Trowbridge Development Still Causing Strife at Council

Following a good deal of argument, East Lansing’s City Council voted 4-1 last night to approve River Caddis developer Kevin McGraw’s latest request for Trowbridge Village: this time for 45 additional parking spaces to deal with what McGraw now says is inadequate parking at the nearly-completed development.

Residents of the Red Cedar Neighborhood have repeatedly objected to McGraw’s moves on this project, and this latest round was no exception. In advance of last night’s meeting, the Red Cedar Neighbor Association sent a letter to Council objecting to how this process has played out:

“Had the [City Planning] Staff and [Planning] Commission acknowledged the parking difficulties with the original plan,” which the Association had raised during the planning approval process, “the developer could have been required to provide better parking options for his tenants rather than all surface parking. We certainly would have had a better, more logical development than what is currently proposed.”

With Fresh Thyme market now open and bustling, and McGraw wanting to move student renters into his new building as early as next month, he says he has found that there is simply not enough parking to manage all his tenants’ needs. He recently decided therefore to knock down the vacated Oodles of Noodles restaurant building on the assumption that Council would approve his wish to use that land for 45 extra parking spaces for his tenants.

City Planning staff Darcy Schmitt told Council that administrative rules allowed her to personally approve the building demolition part of the site plan change as a matter of Planning—which she herself did—but that she was not empowered to approve the site plan for the new parking lot. Council would have to approve that.

Councilmember Ruth Beier questioned the way arrangements were being managed in terms of the legal joining of parcels. Schmitt said it was being done correctly. Beier expressed concerns about the safety of students having to cross lanes of traffic in the parking lot to get to their cars. Schmitt said the plan was safe, although one could not force pedestrians to use the sidewalks provided to stay safe. Councilmember Kathy Boyle asked more questions about the legal arrangements with regard to conditions on the site plan which led to another question from Beier about whether the parcels being joined were broken up by the parcel containing a Wendy's restaurant. City Attorney Tom Yeadon said he was satisfied it was done right.

What happened next was rather extraordinary for a Council meeting.

Mayor Nathan Triplett asked whether anyone on Council would object to McGraw coming to the podium to address Council on his application. Beier said she would. McGraw essentially took the podium anyway and handed over to Yeadon documents that he said were correct, unlike the documents that apparently had been provided to Council in advance of the meeting. Triplett said McGraw could give the materials to Yeadon.

Confusion then broke out over what exactly the documents said, with attorney Tom Yeadon saying Darcy Schmitt would have to clarify what was going on with this application because "I'm a little confused." McGraw tried to explain to Schmitt what the application said.

At this, Beier indicated she wanted more time to review the matter because she had not had adequate opportunity to review what they were being asked to approve. But staff member Schmitt cut her off, telling Beier that what was being suggested was appropriate and could be approved. She said the only confusion was over the legal joining of parcels.

Beier asked what the tax implications of this change would be. Schmitt said she didn't know and couldn't say. Beier said she wanted that information before proceeding.

Triplett immediately moved the discussion to a one-on-one with Yeadon on the question of how to manage approval, Beier reiterated that she wanted to defer the matter to the next work session to understand the plan better, including how it might impact the taxable values (and thus perhaps ultimately the tax increment financing plan). Beier said she didn't quite believe everything she was being told about this development and she wanted to hear from the City's tax assessor.

Mayor Pro Tem Diane Goddeeris seconded Beier’s motion to defer the matter to the next work session of Council (next week). Councilmember Kathy Boyle, who lives in the Red Cedar neighborhood, said that she thought it was "relatively cut and dry" but that she didn’t want Councilmembers having to vote if they feel they don’t fully understand a proposal.

At this, Goddeeris asked whether there was any “undue hardship” that would be caused by waiting two weeks for this to come back to Council for final action, after they had had time to review the situation. McGraw took the podium and said in an agitated manner that he was getting complaints from his retail tenants about inadequate parking--"we are obviously under-parked"--and that the situation had to be remedied immediately. He said he had student renters to move in next month.

McGraw insisted the request meets Code and that Council could therefore not deny him his request, even if he had “ruffled feathers” by knocking down the building with the assumption Council would approve his request for more parking. McGraw asked Council to “please have some business sense” so he could "get this done." He said "there are parking needs out there today."

At this point, Triplett said he would vote against Beier’s motion to defer, essentially indicating support for McGraw's request. He said there was no legal reason not to approve the request and that the tax questions could be answered later. Boyle then agreed with Triplett.

Beier said perhaps she was not being clear "in my cynicism," and argued there were important considerations, including how the parcels are being joined and whether there are tax assessment implications, and that these needed to be worked out to understand better what they were being asked to do. She also doubted the City Attorney was really confident that he understood what was before Council.

After a pause, City Attorney Yeadon said he could not say whether the application met every aspect of the Code’s requirement because he had not reviewed the application for that question. He said he would refer to Darcy Schmitt on that question. Yeadon indicated that if it did meet Code, there was essentially no legal reason to deny the request.

Beier said that if her motion to defer was not going to be accepted she would withdraw it, which she did. Boyle, an attorney, raised another question about how to manage the documents in terms of getting the right conditions stated appropriately given that there had been a mistake in the staff memo. Yeadon provided what he said he thought would be an adequate legal solution for approval.

At that, Goddeeris moved approval of McGraw’s request, and Councilmember Susan Woods seconded the motion to approve.

Before the vote officially occurred, Beier said she wanted to “take the time to just explain how irritated and angry and upset and cheated this particular proposal makes me feel in the long line of proposals that is this development.”

Beier noted the change in the tax increment financing (TIF) plan after the TIF plan had already been approved; she was referring to last September, when McGraw had come to Council threatening to stop work on the project unless Council upped how much his company would be reimbursed in TIF. In response at that time, Council voted 3-2 to give McGraw's company as much as $1.2 million more in public subsidies, with Triplett, Goddeeris, and Woods voting in favor, and Boyle and Beier voting against.

Beier also noted that during the site plan approval, the developer and City staff had repeatedly assured Council the project plan had adequate parking. Beier said she thought the new parking plan is dangerous to the student renters and that she felt “lied to and tricked.” She said she hoped that McGraw would not bring any more proposals to the City that change after approval.

Boyle said she would vote in favor of the proposal because it met the requirements of the Code. She acknowledged the letter from her own neighborhood association saying the process had been problematic. She said the City might learn from this about listening to residents’ concerns earlier in the process because the neighbors had predicted this very problem.

The vote went 4-1, with Beier against.

If you want to watch this interchange on video, click here and then go to the index under the video screen and click on item 33. That will start the video where the discussion of this item begins.

Reminder: You can communicate with Council in person at its weekly meetings or write to Council directly at council@cityofeastlansing.com. You can speak or write on any issue involving the City, not only what is on the published agenda.