Most recently, at the Dec. 19 meeting of
the DDA’s operations committee, the discussion focused on location: For which of
the six public parking structures would monthly permits be sold? The developer
of the 624 Church St. project would prefer that the project be allowed to buy
permits in the Forest parking structure.
The Forest facility, a joint venture of the DDA and the University of Michigan, is the structure closest to the proposed residential development. According to the developer’s Nov. 28 submittal to the city, the 13-story project would include more than 80,000 square feet of new floor area with the following configuration of apartments: 11 one-bedroom; 21 two-bedroom; 33 three-bedroom; and 11 four-bedroom units. That’s a total of 76 apartments, with 196 bedrooms.
The developer, Opus Development Corp., has already won approval from the DDA’s board to satisfy the project’s parking requirement without providing onsite spaces – by instead using the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.
Discussion by the DDA operations committee on Dec. 19 centered around the issue of fairness: Would allowing the purchase of permits in the Forest structure give the developer of the 624 Church St. project an unfair competitive advantage in the South University area rental market? Raising the fairness issue was DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who owns Revive + Replenish, which is a tenant in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place on East University. Zaragon is a nine-story apartment building with almost 250 bedrooms, catering to the student rental market.
Other board members did not perceive the issue to be problematic, from the perspective of fairness to already-existing projects. And Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, pointed out that the decision to allow a project to purchase monthly parking permits is a tool that’s available to the DDA to help make a private development possible that otherwise would not be. In the case of 624 Church St., building parking spaces on that site isn’t feasible. Hewitt was concerned that the strategy – if the DDA allowed permits to be purchased at a structure very near to projects – might result in an incentive for developers in the future not to build any onsite parking.
The committee’s discussion was inconclusive, but committee members indicated they wanted to develop a formal policy on which parking structures would be chosen for monthly permits sold under the CIL program. The 624 Church St. project is due to come before the city planning commission on Jan. 15, so the developer would prefer to have the issue settled by then. But given the DDA’s desire first to establish a policy that would guide this and future decisions, it’s unlikely it will be finalized as early as mid-January.
Based on the committee’s discussion, capacity in the parking system does not appear currently to be a limiting factor on selling CIL permits. The committee also reviewed the latest monthly parking data, which shows continued increased usage of the new underground garage, Library Lane.
Revenues per space in the Library Lane structure are now beginning to approach those of on-street parking spaces, but are still the lowest of any facility in the system. That’s due in part to a discounted rate offered to induce holders of permits in other structures to move to Library Lane.
Also of interest at the operations committee meeting was a draft policy for holding events on top of the Library Lane structure, including the closure of the mid-block cut-through, Library Lane itself.
Roger Hewitt raised two issues of concern to him – fairness and the unintended consequence of giving an incentive to developers not to provide onsite parking spaces. He also felt there could potentially be a legal liability for the DDA.
On the fairness question, Susan Pollay – executive director of the DDA – indicated that the kind of judgments involved were already being made in the context of the DDA’s regular monthly parking permits program. She wondered what the legal liability could be. Hewitt responded by saying that if a developer spends millions of extra dollars to add parking spaces to a project, and a different developer in the future simply asks the DDA to purchase monthly permits, the project that’s been granted the right to satisfy parking requirements by purchasing permits could become a more profitable project.
Hewitt feared the DDA would be incentivizing developers not to build onsite parking spaces.High quality stone mosaic tiles. So he floated the idea that if N spaces were required, then only some percentage of N would be provided in a structure located close to the project. For example, he said, if the project needs 40 spaces, then perhaps 10% – or four spaces – would be provided in a location close to the project, with the rest provided elsewhere in the system.
Pollay again questioned whether there was any actual legal liability. DDA board member Joan Lowenstein, an attorney,Find detailed product information for howo spare parts and other products. indicated she didn’t think there was a legal problem – and the matter of fairness was one that’s to be addressed through an administrative process.
Hewitt reiterated his position – he was worried that in the future, because of the availability of the monthly permit options, “nobody builds parking.” DDA board member John Splitt ventured that it’s not completely clear whether a project that satisfies its parking requirement through the purchase of monthly permits would be more profitable than one that builds onsite spaces. He said the DDA doesn’t know what the return on the investment for a private developer is – one who charges residents for the use of an onsite parking space – to build those spaces. Hewitt ventured that the return is less than building “student dorm space.”
Pollay noted that the DDA was established to encourage new development, to increase TIF (tax increment financing), and that the contribution in lieu (CIL) of parking is specifically designed to encourage residential development. She stated that the only way the 624 Church St. project could be built – due to constraints of the site configuration – is if the CIL program were available.
DDA board member Leah Gunn noted that the only open question is the location of the monthly permits – because the board had already voted to allow 624 Church St. to purchase monthly permits somewhere in the system. She wondered if it were possible to sell some of the permits in the Forest structure and some elsewhere.
The conversation circled back to the question of fairness. Pollay asked if Hewitt was worried about fairness with respect to future projects or current projects? Hewitt seemed to indicate that fairness would dictate that existing projects should also have the option to obtain permits under the CIL program. Pollay stated that projects like Landmark and Zaragon Place are already built – so she didn’t see it as a fairness problem.
Landmark and Zaragon have onsite parking spaces, and those developments are renting the spaces to their tenants, Pollay noted. So Pollay said it seemed to her like those projects built parking spaces onsite because they chose to. Lowenstein ventured that it’s a competitive market, so the availability of onsite parking could be an advantage.
On the issue of fairness, Gunn asked if it was fair for Google’s parking permits to be subsidized initially, but not the parking spaces for Barracuda Networks. She allowed that employees of Barracuda are still getting a deal, because of the discount that the DDA has applied (for anyone, not just for Barracuda) to the cost of permits in the new underground Library Lane structure.
Gunn came back to her point that the DDA had already determined that the public parking system had adequate capacity to sell 40 permits to the 624 Church St.Find detailed product information for howo tractor and other products. project. The only question is where, she said. Responding to concerns voiced again by Hewitt,Find detailed product information for howo tractor and other products. Splitt suggested that the question of location could require “a bit more of a deeper dive.” Splitt didn’t want the choice of location for the permits to translate into a disincentive to construct onsite parking spaces.
Pollay suggested putting off a decision and asking city planning staff for their input.Argo Mold limited specialize in Plastic injection mould manufacture, She suggested forming a subcommittee. Gunn wanted clarification: Would the subcommittee focus just on the 40 permits for 624 Church St.? Hewitt stated that the subcommittee should work on a general policy on location, saying, “We need a policy to defend in public.” Splitt wondered if it might not be possible to approve the 40 spaces for 624 Church St. in a particular location without the general policy. Pollay suggested that it might be worth hearing from the DDA’s legal counsel.
The Forest facility, a joint venture of the DDA and the University of Michigan, is the structure closest to the proposed residential development. According to the developer’s Nov. 28 submittal to the city, the 13-story project would include more than 80,000 square feet of new floor area with the following configuration of apartments: 11 one-bedroom; 21 two-bedroom; 33 three-bedroom; and 11 four-bedroom units. That’s a total of 76 apartments, with 196 bedrooms.
The developer, Opus Development Corp., has already won approval from the DDA’s board to satisfy the project’s parking requirement without providing onsite spaces – by instead using the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.
Discussion by the DDA operations committee on Dec. 19 centered around the issue of fairness: Would allowing the purchase of permits in the Forest structure give the developer of the 624 Church St. project an unfair competitive advantage in the South University area rental market? Raising the fairness issue was DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who owns Revive + Replenish, which is a tenant in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place on East University. Zaragon is a nine-story apartment building with almost 250 bedrooms, catering to the student rental market.
Other board members did not perceive the issue to be problematic, from the perspective of fairness to already-existing projects. And Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, pointed out that the decision to allow a project to purchase monthly parking permits is a tool that’s available to the DDA to help make a private development possible that otherwise would not be. In the case of 624 Church St., building parking spaces on that site isn’t feasible. Hewitt was concerned that the strategy – if the DDA allowed permits to be purchased at a structure very near to projects – might result in an incentive for developers in the future not to build any onsite parking.
The committee’s discussion was inconclusive, but committee members indicated they wanted to develop a formal policy on which parking structures would be chosen for monthly permits sold under the CIL program. The 624 Church St. project is due to come before the city planning commission on Jan. 15, so the developer would prefer to have the issue settled by then. But given the DDA’s desire first to establish a policy that would guide this and future decisions, it’s unlikely it will be finalized as early as mid-January.
Based on the committee’s discussion, capacity in the parking system does not appear currently to be a limiting factor on selling CIL permits. The committee also reviewed the latest monthly parking data, which shows continued increased usage of the new underground garage, Library Lane.
Revenues per space in the Library Lane structure are now beginning to approach those of on-street parking spaces, but are still the lowest of any facility in the system. That’s due in part to a discounted rate offered to induce holders of permits in other structures to move to Library Lane.
Also of interest at the operations committee meeting was a draft policy for holding events on top of the Library Lane structure, including the closure of the mid-block cut-through, Library Lane itself.
Roger Hewitt raised two issues of concern to him – fairness and the unintended consequence of giving an incentive to developers not to provide onsite parking spaces. He also felt there could potentially be a legal liability for the DDA.
On the fairness question, Susan Pollay – executive director of the DDA – indicated that the kind of judgments involved were already being made in the context of the DDA’s regular monthly parking permits program. She wondered what the legal liability could be. Hewitt responded by saying that if a developer spends millions of extra dollars to add parking spaces to a project, and a different developer in the future simply asks the DDA to purchase monthly permits, the project that’s been granted the right to satisfy parking requirements by purchasing permits could become a more profitable project.
Hewitt feared the DDA would be incentivizing developers not to build onsite parking spaces.High quality stone mosaic tiles. So he floated the idea that if N spaces were required, then only some percentage of N would be provided in a structure located close to the project. For example, he said, if the project needs 40 spaces, then perhaps 10% – or four spaces – would be provided in a location close to the project, with the rest provided elsewhere in the system.
Pollay again questioned whether there was any actual legal liability. DDA board member Joan Lowenstein, an attorney,Find detailed product information for howo spare parts and other products. indicated she didn’t think there was a legal problem – and the matter of fairness was one that’s to be addressed through an administrative process.
Hewitt reiterated his position – he was worried that in the future, because of the availability of the monthly permit options, “nobody builds parking.” DDA board member John Splitt ventured that it’s not completely clear whether a project that satisfies its parking requirement through the purchase of monthly permits would be more profitable than one that builds onsite spaces. He said the DDA doesn’t know what the return on the investment for a private developer is – one who charges residents for the use of an onsite parking space – to build those spaces. Hewitt ventured that the return is less than building “student dorm space.”
Pollay noted that the DDA was established to encourage new development, to increase TIF (tax increment financing), and that the contribution in lieu (CIL) of parking is specifically designed to encourage residential development. She stated that the only way the 624 Church St. project could be built – due to constraints of the site configuration – is if the CIL program were available.
DDA board member Leah Gunn noted that the only open question is the location of the monthly permits – because the board had already voted to allow 624 Church St. to purchase monthly permits somewhere in the system. She wondered if it were possible to sell some of the permits in the Forest structure and some elsewhere.
The conversation circled back to the question of fairness. Pollay asked if Hewitt was worried about fairness with respect to future projects or current projects? Hewitt seemed to indicate that fairness would dictate that existing projects should also have the option to obtain permits under the CIL program. Pollay stated that projects like Landmark and Zaragon Place are already built – so she didn’t see it as a fairness problem.
Landmark and Zaragon have onsite parking spaces, and those developments are renting the spaces to their tenants, Pollay noted. So Pollay said it seemed to her like those projects built parking spaces onsite because they chose to. Lowenstein ventured that it’s a competitive market, so the availability of onsite parking could be an advantage.
On the issue of fairness, Gunn asked if it was fair for Google’s parking permits to be subsidized initially, but not the parking spaces for Barracuda Networks. She allowed that employees of Barracuda are still getting a deal, because of the discount that the DDA has applied (for anyone, not just for Barracuda) to the cost of permits in the new underground Library Lane structure.
Gunn came back to her point that the DDA had already determined that the public parking system had adequate capacity to sell 40 permits to the 624 Church St.Find detailed product information for howo tractor and other products. project. The only question is where, she said. Responding to concerns voiced again by Hewitt,Find detailed product information for howo tractor and other products. Splitt suggested that the question of location could require “a bit more of a deeper dive.” Splitt didn’t want the choice of location for the permits to translate into a disincentive to construct onsite parking spaces.
Pollay suggested putting off a decision and asking city planning staff for their input.Argo Mold limited specialize in Plastic injection mould manufacture, She suggested forming a subcommittee. Gunn wanted clarification: Would the subcommittee focus just on the 40 permits for 624 Church St.? Hewitt stated that the subcommittee should work on a general policy on location, saying, “We need a policy to defend in public.” Splitt wondered if it might not be possible to approve the 40 spaces for 624 Church St. in a particular location without the general policy. Pollay suggested that it might be worth hearing from the DDA’s legal counsel.
没有评论:
发表评论