seeing what comes our

[1:11:10] way. >> I think that there Sorry for me. Um

[1:11:14] » Mhm. Yeah. >> [clears throat]

[1:11:16] » That that that's a fine approach. I would suggest though that it can be you

[1:11:20] have to be careful sometimes. If it's if it's broad and not

[1:11:25] Like if it's a large area without specificity because you can end up with

[1:11:28] things right now we have for example special study area.

[1:11:31] Uh northeast area of town is the South

[1:11:33] Farm. It was annexed from Bath 25 years ago.

[1:11:37] And that's a special study area. And presumably in 2018

[1:11:42] we were going to study that, but it didn't really it didn't really specify

[1:11:45] how do we want to study this, you know, what is that what are the outcomes we're

[1:11:48] looking for here? Do we have a timeline? Who's going to be the champion? And

[1:11:53] and we want to sort of think about that if we're going to do some sort of a

[1:11:55] redevelopment area. Like be a little more specific about what

[1:12:00] what kind of focus is this? And do we have a timeline?

[1:12:03] If we do have specific uses that we want to see,

[1:12:07] let's sort of include those in the description.

[1:12:09] » Mhm. >> I at this point in the whole the process

[1:12:12] though I'd caution against thinking too closely.

[1:12:16] You want to use specific areas and like locations in town to help frame your

[1:12:20] your thoughts. >> Mhm.

[1:12:22] » But I would caution against saying yep, what I want is this right here. This

[1:12:26] category right here because we'll get to that. And we want to really focus on the

[1:12:30] categories first real large before we start focusing on

[1:12:33] specific locations. We'll get to that. We'll get to specific

[1:12:36] specific locations for sure. >> For sure, Damon.

[1:12:39] » Yes, so that's a perfect segue to my comment. Really I'm sort of at this

[1:12:43] point macro here um and not necessarily down in the detail which we'll get to

[1:12:49] and is very important. Um but I appreciate you pushing us on this.

[1:12:54] Landon and I think I'm going to I don't mind saying I'm going to rely in large

[1:12:58] part on your leadership to sort of move us in a direction that makes sense for

[1:13:04] the community at large. I know you need our input as we've suggested tonight,

[1:13:08] but you've impressed upon me that we need to push on this, make some changes,

[1:13:14] update different contexts, new day, and I think I'm all on board to do that.

[1:13:21] So, keep pushing us and provide your leadership and I'll be paying attention.

[1:13:27] Just letting you know that. All right. Thank you.

[1:13:33] » Oh, sorry. Uh Commissioner Ramirez Alberts.

[1:13:36] » Yeah, so when it comes to the one and two, the residential land use,

[1:13:43] so uh with urban residential, the high

[1:13:46] intensity, I don't know in my mind if

[1:13:50] we're looking at the land use, we're an area where we would want high

[1:13:55] urban residential where we wouldn't also want the urban center mixed use. So, I

[1:14:00] feel like that wouldn't be as necessary category to me.

[1:14:04] And then also with the campus related housing

[1:14:07] versus the campus interface mixed use, I feel like

[1:14:12] probably also the campus interface mixed use might be better. I'm assuming that's

[1:14:15] more people per room and that sort of thing that's allowed. Not per room, but

[1:14:20] more beds allowed, I guess. >> Oh, it it

[1:14:24] No idea. >> I mean, it would it would kind of depend

[1:14:26] on how we design these. >> Yeah.

[1:14:28] » We're we're at a blank slate right now. So, if we say campus related mixed use,

[1:14:33] what does that mean? I mean, college town type stores. You know, there's

[1:14:36] maybe a certain format and more student housing versus we don't want to see

[1:14:41] purposeful student housing in maybe a in the low intensity neighborhood

[1:14:45] residential. Uh so, I mean, and we don't have to have

[1:14:49] all the categories of residential and all the categories of mixed use as well.

[1:14:52] It could be low and high or low and medium

[1:14:56] residential and we sort of define in there what that means.

[1:15:01] And then start with medium intensity mixed use. We don't need a low intensity

[1:15:05] because we don't have those. As an example.

[1:15:11] I think I'm taking your your comment, but I'm I'm not sure if

[1:15:14] you're asking a question or if I'm answering

[1:15:17] » No, no. I think it was just a comment. >> Perfect. Thanks.

[1:15:21] » Other questions or comments for Landon tonight?

[1:15:23] » Yes, I I this is more a comment than a question, but at some point we're going

[1:15:27] to see all of these categories and see how the city of East Lansing dumps into

[1:15:32] those categories and we'll be able to look at at at at how we see the pieces

[1:15:38] fit together and that's what's going to be most helpful to me is is seeing how

[1:15:43] it shakes out and then and then I can make a decision on whether I think this

[1:15:47] is accurate or not and in in the detail. Um and I also repeat something that

[1:15:53] we've already said, but I really welcome that we're going to have categories that

[1:15:57] we can can can look at rather than simply

[1:16:02] letters and numbers. Um the the the existing zoning I'm going to have to sit

[1:16:08] next to you, Landon, at the quiz or I'm going to flunk it. And so I'm hoping

[1:16:12] that I will have a better grasp of that with with the new changes.

[1:16:18] » Commissioner Jean >> Um

[1:16:21] I was just looking at some of the examples again that you gave us, Landon,

[1:16:25] and I see some of these have won awards from the APA.

[1:16:31] And I think I would be really interested to hear more about

[1:16:37] why these particular future land use maps

[1:16:41] were recognized for being

[1:16:47] excellent [snorts] examples. Um

[1:16:50] whether that's, you know, commentary from the APA when they gave that award

[1:16:54] or whether that's like your reasoning for why you chose them.

[1:16:59] Um it would be really helpful for me to

[1:17:02] understand why these are good examples, for instance, so that we can maybe apply

[1:17:08] some of that as we're making decisions.

[1:17:14] » That's That's very helpful feedback. And I'm wondering if I can ask the whole

[1:17:16] commission. Do you have How How can I guide you

[1:17:19] the best? How would How would be I do have specific other specifics cuz I

[1:17:23] think that's a really good suggestion and I can get that information. Is there

[1:17:26] other Would you like me to be recommending certain things or

[1:17:31] shaking it like narrowing this the field or widening it?

[1:17:35] I What would be helpful for you as we go to the next meeting?

[1:17:38] » Excuse me, if I could jump in. >> I assume that the organizations that

[1:17:42] made these decisions said this was really good had some

[1:17:47] criteria that they used to make those decisions. And And if we had that

[1:17:52] criterion shared with us, then we could know that this particular

[1:17:57] uh configuration was good for these

[1:18:00] reasons. Um so, I would find that helpful. And

[1:18:04] And And that dovetail with with your questions.

[1:18:08] » I think for me, um I obviously not being a planning or zoning expert, I would

[1:18:12] appreciate some recommendations that we could react to. I think that's probably

[1:18:16] when we can or I should speak for myself. That's when I can give the best

[1:18:19] feedback um is when there's a recommendation on the table. Um the

[1:18:23] other thing that would be helpful and I know we've done this where we've talked

[1:18:25] about this in the past, but I don't think we necessarily need to recreate

[1:18:28] the wheel. There are other cities and cities that are like us that

[1:18:32] are adjacent to a a large university. And it would be helpful I think for me

[1:18:36] to see a um maybe even like a table of how other

[1:18:40] similar kind of university centered cities have zoned

[1:18:46] like what their land use maps look like. >> I'm laying out my

[1:18:54] board. >> That's right.

[1:18:57] » So, um

[1:18:59] you know, I'm all about the recommendations and actually if you have

[1:19:02] a vision here, I would even encourage you to share your vision with us and

[1:19:07] then we dissect that and you know, you would have some logic

[1:19:10] behind that vision. I've, you know, talked with you enough

[1:19:14] to understand that you do have a picture of what this might look like

[1:19:19] for a college town in Midwest United States and I think I'd I'd love

[1:19:25] to see your recommendations and respond to that.

[1:19:29] So, I think that would be great.

[1:19:33] Commissioner LaPointe Okay, good. I'm sorry.

[1:19:37] » All right. Any other comments tonight? Does that

[1:19:40] give you enough to go on? >> Oh, yeah.

[1:19:43] It's very helpful. Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:19:45] » It's it's all good. >> All right, we'll close that portion of

[1:19:48] the agenda and move on to new business.

[1:19:53] I don't think we have any new business to discuss.

[1:19:56] Commissioner concerns item nine on the agenda, any commissioner concerns that

[1:20:00] you'd like to share? >> I actually do.

[1:20:02] I would like to share a concern and although this is scripted, but it's

[1:20:07] I just feel a need to talk about something. I don't really have an

[1:20:10] outcome here that I conclude with, but I want to talk about the Albert Avenue

[1:20:16] apartment project. I know that we spent a lot of time with

[1:20:21] a developer. I know that the developer spent a lot of time in our city.

[1:20:27] He made a lot of recommendations and suggestions. We made recommendations and

[1:20:32] suggestions. The city council did, DDA did, planning commission did.

[1:20:38] Um in my mind it aligned with the

[1:20:41] comprehensive plan. Um and I think I'm not I I respect the

[1:20:47] city council. I respect our process. I'm not suggesting that that was flawed,

[1:20:53] but I do think that was a pretty big deal in my mind

[1:20:58] and I think we need to maybe not let that float down the river and say

[1:21:05] bygones be bygones, but rather be a little introspective about what we may

[1:21:10] have done differently, what we could do differently in the future

[1:21:14] if a project comes our way. And I don't know the entire backstory.

[1:21:20] Um I know what was reported in the newspaper about parking. Um

[1:21:26] I I don't I don't This was a a pretty big deal

[1:21:32] in my mind. Speak just for myself here. And I think

[1:21:36] to just let this pass and maybe it's a dead deal. I don't know if it is or not.

[1:21:41] I know our mayor is with us tonight. Um but if it is, I think we need to be a

[1:21:48] little introspective about the time that our staff spent, about the time the

[1:21:52] planning commission spent, about the time the developer spent, and then to

[1:21:57] get to the final step and have it all dissipate.

[1:22:03] I think we need to be a little introspective. What could we have done

[1:22:06] differently as a city of East Lansing? I want to be

[1:22:10] a city that embraces new ideas, development.

[1:22:15] Um You know, we don't approve everything,

[1:22:18] but do we move this development along the way for a couple of years with

[1:22:24] adjustments left and right, and then get to the final meeting and

[1:22:28] and we we say no. It just doesn't sit well with me, and

[1:22:32] I'm just I don't Again, I said I'm not scripting

[1:22:36] here. I'm not suggesting that I disrespect the city council or the

[1:22:41] process or anybody along the way, but collectively, the city of East Lansing

[1:22:47] in my mind, we sort of fumbled this in some way

[1:22:50] somehow, and I'm not sure what that is, and

[1:22:55] um how we might do something a little bit differently. And I'm kind of put

[1:23:00] myself out there. Others are going to disagree with me.

[1:23:03] Uh so be it. Uh it is a concern. In my mind, it sort

[1:23:07] of lines up with the commissioner concern. So I share those thoughts

[1:23:11] tonight. Um

[1:23:14] and period. So be it.

[1:23:18] » Thank you. Any other commissioner concerns? Yes.

[1:23:21] » I actually had a a couple tonight. So, I know last year the the the sheets on uh

[1:23:28] Saginaw and Abbott was approved. Nothing's happened there. Is that

[1:23:31] project still moving forward? >> It is.

[1:23:33] » Okay. >> Uh my understanding was they were

[1:23:35] waiting on some state approval for, I believe, some site work, and they've

[1:23:39] gotten that approval. So they should be moving ahead fairly soon.

[1:23:42] » Okay. And the other one is I'm forgetting the architect. It's the

[1:23:45] building that got taken over by the I It's

[1:23:48] the Michigan Doctors Association Medical >> Michigan Medical Association.

[1:23:51] » Yeah, Medical Association. I remember I spoke

[1:23:55] uh a few years back about them cutting down the trees, and I believe as part of

[1:24:00] that we had a the planning commission had a landscape

[1:24:03] plan that was approved, and I don't know if that was a requirement of those trees

[1:24:07] being cut down, but it doesn't look like they ever implemented the landscaping

[1:24:10] plan. I drove by that yesterday. I'm like,

[1:24:13] nothing's changed here. So I didn't know if

[1:24:17] essentially, was that a requirement of cutting down

[1:24:21] those trees and coming for here for commission to implement

[1:24:25] that landscaping plan? >> They were required to add some more

[1:24:27] trees. I'll follow up on that with our environmental staff and get back to you

[1:24:31] to make sure to find out what the status is.

[1:24:34] » Any other commissioner concerns?

[1:24:39] Okay, great. We're going to move on to adjournment. Can I would like to ask for

[1:24:43] a motion to adjourn at 7:47 p.m. >> So moved.

[1:24:47] » So moved. >> Seconded by

[1:24:51] moved by Commissioner Overby, seconded by Commissioner Chapin. All those in

[1:24:54] favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:24:58] » Perfect. Thanks, guys. >> Okay.

Planning Commission - 12 Aug 2026

Transcript