Public hearing continues on 13‑story proposal at 530 Albert; commissioners seek more detail on parking, height and public benefits
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission opened a public hearing Dec. 17 on a proposed 13‑story mixed‑use building at 530 Albert Ave that would require special‑use approval for height above eight stories; staff and the applicant outlined parking, diverse‑housing mitigation and site deficiencies and the hearing was closed for commissioners to request additional information.
The East Lansing Planning Commission held a public hearing Dec. 17 on a special‑use and site‑plan proposal to build a 13‑story, 139‑foot mixed‑use residential building at 530 Albert Ave.
City staff said the project proposes 361 residential units (one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom) with ground‑floor commercial space, two floors of interior parking intended for commercial use, rooftop and indoor amenities and partial mitigation for the city’s diverse‑housing requirement. The site plan is incomplete in several technical respects, staff said, including a full stormwater management plan, recycling and solid‑waste staging details, lighting cutoff/fixture heights, and final landscaping. Staff also noted municipal parking capacity constraints and said the city’s parking network can provide roughly 215 monthly passes for new developments; staff is exploring an MSU commuter‑lot arrangement that might help accommodate demand.
Applicant Cody Dietrich (Katrina Development Partners) said the project team had conducted neighborhood outreach, revised plans to add structured public parking intended to replace surface stalls, increased bike parking and proposed program elements such as a ground‑floor coffee option and a small community room. The applicant described several parking scenarios — including a two‑level garage with commercial leasing or operating agreements with the city — and said they would continue to refine the design in response to staff and neighbor feedback.
Commissioners’ questions focused on three core issues: granting excess height above the B3 district standard, whether on‑site parking should be allowed in a district that generally prohibits new private parking, and how the applicant will meet the city’s diverse‑housing requirement (on‑site moderate‑income units, off‑site mitigation or fee‑in‑lieu). Several public speakers supported new housing as a way to relieve pressure on single‑family neighborhoods and to increase housing supply; other speakers — including long‑time residents — expressed concern that downtown development favors student housing and erodes family‑friendly uses.
No vote was taken. Staff and the applicant said they will return with additional technical information — revised parking and traffic studies, final stormwater engineering and clarified diverse‑housing mitigation options — at a future meeting.
