@citykid Thanks for the detailed update there, I see a bunch of positive changes. It doesn't seem as though we've seen much of the results of the switch to a FBC yet, hopefully these changes can remove some the limitations that previously existed. The real test will be looking back 10 or 20 years on, it will be interesting to see play out.
I just realized I said the council vote is February 27, which is a typo. The vote to approve the amendment draft is tonight January 27***
@MichMatters 340 E Edgewood did have an SLU application for self-storage but Council voted against it, in the hopes something more active would come by. I mentioned the packaging/shipping manufacturer as an example of a light-industrial business that wanted to move in but couldn't because of the zoning designation and to illustrate the reasoning behind expanding industrial uses to the proposed MX-C district (combined SC and MX-C).
I agree development has been a little underwhelming with a lot of hurry up and wait. Lansing keeps seeing mostly drive-through businesses. While FBC has halted or changed a few suburban-style proposals, there hasn't been much of the dynamic new urbanism stuff we all want to see, but yeah it is a 10-20-30 years vision.
An incorrect version of the zoning map was originally uploaded so the zoning amendment has been pulled for this cycle. A neighborhood was mistakenly labeled R-3 instead of R-2. This should be reviewed at Planning Commission February 4 and then sent through. A bit of a bureaucratic mistake on my part.
The forces of the universe are conspiraring against you
Who caught this, and which neighborhood was it? Why wouldn't the change just be something administrative that wouldn't have to start the process back over? I wish they wouldn't have caught this and we got an upzoned neighborhood. lol
Yeah the edit required a new public hearing notice and we didn't have enough days left for February so it will be up March 4. I'm pretty annoyed with myself heh.
The neighborhood was Urbandale, south of E Kalamazoo St. When we were condensing the districts I think I mistook a section of R-6a as R-6b. As an urbanist I don't think infilling with some density here is a bad thing but it wouldn't follow what we said we were going to do concerning district merging.
Ah, thanks. With Urbandale, it's actually understandable to leave it as is. I suspect with climate change increasing the chances for flooding, we're going to see that area flood a lot more like it did in 1975. It's why it's been city and landbank policy - or at least had been - to buy out homes particularly south of Kalamazoo.
In fact, the neighborhood was threatened by a flood not all that long ago. I remember, because the city actually ended up buying a moveable flood barrier to deploy when the river east of the US-127 overspilled it banks and was threatending to poor into Urbandale. The irony is that 496 acts as a bowl, too.
Then, again, it'd make sense to upzone the parts not in the flood zone.
I would guess the areas near Michigan Ave to the north would be out of the flood zone, all these years later and the township still poorly maintains this little shanty town in the middle our metropolitan area. Look at the top photo the street looks almost the same today as I did in '75 except for the water. It is nicely paved for five blocks now.
Comments
@MichMatters 340 E Edgewood did have an SLU application for self-storage but Council voted against it, in the hopes something more active would come by. I mentioned the packaging/shipping manufacturer as an example of a light-industrial business that wanted to move in but couldn't because of the zoning designation and to illustrate the reasoning behind expanding industrial uses to the proposed MX-C district (combined SC and MX-C).
I agree development has been a little underwhelming with a lot of hurry up and wait. Lansing keeps seeing mostly drive-through businesses. While FBC has halted or changed a few suburban-style proposals, there hasn't been much of the dynamic new urbanism stuff we all want to see, but yeah it is a 10-20-30 years vision.
Who caught this, and which neighborhood was it? Why wouldn't the change just be something administrative that wouldn't have to start the process back over? I wish they wouldn't have caught this and we got an upzoned neighborhood. lol
The neighborhood was Urbandale, south of E Kalamazoo St. When we were condensing the districts I think I mistook a section of R-6a as R-6b. As an urbanist I don't think infilling with some density here is a bad thing but it wouldn't follow what we said we were going to do concerning district merging.
In fact, the neighborhood was threatened by a flood not all that long ago. I remember, because the city actually ended up buying a moveable flood barrier to deploy when the river east of the US-127 overspilled it banks and was threatending to poor into Urbandale. The irony is that 496 acts as a bowl, too.
Then, again, it'd make sense to upzone the parts not in the flood zone.