An initial draft of a proposed ordinance to change or eliminate, depending on who you talk to, downtown Oxford’s parking exempt status, as it exists right now, was met with strong opposition at the Nov. 20 village planning commission meeting.
‘If this ordinance passes as it stands, essentially it’s going to really stifle development (downtown),? said Paul Delone, owner of 17 S. Washington St.
Downtown property and business owners jam-packed the village council chambers until it was standing room only, voicing their unified opposition to a proposal to transform the longtime parking exempt district into what was called a ‘parking reduction district.?
‘These people have been your core downtown for years and . . . now you’re preparing to take part of their rights, their retirement, their net worth away from them,? said Chuck Schneider, owner and developer of multiple downtown properties.
A little background
Under the current ordinance, downtown’s northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants are considered parking exempt, which means businesses or property owners are not required to provide off-street parking in order to gain site plan approval or change a building’s use.
Whether a building goes from being a shoe shop to a restaurant or is expanded outward in square-footage or upward in terms of stories, as it stands right now, it’s not required to provide additional parking or pay the village a $6,000 per space in lieu of fee. The in-lieu-of fee goes into a parking improvement fund that the village can use for expanding parking by acquiring land, demolishing existing buildings and constructing spaces.
If a new building is constructed in any of these three quadrants, it too is not required to provide off-street parking or pay in lieu of spaces.
The exception is the northeast quadrant, which according to property owners, was supposed to become parking exempt back in 1995 when they agreed to pay a special assessment of $200,000 plus interest for parking lot improvement. Two northeast quad property owners donated and leased parking property to the village with the understanding it would become parking exempt.
For one reason or another, the issue kept falling through the village government’s cracks and the northeast quadrant never became parking exempt. Property owners there continue to lobby the village for exempt status.
Draft ordinance
Under this draft ordinance, any building or portion of a building that existed at the date of its adoption, should that occur, would still be exempt from providing off-street parking regardless of its current or future use.
As long as the building remains the same (i.e. no expansion), it stays parking exempt, even if the use changes, ‘whether it be more parking intensive or less parking intensive,? according to Seth Shpargel, senior planner with the Northville-based McKenna Associates, Inc.
Shpargel noted downtown’s existing parking system ‘is sufficient to handle the current business setup and probably a small addition to the existing business density.?
‘I want to emphasize that we’re not taking away parking exempt the way it is today,? said Planning Commission Chairman Tom Schultz. ‘Parking exempt status will exist as it is today with the buildings on their current footprint.?
What would be affected by this proposed ordinance is new construction and existing buildings that undergo expansion through either the addition of square-footage to the ground floor or the addition of stories.
Any new or additional building area ? with the exception of restaurants, taverns, residential uses and uses permitted by special approval ? would be required to provide 50 percent of the required number of parking spaces which correspond to the building’s use.
So, under this proposed language, if a 10,000-square-foot building adds 2,000 square feet, it’s existing portion would remain parking exempt, however, the addition would require parking.
Say that extra 2,000 square feet required 10 private, on-site parking spaces. Under this proposed ordinance, it would require only five spaces (or 50 percent). So a property or business owner would be required to either install five off-street spaces or pay the village $30,000 ($6,000 per space) in lieu of.
Shpargel noted that’s ‘still a break? from developing in other areas of the village where 100 percent would be required.
He explained the 50 percent ratio is based on a ‘real quick? study McKenna conducted on parking demand in the downtown which found that except for the ‘real peak demand? time of 5-8 p.m., ‘at most times? 50 percent of the overall parking in the four quadrants is ‘available.?
Exceptions to the proposed 50 percent ratio are any new buildings or additional floor space used for restaurants, taverns, residential uses and uses permitted after special approval. These uses must provide 100 percent of the required number of spaces.
‘Typically, these uses are more parking intensive,? Shpargel explained.
However, according to the draft ordinance, the planning commission can reduce the required number of spaces for these uses up to 50 percent if the applicant can demonstrate ‘unique circumstances of the particular use would not require providing 100 percent? or there’s ‘sufficient documentation which demonstrates that underutilized public parking is available in the vicinity.
If an existing building is demolished, under the draft ordinance, however many required parking spaces were documented as necessary for its previous use would be credited to the new building constructed on the same site. For instance, if the demolished building’s previous use had required 10 spaces, they would be credited to the new building in addition to the 50 percent reduction of required spaces for the new use.
‘We didn’t want to penalize a property owner from demolishing an older building or a smaller building and building a new one,? Shpargel said. ‘We didn’t want to penalize them in terms of having to provide more parking.?
The opposition
One by one, downtown property and business owners from all four quadrants took turns speaking out against the draft ordinance at the planning commission meeting.
‘By creating this ordinance, you’re enacting a form of growth control, which is exactly the opposite of what I think we need down here,? said Jim Bielak, owner of the Beadifferent store and building at 7 N. Washington St. ‘It would be nice to have more buildings down here, not more parking. I’d rather see the buildings first, and we’ll worry about the parking later.?
Bielak said he chose to locate his business in downtown Oxford because of the parking exempt status, which for the small business provides an ‘incubator for growth? because parking’s already provided by the municipality.
‘We didn’t have to worry about cleaning the parking lot or (making) an extra payment for this or that,? he said.
Many property and business owners noted they located here because of parking exempt status and growth go hand-in-hand.
‘Part of the reason we invested in this area is because it’s growing,? said John Spain, representing the owners of 51 S. Washington, commonly known as the Starbucks building. ‘If that growth cannot occur because of this parking ordinance than we’ve defeated the purpose of coming here and defeated the purpose of investing millions of dollars and beautifying an otherwise decrepit building.?
Ralph Curtis, whose family has owned the 1,800-square-foot building at 25 N. Washington St. since 1948, fears if this ordinance is enacted, his tenant, the Curtis Insurance Agency, will leave when the business decides to expand so as to avoid paying for parking on top of construction costs.
‘It’s probably cheaper for him to move to another location,? Curtis said. ‘He does not have to be in the downtown area.?
?(People have) invested time, money and sometimes a great deal of their lives into their real estate here,? said Rick Williams, owner of Williams Art Glass Studios at 22 N. Washngton St. ‘I don’t believe that should be limited by eliminating the parking exempt status. I believe that the parking exempt status should be made permanent as all of these studies have recommended over the years.?
‘We’re a small business. It’s tough to just break even,? said Don Johnston, owner of Johnston Photography at 8 N. Washington St. ‘For you guys to limit us like this with this ordinance is unfair.?
Many property and business owners called the draft ordinance’s language ‘vague? and said it lacked any ‘permanency.?
‘It needs to be shored up and clarified,? Delone said. ‘There can’t be any questions . . . It needs to be much more clearly written.?
Representing the Oxford Area Chamber of Commerce, Board Member Dora Rolando, owner of Great Lakes Mercantile at 8 S. Washington St., read a letter informing the planning commission that the chamber’s board of directors voted Nov. 19 to support making all four quadrants parking exempt.
Changing or eliminating parking exempt?
Schultz repeatedly pointed out to the assembled crowd of property and business owners that parking exempt isn’t being eliminated, it’s just being modified.
‘I don’t want to give anyone the impression that the parking exempt status is going away. That is not the case,? he said. ‘Parking exempt is staying. We’re just limiting (it) for future development.?
Schultz said the proposed ordinance is all about ‘protecting the village against future development without any provision for parking.?
‘If nothing were done? and people were allowed to build five-story buildings in parking exempt areas, Schultz said smaller businesses would be complaining that there’s no room for their customers to park.
‘What we’re trying to do is accommodate both the business owners and the village as well,? he said.
But Schneider and others disagreed.
As it stands right now, under the current parking exempt status, buildings can change their use, increase their size by expanding from lot line to lot line or build up to five stories.
While the proposed ordinance allows for change in use, it does not permit the other two without losing exempt status.
‘You are taking away our right to expand our footprint and to increase our height, so you are changing our exempt status,? Schneider said. ‘This is a reduction in the rights that we currently have.?
Schneider presented the planning commission a petition signed by the owners of 44 commercial buildings in Oxford, supporting parking exempt status for all four downtown quadrants and urging the village to keep it ‘with the land forever without interruption or change.?
Schneider proposed the planning commission consider allowing the parking exemption to continue to apply to buildings that expand their footprint and those structures up to two stories. Anything above two stories would have to provide parking or make a payment in lieu of. Considering most downtown buildings are already two stories, Schneider said, ‘It gives everybody a level playing field.?
‘We’re trying to meet you guys halfway and we’re trying to come up with something that we think is fair and equitable for everybody,? Schneider explained.
No action, more discussion
There seemed to be a consensus amongst the planning commission that this proposed ordinance needs more discussion, more input, more clarification and more tweaking before it’s ready to go to a formal public hearing.
‘I feel all these (parking) calculations are very confusing to me,? said Commissioner Sue Bossardet. ‘I think it needs to be plain to people, to everybody sitting here and to everybody sitting out there watching this.?
‘I think this is a good starting point to open up discussion,? she noted.
It was agreed to send the proposed ordinance back to the special parking subcommittee for a meeting in December, of which downtown property and business owners would be notified so they can attend and provide input
‘We’re in no rush,? Schultz said. ‘We’re not up against a deadline. We want to make sure we do the right thing.?