Developer Dave Weckle is one approval away from being able to have a third story on the building he’s planning to construct on an empty lot located at 32 E. Burdick St. in downtown Oxford.

Last week, the Oxford Downtown Development Authority (DDA) voted to amend the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement to allow for it.

That was followed by the village planning commission’s 5-0 vote to recommend the village council approve the amendment as well.

Council is expected to vote on the PUD amendment at its 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 14 meeting. A public hearing is scheduled to precede the vote.

“I am for this project 100 percent,” said village resident Tanya Heuser, who spoke during a planning commission public hearing on the subject. “I think anything’s better than looking at a vacant lot.”

The 60-foot-by-60-foot building to be constructed at 32 E. Burdick St. is part of a three-building, mixed-use development encompassing E. Burdick, Mill and Stanton streets. The other two buildings will be located at 36 E. Burdick St. (a three-story structure) and 19 Stanton St.

Weckle’s development, which was approved by the village last year, is going to contain a mix of retail, office and residential uses, plus a 55-space public parking lot that he has agreed to construct at his expense, then transfer ownership to the DDA.

Originally, Weckle wasn’t planning to have any residential space as part of 32 E. Burdick St. and the design for it was approved as a two-story building back in May. But he’s since changed his mind and now wants to add a single residential condominium as a third floor.

The only problem is that violates the original PUD agreement he has with the village and DDA because he also plans to have office space in the building.

Under the original PUD agreement approved by the village council in September 2016 and DDA board in November 2015, if the building contains office space, it’s restricted to two stories. However, if the building houses “only retail and residential” uses, it’s permitted to have a third story.

This provision was put in place because of parking requirements under the zoning ordinance at that time. But those requirements changed when the zoning ordinance was amended earlier this year.

“If you now look at today’s parking requirements, the parking allocated to this development is actually more than it needs,” explained village planner Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates. “At this point, I don’t see a reason to restrict 32 E. Burdick to having only two stories.”

Under the old zoning ordinance, the 32 E. Burdick St. building would require the overall development to have a total of 114 spaces if it contained office space and 112 parking spaces if the building contained only residential and retail uses.

The PUD agreement waived that and allowed Weckle to have a total of 100 spaces to serve his three-building development.

Under the old ordinance, office space required one parking space for every 350 square feet of “gross floor area.”

However, under the new zoning ordinance, office space requires one parking space for every 350 square feet of “usable floor area.”

Based on these new standards, Khorey indicated Weckle’s entire development would need 92 parking spaces as previously approved and 94 spaces with the addition of a residential unit to 32 E. Burdick St.

“So even with the third story, the overall development would still be below the parking required by the (PUD) agreement,” wrote Khorey in an Oct. 9 letter to the DDA and planning commission.

As part of its approval of the PUD amendment permitting the third story, the DDA board is allowing Weckle to “reserve up to two” parking spaces in the southeast quadrant for residential tenants at 32 E. Burdick St.

Khorey believes that decision was “appropriate” because the vacant lot where 32 E. Burdick St. is going to be built has had four spaces “dedicated to it ever since (the southeast) parking lot was built.”

In order to accomplish his project, Weckle plans to demolish four single-family homes situated on lots he owns. Two are located on E. Burdick St. and two on Stanton St.

Although he had “no problem” with Weckle’s desire for a third story, resident Dennis Moser, in a letter he wrote to the planning commission, expressed his desire to see the house located at 42 E. Burdick St. torn down immediately because he believes that in its current condition, it’s a “possible hazard” to the community and projects a negative image to passersby.

Firefighters have been using the house for training exercises and have done things to it such as cut holes in the roof.

Weckle informed the planning commission that two more training exercises were scheduled and as soon as firefighters are done with it, “we intend to tear it down right away.”

“I’ve talked with the demolition contractor and he’s looking at Nov. 5,” he said.

Resident Sharon Schramlin, who lives on Mill St., was the only person who expressed her displeasure with Weckle’s project as a whole.

Schramlin, who indicated she and her family have lived in that part of the village since 1946, lamented the loss of so many single-family homes in that area, the “horrendous” speeding traffic, the expanding amount of pavement and the diminished quality of life.

The way things are going, she told the planning commission she’s considering moving to Lapeer.

“I don’t want anything to do with a town that doesn’t look at all the consequences (of) what they do,” Schramlin said.

“You’ve got to have some kind of quality of life and there’s nothing there anymore,” she noted.

Heuser disagreed. She said people want to be downtown and younger people, in particular, want to live in condominiums and apartments.

“We don’t want to have big homes and big yards,” she said. “We work all the time. We don’t get home till late. We don’t have time to maintain (a house and yard).”

“The older I get, the more I want a condo or I want an apartment, so the days of having single-family homes (are) going more and more (by) the way side because people don’t have time for it,” Heuser said.

As for the homes that have been torn down in that part of the village over the years, Heuser said, “Yes, there are a few houses that are gone, but honestly, were they nice houses to begin with or were they . . . not well taken care of?”