Albert Ave. Affordable Housing Project Heads for Public Hearing with Opposition Organized
American Community Developers’ proposal for a downtown, five-story, 122-unit affordable “workforce” apartment building heads to a public hearing at East Lansing’s Planning Commission this Wednesday evening (Aug. 9).
And there’s already organized opposition to the plan. The challenge comes from over 20 businesses that don’t want to see the last big surface parking lot in town reduced by two-thirds.
ELi reported on May 25 American Community Developers (ACD) came to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to talk about the project. This was the first time the proposal was made public.
Now, results of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by ELi show ACD originally put together a proposal for a much bigger project, at 11 stories with about twice as many apartments.
FOIA results also show that, in April, a protracted and concerned discussion broke out within City Hall about whether it was appropriate to give ACD a “letter of support” for its application for financial support from the State of Michigan before the project had even started the local review process.
ELi reported on June 2 that Mayor Ron Bacon did provide a support letter without getting an OK from the rest of Council. The new FOIA response shows Bacon’s letter was significantly toned down from what ACD originally proposed in a draft, but it was still labeled a “letter of support” provided on behalf of the City of East Lansing.
What is the proposal being considered at the Planning Commission’s public hearing?
The location of the proposed project is currently a surface parking lot along Albert Avenue just west of Bailey Street. Officially known as Lot 11, located behind Peanut Barrel and Campbell’s Market Basket, the municipal parking lot is actually a combination of two parcels with different owners.
The east side of the lot, nearest the parking lot’s gates, is owned by the City of East Lansing. The rest, comprised of about two-thirds of an acre, is owned by the Metzger and Fabian families. For over two decades, those families have been leasing the land to the city for the parking lot use. ACD has entered into a contract with the private owners to buy the land for this project.
If built as proposed, the project would rise to five stories and include 122 apartments: 50 studio apartments, 62 one-bedroom apartments and 10 two-bedroom apartments.
The ground floor along Albert Avenue would include about 1,100 square feet of commercial space.
There would be no balconies or space on the rooftop open to tenants. Along Albert Avenue, the developer intends to provide “landscaping beds, ornamental fencing, and private walks to enhance the streetscape,” according to the staff memo.
The developers provided no street-level renderings of the project in their submission to the Planning Commission. Below is a rendering that ACD previously provided to the DDA.
The building would have no dedicated on-site parking. According to the staff memo presenting the plan, under the current zoning law, the project would be required to provide at least 115 parking spaces for tenants and would do so by having tenants use permitted parking spaces in the municipally-owned Division Street parking garage (the colorful parking ramp).
As ELi recently reported, the Division Street lot has low usage, so this would help the city’s parking system financially.
According to the staff memo about the 530 Albert Ave. proposal, “The Division Garage has 218 available [permit] spaces, more than adequate capacity to serve the project’s 115 required residential permits. In addition, the Charles Garage [near CVS] has an additional 211 available [permit] spaces.”
The project would add 68 bike parking spots including 34 indoor and 34 outdoor, but it’s not clear from the application if these would be private (for tenants only) or public.
ACD is seeking federal and state financial assistance for this project and would consequently be strictly limited in who they could rent to. Prospective tenants would be screened to allow only those within a specific limited income bracket to rent. College students would not be eligible as renters unless they are financially independent and earning an amount within the income brackets permitted.
Rental rates are anticipated to initially fall at $930 per month for the studio units to $1,195 per month for the two-bedroom units. The project is not specifically designed to be for senior citizens, but seniors whose monthly income falls in the required range could rent apartments here.
The developers say in their application that the building would be constructed using universal design, with “all spaces and entrances…universally accessible.” Door openings would all be at least 34-inches wide, common hallways 64-inches wide, light switches would be rocker-style and the doorknobs would be lever-style. Ten percent of the units would be fully accessible with others convertible to accommodate tenants with disabilities.
The planning division’s staff memo indicates “Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2024, lasting for a period of 18-24 months, with completion towards the end of 2025.” Materials obtained by FOIA indicate the developer would hope to start sooner.
The developers have not yet provided a traffic impact study. There appears to be no accommodation in the proposal for vehicles to pick-up and drop-off people near the building.
The project would eliminate downtown surface parking, and that’s leading to opposition.
East Lansing Director of Planning Tim Dempsey has said the developers might need the city-owned portion of Lot #11 for construction staging if this project goes forward. But the plan would apparently be to try to open the city-owned portion of the lot back up after construction is complete.
“It is presumed the City will continue to operate the remaining lot for transient [hourly] parking,” the staff memo tells the Planning Commission. “From the site plan, the surface parking remains at the corner of Albert and Bailey in a controlled lot accommodating 35 spaces. The flow of the lot will likely need to be revised, potentially eliminating four spaces.”
Right now, Lot #11 has a total of 121 parking spaces. When all is said and done, the project would eliminate somewhere around 90 parking spaces, leaving a total of about 31 spaces. It is the last large surface lot downtown.
Recent analysis of the city’s downtown parking by expert consultants noted that, at present, about 86% of public parking spots downtown are in garages. Only 14% are on the street or in surface lots, which is low compared to cities comparable to East Lansing. If this project is built, that figure would drop to 11%.
A press release provided to ELi on Sunday (April 6) opposes the project on behalf of “over 20 businesses [that] have signed a petition to stop the 530 Albert Avenue proposal.” The group has organized as Citizens to Protect East Lansing Access (CPELA).
“The project will not add parking or replace parking lost and does not incorporate sufficient public or commercial space,” according to the CPELA release.
It quotes Al Bay, owner of the Wild Goose Inn on Albert Avenue, which is next door to the site. The inn is located in a quaint old house just west of the municipal parking lot.
“What we are looking for in a downtown development is something that will provide East Lansing residents and visitors more reasons to come downtown; another place to enjoy a meal, shop or connect with friends,” Bay says in the press release. “This proposal does just the opposite. It only makes it more difficult to visit and will result in a decrease in the number of visitors to our downtown.”
The CPELA release claims the project “will damage the existing businesses in the 500 block and beyond and will also harm the continued fostering of a vibrant downtown for visitors and shoppers….This is simply the wrong location and design for new housing in East Lansing.”
The release (see it here) also alludes to the issue of Bacon having signed a support letter to the state for the project before city review had taken place.
“When local government makes decisions without adequate regard to outcomes for residents, property owners and businesses, and without transparency and clarity, we believe action must be taken,” the release says.
The release goes on to urge people to show up at the public hearing “to debate the merits and shortcomings of this proposal, and to protest the lack of transparency exhibited by the City in trying to rush the project’s process without adequate notice or input.”
FOIA documents show the interim city manager and interim planning director were hesitant to provide the letter of support to the state.
ACD has been hoping to tap into funding from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), including funds made available through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
To get in line for this money, ACD wanted to submit an application to MSHDA by a key deadline on April 17.
Recognizing the MSHDA application required a letter from the city about the property’s zoning and a support letter from the city for the proposal, starting in late March, ACD pushed Interim Director of Planning Tim Dempsey to try to get these. (Dempsey is now a semi-finalist for the city manager position and is interviewing for that job today.)
On March 29, ACD provided two draft letters to Dempsey. One, which ACD suggested be signed by Bacon, asked MSDHA to “Please accept this letter as a statement of the City of East Lansing’s strong support” for the project. “We look forward to working with American Community Developers on this important project.”
The letter ACD proposed Dempsey sign also said the city “supports this development.” (See those drafted letters from ACD here.)
But this wording didn’t sit well with Dempsey and Interim City Manager Randy Talifarro.
Dempsey wrote to Talifarro on March 31 calling the wording of support from the city “premature. In my opinion, that standard requires review and support from City Council, Planning Commission, DDA, and all other boards/commissions as required by our approval process. However, if City Council is interested in providing a letter of support for the concept, given their interest in affordable housing, I would strongly recommend they consider and discuss the development concept at their April 11 discussion only meeting. If they were to indicate support, the letter would have to be crafted indicating only Council’s support, since the PC, DDA, and others would not have had time to review.” (Council did not discuss it at the April 11 meeting or any subsequent meeting.)
Dempsey told Talifarro, “Please be aware that the only thing shared with me to date has been verbal, that the project would be ‘about 200 units of affordable housing.’” At that point, Dempsey had seen nothing on paper from ACD in terms of a proposal. Dempsey copied City Attorney Tony Chubb in his communication.
Talifarro shared Dempsey’s reservations, replying on March 31 he could tolerate at most “a very generic letter of support for affordable housing opportunities in East Lansing… Like you, I have not heard anything other than a desire to use the property for some type of high-rise (8-10 stories depending on parking) with some element of affordable housing. That is extremely vague and provides almost zero detail. Experience has shown these types of developments have been greeted with a great deal of skepticism with our residents. They typically require a great deal of discussion, negotiation, and community engagement. As I said previously, this timeline (April) is way too aggressive in my view. Any attempt to push it through that quickly would likely ensure its failure.” (See the emails here.)
Three days later, on April 3, Talifarro wrote to ACD Vice President Chris Young letting him know “your request for letters of support, and your timeline desired is simply too aggressive given the limited information we have about the proposed project…. The Bailey neighborhood group is very active and extremely vocal. Any process that does not include them would be difficult to move forward and meet with strong resistance. Hence, I see no opportunity for this to happen by the April [17] 2023 deadline.” (See the email here.)
On April 12, ACD countered with toned-down draft letters of support. (See them here.) The next day, Young also sent to city staff a PDF “which provides some detail on the proposed project. Please understand this is submitted for informational purposes only and is not intended to assume any approvals from the city or MSHDA. What ultimately may be designed and built will depend on meetings with the city and other various stakeholders. It would be reasonable to assume that the project could range in size approximately from 112 units to 212 units and between 5 to 11 stories, based on what would ultimately be acceptable by [sic] all parties. We are very sensitive to the surrounding neighbors and other stakeholders.”
The packet showed a 212-unit apartment building including “10 residential levels of apartments over 1 level of commercial frontage and rear private parking.”
Young asked Dempsey, “Can the city just provide a reasonably generic letter stating they support Affordable Housing[?] Hopefully this would check the box [for] MSDHA, pending the full approval of the project following the require[d] city protocols.” (See the email here.)
But Talifarro continued to be concerned with the wording of the drafted letters, particularly the statement of support from the city.
Ultimately, Dempsey and Bacon did provide the letters ACD needed to “check the boxes” with MSHDA. (See their submitted letters here.) In Bacon’s letter, the final sentence was changed from what ACD had proposed, which was: “We look forward to collaborating with American Community Developers on this important project.” Instead, the last sentence read, “We look forward to working on these types of important projects.”
Getting Bacon to sign the letter on April 17, the due date, turned into a bit of a drama, as City Hall was temporarily evacuated due to a potential threat. As the 5 p.m. deadline neared, Dempsey rushed to get Bacon’s approval. FOIA shows a quick text exchange between them.
Young wrote to thank Dempsey on April 25 “for the help you provided in getting the necessary letters for our MSHDA application. We have been notified by MSHDA that our application was received, and we are on the list as receiving funding for the project pending an application review.”
He told Dempsey he wanted to get going on the local approval process “as soon as possible.”
A month later, on May 25, Young and his team came to the DDA to present the plan and said the state and federal assistance had been secured.
ACD finally submitted the site plan application to the city on July 12.
ACD’s ability to make the April MSHDA deadline might have negative implications for another affordable housing development in East Lansing.
PK Companies are set to construct a long-awaited six-story affordable apartment building at 333 Valley Court Drive, near Valley Court Park, and, like ACD, PK needs funding from MSHDA to make their project viable. Now, ACD getting into the MSHDA application queue in April could cause PK trouble in terms of getting the state funding needed for PK’s project, according to an email response to ELi from PK’s Vice President of Development Jacob Horner..
“The timing of both projects competing in the same round is unfortunate, as this is a very competitive process,” Horner wrote. “That said, ACD is one of the top affordable housing developers in Michigan and we think it is great for the community that they are pursuing development in East Lansing. ACD often has tax credit developments competing with ours in the same funding rounds, it’s just unique that these two developments happen to be in the same City at the same time. We regard ACD primarily as a colleague in our niche industry, and less so as a competitor. We hope that both projects are successful.”
Taking over from a prior developer who didn’t get the project done, PK finally struck a deal with the City Council on the redevelopment in July. ELi asked Horner if the turmoil in city personnel stopped them from applying to MSHDA in the April Round.
“With respect to City staff turnover,” wrote Horner, “when we were first discussing 333 Valley Court with City staff last year, it was our intention to apply for credits in the April 1, 2023, round, and [former Director of Planning] Tom Fehrenbach was a champion for our efforts. However, I am not sure it would have been possible regardless of his departure. It took several meetings with the Council to introduce us as the new developers, work through the termination of the existing agreement with Convexity, and obtain the PILOT [payment in lieu of taxes]. The process took longer than we expected but we believe we are in a better position now because the Council was able to consider all aspects of the project thoroughly before taking action.”
ACD did not respond to questions about this issue before this report was published.
[Update: On Aug. 8, Horner sent a later clarification, writing, “I would like to clarify that we have no knowledge that ACD will be applying in the same tax credit round as us. My comment that they would be applying December 1, in the same round as us, is our expectation based on your reporting to-date. We do not want to speculate on what they will apply for and when”]
The Planning Commission is expected to discuss ACD’s project in at least two meetings.
East Lansing’s Planning Commission makes recommendations to City Council on these types of proposals – it does not approve them. Typically, the Commission discusses a project in at least two meetings before making a recommendation to Council.
The Commission’s meeting on Wednesday (Aug. 9) will include a formal public hearing on this project where the public can speak for up to five minutes each. Members of the public can also communicate with the Commission on any topic at all meetings during the public comment session (with the same five-minute limit). The meeting Wednesday will start at 7 p.m. at the Hannah Community Center. The agenda is here. Written comments may be submitted to the Commission via Tim Dempsey at tdempse@cityofeastlansing.com. Indicate in the email that the message should go to the Planning Commission.
Correction, Aug. 8, 10:40 a.m.: When published, two paragraphs in this article were inadvertently omitted. They have both been restored. They are the following paragraphs:
A press release provided to ELi on Sunday (April 6) opposes the project on behalf of “over 20 businesses [that] have signed a petition to stop the 530 Albert Avenue proposal.” The group has organized as Citizens to Protect East Lansing Access (CPELA)….
Young wrote to thank Dempsey on April 25 “for the help you provided in getting the necessary letters for our MSHDA application. We have been notified by MSHDA that our application was received, and we are on the list as receiving funding for the project pending an application review.”