Mhm.
» to order. Um I call the meeting of the East Lansing uh Planning Commission uh
meeting on August 12th, 2026 to order at 6:30 p.m.
Uh Landon, could you please call roll? >> I will. Commissioner Stapen?
» [laughter] >> Present.
» Present. >> Commissioner Denault?
» Here. >> Commissioner Greening?
Commissioner Lipean Ray? >> Here.
» Commissioner Overbey? >> Here.
» Commissioner Putz? Commissioner Ramirez Roberts?
» Here. >> Vice Chair Wagner? Chair Sullivan? We
have quorum. >> Thank you.
Um, and could I have a motion to approve the agenda for tonight?
» So moved. >> Second.
» Uh, moved by Denault, seconded by Overbey.
Um, all in favor, please say uh, yay, and all please say oppose say
nay. >> I.
» I. >> I. Or I.
Um, all right, moving on to item 1.3 on the agenda.
Um, approval of the minutes. So, the July 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission
meeting minutes, um, are included in your packet. Um, could I have a motion,
please, to approve those meeting minutes?
» So moved. >> Moved by, uh, Ramirez Roberts.
» Second. >> Seconded by Commissioner Overbey. Um,
all those in favor, please say I. >> I.
» I. I. >> Okay, motion passes.
Um, moving on to agenda item, uh, two, committee report reports.
Uh, we have the data center staff work group report, and Commissioner Putz and
Greening are not here. Would you like to give that?
» on the work group. Uh, the data center's work group is an internal work group,
uh, from several departments, planning, uh, public works,
uh, IT, uh, public works, including the the water, um,
I guess waste water, and also water plant.
Uh, they've been meeting essentially bi-weekly for a couple of months, um,
and are getting close to, I I would say we
have a good conceptual framework so far, uh, for for an ordinance, uh, but
haven't put together draft language yet, because
uh, we had a little challenge over the summer getting in touch with several
subject matter experts at MSU and we have a better chance now. Uh so last
night actually at Council I requested and was uh given uh a 6-month extension
of a moratorium that we passed in March. Uh so we'll have
uh a 6 more months uh including the the
extra month so and that moratorium will continue until March 17th of next year.
Um but I I hope to uh have language introduced at the Council level
potentially as soon as September uh we'll see how it goes and then it
will come to you after that. >> Sounds good.
» So I'm it's been good work uh by the work group
and I'm excited to bring something to you the next few months.
» Sounds good. Any questions on that for Landon?
Okay, hearing none moving on to item number three staff reports. Um Landon
I'll turn over to you. >> Sure.
Um I'll just briefly mention if anyone's
watching online uh it's currently 6:35 and we have a wet weather resiliency
plan open house taking place in the lobby until 7:00 p.m. so people can
still make it down to Hannah Community Center to the lobby to check out the wet
weather resiliency uh plan open house that's going on right
now or they can also go to East Lansing's uh East Lansing floodstudy.com
uh to find out more about that process and give uh feedback.
Otherwise, I just want to mention a little update on what happened uh at
Council last night. Um Council uh had a public hearing for ordinance
1570 which was a proposed rezoning for 3859 Stoll.
That's a small property way up uh at Stoll and Chandler
uh that was surrounded by properties that had Dewitt Township zoning.
Ordinance 1564 changed all those Dewitt Township zoned properties to have East
Lansing zone uh zoning and those became R1 and 35 3859 Stoll was a little pocket
of B4 zoning that was left over from previous zoning. So the Council uh
approved or adopted that ordinance to change that to be R1 as well to match
the rest of the properties around it. Uh ordinance 1559 about diverse housing and
1576 a cleanup ordinance to change how
upper story residential um is governed in downtown and several
other items. Those were both deferred to September 8th. We'll both be discussing
those more at council on that night. Also council had a public hearing for
ordinance 1575 which is the green code study committee's amendments proposed
for the zoning ordinance. They had their public hearing last night
just got I think one comment. Um and they'll be taking action potentially or
reconsidering that um ordinance on September 22nd.
I think that's um that's my update from last night. I
don't think I had anything more. Do you have anything to add?
Okay. Um let me just look through real quick
and see if there's anything else we should talk about.
Uh oh the the extension of the moratorium I mentioned
um there was a public hearing just uh for
your information about um tree removal. Uh we've had trees uh
requests to remove trees come to the planning commission before. Uh in this
case it was a removal without permission and uh the
the applicant was appealing uh the decision of DPW to assess a fine for
that. So that was interesting um and we expect a couple more of those requests
to come to council in the next couple months.
Um and we'll apprise you of what happens to those as well. But that's my report.
» Was that just the beginning of the appeal or was there a decision made at
council? >> Um it was decided to
» Can you actually explain? >> So the appeal was because they took down
four city trees and the fine is associated with two hundred dollars per
per two inches of tree but the council came to the conclusion that it would be
beneficial to get four new trees that are 3-in caliber or larger in place of
what was there. And that they're responsible for the
fees associated with the stump grinding and then what the permit and after the
fact permit fee would be. So, round about $800 I think is what their total
fee would be, but then they have to plant those four trees. If they don't
plant the four trees within 90 days, then they'll be subject to the original
fine of $4,700. >> Got it. Thank you.
» And Commissioner Overby? >> I have a I have a I have a question on
the the the gas station moratorium. Is that still in effect and what's what's
happening with that? >> Uh yeah, thank you. Um so, council
approved a moratorium for uh also in
I want to say February until October 3rd of this year on new auto service uh
centers, which include gas stations. Uh they had recently approved a couple um
and wanted to hit the brakes a little bit and determine if we had a have a
need or should change uh regulations. We have done a lot of research internally
on trying to understand sort of where we are compared to the region as
far as pumps per capita essentially. Uh we've gotten some information about
that. I don't necessarily think that we'll be proposing uh significant
changes, but we may. Um I'll have more information for you guys probably in
September about that. >> Thank you.
» All right. Any other questions? Okay. Moving on to item uh
4.1, disclosure of conflict of interest. Do any commissioners
um have a conflict of interest that they'd like to disclose tonight?
All right. Hearing none, we will move on to item five, communications from
citizens. Um I do have one card, but I'm assuming
Lee that you would like to talk um during the um the discussion later on.
Okay. And then any other comments from citizens?
» I'm Cliff from DPW and Layton said what I was going to say. Just I wanted to
plug the eastlansingfloodstudy.com and it felt weird to come and sit down
and then immediately leave without explanation. So, just reiterating what
he said, that'll be updated for tomorrow. You're going to miss the
remainder of tonight, but it's an important project. Um
September 15th, there will be a presentation to council, but in the
meantime there's that virtual open house. So, for anyone listening and for
all of you, I encourage you to check it out and
uh thank you. >> Sounds good. Thanks, Cliff.
» I applaud you, Cliff. Thank you, Cliff. >> Linda, I don't need We don't need a card
for that, right? >> No.
» Okay. Great. It's perfect. Um
I think I skipped over written communications, so I apologize.
Uh there is one written communication uh that it looks like is in the packet. All
of the communications that were received since 5:00 p.m. last night are included.
Um any
comments on that from staff? >> Just that all all written communications
received before 5:00 p.m. last night are included. And this one I believe is
about the future land use discussion. Um specifically talking about future
zoning. Uh so, we would we'd probably get to this in more detail after we
figured out the future land use categories, which will be the topic of
discussion tonight. >> Because it's quite lengthy.
» It is. It's about uh about 25 pages. >> Okay. Great.
Okay. I'm out of order now, so I apologize. Um we'll move on to item
number six, our public hearings. It looks like we do not have any public
hearings tonight, so we'll move on to unfinished business items.
Um so, item 7.1, consideration of a request from the Graduate East Lansing
to reconfigure an existing plaza space at 133 Evergreen Avenue by adding five
parking spaces and one van accessible space.
Uh I think we'll turn to the staff report first. So, Alicia, I'll turn it
to you. >> I'll share.
You want me share from the end zone?
» [clears throat] [laughter]
» There we go. Okay. So, last uh
last planning >> Okay.
» Last time we were here, we got an overview of the proposal from The
Graduate to install six parking spaces, one of which includes a van accessible
space within their existing plaza. The
proposal includes some landscaping, but there was concern about trees that had
been removed as part of the proposal. Um I did receive an email from Greg,
civil engineer, um earlier yesterday. They are dedicated to
replacing the trees. So, two can fit on the property now. So, we have three
street trees, three private trees. They're proposing two street trees in
replacement of what three are taking out, so they'll
flank the parking. And then they've proposed to work with
the city to relocate that third one in conjunction with a an a location
nearby. And then part of the proposal is also removing two of their
private trees, which they have agreed to also find a new location with the city
for those two additional trees. So, we're not losing We're losing some on
the site, but they're they've agreed to relocate them within the vicinity
subject to what the city um requirements would be as far as the
type and try to get it in close proximity, maybe working with a
neighboring property that has more room. So, they have um agreed to do that cuz
this site just can't hold trees that would
thrive, and we would want them to thrive. Uh they do propose the
landscaping that is um now it's going to be closer to the
building, but they still are providing their clear path of not less than 5 ft
of uh accessible space. They've dedicated
to that verbally last time, and then I got it in the email again yesterday.
There's a PIV valve, which is part of the fire suppression requirements, that
is currently located between spaces three and four or two and three,
um which is raised, and so their choice for protection,
which they've worked with the fire marshal, is to put that below ground,
which will qualify for the requirements. Um
until we have an updated plan, that's why the conditions remain for these
items. Um
they have identified over on the in front of the building that there is
actually one parking space for their valet service
that is dedicated to the graduate 100%, but it is only one based on the
dimensions, which their engineers provided. This spaces, including the one
van accessible, will be public parking spaces with meters for temporary loading
and unloading. Um it will include a combination of
potentially an easement and agreement, which they have already
um stated that they would agree to. The agreement is because part
of it's public land, part of it's private land, and so the easement
portion covers the private portion, but we have to have a parking agreement as
is done with other parking areas like at the CVS and so forth.
Um they've already identified that these things that they
they'll work through them. Um within the conditions that were
provided,
I did not write them. Um
There there wasn't there were no outstanding
conditions that we hadn't already discussed that they hadn't already
addressed. Um there is one light pole that has to be removed during the
construction, which will be relocated. One of the elements that will also still
need to be worked through, which usually comes at permitting, is related to the
actual lines for the electric service and any other lines that may be buried
that they haven't investigated yet. They'll work with the engineering
department to sort through what exist or doesn't exist and how that
needs to be relocated to allow that light to be placed um and still run and
operate safely. I will mention that we have talked at
length and I Lee and I have talked many times about the concerns that we have
heard as staff related to the valet operations.
Um I observed it firsthand yesterday. Um
there was an event and the runners were running,
but the cars were still parked where it says do not park.
They were trying to valet them. People were literally getting out of their cars
and just walking in. It was on spilled onto Albert on both directions. It was
blocked at one point in both directions on Evergreen.
So, it would be a very strong encouragement
to continue to improve your operations to be able to make this a success. Um
that
it's definitely an operational challenge, but I I believe Lee has
explained that it's a third party that handles those valet operations
and they have to remember it's not a parking lot. It is
temporary loading and unloading and these spaces that are being provided are
for the public. So, if someone wants to pop in for 15 minutes and run to MSUFCU
or over to the donut store, they are allowed to use those spaces as
well. With the operations, they need to be
aware, which Lee has mentioned before, is that you can't block somebody in
there. Um and then we have another traffic congestion. So, this is intended
to stop the street parking, which is
not allowed and has been abused, unfortunately, and this was the solution
that was determined to be the best of what could come from the challenges that
they have. Uh, they did get a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission on July 13th.
Yes, July 13th for these spaces. So, they were in support of adding those. It
did go to the DDA
last month. I can't Sorry, I can't remember the date.
27th? 23rd of July, and they did postpone
action uh, for further discussion and to allow
them the opportunity to review the plan. It hadn't been incorporated into their
packet. Um, that will be revisited on the 27th
at DDA. Their recommendation will go directly to City Council.
Any questions?
Yes, Commissioner Overbeek. >> Couple of questions. So, we do not know
what the DDA recommendation will be, and that will go directly to the Council.
» Correct. And that happens occasionally the way
that the meetings land. >> Right.
» That it could be the day after a Planning Commission vote.
That would be the same thing. But, yeah, we won't know until
City Council, whatever their recommendation is, that packet gets
published. >> And and you saw firsthand what was
happening at the at at at this area with doing it at at
an event. And I mean, I'm struggling with this.
There's very There's There's we can't make any more space there.
I wish we could, but we can't. And I personally think the only solution
to this is if they have enough runners. Because you're going to have cars
that'll back up. I mean, there's How many cars will it take for it to
back up there? Five? Six? And if you have an event, you're going to have that
many people that that roll up all at once. And so, I'm just struggling with
with what is the possible solution, and I don't know.
» It's going to come down to enforcement that we are going to have to
make sure that the city's PACE department is doing their enforcement
and hope that the operations are improved to not have it to be a problem
that we have continued to see. >> Let's hope that they have enough
runners. I mean, I felt that when we talked about
this last time, I felt that the solution was that they have enough runners.
Runners, I assume, are the people that drive the cars to
the Grove Street ramp and then and then run back and get another car.
» They do run. Yeah, and I I know that Lee mentioned previously when we had a
conversation related to trying to let their guests know before they arrived
that they have limited space in front of the building for valet and trying to
encourage their uh visitors to park themselves. Um
he'll have to speak to how that's working.
It it is a challenge. It's a site that
doesn't accommodate the need that the graduate
has. So, this was the best option that has been provided to try and
soften the edges of a really >> Right.
» rough bristle. >> But if you if if you're going to park
yourself, you will still have to come up in front of the hotel to unload your
family and your guest and your and your luggage. I mean, you're not going to
drag your luggage from the parking ramp. >> Well, I always took my kid from the ramp
with his baseball bags and everything. It's just a culture
of choice that I believe and Lee will speak to this what their guests are
accustomed to. >> Right. Yeah. Right.
Thank you, Alicia. >> I had one question um that I didn't see
in the packet, so I'm assuming we couldn't figure it out. Um I think that
I had asked something last time, but I can't remember about whether we had any
data on the number of um calls that had been made to PACE um about the specific
uh the specific issue. Was there any
follow-up on that? >> So, there was 280 or so over a course of
a year. >> Okay.
» Um staff probably has half of those calls
that they've made and then it's exhausting to make those calls. Um
so the number of complaints has been reduced, but we do still see the
challenges that they're faced with trying to accommodate their guests and
um it >> No, that's helpful.
» Yes, Commissioner Shapen. >> For for um for staff [laughter] here,
I'm uh there's we've been using a couple
terms interchangeably. I just want to make sure we clarify this. Is this a
15-minute parking zone or is this a loading area? Loading and unloading.
It's not for parking. Okay, so I want to get back to your comment about you could
park there and go to the donut store. So, I think we need to sort of clarify
that. That was confusing to me. >> Okay, so you can
I guess temporarily park would be the the way to but it is 15 minutes. The
meter won't allow it for a snap again for another 15 minutes. You can't put
coins into it. But it's intended for loading and
unloading, but at the same time being that it's public, if somebody did want
to pop their car there for a minute to run
across the street, they have the right to do that. So, it is kind of
interchangeable in that it's intended for loading and unloading
short-term metered to give the opportunity to utilize some time to go
to the other businesses. >> So, I may have just a little follow-up.
I may have misunderstood. We are going to have meters there? I
thought we were going to have a sign or it was going to be signed
uh in that area, but there'll be meters and a sign?
» Yes. >> So,
all right, so loading area with meters.
» Yes. >> Okay.
» Maximum 15 minutes. >> was confusing to me, but and I would
also say while I'm asking questions, I viewed the video from a couple weeks
ago. But you guys asked every question that I would be interested in and I
thank you for representing those that were not in attendance last night. Thank
you. >> And thank you for pointing out the
confusion. I I can understand how it is. >> Okay.
» It's intended for short-term turnaround.
» Okay. >> What
Um >> I have a follow-up. Go ahead.
» I was just going to say what type of meter is this? Is this a um
» city >> Is it one where you push the like the
button and you get 15 minutes? Is it the one that automatically bills you after
your time expires? Is it the one where you have the passport app?
» No, I believe it's a flip one. Um but it technology could change by the time it
gets input. Um there is a program that city council recently
approved which is working through the system to get um
the parking sticks if you will to help with enforcement. So
the intent was for however the meter is sorted, it is 15 minutes period. Whether
it's a a button or a flip switch, I'm not sure. But you can't passport.
There's no cost to it. It's just you get 15 minutes and then you got to be out.
And those part of the enforcement that we've
talked about is Pace being able to do so if these sticks um
pass the requirements of the state to be able to coordinate whatever they got to
do for that particular situation. That will help with the enforcement. Um
ultimately I think Lee could speak to the fact that
if those things do get put in place and the customer gets the ticket 3 weeks
later in the mail, that's not something that they're going to be really happy
about. So the process um is still working through the system.
City council did approve them. But again, it has to go through multiple
steps with state approvals and the court and so forth.
But the intent is 15 minutes and you're out.
It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to have somebody unload their things.
And then have the car moved or >> Right.
» get their things and move or run into issues.
» And I think the thing that I'm hung up on and I might have said this last time
and I just have to work through it in my brain is
these are public spaces >> Yes.
» that you could use as the graduate >> Yes.
» for all of your valet needs as runners are running back and forth. So, all five
spaces could be occupied by graduate guests. So, they're not
really public. >> They're intended for the public. It's
not solely for the graduate. >> Okay.
» Because it is partially in public right of way.
» Okay.
» It'll be a balance. >> Other questions for staff from
Commissioner Sorry, Commissioner Donnell.
» Um the packet says that
so, comments from environmental staff request that the applicant and public
works will establish a mutually agreeable fixed cost figure
reflecting infrastructure costs for the the future street tree. Do you know if
that has been agreed upon yet?
» So, it has not. There is a modification to the tree ordinance that we have that
is being worked through. It's not This is also is not the time that we want to
be planting trees. Trees need to be planted later in the fall. Hopefully,
that ordinance gets sorted by that time, but they the applicant has
um committed to that. And it'll
be whatever the street tree allowances are
um based on what the recommendations from the arborist and environmental
health have. But again, the applicant has agreed to those standards verbally
in testimony last at the last meeting and then I did get the email yesterday.
I think it was yesterday from their civil engineer also committing to that.
» Okay. >> So, the cost related is not decided yet
because we don't we don't >> that was my clarifying question was so
it has been agreed that they will plant the tree but the mutually agreeable
fixed cost that DPW request has not been agreed upon yet.
» Correct. And it comes down to the type of tree that would
be best served for where it's planted and have the best survival rate.
» Excellent, thanks.
Good, Josh. >> Yeah.
» Okay, perfect. Um yes, Commissioner Overby.
» Real quick question. Evergreen remains two-way, I believe.
» Correct. >> As it looked like there was some
discussion about making it one-way, but it remains two-way.
» There had been um
maybe five or six iterations of attempts to try and find solutions through
Evergreen Avenue, including various one-way options. In the end, this is
what came back as the most
as the best solution to a really difficult problem, but it does remain
two-way. >> Thank you.
» Okay, if there's no more questions, then um Mr. Cody, I'd call you up. I probably
said that wrong. >> No, that's it. Cody.
» Okay, great. >> Hi, first off, just
Lee Cody representing the Graduate Hotel. Nice to see you guys again. Uh
thank you so much for your time and consideration on this project. Um as
Alicia was mentioning, uh definitely view this as
a positive for the area and a positive part of ultimately a multi-faceted
solution, which absolutely total head count with those valet runners that we
have is a huge part of that. So, just wanted to update quickly on that. Over
the last 30 days, after last time we met, uh sat with our operator, we did
some math. Uh the number that we came up for total head count to operate with
complete efficiency and avoid these backups was a 35% head count. Uh we have
since then verbally agreed to within that contract
that they're going to get to a 45-person head count because of the fact that if
anything we'd like to be in a position that we have more people than is needed.
Um, and they're about halfway to that goal, which is a positive. I think we're
at about 25 as of 35 30 days ago and up to about 35 currently or starting
shortly uh with that goal to get to 45. So, that'll be a huge part of uh
the full solution in the area. But, definitely view this project as a part
of that solution and a positive to continue to alleviate backups and
improve traffic flow and safety in that area, which is our ultimate goal and
service the guest. And just uh one other follow-up with the question regarding us
attempting to guide guests to alternative options for them for us. Uh,
primarily that's for special events. Um, like the one that was Alicia that Alicia
was mentioning. That's really when the biggest bumps if we've got a group
that's hard start time at 9:00 a.m. they're all going to show up within
10-15 minutes of that. That's when we'll guide them uh to public options
uh within the city, which has worked well for groups that have kind of over
time got to know us, got to know the area that we'll recommend that as a good
option for them. Um, we've also had a couple of groups that have contracted uh
with neighbors of ours to be able to kind of self park in some of those you
know, available spaces locally, which has worked well too and we'll continue
to uh guide people that way and and pursue that as a part of this overall
solution. And happy to answer any additional
questions you guys may have.
» Do you have one? Commissioner Romeo Roberts.
» Yeah, I understand this doesn't necessarily come down to the planning
aspect. I didn't know if you had any knowledge on this. I got like a door
hanger delivered to my house essentially saying
like call your council members and it was about this project and I looked up
the mailing agency. It wasn't mail. Someone literally went and put it on my
door. >> Oh, yeah.
» Um and it was for like Unite Here and I looked it up, it's a hospitality union.
But that's It didn't look like they represented your building, correct?
» Uh that is correct. Yeah, they do not.
Yeah. >> I was
» You're good. >> the same one.
» Thank you. >> I I wanted to.
» I didn't get it. >> [laughter]
» And one other note, just on the trees, as Alicia was mentioning, I was working
not only with the city for um those city trees and our full commitment to replace
at everyone here's discretion where that would go.
Um did have a good conversation with our partners next door neighbors at the
People's Church and they said that they would be very open to us
attempting to find good locations to replace a couple or three of those trees
that need to be moved somewhere on their site, so um
that'll be an option for us. >> The only other thing I was going to ask
you about on that front and this might be minor and I can't find it now, but
there was somewhere in here that um you'd obviously been working through the
tree piece, but there were also like the unresolved, the planters and there was
no idea for where or I didn't see anything about where those would be
moved. Are those just getting nixed >> So, the existing landscaping is going to
continue to exist, but will be kind of shifted um closer to that side entrance
of the property. >> Okay.
» So, there's an existing planter box with landscaping that will be shifted a
little bit to kind of the left-hand side of the screen.
» Okay. Thank you.
» Yeah. >> The box, I think itself will be made
smaller and then there's some trim plantings. It's not just
the box anymore cuz it doesn't fit >> It doesn't fit.
» where it is, but they're making up for landscaping.
The trees or the >> We're generally keeping the same look
and feel of the trees and foliage. >> The trees, yes. The The landscaping will
look different just because of the amount of
cut out that they had to do. >> Okay.
» But there's still a good amount. >> Okay.
Commissioner Overbey. >> So, how
how many runners is your goal to have? >> 45 is the goal.
» So, there was an event yesterday that that that staff said was kind of
clogged. How many runners were there yesterday?
» So, full transparency, I was not physically there yesterday. I was
attending a Chamber of Commerce event. Um I know the event that she's speaking
of was the uh mobility summit, which had a lot of unique factors to it, including
some of their own vehicles that were being showcased, and some trailers to
bring some of those vehicles in. Um I could not speak to the exact number
without going out back to double-check. I can tell you that um halfway to the
goal of 35 is what they expect as they get a few more students back that have
signed on to join the team. They operate with a lot of students, um which is
great. And once we get to that number, that's why we've chosen to push them
kind of 10 plus above the number that we Armac told us would would alleviate
everything. >> Thank you.
» Yes. So, I saw the two two same people running yesterday, so I don't know how
many were on staff, but for your 45 count, is that spread over a shift?
» No, that would be their total head count that then would be dispersed on shifts
based on needs. Um no, total staff head count. So, of
course some of those individuals might work three days a week.
» So, if you're having an event like yesterday,
» Yeah. >> how many people would you expect to be
able to have on staff to accommodate the run?
» Yeah, I would I would say probably 15. Probably 15 would be my best estimate. I
mean, PMC ultimately, they kind of guide us on some of this. They are the experts
in that area, but we've just continued to push them to say, "Hey, you think
it's 12, let's get to 15. You think total head count's 35, let's get to 45."
Um so that we can have more bodies than we
need. >> If I may one other. Um I I neglected to
mention in the traffic study, so there consistently throughout the
traffic study, we see the number of seven spaces required. At some point
there was a number up to upwards of 12. I can't locate that in the document, but
seven is consistently the amount that's been listed as a need for valet spaces.
So you have the one that's dedicated in front of the building. You get five more
so we're at six because the van accessible doesn't count.
How are we going to deal with that additional
» Yeah, I think shifting those numbers that talked by the number of folks that
are on staff. That changes that picture a small amount. Yeah.
» But what I'm hearing is if the trap the traffic study is calling for seven and
we don't have a way to get to seven spaces.
Okay.
Other questions for the applicant?
Chelsea Chelsea or Commissioner Janel. >> [laughter]
» Um One of the other um points from DPW here
was that y'all would guarantee the survival
of um the new trees that you're putting in um
in DPW recommended a condition of approval requiring um a minimum of three
years post installation that you would replace the trees at your cost if if
they were to unfortunately die. Is that something that you would agree to have
listed in one of the conditions? >> Yeah, we're comfortable with that.
» Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> Mhm.
» Um and I feel like I had one more question, but now I don't remember what
it Oh, I remember now. Um so the I just wanted to follow up on the planter
question. So the planters um there will still be a planter. It'll be slightly
different it sounds like, but there will still be some landscaping
similar to what's there. >> Correct.
» Does it overall though increase the amount of impervious surface that could
result in more like storm water runoff.
» I do not offhand know the answer to that.
» We had asked the engineer for that information last time. He indicated it
was close, but that they were going to provide the number and I don't have that
number.
I only ask because I'm not sure off the top of my head what
like it's not sewer, but like waste water
infrastructure is on Evergreen and I could imagine if there's a really bad
storm that kind of little corridor becoming overwhelmed.
» Yeah. I mean I can say from personal
experience knock on wood that I can't recall a time that there was like
standing water there in the 2 and 1/2 years that I've been there. Of course,
that is a possibility, but it's not something that I think about often as
like a recurring issue that I've seen. >> Okay.
Any other questions?
All right. >> Motion.
» Thank you. >> Thank you so much.
» I do have a landscape plan. All right. With that, I'd like to ask for a motion
for discussion. >> I'll be happy to make a motion unless
» Okay. >> Josh wants to make the motion.
» Motion by Chapin seconded by >> Sure. I'll second it.
» All right. There we go. I guess I'm in. I think this is fairly simple.
I move to approve the site plan request from Lee Cody on behalf of GMI LLC to
reconfigure an an existing plaza space by adding five
parking spaces and one van accessible space located at 133 Evergreen
Avenue. Before I read the rest of this, AIR stands for
Okay. Thank you. Say it again.
AIR stands for >> [clears throat]
» Agenda >> Attached
» Agenda item report. It's in there. >> Okay, that's all right. I know it's in
there. I just want to make sure if I'm reading it, I just want to make
sure I knew what AIR stood for. >> Sorry.
» This decision is based on the findings and determinations to approve a site
plan for 130 133 Evergreen Avenue and the conditions of approval dated August
12th, 2026, which is attached to the AIR for this agenda item and incorporated
into this motion by this reference. I have nothing further to add to that.
» Okay. >> But maybe others do.
» I believe Commissioner Denault wanted to add um
» I did want to [clears throat] add that. Um so, I was just going to propose a
friendly amendment that um reflecting DPW's request that the
applicant would guarantee replacement of the tree for 3 years after installation.
Which the applicant has very kindly agreed to.
» So noted. Are you looking at me because I made the motion to add that friendly
amendment? I'm very friendly >> [laughter]
» to add that amendment. So, I'll be very friendly to add that
amendment. >> I think I have to make a motion though
and then we can vote on >> motion on that.
» Very good. >> Yeah. So, I move what I just said.
To amend the motion that was on the To Yes, I move I will just say it over. I
move to add an amendment to the motion by
um Commissioner Chapin to add language reflecting DPW's
uh request that the applicant would
guarantee the replacement of any trees for 3 years post installation.
As a condition of approval. >> And does that require a second?
» I'll second. >> Thank you. Thank you.
» Very good. >> And now I think we vote just on the
amendment. We're voting on the amendment.
» We have but we sort of have skipped over the discussion piece.
» We'll come back to it. >> Well, let's
» You can discuss now if you'd like. >> So we have the whole yeah, the whole
motion on the table. >> We will vote on
» Yeah. >> Commissioner or not Commissioner,
Landing can you um call roll for the um motion on the table?
» Sure. Uh [clears throat] so we have a motion
to amend the main motion by adding a condition about tree maintenance for 3
years uh made by Denault, seconded by Ramirez
Roberts. Uh Commissioner Chapin, how do you vote?
» I, yes. >> Commissioner Denault?
» Yes. >> Commissioner Lupien Raby?
» No. >> Commissioner Overby?
» Yes. >> And Commissioner Ramirez Roberts?
» Yes. >> That amendment passes.
» Okay. So now you can have discussion if you'd
like on the original motion. On the original
motion. >> About the Gestalt and what we want to
do. Well, I I'm I'm glad to speak up.
» Sure. >> I I have really struggled with this
and trying to think of what would be the solution for the city and the hotel with
the traffic congestion in this area. And I I believe it's a fault that that
that should have been addressed when the hotel was built and there was more space
there and perhaps perhaps more options at that point. But where we are right
now, I see no other choice. I I I struggle with this and I don't like this
because I regardless of how many runners you
have, I believe that when we have a football game and you have you have a
full house, it that area is going to be impacted.
And and it's going to be really really difficult. I
despite my dislike for all of this, I I plan to support this motion and and I
don't see another option And I welcome the the the hotel folks and I welcome my
fellow commissioners to say here is another choice. And and I simply don't
see it.
» Yeah. Oh, I was just going to add that I I agree with you entirely that I think
this probably should have been something that
that was discussed when we were doing the the approval and City Council was
also doing the approval on this initial plan.
Um my challenge with this is related to the
the parking standards and the traffic study. I don't I
I cannot rectify that this will make any improvement
to the current process even with the additional runners. And I do have
concerns that by adding these additional public spaces, I mean, we've all lived
in East Lansing for a long time. We're going to have people that will park in
those spaces that will then be occupying those spaces
probably for longer than 15 minutes. And then the backlog of cars will go further
into I can't remember what that street is
and will likely impede traffic behind the People's Church and run onto the
entrance of the parking garage that's there. So, I
I am worried that adding these additional five, you know, quote public
spaces will lead to more of a backlog than we already have even with the
addition of the runners. Um so I I will be voting be voting no on
this not because I don't think it's a um
you know, a warranted request. I just don't think it's a it's
a solution to this problem. >> Mhm. I understand that.
I'll tie in with those very words and I think
Mr. Corey you know, used the word solution often in your presentation. You
just used it as well, and I made a note, I think this is an
improvement. Um, but it's not a solution, and I think this is a
a move in the right direction. Uh, I think we need to do something.
Um, I'm going to trust the people involved to make sure this is an
improvement. Um, but I also hear you clearly say that
this is not the end solution. Uh, it might be uh after we try this for a
little bit, but um I'm I'm building really on the
commentary from 2 weeks ago, where the very questions that were sort of raising
now >> Right.
» uh resonated with me.
Um, so I'm going to vote yes, an improvement, not a solution, and um
let's move it along in my mind. >> Sounds good. Any other items of
discussion, or are we ready Do we even have to call a roll call vote again?
» You can You can. >> We should I think we should.
» Could you call a roll call vote again, Landon, please?
» So, the main motion uh recommending your approval as amended, uh
moved by Chapin. I'm sorry, I don't have it who seconded?
» Uh, Romero's Roberts. >> Thank you.
And seconded by Romero's Roberts. Um, Commissioner Donnell, how do you vote?
» Yes. >> Commissioner Lapine Ray.
» No. >> Commissioner Overby.
» Yes. >> Commissioner Romero's Roberts.
» Yes. >> And Commissioner Chapin.
» Yes. >> Motion passes four to one.
» All right. >> Good discussion.
» Yes, thank you so much. And that will go on to City Council at
the next meeting, or a future meeting. Okay.
Ideally at the August 8th >> to have a pace officer stationed at this
entrance to this hotel. >> like you're looking for a new job.
» WITH HIS >> [laughter]
» WITH HIS pad right out there. >> Or maybe you want to be a runner.
» Uh okay. Moving on to item 7.2 continue
discussion of the current future land use map categories and potential
changes. Uh Mr. Bartley, I'll turn it to you.
» Thank you. Uh so
um as you know, the planning commission
adopted a update to the comprehensive uh plan for the city last August. Uh
but but um we didn't recommend uh at that time
creating a new future land use map. We considered that an implementation step.
Uh and so now we've been discussing I guess since uh early this year
um how to approach that that uh change. Um
should we be creating new categories for the future land use map and if so, what
should those be? And then to uh redesignate the city with a we can
create a new future land use map. So the first first step is to create new
categories. Um we started discussing this back in uh
I believe April, actually March and then again in April. Uh in in early July we
had a retreat uh upstairs in this building and
uh talked about this for a little bit, but uh much more of the retreat was
about uh legal training. And so I wanted to make sure we have
some time for discussion uh in the conversations with you before the
meeting today. Uh I think that we probably won't be
seeing a decision. Uh it sounded like more of you are comfortable with waiting
until we have a larger commission here. Uh but I did want to certainly just
um I guess sort of just reopen the conversation and see if there are any
questions, if there are comments since July 11th, if you had
had thought about this at all. Um I I had provided you with several examples
of future land use maps from other uh other municipalities um
within Michigan and and elsewhere. Uh and also
the about I think about 50 pages of descriptions from the 2018 master plan
that described all the 15 uh land use categories that we have currently on
that map. I also provided a sort of a description
of some ideas for what could be examples of
future land use categories. One one one item that I certainly
recommend is right now our categories we have
15 of them. Those categories are R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,
M1, M2, M3, M4, C1, C2, C3. And then special academic arts and open
space. And just sort of at the outset those are
kind can be kind of confusing especially casual user especially
because some of those designation names are the same as zone district
names. And so >> [clears throat]
» it's a best practice to have more descriptive names. So I sort of start
there. In your in your descriptive sort of category examples
sort of turn to the end of your packet. I talk about it's right now we have R1
through R5 as residential land use categories but it's really based on
density. X units per acre all the way up to higher X per acre.
We can certainly keep considering sort of that density that's
an important concern to many citizens here residents especially
about residential density but but a more descriptive something like neighborhood
residential or mixed residential or urban residential that's more high
intensity. Campus related housing those are some examples I gave of a little
more descriptive just a little more than just the straight up R1 or R2.
Similarly mixed use categories M1 through M4 don't
really describe what that means. And in fact even when you start digging in and
go and hey what what is the difference between M3 and M4 for example? Um
it can be can be kind of difficult. So I recommend things It's like what is the
intensity of this business district? Is this neighborhood mixed use is more of a
corridor or is it more regional or is it is it urban center
or is it sort of on a again an interface between sort of the
the campus and and the city proper.
And then same thing with commercial categories
neighborhood commercial community commercial regional commercial ideas
like this of how can we more descriptive so that someone can have a little more
idea when they look at that future land use map and that category listing of
what what those categories correspond to in real life.
So I guess sort of with that to just to start with I just kind of wanted to
check with the group that's here today and see if
what are the thoughts been leaving that retreat? How have you
have you taken some time and thought more about this?
We're going to continue the discussion at future future meetings and I'm not
necessarily looking for proposals today but if you have a proposal I'd love to
hear it. If you have thoughts concerns questions I really just wanted to open
the discussion and see how it goes.
» Commissioner Edelson. Um I especially like in the um
suggested future categories I really like that you suggest that we break up
the parks schools open space vacant bucket into
several more descriptive types of
areas that could fall under what was once previously an enormous bucket full
of things that were sort of disparate and didn't really match with each other.
Um I I especially like that you call out
or you suggest that we call out parks and recreation as a category and natural
areas and green infrastructure as a category because I think they are
serving two very different purposes. Um and I also
like that we call out item D future opportunity sites which
I think in s-
I think in separating that out, future developers who are looking at this map
are going to be able to hone in on those areas maybe a little easier.
Um and not sort of conflate all parks and natural areas as vacant land. So.
» Okay. I appreciate that and one quick comment
about um there was a discussion I think about the
number of categories too and I I tend to recommend fewer categories versus uh
more. Except in some cases it can make a lot
of sense uh to to break up a special category into what is that special uh
I guess. I I think that having fewer categories when it comes to
your major land uses is probably more preferable I think is than than in
the special categories. Um so I think I take your point. Uh one thing sort of
along those lines though is uh what we don't want to do is
is have so many categories that they're essentially zoning districts.
And in the in the same uh in the same breath I guess and I'll talk about this
more when we get to actually design the future land use map but we don't want to
be parcel specific. That's essentially pre-zoning or zoning map, right? So
uh and and sometimes those can I mean the the comprehensive plan is
meant to be a guidance document. So that's why we want to be careful
not having too many uh very specific uh categories and not being too
prescriptive and too granular when we get to the actually design the map. So
just want to mention that in that context.
I think Commissioner Myers-Roberts you were going to
» Yeah. Um with the I guess
I had questions. I I have more comments but I want to start off with a question
about uh section four, the employment plus
innovation categories. I guess
how I get what they are in concept but in terms of like the actual zoning, how
would they differ? At least theoretically since they don't
actually exist yet. >> Mhm.
So, this was in one one section we talked about special districts and
splitting those up. Employment and innovation categories, we have examples
of innovation {slash} research district, employment or flex district, and major
institutional uses. Um
» [clears throat] >> how that how that would
That's a great question. I'm really glad you asked about sort of what's the
comparable zone district cuz that's always a big question. And you want to
generally have once we one outcome of having a future land use
map and future categories is often they'll change your zoning
ordinance to match it. And you might create new zoning districts as well.
That's not contemplated right now. That's a big big job.
Um I don't really know how these would
would match our existing zones. Um
I think that we have, you know, across the board, I think about our commercial
zone districts, say B1 through B5 and EV, which is East Village district. And
how those I mean, those are funny because they
don't really correspond to something. They don't correspond to intensity, for
example. B3 is the downtown district. B4 is a restricted office business
district. B1 is very low intensity business district. So,
it's hard to say how those how these suggestions might correspond to existing
districts. I think that if the commission starts to
move in that direction of sort of these special districts that have more of a
thematic like especially about commercial or industrial research or
something uses, I guess. Um that may be that may turn into a new
zone district that's proposed if the current zone districts don't fit.
Does that does that answer your question?
» Yeah. And another one I have is about the
section above it, um commercial categories.
And the two in the center, uh community
commercial and regional commercial, I guess I don't in my brain those don't
really differ in East Lansing. I feel like the only real places that we have
are I don't know if you can speak to this like how you think they would
differ cuz the only one I'm really thinking of is
right near Eastwood with the Meyer and that sort of thing and maybe
Brookfield Plaza is the other. >> Sure.
» And I I just didn't know if you had a vision of how those could potentially
differ or >> Yeah, I look at that kind of as as far
as the market area. And so if a regional center maybe not maybe be more larger
scale than Meyer, but it would be the area around Meyer including I would
say Eastwood Town Center and that sort of the entire area might be a regional
pull. So a regional destination as far as commercial activity.
I I might see community commercial more likely like like Brookfield Plaza or
I was going to say Harrison in Michigan, but I might call it even smaller
smaller scale and more like neighborhood commercial.
So it's it's these aren't hard and fast
like it's sort of we decide how they how they work, but
generally and these are sort of examples of let's
just get our mind in the right place. You know, so a neighborhood is small,
community is a little bigger, regional is a larger. And I I think I
conceptually agree with you that we probably don't really have any true
regional commercial uh districts beyond
I would say downtown, but I'd put that in a mixed use category instead.
» And then not to take up too much time cuz I
but with the same on the commercial section I guess from my mind with the
redevelopment commercial corridors thinking about like East Grand River
in my brain I guess or at least for my thinking
I would like to just go to straight mixed use with that instead of doing a
you know a redevelopment with just
having it be mixed use rather than this other category. I don't
that's just my opinion though. >> Sure.
» And then with the neighborhood commercial I guess I was also I'm in my
thinking about it, in my mind, I don't see where a
low-grade mixed-use wouldn't be just as applicable, I guess,
or better in the sense where it's maybe not the commercial is required, but just
that it's optional.
» Yeah, commercial I tend to differentiate from mixed-use in that it would be
solely commercial. >> Yeah.
» So, you'll see that more in like strip commercial. Like I think you
mentioned along East Grand River, for example, but you could also say, "Yeah,
we want mixed-use." That would be the kind of decision we'd
be making uh when we're designing the future land use map and with a lot more
public participation, too, to make sure it was sort of
in line with public sentiment and and desires. Um
And I also So, I also don't think that we'd have
we shouldn't have that many mixed-use and that many commercial. We don't need
those in this in this town. I think we could have a couple mixed-use and maybe
one or two commercial for those areas that
don't make necessarily make sense to be mixed-use. When I say mixed-use, we're
mixing uses within the buildings. So, typically you have commercial on the
ground floor, like a more of a retail commercial, and then you might have
office or more often residential uses on the upper floors. Um so, that's where
we're saying we're mixing the uses in that that category versus purely
commercial. >> Mhm.
» So, I think you're I think um
Yes, we don't need all of them. I think that it might make sense
And this is This is one way to frame your thinking, too, as you're going
around town going, "What would make sense here?" I think that mixed-use
could be really nice here, but not so much over there. What would make sense
over there? Oh, that may might be commercial community commercial, whereas
this would be a more of a neighborhood mixed-use. So, I think that
that that sort of checking out the community and thinking about what would
make sense here in the existing, and then what we might what may might make
sense how how want to see things go in the future.
Um the map the future land use map category
doesn't have to correspond to reality right now.
It's just what we want to do down the road.
So, I would say think about both of those when you're considering what
categories you want. What do we have right now? What makes sense?
Cuz it's it's not quite like zoning where you have non-conforming uses.
Excuse me. Um >> [clears throat]
» You can when you when you put a category on the future land use map, you're
saying we want this down the road. Um
To to the point earlier I think that both commissioners made about the um
redevelopment commercial corridor or Commissioner Donley mentioned the future
opportunity sites. Uh those are sometimes used by
communities just to say, "Hey, this is a transitional area or something that we
really want to focus on." And that can be helpful as far as directing
incentives, directing grant programs, whatever it might be, you know, state
funding for redevelopment projects. You can say, "Hey, this is really our
priority focus area." Right here. That's why we're designating it as like
redevelopment commercial or future opportunity site. That is a That is a
great way to send a message saying, "If you want to build here, build here cuz
we want to see change there." And some some you don't, and you can also
designate that way as well. >> To that end, and this might be because
we're still in the middle of doing the work group, but I wasn't sure
necessarily in here where a data center would fit. Like what
type of zoning that technically would be. I mean, I would I have been thinking
about I don't think it matters for the sake of discussion today, but I've been
thinking about the under number four, the employment and
innovative categories. Whether I think there's really much of a
difference between the innovative research district and the major
institutional uses. And so, I mean, potentially a major
institutional use would be a data center, but then some of the examples
that we have under the innovative research district is
you know, tech and labs. Um
So, maybe just something to think about for future discussions.
» Well, that's good. And again, these are examples.
» Yeah, just examples. Yep. >> I I I think that I mean, I
I could see an innovation research or research district
that might be a good place to fit. You know, what I didn't really put here is
like heavy industrial. We don't really have heavy industrial uses.
» No. >> We have very, very little industrial
space. >> Right.
» Uh, I think we have eight properties across the city that are zoned
industrially. Um, so, and that it that might be just
fine. We don't have that many industrial uses cuz there's not that much need for
industrial here. But, where there might be
industrial type uses, but more like light or tech industrial
» Mhm. >> would make a lot of sense in one of
these categories. But, you just would choose. And I mean,
we do want the categories to sort of cover the expanse of land use land uses
possible land uses. >> Okay.
» But, that's more important when it gets to zoning.
» Commissioner Janall. >> Yeah, I um I really liked your comment,
Landon, about um the redevelopment areas.
Um, and I know I pointed out future opportunity sites, um and Commissioner
Ramirez Roberts pointed out um redevelopment commercial corridors. I
actually under item six, where it says redevelopment focus areas, I actually
really like that very broad category so that we're maybe not
signaling to the in in too much detail about what
type of redevelopment we might want to see in a certain location, but we might
be open to all types of redevelopment in a certain area, right? I think a lot
about East Grand River and how those right? Immense parking lots could be
going towards a much higher, better use. Um, and so, I'd hate to point to that
area and say, "Oh, sorry, we only want commercial redevelopment here." Why not
put housing there, right? And so, I think if we if we as a
commissioner are really interested in targeting areas for redevelopment, maybe
I would argue for keeping those more broad and just seeing what comes our
way. >> I think that there Sorry for me. Um
» Mhm. Yeah. >> [clears throat]
» That that that's a fine approach. I would suggest though that it can be you
have to be careful sometimes. If it's if it's broad and not
Like if it's a large area without specificity because you can end up with
things right now we have for example special study area.
Uh northeast area of town is the South
Farm. It was annexed from Bath 25 years ago.
And that's a special study area. And presumably in 2018
we were going to study that, but it didn't really it didn't really specify
how do we want to study this, you know, what is that what are the outcomes we're
looking for here? Do we have a timeline? Who's going to be the champion? And
and we want to sort of think about that if we're going to do some sort of a
redevelopment area. Like be a little more specific about what
what kind of focus is this? And do we have a timeline?
If we do have specific uses that we want to see,
let's sort of include those in the description.
» Mhm. >> I at this point in the whole the process
though I'd caution against thinking too closely.
You want to use specific areas and like locations in town to help frame your
your thoughts. >> Mhm.
» But I would caution against saying yep, what I want is this right here. This
category right here because we'll get to that. And we want to really focus on the
categories first real large before we start focusing on
specific locations. We'll get to that. We'll get to specific
specific locations for sure. >> For sure, Damon.
» Yes, so that's a perfect segue to my comment. Really I'm sort of at this
point macro here um and not necessarily down in the detail which we'll get to
and is very important. Um but I appreciate you pushing us on this.
Landon and I think I'm going to I don't mind saying I'm going to rely in large
part on your leadership to sort of move us in a direction that makes sense for
the community at large. I know you need our input as we've suggested tonight,
but you've impressed upon me that we need to push on this, make some changes,
update different contexts, new day, and I think I'm all on board to do that.
So, keep pushing us and provide your leadership and I'll be paying attention.
Just letting you know that. All right. Thank you.
» Oh, sorry. Uh Commissioner Ramirez Alberts.
» Yeah, so when it comes to the one and two, the residential land use,
so uh with urban residential, the high
intensity, I don't know in my mind if
we're looking at the land use, we're an area where we would want high
urban residential where we wouldn't also want the urban center mixed use. So, I
feel like that wouldn't be as necessary category to me.
And then also with the campus related housing
versus the campus interface mixed use, I feel like
probably also the campus interface mixed use might be better. I'm assuming that's
more people per room and that sort of thing that's allowed. Not per room, but
more beds allowed, I guess. >> Oh, it it
No idea. >> I mean, it would it would kind of depend
on how we design these. >> Yeah.
» We're we're at a blank slate right now. So, if we say campus related mixed use,
what does that mean? I mean, college town type stores. You know, there's
maybe a certain format and more student housing versus we don't want to see
purposeful student housing in maybe a in the low intensity neighborhood
residential. Uh so, I mean, and we don't have to have
all the categories of residential and all the categories of mixed use as well.
It could be low and high or low and medium
residential and we sort of define in there what that means.
And then start with medium intensity mixed use. We don't need a low intensity
because we don't have those. As an example.
I think I'm taking your your comment, but I'm I'm not sure if
you're asking a question or if I'm answering
» No, no. I think it was just a comment. >> Perfect. Thanks.
» Other questions or comments for Landon tonight?
» Yes, I I this is more a comment than a question, but at some point we're going
to see all of these categories and see how the city of East Lansing dumps into
those categories and we'll be able to look at at at at how we see the pieces
fit together and that's what's going to be most helpful to me is is seeing how
it shakes out and then and then I can make a decision on whether I think this
is accurate or not and in in the detail. Um and I also repeat something that
we've already said, but I really welcome that we're going to have categories that
we can can can look at rather than simply
letters and numbers. Um the the the existing zoning I'm going to have to sit
next to you, Landon, at the quiz or I'm going to flunk it. And so I'm hoping
that I will have a better grasp of that with with the new changes.
» Commissioner Jean >> Um
I was just looking at some of the examples again that you gave us, Landon,
and I see some of these have won awards from the APA.
And I think I would be really interested to hear more about
why these particular future land use maps
were recognized for being
excellent [snorts] examples. Um
whether that's, you know, commentary from the APA when they gave that award
or whether that's like your reasoning for why you chose them.
Um it would be really helpful for me to
understand why these are good examples, for instance, so that we can maybe apply
some of that as we're making decisions.
» That's That's very helpful feedback. And I'm wondering if I can ask the whole
commission. Do you have How How can I guide you
the best? How would How would be I do have specific other specifics cuz I
think that's a really good suggestion and I can get that information. Is there
other Would you like me to be recommending certain things or
shaking it like narrowing this the field or widening it?
I What would be helpful for you as we go to the next meeting?
» Excuse me, if I could jump in. >> I assume that the organizations that
made these decisions said this was really good had some
criteria that they used to make those decisions. And And if we had that
criterion shared with us, then we could know that this particular
uh configuration was good for these
reasons. Um so, I would find that helpful. And
And And that dovetail with with your questions.
» I think for me, um I obviously not being a planning or zoning expert, I would
appreciate some recommendations that we could react to. I think that's probably
when we can or I should speak for myself. That's when I can give the best
feedback um is when there's a recommendation on the table. Um the
other thing that would be helpful and I know we've done this where we've talked
about this in the past, but I don't think we necessarily need to recreate
the wheel. There are other cities and cities that are like us that
are adjacent to a a large university. And it would be helpful I think for me
to see a um maybe even like a table of how other
similar kind of university centered cities have zoned
like what their land use maps look like. >> I'm laying out my
board. >> That's right.
» So, um
you know, I'm all about the recommendations and actually if you have
a vision here, I would even encourage you to share your vision with us and
then we dissect that and you know, you would have some logic
behind that vision. I've, you know, talked with you enough
to understand that you do have a picture of what this might look like
for a college town in Midwest United States and I think I'd I'd love
to see your recommendations and respond to that.
So, I think that would be great.
Commissioner LaPointe Okay, good. I'm sorry.
» All right. Any other comments tonight? Does that
give you enough to go on? >> Oh, yeah.
It's very helpful. Yeah. >> Okay.
» It's it's all good. >> All right, we'll close that portion of
the agenda and move on to new business.
I don't think we have any new business to discuss.
Commissioner concerns item nine on the agenda, any commissioner concerns that
you'd like to share? >> I actually do.
I would like to share a concern and although this is scripted, but it's
I just feel a need to talk about something. I don't really have an
outcome here that I conclude with, but I want to talk about the Albert Avenue
apartment project. I know that we spent a lot of time with
a developer. I know that the developer spent a lot of time in our city.
He made a lot of recommendations and suggestions. We made recommendations and
suggestions. The city council did, DDA did, planning commission did.
Um in my mind it aligned with the
comprehensive plan. Um and I think I'm not I I respect the
city council. I respect our process. I'm not suggesting that that was flawed,
but I do think that was a pretty big deal in my mind
and I think we need to maybe not let that float down the river and say
bygones be bygones, but rather be a little introspective about what we may
have done differently, what we could do differently in the future
if a project comes our way. And I don't know the entire backstory.
Um I know what was reported in the newspaper about parking. Um
I I don't I don't This was a a pretty big deal
in my mind. Speak just for myself here. And I think
to just let this pass and maybe it's a dead deal. I don't know if it is or not.
I know our mayor is with us tonight. Um but if it is, I think we need to be a
little introspective about the time that our staff spent, about the time the
planning commission spent, about the time the developer spent, and then to
get to the final step and have it all dissipate.
I think we need to be a little introspective. What could we have done
differently as a city of East Lansing? I want to be
a city that embraces new ideas, development.
Um You know, we don't approve everything,
but do we move this development along the way for a couple of years with
adjustments left and right, and then get to the final meeting and
and we we say no. It just doesn't sit well with me, and
I'm just I don't Again, I said I'm not scripting
here. I'm not suggesting that I disrespect the city council or the
process or anybody along the way, but collectively, the city of East Lansing
in my mind, we sort of fumbled this in some way
somehow, and I'm not sure what that is, and
um how we might do something a little bit differently. And I'm kind of put
myself out there. Others are going to disagree with me.
Uh so be it. Uh it is a concern. In my mind, it sort
of lines up with the commissioner concern. So I share those thoughts
tonight. Um
and period. So be it.
» Thank you. Any other commissioner concerns? Yes.
» I actually had a a couple tonight. So, I know last year the the the sheets on uh
Saginaw and Abbott was approved. Nothing's happened there. Is that
project still moving forward? >> It is.
» Okay. >> Uh my understanding was they were
waiting on some state approval for, I believe, some site work, and they've
gotten that approval. So they should be moving ahead fairly soon.
» Okay. And the other one is I'm forgetting the architect. It's the
building that got taken over by the I It's
the Michigan Doctors Association Medical >> Michigan Medical Association.
» Yeah, Medical Association. I remember I spoke
uh a few years back about them cutting down the trees, and I believe as part of
that we had a the planning commission had a landscape
plan that was approved, and I don't know if that was a requirement of those trees
being cut down, but it doesn't look like they ever implemented the landscaping
plan. I drove by that yesterday. I'm like,
nothing's changed here. So I didn't know if
essentially, was that a requirement of cutting down
those trees and coming for here for commission to implement
that landscaping plan? >> They were required to add some more
trees. I'll follow up on that with our environmental staff and get back to you
to make sure to find out what the status is.
» Any other commissioner concerns?
Okay, great. We're going to move on to adjournment. Can I would like to ask for
a motion to adjourn at 7:47 p.m. >> So moved.
» So moved. >> Seconded by
moved by Commissioner Overby, seconded by Commissioner Chapin. All those in
favor, please say I. >> I.
» Perfect. Thanks, guys. >> Okay.