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Sorry about the map, yes it is out of date.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?
D&P voted the second set of FBC amendments out to full Council without so much as a comment. Now I really don't understand what all the hemming and hawing the last few months was about. So this should be on the agenda Monday. Due to the required 30-day hold after adoption, you won't see the new version or map up until Feb 26. (I did see comments about the district colors being too similar so those will be altered).
The draft proposal is still online at lansingmi.gov/374/Zoning and no other changes have been made. Staff has not received any recommendations from residents, planning commission, or Council. I think the most important changes are those that would allow cottage courts and housing cooperatives; reducing minimum dwelling width to 20'; removing the minimum lot size for middle housing developments of 2-6 units; and broadening allowable land use language for light industrial/production in commercial areas.
ADUs will be un-tabled February 12. I are not sure how it will play out but it is most likely the Councilmember-amendment for a homeowner occupancy requirement will be forwarded as the correct process for ordinances. I don't think the city will see a huge build up of ADUs no matter the regulations, they are still ~$100,000+ investments, but staff just wants to help with housing choice and reduce the barriers. The next available Council date for passage would be February 24.
Thanks for the update! We probably talked about this months ago, but to refresh us, can you hash out a bit more of some of the changes you mentioned? For instance, what was the minimum dwelling width before and the purpose for the decrease? Also, kind of the same question about the min lot size for middle housing? I guess in that case it was just kind of redundant since the setbacks and height restrictions probably already control for density? And then, what's being allowed in the commercial areas that isn't under the current code? That change is probably the only one I'm ambivalent-to-slightly-negative about, but I get this is just the nature of where commercial space is going, these days.
I was kind of reading up on council procedure, again. Many moons ago I'd watch the meetings on TV and was pretty versed with it then, but not so much anymore. lol Apparently, the council does function like higher legislatures (state and federal) in that ordinances can definitely be sent to committees to die. A committee, in theory could simply keep going over and item again and again, indefinitely holding it forever. The BIG catch is that a ordinance can be forced to be discharged from the committee by a vote of two-thirds of council. That's what I'd like to see ADUs ordinance. I'd like to see them publicly forced to choose between the two versions, particularly since it seems as though it's just a minority of councillers who want the "homeowner occupancy" requirement.
Anyway, glad to hear this is moving quickly, again. I do hope that even when I don't agree with President Kost, that this means that at least we'll get very clear and direct hearings and opinions about the council's attitudes on things, and that things will go more quickly because of that. It does seem that the previous two years that the issue has been that you never really knew whether opposition to something was because the committee didn't understand it or if it was a deep-seated ideological opposition to the ideas. BTW, is Kost chair of D&P now, too?
For those interested I made a reply in the zoning thread so as to not take up space here. I actually hit the character limit so I was being long-winded giving nuance and the reasoning behind changes.
One thing I appreciate about Kost is his willingness to express his viewpoint from the start (for better or for worse) but he will also learn about the issue. You hinted at councilmembers who choose to wait until the full vote to say anything. By then it is impossible to address any concerns. Thankfully I think ADUs will not be destined to legislative purgatory. I don't think the council president can be chair of any committee? but in any case, Garza is once again Chair of D&P this term.
I noticed on the south end of the Neogen expansion, which spans Shiawassee to Michigan, that there appears to be steel rising, again. I'm always shocked to see how massive this thing is, a large manufacturing operation returning to the city that's not tucked away in some suburban industrial park in the city limits. And to boot, one that's not some simple corugated steel pole-barn type operation. lol Infill doesn't - and shouldn't have to - just mean housing and commercial. As long as it's not some heavily-polluting industry, I'm really glad to see a company like Neogen deciding to do this in the city, and not some far-flung site in Delta Township or something. People have the option, for instance, to take public transit to this facility is they don't own or want to drive a car.
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?
The draft proposal is still online at lansingmi.gov/374/Zoning and no other changes have been made. Staff has not received any recommendations from residents, planning commission, or Council. I think the most important changes are those that would allow cottage courts and housing cooperatives; reducing minimum dwelling width to 20'; removing the minimum lot size for middle housing developments of 2-6 units; and broadening allowable land use language for light industrial/production in commercial areas.
ADUs will be un-tabled February 12. I are not sure how it will play out but it is most likely the Councilmember-amendment for a homeowner occupancy requirement will be forwarded as the correct process for ordinances. I don't think the city will see a huge build up of ADUs no matter the regulations, they are still ~$100,000+ investments, but staff just wants to help with housing choice and reduce the barriers. The next available Council date for passage would be February 24.
I was kind of reading up on council procedure, again. Many moons ago I'd watch the meetings on TV and was pretty versed with it then, but not so much anymore. lol Apparently, the council does function like higher legislatures (state and federal) in that ordinances can definitely be sent to committees to die. A committee, in theory could simply keep going over and item again and again, indefinitely holding it forever. The BIG catch is that a ordinance can be forced to be discharged from the committee by a vote of two-thirds of council. That's what I'd like to see ADUs ordinance. I'd like to see them publicly forced to choose between the two versions, particularly since it seems as though it's just a minority of councillers who want the "homeowner occupancy" requirement.
Anyway, glad to hear this is moving quickly, again. I do hope that even when I don't agree with President Kost, that this means that at least we'll get very clear and direct hearings and opinions about the council's attitudes on things, and that things will go more quickly because of that. It does seem that the previous two years that the issue has been that you never really knew whether opposition to something was because the committee didn't understand it or if it was a deep-seated ideological opposition to the ideas. BTW, is Kost chair of D&P now, too?
One thing I appreciate about Kost is his willingness to express his viewpoint from the start (for better or for worse) but he will also learn about the issue. You hinted at councilmembers who choose to wait until the full vote to say anything. By then it is impossible to address any concerns. Thankfully I think ADUs will not be destined to legislative purgatory. I don't think the council president can be chair of any committee? but in any case, Garza is once again Chair of D&P this term.