I'm a bit confused and see problems from both ends. First, I know of no other city that micro-manages like this. Generally, so long as are within the zoning rules, architectural features are something that's ultimately up to the developer unless the project was approved conditionally mandating certain architectural features. In this case, reading that article, I don't see even the city making the case that there was conditional zoning where it said "you have to have a glass wall here/there." In that case, I'm not sure the city has any legal authority to stop this. I see Baier making the case the city's code says that projects must be completed according to what's submitted, but that is a very general requirement which I take to mean, as I said, completed to the zoning code.
That said, it also surprises me knowing full well how tricky East Lansing can be that the developers would try to slip something by that even I'll admit was significantly changed:
This is your typical "value engineering" after a projects been approved. It happens everywhere. I don't like it, but I'm also not sure if it's legal for the city to stop this. I don't imagine this will drag on too long, but, boy, it's always something with the East Lansing City Council and developers.
I guess I'll go back and look through the site plan staff report to see what conditions were placed on this one. I know over in East Village, they regulate architecture with total percentages of what should be glass and such. I'm not sure if this site required that.
As much as I hate EL's administrative micromanaging, I think this move by the developer is major BS!!! Those are two different buildings with the same footprint, and the second is CLEARLY lower quality (read cheaper...) and has poorer aesthetics than the one that was LEGALLY approved. This is bait-and-switch, plain and simple.
If the developer can't deliver the goods they promised, then they underbid, and are incompetent, and don't deserve to do this project. If they are just profiteering by this after-the-fact "value engineering", then tough nuts - I hope the city puts every screw to them.
This is THE marquee plot in the city of EL. This not some generic student condo sprawl in the northern teir... everyone, including national and international figures, who uses the main entrance to the university will see this building. There is no reasonable excuse at this point to change the plan from the merely adequate building that was approved to the generic box the developers are trying slide by with.
I wonder why the developer would try to pull this off? There still seems to be some kind of a jinx on this stop! The no glass design is just so bland and not at all fancy, fancy is what they sold to the council. I would really hate to see this development get messed up by this but I would also be nice to have a worthy building on the spot that we all have to look at forever and the city should not settle for anything less.
It is clear to me that nowhere in the approval process of development was anything dealing with architectural materials/design used as a condition of approval. Here are the only conditions included in the approval of this project by the city council:
To house low to moderate income individuals with incomes no greater than 80% of median income in the Mid-Michigan region and subject to the 18 conditions that are stated in the communication from Mr. Bollman and adding a condition 19 that provides for and approved development agreement as a condition and 20 that also adds that conditional rezoning to the Evergreen property (Building C) be approved and which as to condition 18 changes the language so it reads “An approved ordinance reducing the 22’ building setback from the curb for the property to 20’ or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals”.
And:
Final landscaping and screening details shall be designed in accordance with section 50-
840 of the City Code and the City of East Lansing’s Design Guidelines. A final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and signed-off on prior to installation.
It is admirable that the developer is working with the city on revisions, but it's clear to me that they would not be legally required to do so. The ONLY way they'd have to come back to city council is if changes were made that would change dimensions in the site plan, like extending a part of the building, here, or increasing the height, there. There are no architectural material requirements as part of the site plan review process, and more than that, the city council did not condition approval upon the use of certain architectural materials.
So quite frankly, they could make all the noise they wanted, but they would not have the legal standing to stop this project because of post-approval value engineering. If the city council wants to manage architectural elements of a development, they need to write it into the zoning code and/or approval process like they did with the East Village zoning district.
I'm not sure about EL's ordinance's, zoning codes or the specifics of the development agreement but I'll get behind the city forcing this issue. The redesign is ugly, significantly impacts the look of the development, and it would have almost certainly affected the city's approval of the project had they shown that rendering to begin with. I encourage EL to pull whatever cards they can to get the developer to comply with the original plans, it's really not asking for much.
You bought a Cadillac! thank you very much "here's your Buick" it looks almost the same doesn't it?! I am really disappointed to hear that the city may not be able to "force" the developer to deliver same buildings they "sold" the city. It seems kind of fishy that they are making these major design changes, and of course they had to be negative changes not let's make it even better changes. They would not have to work through these issues if they did not change the design.
If I was building a house and the contractor tried to pull this, I'd fire them on the spot and take my chances in court if they tried to sue me.
I don't find it remotely admirable that the developer is "working" with the city on this conflict. Just. Pure. Greed. They are in a massive time crunch, and they know that even if the city "technically" can't force them to stick to their agreement (which I still don't buy, considering all their materials were submitted in writing, AND discussed and negotiated, on video with the city council), and the city starts dragging its feet, the developers will miss the critical due date to get their money from the state.
@MichMatters East Lansing has a specific ordinance that was passed after the St. Anne Lofts fiasco that requires that what is built matches the approved plans.
Thanks for finding that, though I have some serious concerns about most of that piece. I still think if this ordinance ever made it to court, it would likely be struck down. But absent that, Dreger would be right that if built to the current rendering specifications that it differs too much from the site plan elevations to follow the spirit of the ordinance.
My concern is when she starts conflating renderings with what's being built for all of the other projects, as opposed to keeping up with what the actual ordinance is about: when site plan elevations and such differ from what was ultimately rendered, especially since renderings can change. Her review of Center City is beyond nit-picky.
Comments
Dicey move. I don't really like that... Still rooting for this full-on though
I'm a bit confused and see problems from both ends. First, I know of no other city that micro-manages like this. Generally, so long as are within the zoning rules, architectural features are something that's ultimately up to the developer unless the project was approved conditionally mandating certain architectural features. In this case, reading that article, I don't see even the city making the case that there was conditional zoning where it said "you have to have a glass wall here/there." In that case, I'm not sure the city has any legal authority to stop this. I see Baier making the case the city's code says that projects must be completed according to what's submitted, but that is a very general requirement which I take to mean, as I said, completed to the zoning code.
That said, it also surprises me knowing full well how tricky East Lansing can be that the developers would try to slip something by that even I'll admit was significantly changed:
This is your typical "value engineering" after a projects been approved. It happens everywhere. I don't like it, but I'm also not sure if it's legal for the city to stop this. I don't imagine this will drag on too long, but, boy, it's always something with the East Lansing City Council and developers.
I guess I'll go back and look through the site plan staff report to see what conditions were placed on this one. I know over in East Village, they regulate architecture with total percentages of what should be glass and such. I'm not sure if this site required that.
As much as I hate EL's administrative micromanaging, I think this move by the developer is major BS!!! Those are two different buildings with the same footprint, and the second is CLEARLY lower quality (read cheaper...) and has poorer aesthetics than the one that was LEGALLY approved. This is bait-and-switch, plain and simple.
If the developer can't deliver the goods they promised, then they underbid, and are incompetent, and don't deserve to do this project. If they are just profiteering by this after-the-fact "value engineering", then tough nuts - I hope the city puts every screw to them.
This is THE marquee plot in the city of EL. This not some generic student condo sprawl in the northern teir... everyone, including national and international figures, who uses the main entrance to the university will see this building. There is no reasonable excuse at this point to change the plan from the merely adequate building that was approved to the generic box the developers are trying slide by with.
I wonder why the developer would try to pull this off? There still seems to be some kind of a jinx on this stop! The no glass design is just so bland and not at all fancy, fancy is what they sold to the council. I would really hate to see this development get messed up by this but I would also be nice to have a worthy building on the spot that we all have to look at forever and the city should not settle for anything less.
So, I went back to look through the approval process just to be sure of something. Here is the staff report during the planning commission phase:
https://eastlansing.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1020&meta_id=65054
And the meeting minutes for when this was approved by the city council:
http://eastlansing.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=eastlansing_6f33a6fdb9a785fc7c2b645740fd0e8d.pdf&view=1
It is clear to me that nowhere in the approval process of development was anything dealing with architectural materials/design used as a condition of approval. Here are the only conditions included in the approval of this project by the city council:
And:
It is admirable that the developer is working with the city on revisions, but it's clear to me that they would not be legally required to do so. The ONLY way they'd have to come back to city council is if changes were made that would change dimensions in the site plan, like extending a part of the building, here, or increasing the height, there. There are no architectural material requirements as part of the site plan review process, and more than that, the city council did not condition approval upon the use of certain architectural materials.
So quite frankly, they could make all the noise they wanted, but they would not have the legal standing to stop this project because of post-approval value engineering. If the city council wants to manage architectural elements of a development, they need to write it into the zoning code and/or approval process like they did with the East Village zoning district.
I'm not sure about EL's ordinance's, zoning codes or the specifics of the development agreement but I'll get behind the city forcing this issue. The redesign is ugly, significantly impacts the look of the development, and it would have almost certainly affected the city's approval of the project had they shown that rendering to begin with. I encourage EL to pull whatever cards they can to get the developer to comply with the original plans, it's really not asking for much.
You bought a Cadillac! thank you very much "here's your Buick" it looks almost the same doesn't it?! I am really disappointed to hear that the city may not be able to "force" the developer to deliver same buildings they "sold" the city. It seems kind of fishy that they are making these major design changes, and of course they had to be negative changes not let's make it even better changes. They would not have to work through these issues if they did not change the design.
If I was building a house and the contractor tried to pull this, I'd fire them on the spot and take my chances in court if they tried to sue me.
I don't find it remotely admirable that the developer is "working" with the city on this conflict. Just. Pure. Greed. They are in a massive time crunch, and they know that even if the city "technically" can't force them to stick to their agreement (which I still don't buy, considering all their materials were submitted in writing, AND discussed and negotiated, on video with the city council), and the city starts dragging its feet, the developers will miss the critical due date to get their money from the state.
@MichMatters East Lansing has a specific ordinance that was passed after the St. Anne Lofts fiasco that requires that what is built matches the approved plans.
https://eastlansing.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=269&meta_id=14695
Thanks to https://eastlansinginfo.org/content/renderings-versus-reality-east-lansing for finding the ordinance. So this appears to be pretty enforceable from a legal standpoint.
Thanks for finding that, though I have some serious concerns about most of that piece. I still think if this ordinance ever made it to court, it would likely be struck down. But absent that, Dreger would be right that if built to the current rendering specifications that it differs too much from the site plan elevations to follow the spirit of the ordinance.
My concern is when she starts conflating renderings with what's being built for all of the other projects, as opposed to keeping up with what the actual ordinance is about: when site plan elevations and such differ from what was ultimately rendered, especially since renderings can change. Her review of Center City is beyond nit-picky.