Berkley Citizens United Planning Commission, La Salette Redevelopment Meeting Packet

Transcription

1 Berkley Citizens United Planning Commission, La Salette Redevelopment Meeting Packet Concerns Regarding La Salette Redevelopment June 17, 2017 Overview Berkley-Coolidge, LLC (Developer), in conjunction with La Salette Parish and the Archdiocese of Detroit, desire to develop a 138 unit apartment complex at Coolidge Highway and Oxford Road, in Berkley. Berkley Citizens United (BCU) supports redevelopment of this property but expresses significant disapproval of the current redevelopment plans. Major Concerns 1. Impact to Neighbors: The proposed four story structure would tower over its neighboring property and be a negative visual impact to the neighborhood. The developer claims a fence and row of townhomes will limit this, but any amount of critical thought indicates this is not accurate. This photo, from Birmingham, MI, shows a 4 story apartment at a distance ~50 from another structure (Note: The La Salette high-rise is less than this) Can you recommend that this neighbor is not negatively impacted? 2. Parking: The developer claims 1 parking space for a studio, 1.25 for a one bedroom loft, 1.5 for one bedroom apartments, and 2 for two bedroom apartments. US Census Data from 2010 indicates a mean average of 2.14 cars per household in the City of Berkley. If we omit all households with more than 3 cars (reasonable for an apartment), this number is 1.82 cars per household. 1.82*138=251. The apartment proposes 145 parking spots with a so-called shared agreement with the nearby church, which by code requires 1 parking spot per 5 of pews. When removing the parking which will be used by the La Salette school project, the church has an existing deficit of 40 parking spaces before we even look at the apartment deficit. Even the developer s own optimistically conservative number leaves a parking deficiency during regular church use, which would be absorbed by street parking. Parking is entirely inadequate for the development. See table on next page for calculation:

2 2 Note: The parking calculation does not consider snow removal piles which would take up a significant number of spaces during a wet winter further exacerbating an already bad problem. You cannot permit the PUD based on parking that does not exist yet for the church, even if it has been approved. This is the very reason the law requires all parts of the PUD to be under a single owner. Were the Church to back out of creating those lots, the city would be in the impossible situation of having approved a permanent and huge parking deficiency.

3 3 3. Traffic: The structure would have an entrance/exit onto Harvard & onto Oxford. Google Maps and Mapquest both suggest 696 W traffic use 11 Mile exit and turn left on Kipling or Robina. This greatly increases the traffic in a residential neighborhood which is home to a park, community center, and middle school. This increase in traffic is a negative impact to the existing neighborhood and cannot be permitted. 4. Stormwater Retention: Due to parking issues, existing greenspace (church park) will be paved for parking use. This paves even more area than the unused paved lot currently uses today. This creates stormwater issues in a city which uses a combined storm/sanitary sewer system and increases the probability of sewage backups during large rain events. There is not adequate space on site to design adequate stormwater retention without significant subsurface reconstruction, which the developer has not indicated is part of their plans. 5. Cost of Units: The developer initially indicated a $1.80/sq.ft. cost per unit. This has since changed to $1.70/sq.ft. This price would create $1,080 studio apartments and $1,900 2BR/2BA apartments. This price does not attract the senior demographic which the developer has proposed would be interested in this development. According to 2015 American Community Survey data, a typical 65+ household in Berkley earns $38,860/yr., making a $1,900 apartment 59% of gross income. In the La Salette town hall on June, 14 the developer suggested seniors could get a roommate to make it affordable. This is disconnected at best and incredibly offensive at worst. 6. Ethics: The Parish and Archdiocese have stated multiple times in multiple venues that this development needs to occur to assist with the economic viability of the church. It is not the responsibility of the city to sacrifice a neighborhood to subsidize private business operations. This current proposed development focuses on Return on Investment over neighborhood benefits. This is an unacceptable situation for granting special PUD approval. The development needs to enhance the neighborhood, not harm. Currently it does only harm.

4 4 Neighborhood Benefits? Previously in the April 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission found three neighborhood benefits. BCU does not believe these benefits were fully realized in April, and have not since been improved upon, and in some cases have seen this benefit decrease. 1. Preservation or enhancement of historic resources: This is admittedly a subjective statement, but the La Salette school building is not a historic resource. It is an old building, not on any historical register, which is primarily being reused in order to save on redevelopment costs. While keeping the structure may meet this alleged benefit, the site may be better improved by demolishing the school and redeveloping without restrictions caused by the existing structure. 2. High quality architectural design: This is the most absurd proposed benefit. The architectural design of the new apartment is nothing more than a large, uninspired, highdensity box which can be found in any complex of year old apartment developments throughout various Metro Detroit suburban sprawl suburbs such as Warren, Southfield, Sterling Heights, or Canton. The poor site layout and obvious attention to maximizing profit over creating a functional community is evidenced in the poor site layout and the incredibly basic proposed new structures. The removal of rooftop entertainment only further highlights how unremarkable this development is. 3. A variety of housing types: A collection of 138 units, 130 of which are high-density apartments appealing largely to a couple of very select demographics, does not represent housing variety. If the Planning Commission is basing this variety solely off of the 5.7% of units which will be townhomes, we have to question just how low the bar for variety truly sits. The complete lack of mixed use for commercial or office space further speaks to how little consideration has been given to the idea of multiple uses. Proposed Improvements: While Berkley Citizens United understands it does not have an authoritative say in how the development progresses. We want to be clear that we are not anti-development, but rather we are against harmful development, while being pro-constructive development. Mixed Use on Coolidge: All over the metro there exist new mixed-use lightcommercial/office developments on main thoroughfares ( Mile Roads ) This can be seen in Birmingham, Royal Oak, Plymouth, Ferndale, Detroit, etc. The developer has indicated this is not possible due to the structure s subgrade construction. BCU believes it is possible even if it likely comes with an added development cost, but it is indeed possible to create subgrade mixed-use; however, if demolished, and constructed with grade-level commercial/office storefronts below apartments or lofts, this may be preferable. Either option would enhance the Downtown feel of South Coolidge, and enhance Berkley as a whole. The parking lot could be developed for high/mid-density residential use, as proposed, but with adequate parking volume and appropriate traffic controls to all direct vehicular traffic to Coolidge.

5 5 Townhomes in place of new high-rise: The proposed townhomes on Oxford are constructive development. BCU supports this density for a neighborhood and would support additional rows of similar townhomes being constructed in place of the high-rise structure, assuming adequate parking and green-space. Mid-density development keeps with the character of the existing neighborhood and helps fill in the missing middle within the City of Berkley, while high-density can front Coolidge without compromising the neighborhood. Appropriate planning should show a gradational change in density disallowing multi-family high-rises to be built adjacent to privately owned single-family residences. Additionally a large complaint heard among young buyers is the lack of newer starter homes. Townhomes have largely replaced what was once commonly the 1,000 sq.ft. bungalow, commonly seen in Berkley. Summary: This property may be the best piece of unused/underused property within the City of Berkley. BCU fully supports redevelopment of the property to enhance the city. It would be a shame to see it developed as unappealing, high-density apartments, poorly positioned on their lot, when so much of the development occurring around the metro is far superior to the 1970 s box-style apartments proposed by the developer in the current PUD application. Please note these are only the major concerns with the PUD application. We have additional minor concerns which are small and some may be addressed at some point during the design and construction phases of the project, but these major concerns are not able to be resolved within the current plans and would require additional work sessions and significant design changes. These changes would almost certainly have to include developing without the highrise apartment building which is proposed to be built in the middle of a neighborhood. Recommendation to Planning Commission: Your public office requires that you serve the best interests for the City of Berkley, not that of a single business owner/church, or a Bloomfield Hills based developer. Your office requires you to make decisions for the residents of Berkley, including those who live on Oxford, Harvard and Kipling. Please keep that in mind and do not approve of the PUD application. It does not maintain or improve the existing neighborhood, and it does not offer any of the proposed or referenced benefits; however, we do wish to see positive development occur. Please make appropriate recommendations based on what has been learned here, heard in citizen comments, and gained from your own professional experience. Invite the developer to reimagine the site, and come back with something that enhances Berkley without compromising the integrity of an existing Berkley neighborhood.