Detroit Economic Development Standing Committee Meeting - October 23, 2025
Detroit Economic Development Standing Committee Meeting - October 23, 2025
The Economic Development Standing Committee convened on October 23, 2025, to review and advance several zoning amendments regarding housing production, a Business Improvement Zone petition, and various land bank and contract resolutions. The meeting featured extensive presentations from the City's Office of the Chief Operating Officer, the Department of Housing and Revitalization, and the Department of Neighborhoods detailing efforts to address the housing shortage by increasing density in R2 zones and relaxing parking requirements. Council members engaged in robust debate regarding the impact of these changes on historic districts, parking infrastructure, and the ability to build larger family-sized homes.
Consent Calendar
- No specific consent calendar items were explicitly listed or acted upon as a distinct block; routine resolutions were handled individually throughout the agenda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Gina Cavalier (Chief Community Impact Officer, Downtown Detroit Partnership): stated that while the Business Improvement Zone petition initially faced opposition from some property owners concerned about taxes, current support levels have risen to approximately 55% of property owners (well above the statutory 30% requirement). She noted that while she could not claim 100% support, some initial opponents have become strong supporters after learning about the maintenance benefits of the zone.
- Councilmember Letitia Johnson: expressed strong caution regarding the zoning amendments, particularly concerning stormwater management capacity in District 4 and the lack of specific plans to incentivize larger bedroom units (3-4 bedrooms) over micro-units. She voiced concern that the changes might encourage development on commercial corridors rather than in neighborhood areas with large swaths of vacant land, potentially overburdening existing residents. She explicitly stated she was not ready to move forward with a public hearing without further discussion on these specific impacts.
- Councilmember Fred Durham III: questioned the speed of the process and the lack of developer testimony confirming the ability to build larger, family-sized homes, noting that current data showed a preference for smaller units despite the proposed changes.
Discussion Items
- Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Line Item 6.4): Director Ty Todd, Deputy COO Andy Taverna, Housing Director Julie Schneider, and Deputy Director Josh Robinson presented a comprehensive update on the "Zone Detroit" effort. They advocated for the amendments to avoid a housing shortage and relieve price pressure, citing a need to produce 2,700 to 3,500 new units annually. Key proposals discussed included: expanding R2 zone allowances to include triplexes, quads, and townhouses; allowing up to 12 units (previously 8) subject to public hearing; permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in zones R2 through R6; allowing residential-only buildings on commercial corridors; increasing allowable lot size coverage for new builds; and reducing parking requirements from 1.25 to 0.75 spaces per unit citywide.
- Addressing Unit Size Concerns: In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, Director Schneider clarified that the proposed changes increase the maximum structure coverage from 33% to 47% on single-family lots, theoretically allowing for larger single-family homes (up to 1,400 sq ft) to meet the needs of families. Deputy COO Taverna emphasized that the current zoning code was the primary barrier preventing developers from building three-bedroom units on vacant lots.
- Historic Districts: Councilmember Johnson raised concerns about historic districts. Director Todd and the administration confirmed that the Historic District Commission retains final approval authority for any construction or rehabilitation within historic districts, and that many historic districts (e.g., Arden Park, Brush Park) have zero R2 zoned parcels, limiting the immediate impact on them.
- Business Improvement Zone (Line Item 7.4/7.5): The committee discussed the resubmitted petition for the Downtown Detroit Business Improvement Zone. The administration confirmed the petition now represents nearly 55% of property owners. The committee agreed to send the item to formal with a recommendation to approve, setting a public hearing for November 13th.
Key Outcomes
- Line Item 6.4 (Housing Zoning Amendments): The motion to send the item to formal with a recommendation to set a public hearing passed with one objection (Councilmember Johnson). The committee will schedule the continued hearing before the end of the year to avoid missing sessions.
- Line Item 7.4 & 7.5 (Business Improvement Zone): Approved to send to formal with a recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 7.10 (DLBA Agreement): Approved to send to formal with a recommendation to approve, having amended the resolution to replace "Emily Dewar" with "Joseph Rivette" as the State Land Bank Authority representative.
- Line Items 7.1, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13: Approved to send to formal with a recommendation to approve.
- Line Items 7.6, 7.7: Received and filed.
- Line Item 7.9: Returned in one week for clarification.
- Line Item 7.14: Returned in three weeks to await data on HUD Section 3 compliance.
- Line Item 7.11: Returned in one week.
- Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned after all items were addressed.
Meeting Transcript
Economic Development Standing Committee for today, Thursday, October 23rd, 2025. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Council President Pro Tim James Tate. Councilmember Fred Durha the third. Present. Councilmember Letitia Johnson. Present. Mr. Chair, you have a quorum present. Thank you. We have a quorum present, which means we're not wrong with this thing. We're now in session. Uh colleagues, thank you for your patience and uh your prompt. Return back to the council table here, and we shall now dive back into the agenda. We can please take line items 7.5, excuse me, 7.4 and 7.5. Both are dealing with the business and the requested um business improvement zone that has come before us. So I'll move Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. All right. So colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns. I know I had some concerns before, and I think we still need to hear from the parties who are putting this forward to see what type of participation they have. Um and the reception that they're getting from the community. I believe I see Miss Gene there. Um take that seat right out. Right next to Graham. The one next to Attorney Anderson. All right. Good afternoon. Please introduce yourself for the record. Good afternoon, Gina Cavalier, Chief Community Impact Officer, Downtown Detroit Partnership. All right, thank you for being here. Now we've talked about the the biz, and then we were diving in and we kind of pulled it off to do some more massaging and conversations. Uh so if you can talk to us and tell us where those conversations led. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. We have continued community engagement. This is something that has been ongoing for quite some time. Um made some minor tweaks to the petition based on the feedback that we had received from the council and on behalf of the petitioners, the property owner petitioners, we resubmitted. Um the signatures that were presented to the city clerk represent um more than 45 percent of the property owners. Um since the date of that submittal, we have some additional, so we currently sit at about um close to 55 percent of the property owners represented have executed the petition. The statute requires um 30 percent to initiate the process. So we are um well above that. We believe that we have strong support um from a very diverse representation of the community to make sure that we had um newer property owners, long legacy property owners, large and small, and I think that you'll find that um all of those um individuals and those those types of owners are represented as petitioners as and also on the proposed board of directors. Awesome. Thank you for the work that you've done uh in the meantime. Uh question though, is uh I know there were some of those who were in opposition that were in a more peculiar place than others based on the climate uh uh economic climate that that we're in. Uh what has that looked like in terms of kind of warming them over, if you will. Uh, there were some who were very, very vehemently against this because they believe that we're already you know getting taxed in so many other different ways and got new uh expenses that I didn't have before. Um what what is those conversations?
openpublica.com