I guess you should be optimistic about the Wheel District site simply because it's finally come back up after remaining dormant for a year or so. I was surprised to see the variance request, because I'd basically thought it was dead. It shows that he's still actually working on it.
As for Hussain's ADU draft amendment:
(7) 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.
I'm not actually sure how to read this, honestly. The "or" is throwing me off. I guess he doesn't want a property where both structures would be leased. Which, IMO...who cares? It's an unnecessary restriction.
Sorry about the map, yes it is out of date. A previous update undid all of the rezonings of the last two years. We were waiting for the second amendment to pass which would consolidate all of the districts to reflect both changes, and I thought that it would be done by now. We're about to process the annual lot splits/combinations so one way or the other we'll get it current. Anyway, about half of the May-Saginaw-Pennsylvania block was approved for DT-2 in 2023. H Inc. is still working on additional property purchases and ultimately another mass rezoning.
My perception of the development concept is that it is just a mini-subdivision akin to East Village further down the street. I know retail/commercial, is what it is these days, but this is such a major intersection of the eastside and if you are planning on 300+ new households, it would be prime for an urban mixed-use neighborhood. I know the three other businesses at Saginaw/Penn do not do it any favors but a different configuration could have spurred some change.
I believe a big hold-up was financing. H Inc. was marketing the Lofts for ~$36m last year and he was trying to unload the Pere Marquette building to jumpstart this new project, but I haven't seen any assessing records to suggest it ever happened.
ADU amendment - yes, it is an owner-occupancy restriction. Either the principal dwelling or ADU has to have the property owner. Planning Commission voted against recommending CM Hussain's amendment 5-2 (one member absent). I think his version will go to the floor no matter what but I think the vote sends a message to the other Council members. I completely agree it is an unnecessary barrier. Staff is against it for the same reasons - it is difficult to track and it involves the City with future land sales. The City would have to investigate and confirm who is living where and then issue correction notices if there are violations. The majority of communities I have researched that start off with the same requirement eventually remove it to encourage construction. The path remains to be seen, but I'm at least encouraged the city will allow ADUs in some form, and the second amendment changes, here soon.
Very glad to hear the planning commission pretty decidedly recommended rejection. Here's to hoping that Kost completely redoes the planning committee so we can get past this, already. It seems only to be popular with Hussain; the community is not asking for a restriction like this.
My philosophy on land-use is that you start out with as much freedom as possible, and then if you see actual problems arise, then you work in regulations. And I think that's where most Americans in urban areas either are or are going, philosophically. The planners have been rejecting strict Euclidian zoning for well over a decade, now. But leadership generally lags public opinion on this; it's good to see them being pushed on this. Homelessness increased 18% last year; clearly, existing systems are not working and we need to get moving and quickly.
Speaking of which, some important land-use reforms died in the legislature in the lame-duck last year due to leadership's poor handling of the process, namely ones that would have reduced parking minimums, and would have allowed duplexes on all singel-family home lots. I would like to see these proposed again just on principle, though, it will be much harder to get through the legislature this session.
Here's to hoping that Kost completely redoes the planning committee so we can get past this, already.
lol, he kept both Hussain and Garza on the planning & development committee, and simply switched Brown out for himself, because of course he'd do that. Anyway, Garza is up for re-election this year.
Looks like Planning & Development Committee meets next week to discuss the amendments to the Form-Based Code (FBC), again. As is typically the case, minutes from the previous December meeting are included, and it gives me an idea of some of the concerns that the previous version of the committee had with both the FBC amendments and the ADU ordinance. At least from the minutes, it appears that it was Councilmember Brown had most of the questions - a lot of questions, in fact. He will not be on the committee this time. It also appears that they held back recommending it for approval because they new the committee would be rearranged for the new year. In any case, some of the questions asked seem to have been good ones, but most of this discussion seems to be them micro-managing too much. I do wish they had more trust in the professionals who work for the city.
Anyway, I do hope next week they get this all worked out. @citykid, given that the composition of the "new" committee is basically the same, except switching out Brown with President Kost, how do you think the ADU ordinance plays out, now? It'd seem pretty clear to me that Kost, by keeping both Hussain and Garza on the committee, at least tacitly seems to agree with Hussain's philosophy on development. The Planning Commission did unanimously rejected recommending approval for Hussain's version of the ADU ordinance, but now with both of the versions in or going to the committee, and Hussain still on the committee, this seems to point to them only discharging Hussain's version, huh?
BTW, where any more changes made to the FBC amendments since the last time they came up, or is this still the exact same version as last time? ADUs have taken up so much discussion, that I've forgotten the details of the main FBC amendment ordinance. Hopefully, they don't table this one, again.
It's funny, because some years back, I remember the legal advice for council committees was that they had to recommend denial or approval, because I think Hussain was regularly trying to kill things in committee. I guess that changed, huh?
Comments
As for Hussain's ADU draft amendment:
I'm not actually sure how to read this, honestly. The "or" is throwing me off. I guess he doesn't want a property where both structures would be leased. Which, IMO...who cares? It's an unnecessary restriction.
My perception of the development concept is that it is just a mini-subdivision akin to East Village further down the street. I know retail/commercial, is what it is these days, but this is such a major intersection of the eastside and if you are planning on 300+ new households, it would be prime for an urban mixed-use neighborhood. I know the three other businesses at Saginaw/Penn do not do it any favors but a different configuration could have spurred some change.
I believe a big hold-up was financing. H Inc. was marketing the Lofts for ~$36m last year and he was trying to unload the Pere Marquette building to jumpstart this new project, but I haven't seen any assessing records to suggest it ever happened.
ADU amendment - yes, it is an owner-occupancy restriction. Either the principal dwelling or ADU has to have the property owner. Planning Commission voted against recommending CM Hussain's amendment 5-2 (one member absent). I think his version will go to the floor no matter what but I think the vote sends a message to the other Council members. I completely agree it is an unnecessary barrier. Staff is against it for the same reasons - it is difficult to track and it involves the City with future land sales. The City would have to investigate and confirm who is living where and then issue correction notices if there are violations. The majority of communities I have researched that start off with the same requirement eventually remove it to encourage construction. The path remains to be seen, but I'm at least encouraged the city will allow ADUs in some form, and the second amendment changes, here soon.
My philosophy on land-use is that you start out with as much freedom as possible, and then if you see actual problems arise, then you work in regulations. And I think that's where most Americans in urban areas either are or are going, philosophically. The planners have been rejecting strict Euclidian zoning for well over a decade, now. But leadership generally lags public opinion on this; it's good to see them being pushed on this. Homelessness increased 18% last year; clearly, existing systems are not working and we need to get moving and quickly.
Speaking of which, some important land-use reforms died in the legislature in the lame-duck last year due to leadership's poor handling of the process, namely ones that would have reduced parking minimums, and would have allowed duplexes on all singel-family home lots. I would like to see these proposed again just on principle, though, it will be much harder to get through the legislature this session.
Good to hear about all the planning goings-on's, at least there's efforts being made to move things in a positive direction.
lol, he kept both Hussain and Garza on the planning & development committee, and simply switched Brown out for himself, because of course he'd do that. Anyway, Garza is up for re-election this year.
Anyway, I do hope next week they get this all worked out. @citykid, given that the composition of the "new" committee is basically the same, except switching out Brown with President Kost, how do you think the ADU ordinance plays out, now? It'd seem pretty clear to me that Kost, by keeping both Hussain and Garza on the committee, at least tacitly seems to agree with Hussain's philosophy on development. The Planning Commission did unanimously rejected recommending approval for Hussain's version of the ADU ordinance, but now with both of the versions in or going to the committee, and Hussain still on the committee, this seems to point to them only discharging Hussain's version, huh?
BTW, where any more changes made to the FBC amendments since the last time they came up, or is this still the exact same version as last time? ADUs have taken up so much discussion, that I've forgotten the details of the main FBC amendment ordinance. Hopefully, they don't table this one, again.
It's funny, because some years back, I remember the legal advice for council committees was that they had to recommend denial or approval, because I think Hussain was regularly trying to kill things in committee. I guess that changed, huh?