Developer Dave Weckle’s plans to construct a major mixed-use development encompassing portions of E. Burdick, Mill and Stanton streets in downtown Oxford received two thumbs up from the village planning commission last week.
Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve the site plan with a list of conditions that must be met, then voted 4-1 to recommend the village council approve the proposed planned unit development (PUD) agreement necessary to make it happen.
Weckle’s proposed development would consist of three buildings, up to three stories high, containing a mix of office, retail and residential uses. He’s also planning to construct a 55-space public parking lot, which will be given to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) at no cost and maintained by the village.
The site plan shows Building A at the southeast corner of E. Burdick and Mill streets, Building B on the southwest corner of E. Burdick and Mill streets, and Building C on the northeast corner of Mill and Stanton streets.
Building A (36 E. Burdick St.) is shown as a 26,700-square-foot, three-story structure that’s going to contain retail space on the first floor, office space on the second and four residential condominiums on the third.
It’s not set in stone at this point whether Buildings B (32 E. Burdick St.) and C (19 Stanton St.) will be two or three stories. That all depends on what the market demands. Building B’s floors would be 3,600 square feet each, while Building C’s would be 6,300 square feet.
Building B does have some restrictions contained in the proposed PUD agreement. If it contains office space, it’s limited to two stories, however, if it contains only retail and residential uses, it can be up to three stories high.
Weckle plans to use five properties he currently owns (42 and 46 E. Burdick St., plus 19, 21 and 23 Stanton St.) and three properties owned by the DDA (32, 36 and 38 E. Burdick St.) to make his development a reality.
As part of the proposed PUD agreement with both the DDA and village, the DDA would transfer ownership of its three parcels, totalling 0.35 acres, to Weckle in exchange for him developing the 55-space public parking lot at his own expense.
Last November, the DDA board voted 6-0 to approve the proposed agreement.
The agreement has deadlines Weckle must meet. Phase 1, which includes the construction of Building A, the new parking lot, plus all new lighting, sidewalks, bike racks and landscaping, must be commenced by Jan. 1, 2018. Phase 2, which includes Building B and landscaping, must start by Jan. 1, 2019, while Phase 3, including Building C and landscaping, must commence by Jan. 1, 2020.
“If Mr. Weckle does not build anything by the end of 2017, it’s everyone back to their corners land-wise,” explained village Planner Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates. “But once the parking lot is constructed, then the land swap is final.”
Parking, site size and lack of trees were three concerns raised during the meeting.
Local developer Chuck Schneider told the commission he has “a big problem” with the fact the proposed PUD is being used to waive parking requirements for Weckle’s development.
He cited the portion of the village zoning ordinance covering PUDs, which states they “are not intended as a device for ignoring the zoning ordinance.”
“The purpose of the PUD is not to circumvent the zoning ordinance,” Schneider said.
In response, Khorey cited language from the very next page, which stated, “To encourage flexibility and creativity in development consistent with the Planned Unit Development concept, departures from compliance with the underlying zoning district regulations may be granted by the village council, upon recommendation of the planning commission, as a part of the approval.”
In the very next line, the ordinance states “such departures may include . . . parking.”
In Schneider’s opinion, Weckle’s plan is wholly deficient when it comes to providing parking spaces. “My contention is this project is way too big because it’s not providing the required amount of parking,” Schneider said. “It’s, in fact, providing no parking.”
Weckle’s site plan shows 100 spaces surrounding his development, 92 of which would be open to the general public. Eight spaces are reserved for residential tenants.
Under the current ordinance, Weckle’s development would be required to provide either 112 or 114 parking spaces, depending on the uses contained in Building B (32 E. Burdick St.), according to Khorey
However, the proposed PUD agreement is waiving that.
“The PUD considers the 100 spaces to be sufficient,” Khorey said.
Here’s a breakdown of the 100 spaces:
n 55 spaces in the new parking lot to be built by Weckle.
n 30 spaces in the existing village lot east of Mill St.
n 6 existing on-street spaces on E. Burdick St.
n 5 new on-street spaces on E. Burdick St., east of Mill St.
n 4 spaces in the southeast quadrant dedicated for use by the 32 E. Burdick St. property per a maintenance agreement.
Schneider believes none of these parking spaces can be counted toward Weckle’s development because “every single parking space in this plan is publicly-owned property, not privately-owned.”
“He cannot use those parking spaces,” Schneider said. “He doesn’t own them. You own them. He’s providing no parking. He’s taking your (municipal) parking and applying it to his development. I like that deal. Can I do that on my projects?”
In response to Schneider, Weckle pointed out that he’s giving the DDA approximately 9,000 square feet more in land than he’s receiving and building a new public parking lot.
“It’s a good deal for a land swap,” he said. “And then, on top of that, I’m paying for the parking lot. The village isn’t paying for the parking lot, I’m paying for the parking lot, and then I’m deeding it back to the village.”
It was noted the only parking requirements not waived under the proposed PUD agreement concern bars and restaurants.
“The three buildings, as proposed now, do not include restaurants,” Weckle told commissioners.
However, if such an establishment opens in any of the buildings, “the village retains the right to require as many additional spaces as are required for the bar or restaurant under the zoning ordinance, or 14 spaces, whichever is fewer.”
“The village also retains the right to seek payment-in-lieu-of-parking, at the rate set by the village council, for the additional parking described above,” the PUD agreement states.
According to the village zoning ordinance, if a property in the C-1 Core or Transition zoning districts (i.e. downtown) cannot be developed in a way that provides the required amount of off-street parking, the owner has the option, upon request, of paying the village $6,000 for each parking space that it’s lacking.
Funds derived from these payments are supposed to be deposited in a special village parking fund and “expended exclusively” for “planning, designing, acquiring and/or developing off-street parking facilities” in the municipality, according to the ordinance.
Planning Commissioner Maureen Helmuth, who also serves on the village council, expressed her disappointment with the site plan’s lack of trees.
“I’m big on trees,” she said. “There’s no trees. I’d like to see some trees scattered about the site . . . It’s just going to be a big square of pavement.”
The only trees depicted are part of a row of evergreens planted along the site’s eastern property line to be used in conjunction with a wooden fence. The trees and fence would serve as a barrier to separate the development from two existing single family homes.
Weckle pointed out Oxford’s downtown is an “urban area” where buildings are located right next to each other and zero lot lines are common.
“This is not out in the country,” he said.
Helmuth, who cast the lone vote against both the site plan and proposed PUD agreement, responded that she understands the difference between urban and country, and the village does “have some trees downtown.”
“Don’t talk down to me about this. I want some trees,” she said.
Commissioner Bonnie Staley disagreed.
“I don’t think trees have a place with this project. I really don’t,” she said.
Some concern was expressed about Weckle wanting to construct three buildings, plus a large parking lot on a site that’s 1.17 acres.
“My overall sense of this is that you’re doing a lot on a very small piece of property and I wish it wasn’t so crowded,” said Commissioner Gary Douglas. “It appears crowded to me. It’s just my own taste.”
Helmuth agreed and said there’s “a lot shoved in here.”
“The site might be a little overbuilt,” she said.