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?

Because the only reason I bring it up now is because ultimately it's gonna come our way anyway.

So it's better to know today than to uh get hit with it uh in the thick of things.

Well, ms Mr.

Chair, I wish that I could be for you and represent that we have 100% support of everyone we have talked with.

Um that is is not the case.

I can tell you that in our experience with the downtown business improvement zone, some of the um owners who were initially opposed are now some of our strongest supporters.

Um a lot of the the costs, the work that is funded by a business improvement zone is technically the responsibility of the property owners, things like taking care of keeping the sidewalk clean in front of their property.

Um so in some ways, this is almost like a common area maintenance agreement amongst the property owners that encourages uh a standard of care that is consistent throughout the zone.

Um, and that's something that we've seen um operate very successfully downtown.

Got it.

Okay, so what what what are the what have you been able to flip any of those folks?

You know, ultimately.

And if you haven't, you haven't.

I mean, it it is what it is.

To your point, it's very rare to get 100% of anything, and I know that's sitting in this seat.

Correct.

We we have we have a handful of um vocal property owners who have who have been opposed from the beginning.

Um, my colleague Josh Elling from Jefferson East Inc.

and my colleagues from the Riverfront Conservancy and some of the property owners have have been doing more of that primary outreach.

Um, I've been supporting more in a technician role.

Um so I have not um I I can't represent to you that we have flipped people who stood before you that were opposed, but I can represent that we have um secured additional supporters.

All right, um colleagues questions, comments, concerns regarding line items 7.4 and 7.5.

See none, is there a motion?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move to send we send line items 7.4 and 7.5 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 7.4 and 7.5 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, and uh we will look to have the public hearing uh if approved in informal on November 13th, November 13th.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

All right.

Is there a motion to discuss line item 6.4?

So I'll move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

All right, so we've don't want to belabor this one either.

Um appreciate everyone who came up in part one of PED.

Um, but we had to have a little intermission allow for uh the committee to uh take place neighborhood and community services, and we had to step away from the table as well and grab a bike.

But now we're refreshed and we're back.

So will the parties who are participating in the uh discussion for line item 6.4 please come forward.

And I don't know if there's any up.

I see doc uh director Ty.

I always want to call you Dr.

Todd.

You just look so doctorly.

Director Todd has joined us as well.

And will all those individuals uh you get an opportunity, please introduce yourself for the record.

Director Todd, as they make their way up here, if you can introduce yourself first, please.

Certainly.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tem.

Good afternoon to you, good afternoon to you and the members of the committee.

My apologies for not being in person.

Unfortunately, had an mix-up with a family issue today.

I was trying to get back to the office, but could not make it in time.

Uh with regard to the item that is returning before you again, I will leave uh most of a brief presentation and update to our colleagues from the administration.

But again, returning before you is the requested amendment to the zoning ordinance that was proposed by the office of the COO incorporating any number of changes that uh have come out of the zone Detroit effort as well as additional research done by the administration through uh the mayor's office as well as through the planning and development department of the matter before you uh did uh have two hearings before the planning commission along with two other additional presentations, and the commission did vote in favor of a revised version of that which was initially submitted, and uh we're pleased to have gone through this effort with the administration.

It is still an ambitious one, but we believe that there's merit to the items that are before you.

The only other thing I want to add by way of an additional update at last week's meeting I indicated that the commission wanted uh was concerned about equity expressed uh from members of the public, and one of the requests that they made had to do with the land bank addressing an app uh one of its policies concerning deed restrictions on adjacent lots.

Uh certainly the uh uh the COO and the deputy COO can go in greater detail, but we do understand that at this week's board meeting, then in fact the Detroit Land Bank Board did vote to amend that policy and relieve those restrictions.

Gotcha.

Thank you so much, sir.

Tow yield the floor.

Thank you.

And I think uh I see Mr.

Howell from uh DEGC also joined us online.

If you can introduce yourself for the record, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

My name is David Howe.

I'm the vice president of real estate services for the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.

All right, thank you for being here and give every uh uh our attendees who are at the table.

Uh give them an opportunity to introduce themselves for the record as well, Madam Current.

Good afternoon, Marcus von Kopf, Chief Operating Officer.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Andy Taverna, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, and I'll note that we have Director Dave Bell online as well.

Didn't see him.

Julie Schneider, Director of the Housing and Revitalization Department.

And Josh Roberson, Deputy Director of the Department of Neighborhoods.

Director Bale, are you there?

Because I didn't see you on the screen.

Okay.

When he gets here, if he uh has anything to add, we'll allow him to introduce himself and move forward.

Okay.

So we are here.

I know we had a couple of homework assignments between last week and this week.

And if you can kind of talk to us about where we stand.

I know there were some meetings that were being planned.

Um and there were some other questions, so I'll turn the floor over to you all.

Mr.

Chair, if I could, maybe I'd just make a brief opening comment.

So thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here today.

I would just frame this to say that we're here because we strongly believe these changes are critical to avoid a housing shortage and to relieve upward pressure on housing prices here in Detroit.

With the city growing again, which is terrific, and having used up uh homes that could be rehabbed from land bank stock, we simply have to build.

These changes are meant to empower small local developers and residents to drive that new construction in their neighborhoods.

We've been engaging the public since mid-July, having held 20 community meetings, roughly 70% of residents at those meetings and at our CPC hearings support this proposal.

And where there are concerns, we've always been willing to sit down with residents, provide the facts, discuss and listen to them, and we'll continue to do so.

Um and for some individuals, we know that this change brings uncertainty, and I we understand that.

But it's my sincere hope that over time, as they welcome new neighbors and the prosperity that this could bring to their communities, that they too will be glad that we took this important step forward.

So with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues for uh a brief presentation.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Um through the chair and to this honorable body.

I want to start by just offering some context as to the why and the importance of these changes in relationship to housing.

So as the housing director, one of my responsibilities is to make sure that housing is being produced and new units are being created with within the city of Detroit.

Since uh 20 in the last 10 years, when we're talking about new housing construction, we're we've seen about 10,000 new units of market rate housing and another 10, another 3,000 units of affordable housing.

When we look at what is currently in the pipeline, we see 1,800 units of affordable housing currently under construction and about 1,200 of new market rate housing currently in construction.

When it comes to housing production in the city of Detroit, one of the things that we've seen that's been unique in the city of Detroit that other places haven't really had the opportunity to benefit from other large cities, that is, is land bank homes, formerly vacant homes coming back online.

If we look at the total units coming back online within the last 10 years, more than half of them have come from vacant land bank inventory.

When you add on what's under construction and even more than uh about 60 percent of the new units that will come online or have come online in the last 10 years are from that vacant land bank inventory.

So that's been uh real positive for us to be able to offer um new and many opportunities for people who are looking to both um build their own housing or or rehab housing and live in new units.

When we look at what's going forward, the resources are changing.

The research are changing for a couple of reasons.

So one of the things that we've had in the last five years is about 200 million dollars of funding that's become available through um various uh or 100 million dollars coming through various stimulus programs.

That's been 70 million dollars from from American Rescue Plact Plan Act funding that has gone into affordable housing.

Um we've also had an additional 20 million we put into down payment assistance.

Uh we've had funding for supportive housing specifically.

Um we've had 16 million of that, and we had additional CDBG dollars.

But those j dollars are all sunsetting.

Those programs are ending, and those grants are sunsetting.

When you look at the land bank inventory, the land bank estimates that there are only 1,400 units of affordable of vacant land bank stack going forward.

So for us to think about how do we continue to produce housing at the rate that we have been, we must utilize perhaps our our most valuable asset, which is the 143,000 vacant parcels of privately or publicly owned land within the city of Detroit.

Next next slide, please.

And how does that look going forward?

Well, in the last 15 years, nine out of ten units that have been permitted within the city of Detroit have been single family or larger multifamily.

But really, most of them have been larger multifamily.

Only 500 and some odd new single family homes have been constructed in the city of Detroit in the last 15 years, and 12,000 new units of multifamily housing have been produced.

Well, why is that?

Well, part of the reasons are cost, part of the reasons are what funding has been available and match much of the federal funding for development.

Um really goes to multifamily housing.

Um but also we have some structural constraints within our market that and within the city that do impact how we're able to construct housing.

Next slide, please.

If you just look at two unit, a two-unit duplex, you know, it could be two doors side by side, it could be uh one stacked on top of the other.

If you look at a duplex, um we haven't seen a whole lot of this housing produced in the city of Detroit.

And when you look at the zoning code, you start to see some of the potential things that are inhibiting that that production.

Only 5% of vacant lots today would meet with requirements to build a new duplex.

Only 3% of vacant lots would meet the width requirement to build uh a four-plex.

Um vacant lots would meet um the the square footage requirement and nineteen percent on on the um uh width for for the duplex as well.

The updates that we're proposing today would help to really unlock a lot of this potential land.

Um the updates that we're proposing today, if adopted, 95% of of lots, vacant lots within the city of Detroit would meet the width requirements to build a duplex and an R2 that is.

Um, and 90% would meet the with the requirements in an R2 to build a duplex.

Mind you, in an R2 or in the R2 zoning code today, a four-unit building is allowed, but only three percent of lots would be able to um go through and be able to build by right with the current zoning code.

So I think that there's a major opportunity for us to make some um very important changes that could help us to um accelerate building within the city of Detroit on the 143,000 vacant lots we have.

And so I'll turn it over to Josh who's gonna go through the details on the changes that we're presenting to you today.

Good afternoon.

Um just wanted to, again, my name is Josh Robinson, deputy director of the Department of Neighborhoods.

I wanted to briefly, for the benefit of brevity, take you all through what your constituents have heard me say uh over these last four months as we've presented to in multiple meetings across the districts.

Next slide.

So in these meetings, I I always try to level set and uh instruct our residents on how I would like for them to look uh at the individual proposals that were put in front of them.

Uh the first thing I I ask residents to do is to think about what they need in their particular neighborhoods and not only just their neighborhood, but also the other 200-plus neighborhoods that exist in the city of Detroit.

What housing needs do these individual neighborhoods have or need.

Um also the second thing I also instruct them to do is to think about all the different living situations and circumstances that Detroit's have, and also people who will be moving to Detroit, what kind of living situations or circumstances might they have and what they need, uh whether it's a single mother or single father with children, or a married couple with no children, or maybe it is a returning citizen trying to restart their life, or a college student just starting off uh in adulthood.

We try to have them think about what Detroit's need overall.

The third thing we do is we talk to them about this not being the end all be all, it's not the silver bullet, it's not going to solve all issues, and we let them know that these proposals are restorative in nature.

A lot of these things already exist, and we'll talk about that later on in the presentation.

And finally, we talk to them about thinking about their own individual lives.

How have their individual living circumstances changed over the years?

You start off as a college student, maybe, or a young adult, have your own apartment studio or one bedroom, you go become the married, have children, uh possibly become grandparents, or maybe you're in that sandwich generation taking care of elderly uh parents and children as well.

So we talk to them about the lens that we want them to look at this information through.

Next slide.

So the purpose uh we're that we're proposing these zoning updates for is to increase housing and reduce pricing pressure and to level the playing field as it pertains to local small developers as well as our residents.

Next slide.

So briefly, these are the six proposals in layman's terms for uh the benefit of those who are listening.

The first proposal is to expand the types of housing that can be built in zone R2.

Currently, right now, you are allowed to build single family and duplexes, but we want to expand that to triplexes, quads, and townhouses.

The second proposal is to allow more units to be approved in R2 only after a public hearing.

The third proposal is to allow accessory dwelling units in zones R2 through R6.

The fourth proposal is to allow apartment buildings, residential only on commercial corridors.

The fifth proposal is to make it easier to rebuild houses on vacant lots as it pertains to length and width.

And the final six proposals to offer more flexibility on the size of parking lots as it pertains to residential, multifamily, and businesses.

Next slide.

So this map, we showed this to all of your constituents concerning uh R2 zone parcels.

This is a map of all the R2 parcels in the city of Detroit.

As you all can see, there's a heavy concentration on uh in districts three, four, five, and six.

Uh you will see some slight saturation in the southeast side of district two, the eastern side of district seven, and uh some in the middle of district one, but the bulk of R2 parcels is in districts three through six.

Um half of the R2 parcels are vacant, and as a consequence, over 10% of all city parcels in the city of Detroit are vacant and zoned R2.

So we explain to the constituents and the residents that one in every 10 parcels in the city of Detroit is zoned R2 and vacant.

And so we want to stress also that housing updates designed, these housing updates are designed to have little to no impact in zones R1, which are single family districts, which we primarily see on the west side of Detroit in districts one, two, and seven.

Next slide.

So these are the types of blocks very quickly what we want to uh affect and and positively we want to bring info housing to neighborhoods like Jefferson Chalmers, McDougall Hunt in District 5 and District 4, uh Campo Banglotown in District 3, or Chatsey Condon in District 6.

And so for some specific specificity, we want to talk about our first proposal.

So the first thing we explain to our residents is that again in zone R2, you can only build right now single family homes and duplexes, and our proposal, because there is an 1,100 unit at minimum, 1,100 unit gap as it pertains to uh the amount of housing that we need going forward based off of our growth over the next last two years.

So we need approximately 2,700 to 3,500 new units, and according to the housing and revitalization department statistics, we are producing 1,600 units per year.

So again, the difference is 1,100 units to 1,900 units we need to bring online every year in order to keep up with our current growth and projected growth as well.

And also just to mention as well, we have a 936-page zoning code, and it is extremely laborious to try to go through these uh city processes for small-time developers and our residents.

Big developers have the resources, they have the architects and the lawyers to be able to navigate our process.

And so we want to, these proposals that we are bringing are uh designed to make it easier for the everyday resident and the small local developer who are working in the neighborhoods.

Second proposal.

We want to allow currently you there are only eight units allowed in our two zones.

Um you still have to go through a public hearing, neighbors still have to weigh in.

We don't want to touch that process.

We want to keep neighbors uh able to weigh in as pertains to multi-units uh in their neighborhoods, but we want to again we have an 1,100 to 1900 gap that we're trying to fill, so we want to increase it from up to eight units to up to 12 units.

And again, these proposals are restorative in nature.

These types of apartment builders already exist in the city of Detroit.

You have examples like this eight unit in Spring Wells, this 12 unit in Central Southwest in District 6, and this 11 unit in Virginia Park as well.

I want to also highlight that unfortunately, if these houses were to burn down, and the owner had homeowners insurance and wanted to build these individual houses, they would not be able to by right.

They would have to, and particularly the 12-unit and the 11-unit you you see here, they absolutely could not build the amount of units if those houses or those units were to burn down because of our current zoning code.

And if a person had a single family house, a duplex, a triplex, or a quad, they could not build it back to the width.

We'll talk about that later.

And they could not build the three-unit or the four unit because it is out of code.

Next slide.

The third proposal are accessory dwelling units, or which are independent dwellings that are in the backyard.

They're usually detached from the main house.

For example, a carriage house.

Currently, they are barred in zone R2.

And zones R3 through R6 require a special city approval, which for the benefit of our listeners is referred to as a variance.

So our proposal is to allow accessory dwelling units for zones R2 through R6.

And our rationale around that is that we want to offer diverse again housing options like in-law suites and for family members and lower cost options.

We explain to your residents, our residents, that maybe they want to have extra income.

They want to build an accessory dwelling unit for extra income to bring it to their house, or maybe they have a newborn baby and they want their in-laws to stay nearby.

There are different living situations that Detroiters have, and we want to be able to offer the type of housing that they need.

Next slide.

These buildings already exist.

There are approximately 500 plus buildings that exist in zones B2 and B4.

For example, on the east side of District 5, McDougall Hunt, or on the west side of District 5 and LaSalle Gardens, these are residential only apartments that exist on major corridors.

Right now, you can only build on major corridors mixed use.

So businesses have to be at the bottom and residential have to be at the top.

And so our rationale is to give residents different housing options, more housing options on major bus lines as well as the corridors, and to also stimulate businesses, small businesses where that grocery store or that coffee shop or that barbershop can have more customers on those major corridors.

Next slide.

Finally, the I mean, sorry, not finally, but the fifth uh proposal is about sizing.

And so this could be somewhat complicated for the average Detroiter, it was definitely complicated for me, but in layman's terms, what I attempted to do was explain this.

That currently in the United States, the average house is 26 to 28 feet wide.

Because of our zoning code in the city of Detroit, a individual, a developer can only build up to 19.5 feet wide house.

And so what I explained to the residents is that if you want more square footage, we want to allow more flexibility in the size of house that you can build.

If, for example, you can see right here on the right-hand side, these houses are located in the East Village neighborhood.

They're going for about 300 to 400,000, but they are smaller.

They were built smaller than the houses that currently exist in East Village because of our current zoning code.

So people are kind of getting less bang for their buck.

They're spending more money, but they're not getting as much as much of a house because of our current antiquated zoning code.

Next slide.

That's approximately 62 and a half spots for a 50-unit senior facility.

The statistics say that one in three Detroiters, whether it be for financial reasons or by choice, do not have a vehicle.

And as we know, some senior citizens do not currently drive.75, take half of a parking spot, reduce it by half of a parking spot so that that 50 unit can now have 37 and a half units, 38 units of parking.

Because we know it could be 10 to 15 senior citizens that don't necessarily drive and don't need the parking spaces, and we want to be able to leave more land for actual building, the building of those residential buildings.

So I wanted to show you a brief map.

Again, we show this to your residents so that they can have a full understanding of what we are uh referring to.

Currently, if you see these purple lines, this is where.75 requirement already exists.

The major corridors.

As you can see, the spokes, Woodward, Grand River, Michigan Avenue, Grasshet, Jefferson, some of the mile roads, some of these major corridors already have the point seven five parking requirement.

What we're proposing is instead of having the 1.25 in the blank areas, make it citywide for 0.75 parking requirement, which will re alleviate the cost from developers and encourage more stimulation as it pertains to building these buildings.

It costs about $8,000 per parking spot to produce parking.

And so we want to reduce that and uh hopefully stimulate these major corridors and cause uh multifamily units to come online as well.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

What remains yours?

So talk to us a bit about you know what happened since yeah, no worries.

Absolutely.

My apologies.

So uh since we last uh spoke last Thursday, uh we we listened very intently about uh what you all wanted to see.

And so uh as it pertains to the number of meetings we've had, we had approximately twenty-three meetings to date.

Um well actually I'm sorry, at by the end of this week it'll be 23 meetings.

Uh you have one this evening.

Yes, sir.

So with uh EL7A and O'Hare Park, we're meeting today at 6 p.m.

at uh uh historic St.

J's Missionary Baptist Church, and Miss Gail Tubbs was um uh so gracious to invite us and let us come on her meeting and to present what you saw today.

Um tomorrow, councilwoman uh Mary Waters, I'll be speaking at her homelessness uh fair that she's having um and uh in the morning.

And then again, we have another seven meetings scheduled uh for the remainder of the month, and and councilwoman Johnson was so gracious to invite me again to her meeting next month as well.

Um I think it's the third Monday of the month, if I'm correct, and then of course we did her meeting uh this past Monday as well.

Um also a couple more items as far as wide reaching, wanting to reach more residents.

We've created a website landing page for residents, number one.

Number two, I myself have has the have done a YouTube video.

Um I recorded on Zoom and we are media services team, special thanks to them.

They created it and put it on the city's YouTube uh site.

Uh we also are airing my presentation on channel 21 with closed captioning for those who uh are deaf and can may not be able to hear, they can read the closed captioning.

We've sent it out to over 600 block clubs and neighborhood associations via email so they have access to the slides per district, so it's district specific slides, as well as the presentation on YouTube, and finally we've sent it out via gov delivery to thousands of residents so that they can have access to the landing page, the YouTube video, as well as the presentations tangibly.

For those who may not uh have received that information, do you have it available that you can say over the the air right now?

Yes, uh let me see.

What is the you can go to the City of Detroit website, Detroit Mi.gov.

You can type in um uh zoning proposal, it should be the first or second thing that comes up.

Um, and you'll see the landing page where it'll have the YouTube video embedded.

It also has seven different slide decks for each individual district.

So if you are in district six or seven, um you can click on the district and you will see what it how it pertains to you and what individual neighborhoods are maybe saturated with our two uh zone parcels.

Uh and I know that there was some conversation from folks who live in historic districts and they were not as pleased.

Yes, sir.

Uh, what's that conversation been like?

Uh Abby trying to go, you know, have that discussion with them again as a collective, or are you looking at just the individual uh uh historic districts that would be applicable?

Yes, our goal is to uh reschedule to schedule another meeting with them.

We've had two meetings with the Historic District Alliance.

I want to put on record um that uh historic districts and neighborhoods, Arden Park, Brush Park, Boston Edison, Indian Village, Joseph Berry Sub, Palmer Woods, and North Rosedale Parks have zero percent R2.

North Rosedale Park is not a historic district.

Right.

Rosedale is Rosedale, right?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

So uh D1 in the building, absolutely.

So I just want to highlight that.

But we have had constant communication.

I've talked to individual presidents.

We have a slide deck that is specifically for them.

So we will be presenting to them once we get uh coordination of schedule as it pertains to the meetings going forward.

So you say you have talked to them before, you're just gonna doing it another conversation.

What what what level of support have you gotten from those uh individual associations?

So uh I haven't heard of this point.

So in full transparency, they understand the statistics that we break down to them.

Uh I believe that they are in um in support because of uh the Corktown.

And so this there's one alliance, I think they are all supporting each other for the sake of Corktown, because um for them Corktown may have uh some more, and then also they have uh the parking is a um the parking proposal is a source of contention for them as well.

So you you will be seeking that support from them though, right?

Not just uh talking to them because I mean we've gotten a number of folks who've come down here, we've got folks who called in, but none of them fit in that criteria.

So I would love to hear from some of those uh historic districts.

Absolutely.

Of course, making sure that they are um okay.

But it doesn't appear even that Rosedale would even be applicable in this in this situation.

I think uh director, you have something to say.

Um through the chair.

I just want you were mentioning how could people find this quickly if they search if they go to Detroit MI.gov and search for build more housing in the search that then this ordinance will be the first one that that comes up.

Gotcha.

And I know we talked a little bit during the uh formal session, we kind of brief discussion about it.

We've kind of talked about it here as well.

The the ADU piece that kind of scares some folks.

So if you can in in even more clear terms, right?

What if there was someone who wanted to to uh construct an ADU at their property?

What could it look like?

What type of uh feedback is being uh contemplated by their neighbors?

Um let's walk there because I know you indicated that that is an opportunity for extra income.

Yes.

And it always scares folks because you know everybody doesn't treat their properties the same way that you would necessarily, and it may be a situation as uh my colleague member Benson meant mentioned uh Airbnbs or you know that type of situation, but that is not what this is contemplating, if I'm not mistaken, right?

So giving you an opportunity to kind of really expound upon that because this is these are the areas that I keep hearing in the community.

Yeah, I want a tag team uh with deputy co uh Andy Taverna.

But I'll I'll start off by saying this.

One thing I do want to mention is that for your historic districts, again, the historic district commission has the final say so as it pertains to construction and things happening in those historic districts, not to mention that's in addition to the fact that most historic districts are primarily R1 zoned.

So I want to put that out there as well.

So you're saying even if this is approved?

Yes, sir.

What's the role of that historic district?

Historic district still has the final say so on as it pertains to construction, rehab, and anything being built from the ground up in historic districts.

Okay.

Um to answer your question as far as accessory dwelling units, uh, in our community engagement, uh, we we've actually had a lot of positive feedback about this.

Um people are looking to have uh income or help family members out.

We've heard people say, hey, I really want to build on my parcels, or I want to have the opportunity to combine the lot that next that's next to me into one parcel and build an accessory dwelling unit.

Um some people have even mentioned their college students that they didn't they may not necessarily afford uh the housing that the university offers, so they want to have their college student be able to stay in the house, still have their independence, uh, but be able to go on back and forth to school as well.

So we've heard that.

Um real feedback from from my side, my observation as it pertains to uh you know, worrying about Airbnbs.

I know that that's a source of contention.

Um, but I I personally and throughout these 23 meetings have not heard that comment.

But I'll tag in uh and Ms.

Andy Taverna.

Thanks so much, Josh.

So just to um reiterate a few of the technical details of the ADU proposal, we would only be looking at districts R2 through R6, so ADUs would remain barred in R1.

And our goal, you know, an ADU is a carriage house.

It's pretty synonymous with that.

So we looked at what are the types of dimensions that typically apply in a carriage house or in a garage that someone's built a dwelling on the second floor of.

So we proposed essentially the same setback requirements that apply to garages.

We proposed a size limit on an ADU to make sure that it's in proportion to the house, so it would be limited to 1,200 square feet or 60% the size of the main house, whichever is less, and then it would also be capped at 25 feet high, which is about two stories.

And then the other question I have is I mean one of the challenges I have, and not just with this, just in general, we are still not in my opinion addressing the major concern of larger units, right?

And as we talk about the ability for us to build more units, my fear is that we're gonna have just more one bedroom, you know, uh single.

I mean, none of what really fits the the demographic of the folks who are truly in need of housing in the city of Detroit.

We see a lot of them end up going, uh Julie and I we talk about I mean my staff, uh me and your staff, we talk often about how when we have individuals who are looking or seeking housing, they're going to warn, they're going to all these other places because they just don't have the housing stock that will provide for uh their family makeup.

I mean, we were just talking the other day when we had some zoning when we had some uh zoning amendments uh earlier that came before us, I think was the R1, R2, and we increased the definite we changed the definition of family, right?

From two individuals to four, right?

So all trying to figure out how do we how do we start to to chip away at the even bigger issue of not just more units but units that actually fit the demographic of the city of Detroit, not just new folks, not just parents looking to get the kid out of the out of the house, but we got families that are in need of housing right now and they just don't have it.

And I'm not hearing those solutions, I'm just hearing we need more housing.

I know that that certainly helps the more units we have online helps, period.

Period.

But how what are we doing to address that major major concern in our city?

To the chair.

So you know, you're right that a lot of the multifamily that's been built in the last 10 years, a lot of it has been one bedroom, not exclusively, but um uh there's been a large percentage of one bedroom.

In fact, if you look at the num the household size in the city, that was primarily as a drive the driver of that is who's been looking for those units.

That's not doesn't mean there's not a lot of people looking for larger bedroom housing in the city of Detroit, and that we need to facilitate construction of those units.

Um I know from our work that we do in Detroit Housing Services, where we're helping to helping households, often often larger families, find housing.

Um the their preference tends to be, because we we as a part of that process, we work with households to identify what their preference is in terms of housing so that we can try to meet those needs, is a a lot of more less dense um, less dense housing, and in in neighborhoods where there might be some sort of yard um or um access to a a nearby park.

When I think about the the competitiveness of like a a builder who's thinking about building a duplex, building a quad a quadplex, um those tend to be two-bedroom, they tend to be three-bedroom because they're reflecting the character of what's existing within the neighborhood.

So, and you're also changing the the cost proposition to that I that does lessen the cost cost per unit when you're able to build at at this more smaller neighborhood scale than current than our current zoning code allows you to do.

So the funding for multifamily is often federal funding, and with that federal funding, there are income restrictions and rent restrictions.

Those rent restrictions on those larger bedroom units tend to be higher.

They tend to be higher than what is being offered in a neighborhood for a comparable three-bedroom, three-bedroom unit.

And so people are tending to choose those three bedroom units that are in a in a house within within a neighborhood.

But we haven't seen those being built.

And so we we absolutely have to stimulate production of that housing of those duplexes.

We also have to of single family homes as well, but of smaller scale housing units, so which is more at scale with the neighborhood, and I I think this proposal is responsive to that.

neighborhood for a comparable three bedroom three bedroom unit and so people are tending to choose those three bedroom units that are in a in a house within within a neighborhood but we haven't seen those being built and so um we we absolutely have to stimulate production of that housing of those duplexes you but we also have to of single family homes as well but of smaller scale housing units so which is more at scale with the neighborhood and I I think this proposal is responsive to that you know we're also working through um with the the pro housing grant that that we receive creating pre-approved designs trying to identify what site work we can do to help um reduce the pre-development cost of units and also help to to stimulate production but if the zoning code doesn't allow you to build a a duplex or uh a triplex by a right and I'm somebody who I'm a developer and I only have the capacity to do three buildings at a time or whatnot the complexity of our zoning code I mean is is prohibitive and I think that we've seen that in in just the lack of production of anything that's not a multifamily building really in the city of Detroit in the last 15 years.

So I get it but but again why would a developer do that why would they develop a three bedroom when we're now laying out a platter that makes it easier to do one maybe two bedroom why would why would they now because I don't I don't know how do we have that do we have developers because it sounds like you have a lot of data you've talked to a lot of folks do you have developers saying listen I want to create I want to develop three bedrooms and because of the zoning I can't I haven't heard that from the folks that I've talked to and the projects that have come our way haven't heard it.

So again I'm w we're creating a situation where we're creating more units and again that's never a bad thing period again but how are we looking to stimulate the actual types of of units that we need for families truly in need in the city of Detroit and we I I talked to your folks again we end up shipping them out in different locations because we don't have that stock here in the city of Detroit.

A lot of the those properties they unfortunately were vacant abandoned torched um and we ended up having to demolish them for many of them thousands across the board.

So how are we trying to what are we doing to address that issue?

We're addressing all these other things what are we as a as as a department all of these brilliant minds what are we doing to address that concern and maybe I'm the only one who who thinks that's an issue but I'm just telling what I get and from the people who I've talked to in the district outside of the district and just numbers that I read as well.

So so to the chair um to tell you I'll give you an example uh CEO Stephanie Ostler at Habitat for humanity Detroit uh articulated to us that because of our current zoning code she had to put two 30 foot parcels together to build one house and she can only offer uh certain types of housing and bedrooms because of the the parameters that our zoning call offers she stated to me that she wants to build bigger houses for her residents the people that come through our program but because of our current zoning code she can only do two bedrooms and maybe an attached garage or something like that as it pertains or maybe she has to shift uh it's a rehabs because she can't do uh ground up as as much as she the habitat used to um and so they're attempting to move to the west side they're in Morningside of course in District 4 but we again she had to take two 30 foot parcels where two houses used to be and combine them for one house as she a developer like herself wants to offer more bedrooms as you uh articulated before but but that's their that's their model right let's look at all the rest of the developers I get that one and I appreciate that one and I've worked with them in the past as well Habitat does a great job but by and large I I don't hear that from other developers.

Through the chair or to the chair I think that so your original question was how does the zoning code help to address larger bedroom sizes right and so um I want to we've talked about rental housing a little kind of in some ways but I also want to make sure that we're um being clear that this also helps to create some new homeownership units and so in the single family on a single family lot with the current restrictions on the the coverage ratio at at about 33% the maximum structure maximum single family structure footprint that you could build with the current under the current zoning code is 975 square feet.

Under the proposed changes you would be able to cover up to 47% of of that lot which increases the potential square footage that you can cover to 1400.

So the changes that are in this do actually like actually create the ability to create larger units that that reflect what is what is existing within the neighborhoods today.

So if you want to build a three-bedroom, if you want to build a four hundred four-bedroom, the the restrictions on the percentage of coverage that you can currently have are actually limiting the square footage of the home that you can build.

And then we want to see the some of the what we intend and hope to be built be available for for homeownership and new homeowners as well.

So I'm and I'll just release the floor.

So we're anticipating once this is approved, we'll see developers now either new build or rehabbing three bedrooms.

And I'm not saying it that's all we're gonna see, but we're gonna see we anticipate that they're gonna we're gonna see more.

Not just with habitat, right?

But but we're gonna that that's now on record that we're we're we're anticipating that.

Because again, my concern is we're building more units, but we're not building more units that fit the demographic of folks who are truly direly in need of housing.

What I would say, sir, is that this removes a constraint that right now prevents that housing from being built?

It is a necessary step to allow that housing to be built, but there are other factors that go into a development decision, of course, economics, um many other many other factors.

So right now, those units cannot be built because of the laws that we have on the books.

If we change the laws, it creates the opportunity for those units to be built.

And we do know from developers who are building single family in the city right now that they would love to build something existing neighborhood, but right now, as Julie said, you can only build a very small single-family home on the vast majority of Detroit's uh vacant land.

Okay, thank you.

Member Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and uh good afternoon to you all.

Good job on the presentation.

Um as you know, Mr.

Chair is sponsoring this ordinance, and and that is one of the reasons why to answer your question.

Uh how do we get developers to start thinking when they are looking at land, the type of units that they will develop?

Well, we do have to first knock down the barrier that exists.

Right now it's not on some of their minds because it's not even possible.

Um and when you talk about how we are going to have the opportunity in the next uh few years uh with even some tools that this council has passed, I believe changing this ordinance helps us connect greater to those tools.

So smaller developers who want to come in our neighborhoods, not just on the commercial corridors adjacent, but in our neighborhoods proper, have those tools to be able to build the type of housing that they that they seek to do.

Um and many of them will tell you, uh, and we heard from a few callers today that called in from Reed, you know, um smaller minority developers, uh, that again a lot of those tools simply are not uh available.

But there is an appetite, I believe, now to build in the neighborhoods, but not just for smaller developers, you know, even as I have engaged and talked to residents, some folks who got excited because we created a side lot program, and they had to pay a hundred dollars for the side lot and now they're paying taxes on that land, and they may have garnered more income, or they may be thinking about selling it to someone, and that side lot is attached.

The question becomes to them, how could I build a house if I wanted to?

Uh and I think this helps with that.

Uh this helps create a path where it is at least more feasible than it ever has been.

Um as we looked initially and had the discussion as we were talking to the administration about uh this ordinance, one of the things coming from a historical neighborhood, by the way, Russell Woods, uh born and raised there, grew up there.

The question became what is the integrity of the neighborhood gonna look like as this changes.

Uh diversity is important, but you don't necessarily want to destroy the integrity.

But it was important to note that a lot of those houses, even in the same vein of your question, when they were built back in the days, they were built four or five, six bedrooms at a time.

Uh is simply uh folks don't build houses like that nowadays because it's not cost efficient.

But I think we can get back there with that opportunity of this tool and folks who want to keep the integrity of that neighborhood up.

I think they'll they'll be able to do that.

Um but but simply, you know, I'm supportive of this, and I'll just tell you as we look uh, and not just say I roam through D4 all the time, but I had opportunity to roll to roll through uh my colleagues amazing district.

Uh you see the need, right, and some of these blocks that that exists, and you ask yourself, how are we gonna start rebuilding, right?

We we talked about solar panels, we talked about all of these other things, but what about housing?

Uh I believe this is gonna open a door for that.

And I believe it's gonna open a door for our commercial corridors to thrive uh as you look at other cities that are uh close to the size that we are uh or or a little bit bigger.

Uh they are doing this in other cities already, uh allowing for some of these uses uh on their commercial corridors uh to ensure that they stay vibrant, and then in their neighborhoods allowing for those tools to ensure that their neighborhoods stay populated or repopulate their neighborhoods uh in some of those areas.

And so uh I do think it's the first step.

I don't think it's uh uh the problem solver though, Mr.

President, and and I'm always honest with you as a colleague uh and a brother, uh, but I do think you gotta start somewhere.

Uh and I think as we are re-envisioning what housing and development is gonna look like here in the city of Detroit, is this is a crucial step.

Um we we've we can't do things like we did, you know, of the old uh particularly as we're looking at zoning, as we're looking uh at parking.

The reality is uh even some of our smaller developers, when you talk to them, one of the first things that they mention is hard to develop because of access to capital.

Now, as a council, we can't solve the redlining issue that exists.

But what tools can we put forward to make it easier for smaller and minority developers to have the ability to to build up uh and get in the game, as they would say uh on the ground level.

And again, most of them aren't interested in our neighborhoods, they're interested in those commercial corridors adjacent.

Uh, but they don't want to start up a building if you're required to have a certain amount of parking spaces, and you may know the owner next door who wants to share the lot the parking lot with you, but they're just not allowed to to be able to do these things.

And so uh it creates versatility and which is which is not a bad thing.

And so, you know, I will hope my colleagues support this.

Again, I think it's uh a step in the right direction.

It doesn't solve all of our housing issues or issues on our commercial corridors, but I think this is going to be that catalyst as we look at years to come.

Uh I won't be on this council.

I know uh my two amazing colleagues will be.

Um, and as you guys are making decisions on other tools that are probably gonna come in front of this council, I think uh we'll you'd have the ability to look back and say this was a great step in order to be able to do that.

Thank you, Matt uh, Mr.

President.

Thank you, sir.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good afternoon.

Um, so can we just first talk about something that has been discussed between my colleagues as it relates to developers being prevented from building?

There's nothing that prevents them from building a two-story house on a single family lot currently.

Is there so if the square footage, if the ground floor um can only be 900 some odd square feet, can they not build a colonial or something that gives them twice the square footage that could potentially be a two-bedroom or three bedroom house so there is nothing that would stop you from building a second floor?

The height limit in most residential districts is 35 feet, which is two to three stories tall.

Um I look at this issue just modestly differently than Director Schneider does, which is that the width of the lot tends to be what's most constraining on what you can build.

Most Detroit lots, uh plurality of them are 30 feet wide under the current zoning code, the maximum width you can build is 19 and a half feet, which is quite narrow for a single family home.

So, yes, ma'am, you absolutely can build a narrow two-story single family home.

That's actually what's going up in in the East Village.

You know, we spend a lot of time with those projects.

The challenge that we're here to solve is one that doesn't fit with the neighborhood surrounding it.

That the four squares in that neighborhood are much larger.

Two um to allow those to be more family-sized um houses that are more again in line with the neighborhood, just a slightly larger home for a family to be able to live in.

And then three is that you can only put a single family home on those lots, despite the fact that in my neighborhood, there are a lot of duplexes on lots of very similar size.

So even though nominally in an R2 district, you can build a duplex.

Um the vast, vast majority of lots are of a size that you can actually only have a single family home on it.

So we're we're quite limiting what types of housing can be built.

And and we could essentially address that and how it's being addressed within these proposed amendments is to reduce the setback that is um allowed on a single-family lot.

Actually, the big we're doing two things.

The biggest one is allowing any type of housing that's permissible in that zone to be built on that lot.

So if you're in an R2 zone that allows duplexes, we're now allowing you to put a duplex on a 30, 35-foot lot that is not currently permitted under the zoning code.

We are concurrently reducing the setbacks, which does allow you to build more, so it's two items, and I'll pass to Director Snyder.

And the um through the chair to council member Johnson and the third is increasing the the coverage allowable.

Um, and just for some perspective, 62% of residential lots in the city of Detroit are 35 feet and under, and uh 38 percent are 30 feet uh with with lots.

And and um presumably another way to get to Pro Tim's point is um because we can build second story, um is incentives.

So we provide incentives to developers to build multi-unit complexes today, but we don't have programs that incentivize single family housing development, or maybe I've missed it.

Uh through the chair to council member Johnson, I'm the most effective ways we have to encourage and incentivize single-family housing or or you know, less than five-unit type of housing are are our tax incentives right now.

Um the cost of the cost of construction has been and as well as down payment assistance, which doesn't facilitate the construction of but facilitates access to it.

Um right now the the cost equation for subsidizing new construction, single-family housing is would would is about three times greater than what we're uh typically subsidizing, three to four times greater than what we're subsidizing today.

So the way that we the ways to additional ways to subsidize that are make it make it by right to build these types of units, um, work on pre-permitted designs to reduce some of the pre-development costs, which we're we're working on as well, and there'll be a I think that was on the agenda today um to to move that work forward.

So we are trying to really think about how do we develop in fill housing because like if you you know zoom back a bit, and we haven't built infill housing at any sort of scale in decades, in decades, generations, not generation, multiple generations, it is going to take a lot of different things for us to put together to make it easier to incentivize this this type of smaller scale development if we're we're going to see it because well that's just we we haven't seen a lot of success in that in probably since you know the 50s, 60s, 70s, there was some smaller scale single-family housing built, but it's it's truly been um beyond beyond most people's working memory of of what that was like.

So we have to rebuild that that entire system.

I appreciate that.

Um so when we talk about allowing these developments uh by right, talk to me about if I had a let's say I had two lots next door to my house, and then my neighbor was on the other side of the two lots.

Um let's say a developer purchased those two lots.

Based on the amendments that are proposed here, and I almost wanted to say it's one lot, um, what would be allowed to be developed?

We'll do two scenarios on one single family lot versus two adjacent lots.

Could we specify a 30-foot lot?

You could, but I and I've always known there was something special about my house.

My lot is 60 feet wide, interestingly enough.

Okay, so if you had two lots next to your home, actually, let me take the single lot version of this.

There's a lot of permutations, as you can see.

So if you had a single vacant 30-foot lot next to your home, currently the only thing that could, and you're in an R2 district, let's be clear.

Currently, the only thing that could be built on that lot by right is a single family home that is 19 and a half feet wide at max.

That's the only thing that can go there.

Under this proposal, you could have a single-family home, a duplex that could be uh 23 and a half feet wide, or you could have a triplex or a quad that would be narrower because the setbacks are larger when you have larger um larger buildings.

So that's what would be allowed.

And I do want to be clear also, we know that some another constraint on what actually gets built, of course, is the the physics of what you're actually building and the size that you're trying to build.

So we know that a 30-foot lot, you may not actually want to put a quadruplex on it because there's just not that much space, but the point is the city shouldn't put legal barriers to that development happening.

Um the goal is for the the limiting factor to be the size of the lot and what is um congruous with the neighborhood around it.

R2 only.

Yeah.

And and were you going to share, or is Director Snyder going to share about what could be developed on two?

Um I just wanted to specify that we were talking about an R2.

R2, yeah.

Two lots combined?

Yes, two adjacent to one another that one developer purchases.

Yep.

So under the current zoning code, if you had 60 feet of frontage, you could put either a single family home or a duplex on it.

You would have a 14-foot side setback, so that gets you to 46 feet of buildable width.

Um, single family only or duplex 46 feet wide.

That's kind of the core statistics for that one.

Under the new code, you could build a single family, a duplex.

Um, you would be able to build that wider, or you could build a triplex or a quad, again, slightly narrower because of the larger setbacks for those, and I believe you could build town homes as well.

I think you would be allowed up to three town homes attached on that size of lot.

Okay.

Um let's let's go with that.

So that was the concern that I had.

Um, just thinking about the way we live in the city of Detroit.

Um I have duplexes on my block.

Uh, and I don't know if my lot is R2 or R1 at this point, but um, I believe it's R1.

However, because of the way we are accustomed to living, and I'll tell you all on the block a few blocks around the corner from me, there's probably a five or six-unit apartment complex from the street, looks like a single-family house.

I don't think folks are gonna do all of that, but um, I I think one of the challenges becomes how many units that are allowed to be built next door to me.

And I've I've sent this convert this this question over to you all.

If we had some parameters around what could be built on these two lots between our homes, as opposed to when I look at district four, the district that has the most vacant land.

How about we focus more on the areas where there are blocks of land, vacant land that is just waiting for a neighborhood to be developed.

One of my concerns is if we give the buy-right ability to build in our commercial corridors and all residential development, people are encouraged, developers are encouraged to build there as opposed to in our neighborhoods, our neighborhoods are what really need the development.

Our neighborhoods are what really need the development.

Primarily within our residential neighborhood as opposed to on a commercial corridor.

On a commercial corridor, what I prefer is commercial on the ground floor with residential upstairs.

But I saw the examples and I've seen them in Living Color, right?

But I guess for me, if we are advocating to provide housing units that encourages population growth in the city, I would love to see that happen in our residential area, where again, I don't know how many acres, but we have a large amount of vacant land.

And then associated with that is the ability in our neighborhoods to identify solutions to the parking aspect of multi-unit development projects in our neighborhood makes it a little bit more difficult on the commercial corridor because we are already seeing as we activate commercial corridors, parking is going to become a greater challenge.

So I do appreciate the creativity that we've been putting behind utilizing a public lot that has been developed, things of that nature.

And I don't know that I'm going to jump up and down at this point and say, yay, let's go for it, let's do it because of the implications it has on residents in District 4 without having a full understanding of what that infrastructure infrastructure looks like.

I understand DWSD has their requirements, the ordinance for stormwater management, but that's another thing that in my mind, as we are trying to create solutions to address the challenges that we've had thus far, adding more to the system frightens me a bit because I know we have not addressed it in District 4 for a large percentage of our neighborhoods.

And I will just lastly say, I think I had this conversation with the planning department that as we are looking at multi-unit complexes, I would hope there's a way for us to provide some level of support for ownership models that we're not always talking about and encouraging, and I shouldn't say encouraging developers, but developers will do what they're allowed to do.

But there is something that we have to do that incentivizes them that encourages them to develop ownership model type projects in order for us to not have a majority rental city.

Um and we'll continue to be whether it's a co-op, a condo, uh a brownstone, a townhouse, whatever we call it.

But if we can identify some ways to encourage developers to create ownership models, um you'd probably have me jumping up and down, screaming saying, okay, let's move this forward.

Right now, again, I still have some concerns about what is allowed, how we are looking to do this without having some real parameters on what happens within our commercial corridor as it relates to what happens within our residentially zoned areas.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Anything you want to add?

Any reflections or I think my only reflection through the chair is we we really see.

Oh, I apologize.

No, no, I saw I was asking you all.

And then I will do that.

I would just mention that housing on commercial corridors and in residential areas.

I mean, they're often in very close proximity to each other.

So we I really see those as mutually reinforcing.

When there's a new apartment building going in on my commercial corridor, I see that as benefiting my neighborhood, and when there is, as there is right now, actually, an infill house going in right next to my fence, I see that as really benefiting the small businesses on my commercial corridor.

So I wouldn't think of it in the zero sum terms, although I see I certainly see your your goal of incentivizing development in the neighborhoods, and that's exactly our goal as well.

That's kind of at the heart of this proposal.

I want I want to add as well in the proposal, five to twelve units, if the proposal is approved, uh will still have to go through uh a process where neighbors can weigh in.

So for for the benefit of the residents, no more than 12 units, if these proposals were to move forward, can be built in your neighborhood.

Anywhere between five to twelve units would have to have your input.

There will be a process for neighbors to weigh in.

I also want to highlight that this great body also approves CDBGR money.

We've spent about 20 million in home repair.

I mean, I'm sorry, payment assistance.

We have another 10 million coming online, uh, which could uh possibly do, and and Director Snyder can correct me if I'm wrong, another 400 new homeowners in the city of Detroit because this body has prioritized uh homeownership.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah, uh, before Director Todd uh responds, I just want to um respond to Mr.

Verna.

So while I'm sure there will be some developers who choose to develop within residentially zoned uh areas currently, I'm sure what will happen in District 4 is the developers will choose to develop within the East Warren Corridor because we have dense housing abutting the East Warren Corridor as opposed to going to um Maple Ridge or to Ravendale where there are large swaths of vacant land.

So and and I get it, right?

The the developers that are looking to um probably build greater density in those areas and where there is um established housing that is fetching a certain price point, that's where they will focus.

Is that where I would want them to focus?

Not at all.

Because quite honestly, I would suggest that they have the opportunity to create create to build um neighborhoods very similar to the way Midtown was done 30 years ago, but not all developers have that vision.

And we'll see, okay, we can start here and build a community and you know set the market.

That's but I'm sure that's what will happen.

But thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I agree.

Thank you.

Uh Director Todd.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

Uh, if I may try to be brief, uh to the points that uh council member Johnson raised.

Just want to remind your honorable body that uh those concerns that she raised about the uh larger areas where there's vacant land.

This is in fact sort of why we're doing this in two phases.

We tried to take, if you will, some of the low-hanging fruit that for this period of time can allow us to be able to increase housing production to meet the needs that uh Director Schneider has spoken to.

But when it comes to the vast majority of the city actually being our one single family, this is where, in fact, a lot of those concerns that we've heard spoken to from historic district representatives from uh the average citizen who is trying to get a handle on what these currently proposed items could do.

This is where that sort of impact could in fact be had, and why it is that that effort, again, which will address those opportunities that are presented by these large swaths of vacant land, can be addressed under the uh pro housing grant uh and also being done uh parallel to what we're looking to uh have come out of our uh master plan in concept, what we have been talking about since before Zone Detroit began, and certainly through it as we have been engaging the community.

We understand very clearly our traditional single family neighborhoods.

People want them preserved.

They're not looking for change, they're not looking for a great deal of diversity, they're not looking for a lot of this missing middle housing concept because they appreciate and want to uh celebrate, whether historic or not, uh that traditional neighborhood.

And that goes back to that homeownership model that you were speaking to, uh, which made the city of Detroit the city of neighborhoods because of what people could find and develop here.

But what we do have an opportunity to do in that next phase of this work is find a way to strike a balance to ensure that preservation, but come up with maybe a secondary flavor, if you will, of our one that is more diverse.

But again, this is why that next phase is in fact going to take a far more uh you know, sort of surgical uh approach, if you will, to really get down in the weeds to come to know all the more what is out there, what is available, what people um uh desire and and what it is that uh they may tolerate, but in doing so to put forward those protections that you're actually hearing again from our historic neighborhoods and some of the other um uh longstanding single family neighborhoods, that's where we can really make the more effective change, I think, and get about some of these larger goals that this initial effort is just looking to facilitate and again be an interim measure to get us over the next few years in order for us to be able to keep up with the housing production that's necessary.

Okay, all right, colleagues, any uh additional you want to add.

Seeing none.

Is there a motion?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I move that we send line item 6.4 uh to formal for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

Thank you.

And uh just for the record, the only way that we would be able to have a public hearing on this item is if we were to send it out today, um, based on the timing of things.

So discussion?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I know last week there was some discussion about when a public hearing would happen.

Have we identified negative negative?

We just so part of the challenge is that we're missed we're gonna miss two um formal sessions.

So that is the biggest impediment to us having uh uh a that's the biggest challenge for us in in terms of having to move it out today.

Um, because if we don't move it out today, those two uh formal sessions that we're going to miss would create a situation where we would essentially run out the clock.

And through you, Mr.

Chair, um so I understand I hear my colleague saying he's the sponsor of this, and I understand that he will not be returning next year.

Um through you to well, I guess that could possibly be for all of you, um, but through you to the panel here, is there a reason that we're looking to, and Director Todd, I guess could respond to this as well.

Is there a look a reason that we're looking to have this done before uh the end of this term?

Are there any development projects that are hinging upon any of these changes?

Before Director Todd weighs in, I would say the reason we're trying to move this year is that we feel there is a housing crisis in the city of Detroit, and that if we do not act now, the pipeline of what is in development right now will be what is delivered in the next five years.

So every year that we do not act, the crisis becomes exacerbated.

Um the other reason that we tried to move this year is simply that these policies were initially recommended by the Zone Detroit consultant in February of 2020.

So we've heard we've heard a lot of public comment around how fast this is moving to us.

We looked at a proposal that's been on the table for over five years and said, what of this proposal could we feasibly work through and implement in a really thoughtful and responsible way this year?

And that's exactly how what is before you today came to be.

Um just uh to that through the chair to council member Johnson.

So, based on the production I've seen in the last uh well, 10 years that I've been with the city, it takes on average five years between idea related to land availability or having having land under control to doors open.

Um, five years is a is a long time when there's a reduction, a major reduction in funding that we're experiencing and and a reduction in the availability of vacant land bank homes.

I I see a real need to be able to um start building the pipeline for for infill developments.

It also would, as we're doing some of the pre-permitted design work and other work to try to um assist with the pre-development process, having some certainty now and what those zoning dimensions are going to be for the next few years would really help us to make sure that that that work that we're gonna do on the other side of this um related to speeding pre-development doesn't have to change in in a few few months or a year or or whenever this this might pass so that we're able to continue to move forward and critically build the pipeline for for housing development in in Detroit.

Thank you for that.

Um Mr.

Vernon, you talked about the last five years, so that would have predated me being here where Zone Detroit was being worked on, or that a presentation was provided by uh Zone Detroit.

This is was my first time getting the information from the administration or from CPC.

So for me, it hasn't been the full four years that I've been here, it's been the last few months that we've had this conversation, at least with me being a part of the conversation.

Um, and so it still feels like it's moving quickly because it is such a significant um change to the zoning ordinance.

Um and and director Snyder, and most of you know, so I have been really trying to advocate for development, uh, particularly in District 4 because we have so much vacant land.

So I certainly don't want to be an impediment to that, but I'm also the Virgo again.

Um details are important to me.

And having plans, having thought out plans are important to me.

So when I think about parking, when I think about um really encouraging development to happen in certain areas of the district as opposed to just an invitation, here's a free-for-all, you get to choose what you do.

Um, that's very important to me.

But just having a better understanding of the plan, the thoughts around um how we move this forward and do it in a way where we can respect and show appreciation for the existing residents that are there, not overburdening any neighborhood throughout the city of Detroit with a barrage of of individuals, cars, all of that I think is very important to me.

Um and so I appreciate the thought.

I appreciate you all going through this process.

I remember Zone Detroit, but wasn't intimately involved with it.

Um but so I appreciate you all bringing this before us.

I personally am not ready to move forward with even a public hearing because I think there are still a lot of conversations that need to be had.

Chiefly the one that came up for me was uh stormwater management and bringing more properties online, having a plan on how we do that and not overwhelming the current community as we've seen that happen in District 4.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Member Vice Chair, just brief discussion, uh Mr.

Chair, my wife's a Virgo as well, so uh definitely understand.

Yeah, and and and they're similar in a lot of ways.

But but what I would say is uh, you know, I appreciate that.

I always look at one of the biggest uh ways uh to discuss these items and how we move move forward is the opportunity for a public hearing.

Um and I think to Mr.

Todd's point, who I have to give a big shout out to, as well as his his folks in Zone Detroit uh who have done a lot of the legwork over the years.

Again, I look at this as a starting point.

Um, as Mr.

Todd articulated, uh, this is a starting point, obviously, when you talk about R1 and you talk about other things for the future conversations become a little bit deeper.

But I do think we are taking again a step in the right direction.

No, I will not be here uh at this council table.

Uh, but I have amazing faith in some of the great work that our colleagues have done uh thus far, uh, but with uncertainty existing and current forms of the body or what the body may be.

Uh I think this council has done an amazing job thus far, where whether it's community land trust or paths to home ownership or many other policies that have come uh to support residents of rebuilding neighborhoods.

I think this council in its current form has done a great job at that, and hopefully this is just gonna be another piece to move that forward.

So, Mr.

Chair, I have uh made my motion to send this to formal for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

Thank you.

Uh, there's a motion to send a formal for introduction and setting a public hearing.

Just with further discussion, I'm gonna tell you that we we don't have a hearing day just now, and I would like to hear a little bit more about what we're doing to address that issue of I've been talking about it this even prior to this term.

How are we going to get more bedrooms uh in in the units that we have?

Um, whether it's single family, uh new build, or we're talking about rehab, uh multifamily, you name it, that's the conversation we're it doesn't seem like we're having.

Um, so at least not with me.

At least not with me.

So I would like to certainly hear a lot more of where we're going, and if we have any of these developers who are saying yes outside of habitat, that this is what I've been waiting for to allow me to do that thing that pro tem and everybody's been asking for, not just again, building these little micro units, more and more of the little micro units.

It's always good to have more units online.

I want to see more units online because there's so many different um needs in this community.

Um but the one that I'm not hearing is that one for more bedrooms in a a particular unit or single family dwelling.

Um and to your point, Member Johnson.

How are we incentivizing in those uh more vacant, you know, desolate areas?

I mean, I I got Brightmore, and we've got a number of challenges going on over there.

We're working on some of them.

It's certainly with the uh storm water management uh project.

And if we were to just say, hey, come on over and build and just do what you want to do.

I guarantee you we'll have some folks who just build market rate, and it'll completely change the complexity of the community.

The the issue is how do we do it in a way that does not harm the people or does l as least harm as possible in in that particular area, and that's just one of the the communities neighborhoods that I have that um has dense uh has uh vacancy um, but it's the one that has the highest you know level of it.

So would love to hear more.

Certainly want to hear more about that uh as we move forward.

Um but I don't want to stand me personally in the way of us allowing us to have the further conversations to get to that point.

And so uh there is a motion again to approve and send to formal uh for introduction and setting a public hearing discussion with further discussion, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So um just based on what you just shared, it sounds like there's additional conversation that needs to be had.

Um, but it also sounds like you are willing to move this forward to have the conversation prior to a public hearing.

Uh I'm not really sure.

Yes.

Okay, yes, and and and and and I say that because this is the only opportunity.

If in fact we do find those solutions or at least a pathway towards solutions, if we don't move it out today, then it is it is dead for the year, and I I don't want that to happen, and I don't want to say prematurely, because we still have to vote on this thing, uh, but I just want to give it an opportunity and give everyone an opportunity to provide those responses to you as well that we've been looking for.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I am going to be in objection.

I would love for these things to be discussed and hashed out before we go through that process.

Um, but that's just me.

Um so just wanted to to make that point known.

Uh again, I have been advocating for development um, particularly for smaller developers for the last two plus years.

Uh, and so I certainly don't want to stand in the way of that, but I think it's important for us to hash out details uh prior to moving forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Are there any objections?

Objection.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Member Johnson.

What with one objection, Madam Clerk?

That motion uh is approved.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all and look forward to further conversations.

All right, thank you.

All right.

So we took care of 6.4.

And we were on line items 7.4 and 7.5.

We can take those together.

We didn't do those yet, I don't believe.

Through the chair.

Uh yes, 7, 4, and 5, we're more to formal.

We're at 7.6.

7.6.

All right.

Thank you, madam clerk.

7.6 is a scroll down much.

There we go.

Uh line item 7.6 submitting report relative to request that changes to screening text amendment ordinance.

Uh is there a motion to uh discuss, please.

So move.

Thank you.

Member Johnson, I know this is one you're working on, and I know that they're one of receiving files, but I believe that there's a motion that needs to be uh created to direct law to incorporate the changes laid out in the report.

And you tell tell me if I'm incorrect.

That's the note that's my notes have here.

Thank you, Mr.

Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Um I'm not sure if Director Tow wants to add something, but um I I move to direct CPC and the law department to incorporate the changes that have been previously discussed.

Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor, uh colleagues, to uh direct law and CPC to incorporate the changes that have been laid out in the uh report and uh place that into the ordinance.

Any objections?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Uh line item 7.7.

Um Mr.

Todd, Director Todd Excuse me.

Thank you again.

Mr.

President Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mm.

Johnson.

Uh the with that step completed, just to uh remind the committee and otherwise inform everyone else.

This item was originally heard on June 5th.

Uh continued hearing was then ordered for June 26th.

That hearing was then continued to so with a revised ordinance in place, it would still be necessary to prior to the end of the year uh have that continued hearing just to close the door on this item and formally end the hearing and not and formally within that setting acknowledge these changes, which again have already been discussed.

I think the piece that was then you would be clear.

I think the piece that was missing, we didn't do public comment.

Uh if I'm not mistaken, uh we didn't do the the full we didn't do the full hearing on this one, if I'm not mistaken.

Right.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

President Pro Tem, no, actually on the fifth you did.

You did take full public comment at that particular point in time.

Uh at first I was concerned as well that maybe what I was recalling was only during general public comment, but on the fifth, you did take a full uh public comment, and that's when we also heard from some of the members of the equal equitable development task force resulting in the carryover and the care at the time of the carryover to the 26th is when members Johnson and Santiago Romero also presented their uh respective memos on the topic.

Okay.

So we're going to uh figure out what day we have that continued public hearing.

Tis the season.

All right, indeed.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Line item 7.7 Detroit land bank authority.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

Point of order.

I'd just like to make a motion to receive and file line item 7.6.

As a motion to receive and file line item 7.6.

Any objection?

See none, then action shall be taken.

Thank you, Member Johnson.

Uh line item 7.7, submitting report relative to city council quarterly report for first quarterly fiscal year 2026, Detroit Land Bank Authority.

Colleagues, uh, we will not have an opportunity to report out on this one.

Uh so I'm going to ask, is there a motion to receive and file?

Because by the time the new council is seated, it'll be time for another report.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections, we shall receive and file line item 7.7.

No objections that action shall be taken.

Uh from the housing and revitalization department, line item 7.8, submitting resolution authorization to request and accept and appropriate uh the Financial Empowerment Center Legacy Planning Implementation Grant.

Colleagues, is there a motion to discuss and or approve?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Move to send a formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 7.8 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

All right.

If we can take uh line items 7.9 through 7.11.

No, no, we let's do it like this.

Line item 7.9 uh submitting resolution authorization urging the administration to allow HRD and PDD to form an occupied how home rehabilitation program.

This is from Council Member Mary Waters.

Uh colleagues, is there a motion to discuss and or approve I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair?

What line item?

Line item 7.9 Mr.

Chair, my notes say uh a one-week bring back.

I didn't have that one on mine.

We can bring back uh to to clarify though.

Okay, I move to bring line item 7.9 back in one week.

Okay.

There's a motion to bring back in one week line item 7.9.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 7.10, the resolution uh urging the administration and the Michigan Land Bank fast track authority to amend the second and restated intergovernmental agreement established establishing the Detroit Land Bank Authority.

Is there a motion to discuss and or approve?

Discussion with discussion member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My notes say that I believe the previous request had a former state land bank authority employee staff member.

And so we need to amend that.

Yes.

So can I just amend it, amend it?

Is that what you all are saying?

I think you have the ability to do so.

Um seeing that we are at the table unless you want to bring it back to get it done by the sponsor.

No, I'm I'm okay with moving this forward.

So all right, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to send line item 7.10 to formal with a recommendation to approve with an amendment to change Emily Dewar from Emily Dewar to Joseph Rivette.

Mr.

Chair.

Um Dr.

Powers, yes, ma'am.

Yes, sir.

I I would I would suggest that the amendment uh motion be done first and then the motion to send it to formal as amended.

Member Johnson, you want to swap the names first?

Uh yes, I move to amend the resolution to reflect the director of the state land bank authority to Joseph Rivette, striking Emily Doer.

Colleagues, there's a motion to uh remove the name of Emily Doer in the resolution and replace it with Joseph Rivette.

Any objections?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Member Johnson.

Move to send line item 7.10 to formal with a recommendation to approve as amended.

As a motion to send line item 7.10 to formal with a recommendation to approve as amended.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 7.11, submitting resolution authorization.

This is a resolution urging transfer of occupied property of the DLBA to HRD and PDD.

Is there a motion to discuss and or approve?

Mr.

Chair, Member Johnson.

Um I'd like to make a motion to bring line item 7.11 back in one week.

There's a motion to bring back line item 7.11 in one week.

See no objections, and action shall be taken.

Line item 7.12, planning and development department submitting resolution authorization for property sale at 12626 Dexter.

Is there a motion to discuss and or approve?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, had an opportunity to review this, get some answers, uh, or some questions answered on this one.

I'm moved to send this item to formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 7.12 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections, then action shall be taken.

Line item 7.13, submitting resolution authorization for property sale uh by the city of Detroit and the land bank authority for uh 13 parcels uh to CHN Tribe Jefferson Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership.

Is there a motion to discuss and or approve?

Move move to send line item 7.13 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 7.13 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Seeing no objections, then action shall be taken.

Line item 7.14, Ms.

Elaineus, Councilmember Letitia Johnson submitted memorandum relative to request for data and metrics on HUD Section 3 compliance and outcomes.

Uh colleagues, is there a motion to bring this item back in three weeks?

So move.

Seeing no objections, we should bring back line item 7.14 in three weeks.

And I believe we have one other item.

Didn't we uh madam chair?

Madam uh Madam Madam Clerk.

I think that was 6.1, yes?

7.1.

All righty, here we go.

Uh Office of Contracting and Procurement, line item 7.1, submitting resolution authorization for contract number 6005774-a 2.

This is 100% ARPA funding.

Amendment number two, a crease of funds uh for uh home repair services for low-income residents, contractor CHN housing partners.

Is there a motion to discuss colleagues?

So move.

All right, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I believe uh the question was asked earlier.

I see Chief Razo on the line.

I'm not sure if he needs me to repeat the question.

Uh yeah, if you can, just for the public group folks who are watching.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I was asking if the additional funding was going to home repair or if it is for administrative fees.

So uh through the chair, thank you for that question, Councilmember Johnson.

Um a small portion will cover some administrative excuse me, administrative fees because that original contract was going through the end of this year.

These dollars are going to add about 15 to 20 more houses into the mix for accessibility repairs.

So a great majority of those dollars are going to repairs, roughly about 15, 16 percent will be administrative cost.

Um we'll end up with uh somewhere around 246 total houses that have been served through this program for accessibility repairs.

Thank you.

And just very briefly, was this uh part of the reappropriated or reallocated funds that we discussed earlier this year during our budget hearings through pro tem Tate.

Uh that is correct.

Uh these dollars were allocated uh through councilmember Benson.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Colleagues, is there a motion for line item 7.1?

Move to send line item 7.1 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 7.1 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections, then action shall be taken.

And that now clears the agenda.

Uh is there a motion to suspend member reports?

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections, that action shall be taken as well.

Thank you all for your patience and your participation, colleagues, and for your hard hard work and everybody in your hard work today.

Uh, we made it.

Uh seeing no objections is that action shall be taken.

This meeting is now adjourned.