Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission considers allowing extra height when construction materials (such as mass timber) require taller floor‑to‑floor heights
Summary
The Planning Commission reviewed ordinance 1567, which would let city council approve building heights above the current 160‑ft limit when increased height is required by certain construction materials — notably mass timber — provided no additional floors or units are added; commissioners asked for evidence that fire/rescue operations would be adequate and noted the change would remain discretionary.
The East Lansing Planning Commission opened a public hearing March 25 on ordinance 1567, an amendment that would permit the City Council to approve building heights exceeding the 160‑foot overlay limit if the increased height is needed solely because of specified construction materials — for example, mass timber — and does not add floors or units.
Mr. Bartley explained the proposal was prompted by a recent development concept for a downtown project (the Howard) that withdrew after difficulty obtaining a variance. He said the amendment is intended to give the city discretion to allow taller floor‑to‑floor dimensions where a material’s structural or fire‑resistance properties make greater clearance necessary, while retaining council review under the city’s special‑use/height procedures.
Commissioners asked whether the change would create public‑safety gaps. In response, staff relayed the fire department’s position: ladders may not physically reach extreme heights, but the fire department indicated it has operational practices and is not expressing a blanket safety objection to taller buildings built under contemporary standards. Commissioners emphasized that exceptions should be discretionary, require applicants to demonstrate material necessity and environmental or other benefits, and remain a council decision rather than an automatic allowance.
A separate procedural point surfaced in the discussion: council currently needs a supermajority (two‑thirds) vote to approve “excess height;” staff flagged that commissioners might advise council on whether that threshold should remain. Several commissioners signaled support for permitting the flexibility, noting it would avoid a technical barrier to projects that use innovative materials and may produce environmental benefits.
What’s next: Staff will return ordinance language and related guidance; the Howard project and other applicants may reappear before the commission with revised mass‑timber designs.
