I forget exactly what happened, but there was some dispute with the city council that the developer was unable to remedy, so the project has been dead for many months. I think it may have involved incentives and the city wasn't willing or able to grant them exactly what they wanted. If I can recall it was an issue with the city having hit some limit in its brownfield incentives. Since the site is an old gas station, it'd require a lot of remediation (digging up the old underground storage tanks, removing polluted soil, etc.)
The project was called White Oak Place before it was pulled.
East Lansing finally wrote rules that would allow dispensaries and other marijuana related businesses (testing facilities, etc.), though written much tigheter than Lansing's ordinance. This means many fewer dispensaries, probably only around six. With that said, the one's up this week include: 3318-3332 West Road in the Northern Tier, and 1108 E. Grand River Avenue and 1054 E. Grand River Avenue in East Village. The first one would be the construction of a new building were a kennel was formerly proposed and rejected by the commission or council, the next one would be a renovation of the former Oade's Big Ten Party Store, and the last one is a renovation of an existing Valvoline Instant Oil Change property.
A public hearing will be held for the height overlay zone for much of the downtown zoning district (save for those north of Albert and a few isolated parcels on the west end around Valley Court Park) that'd allow for an increase in the maximum height to 160 feet on a three-fourths vote of the council. Currently, the council with a three-fourths vote can allow up to 140 feet and only for parts of downtown. So this expands both the max height and the area it's allowed in. I believe the impetus for this is the Park Place development, which wouldn't be able to proceed as its currently planned without this change.
Looks like the commission is still wrangling over details of the revision of the site plan for the completion of Gaslight Village just south of the county border on Abbot. This is the one where they want to modify the site plan to allow for 18 duplex units and 2 additional single family homes (two of these were already built) where 29 single family homes with 11 granny flats above some of the garages was originally approved.
Some things from this week's city council meeting:
Speaking of dispensaries, the city council will decide the special use permit for 1415 Michigan Avenue, the former Pontiac dealership. This one would demolish the main building on the site and reuse the smaller one for the dispensary. They will also decide the special land use for 1100 East Grand River Avenue in East Village, which would remodel the existing building they held/holds a Subway restaurant. Finally, the will be considering the special land use permit for 1950 Merritt Road. The planning commission unanimously recommended these for approval in late January. So that makes six or so dispensaries in some part of the approval process, and basically all that we'll see because of the distance limits.
The only other development-related thing on the agenda is the reconsideration of the ordinance that would allow for 140 feet in the entire downtown zoning district. This greatly overlaps the other ordinance before the planning commission. This one is also written for Park Place, but would allow the west building at its currently planned height. So, to summarize, the 160-foot overlay would cover the downtown zoning districts largely between Albert and Grand River and along Abbot, and all of the fringe areas in the district would now be increased to 140 feet max. Kind of wish they'd just combined these two ordinances and into one with a uniform max for the downtown zoning district, but this is where we are.
According to EastLansingInfo, the City Council ended up narrowly passing (3-2) the increased 140-feet ordinance in the whole of the B3 Downtown zoning district at its February 12 meeting. This was mainly to allow for the proposed Park Place West building (the shorter of the two). It should have always been this way to make things simple, but I'm glad to see this passed.
All that's left as it relates to providing for more uniform maximum heights downtown is the 160-foot overlay ordinance in the B3 Downtown district that would allow for the construction of the proposed Park Place East building. The public hearing for this one with the planning commission was on February 13, and it will be considered for approval before the commission on Feburary 27. We'll get to see what the city council thinks of it next month.
The Planning Commission opposed the uniform 140-foot ordinance, and comments on the 160-foot overlay ordinance point to them not recommending this one for approval, either. But it's ultimately up to the council. The DDA has also supported the first one, and it likely will support the second one. So so far, the Planning Commission seems to be on the outside, though they have made some decent arguments. Instead of uniform higher heights, the commission has argued that this would be better dealt with through variances. I'm not sure I agree with the pick-and-choose view of this.
I agree on the picking and choosing. This seems more fair. Variance is just an extra step that is now unnecessary. I’m really glad this passed and crossing my fingers for the next one too. What’s up with the planning commission? This seems like a weird thing to oppose, like, it appears they just want to retain more control....so predicable for a gov agency, and dare I say childish? I don’t really know the scoop.... to be fair
As I understand it, the planning commission disagrees with these changes because they are not in the city's master plan, and this area was not planned for the high building heights. They would prefer that a new master plan be created where there are more community discussions and larger picture thinking of what it means for the taller heights.
The planning commission makes a good point about revisiting the master plan as whole. EL needs to be thinking long term about where to encourage downtown's growth and which neighborhoods to allow denser residential buildings in. They need to be more realistic about which neighborhoods should be preserved and acknowledge that some neighborhoods hold little value as is. There's a real opportunity to make EL a great place, all the pieces are there.
The whole appeal to the master plan seems just a bit disingenous to me, though. The planning commission literally just approved it last year, so it's not like it's out-of-date. Many of these projects have been under consideration further back than that.
The problem isn't that they didn't consider these new highrises. It sounds like to me that they shaped the master plan to explicitly exclude them.
I actually don't fundamentally disagree with some of the bigger picture concerns. It is kind of a bad look to pass oridnances that basically tailored to fit a particular project. But these really don't do that since they essentially expand the height area for everyone in their boundaries. I also don't even disagree with the specific concern that areas on Valley Court Park need to have shorter height limits to "step down" development...but that's exactly what Royal Vlahakis is planning (taller building on Abbot, shorter building on Evergreen).
There does need to be another public conversation about downtown development. My problem is that I don't think the planning commission idea would match best practices. I've said it before, but it seems to me that you could solve all of this by matching Ann Arbors (180 feet) or maybe going up to 200. They seem to think 140 feet is too tall for the edges of downtown and seem to be skeptical of 160 feet on its face.
Yeah, that's really the point. They need to have a more realistic and honest debate about how far to allow downtown to expand up and out. I'd agree that a 200' height limit for the core would be good idea and should prevent these sorts of adjustments later on, I'm not sure exactly where the boundaries of that are should be though.
EastLansingInfo is reporting that Core Spaces, the group building The Hub, are planning on building a similar building (residential only, not mixed use) directly to the south of The Hub along Bogue Street.
It is very early still, but the ground floor would be rowhouses with apartments on higher floors. The form-based zoning doesn't require retail along Bogue.
The Hub is built for about 600 beds. If this development is built to the same height, then it may be around 650 beds considering the first floor can be residential.
I hadn't been really worried before, but it seems like they may be overbuilding student housing. Everything under construction or planned save for the Newman Lofts which is reserved for 55+ is either all student housing or has almost all of their units marketed toward students. And this is before you add in Skyvue and whatever's going up on the Red Cedar. Dropping an extra 600 beds on top of that...I don't know.
I just hope that there is some understanding of what's going on in the market. Not that the developers don't, but they don't care if their future tenants come from out of the area or if they are just cannibalizing existing properties (particularly on the Northern Tier, which has already been in something of a decline), and, well, a city has to care because of the associated problems you get when the demand isn't really there anymore and you're just playing musical chairs.
And this is before we even get to talking about the council's stance. They were pretty skeptical of The Hub to begin with, and they had to jump through a lot of extra hoops to get it built. I wonder if they'll share the same concerns with this one? Seems kind of strange for someone as pro-development as me to begin to get worried about this, but I wonder if maybe the city puts it out there that they want fewer beds dropped at one time? Hundreds a pop in each of these developments are a lot when you consider the student population is pretty stagnant.
Anyway, I'll wait and see. I'd much rather this stuff be built in the central areas than out on old farm fields and pastures in the Northern Tier. And should demand begin to fall in a few years, I'd think it much easier and more desirable for those properties in the central areas to be converted to regular market-rate apartments and our senior housing, which is on the demand. Just kind of wish there was city plan for student housing instead of having to rely on the "Trust us"s of the private developers.
Comments
I forget exactly what happened, but there was some dispute with the city council that the developer was unable to remedy, so the project has been dead for many months. I think it may have involved incentives and the city wasn't willing or able to grant them exactly what they wanted. If I can recall it was an issue with the city having hit some limit in its brownfield incentives. Since the site is an old gas station, it'd require a lot of remediation (digging up the old underground storage tanks, removing polluted soil, etc.)
The project was called White Oak Place before it was pulled.
Some things from this week's planning commission:
East Lansing finally wrote rules that would allow dispensaries and other marijuana related businesses (testing facilities, etc.), though written much tigheter than Lansing's ordinance. This means many fewer dispensaries, probably only around six. With that said, the one's up this week include: 3318-3332 West Road in the Northern Tier, and 1108 E. Grand River Avenue and 1054 E. Grand River Avenue in East Village. The first one would be the construction of a new building were a kennel was formerly proposed and rejected by the commission or council, the next one would be a renovation of the former Oade's Big Ten Party Store, and the last one is a renovation of an existing Valvoline Instant Oil Change property.
A public hearing will be held for the height overlay zone for much of the downtown zoning district (save for those north of Albert and a few isolated parcels on the west end around Valley Court Park) that'd allow for an increase in the maximum height to 160 feet on a three-fourths vote of the council. Currently, the council with a three-fourths vote can allow up to 140 feet and only for parts of downtown. So this expands both the max height and the area it's allowed in. I believe the impetus for this is the Park Place development, which wouldn't be able to proceed as its currently planned without this change.
Looks like the commission is still wrangling over details of the revision of the site plan for the completion of Gaslight Village just south of the county border on Abbot. This is the one where they want to modify the site plan to allow for 18 duplex units and 2 additional single family homes (two of these were already built) where 29 single family homes with 11 granny flats above some of the garages was originally approved.
Some things from this week's city council meeting:
Speaking of dispensaries, the city council will decide the special use permit for 1415 Michigan Avenue, the former Pontiac dealership. This one would demolish the main building on the site and reuse the smaller one for the dispensary. They will also decide the special land use for 1100 East Grand River Avenue in East Village, which would remodel the existing building they held/holds a Subway restaurant. Finally, the will be considering the special land use permit for 1950 Merritt Road. The planning commission unanimously recommended these for approval in late January. So that makes six or so dispensaries in some part of the approval process, and basically all that we'll see because of the distance limits.
The only other development-related thing on the agenda is the reconsideration of the ordinance that would allow for 140 feet in the entire downtown zoning district. This greatly overlaps the other ordinance before the planning commission. This one is also written for Park Place, but would allow the west building at its currently planned height. So, to summarize, the 160-foot overlay would cover the downtown zoning districts largely between Albert and Grand River and along Abbot, and all of the fringe areas in the district would now be increased to 140 feet max. Kind of wish they'd just combined these two ordinances and into one with a uniform max for the downtown zoning district, but this is where we are.
According to EastLansingInfo, the City Council ended up narrowly passing (3-2) the increased 140-feet ordinance in the whole of the B3 Downtown zoning district at its February 12 meeting. This was mainly to allow for the proposed Park Place West building (the shorter of the two). It should have always been this way to make things simple, but I'm glad to see this passed.
All that's left as it relates to providing for more uniform maximum heights downtown is the 160-foot overlay ordinance in the B3 Downtown district that would allow for the construction of the proposed Park Place East building. The public hearing for this one with the planning commission was on February 13, and it will be considered for approval before the commission on Feburary 27. We'll get to see what the city council thinks of it next month.
The Planning Commission opposed the uniform 140-foot ordinance, and comments on the 160-foot overlay ordinance point to them not recommending this one for approval, either. But it's ultimately up to the council. The DDA has also supported the first one, and it likely will support the second one. So so far, the Planning Commission seems to be on the outside, though they have made some decent arguments. Instead of uniform higher heights, the commission has argued that this would be better dealt with through variances. I'm not sure I agree with the pick-and-choose view of this.
As I understand it, the planning commission disagrees with these changes because they are not in the city's master plan, and this area was not planned for the high building heights. They would prefer that a new master plan be created where there are more community discussions and larger picture thinking of what it means for the taller heights.
The planning commission makes a good point about revisiting the master plan as whole. EL needs to be thinking long term about where to encourage downtown's growth and which neighborhoods to allow denser residential buildings in. They need to be more realistic about which neighborhoods should be preserved and acknowledge that some neighborhoods hold little value as is. There's a real opportunity to make EL a great place, all the pieces are there.
The whole appeal to the master plan seems just a bit disingenous to me, though. The planning commission literally just approved it last year, so it's not like it's out-of-date. Many of these projects have been under consideration further back than that.
The problem isn't that they didn't consider these new highrises. It sounds like to me that they shaped the master plan to explicitly exclude them.
I actually don't fundamentally disagree with some of the bigger picture concerns. It is kind of a bad look to pass oridnances that basically tailored to fit a particular project. But these really don't do that since they essentially expand the height area for everyone in their boundaries. I also don't even disagree with the specific concern that areas on Valley Court Park need to have shorter height limits to "step down" development...but that's exactly what Royal Vlahakis is planning (taller building on Abbot, shorter building on Evergreen).
There does need to be another public conversation about downtown development. My problem is that I don't think the planning commission idea would match best practices. I've said it before, but it seems to me that you could solve all of this by matching Ann Arbors (180 feet) or maybe going up to 200. They seem to think 140 feet is too tall for the edges of downtown and seem to be skeptical of 160 feet on its face.
Yeah, that's really the point. They need to have a more realistic and honest debate about how far to allow downtown to expand up and out. I'd agree that a 200' height limit for the core would be good idea and should prevent these sorts of adjustments later on, I'm not sure exactly where the boundaries of that are should be though.
EastLansingInfo is reporting that Core Spaces, the group building The Hub, are planning on building a similar building (residential only, not mixed use) directly to the south of The Hub along Bogue Street.
It is very early still, but the ground floor would be rowhouses with apartments on higher floors. The form-based zoning doesn't require retail along Bogue.
The Hub is built for about 600 beds. If this development is built to the same height, then it may be around 650 beds considering the first floor can be residential.
https://eastlansinginfo.org/content/another-big-student-housing-project-east-lansing
I hadn't been really worried before, but it seems like they may be overbuilding student housing. Everything under construction or planned save for the Newman Lofts which is reserved for 55+ is either all student housing or has almost all of their units marketed toward students. And this is before you add in Skyvue and whatever's going up on the Red Cedar. Dropping an extra 600 beds on top of that...I don't know.
I just hope that there is some understanding of what's going on in the market. Not that the developers don't, but they don't care if their future tenants come from out of the area or if they are just cannibalizing existing properties (particularly on the Northern Tier, which has already been in something of a decline), and, well, a city has to care because of the associated problems you get when the demand isn't really there anymore and you're just playing musical chairs.
And this is before we even get to talking about the council's stance. They were pretty skeptical of The Hub to begin with, and they had to jump through a lot of extra hoops to get it built. I wonder if they'll share the same concerns with this one? Seems kind of strange for someone as pro-development as me to begin to get worried about this, but I wonder if maybe the city puts it out there that they want fewer beds dropped at one time? Hundreds a pop in each of these developments are a lot when you consider the student population is pretty stagnant.
Anyway, I'll wait and see. I'd much rather this stuff be built in the central areas than out on old farm fields and pastures in the Northern Tier. And should demand begin to fall in a few years, I'd think it much easier and more desirable for those properties in the central areas to be converted to regular market-rate apartments and our senior housing, which is on the demand. Just kind of wish there was city plan for student housing instead of having to rely on the "Trust us"s of the private developers.