The "ground breaking" for environmental remediation is definitely amusing, but perhaps is also indicative of the significance of the clean up. I just hope it spurs something positive with the property.
There was some concern on the council about the LHC projects, particularly LHC's poor track record. I have concerns about 100% rent assisted housing generally, even moreso putting two buildings close to each other, and also with putting family housing in a downtown building (there will be some three bedroom units). In the neighborhood meeting with LHC they spoke as if they were moving forward, they may not be using PILOT anymore.
Updates:
Councilmember Hussain forced changes to the proposed ADU ordinance, which was holding up the zoning proposals. The Planning Commission will meet tomorrow, to take up the revised ordinance:
An ADU must be registered and properly licensed as a rental by the City Code Compliance
Office, unless the occupants of both structures are named in the property deed. For any lot, the
principal structure or the ADU shall be owner-occupied. If either the ADU, or the principal
structure is leased, it must be registered and properly licensed as a rental by the Code
Compliance Office
This seems quite petty, to me. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but generally, I'm for more freedom for what people can do with their property within reason. And this plays into the general prejudice against renters; that's really all this is, because otherwise there isn't really an argument for this.
In other news, the Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday has up a proposal for variance to front and yard setbacks on Saginaw Access between Prudden & Park Terrace. Because this is not a packet, I can't tell what exactly the variance is for, but this is part of Motor Wheels development. Specifically, it mentions the southern 90 feet of 817 E Saginaw (Access), which is a very long parcel (330 feet long vs 33 feet wide). 90 foot depths are what the ajdoining properties to the east have. I kind of get the sense that this might be for a buffer zone or something, but that's just a guess.
RE: BZA - H Inc wasn't able to submit all of their materials in time for the meeting so it was pulled from Thursday's meeting but will be on a special meeting soon. I can't comment but we'll have to wait on the details to be published.
Without giving any details, is it a significant change from the original proposal? I appreciated the density of the original proposal, but wasn't crazy about the designs or that everything was simply attached single-family. It'd be nice to see more variation in design and perhaps some small-scale commercial usage somewhere in the area to serve what will be a lot of new residents. It's not an easy or comfortable walk west-southwest to get into downtown or the Stadium District, honestly, though that's a whole other issue that involves the state. lol
I was looking at google maps for a possible pedestrian way from the Motor Wheel area perhaps to the river trail along May Street or Monroe Street. Maybe a wide sidewalk along Saginaw Street with some sort of protection or separation pillars and a four-way traffic stops at Larch and Cedar. I think Lansing could do something like that without State approval
I think it boils down to a test project of the greater vision, but again some big details on site layout and massing are missing.
There were discussions for a pedestrian overpass to Oak Park, either over Saginaw St. or along the train tracks, but yeah MDOT is the sticking point. I'm not sure where those discussions are today, but given how many new residents are expected it is definitely still a goal, to help activate the park and get more eyes on the neighborhood.
Connectivity is such a huge part of these "DT-2" zone developments, (Stadium North) and how the State consistently won't come to the table. Professionally, I think all of their talk about a culture change at MDOT and their active transportation planning is a joke.
I think it was very encouraging that as bad as they've been, one part of the culture that had changed is that they are way more willing to return right-of-ways to the cities than they once were. Getting them to part ways with Saginaw/Oakland & Cedar Saginaw near downtown is going to be difficult. And probably even more than that, I don't think the city administration has ever publicly approached them about it.
But yeah, being able to snatch away the Capitol Loop was huge. Kalamazoo also is doing some great things with convincing MDOT to give them their streets back downtown. Same with downtown Detroit.
As for the Wheel District, yeah, I'm curious as to what kind of variance they were asking for. I remember some rezoning in this area, but it can't remember if the city parcel map is up-to-date on this:
This is being shown as mostly "Mixed Residential" which has 20' and 30' setbacks, respectively, for front and rear setbacks. A former sketch-up I posted here shows a rather dense development, so my educated guess was that they were perhaps asking for smaller ones, which would be good. But the sketch-up didn't show this part of the site, I don't think, and it's so near Saginaw that perhaps they were asking for even larger setbacks for the front yard. If this is all zoned DT-2 "Urban Flex," though, which only has a 5-foot setback/build-to line for frontyards, it'd mean they are very likely asking for something to increase setbacks.
BTW, looks like Councilmember Kost was elected president, and Councilmember Carter was elected vice president. I know Kost has a reputation for being a stickler for details to a fault, but I've never gotten the sense he has been opposed to any of the reworkings of our zoning code, ideologically, which is good. I hope when committee assignments are chosen before the next meeting, that we get a new planning and zoning committee much more open to this kind of thing that councilmembers and former council leaders Hussain and Garza have been in particular.
I'm 100% against those changes to the ADU ordinance. Does this restrict the property to being owner-occupied in perpetuity? If an investor buys a property with a pre-existing adu do they have to leave it vacant? It's a dumb change that will not help the city add to its housing stock, it will make the ordinance vastly less impactful. This kind of stuff is incredibly disheartening, we just can't seem to accomplish any significant positive change here.
I really hope H Inc can pull off something interesting with the Wheel District, Hepler did a good job with JI Case Lofts along with the MW Lofts and he seems to have done a good job managing the properties in years since. But I gotta say, as of now I'm not seeing a lot of positive signs, the plans were incredibly vague and the rendering looked like it was borrowed. Then take into account the 3+ iterations of proposed apartment projects for the parking lot between May & Oakland that never materialized and the proposed Prudden Wheel Lofts that don't seem to be moving too fast... I'm not sure how optimistic to be. I was surprised to see them do the demolition that they did. I couldn't agree more on wanting to see some commercial space and some denser residential, at least in parts. If all goes well this could be a really cool and transformative project.
I don't think I mind Kost as president. I've definitely disagreed with Kost on local politics, and I'm sure we're far apart on many bigger issues, but he seems like someone who genuinely cares about Lansing and will take the job seriously. Hopefully that's the case.
Comments
There was some concern on the council about the LHC projects, particularly LHC's poor track record. I have concerns about 100% rent assisted housing generally, even moreso putting two buildings close to each other, and also with putting family housing in a downtown building (there will be some three bedroom units). In the neighborhood meeting with LHC they spoke as if they were moving forward, they may not be using PILOT anymore.
Councilmember Hussain forced changes to the proposed ADU ordinance, which was holding up the zoning proposals. The Planning Commission will meet tomorrow, to take up the revised ordinance:
This seems quite petty, to me. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but generally, I'm for more freedom for what people can do with their property within reason. And this plays into the general prejudice against renters; that's really all this is, because otherwise there isn't really an argument for this.
In other news, the Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday has up a proposal for variance to front and yard setbacks on Saginaw Access between Prudden & Park Terrace. Because this is not a packet, I can't tell what exactly the variance is for, but this is part of Motor Wheels development. Specifically, it mentions the southern 90 feet of 817 E Saginaw (Access), which is a very long parcel (330 feet long vs 33 feet wide). 90 foot depths are what the ajdoining properties to the east have. I kind of get the sense that this might be for a buffer zone or something, but that's just a guess.
There were discussions for a pedestrian overpass to Oak Park, either over Saginaw St. or along the train tracks, but yeah MDOT is the sticking point. I'm not sure where those discussions are today, but given how many new residents are expected it is definitely still a goal, to help activate the park and get more eyes on the neighborhood.
Connectivity is such a huge part of these "DT-2" zone developments, (Stadium North) and how the State consistently won't come to the table. Professionally, I think all of their talk about a culture change at MDOT and their active transportation planning is a joke.
But yeah, being able to snatch away the Capitol Loop was huge. Kalamazoo also is doing some great things with convincing MDOT to give them their streets back downtown. Same with downtown Detroit.
As for the Wheel District, yeah, I'm curious as to what kind of variance they were asking for. I remember some rezoning in this area, but it can't remember if the city parcel map is up-to-date on this:
This is being shown as mostly "Mixed Residential" which has 20' and 30' setbacks, respectively, for front and rear setbacks. A former sketch-up I posted here shows a rather dense development, so my educated guess was that they were perhaps asking for smaller ones, which would be good. But the sketch-up didn't show this part of the site, I don't think, and it's so near Saginaw that perhaps they were asking for even larger setbacks for the front yard. If this is all zoned DT-2 "Urban Flex," though, which only has a 5-foot setback/build-to line for frontyards, it'd mean they are very likely asking for something to increase setbacks.
I really hope H Inc can pull off something interesting with the Wheel District, Hepler did a good job with JI Case Lofts along with the MW Lofts and he seems to have done a good job managing the properties in years since. But I gotta say, as of now I'm not seeing a lot of positive signs, the plans were incredibly vague and the rendering looked like it was borrowed. Then take into account the 3+ iterations of proposed apartment projects for the parking lot between May & Oakland that never materialized and the proposed Prudden Wheel Lofts that don't seem to be moving too fast... I'm not sure how optimistic to be. I was surprised to see them do the demolition that they did. I couldn't agree more on wanting to see some commercial space and some denser residential, at least in parts. If all goes well this could be a really cool and transformative project.
I don't think I mind Kost as president. I've definitely disagreed with Kost on local politics, and I'm sure we're far apart on many bigger issues, but he seems like someone who genuinely cares about Lansing and will take the job seriously. Hopefully that's the case.