Thank you I'll check with the folks you mentioned. I was just hoping that there was at least a good reason to cut down so many nice trees. Maybe a building already standing in a flood plan can be redeveloped if it has not been flooded before.
Looked up the whole floodplain issue of buildings in the floodplain in the zoning ordinances. It appears much like everything else, you can go through the normal special land use permit program, with a few additional steps relating to potential floods, and also the additional step of having to file the project with the state DNR (Department of Natural Resources).
I was kind of surprised it is this easy. Though, the by-right permitted uses are quite small and specific, and the zoning code clearly states its intentions to be to discourage extending, enlarging, expanding or adding new structures in the cities floodplains.
a) Crop farming and gardening, not including related buildings, except as otherwise provided for in this chapter;
(b) Open recreational uses, such as parks, playgrounds, playfields, athletic fields, golf courses, bridle trails and nature paths;
(c) Public right-of-ways, private drives and parking lots;
(d) Public utilities as regulated by this Zoning Code, but not the erection of a building to be used for storage or as a place of employment, other than for periodic maintenance, or as provided for in Section 1288.05(a);
(e) Yard and park areas, when used for computing lot area requirements in residential districts; and
(f) Storage yards for materials and equipment not subject to removal or major damage by flood waters.
So, since most everything would have to go through special land use permitting process, the city council essentially gets to decide what and what doesn't get built in the floodplains. It seems that the only thing that binds the city is that any development built in a floodplain is barred from reducing the flow of impoundment capacity of a floodplain, and since a building does that, it's required that flow and impoundment capacity be increased to at least off-set the reduction of a floodplain. Most important section on granting variances in floodplains in the city:
(3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public expense; create nuisances; cause fraud on or victimization of the public; or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
I vaguely remember them having to do studies and shape the land and such for Marketplace and the City Market, well, at least for the City Market. I also seem to remember them basically doing some tricky legal work that said Marketplace was no longer a floodplain thus reducing restrictions on its construction, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
The LSJ has some renderings out for the proposals for city hall. My question remains why couldn't some of these developers - particularly the local ones - do this on land nearby? The Boji's, for once, own all kinds underutilized properties downtown.
As someone that appreciates the international style and quality of materials of the current City Hall, I've got to say I prefer the Beitler or Karp and Associates options. Hopefully history can actually be respected to some extent for once...
Boji's just looks like some generic, over-sized mass lacking the versatility I'l like to see personally. I wish I could make it to the meeting tonight regarding this.
All of the proposals look bad to me. They all remove the public square (Beitler puts a circle drive in it), and none of them answer the question to why these can't be built elsewhere (I assume the answer is that the city will give more money for this location, which is senseless).
I agree that there seems to be little said about why are we doing this except the Mayor thinks that the current building is a dump. I also agree that there are many other empty spots, right on Michigan Ave across from the Raddison for example, that could be an equally prominent location, instead of a surface parking lot. If I have to choose among these I would pick the Beitler design that at least preserves the building. I really hate the rest of them, especially the Bijo one, just awful! I don't really get the other two, both dark and strange looking. Now are these companies really interested in doing this? If the Mayor gets to choose it won't be the first one, as he has already said many times his opinion of "preservationist".
Don't get me wrong...I'd rather see these built elsewhere. I think the City Hall should remain the City Hall. Unfortunately we've seen how the city just plows through anything historical so I'm somewhat bracing for the worst. I preferred the Beitler also just because of the fact it is the least butchering of the options.
If I were to change a couple things about the Beitler, it's that I would punch out more windows on the west side of the north-south facing tower and I would keep the public plaza but cut out a loading/drop-off lane on Michigan Ave.
Comments
Thank you I'll check with the folks you mentioned. I was just hoping that there was at least a good reason to cut down so many nice trees. Maybe a building already standing in a flood plan can be redeveloped if it has not been flooded before.
Looked up the whole floodplain issue of buildings in the floodplain in the zoning ordinances. It appears much like everything else, you can go through the normal special land use permit program, with a few additional steps relating to potential floods, and also the additional step of having to file the project with the state DNR (Department of Natural Resources).
I was kind of surprised it is this easy. Though, the by-right permitted uses are quite small and specific, and the zoning code clearly states its intentions to be to discourage extending, enlarging, expanding or adding new structures in the cities floodplains.
So, since most everything would have to go through special land use permitting process, the city council essentially gets to decide what and what doesn't get built in the floodplains. It seems that the only thing that binds the city is that any development built in a floodplain is barred from reducing the flow of impoundment capacity of a floodplain, and since a building does that, it's required that flow and impoundment capacity be increased to at least off-set the reduction of a floodplain. Most important section on granting variances in floodplains in the city:
I vaguely remember them having to do studies and shape the land and such for Marketplace and the City Market, well, at least for the City Market. I also seem to remember them basically doing some tricky legal work that said Marketplace was no longer a floodplain thus reducing restrictions on its construction, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
Planning & Neighborhood Development is previewing the Design Lansing Form-Based Code proposal tomorrow in the lobby of City Hall during lunch. In the link is the preview of the proposal.
The LSJ has some renderings out for the proposals for city hall. My question remains why couldn't some of these developers - particularly the local ones - do this on land nearby? The Boji's, for once, own all kinds underutilized properties downtown.
Beitler
Boji Group
Urban Systems
Karp and Associates
As someone that appreciates the international style and quality of materials of the current City Hall, I've got to say I prefer the Beitler or Karp and Associates options. Hopefully history can actually be respected to some extent for once...
Boji's just looks like some generic, over-sized mass lacking the versatility I'l like to see personally. I wish I could make it to the meeting tonight regarding this.
All of the proposals look bad to me. They all remove the public square (Beitler puts a circle drive in it), and none of them answer the question to why these can't be built elsewhere (I assume the answer is that the city will give more money for this location, which is senseless).
I agree that there seems to be little said about why are we doing this except the Mayor thinks that the current building is a dump. I also agree that there are many other empty spots, right on Michigan Ave across from the Raddison for example, that could be an equally prominent location, instead of a surface parking lot. If I have to choose among these I would pick the Beitler design that at least preserves the building. I really hate the rest of them, especially the Bijo one, just awful! I don't really get the other two, both dark and strange looking. Now are these companies really interested in doing this? If the Mayor gets to choose it won't be the first one, as he has already said many times his opinion of "preservationist".
Don't get me wrong...I'd rather see these built elsewhere. I think the City Hall should remain the City Hall. Unfortunately we've seen how the city just plows through anything historical so I'm somewhat bracing for the worst. I preferred the Beitler also just because of the fact it is the least butchering of the options.
If I were to change a couple things about the Beitler, it's that I would punch out more windows on the west side of the north-south facing tower and I would keep the public plaza but cut out a loading/drop-off lane on Michigan Ave.
No one is feeling the skyline-altering Urban plan, hey?