City Council changes parking rules
By Kate Jacobson (Last updated: 10/06/09 11:20pm)The East Lansing City Council voted Tuesday to modify the rules for approving off-site parking in the city at its meeting at City Hall, 410 Abbot Road.
The council voted to change the ordinance, which outlines requirements for businesses and multiple-family residencies where parking is not located on the property, to include more defined wording in the ordinance.
Parking for off-premise sites would impact various student groups, including fraternities, sororities and housing cooperatives, said East Lansing Planning and Zoning Administrator Darcy Schmitt.
Some of the changes include requiring property owners to purchase parking passes on a yearly basis for employees or residents who use municipal parking facilities.
Businesses and residencies would need to provide off-premise parking for the spaces they could not provide on-site. Requirements for the off-site parking include a location within a quarter mile of the business or home the parking spaces serve.
“We are saying that for multiple-family uses, office uses or any uses located in the business district, required off-premise parking facilities may be provided on properties separate from that,” Councilmember Roger Peters said. “But the use of such facilities are intended to serve subject to these following requirements.”
City Council will review any request for parking based on the requirements in the ordinance. Mayor Vic Loomis said he was uncomfortable with the wording of the clause. He said he was uncomfortable with City Council having the final say on whether to grant parking spaces.
“If you meet all of these six (requirements), then City Council will consider and it’s up to the City Council to determine whether it meets the intent of allowing parking to be placed in the municipal parking structure,” Schmitt said.
One of the added items to the ordinance concerned some council members. The line stated council could approve or deny a request for parking based on proximity to public transit.
Peters said the line refuted the original purpose of providing close off-premise parking.
“If we’re saying that a quarter of a mile is close enough for people to walk to an off-site parking facility then if you satisfy that requirement, you’re okay,” he said. “I guess I don’t see where the proximity to public transit fits into the requirement.”
Originally Published: 10/06/09 11:20pm









FELLOW TRAVELER
10/07/09 9:09amSo why would Loomis object to Council making final decisions on this?
Landlords in E. Lansing basically get a free ride when it comes to ordinance violations and taking measures to enable student renters to fulfill lease requirements related to ordinances, parking being only one issue. (Enforcement would benefit student renters, as well as the community.)
Given Loomis’ track record, we have to assume he would prefer to let the City Manager approve what might be better for landlords and business owners and worse for the community, rather than letting things come before City Council where, wimpy though Council is, there is at least some chance for public objections to prevail.
Favoritism for BIG LANDLORDS!
10/07/09 9:43amCity Hall displays favoritism for the BIG Landlords NOT the small Landlords. The license and inspection fees disproportionately impact smaller landlords with 12 or fewer units. Contrariwise, the BIG Landlords with dozens or hundreds of units can easily absorb the $1000s of dollars in licensing and inspection fees. Furthermore, Housing Inspectors fail to inspect all of the Big Landlords Apartment Units, and they turn a blind eye when the Big Landlords have violations and give them a free reprieve.
With the small landlords, the housing inspectors are like vicious attack dogs, pointing out even the slightest flaw and charging the maximum penalties, driving the Little Landlords out of business, making way for the Big Landlords.
SB
...View full comment »