PLANNING COMMISSION. Quality Services for a Quality Community. Jones-Fisk called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMBERS Chair Julie Jones-Fisk Vice Chair Laura Goddeeris Erik Altmann Fred Bauries Don Davis Summer Minnick Paul Stokstad Arianna Zanetti VACANCY MINUTES August 26, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom #2 101 Linden Street Present: Altmann, Bauries, Davis, Goddeeris, Jones-Fisk, Stokstad, and Zannetti City Council Liaison Kathleen Boyle Staff Liaison Darcy C. Schmitt (517) Absent: Staff Members: Minnick Majano and Schmitt City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) ) OPENING Jones-Fisk called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A) Roll Call At the taking of the roll, Commissioner Minnick was absent. B) Approval of Agenda Motion: Goddeeris moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Stokstad. Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously. C) Approval of Minutes Motion: Goddeeris moved to approve the July 22, 2015 minutes as changed. The motion was seconded by Davis. Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Goddeeris moved to approve the August 12, 2015 minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Stokstad. Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously. 2) COMMITTEE REPORTS A) Comprehensive Plan Schmitt stated there is a Planning Commission Worksession on the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for September 16, 2015 and will be held in Courtroom 1. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 1 of 14

2 Jones-Fisk stated the Commisison held a Worksession on the Comprehensive Plan on August 19, 2015 to review the goals and objectives. The Commission will review the future land use map at the next meeting. Altmann asked if the Commission would schedule a third Worksession if unable to complete the task. Schmitt replied affirmatively. 3) STAFF REPORTS None 4) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Jones-Fisk introduced Arianna Zannetti as a new Planning Commission member. Jones-Fisk stated for the record that all the materials provided to and reviewed by Planning Commission are available on the City s webpage (Granicus). 5) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS A) Oral None B) Written None 6) PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Site Plan: An application from MSU Student Housing Cooperative, for the properties at 312 North Harrison Road and 710 Oak Street. The applicant is proposing to convert two apartment buildings into a co-op for occupancy of 17 to 18 persons with common dining, kitchen and social spaces. Both properties are zoned RM-32, City Center Multiple-Family Residential. (Majano) Majano described the property, the location, and the proposed application as indicated in the Staff Report. He stated they are making minimal changes to the exterior buildings as the request has more to do with parking. Stokstad asked if the internal floor plans are not necessary or lacking. Schmitt replied the floor plans are not required as the Commission s review is for the parking not the interior building; vehicular and bike parking needs are based on occupancy. Goddeeris stated it would be helpful to see the layout. Schmitt replied affirmatively and stated the occupancy of the buildings will not change from their current occupancy. Altmann asked if setback was the only nonconforming. Majano replied there are two parking spaces that are too close to the boundary line. Mike McCurdy, Facilities Director of the MSU Student Housing Cooperative, addressed the Commission and stated Dan Newton, President, would be making a presentation. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 2 of 14

3 Daniel Newton, 420 Evergreen Avenue, addressed the Commission and presented an overview of the proposal s purpose. Davis asked if the current configuration includes apartment units with kitchens. Mr. Newton replied affirmatively. Davis asked if the proposal is to include one common kitchen in each building. Mr. Newton deferred to Mr. McCurdy. Mr. McCurdy stated one building has four one-bedroom apartments and the other has two onebedroom and one three-bedroom apartment each containing a kitchen. He continued they most likely will have one kitchen for each building; however, at this time they have not gone through the design process. Davis asked if they would be requesting a variance for the encroachment on the setbacks. Mr. Newton replied they would do what was needed. Altmann stated he would like to see them make changes to parking setback against the sidewalk. Mr. Newton replied they are open to reconfiguring parking to meet the requirements. Davis asked if the structure indicated as brick garage on the plan could be used for parking. Mr. Newton replied they intend to use it for a bike shop and bicycle parking. Davis asked if they would be requesting a variance for reduced parking. Mr. Newton replied they did their best to meet the parking requirements without seeking a variance. Nanne Olds, 246 University Drive, addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition to the application; namely conflict with the consolidated plan, requirements of the historic district, and safety and noise concerns. Jones-Fisk noted the structure and use do conform to the zoning district and the nonconformity the Commission was discussing had to do with dimensional requirements. Mr. McCurdy readdressed the Commission and stated the property is in a historic district; therefore, they will be subject to the same Historic Preservation Code as the neighbors. He also stated the properties are currently rentals but will be owner-occupied as the residents of the co-op are the owners. Goddeeris asked if the co-op (affordable housing) was only available to MSU students. Mr. McCurdy replied that LCC students are also eligible. Altmann stated he likes the idea of using the brick garage as a bike shop and covered bicycle parking. Davis stated the likelihood of the proposed property to become owner-occupied by an entity other than a co-op is remote and an impossible expectation. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 3 of 14

4 Kate Kithil, 249 University, addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition to the application; specifically safety, parking, walking route for neighbors, and noise. Altmann asked if the request is for 18 persons which is one more than currently there. Schmitt replied affirmatively and stated the number of 18 is basically in part to the parking requirement of one space for every two persons. He asked if the buildings are fully occupied and how many tenants currently live there. Schmitt replied that Staff is unsure. Altmann stated it is conceivable there could be an increase in density. Schmitt replied affirmatively and stated the two buildings are licensed for 17. Majano stated he would like to speak to the historic district requirement as he is also the Historic Preservation Officer. He stated Staff has worked with MSU Student Housing Cooperative on other homes in the historic districts so Mr. McCurdy is aware of what is permitted and what requires HDC approval. He further stated MSU Student Housing Cooperative recently replaced all the vinyl windows with aluminum clad, which is an improvement, on a property they own in a historic district. The Commission discussed the number of cars currently on-site versus what is proposed. Stokstad stated the proposed number of cars may not be increasing, at the very least comparable. He further stated the parking spaces to the south are an improvement. Jennifer Sparrow, 302 University, addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition to the application; specifically concerns with the potential of neighboring fraternities each buying one building as an annex to their main building. Holly Jo Sparks, Executive Director of MSU Student Housing Cooperative, addressed the Commission and offered to answer any questions. She spoke to the occupancy based on leases she had seen. Bill Sparrow, 302 University, addressed the Commission and spoke to his concern with parking. Grant Warren, 710 Oak Street, addressed the Commission and stated he currently resides in one of the buildings and asked what the co-op plans to do with tenants that have a 12 month lease. He further stated there are five occupants in the first building and six in the second and there is not enough parking for the current occupants. Nanne Olds readdressed the Commission and asked how the MSU Student Housing Cooperative can afford to make all the capital improvements if they do not have funds to provide the design plans. Jessica Sietsema, 711 W. Grand River, addressed the Commission and spoke to the difference between a fraternity/sorority and a co-op. She further stated once they have a purchase offer they will be able to leverage their substantial investments in the area to perform capital improvements. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 4 of 14

5 Stokstad asked for clarification that parking space number eight is the one referenced by the speaker as nonconforming and will have to be changed. Schmitt replied both seven and eight. Stokstad asked if it was too close to the street. Schmitt replied it was too close to the sidewalk. Altmann asked if the Commission could request the nonconforming parking be changed. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Davis asked if the current project is one of a number of similar projects by MSU Student Housing Cooperative. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Goddeeris asked if in the future the co-op was not viable and sold to a fraternity or sorority the proposed change would need to be reviewed as a Special Use Permit. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Schmitt stated Staff will work with the applicant to discuss their parking options. The Commission discussed reviewing the two properties as one site plan as the garage straddles a property line. Altmann asked if a variance was approved to reduce parking and parking spaces eight and nine were removed, could the curb cut on Harrison be removed. Schmitt replied Staff will ask Engineering to look into removal. Goddeeris stated the curb cut would still be necessary to access the bike shop/storage. B) Site Plan: An application from WREL, LLC, for the property at 3126 West Road. The applicant is proposing to extend the parking for the building at 3100 West Road. The property is currently zoned RA, Residential Agriculture; however, it is proposed to be rezoned to B-5, Community Retail Business District. (Majano) Majano described the property, the location, and the proposed application as indicated in the Staff Report. He further stated Phase 1 is only parking lot improvements which will include shared parking for three buildings, one of which will be constructed as Phase 2. Altmann asked why the project is being proposed in two phases with parking first. Schmitt replied the property at 3100 West Road is in need of parking. Paul Furtaw, Bergmann Associates, 1427 W. Saginaw, addressed the Commission and stated they are not seeking Special Use Permit approval as indicated on the agenda but correctly indicated on the Staff Report. He stated that the single-family house currently is not occupied and is slated for demolition as part of Phase 1. Goddeeris asked what the site would look like after demolition. Mr. Furtaw replied the intent is to demolish the existing house and restore the pervious surface with lawn and disturb as little vegetation as possible. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 5 of 14

6 Goddeeris stated she is aware of the standard conditions of approval for site plan but as they discussed something a little different she would prefer to see the conditions in writing before voting. 7) OLD BUSINESS A) Site Plan: An application from Capital Area Housing Partnership for Bailey LDHA LP, for the property at 300 Bailey Street to renovate the existing school and an addition to provide 25 senior independent living apartments. This property is zoned C, Community Facilities District. (Majano) Majano described the property, the location, the proposed application as indicated in the Staff Report. He stated the proposal is now for 25 senior independent living apartments. Altmann asked Staff to summarize the removal of the turn-around on the northeast drive. Majano replied the code did not require a turn-around. Altmann further asked if the boundary between the park and the proposed project was adjusted. Schmitt replied it was moved to accommodate the setback requirement of three feet. He asked if the paving was reduced or the park. Schmitt replied the park. Stokstad asked how the revised site plan answers the questions of the proposed play areas and who will pay for them. Schmitt replied the play areas were removed from the revised site plan as they were originally conceptual without definitive design or ownership. He further asked for clarification of what the statement, This project will likely bump this park improvement to the top of the list when there are opportunities for grants and other funding mechanisms available to the City, means. Schmitt replied there is no funding mechanism at this point but the public will be involved in the planning process of any improvements. Davis stated should the proposal be recommended for approval he would like to add a condition that a fence be added where the proposed walkway for the children to access the park is located. Altmann asked how the benches and play equipment being removed as part of the project is going to be accounted for. He stated Staff s response suggests that CAHP may be able to secure funding sources that are typically not available to the City. Schmitt deferred to the applicant. Stokstad asked for additional information regarding Staff s Recommendation that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council as it relates to the request for exemption of the zoning requirement of public art. Goddeeris stated she feels the public art condition should stay as the Commission does not have the authority or guidelines to grant an exemption. Altmann asked if there is anything in the public art ordinance that gives the Commission a basis on which to recommend a waiver. Schmitt replied the Community Facilities ordinance (1349) recommended for approval gives the Commission the ability to recommend a waiver. Altmann stated there are no criteria to base their recommendation on that warrants granting a waiver. Schmitt replied their basis is for the good of the community but since the ordinance has not been approved she understands the Commission not feeling comfortable making a recommendation. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 6 of 14

7 Mikki Droste, the applicant, addressed the Commission and offered to answer any questions. Stokstad asked if the children s swings would remain. Ms. Droste replied negatively. Altmann asked if the swings would be relocated. Ms. Droste replied she believes the swings are not compliant as playground equipment; however, she will confirm with the City whether they want them relocated. Davis asked if a safety fence would be installed. Ms. Droste replied she is not an expert but would defer to the daycare experts and state licensing officials regarding safety requirements. Jones-Fisk asked if they have had any new prospects for the daycare. Ms. Droste replied affirmatively. Jones-Fisk further asked what tenants are likely to lease the commercial/office space. Ms. Droste replied they have not identified any specific tenant or use as they are early in the process. Jones-Fisk stated there has not been much in the way of changes to the rendering showing architecture. Ms. Droste replied she will be meeting with Staff and members of the Historic District Commission for their input on materials, etc., and changes will be added to the elevations after that time. Ralph Monsma, 1350 Red Lead Lane, addressed the Commission and spoke to his concerns with parking, safety, and playground equipment. Bill Morgan, 346 Collingwood Drive, addressed the Commission and spoke to his concerns with parking, safety, and the loss of roughly 25% of park land. He suggested changing the aerial view boundaries to include the boundaries of the proposal not just the current site before sending to City Council. Altmann asked if the parking to the north extends approximately 10 to 15 feet beyond what is currently there. Schmitt replied it may be approximately 10 to 15 feet but it is difficult to tell with an aerial view. Stokstad stated the plans indicate the parking seems to be in line with the south side of Sycamore Street and the small permanent play structure area is intersected by the boundary. Stokstad proposed the plans be clear, when sent to Council, as to what equipment is proposed to be removed. Schmitt replied it is clear in the memo from the Parks Director that goes directly to Council. Altmann asked what will become of the northern park half of the asphalt labeled poor condition. Schmitt replied that is a question for the Parks Department. Altmann stated conversion to greenspace would be a positive thing. Schmitt stated she believes legally the equipment that is slated for removal most likely does not meet the current requirements and cannot be relocated. Davis stated there is a significant decrease in the park itself but now that the asphalt in the middle of the park has been explained it is feasible that there would be a gain of usable park space. Motion: It was moved by Stokstad to recommend City Council approve the Site Plan application from Capital Area Housing Partnership for Bailey LDHA LP, for the property at 300 Bailey Street to renovate the existing school and construct an addition to provide 25 senior independent living apartments; subject to the following conditions: City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 7 of 14

8 1. Water and sanitary sewer extensions and connections shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. 2. The storm water detention facility shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm; the required calculations and storm water management plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Final grading, soil erosion control, paving and utility plans for the site shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with all applicable local requirements. 4. The applicant shall construct an 8 foot wide sidewalk along all major road R.O.W. and 5 foot wide sidewalk shall extend from the public sidewalk to the entrance of the building(s). 5. Final landscaping and screening details shall be designed in accordance with sections and of the City Code. A final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and signed-off on prior to installation. 6. Bike racks shall be installed sufficient to accommodate at least 21 bicycles. 7. Site lighting shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of section of the City Code. 8. The trash containers shall be constructed and screened in accordance with the requirements of section of the City Code. 9. Recycling containers shall be provided in accordance with section of the City Code. 10. The required permit(s) shall be obtained from the Department of Planning, Building, and Development for all exterior signs, in accordance with Chapter 32 Signs of the City Code. 11. The project shall be designed and developed in accordance with all applicable State and local statutes, codes and regulations. 12. The northern property line shall be adjusted to meet the parking setback or the northern most parking spaces shall be removed. 13. The applicant shall receive a Historic District Commission Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing southern addition to the original building and to construct a new addition. 14. The project shall be designed to meet the requirements for Public Art established in the City Code. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 8 of 14

9 The motion was seconded by Altmann. Amendment 1 Motion: Goddeeris moved to amend the motion to include condition 14 regarding public art. The motion was seconded by Stokstad. Goddeeris stated she is uncomfortable with the process. She continued when the Commission made the recommendation to approve Ordinance 1349 they had not had any discussion about the public art requirement per se and she was under the impression the Commission s purview did not include whether a project met the requirements of the public art. She further stated the criteria a for the good of the community can be used for any project and as such feels Council should have those discussions. She also stated removing the conditions for this project mutes discussions Council may otherwise have on the subject. Stokstad stated he agreed with Goddeeris and feels there is no basis on which to determine a project exempt from the requirement. He further stated his motion was to only include the 13 conditions given the public art requirement is part of the ordinance regardless whether the condition is stated or not. Goddeeris stated because the requirement is so new she felt it would be best to have it spelled out so it was not inadvertently overlooked. Davis stated he agrees with Goddeeris comments and likes the idea of including the condition for the purpose of making sure it is presented to Council. Altmann stated he has concerns that the condition will slip through the cracks if it is included; therefore, he will not be supporting the motion. Stokstad stated regardless how the motion plays out he is confident in the applicant s ability to bring it up to Council. Amendment 1 Vote: Yeas: Goddeeris, Davis, Jones-Fisk, Stokstad, and Zannetti. Nays: Altmann and Bauries. Motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Amendment 2 Motion: Davis moved to amend the motion to include a 15 th condition stating, If a daycare becomes a tenant the proper barriers shall be located between the play areas and parking. The motion was seconded by Bauries. Majano stated Certificate of Appropriateness approval is required to construct a fence in the historic district. Altmann asked who decides what a proper barrier is. Davis replied the landscape architect. Stokstad stated he is in favor of protective barriers but he is uncomfortable substituting his judgment in advance of the judgment of the daycare operator or state licensing official so he will not be voting in favor of amendment 2. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 9 of 14

10 Davis stated he is still not comfortable with the exact language given that his concern is specifically for the safety of children. He asked if anyone wanted to reword the amendment. Goddeeris echoed Stokstad s comments and stated she is not sure that a general buffer between the parking and play area would not suffice as a condition. Jones-Fisk stated she appreciates the intent of Davis amendment but also agrees with Stokstad s comments and will not be voting in favor of the amendment. Amendment 2 Vote: Yeas: Davis. Nays: Altmann, Bauries, Goddeeris, Jones-Fisk, Stokstad, and Zannetti. Motion passed by a vote of 1 to 6. Stokstad stated he would be voting in favor of the proposal as it is a good proposal and a far better outcome than many others that seemed possible. He further stated there are some specific assets to the community that are being lost; play structures and encroachment onto the park. He continued that he would like to urge City Council not to trade certain present losses for future hopes and if possible make some specific plans in conjunction with the review of the proposal. Altmann echoed Stokstad s comments and thanked all the people that weighed in at all the various stages in the process. He stated the growth in parking to the north of the building is a trade off and he feels in general the proposal is a positive step and would prefer not to risk holding something up that has momentum. Goddeeris stated she will be voting in favor of the motion as she sees nothing significant in the standards of review that causes her any concern. She continued she feels the process seemed very fast and it is a high stake project not unlike other high stake projects that have gone on and on. She further stated it would be helpful to have something clearly stating why certain processes are used for certain projects, whether they are fast tracked or seem to take a long time. Jones-Fisk stated she is a reluctant yes vote for many of the same concerns Goddeeris stated. She further stated the property is a special property in the community and she feels the City is settling and settling fast for a project. Main Motion Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously. B) Special Use Permit: An application from Tin Can East Lansing, LLC, for the properties at 313 East Grand River Avenue and the north half portion of 317 East Grand River Avenue. The applicant is seeking to place a restaurant/bar serving alcohol under a Class C liquor license at the existing site. The property is zoned B-3, City Center Commercial District. (Majano) Majano described the property, the location, the proposed application as indicated in the Staff Report. Schmitt discussed the history of Ordinance 1302; Moratorium Restaurants Serving Alcohol after Midnight. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 10 of 14

11 Davis asked why Staff is now recommending closing at 2:00 AM when in 2014 the same request from Spencer s was denied by Council. In other words, the Council upheld the moratorium, Ordinance Goddeeris stated she recalled the reason being the applicant obtained a liquor license through the Downtown Development Authority and their recommendation was for the restaurant to close at midnight. Schmitt replied there was some confusion with the DDA license and Spencer Soka ended up getting a special license that could be sold. Goddeeris asked if the applicant was purchasing the exiting license. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Goddeeris further stated that Council exercised discretion based on the license being the DDA s and as such denied the 2:00 AM closing. Davis asked how that factors into the decision to allow the new restaurant to remain open until 2:00 AM. Schmitt replied the DDA is an extension of the City and their recommendation to Council was the restaurant close at midnight. Davis asked if it was inappropriate for the Council to deny the later closing on the same license. Goddeeris replied the DDA used their standard Downtown Liquor License Evaluation Criteria to issue points based on the type of restaurant and its operations. She further stated there was some question as to whether Spencer s was a restaurant or bar. Davis stated he was not persuaded by any of the comments and he feels there will be more drinking than eating after midnight. He continued it makes no difference to him whether closing is midnight or 2:00 AM but he finds the current Staff recommendation for a 2:00 AM closure to be inconsistent with the previous decision by Council. Stokstad asked if the DDA had made a recommendation. Schmitt replied negatively and stated they meet tomorrow. He further asked if the standards of review for Special Use Permit, regarding proximity to a church requires a waiver by City Council if within 500 feet. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Doug Johns, the applicant, addressed the Commission and spoke to the tremendous amount of support he has received regarding the application. Stokstad stated at the time they were reviewing the 2014 request to remain open until 2:00 AM was at the same time Staff and Council were working through the Ordinance and it seemed to provide a good justification for requiring the place to close at midnight. He continued now that it has been decided he feels uncomfortable from a fairness standpoint for this application being required to close at midnight instead of 2:00 AM and for that reason he does not have a problem with the absence of a closing time as a condition of approval. Davis stated he argued in favor of the 2:00 AM closing of the Marriott restaurant and he does not have a problem with new restaurant remaining open until 2:00 AM and feels it is an element of fairness. Altmann stated Ordinance 1302 was adopted December 17, 2013 and effective January 15, He continued the Staff s Recommendation in the Staff Report for Spencer s, dated April 1, 2014, states; The request to extend services hours until 2:00AM; however, is not a request that Staff can support. Stokstad stated he had the timing wrong. Altmann replied the Ordinance had already been effective for four months. Stokstad stated it makes this more difficult for him. Goddeeris stated she is in favor of consistency as well. She continued at Council level they talked about the concentration of uses. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 11 of 14

12 Motion: It was moved by Goddeeris to recommend City Council approve the Special Use Permit application from Tin Can East Lansing, LLC, for the properties at 313 East Grand River Avenue and the north half portion of 317 East Grand River Avenue. The applicant is seeking to place a restaurant/bar serving alcohol under a Class C liquor license at the existing site; subject to the following conditions: 1. The capacity of the restaurant shall not exceed 90 persons; seating for no less than 84 diners shall be provided at tables and/or booths. The seating plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Code Enforcement and the Fire Marshall in accordance with Building and Fire Code requirements. 2. Persons under 21 years of age shall not be permitted to enter the premises after 11:00 p.m. unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. 3. The proprietor shall work with the Police Department to develop and implement an effective security plan and provide for appropriate staff training. 4. The restaurant shall be designed, operated and maintained at all times consistent with responsible business practices and so that no excessive demands shall be placed upon public safety services, nor any excessive risk of harm to the public health, safety or sanitation, interference with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or parking, or the continuance or maintenance of any unlawful conduct, public nuisance or disorderly conduct either within the establishment or on or about the adjacent businesses and public streets, alleys, parks, parking facilities or other areas open to the public. The proprietor shall make reasonable effort to report to authorities any unlawful conduct that is observed from the premises. 5. The restaurant shall comply with the requirements and performance standards of for a restaurant as set forth in Section 50-8 of Chapter 50 of the City Code and Chapter 18 of the City Charter at all times. 6. The proprietor shall provide to the City Manager reports and business records, in the form and manner required, by an administrative order to be published by the City Manager and approved by the City Council, to permit the City to review and determine continued compliance with the requirements and performance standards of Section 50-8 of Chapter 50 of the City Code and Chapter 18 of the City Charter. 7. Seasonal seating for up to 32 persons may be provided in the outdoor service area, but such seating shall not increase the overall capacity of the facility as stated in condition 1 above. 8. The outdoor service area shall be vacated by 12:00 midnight daily. 9. The outdoor service area shall be effectively delineated and contained with fencing, shrubbery or similar means to control access to the area. City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 12 of 14

13 10. Furniture and equipment used in conjunction with the outdoor service area shall be stored in an inconspicuous space seasonally when the area is not in use. 11. Lighting provided for the outdoor service area shall be designed to direct light downward and not onto any adjacent property. The motion was seconded by Bauries. Bauries stated he wanted to make sure the condition requiring the kitchen remain open until close of business is included. Schmitt stated that condition is no longer included as part of the standard conditions of approval given the argument that proprietors need to have staff on longer to clean to the kitchen after closing and the City has no way to enforce it. Mr. Johns stated they plan to keep the kitchen open until 1:00 AM and have something available for patrons until 2:00 AM due to the reasons Schmitt stated. Stokstad stated he is more concerned with undue concentration of similar uses in the neighborhood such that liquor establishments and trade become a dominant influence or feature of the district or neighborhood. Given that language, the fact that the prior occupant was a restaurant/bar is not pertinent so fairness in that sense cannot be a perfect rebuttal to the careful consideration of this consideration. He continued the new owner runs good clean establishments and does have good references and may well run his place better than his competitors, but still the issue under the ordinance is whether it would cause or continue an undue concentration of similar uses in the downtown. He further stated that he feels the downtown has come to that point and feels that allowing the use to not only continue but to enlarge what was there previously is getting to an undue concentration and he will be voting against the motion. Altmann stated he echoes similar concerns already stated but wanted to elaborate on them. One being the consistency issue; given the timing the argument to restrict Spencer s to midnight he does not understand how a DDA license is somehow special here. It looked like there was a de facto policy to not allow additional restaurants serving alcohol to remain open past midnight. He further stated that policy was continued in the discussions about Building A because there it was very clear that Staff had taken a position that there would not be a recommendation for another restaurant serving alcohol past midnight. He continued the applicant supported the request from the hotel applicant to remain open until 2:00 AM, so he did not think it had to do with the residential nature of the project. He stated his interpretation at the time and now is that Staff adopted a de facto policy of not allowing additional licenses to be open past midnight; that is the way he feels he should review the current application and he thinks it is inconsistent to now suddenly shift from midnight closing to 2:00 AM closing. Altmann further stated the other issue is the undue concentration. From his perspective we are well past the point of there being an undue concentration and what is at stake is an opportunity cost. If a restaurant serving alcohol goes into that space it means that something else is not going to go in that space. He continued the reason we have standards of review is to control the use because that allows us to push things in particular directions that we have collectively decided we want to see to see some area develop. We have an opportunity now to take a step in a City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 13 of 14

14 direction the code licenses us to take and he thinks we should take it. He also stated they heard last night at the Form Based Code Tutorial that sometimes you need to say no to get what you want and he thinks that is what should be done here. He continued that he also would not be supporting the motion. Jones-Fisk stated she would be supporting the motion given that applicant has proven to be a good corporate citizen. She said there was a lot of concern when Hop Cat wanted to come downtown and since they have raised the bar in creating competition for some of the older establishments that are in the downtown. She continued that the resident neighbors were notified of the public hearing and no opposition to the application was received. Goddeeris echoed Jones-Fisk s comments. She stated she likes that the proposal is expanding outdoor seating options in the downtown and she is encouraged about the other Tin Can establishments being a mixed-age crowd and hopes it translates to downtown East Lansing. She further stated we have made some steps forward in the downtown and she will be supporting the motion. Davis stated he is sympathetic with Stokstad s and Altmann s comments and understands them reasonably well. He spoke about the Form Based Code forum last night and said he would be supporting the motion. Vote: Yeas: Bauries, Davis, Goddeeris, Jones-Fisk, and Zannetti. Nays: Altmann and Stokstad. Motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2. 8) NEW BUSINESS None 9) COMMISSIONER CONCERNS Davis read from the Code, Class B dwellings and suggested the Commission look into it more when the ordinance to limit the number bedrooms per unit is readdressed as it is possible that a seven bedroom unit should be addressed as multiple-family. Davis provided an article regarding a project in Traverse City that moved forward after having been denied Brownfield Tax Credits. 10) ADJOURNMENT Motion: Stokstad moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 p.m. The motion was seconded by Goddeeris. Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously. Julie Jones-Fisk Chair Darcy C. Schmitt Secretary City of East Lansing Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 Page 14 of 14