[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6580345,"mediaKeyId","3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861","parentId",3106674,"title","Resident urges commission to revisit zoning definition of \"family,\" citing constitutional opinions","audioSeconds",363,"startMs",1152000,"endMs",1515000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861&start=1152&end=1515","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861/thumbnail_1152000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6580345/East-Lansing/Ingham-County/Michigan/Resident-urges-commission-to-revisit-zoning-definition-of-family-citing-constitutional-opinions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580345-045c2c60e53a1c46eb94127e1215676f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546305&Signature=BMVDNN0Hu1l61ieYRe~E~4PcQVXMyEZsesRDtLD-E~X0oGYONhXLSM6S9p8Kul2KpvaH7dC0O9qaWd-4sE~3Y5EMgHS0rMJQuUT3ZqO8n7qRSyKN3s45h1Jn43eSCRuL5w00R~hcB3C8aTIjf5Lx~~5pbxLf94Sz3INMWRj~j7qfwaBuWrI0-976I~TY54EmYwyKUb9LK78YvFLSVPuP5r-V3CnSq9Z6x0M8W7rjcq6jegaUdV0c4vnrsyj6vAYaitU97BMgtmDdYHd28S370jfmG8~Id8FifcBhGYzS52430pGz1s54weVnYCGUbaDdNIJ68LEmH98EtwjujypORw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","East Lansing, Michigan","date","2025-04-24T00:57:26.973Z","article","During the public comment period at the April 23 East Lansing Planning Commission meeting, Patrick Rose of 310 Oxford Road urged the commission to reopen consideration of the city zoning ordinance's definition of \"family,\" arguing the current definition violates U.S. and Michigan constitutional protections.

Rose told commissioners he had submitted a letter and legal opinion from several attorneys and experts asserting East Lansing's zoning definition of family excludes functional families and is inconsistent with Moore v. East Cleveland (1977) and a Michigan Supreme Court decision addressing similar ordinances. \"I would ask each one of you to read, and I would remind you, you took an oath to uphold the state and U.S. Constitution,\" Rose said, urging the commission to place the item on its unfinished‑business agenda and to review the legal opinions provided.

Rose asserted the city attorney's advice had not addressed controlling case law and said the city charter language forbids discrimination based on marital or family status. \"I would ask you to put us on unfinished business so that you can fix this problem or you are responsible for the problem,\" he said, adding he wanted the commission to hear legal opinions from outside counsel who signed the letter he submitted.

Commissioners and staff responded during the meeting's discussion items. City staff noted that the matter—identified in the meeting packet as ordinance 15‑45—has undergone prior public processes, including presentations to the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission and a public hearing at City Council. Staff said they had suggested that Rose pursue the issue with City Council, where policy and charter questions are typically resolved, and that the commission could consider the zoning language further if directed by council.

Several commissioners said they were concerned about public comments that directly criticized staff without an opportunity for staff response; one commissioner said the commission should consider a formal way to respond. Chair Sullivan and other commissioners also emphasized that the public hearing and related proceedings had provided multiple prior opportunities for public comment about the family definition.

Rose concluded his remarks asking for the commission to place the topic on an agenda for further consideration. The commission did not add the item as unfinished business at the April 23 meeting; staff said Council Member Meadows—who introduced related ordinance language to council—was expected to appear at a future meeting to discuss the matter further.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 23 Apr 2025","oneSentenceSummary","During public comment April 23, resident Patrick Rose urged the Planning Commission to put review of the city's zoning definition of \"family\" on its agenda, saying legal opinions find the current definition unconstitutional. Commissioners and staff noted the matter has had prior public hearings and that City Council is an appropriate next forum.","taxTitle","East Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan","taxId",55176,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6580349,"Commission reviews draft change to downtown \"diverse housing\" transfer rules; seeks council clarification",764,4020000,4784000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861&start=4020&end=4784","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861/thumbnail_4020000.jpg","/articles/6580349/East-Lansing/Ingham-County/Michigan/Commission-reviews-draft-change-to-downtown-diverse-housing-transfer-rules-seeks-council-clarification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580349-96f2fc77b93edad59b49c0377d3cb012/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546305&Signature=HLjXz8dUE3gdNWZKeIqTZw-8eOycBffskqZE8~-tt0UmoA5TdHlMOYhMo29Ci1x7CiQZCcixrGHnFi~kv7~wJuaUW4qOl9pta8eXT8oB6FZN4xUHS-gNla8p6KUMbSvVv9nr5HPpPjUp5JaxetBPv8E6HqT7fhVhFo1B-pKkK2gueKmIauftJFBd0e2cAB6a04eL8tRopZQrZRH5zaWPY9qNDDybLQp8Po9ct1nRz3V06BXYF9Sz7yctrN4xkb56ldvdeu6xecaWFmYhbwVyHoJrPGVOe7jUu4rvXDjXego2rrRX6Nky6LcY2Hq5Sj~L6wDGzBJ1ZvATtJ~QQ6IS4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The East Lansing Planning Commission held a public hearing April 23 on proposed ordinance 15‑46, an amendment to section 50‑94 of the zoning ordinance that would change how \"diverse housing\" unit credits may be transferred among downtown projects.

Planning staff explained that the city's existing downtown (B‑3) diverse housing requirement generally requires at least 25 percent of units in qualifying multi‑family projects to meet certain housing types—owner‑occupied 55+ units, income‑restricted units or other unit types approved to add housing diversity. The current code allows a project that exceeds the 25 percent requirement to transfer its excess credits to another downtown development. The proposed amendment would prohibit such transfers for any development \"constructed and occupied in excess of the 25% requirement ... with the granting of any economic development benefits by the city, including but not limited to payment in lieu of taxes or other tax abatement.\"

Planning staff framed the amendment as a narrow change to prevent projects that receive city incentives from transferring away the housing diversity that those incentives helped create. \"The proposed amendment ... would change this requirement, but only by saying ... if this development is receiving public financing or public incentives, that project can no longer transfer its credits away,\" staff said.

Commissioners asked for a clearer statement of the problem the amendment intends to solve and sought examples. Staff cited the historical example often referenced in city files: the pair of downtown projects Newman Lofts and Landmark, where one development provided senior units and the other accommodated more student housing, and credits were transferred historically. Commissioners raised concerns that the draft language could unintentionally impede the delivery of diverse housing by making transfers legally impossible in some financing arrangements, and suggested that contractual conditions of approval or sequencing requirements (for example, building the affordable component before market units) might address the risk without changing the ordinance.

Several commissioners said they expected Council Member Meadows—the sponsor of the amendment—to explain his intent at a future meeting and preferred further clarification before the commission acts. Staff noted Council Member Meadows could not attend April 23 because of a concurrent council meeting and anticipated he would appear at the May 14 Planning Commission meeting to discuss the change.

No members of the public spoke during the hearing. The commission closed the public hearing and left the ordinance on the agenda for additional discussion and possible action at a later meeting after receiving clarifying information and examples from council or staff.","The Planning Commission received a public hearing April 23 on proposed ordinance 15‑46, which would prevent developments that receive city economic incentives from transferring excess \"diverse housing\" unit credits to other projects. Commissioners asked for clearer examples and expect council discussion before acting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6580353,"Planning commission hears proposal for 32 one‑bedroom condominiums at 601 Abbott Road",2528,1532000,4060000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861&start=1532&end=4060","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3106674-78e7cc365bc34464e44f2e0988044861/thumbnail_1532000.jpg","/articles/6580353/East-Lansing/Ingham-County/Michigan/Planning-commission-hears-proposal-for-32-onebedroom-condominiums-at-601-Abbott-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580353-f06353404a7a1e16f59b07ac391e287d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546305&Signature=ZcF5YSfi31siqvhDoFCKAw-Gmv3QutFjw9FzVvQpKt4EWmAZAUw1hA4B2Jq-hoEYjKvvHx2VRfYthDMX10CA5-UGFrXIZ2ZpPTY0vyn4Vqkx1OJrRGpVdp3I7kukiFLEj7Mzcr1bVluw9p3wTZBe4bOFQKc1HddSwOO2-kbNBS8f8FuWpQSyGrDfNgj89g1XrzhcKWZipN~dp9FmlpRDb4BfdZw~K0yBY36zcdAPCEg4t14YB8GtT9xXdWuh78L1Yyn-ClNCw7jJNi1ybNZ02gMD56rv76OtHY-KK2v4mYGMZr1466ZXQniONDEw8bIV5UtOA5zyb5sij9lbkbSqRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A public hearing at the April 23 East Lansing Planning Commission meeting drew testimony and detailed staff review of a site plan application to demolish an existing office building at 601 Abbott Road and construct a three‑story condominium building with 32 one‑bedroom units.

City planning staff summarized the proposal, saying the building would include three stories of residential space with parking beneath and behind the structure. \"Each of the proposed units are one bedroom units that range in size from about 570 square feet to, just under 860 square feet,\" staff said. The project is zoned RM‑32, City Center multiple‑family residential district, which includes a code provision that normally limits on‑site parking to 50 percent of required spaces unless the commission grants a waiver.

That 50 percent rule means the site would be allowed to provide 16 on‑site spaces while the code requires 32 spaces for the development; the applicant requests 35 spaces. \"We asked the applicant if they could provide a letter from a traffic engineer just confirming that this will be below that threshold and a study won't be required,\" staff said about traffic impacts. The staff packet will include a sample motion for either approval or denial of the parking waiver at the May 14 meeting.

Applicant Dale Inman said the development—marketed in the packet as \"Alumni Village\"—is intended to serve primarily young professionals, a few empty‑nesters and some alumni seeking a nearby second home. \"If you were to go on the real estate websites today ... there's only one condo for sale in East Lansing. And I would bet you dollars to donuts, it'll be under contract in the next seven days,\" Inman said, explaining the market rationale. He said the team envisions owner‑occupied condos for sale rather than student housing, and estimated sale prices in the \"$250,000 to maybe $300,000\" range; homeowners‑association fees were not specified.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on several technical and operational items. On stormwater, staff and the applicant said engineers prepared runoff calculations showing \"no net increase in stormwater from the previous building,\" noting the design places half the parking under the building and includes infiltration measures. Inman said the current office has roughly 30 surface parking spaces; the new design provides about 17 surface spaces plus the under‑building parking and a slightly reduced overall asphalt area. He described tactics to reduce runoff such as disconnecting roof drains to let runoff infiltrate lawn areas before entering the storm system.

Parking and neighborhood spillover were recurring concerns. One commissioner said, \"the parking is just jammed in that neighborhood,\" and asked whether 35 spaces would be adequate if buyers have multiple cars. Inman defended the requested count as a market necessity for condominiums, noting buyers are likelier than renters to require dedicated parking. Staff reminded commissioners that RM‑32 is intended to encourage walking, biking and transit use and that the 50 percent cap aims to limit surface parking in the district, but that the code allows the commission to waive that cap on a case‑by‑case basis.

Other details covered: the units will include Juliet balconies, there will be an elevator to serve ADA access to upper floors, and the applicant said retaining walls on site may be salvaged if engineering permits. The applicant said the existing office building is roughly 10,000 square feet and currently about one‑third leased; the proposed new building totals roughly 23,000 square feet by stacking a larger footprint across three floors. The applicant also said some buyers might rent out units part‑time (including possible short‑term rentals) but noted that rental licensing requires application to the Housing Commission and, for some approvals, city council action.

The public hearing was opened and no members of the public spoke. The commission closed the hearing and left the matter on the agenda for a formal action and any waiver consideration at its next meeting on May 14. Staff noted that landscaping, screening and building‑department comments must be addressed in final plans and that engineering sign‑offs (including stormwater details) will be required before permits issue.

The commission did not vote on the site plan or the parking waiver at the April 23 meeting; formal action and any associated conditions will appear on the May 14 agenda.","A public hearing was held April 23 on a site plan for a three‑story, 32‑unit condominium building at 601 Abbott Road in East Lansing. Staff and the applicant addressed parking, stormwater and unit makeup; the commission will consider a parking‑waiver request and formal action at its May 14 meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Resident urges commission to revisit zoning definition of "family," citing constitutional opinions

Commission reviews draft change to downtown "diverse housing" transfer rules; seeks council clarification

Planning commission hears proposal for 32 one‑bedroom condominiums at 601 Abbott Road