@MichMatters Council clarified your question on process quite well at the end of the meeting. The approval of the grant was not on the agenda which they didn't understand. The City has postponed the State's deadline already so both are anxious to accept the money. It sounded like the City wanted the approval of the purchase agreement first so that is why it was on the agenda, and not surprisingly was tabled.
Weird. Seems like you'd want to land the grant first before you go signing purchase agreements with the developer. This whole thing honestly stinks, so I'm a bit glad they slowed this down. The city should either be given the option of including the purchase of the neighboring lot in the overall purchase, or they need to drop the ridiculous "visibility easement" from the deal, entirely, and take their chances.
LSJ is reporting Dymaxion has bought the old Sam's Club on Edgewood in South Lansing. Isn't this the one the former owners were trying to turn into another self-storage facility? If so, I'm glad Dymaxion bought it.
Looking at the language in the City Council's acceptance of the housing grant money I'm confused. It makes it sounds like the city has a ton of leeway in how they could spend the money, from saying it could be used in emergencies to saying it can be used for corridor improvement and finally stating that they will make a plan and appropriate the money. It also states that they "accept
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement" which could mean that if the grant specifies where the money goes then the city will adhere to that?
All things considered I think I'd rather see Gentilozzi's projects happen than anything that's likely be pushed by the city otherwise. I could easily see them taking the $40 million and putting into a couple of non-descript Housing Commission projects. I'm nervous that something stupid might be on the horizon.
WHEREAS, at any time during the fiscal year, the City Council may consider
appropriations which modify the previously adopted annual appropriation to transfer an
unencumbered balance in whole or in part from any account; provide for the expenditure
of revenues in excess of those in the budget; or meet a public emergency affecting life,
health, property, or the public peace; and
WHEREAS, the State of Michigan has appropriated funds within its FY 2023/2024 budget
for which the City of Lansing is an eligible recipient; and
WHEREAS, funding for transformational housing projects was appropriated for
redevelopment projects to include the direct eligible costs of creating affordable housing
units or completing other corridor improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City Council hereby accepts
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Administration will develop a plan for the use of
the grant funds and submit the plan to Lansing City Council for their review before the
funds are appropriated by the Council.
Once the city council accepts the grant, it's under the authority of the mayor of how to spend it. It appears that on both this and the city hall grant acceptance that they sought an opinion from the city attorney and he (of course) told them as much. They can potentially muck up a deal only after its cut through approval for things like incentives and such, but they can't micromanage the grants.
New renderings in the committee of the whole packet, BTW. MUCH better architecture provided - especially for Capitol Tower. We also find out that there will be space for retail/restaurant on the ground floor on Tower on Grand. Parking garage is still in the plan, though, and not changed, simply shown a bit better.
Oh wow, a lot better. I'm going to get some of those renderings uploaded to the Development Rundown thread.
The Tower on the Grand is vastly improved. I could almost get over what's shown as far as the ramp goes. The look of everything is nice in the renderings but I'm worried that if the city gives up rights to build over Grand Ave without the proper protections we could end up with something much different than what's proposed. I still don't like closing in the street but at a certain point you have to pick your battles, that deck is relatively slender and quite high up. To me, allowing Gentilozzi to do a deck over Grand Ave as pictured could sort of be looked at as a deal in exchange for him living up to expectations of height and high-quality materials/architecture.
The Capitol Tower is very nice as well, losing the height sucks but it fills the corner so much better. It's also worth noting that this iteration of the plan includes three floor townhouses filling the rest of the block along Ottawa. The underground parking is also a nice touch.
Four issues I have:
-First and most important: The "Riverfront seating and observation area" at Tower on the Grand has to be built to county trail standards (a 12' wide clear path) and connect it to the existing path to the south and the S Grand Ramp promenade. To me that should be a non-negotiable. Renderings imply that's not the current plan. It'd be nice to see them utilize the riverfront at ground level with commercial space, at least a single restaurant space, or perhaps build the structure to allow for that in the future if they don't think it's viable now.
-Why no retail on the ramp behind the Atrium building facing Grand??? (I know: it'd take away from parking) This should be one of the things required by the city for giving up air rights. If Grand stays a relative retail/restaurant desert then downtown proper will NEVER be successful. This seems lost on Gentilozzi given his efforts to funnel people to Washington.
-The parking ramp on Washington is ugly and horribly out of place there, if they're going to encroach on the sidewalk like that then they have to do something much better aesthetically. I can't tell if it's parking or some other use that they're extending over the sidewalk?
-I wish they'd change the ground floor of the Washington Sq / Prudden Building in favor of something either historical or much more modern, the current bricked up look does the building no favors. Maybe that's in the cards and just not rendered.
Lots of stuff in next week's council agenda:
1. Grant acceptance resolution for New Vision Lansing.
2. Grand acceptance resolution for new city hall.
3. Purchase agreement for new city hall.
4. Ovation brownfield plan amendment.
5. Acceptance of Cascade Boulevard and Red Cedar Parkway into the city street system, as well as Riverfront Drive (former Museum Drive north of the south portal of the road, which I had always assumed was already and official street.
6. The decerfification of the ends of 6 streets which are not open to auto traffic, the longest section of which is 470 feet of Hoyt Avenue west of Ruth Avenue. This doesn't get rid of the land, but formally closes them to auto traffic.
7. Setting a public hearing for a Noise Special Permit for work on Michigan Avenue. This was of interest, because it gives us a rough timeline of when they will be doing heavy work: May 18, 2024 through November 15, 2025. Hoffman Bros. has the contract. Think I read somewhere in local media the first part of the work will be tree removal along Michigan to make way for the reconfiguration.
Ms. Nelson mentions ADUs in the article, and how Lansing could become a pioneer on a particular kind of process to add them. She mentions over a handful of other communities in the state which already allow them, so my assumption is that it must not be the easiest process and that Lansing could lead on streamlining or making it easier.
This was a horrible decision as far as I can tell. Councilmember spoke about wanting it to be smaller and lower quality, with less "trinkets". That's the thinking that has led this city to being the brunt of jokes. The proposed performing arts center isn't too large and extravagant, it's too modest to even house the symphony. The only silver lining may be that it will hopefully be replaced sooner.
Comments
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement" which could mean that if the grant specifies where the money goes then the city will adhere to that?
All things considered I think I'd rather see Gentilozzi's projects happen than anything that's likely be pushed by the city otherwise. I could easily see them taking the $40 million and putting into a couple of non-descript Housing Commission projects. I'm nervous that something stupid might be on the horizon.
New renderings in the committee of the whole packet, BTW. MUCH better architecture provided - especially for Capitol Tower. We also find out that there will be space for retail/restaurant on the ground floor on Tower on Grand. Parking garage is still in the plan, though, and not changed, simply shown a bit better.
The Tower on the Grand is vastly improved. I could almost get over what's shown as far as the ramp goes. The look of everything is nice in the renderings but I'm worried that if the city gives up rights to build over Grand Ave without the proper protections we could end up with something much different than what's proposed. I still don't like closing in the street but at a certain point you have to pick your battles, that deck is relatively slender and quite high up. To me, allowing Gentilozzi to do a deck over Grand Ave as pictured could sort of be looked at as a deal in exchange for him living up to expectations of height and high-quality materials/architecture.
The Capitol Tower is very nice as well, losing the height sucks but it fills the corner so much better. It's also worth noting that this iteration of the plan includes three floor townhouses filling the rest of the block along Ottawa. The underground parking is also a nice touch.
Four issues I have:
-First and most important: The "Riverfront seating and observation area" at Tower on the Grand has to be built to county trail standards (a 12' wide clear path) and connect it to the existing path to the south and the S Grand Ramp promenade. To me that should be a non-negotiable. Renderings imply that's not the current plan. It'd be nice to see them utilize the riverfront at ground level with commercial space, at least a single restaurant space, or perhaps build the structure to allow for that in the future if they don't think it's viable now.
-Why no retail on the ramp behind the Atrium building facing Grand??? (I know: it'd take away from parking) This should be one of the things required by the city for giving up air rights. If Grand stays a relative retail/restaurant desert then downtown proper will NEVER be successful. This seems lost on Gentilozzi given his efforts to funnel people to Washington.
-The parking ramp on Washington is ugly and horribly out of place there, if they're going to encroach on the sidewalk like that then they have to do something much better aesthetically. I can't tell if it's parking or some other use that they're extending over the sidewalk?
-I wish they'd change the ground floor of the Washington Sq / Prudden Building in favor of something either historical or much more modern, the current bricked up look does the building no favors. Maybe that's in the cards and just not rendered.
1. Grant acceptance resolution for New Vision Lansing.
2. Grand acceptance resolution for new city hall.
3. Purchase agreement for new city hall.
4. Ovation brownfield plan amendment.
5. Acceptance of Cascade Boulevard and Red Cedar Parkway into the city street system, as well as Riverfront Drive (former Museum Drive north of the south portal of the road, which I had always assumed was already and official street.
6. The decerfification of the ends of 6 streets which are not open to auto traffic, the longest section of which is 470 feet of Hoyt Avenue west of Ruth Avenue. This doesn't get rid of the land, but formally closes them to auto traffic.
7. Setting a public hearing for a Noise Special Permit for work on Michigan Avenue. This was of interest, because it gives us a rough timeline of when they will be doing heavy work: May 18, 2024 through November 15, 2025. Hoffman Bros. has the contract. Think I read somewhere in local media the first part of the work will be tree removal along Michigan to make way for the reconfiguration.
Ms. Nelson mentions ADUs in the article, and how Lansing could become a pioneer on a particular kind of process to add them. She mentions over a handful of other communities in the state which already allow them, so my assumption is that it must not be the easiest process and that Lansing could lead on streamlining or making it easier.