Ratchet, I agree about the architecture. I'm curious as to what you mean about making the zoning more restrictive; are you talk about tweaks to add extra language about the outward appearance? Because I'd totally agree with that. Usually when people say "more restrictive" though, they are talking about smaller buildings, so I just wanted clarification.
Is there a map of historic districts in East Lansing, anywhere? I've come across a recent case in Grand Rapids at the southern end of downtown where a high-rise was recently downsized, but because it's just inside the historic district, there were extra aesthetic requirements that made sure that even the down-sized building looked nice. I know a lot of developers have historic districts, but I do think if not already that it'd be smart to put everything south of Burcham north of the downtown area into such a district, so long as the requirements in that district wouldn't bar a certain amount of upzoning.
If not historic districts, like you said, they could simply just make aamendments to the zoning code. I think it goes without saying that at least in the old part of the city, vinyl-siding should never be allowed as a front facade on any kind of building. There are other products you can use to give a shingled or paneled appearance that look much better than vinyl.
I agree the houses they are going to tear down are much nicer than those ugly townhouses. They look like a public housing development, maybe not that nice.
Mich - I'd like to see the city restrict development in that area to a higher minimum height, consistent with the future use plan for most of the downtown area (https://www.cityofeastlansing.com/DocumentCenter/View/7258/Master-Plan-Draft-May-4-2018-PDF). According to map C1, those parcels are "zoned" M3, which is a 2 story minimum, 6 story max with special permission; this area probably should have been zoned M4, which requires a minimum of 4 stories. In either case, the buildings are supposed to be mixed use. However, according to the ELi article, the existing zoning (RM-32) follows the old regs, so Hagan legally can proceed with building/blighting their crappy 3 story student apartments into that neighborhood.
So what good is the future use plan if they can't use it to dictate building requirements???
It would also be nice if the future use plan had restrictions on materials, specifically to require builders to use higher quality materials, consistent with local historical structures and/or the newer commercial buildings closer to downtown.
Given Hagan's comments from the Eli article, it's pretty clear that they only care about their convenience and how much money they can squeeze from their desirable property near campus:
"At the meeting, Brian Hagan pushed back, noting the project as it stands is already an extremely profitable model for them. His brother, Matt Hagan, who isIn any regard, Brian Hagan is glad the approval process is over.
“The project we're presenting is a proven success for us already and it's perfect for the circumstances that we have in place,” Hagan said. Hagan Realty’s lead contractor, explained how the limitations of the lot and costs make the plan they submitted the most logical.
“This is the one that makes the most financial sense for this lot,” Matt Hagan said of the plan at the meeting."
This is EXACTLY why the city needs more bite to enforce its master development plan... the builders have little or no concern for how their development affects the local community.
Ahh, but it looks like this site is just outside the historic district, because this would have never been allowed to be built in a historic district.
Ratchet, cities do this all the time with masterplans. Masterplans rarely seem to be followed. It's why it's absolutely necessary that the zoning code change be codified into law, because that's the only legally binding thing. It's why I'm so anxious with Lansing holding back on codifying its city-wide Form-Based Code.
Well that's a pretty good way to waste taxpayers time and money... generate a huge, complicated plan and don't bother to change the zoning code to enforce it!!! I think this says a lot about the competence, vs. ideology, of East Lansing's city leaders over the past several years...
The funny thing is that I think state law requires cities (maybe all cities, but for sure cities of a certain size) to have masterplans and to update them every x-number of years. I'm sure there is some alturistic and logical reason for this, but it'd be silly not to consider that maybe part of it is to give urban planners steady business in hard times. lol
I'm less familiar where East Lansing is in its stage of updating its masterplan, but I know Lansing is at the end of their process (codifying the Form-Based Code seems to be the last step left), and I believe Meridian may have just codified it's new zoning code? I'm not sure.
Picked something up from a story in East Lansing Info on a discussion of a varience for 300 Grand. Apparently, DTN wants Biggy out of their original location across the street from 300 Grand and to move into 300 Grand because they want to develop that property for a higher density (of course). It's litereally mentioned in one sentence of the extensive article, but it seems far more important to me than the granting of some drive-thru variance.
Comments
Ratchet, I agree about the architecture. I'm curious as to what you mean about making the zoning more restrictive; are you talk about tweaks to add extra language about the outward appearance? Because I'd totally agree with that. Usually when people say "more restrictive" though, they are talking about smaller buildings, so I just wanted clarification.
Is there a map of historic districts in East Lansing, anywhere? I've come across a recent case in Grand Rapids at the southern end of downtown where a high-rise was recently downsized, but because it's just inside the historic district, there were extra aesthetic requirements that made sure that even the down-sized building looked nice. I know a lot of developers have historic districts, but I do think if not already that it'd be smart to put everything south of Burcham north of the downtown area into such a district, so long as the requirements in that district wouldn't bar a certain amount of upzoning.
If not historic districts, like you said, they could simply just make aamendments to the zoning code. I think it goes without saying that at least in the old part of the city, vinyl-siding should never be allowed as a front facade on any kind of building. There are other products you can use to give a shingled or paneled appearance that look much better than vinyl.
Yeah, they need to apply their form-based zoning in more of the city.
I agree the houses they are going to tear down are much nicer than those ugly townhouses. They look like a public housing development, maybe not that nice.
Mich - I'd like to see the city restrict development in that area to a higher minimum height, consistent with the future use plan for most of the downtown area (https://www.cityofeastlansing.com/DocumentCenter/View/7258/Master-Plan-Draft-May-4-2018-PDF). According to map C1, those parcels are "zoned" M3, which is a 2 story minimum, 6 story max with special permission; this area probably should have been zoned M4, which requires a minimum of 4 stories. In either case, the buildings are supposed to be mixed use. However, according to the ELi article, the existing zoning (RM-32) follows the old regs, so Hagan legally can proceed with building/blighting their crappy 3 story student apartments into that neighborhood.
So what good is the future use plan if they can't use it to dictate building requirements???
It would also be nice if the future use plan had restrictions on materials, specifically to require builders to use higher quality materials, consistent with local historical structures and/or the newer commercial buildings closer to downtown.
Given Hagan's comments from the Eli article, it's pretty clear that they only care about their convenience and how much money they can squeeze from their desirable property near campus:
"At the meeting, Brian Hagan pushed back, noting the project as it stands is already an extremely profitable model for them. His brother, Matt Hagan, who isIn any regard, Brian Hagan is glad the approval process is over.
“The project we're presenting is a proven success for us already and it's perfect for the circumstances that we have in place,” Hagan said. Hagan Realty’s lead contractor, explained how the limitations of the lot and costs make the plan they submitted the most logical.
“This is the one that makes the most financial sense for this lot,” Matt Hagan said of the plan at the meeting."
This is EXACTLY why the city needs more bite to enforce its master development plan... the builders have little or no concern for how their development affects the local community.
Here's the East Lansing historical districts map:
https://www.cityofeastlansing.com/DocumentCenter/View/1100/Historic-District-PDF?bidId=
as you can see, almost the entire downtown area is penned in by historical districts
Ahh, but it looks like this site is just outside the historic district, because this would have never been allowed to be built in a historic district.
Ratchet, cities do this all the time with masterplans. Masterplans rarely seem to be followed. It's why it's absolutely necessary that the zoning code change be codified into law, because that's the only legally binding thing. It's why I'm so anxious with Lansing holding back on codifying its city-wide Form-Based Code.
Well that's a pretty good way to waste taxpayers time and money... generate a huge, complicated plan and don't bother to change the zoning code to enforce it!!! I think this says a lot about the competence, vs. ideology, of East Lansing's city leaders over the past several years...
The funny thing is that I think state law requires cities (maybe all cities, but for sure cities of a certain size) to have masterplans and to update them every x-number of years. I'm sure there is some alturistic and logical reason for this, but it'd be silly not to consider that maybe part of it is to give urban planners steady business in hard times. lol
I'm less familiar where East Lansing is in its stage of updating its masterplan, but I know Lansing is at the end of their process (codifying the Form-Based Code seems to be the last step left), and I believe Meridian may have just codified it's new zoning code? I'm not sure.
Picked something up from a story in East Lansing Info on a discussion of a varience for 300 Grand. Apparently, DTN wants Biggy out of their original location across the street from 300 Grand and to move into 300 Grand because they want to develop that property for a higher density (of course). It's litereally mentioned in one sentence of the extensive article, but it seems far more important to me than the granting of some drive-thru variance.