A little observation, apparently, the county land bank bought three really old houses that used to sit up above Saginaw near Motor Wheels and demolished them within the last few months.
In this photo I took years ago. I believe they've most recently demolished the three houses furthest to the right in this image. The one next to those was demolished a few years ago. Nothing special, but they were on small lots and it had a really community feel to it despite being on the highway and I hate to see them brought down even if I understand why. In fact, the land bank has pretty heavily concentrated on tearing down "problem" properties in this small area west of Pennsylvania and north of Saginaw. With the area coming back, hopefully people will want to once again live in this neighborhood and we'll see more (quality" infill.
However, this strip in particular can't be built back with homes: It's zoned commercial. Maybe we can get some small neighborhood retail here with some affordable apartments on the upper floor since our commercial zoning allows that.
It's true this is an isolated area for pedestrians, and stores on Harrison and Jolly are more than a mile from this site so retail would be almost necessary unless they are planning a totally auto-dependent development.
The official press release on this has a bit more information. The complex will have "tuck-under" parking - which is when part of the ground floor is used for parking - an outdoor pool, grilling stations, a dog run/park, club-house, and a fourth-floor deck. They also say the developer has agreed to pay half-a-million dollars for a "public gateway improvements" at the intersection of Dunckel and Collins, which I imagine just means they'll be visually sprucing up the corner.
Given those facts, I imagine the layout isn't going to be much different than the old hotel layout save for this sounds like it'll be significantly taller.
Some things on next week's council agenda, some things that just popped up by surprise:
Out of nowhere the Committee of the Whole has a proposal they want to send to the council to put on the ballot that would voter approval for the disposal of any parkland over 25% of the total area of the total park. I'd really never thought of this, but you only need to vote when disposing of a whole park or riverfront land. All other partial leasing/usages of parks by private entities only currently require a vote of the city council. I'm actually not sure how to feel about this not understanding the motivation behind this. And the Parks Board - from meeting minutes I've read - were confused, too and didn't give their support for this. First, the 25% seems too high. There is no recent sell of parkland - nor any proposed one - that would have triggered this new proposed ordinance, so what is the practical use for a new ordinance? They wanted the threshold lowered to 10% of a park. It appears Councilwoman Washington was behind this one. Anyway, this would be for setting a public hearing for this proposed ordinance.
In a related proposed ordinance, the Committee of the Whole wants to set a public hearing on a proposed ordinance which would require ALL proceeds of the sale of said parkland to go directly to the Parks & Rec. Department. I'd have probably supported something like this years ago before I realized how flexible cities need to be; now I'm not so sure.
The final piece of the sale of 1609 North Larch (the old BWL substation) is on the agenda. This will be renovated into office space, and the city will get $70,000 from the sale.
The final approval of the sale and development agreement of the Red Cedar property is finally up for a vote.
The final approval for the rezoning of 1030 & 1048 Pierpont is on the agenda. This is to allow for the old "homeless hotel" to be used for the U-Haul storage and rental center.
The formal introduction of the rezoning and special land use for 1141 North Pine is scheduled. Apparently, this made it through the Planning Board and such, so now this is the beginning of the last part of the process (council consideration and eventual approval). This is for reusing the historic superintendents house on the grounds of the School for the Blind as residential substance abuse center.
Lastly, the newest development is the formal introduction of the announced 3600 Dunckel Road brownfield redevelopment (Brownfield Plan #73) is happening. The Plan #73 starts on page 172 of the agenda. I'll be giving this project it's own thread since it's a significantly sized one.
The parkland proposals seem directly related to the sale of the Farmer's Market. Isn't that on parkland? I think this is a defensive maneuver after the mayor said that he wanted to sell it.
The parks department minutes make note that the sale of the city market wouldn't trigger this since it is nowhere near 25% of Riverfront Park. More than that, the city market sell would go to the ballot regardless because all city land on the river that is disposed of requires a city-wide vote (i.e. remember the case of the South Grand Parking Ramp and the parcel to the south). The only recent project some argued that this might have effected was the controversial road through Ormond Park in northeast Lansing, but the park's director argued that even that was debateable. So it doesn't make sense why this is being proposed now, though Councilwoman Washington apparently said according to the minutes that this is "for the future."
BTW, I need to correct that it's not just a threshold of 25% for private development, but any change in use even if it's for a public easement, road, lease, etc. would trigger a city-wide vote. Should also correct that the parks board did approve the language of this charter amendment proposal; what was voted down was lowering the threshold to 15%, but they did vote on adding the language of the funds for any sale going to the parks department.
What I confused this with was the motion by the parks board to approve of putting the question of selling the city market on the ballot. They voted to table the item until their August 8 meeting. Though, to be clear, the council itself has the power to ignore any advisory votes from any city board.
I am hoping that we do not see that pole barn standing there for years while people who say they want to keep it have their way and we all get to subsidize a bar and a 3/4 empty building.
After the substation deal [even though that was intera-city departments] perhaps people are concerned that when the next park is threatened with development we would have a way to stop it.
The Land Bank is on quite a demolition kick, this summer. Along with the areas north of Oak Park on the eastside, I noticed that they recently demolished Park Furniture's old, decrepit, 3-story single-family-home-turned-warehouse on Saginaw at Princeton directly east of El Azteco's balcony. Also, tons of other demolitions along that stretch of West Saginaw. This is really the most I've seen at once since right after the Recession.
We finally get a story on the Holmes Street School this morning. Sounds like a mess, though it sounds like enough work was done that any future development shouldn't have a hard time at all completing the renovation.
What I found curious was that the school had 320 students when it opened in 1923...and 324 students when it closed in 2000. I'd be super interested in what was behind the decision to close it at the time. Usually, schools are closed because of huge enrollment declines. This doesn't seem to have happened, here, unless it had changed uses later in its existence.
Drove by the new sports fields for the Lansing School District just north of Eastern. The views from here are going to be something. Already high ground, it looks like it's been raised around six feet, so that you really can't see the field from street or sidewalk level. I imagine this is for better drainage of the new ballfields.
Comments
A little observation, apparently, the county land bank bought three really old houses that used to sit up above Saginaw near Motor Wheels and demolished them within the last few months.
In this photo I took years ago. I believe they've most recently demolished the three houses furthest to the right in this image. The one next to those was demolished a few years ago. Nothing special, but they were on small lots and it had a really community feel to it despite being on the highway and I hate to see them brought down even if I understand why.
In fact, the land bank has pretty heavily concentrated on tearing down "problem" properties in this small area west of Pennsylvania and north of Saginaw. With the area coming back, hopefully people will want to once again live in this neighborhood and we'll see more (quality" infill.
However, this strip in particular can't be built back with homes: It's zoned commercial. Maybe we can get some small neighborhood retail here with some affordable apartments on the upper floor since our commercial zoning allows that.
It's true this is an isolated area for pedestrians, and stores on Harrison and Jolly are more than a mile from this site so retail would be almost necessary unless they are planning a totally auto-dependent development.
The official press release on this has a bit more information. The complex will have "tuck-under" parking - which is when part of the ground floor is used for parking - an outdoor pool, grilling stations, a dog run/park, club-house, and a fourth-floor deck. They also say the developer has agreed to pay half-a-million dollars for a "public gateway improvements" at the intersection of Dunckel and Collins, which I imagine just means they'll be visually sprucing up the corner.
Given those facts, I imagine the layout isn't going to be much different than the old hotel layout save for this sounds like it'll be significantly taller.
Some things on next week's council agenda, some things that just popped up by surprise:
Out of nowhere the Committee of the Whole has a proposal they want to send to the council to put on the ballot that would voter approval for the disposal of any parkland over 25% of the total area of the total park. I'd really never thought of this, but you only need to vote when disposing of a whole park or riverfront land. All other partial leasing/usages of parks by private entities only currently require a vote of the city council. I'm actually not sure how to feel about this not understanding the motivation behind this. And the Parks Board - from meeting minutes I've read - were confused, too and didn't give their support for this. First, the 25% seems too high. There is no recent sell of parkland - nor any proposed one - that would have triggered this new proposed ordinance, so what is the practical use for a new ordinance? They wanted the threshold lowered to 10% of a park. It appears Councilwoman Washington was behind this one. Anyway, this would be for setting a public hearing for this proposed ordinance.
In a related proposed ordinance, the Committee of the Whole wants to set a public hearing on a proposed ordinance which would require ALL proceeds of the sale of said parkland to go directly to the Parks & Rec. Department. I'd have probably supported something like this years ago before I realized how flexible cities need to be; now I'm not so sure.
The final piece of the sale of 1609 North Larch (the old BWL substation) is on the agenda. This will be renovated into office space, and the city will get $70,000 from the sale.
The final approval of the sale and development agreement of the Red Cedar property is finally up for a vote.
The final approval for the rezoning of 1030 & 1048 Pierpont is on the agenda. This is to allow for the old "homeless hotel" to be used for the U-Haul storage and rental center.
The formal introduction of the rezoning and special land use for 1141 North Pine is scheduled. Apparently, this made it through the Planning Board and such, so now this is the beginning of the last part of the process (council consideration and eventual approval). This is for reusing the historic superintendents house on the grounds of the School for the Blind as residential substance abuse center.
Lastly, the newest development is the formal introduction of the announced 3600 Dunckel Road brownfield redevelopment (Brownfield Plan #73) is happening. The Plan #73 starts on page 172 of the agenda. I'll be giving this project it's own thread since it's a significantly sized one.
The parks department minutes make note that the sale of the city market wouldn't trigger this since it is nowhere near 25% of Riverfront Park. More than that, the city market sell would go to the ballot regardless because all city land on the river that is disposed of requires a city-wide vote (i.e. remember the case of the South Grand Parking Ramp and the parcel to the south). The only recent project some argued that this might have effected was the controversial road through Ormond Park in northeast Lansing, but the park's director argued that even that was debateable. So it doesn't make sense why this is being proposed now, though Councilwoman Washington apparently said according to the minutes that this is "for the future."
BTW, I need to correct that it's not just a threshold of 25% for private development, but any change in use even if it's for a public easement, road, lease, etc. would trigger a city-wide vote. Should also correct that the parks board did approve the language of this charter amendment proposal; what was voted down was lowering the threshold to 15%, but they did vote on adding the language of the funds for any sale going to the parks department.
What I confused this with was the motion by the parks board to approve of putting the question of selling the city market on the ballot. They voted to table the item until their August 8 meeting. Though, to be clear, the council itself has the power to ignore any advisory votes from any city board.
I am hoping that we do not see that pole barn standing there for years while people who say they want to keep it have their way and we all get to subsidize a bar and a 3/4 empty building.
After the substation deal [even though that was intera-city departments] perhaps people are concerned that when the next park is threatened with development we would have a way to stop it.
The Land Bank is on quite a demolition kick, this summer. Along with the areas north of Oak Park on the eastside, I noticed that they recently demolished Park Furniture's old, decrepit, 3-story single-family-home-turned-warehouse on Saginaw at Princeton directly east of El Azteco's balcony. Also, tons of other demolitions along that stretch of West Saginaw. This is really the most I've seen at once since right after the Recession.
We finally get a story on the Holmes Street School this morning. Sounds like a mess, though it sounds like enough work was done that any future development shouldn't have a hard time at all completing the renovation.
What I found curious was that the school had 320 students when it opened in 1923...and 324 students when it closed in 2000. I'd be super interested in what was behind the decision to close it at the time. Usually, schools are closed because of huge enrollment declines. This doesn't seem to have happened, here, unless it had changed uses later in its existence.
Drove by the new sports fields for the Lansing School District just north of Eastern. The views from here are going to be something. Already high ground, it looks like it's been raised around six feet, so that you really can't see the field from street or sidewalk level. I imagine this is for better drainage of the new ballfields.