I like this project. That's the kind of location I'd like to see built up in East Lansing. I do wonder how the developer is managing to do this without TIFs while other developers in EL seemingly found that impossible. Do they have better access to financing? Is the land cheaper? Or is it due to the lack of onerous requirements like condos or senior apartments? If getting rid of the latter is all it takes, EL should wipe such requirements entirely off of the books.
This one's going back before the Planning Commission tomorrow. The new site plans/elevations show the only significant change to the project is that the second floor has been reduced by 8 feet, bringing the overall height down from 152 feet to 144 feet. But other than that, everything is still intact (i.e. 347 units, 158 parking spaces, replacement of 7/11 & Georgios).
Reading the commission report it still feels like they don't like what they see as the lack of parking, but Core Spaces rightly brings up that students aren't driving like they used to. I hope they don't make them include more parking than there already is, particularly given that this is on a major bus line and within walking distance to the core of downtown and such.
Makes sense to me on the parking, but a lot of old timers in EL can't conceive of a community that doesn't drive as much as they do, so I'd still expect pressure from that very vocal minority on this project.
Also, I'd like to see the city working more with the university to discourage or restrict students bringing cars to campus, especially for residents of these large apartment complexes that border campus. That kind of planning could go a long way towards getting rid of many of the eyesore surface lots around town, especially along that stretch of Grand River.
They already do discourage students from bringing cars on campus. Freshman aren't allowed parking privileges on campus.
As for outside the university, we're literally talking about a project right now where the planning commission is side-eyeing them for not having what they deem as enough parking. Doesn't look like we're going to be seeing a city working to lower parking requirements any time soon.
I guess the good thing is that I imagine East Lansing is like Lansing in that parking requirements can be reduced if a developer presents a parking study, provides excess bike parking, provide rider-sharing, etc.
Fair enough. I did know that the university did some parking restriction on campus, but perhaps they could go further. And agreed, the planning commission is being backwards-looking on parking requirements for this project. So as you suggest, at this point in time, perhaps it's best for the developer to take point on integrating the desires/requirements of the city, the university, and the future occupants.
For example, on a project like this, which is clearly oriented towards students, why not propose building a structure with zero parking, enforced by a requirement on the lease that the renters will not bring a vehicle to the city, and come armed to the city planning commission with some sort of green award or university planning seal-of-approval for reducing car traffic on campus? Maybe this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it would provide a model for student-apartment oriented developers to make pretty much everybody happy and maximize the # apartments ($$$) they could build relative to required parking spaces.
I recently saw this topic brought up on another forum. Someone asked the question how many cities were getting rid of parking minimums, and we were all surprised by how very few cities we found that were moving in this direction. Even some of the densest cities in the country had some kind of parking minimums.
Though, there are certainly cities with zones without on-site parking minimums. Lansing's and East Lansing's downtown/city center zoning districts, for instance, doesn't have any parking minimums. East Lansing's, in facts, prohibits on-site parking in the city center district with the exception of where the developer can prove it's necessary for the project.
In fact, The Hub's zoning district (East Village) actually reduces/lessens parking requirements as compared to the rest of the city. Only six on-site or street parking spaces are required per half-acre of redeveloped land on a site for the use of unloading or short-term parking; and the on-site parking has to be at the rear of the building. All other parking has to be in a parking garage. The parking minimum in East Village can be reduced by up to 50% for each usage in a project.
So I imagine in this case the parking shouldn't be much of an issue; it appears the problem might be that they are very specific about what counts as a parking study to be submitted:
Be based on the most current Urban Land Institute's shared parking study methodology or other generally accepted methodology
Apparently, the initial proposal doesn't use this methodology, but it seems like this can be something easily corrected.
ELi reported last week that the EL planning commission failed to recommend this project.
Not the end of the road, of course, since the ELPC is advisory. Although the commission was split (3 for, 3 against, and 3 absent) the project is being hobbled by the usual complaints... too tall, not enough parking... Interestingly, one of the complainants was Hagan Realty. It seems like they want smaller buildings with more parking. Perhaps they're afraid of the competition?
On a more humorous note, the developers seem to think they're going to move things along fast enough to break ground, in East Lansing, by February!
Comments
To be fair, the FB comments on any project are always bad. Very rarely do they actually represent the majority opinion on anything.
I like this project. That's the kind of location I'd like to see built up in East Lansing. I do wonder how the developer is managing to do this without TIFs while other developers in EL seemingly found that impossible. Do they have better access to financing? Is the land cheaper? Or is it due to the lack of onerous requirements like condos or senior apartments? If getting rid of the latter is all it takes, EL should wipe such requirements entirely off of the books.
Are there any big city infrastructure requirements attached to this project? If not, that could be why they don't need the TIFs.
Right, this isn't involving the construction of any city infrastructure so at least that won't be a problem.
This one's going back before the Planning Commission tomorrow. The new site plans/elevations show the only significant change to the project is that the second floor has been reduced by 8 feet, bringing the overall height down from 152 feet to 144 feet. But other than that, everything is still intact (i.e. 347 units, 158 parking spaces, replacement of 7/11 & Georgios).
Reading the commission report it still feels like they don't like what they see as the lack of parking, but Core Spaces rightly brings up that students aren't driving like they used to. I hope they don't make them include more parking than there already is, particularly given that this is on a major bus line and within walking distance to the core of downtown and such.
Makes sense to me on the parking, but a lot of old timers in EL can't conceive of a community that doesn't drive as much as they do, so I'd still expect pressure from that very vocal minority on this project.
Also, I'd like to see the city working more with the university to discourage or restrict students bringing cars to campus, especially for residents of these large apartment complexes that border campus. That kind of planning could go a long way towards getting rid of many of the eyesore surface lots around town, especially along that stretch of Grand River.
They already do discourage students from bringing cars on campus. Freshman aren't allowed parking privileges on campus.
As for outside the university, we're literally talking about a project right now where the planning commission is side-eyeing them for not having what they deem as enough parking. Doesn't look like we're going to be seeing a city working to lower parking requirements any time soon.
I guess the good thing is that I imagine East Lansing is like Lansing in that parking requirements can be reduced if a developer presents a parking study, provides excess bike parking, provide rider-sharing, etc.
Fair enough. I did know that the university did some parking restriction on campus, but perhaps they could go further. And agreed, the planning commission is being backwards-looking on parking requirements for this project. So as you suggest, at this point in time, perhaps it's best for the developer to take point on integrating the desires/requirements of the city, the university, and the future occupants.
For example, on a project like this, which is clearly oriented towards students, why not propose building a structure with zero parking, enforced by a requirement on the lease that the renters will not bring a vehicle to the city, and come armed to the city planning commission with some sort of green award or university planning seal-of-approval for reducing car traffic on campus? Maybe this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it would provide a model for student-apartment oriented developers to make pretty much everybody happy and maximize the # apartments ($$$) they could build relative to required parking spaces.
I recently saw this topic brought up on another forum. Someone asked the question how many cities were getting rid of parking minimums, and we were all surprised by how very few cities we found that were moving in this direction. Even some of the densest cities in the country had some kind of parking minimums.
Though, there are certainly cities with zones without on-site parking minimums. Lansing's and East Lansing's downtown/city center zoning districts, for instance, doesn't have any parking minimums. East Lansing's, in facts, prohibits on-site parking in the city center district with the exception of where the developer can prove it's necessary for the project.
In fact, The Hub's zoning district (East Village) actually reduces/lessens parking requirements as compared to the rest of the city. Only six on-site or street parking spaces are required per half-acre of redeveloped land on a site for the use of unloading or short-term parking; and the on-site parking has to be at the rear of the building. All other parking has to be in a parking garage. The parking minimum in East Village can be reduced by up to 50% for each usage in a project.
So I imagine in this case the parking shouldn't be much of an issue; it appears the problem might be that they are very specific about what counts as a parking study to be submitted:
Apparently, the initial proposal doesn't use this methodology, but it seems like this can be something easily corrected.
ELi reported last week that the EL planning commission failed to recommend this project.
Not the end of the road, of course, since the ELPC is advisory. Although the commission was split (3 for, 3 against, and 3 absent) the project is being hobbled by the usual complaints... too tall, not enough parking... Interestingly, one of the complainants was Hagan Realty. It seems like they want smaller buildings with more parking. Perhaps they're afraid of the competition?
On a more humorous note, the developers seem to think they're going to move things along fast enough to break ground, in East Lansing, by February!