Planning Commission deadlocks on Meijer gas station at West Lake Lansing; public raises wetland, stormwater and tree concerns

The East Lansing Planning Commission on April 9 failed to approve a recommendation for a special use permit for a proposed Meijer gas station at 100 West Lake Lansing Road, deadlocking 3-3 and forwarding the matter to City Council with a recommendation of non-approval.

The applicant sought permission to build a 5,751-square-foot convenience store with six pump islands and 12 pumps on a B5 community retail business district parcel. The commission’s vote followed public comments, staff background and technical discussion about wetlands, stormwater mitigation, tree preservation and traffic access.

The proposal drew repeated public comment from nearby property owners. Jessica Maxon of Maxon Dental urged careful review of a ‘‘small wetland’’ on the site and said she found a wetland determination prepared on March 8, 2023, by a private consultant; she cautioned that ‘‘Wetland evaluations performed outside the growing season … may not be consistent’’ and asked commissioners to ‘‘make a commitment tonight to never destroy a wetland that was not fairly assessed.’’ Greg Maxon, who owns the dental office adjacent to the site, described standing and ankle-deep water along the property line this spring and expressed concern about contamination risk if a gas station were built near his practice.

Pat Gillespie, a property owner representing the Gillespie Group, said his firm purchased the parcel two years ago and has marketed it for convenience-store or gas-station uses; he described Meijer as ‘‘a community-minded company’’ and said the applicant had proposed fencing and screening to accommodate neighbors.

Civil engineer Paul Fuhrman of Colliers said the applicant’s consultant identified a ‘‘non regulated wetland’’ on the lot but that an independent ASTI study, commissioned by the city, also concluded the wetland is non‑regulated at the state and city level. Fuhrman offered to answer technical questions about hydrology.

Planning staff summarized prior applications and zoning history for the site, noting earlier requests for fueling stations tied to the Meijer store on Lake Lansing Road that were denied or withdrawn in the 1990s and that the 100 West Lake Lansing request is a separate, current application. Staff’s review checklist indicated most standards were met but raised a concern about architectural compatibility; staff noted the zoning ordinance does not provide strict design guidelines and that the site-plan review standard is the closest available benchmark.

During commissioner questioning, applicant representatives said the stormwater system would be sized to accommodate a 100‑year runoff and would detain water so post‑development discharge would be equal to or less than predevelopment flows. They said some underground stormwater detention is planned and that the site has a positive outlet for stormwater. On tree preservation, the applicants said early concepts attempted to retain mature trees but later detailed design showed several trees could not survive where paving is required; they said retained trees north of the paving would remain. Commissioner questions led the applicants to agree to coordinate with the city arborist to evaluate whether mature trees can be saved.

Traffic access was another point of discussion. Staff and the applicant said the Lake Lansing access would be right‑in/right‑out, which commissioners said would limit but not eliminate risky turning movements. Several commissioners said the intersection near city recreational facilities is already congested and that adding another business raises safety concerns.

After deliberation, Commissioner Putz moved to recommend approval of the special use permit (motion moved by Commissioner Putz and seconded by Commissioner Overby) with a friendly amendment requiring the applicant to work with the city arborist to evaluate tree preservation. The roll call produced three yes votes (Commissioner Hendricks, Commissioner Sabaleski and Chair Sullivan) and three no votes (Commissioner Denault, Commissioner Overby and Commissioner Putz), resulting in a tied vote and failure of the motion. The commission recorded that the item will be sent to City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of non‑approval.

The Planning Commission did not adopt a final position on the many technical clarifications requested; staff and applicants noted outstanding details about sidewalk alignment, potential easements, final stormwater design and tree‑protection commitments that would be resolved in subsequent engineering and site‑plan review phases. Several commissioners said they would support a condition requiring coordination with the city arborist and added that any future development of adjacent north parcels would require separate review.

The item will appear on a future City Council agenda for further public discussion and council decision.