Golden Avenue Rezoning Debate Tomorrow Night
Tomorrow night Council debates changing the zoning of Golden Avenue to single-family. We thought we’d look through the Planning Commission minutes, which can be found here, to see why this change is bring proposed; much like lower taxes, less development in a neighborhood is something that people rarely call for without having judiciously considered all the implications.
And Golden Avenue residents are nothing if not judicious. Declares one, “the student housing areas were like a war zone with illegal drinking and a wide variety of activities.” A wide variety of activities? We can’t have that on Golden Avenue, where only five activities are on the approved list (a sixth, Parcheesi, will be considered at the next neighborhood association meeting.) Well, at least he didn’t compare student neighborhoods to parking garages!
Another “wondered who would have a greater sense of participation in the community, questioning if it would be a renter, an absentee landlord, or families who lived here, people who walked throughout the neighborhood, people who cared about each other. He thought the Planning Commission should take that into consideration.” Indeed, families do not rent their homes, and single people do not care about their neighbors. Not enough local governments take these facts into consideration when setting public policy.
Finally, “Edward Vielmetti…stated that this neighborhood was characterized by streets that were blocked off in the summer for parties and by people knowing their neighbors…he welcomed the R1D zoning, which was appropriate for the density and character of the neighborhood.” Kind of disappointing.
It’s encouraging that not every non-renter resident of the neighborhood is taking the NIMBY line, though. Says one:
If his property and others in the neighborhood were already zoned R1D, he said, he would not be here. He said he moved into a large three-bedroom apartment house and came to love the diversity and character of the neighborhood, which was why he purchased his home here. He stated that the proposed rezoning would undermine the type of community he would like to see in his neighborhood.
Every member of the Planning Commission except for Ron Emaus voted for the rezoning, so we can’t imagine that it will have a hard time in Council. Almost all of the speakers speaking out against the proposal were landlords; for some reason, no students spoke at the December 18th meeting.
My remarks at the zoning commission hearing were taped. I don’t have a transcription of them. I’ll have to read what people said that I said, and try to make it more clear.
I welcome some understanding of what better zoning for that neighborhood should be. It may be that none of the existing alternatives in the zoning commission’s collection of zones make sense; after all, the neighborhood was mostly full before the latest round of rezoning, and the zones to pick from are mostly aimed at new construction, not existing land use.
Any zoning where everyone has to go before the zoning appeals board to fix up their garage is bad zoning. It means the ZAB is full of extremely routine matters, and it means that garages don’t get turned into workshops. Often, it means that for adequate parking and storage you have to plow down a garage or build a new one.
I’m against any zoning that doesn’t allow for chickens. A chicken in every pot, and eggs sold door to door raised locally. Goats, too. No roosters. There’s an egg shortage at Farmer’s Market. We could use more hoop houses too so that we have winter greens, since Shannon Brines sells out of his winter greens before Saul and I get to market.
Zoning is complicated. I’d love to have a zoning that let duplexes and triplexes abound, but that discouraged 6 unrelated individuals in a single rooming house. I don’t think that any of that is part of the options that are in front of anyone.
posted by Edward Vielmetti on January 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pmThanks for responding, Ed. I was going to raise the possibility that you may have been taken out of context, but didn’t want to sound like “These remarks are SO OUTRAGEOUS that they must have been taken out of context.” I did suspect, though, that you had a more nuanced perspective on it.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pmYeah, I have the nuanced pedestrian new urbanist perspective on it, and I somehow want to be on good terms with my homeowner neighbors, my renter neighbors, the landlords who own and maintain and rent out those rental buildings and the kids who play beer pong on the corner.
I do have some level of concern about landlords that put humongous RENT ME NOW signs plastered on the sides of houses; that smacks of desperation and bad marketing. The relevant parts of the city code are 5:504 and 5:505; some judicious enforcement by the city of existing sign ordinances would damp down some of the worst of it. (Use the money you don’t spend on signs to do search marketing.)
posted by Edward Vielmetti on January 21st, 2008 at 9:57 pm, and then we’ll take it lower…
aaio could have said, but not. Ouch.
–Don’t blame me, blame Eddy Grant, here…
David Boyle
posted by Rock down to, Golden Avenue on January 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 amWhen I see those signs, and the evidence that houses are not rented (including some on Golden) it makes me wonder if the landlords are their own worst enemies in this business right now.
posted by Clem on January 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 amThe Michigan Zoning Enabling Act includes a provision requiring a 2/3 supermajority vote of Council to pass a rezoning if the owners of:
1. at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change; OR
2. at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change
sign and submit a protest petition prior to the final Council vote. Publicly owned land is excluded in calculating the 20% land area requirement.
There is no specific “form” required for this protest petition - each owner who wishes to protest should submit a signed and dated statement indicating that what rezoning they are protesting with a list of the addresses and tax ID#’s for the properties they own in the areas defined above. To ensure that such petitions aren’t “lost” it would be better if someone collected and submitted the petitions at one time (that person could also verify whether they’ve exceeded the 20% requirement.
posted by eTigger on February 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm