Council Pushes PDIG to Clairfy Plan, While Mayor Questions Tax Incentives

Image: PDIG represenatives Tom Eckhart and Todd Arend at City Council last night

Last night at City Council, PDIG ran into multiple disappointments as the developer’s representatives tried to push forward their plan to construct a project known as “Building A” at the corner of Grand River Avenue and Abbot Road.

As we reported last week, failing recent attempts to have Hotel Indigo or some other chain commit to the project, PDIG pulled the hotel out of the plans entirely. In response, and in light of significant confusion over what exactly PDIG is now proposing, last night Council sent the project plan back to the Planning Commission. Additionally, staff informed PDIG they cannot simply transfer their application for permission to have a liquor-serving hotel restaurant to a first-floor restaurant, and Mayor Nathan Triplett questioned why there should be any tax incentives provided to the project as it now stands.

Council’s decision to refer the revised site plan and Special Use Permit request from the Park District Investment Group (PDIG) for “Building A” back to the Planning Commission was unanimous. The motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Diane Goddeeris and seconded by Councilmember Ruth Beier.

During the discussion, Council members reacted strongly to the news that Hotel Indigo had pulled out of the project, leaving the building little more than a large apartment building. Goddeeris said the loss of the hotel was almost a “deal-breaker” for her, because this was what made this proposal unique. Councilmember Susan Woods agreed, as did Triplett, who added that saying the loss of the hotel was “sad” and a “disappointment” (as PDIG’s representative did) was an understatement.

At the present time, without the hotel, the mayor said he would be hard pressed to argue that the project was worthy of tax incentives. (PDIG has requested a brownfield Tax Increment Financing [TIF] plan of $32 million for its two proposed buildings in the Park District area. Details of that plan can be expected to change as a result of the new site plan.)

Triplett expressed frustration that developers seem resistant to building owner-occupied residences or mixed-market rentals in the downtown. Councilmember Kathleen Boyle said that many people feel that the market for “unremarkable apartments” in the downtown such as those in the current plan is “already saturated.”

Boyle questioned whether the latest version of the site plan would meet the condition for a Special Use Permit Ordinance that residential units “shall be designed and marketed to diversify housing opportunities in the neighborhood and shall not increase existing high concentrations of similar housing units in the neighborhood.” She said, “I’m going to tell you frankly that décor does not diversify housing for me.” She rejected the idea that granite countertops and an atrium made for “diversified housing.” She suggested that real diversity in the downtown would include housing that was attractive to families or persons with disabilities.

Beier, who argued consistently for referring the plan back to the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission would provide useful input to the Council on multiple issues, including the need for the $9.6 million private parking system, a large expense that the Council will be asked to reimburse the developer for, rather than having the developer’s taxes go into the general fund, as part of a TIF.

Regarding the parking plan, Boyle asked whether parking for the new site plan could be accommodated by the current municipal parking system. Planning staff Darcy Schmitt answered that it probably could, but that it would max out the system. In that event, Boyle pointed out that private parking would be allowed only if there were specific reasons why users of the building needed on-site parking, such as owner-occupied units or a medical facilities – neither of which are part of the current plan.

Boyle and Woods noted that the Planning Commission could revisit whether the planned Abbot Road drop-off entrance was still needed under the current plan —it had been specifically included for hotel guests—and, if not, whether two lanes of bicycle paths could be added to that block of Abbot.

Beier said that referring the new site plan back to the Planning Commission would give PDIG time to solidify its plans, including regarding the apartments, balconies, and office space. Members of Council were surprised during their discussion when Tom Eckhardt, PDIG’s representative, told them that the site plan they were looking at was not the latest version, saying it had been “very fluid” in the week since Hotel Indigo pulled out.

Beier also said that this referral would give staff more time to negotiate with the developer to come up with a plan that the Council might support. Council also asked staff t find out what the leaders of Peoples Church think of the new plan.