[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.