Well, I'm going to raise a stink if the city is willing to knock down the old PO. Otherwise, I like the size, scale, and location of this project... and I've wanted a walkable movie theater in downtown EL since moving to the area!
I think the developer is springing this now is for maximum leverage, because the city is desperate to get those evergreen properties off of the books before the balloon payment comes due in the near future. Otherwise, I would be surprised if the city would allow the old PO to get torn down without a great deal of drawn out hand-wringing.
Also, didn't the article mention that the developer has big plans for the small building at the NW corner of MAC/Albert?
Just looking at the public hearing notices in the City Pulse, and see the Historic District Commission is consering a resubmission for 329 M.A.C. Avenue in which someone is requesting to move the entire home to another location to "open the lot for redevelopment." I wonder if there is a plan or if this is just speculative?
This is a lot immediately next door to the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Student Center. This basically marks the northern edge of downtown, currently, and since it's backed up to a city parking garage, this little square southwest of M.A.C. and Linden is one of thew few areas northward that downtown could expand. Since this is a resubmission, however, it sounds like they must have rejected this the first time it was proposed.
As you can see, what makes it hard for downtown to expand is the extra layers of the historic districts which hem it in: Oakwood, College Grove and Bailey. I'm kind of curious to see what the requester changed about the plan that he's resubmitted it hoping for a different result. Time to do some research into the minutes and agendas...
EDIT: Found it. Apparently, the owner only presented his proposal to the commission back in May while he worked with city staff on it. So, I guess this means that he's not formally presenting this for considration. He wants to building a multi-family dwelling the site, of which is no mention by what size building we're talking about.
Found out from the city the questions I had about changing of the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the rule for a 22-foot setback from the curb of Grand River in the B-3 City Center zoning district.
Apparently, this must be a newer ordinance because I was told that the buildings east of Abbot are already "only" 20 feet from the curb. In fact, I'm not sure what's been developed in this zone along Grand River since this ordinance came into effect. Anything that would have been built seems to have been built to the existing blockface.
It was, indeed, passed for a wider sidewalk, though it seems weird that they wanted two extra feet if everything along Grand River was already 20 feet. In any case, I was told Park District proposed and ordinance amendment as opposed to a variance, because they've have to show "hardship" to be able to have the two extra feet and that they likely wouldn't be able to show that the project couldn't happen with out it, which I guess is one of the requirements of granting a variance.
So, I'm still a bit confused about this to be honest. I am confused as to why the ordinance isn't just amended to specify that buildings have to be built to the existing blockface, which is usually the kind of language you have in an ordinance when you want a uniform blockface. I'm not sure why they have to eliminate the requirement, altogether, for the small area west of Abbot in this district.
BTW, also found out that basically everything built in East Lansing has to go through the Planning Commission, which differs from Lansing in which only developers seeking special land uses, rezonings, etc...have to go through that process. Never realized that. What sparked my interest was seeing a small, suburban office building being developed in the Maynard Business Park in the Northern Tier off of Coolidge on the planning commissions agenda and wondering why it would be. Apparently nearly everything in East Lansing has to go through the planning commission approval process.
Yeah growing up in East Lansing I just assumed all cities were like that but over time I've found out the hard way (through blank stares mainly) that other cities will approve most projects administratively.
I had no idea. Development is already hard enough in East Lansing, but I didn't know it was that hard. lol For instance, here in Lansing, if you're seeking to develop something within the zoning guidelines, then generally all you need to do is submit a site plan to the planning office and they are the judges of whether the development meets the standards and that's that. No planning commission meetings, no city council meetings, etc...In fact, I think for single family homes, you don't even need to submit a site plan for approval, only apply for the building permits and such.
I guess the good thing is that the culture of the city seems to have changed, and they've generally been really speedy in the last few years of making the process as quick as possible (with a few exceptions). And, weirdly, the culture in Lansing (at least on the city council) has gotten more anti-development. For instance, the form-based code was well on its way to passing, and now no one knows if it'll even get a hearing this year.
Jared, got a bit more information back from the city on the setback requirement in along Grand River in downtown. It's a small thing, but I was really interested in finding out, and it actually sent me down another road.
Still don't know exactly when this was added to the code, but it was for sure post 2000, because I was told the only thing developed in this zone since the amendment of the code for the B-3 district wa Center City...and they were approved for a variance so they wouldn't be recessed from the surrounding blockface.
The big new thing I learned is that in the downtown area (specifically the DDA boundaries), there is something else that governs design aside from the zoning code: the East Lansing Urban Design Guidelines. Basically, everything in this zone must be built to the existing blockface. Sidewalks on Grand River and the alley behind it are classed "Over 14 feet" and the diagram shows specifically 20 feet.
So, the zoning code says 22 feet and the standard in the urban design guidelines in 20 feet. So you've got two different stadards/requirements at play here, one for the city planning commission and one for the Downtown Development Authority. Despite is only being 2 feet in difference, it makes it so that if you want to develop to the existing blockface you must request a variance, which is kind of crazy. The code is a hard legal requirement for the city government; the urban design guideline is a hard "suggestion" for the DDA that they've followed as if it were an ordinance of city government.
Long story short, if the 22-foot requirement was removed from the zoning code, it wouldn't give developers carte-blanche to develop all the way to their front property line; the DDA would still push an "existing blockface" requirement to pass anything, most likely, and that would be 20 feet along Grand River. Honestly, the 22-foot requirement should have probably never been put into place in that zone; what they should have done was just required buildings to be built "to the existing blockface" and that would have created no problem. In fact, I'm not sure why they don't just amend the existing requirement in the code to say just that. But repealing this altogether wouldn't be the end of the world like I thought it might be. You're not going to wake up and suddenly see developers proposing buildings that stick out into the current sidewalk 12 feet from the curb, because these plans would never pass the DDA which all downtown development must go through in addition to the normal city process (planning commission, city council).
Wow thanks for the detailed research! I hadn't seen the Urban Design Guidelines before. Is there an "existing blockface" for a development like Park District where it encompasses the entire block?
Comments
Well, I'm going to raise a stink if the city is willing to knock down the old PO. Otherwise, I like the size, scale, and location of this project... and I've wanted a walkable movie theater in downtown EL since moving to the area!
A couple of other notes:
I think the developer is springing this now is for maximum leverage, because the city is desperate to get those evergreen properties off of the books before the balloon payment comes due in the near future. Otherwise, I would be surprised if the city would allow the old PO to get torn down without a great deal of drawn out hand-wringing.
Also, didn't the article mention that the developer has big plans for the small building at the NW corner of MAC/Albert?
If you got back to the article, they have a note at the end saying they've corrected that.
Ah, thanks for the correction!
Just looking at the public hearing notices in the City Pulse, and see the Historic District Commission is consering a resubmission for 329 M.A.C. Avenue in which someone is requesting to move the entire home to another location to "open the lot for redevelopment." I wonder if there is a plan or if this is just speculative?
This is a lot immediately next door to the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Student Center. This basically marks the northern edge of downtown, currently, and since it's backed up to a city parking garage, this little square southwest of M.A.C. and Linden is one of thew few areas northward that downtown could expand. Since this is a resubmission, however, it sounds like they must have rejected this the first time it was proposed.
As you can see, what makes it hard for downtown to expand is the extra layers of the historic districts which hem it in: Oakwood, College Grove and Bailey. I'm kind of curious to see what the requester changed about the plan that he's resubmitted it hoping for a different result. Time to do some research into the minutes and agendas...
EDIT: Found it. Apparently, the owner only presented his proposal to the commission back in May while he worked with city staff on it. So, I guess this means that he's not formally presenting this for considration. He wants to building a multi-family dwelling the site, of which is no mention by what size building we're talking about.
Found out from the city the questions I had about changing of the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the rule for a 22-foot setback from the curb of Grand River in the B-3 City Center zoning district.
Apparently, this must be a newer ordinance because I was told that the buildings east of Abbot are already "only" 20 feet from the curb. In fact, I'm not sure what's been developed in this zone along Grand River since this ordinance came into effect. Anything that would have been built seems to have been built to the existing blockface.
It was, indeed, passed for a wider sidewalk, though it seems weird that they wanted two extra feet if everything along Grand River was already 20 feet. In any case, I was told Park District proposed and ordinance amendment as opposed to a variance, because they've have to show "hardship" to be able to have the two extra feet and that they likely wouldn't be able to show that the project couldn't happen with out it, which I guess is one of the requirements of granting a variance.
So, I'm still a bit confused about this to be honest. I am confused as to why the ordinance isn't just amended to specify that buildings have to be built to the existing blockface, which is usually the kind of language you have in an ordinance when you want a uniform blockface. I'm not sure why they have to eliminate the requirement, altogether, for the small area west of Abbot in this district.
BTW, also found out that basically everything built in East Lansing has to go through the Planning Commission, which differs from Lansing in which only developers seeking special land uses, rezonings, etc...have to go through that process. Never realized that. What sparked my interest was seeing a small, suburban office building being developed in the Maynard Business Park in the Northern Tier off of Coolidge on the planning commissions agenda and wondering why it would be. Apparently nearly everything in East Lansing has to go through the planning commission approval process.
I had no idea. Development is already hard enough in East Lansing, but I didn't know it was that hard. lol For instance, here in Lansing, if you're seeking to develop something within the zoning guidelines, then generally all you need to do is submit a site plan to the planning office and they are the judges of whether the development meets the standards and that's that. No planning commission meetings, no city council meetings, etc...In fact, I think for single family homes, you don't even need to submit a site plan for approval, only apply for the building permits and such.
I guess the good thing is that the culture of the city seems to have changed, and they've generally been really speedy in the last few years of making the process as quick as possible (with a few exceptions). And, weirdly, the culture in Lansing (at least on the city council) has gotten more anti-development. For instance, the form-based code was well on its way to passing, and now no one knows if it'll even get a hearing this year.
Jared, got a bit more information back from the city on the setback requirement in along Grand River in downtown. It's a small thing, but I was really interested in finding out, and it actually sent me down another road.
Still don't know exactly when this was added to the code, but it was for sure post 2000, because I was told the only thing developed in this zone since the amendment of the code for the B-3 district wa Center City...and they were approved for a variance so they wouldn't be recessed from the surrounding blockface.
The big new thing I learned is that in the downtown area (specifically the DDA boundaries), there is something else that governs design aside from the zoning code: the East Lansing Urban Design Guidelines. Basically, everything in this zone must be built to the existing blockface. Sidewalks on Grand River and the alley behind it are classed "Over 14 feet" and the diagram shows specifically 20 feet.
So, the zoning code says 22 feet and the standard in the urban design guidelines in 20 feet. So you've got two different stadards/requirements at play here, one for the city planning commission and one for the Downtown Development Authority. Despite is only being 2 feet in difference, it makes it so that if you want to develop to the existing blockface you must request a variance, which is kind of crazy. The code is a hard legal requirement for the city government; the urban design guideline is a hard "suggestion" for the DDA that they've followed as if it were an ordinance of city government.
Long story short, if the 22-foot requirement was removed from the zoning code, it wouldn't give developers carte-blanche to develop all the way to their front property line; the DDA would still push an "existing blockface" requirement to pass anything, most likely, and that would be 20 feet along Grand River. Honestly, the 22-foot requirement should have probably never been put into place in that zone; what they should have done was just required buildings to be built "to the existing blockface" and that would have created no problem. In fact, I'm not sure why they don't just amend the existing requirement in the code to say just that. But repealing this altogether wouldn't be the end of the world like I thought it might be. You're not going to wake up and suddenly see developers proposing buildings that stick out into the current sidewalk 12 feet from the curb, because these plans would never pass the DDA which all downtown development must go through in addition to the normal city process (planning commission, city council).
Wow thanks for the detailed research! I hadn't seen the Urban Design Guidelines before. Is there an "existing blockface" for a development like Park District where it encompasses the entire block?